• 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

Rules of Engagement

R

RadioDoc

Guest
OK guys...it seems to be getting a bit warm in here. To keep the discussion civil, please:

Be polite to each other. This is a hot topic, and is very divisive. We are all in the end, fans of radio. Remember that.

Opinions are just that. Please refrain from stating "IBOC is saving the world" or "IBOC is killing radio". These are opinions, meant to incite arguments. If you wish to discuss that, make it clear that it's an opinion. Remember, every market is different, and every radio is different.

Listen - there are those of us who think IBOC is the future of radio. And those who think it will destroy it. It's pretty obvious that one side won't be convincing the other anytime soon. The fact is that for now, it's here to stay. The last thing we need here is argument after argument about the technology. The intent is to talk about what markets are doing with HD, what's out there in terms of radios, discuss the underlying technologies, and yes, talk about the downsides.

Here's what has been covered to death here:

HD radio causes radios to stop several more times with scanning.
HD radio is killing the DX hobby.
HD radio is killing analog.
HD radio is too expensive.
HD radio needs to die.

We do not need any more posts on these subjects. All it does is start a flamewar.

Now, discuss, ask questions, debate...whatever. But be polite, and be factual. Both sides have very good, and important, points. They get lost, however, when the people behind them act like children. In fact, I even got caught up in it, and deleted or edited a post or two of mine (sorry Rich!).

Read, take a deep breath, and then post.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> OK guys...it seems to be getting a bit warm in here. To
> keep the discussion civil, please:
>
> Be polite to each other. This is a hot topic, and is very
> divisive. We are all in the end, fans of radio. Remember
> that.
>
> Opinions are just that. Please refrain from stating "IBOC
> is saving the world" or "IBOC is killing radio". These are
> opinions, meant to incite arguments. If you wish to discuss
> that, make it clear that it's an opinion. Remember, every
> market is different, and every radio is different.
>
> Listen - there are those of us who think IBOC is the future
> of radio. And those who think it will destroy it. It's
> pretty obvious that one side won't be convincing the other
> anytime soon. The fact is that for now, it's here to stay.
> The last thing we need here is argument after argument about
> the technology. The intent is to talk about what markets
> are doing with HD, what's out there in terms of radios,
> discuss the underlying technologies, and yes, talk about the
> downsides.
>
> Here's what has been covered to death here:
>
> HD radio causes radios to stop several more times with
> scanning.
> HD radio is killing the DX hobby.
> HD radio is killing analog.
> HD radio is too expensive.
> HD radio needs to die.
>
> We do not need any more posts on these subjects. All it
> does is start a flamewar.
>
> Now, discuss, ask questions, debate...whatever. But be
> polite, and be factual. Both sides have very good, and
> important, points. They get lost, however, when the people
> behind them act like children. In fact, I even got caught
> up in it, and deleted or edited a post or two of mine (sorry
> Rich!).
>
> Read, take a deep breath, and then post.
>

DXers will always have shortwave and AM at night. Enjoy!
 
> Now, discuss, ask questions, debate...whatever. But be
> polite, and be factual. Both sides have very good, and
> important, points. They get lost, however, when the people
> behind them act like children. In fact, I even got caught
> up in it, and deleted or edited a post or two of mine (sorry
> Rich!).
>
> Read, take a deep breath, and then post.

Maybe this board should be broadened to cover all terrestrial DAB systems available to American broadcast stations (FMeXtra, CAM-D, etc.) and whether or not these are better solutions for broadcast to upgrade to digital instead of HD. I understand that everyone seems to have a solution, but even as a satellite subscriber, my goal is to get become more educated on the advancements of terrestrial DAB and whether or not it will become successful or the next quad or AM stereo.
 
> > Now, discuss, ask questions, debate...whatever. But be
> > polite, and be factual. Both sides have very good, and
> > important, points. They get lost, however, when the
> people
> > behind them act like children. In fact, I even got caught
>
> > up in it, and deleted or edited a post or two of mine
> (sorry
> > Rich!).
> >
> > Read, take a deep breath, and then post.
>
> Maybe this board should be broadened to cover all
> terrestrial DAB systems available to American broadcast
> stations (FMeXtra, CAM-D, etc.) and whether or not these are
> better solutions for broadcast to upgrade to digital instead
> of HD. I understand that everyone seems to have a solution,
> but even as a satellite subscriber, my goal is to get become
> more educated on the advancements of terrestrial DAB and
> whether or not it will become successful or the next quad or
> AM stereo.
>

I think that's a great idea! Just as long as it isn't a "bash one to promote the other" type of thing...<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> I understand that everyone seems to have a solution,
> but even as a satellite subscriber, my goal is to get become
> more educated on the advancements of terrestrial DAB and
> whether or not it will become successful or the next quad or
> AM stereo.

Please do not besmirch the name of AM Stereo by comparing it to IBOC. In its heyday, AM Stereo was FAR more successful -- and still is today, on a worldwide basis -- than IBOC ever has been.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
> Please do not besmirch the name of AM Stereo by comparing it
> to IBOC. In its heyday, AM Stereo was FAR more successful
> -- and still is today, on a worldwide basis -- than IBOC
> ever has been.

Maybe worldwide, but in the U.S., AM stereo was a major failure. It could have become a success, but the FCC was dragged on by the proponents of the different systems that were being considered. If your car came with a radio featuring a C-QUAM tuner, you couldn't receive Kahn AM stereo, and vice versa.

IBOC is far from perfect, but at least most of the competing systems came together to create a standard, instead of AM stereo's downfall, which was bickering about who had the best system.
 
> Maybe worldwide, but in the U.S., AM stereo was a major
> failure.

In 1986, over 30% of all new cars in the USA came equipped with AM Stereo receivers. Today in 2006, the amount of new cars equipped with IBOC receivers is so small, it isn't even measurable as a percentage.

> IBOC is far from perfect, but at least most of the competing
> systems came together to create a standard, instead of AM
> stereo's downfall, which was bickering about who had the
> best system.

You haven't seen the last of Leonard Kahn yet. He's still bickering that his own IBOC system (CAM-D) is better than iBiquity's. And he does have some right to brag: at least half a dozen AM stations are currently transmitting Kahn's CAM-D system 24 hours a day, while there are no AM stations which can legally transmit iBiquity's HD Radio at night.
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
You mean to tell me...

> Read, take a deep breath, and then post.

Wow. You mean to tell me that global warming, Asian beetles, the heartbreak of psoriasis, the wrath of God, and paranoia are NOT because of HD radio?

I'll take two aspirin and then call you next week about it. ;-)

Keep up the great work Radiodoc, and as a former nay-sayer of IBOC,
with the new codecs, I've changed my digital tune, even if it does interfere with analog stations to some degree. I yelled at DTV too...now after the reviewing the facts, I just have a TV antenna, a DTV over-the-air tuner, and I get 50 channels (including subchannels) between two markets and am happy enough so that I don't need pay TV. It is worth keeping an open mind as IBOC is not static...it is changing, and for the better, thankfully. A few years ago, it stunk in terms of audio quality, and the complaints it generated were (generally) more than justified. Get used to it, it is the future of radio...if it doesn't do it, commercial radio may have no viable future!

Anyway, anything you put out on your HD stations will sound sweet no matter what. From a non-ham, 73's from west of Chi-town!

Gilbert
 
I'll say this about AM stereo. I heard it in a car and it sounded like AM with two channels. In other words, nothing that made me think I had to get one.
 
> > Maybe worldwide, but in the U.S., AM stereo was a major
> > failure.
>
> In 1986, over 30% of all new cars in the USA came equipped
> with AM Stereo receivers. Today in 2006, the amount of new
> cars equipped with IBOC receivers is so small, it isn't even
> measurable as a percentage.
>
> > IBOC is far from perfect, but at least most of the
> competing
> > systems came together to create a standard, instead of AM
> > stereo's downfall, which was bickering about who had the
> > best system.
>
> You haven't seen the last of Leonard Kahn yet. He's still
> bickering that his own IBOC system (CAM-D) is better than
> iBiquity's. And he does have some right to brag: at least
> half a dozen AM stations are currently transmitting Kahn's
> CAM-D system 24 hours a day, while there are no AM stations
> which can legally transmit iBiquity's HD Radio at night.
>
What does Leonard's system do to the second adjacent on AM? The superior system historically loses out (Beta vs VHS, 4-track vs 8-track, FM Stereo with AM subcarrier vs pure FM system, ad nauseum)...
 
> I'll say this about AM stereo. I heard it in a car and it
> sounded like AM with two channels. In other words, nothing
> that made me think I had to get one.

AM Stereo needs to be implemented in a high-quality AM tuner in order to let its advantages shine. The "AMAX" specification, as endorsed by the NAB and NRSC, set minimum quality standards for both AM mono and AM Stereo receivers, but unfortunately it was left as a voluntary "standard", and thus few receiver manufacturers chose to build AMAX-certified radios.

The AMAX standard still exists, though, and could be successfully revived if there would be enough of a push behind it from the FCC, AM radio stations, and the consumer electronics industry (similar to the "push" which is currently endorsing HD Radio).
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
Re: You mean to tell me...

> Get used to it, it is
> the future of radio...if it doesn't do it, commercial radio
> may have no viable future!

"HD Radio" is just a stop-gap solution until something better comes along. Look up "CBS spinning disc color TV" and "DCC (Digital Compact Cassette)" in the history books and you'll see MANY parallels to what's going on with IBOC. Both of these failed systems were declared as the "future" of their respective media and produced much industry hype, but suffered from technical flaws, delayed introduction, legislative bickering, a lack of products in the marketplace, and most importantly of all, a lack of consumer interest and awareness.

And in both cases the "despite its shortcomings, we have to push this system, because without it we'll be dead!" argument proved wrong, especially in DCC's case where regular analog cassettes continues to thrive for years afterwards, even despite repeated attempts by Sony to kill the cassette and replace it with MiniDisc.

p.s. I remember around 1997, a electronics store salesman was DESPERATE to sell me one of the last DCC Walkmans he had left. I just laughed when he said "it can still play regular cassettes, too!"

<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
 
Re: You mean to tell me...

> > Read, take a deep breath, and then post.
>
> Wow. You mean to tell me that global warming, Asian beetles,
> the heartbreak of psoriasis, the wrath of God, and paranoia
> are NOT because of HD radio?
>
> I'll take two aspirin and then call you next week about it.
> ;-)
>
> Keep up the great work Radiodoc, and as a former nay-sayer
> of IBOC,
> with the new codecs, I've changed my digital tune, even if
> it does interfere with analog stations to some degree. I
> yelled at DTV too...now after the reviewing the facts, I
> just have a TV antenna, a DTV over-the-air tuner, and I get
> 50 channels (including subchannels) between two markets and
> am happy enough so that I don't need pay TV. It is worth
> keeping an open mind as IBOC is not static...it is changing,
> and for the better, thankfully. A few years ago, it stunk
> in terms of audio quality, and the complaints it generated
> were (generally) more than justified. Get used to it, it is
> the future of radio...if it doesn't do it, commercial radio
> may have no viable future!
>
> Anyway, anything you put out on your HD stations will sound
> sweet no matter what. From a non-ham, 73's from west of
> Chi-town!
>
> Gilbert
>

You bet!

From a somewhat active ham, 73 to you as well! :)<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Here's what has been covered to death here:
>
> HD radio causes radios to stop several more times with
> scanning.
> HD radio is killing the DX hobby.
> HD radio is killing analog.
> HD radio is too expensive.
> HD radio needs to die.
Read, take a deep breath, and then post.




Look to the future -- embrace it and enjoy HD.
 
>
> Look to the future -- embrace it...
>

I looked toward the future and embraced it and created my signature message four years ago.
<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
 
> Read, take a deep breath, and then post.

> Look to the future -- embrace it and enjoy HD.

Allow yourself to be assimilated. If you do, all the problems will go away and life will be heavenly ever after.

That approach, common to the Ostrich, makes you an imposing target when the head is in the sand.

Rich
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom