WZLX, when are they going to stop running the sophmoric HD ads for no one?

[Don Juan]

You are still missing the obvious point I am trying to make which is: all this IBOC hiss and whoosh is raising the noise floor on both FM and AM which makes listeners migrate even more quickly to other radio methods such as satellite and online radio.

There has been no evidence this is occurring. When doing listener research...sound quality is not an issue.

(And if it was, they would find that the quality of satellite radio is not that great either.)

HD will kill the very thing it's trying to save or to put it more succinctly: The cure is worse than the disease

Again, there is no evidence that HD radio is killing radio.

There is nothing wrong with radio as it is,

The digital revolution is here...and there's nothing that's gonna stop it.

I recall engineers complaining that by putting on the stereo generator, a station would lose 10-15% of their reach/audience. There complaint was that no one was really listening in stereo (and they were probably right). The stereo generator added hiss to the marginal listeners, etc., etc.

you can see that by just how slow this so called HD rollout has been,

How slow was the FM rollout? When was it that FM first came out of the gate (1933)? How long until it was the accepted standard? Almost 40 years.

How slow was the stereo rollout? When was it that FM stereo came out of the gate (1950's)? How long before it was the accepted standard? Almost 25 years.

[They're still doing better than HD audio manufacturers are in that part of their business. Obviously I don't believe any of them were stupid enough to stop making analog radios though but some of them took a big hit making the hissy feet warmers I would wager.

Again, you are off on a tangent that doesn't matter. It's not a fight between Bose and Ibiquity.


Digital broadcasting is here to stay, while the current HD standards may not be the best, the technology will only get better.

However, you are free to use DOS if you like.

Yes, computers need to be digital, sound doesn't

Computers? Why? Paper worked fine all these years didn't it?

Why change to digital? Because it is more efficient.

 

[KB1OKL]

You are still missing the obvious point I am trying to make which is: all this IBOC hiss and whoosh is raising the noise floor on both FM and AM which makes listeners migrate even more quickly to other radio methods such as satellite and online radio.

There has been no evidence this is occurring. When doing listener research...sound quality is not an issue.

(And if it was, they would find that the quality of satellite radio is not that great either.)

Satellite has two things going for it: content and it virtually never drops out. Analog FM sounds much better than Satellite, people aren't listening to it for it's sound quality, they're listening because it's interesting and has just about anything you could want. That's where you HD guys are completely wrong, most people are not dissatisfied with sound quality, it's the boring content that drives them away, that and noise and lousy reception, and HD highly contributes to the latter two and does nothing for the former.

HD will kill the very thing it's trying to save or to put it more succinctly: The cure is worse than the disease

Again, there is no evidence that HD radio is killing radio.

Well that statement right there shows supreme confidence in the jamming whooshy debacle known as HD ;D

There is nothing wrong with radio as it is,

The digital revolution is here...and there's nothing that's gonna stop it.

No, the revolution was about 40 years ago when FM began to come into into dominance, it succeeded despite being difficult to receive BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT.

I recall engineers complaining that by putting on the stereo generator, a station would lose 10-15% of their reach/audience. There complaint was that no one was really listening in stereo (and they were probably right). The stereo generator added hiss to the marginal listeners, etc., etc.

Yes and again it was the CONTENT that pushed FM into dominance in the early 70's, the content was the revolution, remember or are you too young? 1968 WBCN 104.1, The American Revolution, now THAT was a revolution, people would put up Yagi's to get that station in clearly and stations like that multiplied all over the country and the young and hip revolutionized radio, but again it was not the mode it was the content, FM just happened to have the good fortune of being the medium. It was ripe also because there were a lot of FM's which were doing nothing just waiting for something to happen and it did, they were in the right place at the right time.

you can see that by just how slow this so called HD rollout has been,

How slow was the FM rollout? When was it that FM first came out of the gate (1933)? How long until it was the accepted standard? Almost 40 years.

FM did nothing for years and then exploded between 1968 and 1970, IBOC is in the process of imploding upon itself. Do you actually think iBlock's going to be around for 35 more years??

How slow was the stereo rollout? When was it that FM stereo came out of the gate (1950's)? How long before it was the accepted standard? Almost 25 years.

Again you miss the point, it was the content, FM radio changed almost overnight with it's new and varied and free formats, of course corporate radio bought them out and eventually ruined them to where they are today: boring, boring, boring, but there was a time during the 70's and late 60's when people couldn't wait to turn on the FM radio because it was new and different.

[They're still doing better than HD audio manufacturers are in that part of their business. Obviously I don't believe any of them were stupid enough to stop making analog radios though but some of them took a big hit making the hissy feet warmers I would wager.

Again, you are off on a tangent that doesn't matter. It's not a fight between Bose and Ibiquity.

You're the one who brought up the fact that (you thought) Bose was having difficulties, I thought I'd just put it in perspective

Digital broadcasting is here to stay, while the current HD standards may not be the best, the technology will only get better.

Maybe in a niche way or on some other band, but YOU KNOW HD is going down the tubes, you don't have to be a genius to realize that.

However, you are free to use DOS if you like.

Yes, computers need to be digital, sound doesn't

Computers? Why? Paper worked fine all these years didn't it?

Why change to digital? Because it is more efficient.

Are you trying to say that HD with it's severely reduced range and drop outs and ridiculously slow lock in times is more efficient than analog FM which sounds just as good to most people if not better? You can't fix something which is not broken. The only thing that's broken about FM is it's lousy, boring content.

 

[Don Juan]

Satellite has two things going for it: content and it virtually never drops out.

Content is boring and has not been compelling enough to attract and keep audience/subscribers.

Drop out and inconsistant reception shows up as one of the top 15 reasons people report they don't like satellite radio.

That's where you HD guys are completely wrong, most people are not dissatisfied with sound quality, it's the boring content that drives them away, that and noise and lousy reception, and HD highly contributes to the latter two and does nothing for the former.

I am not an "HD guy"...I am a radio guy.

Content will improve over time. Again, I recall the beginnings of FM stations when they were simulcasting their AM signals....and running robotic archaic automation. Talk about boring content! That and the difficulty in picking up a stable FM signal without a large antenna.

What happen? The technology improved, the content improved, ad revenue improved, and listenership improved.


The digital revolution is here...and there's nothing that's gonna stop it.

No, the revolution was about 40 years ago when FM began to come into into dominance, it succeeded despite being difficult to receive BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT.

I think you need a history lesson. FM technology was patented in 1933. even when it was put into effect in the 50's and 60's....there was no content that wasn't available elsewhere...and it was boring.

The programming of FM in the early years was similar to the programming of HD-2 today. Music intensive and automated.

Yes and again it was the CONTENT that pushed FM into dominance in the early 70's, the content was the revolution, remember or are you too young? 1968 WBCN 104.1,

No, and again, content was boring, music intensive and automated.

I am older and apparently wiser than you. I remember WBCN as the Boston Concert Network (BCN)

Boring radio that no one listened to.

Again you miss the point, it was the content, FM radio changed almost overnight with it's new and varied and free formats,

Again, you miss the point. Early FM had crappy rudimentary programming. Nothing happened overnight.


You're the one who brought up the fact that (you thought) Bose was having difficulties, I thought I'd just put it in perspective

No, I'm the one that responded to the claim that Bose was a cutting edge radio company that was quick to spot trends. They are not.

Digital broadcasting is here to stay, while the current HD standards may not be the best, the technology will only get better.
Maybe in a niche way or on some other band, but YOU KNOW HD is going down the tubes, you don't have to be a genius to realize that.

No, I don't. It's here to stay....it's not going down the tube because a few hobbyists don't like it. Hobbyist are irrelevant. It's not going down the tubes because it might interfere with DX-ing. DX-ers are irrelevant.

Broadcasters like it, listeners who are exposed to it like it.

I am old enough to remember people saying the same thing about FM, Stereo and the Windows OS.


Are you trying to say that HD with it's severely reduced range and drop outs and ridiculously slow lock in times is more efficient than analog FM which sounds just as good to most people if not better? You can't fix something which is not broken. The only thing that's broken about FM is it's lousy, boring content.

You are under the impression that HD is viewed as a failure unless it replaces analog. It is not, it is a extra service that allows more functionality.

It is not replacing analog service....just like stereo did not stop people from listening on mono devices. It was an extra feature/service that people had the option of enjoying.

It's not an 'either or' proposition. It doesn't have to be widely accepted overnight.

Like a station web site, it's an ancillary service that provides some additional features, and can provide additional revenue. And like the web, FM and stereo, the technology will only get better in time.

 

[Laurence Glavin]

I was surprised to see that the diary rating for classical KXTR-AM 1660 in Kansas City, MO/KS had a whole number to the left of the decimal point. It would be hard enough for a niche broadcaster to do that well, but one on the X-band? Then I went to their website, and they make a big deal about being on FMHD. Is it possible that a number of people in KC have bought HD radios to GET classical music? Hereabouts, WCRB is so bad as to be useless, but for many hours a week we do have WGBH-FM...perhaps in KC they have no other option.

 

[JJWright]

And I guess JJ Wrights (not so anonymous) comments just means he's misinformed. I'm sorry JJ you have been enjoying your TWO HD radio's JJ...you must be misinformed...you couldn't be enjoying them that much! ;-)

"our HD2 channel"? Which station do you work for anyway?

Ouch!!!!!

 

[Don Juan]

And I guess JJ Wrights (not so anonymous) comments just means he's misinformed. I'm sorry JJ you have been enjoying your TWO HD radio's JJ...you must be misinformed...you couldn't be enjoying them that much!

"our HD2 channel"? Which station do you work for anyway?

Ouch!!!!!

He's a little too busy worrying why he can't pick up WMCA in Millbury to listen to any local FM's!

He JJ....I've heard good things about "The Cove".......

....why isn't there a link for The Cove on the stations web site (or is it right in front of me and I can't see it?)

Do you have a link to listen online when I am not in the car?

 

[JJWright]

He JJ....I've heard good things about "The Cove".......

....why isn't there a link for The Cove on the stations web site (or is it right in front of me and I can't see it?)

Do you have a link to listen online when I am not in the car?

Since only about 14 of us in the area have HD radios, really no need to promote
I would imagine PPM has a lot to do with it? Because the PPM units monitor what station you're listening to.
No it is not on-line, but if you invest in an HD radio you could listen.

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

Content will improve over time.

Many thanks for the best laugh of the day. At a time when radio companies are contracting in size, firing all their creative people and having those few who are left do multiple jobs, thinking that content will improve is pulling the wool over your eyes. PDs and air personalities have enough to do with maintaining programming on the analog signals which actually make radio companies their money, and HD doesn't do that anywhere.

it's not going down the tube because a few hobbyists don't like it. Hobbyist are irrelevant. It's not going down the tubes because it might interfere with DX-ing. DX-ers are irrelevant.

Fine. Hobbyists and DXers ARE irrelevant, so let's talk about those people who aren't: the listening public who must be persuaded to buy HD radios if this tech is to have a ghost of a chance.

First: The lack of a straight answer out of iBiquity and the various manufacturers of these radios as to how many they've sold (that haven't been returned). No one will say for sure. The best guestimate, after iBiquity's hemming, hawing, press releases about chipsets sold and otherwise evading the question, is one million (after being on the market for a little over three years). iBiquity's own estimate of the number of analog radios already out there: 800 million (and they first published that figure almost two years ago). That's not even a tiny dent, let alone anything close to a critical mass that would prod broadcasters to get moving on this.

Walk into any big-box retailer and ask to see an HD radio. If you don't get either a blank stare, laughed at or re-directed to satellite radio (i.e., if you actually find a sales duck who knows what the product is), you'll probably be shown a shelf full of close-out-discounted and/or returned product, and more than likely you won't find one that can actually receive an HD signal. (This has been documented multiple times in articles in Radio World magazine.) Far too many retailers that used to carry HD radios have dropped them, or relegated them to the close-out bins.

Next we have the broadcasters themselves. After you count the members of the HD Alliance, who have a vested financial interest in HD, no one is installing it. The number of stations adding HD has dropped to near zero (again, documented in Radio World). It's also very significant that one of HD's most important early adopters, and the only member of the Alliance not associated with a major group broadcaster, Jerry Lee of WBEB/Philadelphia, has turned off HD. On the AM side, interference complaints are widespread. Citadel's DOE has ordered their AM stations not to run HD at night, effectively placing one more nail in AM's coffin, and despite numerous complaints of interference from broadcasters themselves the FCC has done absolutely nothing about them. The AM-HD sidebands travel, just like the analog AM signals, hundreds or thousands of miles at night and cause interference to stations within those stations' NIF contours. Moreover, the licensing fees are out of reach for any small-market and most medium-market broadcast owners...the very ones most likely to be driven out of existence if their neighbors on the dial fire it up.

Finally we have HD's perceptuals...how many have heard of it, how many know what it is, and how many know that you need a new radio to hear it. To put this as kindly as I know how, the perceptuals are in the toilet, and are actually down from previous years (once again, the subject of several articles in Radio World). But, you can blame the Alliance's sophomoric, childish so-called promotional campaigns for that. Radio used to be unequaled at promoting itself, but all those people must have pulled a disappearing act when we hear garbage like "radio with a boob job." Further, the Alliance is using distressed inventory for their promos, meaning that when commercial loads are heavy the promos don't run. They won't even spend the money to buy time to properly promote the product and then have the nerve to ask regulators to force the product into new cars (which said regulators wisely laughed at). Does anyone over there actually know what they're doing?

I am old enough to remember people saying the same thing about FM, Stereo and the Windows OS.

Nice try, but your straw-man argument is just plain laughable. FM, stereo and Windows offered users tangible benefits over what went before, both in content and technical quality. FM and stereo didn't interfere with other stations, and when broadcasters stopped treating them as wayward stepchildren they took off and took over. Besides, comparing new technology from 70 years ago to today doesn't cut it either. Technological advances come too damn fast now. Companies don't have the luxury of waiting 40 years, as many FM owners did, to see if their new tech will take off or crash-and-burn. The iPod, introduced in the fall of 2001, has in just over seven years sold over 180 million units. That's how quickly it goes now. Apple invented a product that people wanted, marketed it with deadly accuracy right at those most likely to buy it, and have a huge hit on their hands...all elements which are sadly lacking in HD's case. Broadcasters, too many of them looking down a financial abyss, will not wait even seven years to see if this thing will fly. So far no broadcaster has made so much as a dime off of HD, and businesses don't retain unsustainable business models for very long.

You can feel free to continue your conspiracy against reality, but HD's time has come and gone.

 

[Don Juan]

Content will improve over time.
Many thanks for the best laugh of the day. At a time when radio companies are contracting in size, firing all their creative people and having those few who are left do multiple jobs, thinking that content will improve is pulling the wool over your eyes.

Not at all. It has improved already. An example would be what WODS has done with their HD-2 signal. Having listened to the HD-2 signals from day one, there has been vast improvement.

their money, and HD doesn't do that anywhere.

What you will start to see is entire hours of music sponsored by a single advertiser....just like you did with the early days of FM. Did FM's bring in big bucks immediately? No they didn't.

Again, it's an ancillary service, it doesn't have to make big money, just like the ads on a stations web site. It simply an extra avenue to make money

Fine. Hobbyists and DXers ARE irrelevant, so let's talk about those people who aren't: the listening public who must be persuaded to buy HD radios if this tech is to have a ghost of a chance.

Did people run out an buy FM's immediately? No they didn't.


On the AM side, interference complaints are widespread.

There has been no widespread complaints from listeners. Maybe the FCC hasn't taken any action because they see no merit in the complaints?

and despite numerous complaints of interference from broadcasters themselves the FCC has done absolutely nothing about them.

There have been no widespread complaints from listners.

Finally we have HD's perceptuals...how many have heard of it, how many know what it is, and how many know that you need a new radio to hear it.

Again, the measure of success is not that this technology is accepted overnight. It won't...and it doesn't have to be.

The research has shown that the public is aware of HD radio. But, it also shows that they have not been made aware of any benefit...as stations are promoting HD radio...but not the benefit. They have tip-toed around the idea of additional streams.

When the public is made aware of HD radio, and the capability of multiple streams, they generally react favorably to it.

I am old enough to remember people saying the same thing about FM, Stereo and the Windows OS.[/quote]

Nice try, but your straw-man argument is just plain laughable. FM, stereo and Windows offered users tangible benefits over what went before,

So doesn't HD.

But, like FM and stereo, they were not accepted overnight.

Companies don't have the luxury of waiting 40 years, as many FM owners did, to see if their new tech will take off or crash-and-burn.

They can wait as long as it takes...there is no rush.

The iPod, introduced in the fall of 2001, has in just over seven years sold over 180 million units. That's how quickly it goes now.

You cannot compare radio (which is dripping with apathy from the public)...with the computer revolution.

If you are going to compare every new technology by the standard of the Ipod...then everything else loses.

So far no broadcaster has made so much as a dime off of HD...

This is by their own choosing.

You can feel free to continue your conspiracy against reality, but HD's time has come and gone.

You are an HD hater. While the technology isn't perfect, it will only get better.

It does not have to "win" a race of acceptance. It's an ancillary service that allows more functionality.

Radio as a whole is in a state of apathy. FM, AM, XM, HD, SWL, Ham, etc. To say that because HD radio isn't getting as accepted as an Ipod is foolhardy.

Everything is going digital. To think that radio is going to stay analog is wishful thinking.

 

[KB1OKL]

Satellite has two things going for it: content and it virtually never drops out.

Content is boring and has not been compelling enough to attract and keep audience/subscribers.

Drop out and inconsistant reception shows up as one of the top 15 reasons people report they don't like satellite radio.

Well i can see that you're not a subscriber because you are 100% wrong, it virtually never drops out and I've been all over and I would take one station on Satellite over the whole FM dial.

That's where you HD guys are completely wrong, most people are not dissatisfied with sound quality, it's the boring content that drives them away, that and noise and lousy reception, and HD highly contributes to the latter two and does nothing for the former. People are too cheap to pay for it to try it out, the only reason i have it is because it came with my new car, 3 months free, now that I have it, I pay for it and would not go with out it.

I am not an "HD guy"...I am a radio guy.

Could have fooled me with your HD cheerleading

Content will improve over time. Again, I recall the beginnings of FM stations when they were simulcasting their AM signals....and running robotic archaic automation. Talk about boring content! That and the difficulty in picking up a stable FM signal without a large antenna.

What happen? The technology improved, the content improved, ad revenue improved, and listenership improved.

FM had new content, HD has nothing new to offer except for the same old boring B.S. big difference, is like comparing apples and oranges

The digital revolution is here...and there's nothing that's gonna stop it.

No, the revolution was about 40 years ago when FM began to come into into dominance, it succeeded despite being difficult to receive BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT.

I think you need a history lesson. FM technology was patented in 1933. even when it was put into effect in the 50's and 60's....there was no content that wasn't available elsewhere...and it was boring.

The programming of FM in the early years was similar to the programming of HD-2 today. Music intensive and automated.

I know all about radio and when it was invented Major Armstrong, and the different frequencies it started on, FM was just about all classical or mirrors of AM stations until the late 60's when the counterculture took it over and blew it right out of it's boring doldrums, it might as well have been invented in 1968.

Yes and again it was the CONTENT that pushed FM into dominance in the early 70's, the content was the revolution, remember or are you too young? 1968 WBCN 104.1,

No, and again, content was boring, music intensive and automated.

Not on WBCN which started in 1968 after they took over from the concert network, others followed in Boston such as WCOZ, WBOS etc. even AM got into the picture with WNTN Newton. WAAF 107.1 formerly WAAB-FM was automated when it first started but that also soon changed

I am older and apparently wiser than you. I remember WBCN as the Boston Concert Network (BCN)

Yes me too, and it was almost out of business, I also remember WHCN as the Hartford Concert network, etc.

Boring radio that no one listened to.

Again you miss the point, it was the content, FM radio changed almost overnight with it's new and varied and free formats,

Again, you miss the point. Early FM had crappy rudimentary programming. Nothing happened overnight.

I'm talking about the late 60's when FM REALLY took off and became dominant and yes, almost overnight, within about 3 or 4 years, hmm, as long as HD has been around except HD has done absolutely nothing except piss people off

You're the one who brought up the fact that (you thought) Bose was having difficulties, I thought I'd just put it in perspective

No, I'm the one that responded to the claim that Bose was a cutting edge radio company that was quick to spot trends. They are not.

I never said cutting edge, perhaps you should do more than skim my posts, and the trend I meant was the trend that HD radio is a loser which they smartly avoided, saving themselves money in the process.

Digital broadcasting is here to stay, while the current HD standards may not be the best, the technology will only get better.
Maybe in a niche way or on some other band, but YOU KNOW HD is going down the tubes, you don't have to be a genius to realize that.

No, I don't. It's here to stay....it's not going down the tube because a few hobbyists don't like it. Hobbyist are irrelevant. It's not going down the tubes because it might interfere with DX-ing. DX-ers are irrelevant.

You're right it's not going down the tubes because some hobbyists don't like it, DXers have nothing to do with it's downfall at all, it's going down the tubes because NO ONE IS BUYING THE RADIOS, and broadcasters are starting to turn it off

Broadcasters like it, listeners who are exposed to it like it.

What listeners are those? I have met virtually no one who has heard it except for salesman who used to steer people away from it when they were still trying futilely to sell it in stores

I am old enough to remember people saying the same thing about FM, Stereo and the Windows OS.


Are you trying to say that HD with it's severely reduced range and drop outs and ridiculously slow lock in times is more efficient than analog FM which sounds just as good to most people if not better? You can't fix something which is not broken. The only thing that's broken about FM is it's lousy, boring content.

You are under the impression that HD is viewed as a failure unless it replaces analog. It is not, it is a extra service that allows more functionality.

No it is a failure because it's not selling period, no matter what ibiquity has done it is not selling, no amount of advertising is going to sell it, why? Because the word is already out, it doesn't work, it has way too many problems, people aviod it like the plague.

It is not replacing analog service....just like stereo did not stop people from listening on mono devices. It was an extra feature/service that people had the option of enjoying.

It's not an 'either or' proposition. It doesn't have to be widely accepted overnight.

Like a station web site, it's an ancillary service that provides some additional features, and can provide additional revenue. And like the web, FM and stereo, the technology will only get better in time.

Station websites are great ideas, HD radio is a waste of money.

 

[KB1OKL]

And I guess JJ Wrights (not so anonymous) comments just means he's misinformed. I'm sorry JJ you have been enjoying your TWO HD radio's JJ...you must be misinformed...you couldn't be enjoying them that much!

"our HD2 channel"? Which station do you work for anyway?

Ouch!!!!!

Well you did say "our" a little slip there maybe?

He's a little too busy worrying why he can't pick up WMCA in Millbury to listen to any local FM's!

He JJ....I've heard good things about "The Cove".......

....why isn't there a link for The Cove on the stations web site (or is it right in front of me and I can't see it?)

Do you have a link to listen online when I am not in the car?

Actually i can pick up WMCA in Millbury, WTAG's antennas can't broadcast the whooshing, roaring, jammer at night.

 

[Eli Polonsky]

Why are some posters in this thread putting their NEW reply sentences in quote boxes?

 

[Don Juan]

Well i can see that you're not a subscriber because you are 100% wrong, it virtually never drops out and I've been all over and I would take one station on Satellite over the whole FM dial.

I am not currently a subscriber (although I have had lease cars with it in it.) But I have seen the research come across my desk, and yes, inconsistent reception is one of the negatives about satellite radio.

FM had new content, HD has nothing new to offer except for the same old boring B.S. big difference, is like comparing apples and oranges.

revisionist history. FM had simulcasts and archaic automation for years. That's not new and compelling content.

The digital revolution is here...and there's nothing that's gonna stop it.
No, the revolution was about 40 years ago when FM began to come into into dominance, it succeeded despite being difficult to receive BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT.

I think you need a history lesson. FM technology was patented in 1933. even when it was put into effect in the 50's and 60's....there was no content that wasn't available elsewhere...and it was boring.

The programming of FM in the early years was similar to the programming of HD-2 today. Music intensive and automated.


No, and again, content was boring, music intensive and automated.

Not on WBCN which started in 1968...

Ah, so the world of radio began in 1968 for you. You don't want to look at the struggles with technology that occurred before that. FM radio began with a format change in 1968? FM was around a long time before that struggling with naysayers like you. Same thing with "stereo".

I'm talking about the late 60's when FM REALLY took off and became dominant and yes, almost overnight,

It did not become dominant overnight. Maybe for you as an individual it did...but not overnight.

Again you miss the point, it was the content, FM radio changed almost overnight with it's new and varied and free formats,

Again, you miss the point. Early FM had crappy rudimentary programming. Nothing happened overnight.

I never said cutting edge, perhaps you should do more than skim my posts,

Maybe you should post more judiciously.

You're right it's not going down the tubes because some hobbyists don't like it, DXers have nothing to do with it's downfall at all, it's going down the tubes because NO ONE IS BUYING THE RADIOS, and broadcasters are starting to turn it off[/quote]

Wishful thinking. There is no "finish line" where so many radios have to be bought by a certain time. Hey, MS Zune is coming out with HD. ;-)

I have not sat in one meeting where managers have talked about "turning it off"

You are under the impression that HD is viewed as a failure unless it replaces analog. It is not, it is a extra service that allows more functionality.

It is not replacing analog service....just like stereo did not stop people from listening on mono devices. It was an extra feature/service that people had the option of enjoying.

It's not an 'either or' proposition. It doesn't have to be widely accepted overnight.

Like a station web site, it's an ancillary service that provides some additional features, and can provide additional revenue. And like the web, FM and stereo, the technology will only get better in time.

I am not an "HD guy"...I am a radio guy.
Could have fooled me with your HD cheerleading

Like I said, I'm a "radio" guy. Apparently you are obsessed with hating HD radio, and it consumes you all day.

Maybe you should remember what the teach you in the program Rob.

"Change the things you can...accept the things you can't...and know the difference between the 2."

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

You are an HD hater.

...and just like all the other HD proponents: When there are no cogent argument left, call someone a name. A Hollywood script writer couldn't have done it any better.

I'm in the radio business for 40+ years, mostly as an engineer, and I have never seen such a poorly designed, ill-advised system of signal transmission in my life. If I had come up with something like that while I was learning engineering, I would have failed the course, and with good reason. "The world is going digital" is the poorest excuse on record for something like this.

 

[KB1OKL]

Well i can see that you're not a subscriber because you are 100% wrong, it virtually never drops out and I've been all over and I would take one station on Satellite over the whole FM dial.

I am not currently a subscriber (although I have had lease cars with it in it.) But I have seen the research come across my desk, and yes, inconsistent reception is one of the negatives about satellite radio.

How can you comment if you don't own one, I own both.]

FM had new content, HD has nothing new to offer except for the same old boring B.S. big difference, is like comparing apples and oranges.

revisionist history. FM had simulcasts and archaic automation for years. That's not new and compelling content.

The digital revolution is here...and there's nothing that's gonna stop it.
No, the revolution was about 40 years ago when FM began to come into into dominance, it succeeded despite being difficult to receive BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT.

I think you need a history lesson. FM technology was patented in 1933. even when it was put into effect in the 50's and 60's....there was no content that wasn't available elsewhere...and it was boring.

Yes but it came into dominance in the late 60's early 70's because of the content it carried not because it was FM

The programming of FM in the early years was similar to the programming of HD-2 today. Music intensive and automated.

Yes, again until the late 60's, early 70's

No, and again, content was boring, music intensive and automated.

Not on WBCN which started in 1968...

Ah, so the world of radio began in 1968 for you. You don't want to look at the struggles with technology that occurred before that. FM radio began with a format change in 1968? FM was around a long time before that struggling with naysayers like you. Same thing with "stereo".

The world of FM taking over from AM began in the late 60's, early 70's

I'm talking about the late 60's when FM REALLY took off and became dominant and yes, almost overnight,

It did not become dominant overnight. Maybe for you as an individual it did...but not overnight.

3 or 4 years is almost over night when a service has been around for close to forty years playing elevator music

Again you miss the point, it was the content, FM radio changed almost overnight with it's new and varied and free formats,

Again, you miss the point. Early FM had crappy rudimentary programming. Nothing happened overnight.

Yes for 40 years it was like musak, then it changed in a few years to becoming the dominant band over AM which had been dominant for the previous 40 years.

I never said cutting edge, perhaps you should do more than skim my posts,

Maybe you should post more judiciously.

I do, never said cutting edge, you must have interpreted it that way.

You're right it's not going down the tubes because some hobbyists don't like it, DXers have nothing to do with it's downfall at all, it's going down the tubes because NO ONE IS BUYING THE RADIOS, and broadcasters are starting to turn it off

Wishful thinking. There is no "finish line" where so many radios have to be bought by a certain time. Hey, MS Zune is coming out with HD. ;-)

MS Zune is also another lead balloon, two losers together do not make a winner

I have not sat in one meeting where managers have talked about "turning it off"

How about B101 in Philadelphia last week? Oh you weren't in on that meeting, haha!

You are under the impression that HD is viewed as a failure unless it replaces analog. It is not, it is a extra service that allows more functionality.

no it is a failure because no one was buying the receivers and when they did the return rate was astronomical

It is not replacing analog service....just like stereo did not stop people from listening on mono devices. It was an extra feature/service that people had the option of enjoying.

I have never met anyone who enjoys drop outs, reduced range and buzzed out sidebands

It's not an 'either or' proposition. It doesn't have to be widely accepted overnight.

Like a station web site, it's an ancillary service that provides some additional features, and can provide additional revenue. And like the web, FM and stereo, the technology will only get better in time.

Websites are great ideas, but the HD the technology itself is flawed, anything that takes up more bandwidth than it needs AND interferes with adjacents is doomed, that is called harmful interference, only that the NAB lobbyists have convinced the FCC that HD is the next big thing so they are allowing it for the time being

I am not an "HD guy"...I am a radio guy.
Could have fooled me with your HD cheerleading

Like I said, I'm a "radio" guy. Apparently you are obsessed with hating HD radio, and it consumes you all day.

I'm a radio guy too, and do I hate it, can't wait until it's a bad historical example of what not to do in radio

Maybe you should remember what the teach you in the program Rob.

"Change the things you can...accept the things you can't...and know the difference between the 2."

Yes and the key is the third part which is where you and I obviously disagree, the consumers will be the ultimate judge and if the last three years are any indication I rest my case.

 

[Don Juan]

You are an HD hater.

...and just like all the other HD proponents: When there are no cogent argument left, call someone a name.

Oh? And there hasn't been name calling from HD opponents? Puh-leese.

It's not name calling...it's a fact. HD haters are obsessed.

I'm in the radio business for 40+ years, mostly as an engineer, and I have never seen such a poorly designed, ill-advised system of signal transmission in my life. If I had come up with something like that while I was learning engineering, I would have failed the course, and with good reason. "The world is going digital" is the poorest excuse on record for something like this.

Whats even funnier is HD opponents who are smarter than everyone at the FCC....smarter than the chief engineers at all the major groups....smarter than Mark Manuellian at WBZ.....smarter than radio executives.

There are a myriad of opinions....and to think that yours is the only viable one is foolhardy.

 

[Don Juan]

How can you comment if you don't own one, I own both.]

I've seen the data. to reach factual conclusions you need data.

Yes but it came into dominance in the late 60's early 70's because of the content it carried not because it was FM

Content was one thing....just as it is with HD...it offerred choices to the consumer. Just like HD.

Price was another factor. Many factors. In 1968 there were a multitude of automated and simulcast stations. It took time.

Yes, again until the late 60's, early 70's

Should we go back and count how many stations were still automated in the early 70's?

The world of FM taking over from AM began in the late 60's, early 70's

I'm talking about the late 60's when FM REALLY took off and became dominant and yes, almost overnight,

It happenned in different markets at different times. It happenned for different individuals at different times.

It did not become dominant overnight. Maybe for you as an individual it did...but not overnight. You are substituting your experiences for everyone elses.

Again you miss the point, it was the content, FM radio changed almost overnight with it's new and varied and free formats,

Again, you miss the point. Early FM had crappy rudimentary programming. Nothing happened overnight.

I do, never said cutting edge, you must have interpreted it that way in your mind

Whatever....

I have not sat in one meeting where managers have talked about "turning it off"

How about B101 in Philadelphia last week? Oh you weren't in on that meeting, haha!

No I wasn't.

You are under the impression that HD is viewed as a failure unless it replaces analog. It is not, it is a extra service that allows more functionality.

It is not replacing analog service....just like stereo did not stop people from listening on mono devices. It was an extra feature/service that people had the option of enjoying.

It's not an 'either or' proposition. It doesn't have to be widely accepted overnight.

Like a station web site, it's an ancillary service that provides some additional features, and can provide additional revenue. And like the web, FM and stereo, the technology will only get better in time.

Websites are great ideas, but the HD the technology itself is flawed...

Heard the same thing about FM....and stereo. Engineers were tryingto convince mangement to shut off their stereo pilots to increase reach.

I am not an "HD guy"...I am a radio guy.
Could have fooled me with your HD cheerleading

Like I said, I'm a "radio" guy. Apparently you are obsessed with hating HD radio, and it consumes you all day.

I'm a radio guy too, I hate it but don't feel I am obsessed with it

Maybe you should remember what the teach you in the program Rob.

"Change the things you can...accept the things you can't...and know the difference between the 2."

Yes and the key is the third part which is where you and I obviously disagree, the consumers will be the ultimate judge

Yes they will...not hobbyist or DX-ers. But you seem to have some imaginery finish line you have created. They can wait as long as it takes.

Say hi to Bill and Bob for me. I Saw them a couple of days ago. Come up and introduce yourself.

Some people just need something to obsess about....so they substitute one thing for another.

 

[KB1OKL]

Whats even funnier is HD opponents who are smarter than everyone at the FCC....smarter than the chief engineers at all the major groups....smarter than Mark Manuellian at WBZ.....smarter than radio executives.

Yes, I've noticed the same thing, isn't that strange? Isn't that called missing the forest for the trees?

 

[KB1OKL]

How can you comment if you don't own one, I own both.]

I've seen the data. to reach factual conclusions you need data.

Yes but it came into dominance in the late 60's early 70's because of the content it carried not because it was FM

Content was one thing....just as it is with HD...it offerred choices to the consumer. Just like HD.

Price was another factor. Many factors. In 1968 there were a multitude of automated and simulcast stations. It took time.

Yes, again until the late 60's, early 70's

Should we go back and count how many stations were still automated in the early 70's?

The world of FM taking over from AM began in the late 60's, early 70's

I'm talking about the late 60's when FM REALLY took off and became dominant and yes, almost overnight,

It happenned in different markets at different times. It happenned for different individuals at different times.

It did not become dominant overnight. Maybe for you as an individual it did...but not overnight. You are substituting your experiences for everyone elses.

Again you miss the point, it was the content, FM radio changed almost overnight with it's new and varied and free formats,

Again, you miss the point. Early FM had crappy rudimentary programming. Nothing happened overnight.

I do, never said cutting edge, you must have interpreted it that way in your mind

Whatever....

I have not sat in one meeting where managers have talked about "turning it off"

How about B101 in Philadelphia last week? Oh you weren't in on that meeting, haha!

No I wasn't.

You are under the impression that HD is viewed as a failure unless it replaces analog. It is not, it is a extra service that allows more functionality.

It is not replacing analog service....just like stereo did not stop people from listening on mono devices. It was an extra feature/service that people had the option of enjoying.

It's not an 'either or' proposition. It doesn't have to be widely accepted overnight.

Like a station web site, it's an ancillary service that provides some additional features, and can provide additional revenue. And like the web, FM and stereo, the technology will only get better in time.

Websites are great ideas, but the HD the technology itself is flawed...

Heard the same thing about FM....and stereo. Engineers were tryingto convince mangement to shut off their stereo pilots to increase reach.

I am not an "HD guy"...I am a radio guy.
Could have fooled me with your HD cheerleading

Like I said, I'm a "radio" guy. Apparently you are obsessed with hating HD radio, and it consumes you all day.

I'm a radio guy too, I hate it but don't feel I am obsessed with it

Maybe you should remember what the teach you in the program Rob.

"Change the things you can...accept the things you can't...and know the difference between the 2."

Yes and the key is the third part which is where you and I obviously disagree, the consumers will be the ultimate judge

Yes they will...not hobbyist or DX-ers. But you seem to have some imaginery finish line you have created. They can wait as long as it takes.

Say hi to Bill and Bob for me. I Saw them a couple of days ago. Come up and introduce yourself.

Some people just need something to obsess about....so they substitute one thing for another.

Just to clarify something which you keep missing, overnight in the context of a 40 year period is a 3,4,5 year period which is what I mean, like many Bill W programmers you seem to take things in black and white.

 

[Don Juan]

Just to clarify something which you keep missing, overnight in the context of a 40 year period is a 3,4,5 year period which is what I mean, like many Bill W programmers you seem to take things in black and white.

Not a friend of Bill's but know enough of them to know they subsitute one obsession with another.

The reality is it took until it was ready to snowball...from programming perspective, to a new generation that would accept it without AM bias, to reliability in the technology, portability, pricing and sustainable ad revenue. (One step at a time.)

Some places it took longer, SF for instance was an AM holdout for a long time.

But it took until the time was right.....not overnight.


PS: Not to mention waiting until the AM programmers dropped the ball.