This board much better then some others, where dissent and lively discussion is called "flaming" and are not permitted. On some other boards personal threats and verbal attacks are encouraged, but only biased, promotional pro-HD hype permitted.dbdigital said:
-
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
Where has the pro-IBOC contingent gone?
- Thread starter Tom Wells
- Start date
OldGringo said:
All of which is worth exactly nothing. Communication requires a transmitter AND a receiver. Broadcasters can go on spending millions on adding HD, but if listeners don't want it, it's a waste of money and effort. So far, anyhow, listeners are either staying away in droves or are so confused by the HD Alliance's so-called promotional efforts that they think they're already listening to HD without buying a receiver for it.
You'll know HD has succeeded (or at least has a fighting chance) when the big-box retailers have the radios stacked to the rafters. But they'll only do that in response to demand...and so far the demand just isn't there.
It's worse than that. The current advertising on the radio is very confusing to the consumer. "WXXX, Now broadcasting in High Definition." The consumer hasn't a clue what they are talking about, although quite a few are convinced that the new HD signals sound better than their old signal. Problem is, they are listening on analog radios.
Radio is an advertising medium, but you'd never know it from the HD radio ads.
Radio is an advertising medium, but you'd never know it from the HD radio ads.
I
IBOCRocks
Guest
SUPERCASTER said:
Right. The ONLY board where I see any of the above happening is this one. I've been threatened and stalked, and even referred to as a kook by the biggest liar of all, SayNoToIBOC PLL AnalogAMforever PLL 700WLW.
There hasn't been lively dissent here in ages. Just Amazon rankings and lies.
It does make for fun reading though. I love watching whatever-his-screen name-is-today think he's bringing down an industry with his reviews.
Keep up the good work, guys! IBOC will be gone soon, I'm sure.
700WLW: Have you hacked anyone else's private information lately? Talk about desparate!
Buh-bye!
;D
7
700WLW
Guest
IBOCRocks said:
He's back !
7
700WLW
Guest
E
ElCheapo
Guest
The thing I really love about this forum is the mantra that the public doesn't like or want HD.
How long have a significant number of stations been broadcasting in HD? We just hit the 1,000 station mark when WIYY Baltimore fired it up.
That alone should tell you two things:
1) Baltimore is market 21 - a major market by any definition. 98Rock is a major player there owned by Hearst-Argyle and it's just now getting it. They're not alone. I'm pretty sure 98Rock wasn't promoting HD before getting it, so chances are - their audience knew very little about it.
2) 1,000 stations out of 10,000+ in the USA. We have just 1/10th of all stations here brodcasting it and a much smaller number doing multicasting and you're ready to pronounce it dead?
I'll be honest - I don't see any advantages to HD without multicasting. Personally, I think AM HD is a waste of time and money, but FM with multicast could be viable someday. People here complain about the comparatively smaller coverage areas of HD. We've had that for years though in class A FMs and many of them compete very effectively. I worked for a class A CHR station in Oklahoma City that took down a class C heritage CHR in 2000 and dominated them for years.
HD is just getting started - that's the bottom line. Think about how long it took FM to gain traction. Many AM licensees had an FM license at one time and they surrendered it because nobody was listening and it was costing them money to operate it.
Also consider the fact that very few people actually know what HD is and what its benefits are. About half of the non-engineering types I've talked to have heard of HD. Almost none of them knew about multicasting until I filled them in - and they work in radio. A recent survey showed most people didn't think they needed a special radio to receive HD - they thought they were getting it already. When people find out what HD can really do for them, then it will start to catch on.
HD will continue to grow in popularity. It's way too early to predict the demise of the technology, and there are plenty of reasons to be optomistic. Multicasting is the reason this will succeed.
How long have a significant number of stations been broadcasting in HD? We just hit the 1,000 station mark when WIYY Baltimore fired it up.
That alone should tell you two things:
1) Baltimore is market 21 - a major market by any definition. 98Rock is a major player there owned by Hearst-Argyle and it's just now getting it. They're not alone. I'm pretty sure 98Rock wasn't promoting HD before getting it, so chances are - their audience knew very little about it.
2) 1,000 stations out of 10,000+ in the USA. We have just 1/10th of all stations here brodcasting it and a much smaller number doing multicasting and you're ready to pronounce it dead?
I'll be honest - I don't see any advantages to HD without multicasting. Personally, I think AM HD is a waste of time and money, but FM with multicast could be viable someday. People here complain about the comparatively smaller coverage areas of HD. We've had that for years though in class A FMs and many of them compete very effectively. I worked for a class A CHR station in Oklahoma City that took down a class C heritage CHR in 2000 and dominated them for years.
HD is just getting started - that's the bottom line. Think about how long it took FM to gain traction. Many AM licensees had an FM license at one time and they surrendered it because nobody was listening and it was costing them money to operate it.
Also consider the fact that very few people actually know what HD is and what its benefits are. About half of the non-engineering types I've talked to have heard of HD. Almost none of them knew about multicasting until I filled them in - and they work in radio. A recent survey showed most people didn't think they needed a special radio to receive HD - they thought they were getting it already. When people find out what HD can really do for them, then it will start to catch on.
HD will continue to grow in popularity. It's way too early to predict the demise of the technology, and there are plenty of reasons to be optomistic. Multicasting is the reason this will succeed.
If this suceeds, it will be a successful "polluting of the water" that we are free to buy a solution to, which just happens to be a much tidier form of market definition for broadcasters to the detriment of choice by listeners.
Whereas we'd always been free to spend as much as we wished to receive a greater variety of radio,
by BUYING A BETTER RADIO, or other embellishments, it is proposed we should accept a 50% loss of effective channels on the FM? Whew! That's a real grab, but I'd trade it to ya for mitts-off the AM for digital, and a re-establishment
of clear A1s.
You do admit that the 5 Khz brickwall on AM is to puke for?
What do you personally find fault in, the HD "stream", or the analog so filtered yet hissed?
Or not worth the tradeoffs?
I'd guess the long wavelengths are not behaving according to the models designed in higher frequencies,
or the HD AM would be able to reproduce 10 kc audio in 20 kc bandwidth.
As we see, to reproduce FM-like (15kc) IBOC needs to be 50-60kc wide.
There is surely some loss or excess redundancy, corpulence of data, or other excuse to require such bandwidth.
Information theory defines bandwidth in a way that makes me ask, what's all this extra data?
Whereas we'd always been free to spend as much as we wished to receive a greater variety of radio,
by BUYING A BETTER RADIO, or other embellishments, it is proposed we should accept a 50% loss of effective channels on the FM? Whew! That's a real grab, but I'd trade it to ya for mitts-off the AM for digital, and a re-establishment
of clear A1s.
You do admit that the 5 Khz brickwall on AM is to puke for?
What do you personally find fault in, the HD "stream", or the analog so filtered yet hissed?
Or not worth the tradeoffs?
I'd guess the long wavelengths are not behaving according to the models designed in higher frequencies,
or the HD AM would be able to reproduce 10 kc audio in 20 kc bandwidth.
As we see, to reproduce FM-like (15kc) IBOC needs to be 50-60kc wide.
There is surely some loss or excess redundancy, corpulence of data, or other excuse to require such bandwidth.
Information theory defines bandwidth in a way that makes me ask, what's all this extra data?
E
ElCheapo
Guest
The simple fact of the matter is most people won't buy a better radio just to receive distant FM or AM stations and most people would have no desire to. Most people listen to radio on whatever their car came with and cheap portable radios at home and work. The hobby of an extreme minority - DXing - is not a sufficient reason to deny a potential doubling or tripling of station choices that are listenable by anyone in a given market. I hate to tell you - it's already succeeding. It's here and it's not going away.Tom Wells said:
The technical aspects really don't bother me. It's the financial that bothers me with AM HD. HD on AM is purely for improvement of audio quality - no multicasting. That defeats the purpose as far as I'm concerned. IMO, HD for AM will become viable when FM penetration becomes such that AM stations are ready to turn off their analog component entirely and devote their entire bandwidth to digital. Then they might have something. As for cutting out everything above 5K - it's really a moot point because there have been very few radios produced in the last 10-15 years that even go that high. Most modern AM radios top out at 3-4K.Tom Wells said:
The more the merrier. We're all for high bitrate audio. I suspect low rated AM stations will make the move to all HD (no analog component) before AMs with decent ratings and FMs. I suspect the extra data you're seeing is for error correction - AM is interference prone after all.Tom Wells said:
First Elcheapo said:
Next:
And:
Check this link:
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,52245.msg361254.html#msg361254
Please go peddle your way overpriced radios, that get fewer stations, with low bitrate secondary streams, need for external antennas, and use that use short coverage, defective, destructive technology elsewhere. We're all fed up with propaganda, cartels, payola, lobbyists and hyperlies here.
Then:
Considering the expense and interference, there are no real benefits to listeners, only to huge media conglomerates - the HD cartel. You get fewer stations, not more, and have to buy an expensive new radio and put up antennas, to get the same old stuff from the same old tight playlisted payola peddlers.
Quite the opposite. When people catch on to how much more interference, fewer stations receivable, and the resulting increase in media concentration from HD Radio, they will insist that the HD buzz be shut off.
Next:
What additional station choices? Same old local stations, just digital streams blocking the real other "stations between the stations".
And:
With no listeners and no public interest, how can that be?
Check this link:
http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,52245.msg361254.html#msg361254
Please go peddle your way overpriced radios, that get fewer stations, with low bitrate secondary streams, need for external antennas, and use that use short coverage, defective, destructive technology elsewhere. We're all fed up with propaganda, cartels, payola, lobbyists and hyperlies here.
ElCheapo said:
We have proof to go with that mantra. The big-box retailers don't carry the product. The hi-fi salons can't even make demo models work without rooftop antennas, and even then some of the demo units still don't work. The BA radio has horrible sensitivity. If this is how the radio industry is rolling out a new tech, it has already failed. First impressions are everything.
ElCheapo said:
Wrong. Multicasting is the reason it will fail. Broadcasters do this repeatedly. They fail to learn from their past mistakes. Remember when FCC Docket 80-90 shoved hundreds of new FM stations onto the dial, and stations started failing financially because there were too many signals in some markets? We're now proposing to double or even triple the number of signals available. Where's the financial basis for that, when the rate of population growth is the same as it ever was? As it is right now, broadcasters are voluntarily running their HD2s and HD3s without commercials for two years, and when those two years are up, what makes them think that there will be enough of an audience for advertisers to place commercials on those streams? What makes them think there will be enough HD radios in the hands of consumers to make these secondary channels viable financially?
The only thing that's a 100% safe prediction is that FM stations running multicasting will end up diluting the value of the commercial inventory they run on their main channels, in order to pay for the programming on the secondaries that won't have commercials. Someone has to pick up those costs, and the secondaries won't have the audience numbers to justify any commercial buys.
Remember too that, from the consumer's POV, you're talking about the replacement of 800 million analog radios (according to just about every reputable broadcast consultant), given an average of roughly 6 or so radios per household. To reach critical mass in the marketplace will take a lot more than two years, especially given the underperforming and defective products now being sold. Your grandchildren will be old and gray before there are enough HD radios in the hands of consumers to make it pay...and broadcasters don't wait that long for results.
E
ElCheapo
Guest
I love you guys... Never let the facts get in the way of a good ol' bashfest. Looking at the Clear Channel stations alone, you have several airing a format for gays called Pride Radio - find that on regular AM or FM. Then there's HD channels that air all live cuts and many HD channels that air smooth jazz in markets where there is no smooth jazz on regular radio.SUPERCASTER said:
Wrong yet again. The local stations - the ones the overwhelming majority listen to will be just fine. Like I said before - the only real losers with HD are the DX fanatics on this board.SUPERCASTER said:
See above. Pride Radio, all live and smooth jazz - just to name a few.SUPERCASTER said:
Technology takes time. Obviously we have no students of history here. FM didn't catch on overnight, and there are dynamics at work here that weren't a factor during that rollout - like the fact that most of the major automakers have a financial interest in satellite radio. Owning a piece of all AM stations didn't prevent them from putting FM in cars - lack of interest did. Not the case anymore. Why would the automakers who are in bed with satellite radio install a product that will ultimately hurt their own bottom line? They will have to - eventually - but it will be public interest that dictates it - just as it was with FM.SUPERCASTER said:
Looking back on my childhood, my Dad owned a Chevy pickup. I believe he bought it in 1979. It had an AM only radio, for which he had to add an FM converter. There were plenty of FM stations in town by that time - some had been on the air since the early 60s. Automakers had a financial interest in producing AM only radios back then - they were cheaper to produce and most people were happy with them - until the word got out about FM and it experienced explosive growth.
E
ElCheapo
Guest
You guys clearly don't understand retail either. This is a technology in its infancy. Big box stores don't jump onto a product until it reaches critical mass and demand is such that they can make some money at it. HD isn't at that point - yet - but neither was FM at one point.dumber than a box of hair said:
Except for very small markets, outdoor antennas have always been necessary to receive all available FM signals inside concrete and steel buildings. I take care of two FM sites that are at opposite ends of my market. Both are 100,000 watt stations, but at the Best Buy store furthest from my 99.9 transmitter you don't have a prayer of receiving the analog FM signal in the building without a rooftop antenna - I've tried. You can get it just fine in the parking lot.
The other station can't be received at the Wal-Mart furthest from its transmitter site - except in the parking lot. This is nothing new.
Media fragmentation is occuring already. Media fragmentation will continue to occur whether broadcasters stick their heads in the sand and try to ignore it or not. Today's big broadcasters will become content providers more than anything. Having more outlets for our content is the game plan here. The difference between now and then in terms of docket 80-90 is technology and relaxation of Commission rules. Then, to operate a station you had to staff it, you had to rent space for it, etc. Today, you put a computer in a rack and plug it into an existing transmitter site that has been enhanced with some additional gear. The ongoing costs of operating HD are minimal.dumber than a box of hair said:
It's much simpler than that. Getting the radios into cars is what it takes. Initially, it will be in the form of adaptors - much like the early FM adaptors and satellite adaptors we see now.dumber than a box of hair said:
When HD Radio adaptors for the car drop to the price point of satellite adaptors, the game will really be on. There are companies developing these right now - and they will be in the market within 2 years.
ElCheapo said:
Since nobody knows what HD is anyway, wouldn't this be an ideal opportunity to actually DO IT RIGHT? It will never be easier or cheaper. I don’t believe very many people will argue against the basic concept of digital radio or that multicasting is probably the primary application that might make it sell. People buy new radios because those radios give them the ability to hear content. The public has little interest in the actual technology that brings it to them. For the most part, they could care less.
The problem most of us have with IBUZZ is the way it does it. There currently exists the technology to do something that gives you the benefits of digital radio without killing what we already have. Unfortunately, we have not chosen that path.
The questionable choice of technology and the fact that there are already so many competing delivery methods for programming complicates the issue even more. For instance, I recently noticed that Altel is offering 24 or so XM channels on their cell phones. Sure, it is not free, but I noticed that most 25 year olds are more than willing to actually pay big bucks every month for ring tones. To them a hundred dollar a month cell phone bill is nothing. An additional $7.95 per month that is automatically withdrawn from their bank account will largely go unnoticed. It is slick marketing. It’s much better than the marketing skills the HD Alliance has shown thus far.
It isn't valid to compare the roll out of HD to the roll out of FM, at least in terms of time line. When FM first started to catch on, there were three TV channels (maybe four or even five in big markets). Most of those signed off after Johnny Carson. Even major cities only had a handful of radio stations to choose from. AM was still king, and many of those stations signed off at night. If you wanted electronic media, you had very few choices.
Nowdays even small markets have tons of radio stations to choose from. Cable or satellite brings a couple of hundred TV channels and usually a good selection of music channels too. The Internet is an unlimited supply of audio and video entertainment. And then there are iPods, X-Boxes, CD's, DVD's and a plethora of other personal entertainment devices. HD radio is a very small blip on the consumer's radar screen, and so far has gone more or less unnoticed. So tell me why some of these other technologies spread like wild fire and HD is just sitting there?
The current version of "HD" needs to get its act in gear very quickly if it is going to survive. So far, it is not showing much chance of doing that.
DRM on 26 MHz and FMExtra are sounding better and better as each day goes by.
E
ElCheapo
Guest
It's the most upgradable path that uses currently allocated spectrum. The game plan is for analog to go away completely eventually. You can't do that with FMExtra. It will always be what it is right now - no way to grow or expand it in the future. With the HD platform, stations can continue to whittle away at your analog signal as HD grows in popularity. Don't need those subcarriers anymore? Kill 'em - more bandwidth for HD. Don't need to broadcast in stereo anymore? Kill 38 kHz and gain more for HD. Don't need analog anymore at all? Turn it off and use your entire bandwidth for HD.Chuck said:
It may be slick marketing, but it will ultimately fail for the same reason subscription radio is a bad business model period - not enough people are willing to shell out for it when there are free, advertiser supported alternatives. Ring tones are something altogether different. People buy them for the same reason they buy 20" gold rims and put them on an '89 Ford Taurus. It's people with more dollars than sense trying to impress other people. For the most part, radio is about personal entertainment - not bling. Apples to oranges.Chuck said:
Sure - FM to HD is a valid comparison. They were both new technologies for free, over the air broadcast. You don't get much more comparable than that. Like FM back in the day, HD is currently the bastard stepchild of most any operation that has it. Like I said in an earlier post - at most stations, HD is an automation computer in a rack - that's it. In the major markets, nobody even wants to mess with the subchannels on the programming side - because it's extra work that currently nets them no extra money or accolades - just like FM in its infancy. The big AM program directors couldn't be bothered with it so they ordered formats from companies like Drake-Chenault and automated them.Chuck said:
If you had been involved with these projects the way I have, you would see definite parallels.
The reason HD is just "sitting there" is radio as an industry is using it the same way they used FM - they're just hedging their bets - and that IS the wrong approach. Radio isn't giving consumers a compelling reason to adopt HD. The unique formats are a compelling reason to adopt HD - but nobody knows about them. Take WKSC Chicago for example - their HD2 is the CC gay pride channel. Having worked in radio for 14 years, I have quite a few gay friends. One of my current co-workers just traveled 5 hours to go to a recent gay pride event. If Clear Channel had a presence at Chicago's pride events promoting their gay subchannel, it would catch on - but I suspect most Chicago residents have no idea that it exists.
The same could be said of smooth jazz. Smooth jazz listeners will turn out in droves for concerts. If the HD2 Smooth Jazz channels had a presence at these events, they could develop interest.
The mistake radio is making is a lack of promotional and programming effort. Outside of a few early adopters of technology, you can't expect people to buy into a new technology based on the claim that there is "something" out there "between the channels." It's an idiotic marketing campaign. If radio wants people to adopt HD, they're going to have to explain clear benefits to targeted potential listeners. The clear benefit is formats that are unavailable elsewhere on the dial and for formats that are available elsewhere - radio that is 100% commercial free - for now anyway.
The problem is the typical short-sighted nature of the industry. They're worried about NOW not the future. Where other industries invest in the future, radio whores the now. Now is FM and AM. That's where the money is and the industry is oblivious to where the money could be if they just put a little time and effort into it. In this regard, radio has lost its way. The demands of Wall Street are incompatible with innovation in radio.
I was talking with another co-worker about that phenomenon a while back. It permeates the entire industry - as evidenced by the overwhelming replacement of live talent with automated stations. Radio never thinks about tomorrow as an industry these days. There is a serious talent crunch coming in radio - both on the programming and especially the technical side - because the industry has done a piss poor job of recruiting new talent.
But hey - upper management won't have to worry about that. They'll be retired on a beach somewhere.
I agree that HD needs to get its act in gear - promotionally - but survival isn't an issue. It's here to stay. Millions has been spent on equipment, and it will remain on whether anyone is listening to it or not.Chuck said:
Could it become the next AM stereo? Possibly - but the reasons to adopt HD are much more compelling than AM stereo was for consumers - if only consumers had a clear idea of what HD can do for them - and if only HD had radio executives that care about it aside from bet hedging.
ElCheapo said:
You miss the point. Most people do not care about the technology involved in how information or entertainment gets to them. All they care about is what comes out of their loudspeaker or headphones. There is a lot to be said for a device that is as compact as a cell phone that also delivers entertainment.
Will Altel be successful with this idea? Who knows? It probably isn't costing them very much to find out. It is one of many subscription models with many more to come. Not that long ago, I would have told you that you were crazy if you thought I'd pay to get TV. Now almost every one does. My new car came with XM built in. You know what? I'll probably continue the subscription after the free trial expires. I'll be the first to admit that not everyone will do that, but XM and Sirius' biggest problems is their staggering amount of debt. I don't know if they can get over that hurdle. We'll see. Meanwhile, I wouldn't count them out. They may not look the same in a few years, but I'll bet that the concept survives and eventually flourishes.
ElCheapo said:
Indeed, there are parallels, but in the ensuing fifty years, life as we know it has changed dramatically. There are many more choices. Back in the good old days EVERYBODY listened to the same station. Things are much more fragmented these days. You really have to stand out in the crowd to catch attention.
It took FM a good 20-25 years to become the predominant radio medium. Do you honestly think HD has the same luxury of time? Things move a lot faster these days. I do agree that right now they are just hedging their bets. And I agree that it is totally the wrong approach.
The funny thing is those Drake-Chenault formats you mentioned were quite revolutionary and actually gave people something they wanted.
ElCheapo said:
Maybe I wasn't involved at the level you were, but my first paid job in radio was in 1967. Out of curiosity, when was yours? Maybe we've seen some of the same things.
ElCheapo said:
That's for sure. The current approach is closer to a death wish.
ElCheapo said:
Maybe, but I think it is too little, too late. There are so many other choices out there. Those choices simply did not exist when FM made its debut on the scene. That is why I say comparing this to the emergence of FM is not all that good a comparison.
ElCheapo said:
No argument there.
ElCheapo said:
I'm told that in some markets they are actually running spots. So much for that idea. Besides the public knows it won't be commercial free for very long. They are smarter than that.
ElCheapo said:
I can't argue with that either. Now if the technology of IBOC was only a little better, we might find we have more in common than it would appear.
ElCheapo said:
First, they will have to persuade John Q. Public that there is anything more compelling about it. They are not doing that right now, and won't if they continue to mirror the same old formats on their HD-2 channel. Personally, I'd rather have AM stereo.....
E
ElCheapo
Guest
That's doubtful - and once again, it goes back to content.Chuck said:
Cable TV succeeded because it offered content you couldn't get anywhere else - like HBO and Showtime, CNN, MTV and Nickelodeon. That's not the case with satellite rado - particularly after full implementation of HD. The music will be the same.
Talk content will continue to be better on terrestrial radio than on satellite.
E
ElCheapo
Guest
Chuck said:
I don't think HD has the same amount of time FM had to become a success. It really depends on how you define success though. Even if HD never becomes popular to the extent AM and FM have, it can succeed on many levels. Marginalizing satellite radio is one measure of success. Staving off future broadband offerings is another.
Chuck said:
I got into the business in 1992 - when I was 16. My first paid job in the industry was working for a station owned mobile DJ service and doing board-op work on our AM. Eventually, they were hard up for someone to fill a weekend overnight shift on our CHR FM and the rest is history.
I was one of the last people to start work in the era of pre-consolidation radio and I was apparently one of the last to "pay dues" in the form of overnight shifts in a relatively small market when it was pretty much a requisite for moving up to bigger and better things.
Chuck said:
Alliance members aren't running spots currently - and that's the major players. As for the public being smart enough to know spots are coming - of course they are - and most of them won't care. Most of them are smart enough to also figure out there's no such thing as a free lunch. One thing too many people assume in these types of discussions is that commercials are always a bad thing. Especially in the major markets, the commercials themselves can be fairly entertaining and informative. It's a TV spot, but the recent Skittles commercial with the singing rabbit is funny as hell. Commercials for entertainment venues like nightclubs might be informative for your target demo.
Satellite radio has done a fair job of villainizing commercials because that's their primary unique selling proposition, but most people aren't as adverse to advertising as we once thought. The latest PPM trials are showing people don't tune out during stopsets like we thought they did.
Yup. Radio is doing a very poor job of promoting HD - no doubt about that. There is format diversity - hence the gay, smooth jazz and live formats we were talking about earlier. Other, more familiar formats could succeed on HD though - even formats as ubiquitous as CHR and country when they take a different slant than their FM counterparts. Many mainstream CHRs lean urban. If the FM CHR in a particular market leans toward rap, an HD2 channel would be a good place for a CHR that leans toward pop-rock. If all of the FMs are playing mainstream country, HD would be a good place for classic country or Texas country.Chuck said:
- Status