This will more than likely get deleted or go to take it outside, but I was wondering, if you all think, HD Radio will not work or is "dead". How do you think radio will make it? Or, what do you think they could do to fix radio? I think as long as Sat. Radio is around, or Internet radio, FM/AM will half to work out something that will give people more choice. I think HD radio is a great idea.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Ok I have a question...
- Thread starter pullitin
- Start date
7
700WLW
Guest
pullitin said:
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,64672.0.html
Jerry Del Colliano, just gave you the answer.
I don't think anyone will argue with the statement that "the concept of noise free FM and clearer AM is great." There are issues with the implementation as currently offered, though. Things like:
Costing somewhere between a year's profit and a year's revenue for smaller broadcasters.
Getting the radios into new autos as standard eqpt. (getting the radios in listeners "hands."
Getting the same coverage out of digital that you have with analog.
In many cases, content makes far more difference than the measurable improvement in audio .
and, last but not least,
AM interference on adjacent channels.
Costing somewhere between a year's profit and a year's revenue for smaller broadcasters.
Getting the radios into new autos as standard eqpt. (getting the radios in listeners "hands."
Getting the same coverage out of digital that you have with analog.
In many cases, content makes far more difference than the measurable improvement in audio .
and, last but not least,
AM interference on adjacent channels.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Of those, only the cost for small broadcasters is I think a real obstacle. The others will amost certainly be addressed, and fixed in time. Coverage area will NEVER be exactly the same as analog, because adjacent channel assignments will vary from place to place. There will always be a place or two where you can get anlog but not digital, and maybe even a couple of places where the reverse is true. But the difference between analog and digital coverage will be greatly reduced by more sensitive radios, more power on the transmitting end (which has always been planned), and better digital recovery.
Digital Schmigital...it's all about content. CONTENT...not delivery. Why did we get 8-track players in the car? Not for the cheesy crappy stereo...content. Why did we have 45rpm players in our bedrooms? Content. Why carry walkman cassttes? content. Why did we switch from AM to FM? content. Why do many choose to listen to AM over FM today? Content. Why do yutes carry ipods?
Get it yet?
Get it yet?
M
Mike Walker
Guest
And why don't we have 8 track in our car NOW, or 45s in out bedrooms? SOUND QUALITY!
Content is the object...say your child outside your window taking his first steps. Technology is the window! Obviously, the clearer the window, the better you can see this precious moment. A clearer window is ALWAYS an improvement, but only a fool would obsess about THE FREAKIN' WINDOW!
Cassette, then CD were clearer "windows" than 8 track. Which is why they replaced it in the car. Ditto the 45s in your bedroom. HD is, for many, a clearer "window" than they've ever had before. But of course it's still the content...what takes place on the other side of that window!
Content is the object...say your child outside your window taking his first steps. Technology is the window! Obviously, the clearer the window, the better you can see this precious moment. A clearer window is ALWAYS an improvement, but only a fool would obsess about THE FREAKIN' WINDOW!
Cassette, then CD were clearer "windows" than 8 track. Which is why they replaced it in the car. Ditto the 45s in your bedroom. HD is, for many, a clearer "window" than they've ever had before. But of course it's still the content...what takes place on the other side of that window!
D
dbdigital
Guest
amfmsw said:
Yes, yes, we all know that content is king. What we are considering is the future delivery system (s) for that valuable content.
And the problem is that all of these technologies are about neck and neck in this horse race with no clear winner in sight. They all have their advantages and disadvantages.
There was an interesting article in the New York Times about the future of the satellite radio business. The article outlined some of the problems facing satellite radio such as slow data rates, making on-demand streaming video almost impossible and that there is no way, at present, to make it two-way so that getting or sending e-mail by satellite is not possible. Couple that with the rapid build out of WiMax by Nortel Networks and others, which should make WiMax available sometime this year and we might see a future in which the internet will dominate entertainment both in the car and home. But should the satcasters merge, the article predicted an elimination of redundant music formats and more expansion of other services such as in-car navigation, album art downloading, stock price information and so on. As it is now, the satcasters are already using their extra spectrum to provide weather data to aviation and maritime industries. Plus they have a strong tie-in with auto manufacturers which indicates that they will be providing services at least to motorists for a long time.
The point is that since there are, and likely will be, several platforms for content delivery available there is no room (nor will their be) for a one-trick pony like an HD-Radio-only receiver (as much as the HD-R cartel would like it to be). It will be digital radio (or satellite) AND WiMax AND iPod interconnectivity. It will be a multi-tasking entertainment device. As has been reported here, we know that chipsets like this are already being designed and built.
On the one hand, for content creators, like myself, it's a great time to be in this business. But on the other, because there are so many choices and delivery platforms we are all competing for one set of eyes and ears, a competition that will only get worse over time. This is a fact of life that terrestrial broadcasters and the NAB are just going to have to accept.
db
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Well put db. New technology ALWAYS offers both opportunities and challenges. Opportunities for new technologies like internet, so called "wi-max", and hd are more and better ways of reaching the listener. Challenges include more competition.
The wheel was a wonderful invention (and the sun is a bright shiny ball in the sky...DUH!) But without it think how many people wouldn't have died in car crashes! Of course, many of them wouldn't have been conceived in backseats! And around it goes....
The wheel was a wonderful invention (and the sun is a bright shiny ball in the sky...DUH!) But without it think how many people wouldn't have died in car crashes! Of course, many of them wouldn't have been conceived in backseats! And around it goes....
dbdigital said:
If it were all content, then AM radio stations nationally wouldn't be forced to air nothing but syndicated talk radio which appeals to the upper demographics. Young people won't stand for the noise and limited fidelity associated with AM radio. How about we bring back the 78 RPM. After all it isn't about the technology, it's the content. As for Wi-Fi, where is the infratsucture? I live in the NYC metro area. Can I drive from Albany to Philadelphia and tune into a wi-fi station and get seamless reception? I know that Live 365 has that all air check channel. If I buy a wi-fi radio when will I be able to tune that station in and listen to it on my 30 minute commute every day? I'm all for more choices and I'd buy one of those radios tomorrow if they can do what they promise to do. When the Mets or Yankees play and you have hundreds of thousands of radios tuned in can the wi-fi network support all those simultanious streams? The future looks promising but I don't want to say forget every other technology that comes along while I wait for Wi-fi. I'm talking about covering a city the size of NY where there are over 8 million people living. By the way, the city alone covers over 300 square miles. I know NYC isn't everywhere but gee, if you discount us that's a large part of the US population and tax base you're discounting. Content is important but you can't deliver it via morse code and expect a 21st century audience to pay attention. In the 1980's and early 90's when AM was still somewhat alive one of the AM stations switched to an all metal format. Guess how many listeners they had? Here's a clue, they never showed in a NY ratings book and they were the ONLY station playing that music in this market. Yes content is important but no one is going to listen to a limited (even wide band) fidelity AM station in today's day & age.
Mike Walker said:
No, not necessarily. They were out marketed by other formats that gave compelling reasons for the consumer to switch. 45's lost the war to LP's because a 12' record could contain a lot more music for not that much more money. A 45 used to cost $.99 and an LP was $3.95. The LP usually had 12 songs on it. The 45 had two. Which was the better value?
The ability to include multiple songs was a big concept in the era of Classic Rock, where one song was intentionally positioned next to another to create an emotional feeling. Call it good programming, if you like. Of course, people who produced movie or Broadway soundtracks, and their friends in the classical music industry had that figured out a very long time ago.
8 tracks were replaced by cassettes, and eventually CD's because the later formats were more convenient to use, and took up less space. Sure CD’s sounded better, but that wasn't the big reason. It is debatable that early cassettes sounded better than 8 tracks. 8 track ran at 3.3/4 ips and cassettes were 1 7/8 ips. The early cassettes were not that great sounding. In fact, I recall in the late 60's when cassettes came on the scene, the big features was a cheap means of recording what you wanted to listen to in the privacy of your own home (sounds like a iPod, doesn't it.) If I recall correctly, they were also cheaper to buy at retail, you could fast forward and rewind. You couldn’t do that with an 8 track You could also put a lot more cassettes in your car which gave you more choices of music to listen to. When the Walkman came out, cassette sales exploded. That was not because they sounded great. They didn't. It was because you could take "your music" with you and listen to it the way you wanted, when you wanted. That’s why they sold so well.
If you don't think history repeats itself, re-read this post.
D
dbdigital
Guest
Mike Walker said:
That's right.
So as a result we deal with the thrill of the possibilities of this new technology along with the anxiety as to how best to exploit it and not be left behind while at the same time looking ahead. It gives me a headache sometimes. I do television production so right now I'm studying YouTube and similar models to determine how the programming I'm working on should be placed. In time, I suspect the YouTube model will probably be replaced...but with what?
db
- Status