Jo Jo Gunn - look at these hits, today - LOL!
HD Radio Farce
Panama: searching on "hd fm radio"
South Korea: seaching on "blogspot hd"
Of course, these are two countries where iBiquity is trying rollout
their snake-oil. I'de repost my Analytics for you, but it not worth
your petty panty-ass. It appears that one person CAN severly affect
the rollout of this snake-oil - maybe, after HD Radio fails, I'll
write a book. Look for me on the NY Times' bestseller's list - LMFAO!!!
Nick Name
> general motors corporation : ANOTHER direct link hit
> Panama: searching on "hd fm radio"
> South Korea: seaching on "blogspot hd"
Again, the thing you dont answer (over and over again) as has been
pointed out by numerous people here, is that "hits" dont mean they
agree with you.
A website with Nazi info or tortured kittens would garner lots of
"hits" as well.
Does that mean they all agree with Nazism or tortured kittens.
Better yet, once they look at your web site and realize you have no
credentials, they dismiss you as just another HD radio nutcake.
You have no credentials as a broadcasdter, engineer, businessman, etc.
You are a hobbyist, and hobbysit do not make broadcast policy (with
the exception possbily of hams/amateur.
Now, people have pointed this out to you in the past, but you keep
ignoring the criticism.
You are free to live in your own little world. ;-)
John Higdon
Nick Name <lo...@gawab.com> wrote:
>You are a hobbyist, and hobbysit do not make broadcast policy (with
>the exception possbily of hams/amateur.
Consumers have the last word in policy. They rule with their pocketbooks.
Right now, consumers are screaming that they don't give a s__t about HD Radio.
(Speaking as a broadcaster AND a consumer.)
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free
A Radio Listener
Consumers...not hobbysits.
Right now consumers have not been told of any compelling benefit of HD
radio.
Their has been no marketing as to what formats are available with HD
radio.
Once thats been done, THEN you can see if the consumers care about
it.
Until then, the final chapter has yet to be written.
(Except by hobbyist, purist and those living in the past, who keep
offerring their version of the "final chapter"....before the consumer
even has the book in their hands.)
John Higdon
<e2a33c80-736a-4511...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
A Radio Listener <bosto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Their has been no marketing as to what formats are available with HD
> radio.
>
> Once thats been done, THEN you can see if the consumers care about
> it.
>
> Until then, the final chapter has yet to be written.
I've been hearing that for eight years. HD Radio technology is getting
long in the tooth. There are cheaper, superior ways to get programming
into the consumers' hands now. If it were ever going to gain traction,
it would have had to do it at least a half-decade ago.
> (Except by hobbyist, purist and those living in the past, who keep
> offerring their version of the "final chapter"....before the consumer
> even has the book in their hands.)
IBOC is now in the past. It is a has-been that never was. Since IBOC/HD
Radio was introduced in the beginning of this decade, many other
consumer products have come about and flourished, while HD Radio (due
mainly to its antiquated, non-upgradable architecture and its lack of
content, not to mention the lack of consumer products worth buying, has
gone absolutely nowhere.
I'm forward-looking enough to realize the party's over for IBOC. It's a
stiff that, despite all the masturbation by its promoters (and even this
astroturf campaign here in this very newsgroup), is done for.
By the way, I have been a broadcaster for over forty years. In matters
relating to IBOC, I am neither a "purist", "hobbyist", or "living in the
past". I built some of the finest sounding stations in the market from
the ground up, many of them in the past few years.
IBOC is fifteen-year-old technology that had it caught on way back then,
might have gained some traction. But in this day and age, it is a
clunker.
Regarding the so-called IBOC power increase, I say "bring it on". A
number of tests have proven that the analog signals of the host stations
are damaged as much as those of dial position neighbors. If stations
want to commit revenue suicide, then fine. It would be a good process of
natural selection. Those listeners will never come back.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
A Radio Listener
> In article
> <e2a33c80-736a-4511-a12b-994271779...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> A Radio Listener <bostonra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Their has been no marketing as to what formats are available with HD
> > radio.
>
> > Once thats been done, THEN you can see if the consumers care about
> > it.
>
> > Until then, the final chapter has yet to be written.
>
> I've been hearing that for eight years. HD Radio technology is getting
> long in the tooth. There are cheaper, superior ways to get programming
> into the consumers' hands now. If it were ever going to gain traction,
> it would have had to do it at least a half-decade ago.
No, there is no finish line. HD radio is here to stay. broadcasters
like the extra functionality and possibilities.
HD radio doesn't have to "make it" by any certain date. It can sit
there and offer extra functionality right alongside the old analog
signal.
> > (Except by hobbyist, purist and those living in the past, who keep
> > offerring their version of the "final chapter"....before the consumer
> > even has the book in their hands.)
>
> IBOC is now in the past. It is a has-been that never was. Since IBOC/HD
> Radio was introduced in the beginning of this decade, many other
> consumer products have come about and flourished, while HD Radio (due
> mainly to its antiquated, non-upgradable architecture and its lack of
> content, not to mention the lack of consumer products worth buying, has
> gone absolutely nowhere.
There is no reason many devices can exist. Radio did not replace
records, TV did not replace movies. They each have their place.
The reason why HD has not taken off in the short time it's been
around, is because the beneifts (programming and content) have not
been sold to the consumer. The consumer is unaware of what other
programming is available thru HD.
The consumer is not making choices based on (your words) "antiquated,
non-upgradable architecture. To be quite honest, the public doesn't
think about radio enough to even make those qualitative choices.
> I'm forward-looking enough to realize the party's over for IBOC. It's a
> stiff that, despite all the masturbation by its promoters (and even this
> astroturf campaign here in this very newsgroup), is done for.
Astroturf campain? Some people here are adding a dose of reality to
the few HD Haterz who are spamming the internet with anonymous lies,
because they are discgruntled they can't DX AM in their moms basement.
I am forward looking enough to watch the hobbyist realize they do not
make broadcast policy. I am young enough to have heard the previous
SOS's about FM and Stereo by the purists. And dispite the
consternations of those living in the past, HD overcomes the hurdles
slowly and is not going away.
> By the way, I have been a broadcaster for over forty years. In matters
> relating to IBOC, I am neither a "purist", "hobbyist", or "living in the
> past". I built some of the finest sounding stations in the market from
> the ground up, many of them in the past few years.
For someone who works in classical radio, and is watching them die
across the country, you should embrace the opportunity HD radio will
give Classical radio to sustain itself.
> IBOC is fifteen-year-old technology that had it caught on way back then,
> might have gained some traction. But in this day and age, it is a
> clunker.
DOS is old technology, that gave way to windows...and brought the
internet into millions of homes.
HD/IBOC is here to stay, and will only get better.
> Regarding the so-called IBOC power increase, I say "bring it on". A
> number of tests have proven that the analog signals of the host stations
> are damaged as much as those of dial position neighbors.
And there are numerous people is much higher positions of technology
and broadcasting who have much more at stake that do not agree with
your assumptions.
Again, stereo was though to drop signal coverage. Yet, we allow some
of the negatives for the greater benefit. Windows was thought by many
to unnecessarily complicate matters. Yet, it was embraced.
There were engineers that stayed with DOS too.
Nick Name
But the real pointof this thread is that HD RADIO FARTZ and IBARKCRAP
is claiming that traffic coming to his web site is having an effect.
And as has been pointed out, hits do not equal people agreeing with
him.
One look at an anonymous web site with no credentials is all it takes
to dismiss his opinions.
John Higdon
<053f83ad-4a18-4730...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
A Radio Listener <bosto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, there is no finish line. HD radio is here to stay. broadcasters
> like the extra functionality and possibilities.
Thank you for making my point. What the broadcaster like is irrelevant.
The public doesn't care.
> HD radio doesn't have to "make it" by any certain date. It can sit
> there and offer extra functionality right alongside the old analog
> signal.
It is expensive and troublesome to maintain, and broadcasters are going
to weary of it. A major group has already turned it off in California.
> There is no reason many devices can exist. Radio did not replace
> records, TV did not replace movies. They each have their place.
But a clunky, expensive, and troublesome system (that the public ignores
anyway) usually dies.
> The reason why HD has not taken off in the short time it's been
> around, is because the beneifts (programming and content) have not
> been sold to the consumer. The consumer is unaware of what other
> programming is available thru HD.
Oh, please. They know. They aren't interested.
> Astroturf campain? Some people here are adding a dose of reality to
> the few HD Haterz who are spamming the internet with anonymous lies,
> because they are discgruntled they can't DX AM in their moms basement.
You can't spot an astroturf campaign? You are out of touch!
> I am forward looking enough to watch the hobbyist realize they do not
> make broadcast policy. I am young enough to have heard the previous
> SOS's about FM and Stereo by the purists. And dispite the
> consternations of those living in the past, HD overcomes the hurdles
> slowly and is not going away.
You are apparently young enough to be very naive.
> For someone who works in classical radio, and is watching them die
> across the country, you should embrace the opportunity HD radio will
> give Classical radio to sustain itself.
I haven't worked in "classical radio" in twenty-five years.
> DOS is old technology, that gave way to windows...and brought the
> internet into millions of homes.
>
> HD/IBOC is here to stay, and will only get better.
That's just it: it can't. Obviously, you have no knowledge of the
architecture. That's what happens when you argue from a position of
inexperience and ignorance.
> And there are numerous people is much higher positions of technology
> and broadcasting who have much more at stake that do not agree with
> your assumptions.
Doesn't matter. The public will be heard.
> Again, stereo was though to drop signal coverage. Yet, we allow some
> of the negatives for the greater benefit. Windows was thought by many
> to unnecessarily complicate matters. Yet, it was embraced.
Anyone with any knowledge of and experience in radio knows that to be a
crock. Did you know that at one point, the FCC rules required stations
to turn off stereo encoding when broadcasting mono material because it
was thought to be degrading? Did you know that I was one of those who
got that rule repealed?
> There were engineers that stayed with DOS too.
That's their problem, not mine.
Mike Ward
<bosto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Their has been no marketing as to what formats are available with HD
>radio.
>
>Once thats been done, THEN you can see if the consumers care about
>it.
And those of us who have smartphones can hear many of those same HD
Radio formats via Internet streaming. One click - on an iPhone/iPod
Touch or even my new Droid.
The only big problem I have with HD2/HD3 is that by definition, those
streams drop out on the IBOC signal if the IBOC signal has to drop to
analog. If the broadcaster feeds out the format via the Internet, in
a format compatiible with popular smartphones, they only have to worry
about the Internet connection at the user's end. :D
Mike Ward
wrote:
>> For someone who works in classical radio, and is watching them die
>> across the country, you should embrace the opportunity HD radio will
>> give Classical radio to sustain itself.
>
>I haven't worked in "classical radio" in twenty-five years.
I tried to tell the guy...if he keeps going, I expect a new
ChuckieList(tm)!
(Which station would Chuckie flip? 95.3, 101.7 or 92.1? :D)
John Higdon
Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
> The only big problem I have with HD2/HD3 is that by definition, those
> streams drop out on the IBOC signal if the IBOC signal has to drop to
> analog. If the broadcaster feeds out the format via the Internet, in
> a format compatiible with popular smartphones, they only have to worry
> about the Internet connection at the user's end. :D
Not to mention that by the time you get to an HD3 situation, each stereo
program is allocated 32Kbps. (That's half the bit rate used to carry an
ordinary telephone call by the phone company!)
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
John Higdon
Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
The only thing is that "Hot A/C" is considerably closer to a
ChuckieFormat than Classical might be!
Mike Ward
wrote:
>Not to mention that by the time you get to an HD3 situation, each stereo
>program is allocated 32Kbps. (That's half the bit rate used to carry an
>ordinary telephone call by the phone company!)
As I'm setting up my Droid, I'm finding very few 32Kbps streams out
there in the MP3/Shoutcast/etc. universe. It'd be very easy for a
station to pump out its HD3 sidechannel via Internet streaming at
higher rates than the HD over-air bandwidth.
I just added the new MP3 stream for CBC Radio One (out of Windsor ONT,
they have all of the local streams), and the "hi" bandwidth is
128Kbps... and CBC Radio One is mostly a non-musical service.
Mike Ward
wrote:
>The only thing is that "Hot A/C" is considerably closer to a
>ChuckieFormat than Classical might be!
You've got to start moving one of them to Top 40/Dance.
:D
Nick Name
> A Radio Listener <bostonra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No, there is no finish line. HD radio is here to stay. broadcasters
> > like the extra functionality and possibilities.
>
> Thank you for making my point. What the broadcaster like is irrelevant.
> The public doesn't care.
Then you misunderstood it my point.
Broadcasters matter because they are the ones that will decide if it
will stay.
As was stated before, the public doesn't care becasue they don't know
of the programming available. Broadcasters haven't made much of an
outreach because the HD signals were not comparable to their analog
signals.
> > HD radio doesn't have to "make it" by any certain date. It can sit
> > there and offer extra functionality right alongside the old analog
> > signal.
>
> It is expensive and troublesome to maintain, and broadcasters are going
> to weary of it.
Not at all. Unless you are of the old guard who hasn't kept up.
Rather than grow weary of it, they are upgrading.
> > There is no reason many devices can exist. Radio did not replace
> > records, TV did not replace movies. They each have their place.
>
> But a clunky, expensive, and troublesome system (that the public ignores
> anyway) usually dies.
It is only "bog, clunky & troublesome" to those who have not kept up
with todays technologies and chose to live in the past.
> > The reason why HD has not taken off in the short time it's been
> > around, is because the beneifts (programming and content) have not
> > been sold to the consumer. The consumer is unaware of what other
> > programming is available thru HD.
>
> Oh, please. They know. They aren't interested.
They aren't interested cuz they don't know.
You have seen the outcry when Jazz or Classical stations have bit the
dust in market after market. Tell me these people wouldn't be
interested to find their favorite formats available for free.
> > Astroturf campain? Some people here are adding a dose of reality to
> > the few HD Haterz who are spamming the internet with anonymous lies,
> > because they are discgruntled they can't DX AM in their moms basement.
>
> You can't spot an astroturf campaign? You are out of touch!
Not at all. Very in touch. However, the HD RADIO FARTZ have a
campain all their own!
>
> > I am forward looking enough to watch the hobbyist realize they do not
> > make broadcast policy. I am young enough to have heard the previous
> > SOS's about FM and Stereo by the purists. And dispite the
> > consternations of those living in the past, HD overcomes the hurdles
> > slowly and is not going away.
>
> You are apparently young enough to be very naive.
Not young & not naive. ;-)
> > For someone who works in classical radio, and is watching them die
> > across the country, you should embrace the opportunity HD radio will
> > give Classical radio to sustain itself.
>
> I haven't worked in "classical radio" in twenty-five years.
You have worked in it, and you know the passion people feel for the
format which is dropping like flies around the country.
> > DOS is old technology, that gave way to windows...and brought the
> > internet into millions of homes.
>
> > HD/IBOC is here to stay, and will only get better.
>
> That's just it: it can't.
Of course it can. That's just it. Your thinking is limited to the
past. You apparently want to keep the world status quo, as you fear
the changes.
> > And there are numerous people is much higher positions of technology
> > and broadcasting who have much more at stake that do not agree with
> > your assumptions.
>
> Doesn't matter. The public will be heard.
On one hand you state the public doesn't care. Then you claim "they
will be heard". Your illogic is a hoot!
Did the public decide they wanted digital TV? Or was it forced upon
them?
> > Again, stereo was though to drop signal coverage. Yet, we allow some
> > of the negatives for the greater benefit. Windows was thought by many
> > to unnecessarily complicate matters. Yet, it was embraced.
>
> Anyone with any knowledge of and experience in radio knows that to be a
> crock.
Not at all. I was there.
> Did you know that at one point, the FCC rules required stations
> to turn off stereo encoding when broadcasting mono material because it
> was thought to be degrading?
Yes.
> > There were engineers that stayed with DOS too.
>
> That's their problem, not mine.
History repeats itself.
Nick Name
wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:13:07 -0800 (PST), A Radio Listener
>
> >Their has been no marketing as to what formats are available with HD
> >radio.
>
> >Once thats been done, THEN you can see if the consumers care about
> >it.
>
> And those of us who have smartphones can hear many of those same HD
> Radio formats via Internet streaming. One click - on an iPhone/iPod
> Touch or even my new Droid.
For people without smartphones. They can listen for free over the
air.
> The only big problem I have with HD2/HD3 is that by definition, those
> streams drop out on the IBOC signal if the IBOC signal has to drop to
> analog.
There will be a great improvement with the power upgrade.
Nick Name
> In article <05c4g59a5bclatpl7afledn88fkgtrk...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
>
> > The only big problem I have with HD2/HD3 is that by definition, those
> > streams drop out on the IBOC signal if the IBOC signal has to drop to
> > analog. If the broadcaster feeds out the format via the Internet, in
> > a format compatiible with popular smartphones, they only have to worry
> > about the Internet connection at the user's end. :D
>
> Not to mention that by the time you get to an HD3 situation, each stereo
> program is allocated 32Kbps. (That's half the bit rate used to carry an
> ordinary telephone call by the phone company!)
HD3 is required to be in mono.
Or didn't you know that?
Mike Ward
wrote:
>> And those of us who have smartphones can hear many of those same HD
>> Radio formats via Internet streaming. �One click - on an iPhone/iPod
>> Touch or even my new Droid.
>
>For people without smartphones. They can listen for free over the
>air.
I'm putting a bet on the smartphone population (iPod/Droid/Pre/etc.)
outnumbering the HD Radio adopting population in any market of any
significant size. The iPod alone has sold what, 26 million units? How
many HD Radios have been manufactured or sold?
There is also no cost to the smartphone user for the stream - outside
the cost of bandwidth he/she is already paying for on the phone. This
isn't like satellite radio, where you have to pony up the $12.95 a
month. The smartphone user is already paying (whatever) a month for
generally unlimited data, and no separate amount for audio streaming.
>> The only big problem I have with HD2/HD3 is that by definition, those
>> streams drop out on the IBOC signal if the IBOC signal has to drop to
>> analog.
>
>There will be a great improvement with the power upgrade.
But if it does go out, for whatever reason, there's no way to "keep"
the format going (since there's no analog backup as there is with
HD1). You have a choice - either dead air or a dump back to HD1.
We'll see how this all plays out with a power hike.
John Higdon
Nick Name <lo...@gawab.com> wrote:
>HD3 is required to be in mono.
>
>Or didn't you know that?
Your point? It doesn't negate my point about ultra-low bitrates.
Nick Name
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:00:40 -0800 (PST), Nick Name <l...@gawab.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> And those of us who have smartphones can hear many of those same HD
> >> Radio formats via Internet streaming. One click - on an iPhone/iPod
> >> Touch or even my new Droid.
>
> >For people without smartphones. They can listen for free over the
> >air.
>
> I'm putting a bet on the smartphone population (iPod/Droid/Pre/etc.)
> outnumbering the HD Radio adopting population in any market of any
> significant size. The iPod alone has sold what, 26 million units? How
> many HD Radios have been manufactured or sold?
Comparing ANYTHING to the iPhone (or the iPod) is a loser. It's not a
proper comparison. Plus, one doesn't have to win over the other.
They can both exist.
> >> The only big problem I have with HD2/HD3 is that by definition, those
> >> streams drop out on the IBOC signal if the IBOC signal has to drop to
> >> analog.
>
> >There will be a great improvement with the power upgrade.
>
> But if it does go out, for whatever reason, there's no way to "keep"
> the format going
Same thing with Digital TV I suppose.
The power increase should bring the digital signal to almost a
comparable level with the analog signal.
John Higdon
Nick Name <lo...@gawab.com> wrote:
>Broadcasters matter because they are the ones that will decide if it
>will stay.
Any broadcaster that believes that is an idiot. And there are a lot of idiot
broadcasters out there. You serve your audience with what it wants or you
die as a station.
>As was stated before, the public doesn't care becasue they don't know
>of the programming available. Broadcasters haven't made much of an
>outreach because the HD signals were not comparable to their analog
>signals.
Indeed. Broadcasters who have any smarts at all are very hesitant to send
their commercial-listening audience away to a non-revenue program.
>Not at all. Unless you are of the old guard who hasn't kept up.
>Rather than grow weary of it, they are upgrading.
Upgrading to what? There has been no technological improvement in IBOC technology
since the CODEC was upgraded at the last minute before launch eight years
ago. Sounds like you are the one out of touch.
>It is only "bog, clunky & troublesome" to those who have not kept up
>with todays technologies and chose to live in the past.
Since I have kept up with this stuff from the very beginning, you are apparently
the uninformed person here. You don't seem to have any comprehension of how
it really works. If you did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There
are no magic new advances that have improved the viability of this dog.
>They aren't interested cuz they don't know.
>
>You have seen the outcry when Jazz or Classical stations have bit the
>dust in market after market. Tell me these people wouldn't be
>interested to find their favorite formats available for free.
I haven't found anyone who doesn't know. Oh, and tell me, if it is free and
commercial-free, how does it sustain itself in the long term? Also, I've
heard complaints about the audio quality.
>Not at all. Very in touch. However, the HD RADIO FARTZ have a
>campain all their own!
You're all from the same campaign. I have yet to hear one single comment
that demonstrates than any of you virtual trolls know what it's all about.
>Not young & not naive. ;-)
Your comments say otherwise.
>You have worked in it, and you know the passion people feel for the
>format which is dropping like flies around the country.
It has nothing to do with the viability of IBOC.
>Of course it can. That's just it. Your thinking is limited to the
>past. You apparently want to keep the world status quo, as you fear
>the changes.
If you knew me (as many here do) you would know what nonsense that was!
>On one hand you state the public doesn't care. Then you claim "they
>will be heard". Your illogic is a hoot!
Comments like that reveal your naivete. "Silence" is frequently the strongest
comment the public can make.
>Did the public decide they wanted digital TV? Or was it forced upon
>them?
Over-the-air broadcasting is such a non-issue these days that it really doesn't
matter. Try to keep up.
Mike Ward
wrote:
>Comparing ANYTHING to the iPhone (or the iPod) is a loser. It's not a
>proper comparison. Plus, one doesn't have to win over the other.
>They can both exist.
Well, yes, they can. But the HD Radio adoption is basically down in
the noise compared to the iPhone, which people can use today, while
walking in the streets of the Bay Area or Akron, OH or anywhere, to
listen to digital radio streams...including the HD2/HD3 streams of
most major commercial and public broadcasters.
And the numbers are only going to get bigger. My lil' Droid is in the
first wave of a few dozen Android devices, all of which can do the
same thing. I have all the HD2/3 subchannels of our local public
radio stations already programmed into mine.
Which is a more likely site on the streets of SF, SJ, etc...someone
carrying an iPhone or an HD Radio?
Now, is that someone on the iPhone (Droid, etc.) going to be listening
to those streams? I dunno. I'm a radio guy, so I know all about it.
I don't know about those outside the business, though I do know most
over-air stations with HD2/HD3 streams put those up as Internet
streams right on their home page.
My overall point is that most "digital radio" action is not HD Radio
related, it's Internet related.
>Same thing with Digital TV I suppose.
Yep, and digital TV is not a portable medium at all right now, until
the mobile standard starts being widely adopted (and the local
stations start broadcasting those streams, and the manufacturers start
making new equipment, and...)
>The power increase should bring the digital signal to almost a
>comparable level with the analog signal.
We'll see about that one.
John Higdon
Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
> Well, yes, they can. But the HD Radio adoption is basically down in
> the noise compared to the iPhone, which people can use today, while
> walking in the streets of the Bay Area or Akron, OH or anywhere, to
> listen to digital radio streams...including the HD2/HD3 streams of
> most major commercial and public broadcasters.
And you can carry it in your pocket, since it doesn't require a car
battery to power it. And the phone does lots of things besides acting as
a digital radio while costing less than an IBOC radio. And it can get
all these stations from around the world, not just those with
transmitters less than 20 miles away. And it sounds better. And you've
got it NOW, TODAY, not "in a couple of years". And it even works on the
streets of Twenty-nine Palms. And you can get just as many stations
there as you can in downtown LA.
> Which is a more likely site on the streets of SF, SJ, etc...someone
> carrying an iPhone or an HD Radio?
How can you spot an HD Radio? It looks like it was made out of
cardboard, has a blue display, and it doesn't get any stations without a
great, big antenna.
> My overall point is that most "digital radio" action is not HD Radio
> related, it's Internet related.
Greg Ogonowski has maintained for years that "digital radio" has been
around for years and most people already have one in their pocket.
An astroturfer wrote:
> >The power increase should bring the digital signal to almost a
> >comparable level with the analog signal.
>
> We'll see about that one.
Indeed. Wow! We can make it *almost* as good as we already have!
The bottom line is: why wait for something that has been trying to get
its act together for nearly a decade (and has gone nowhere) when there
is something available today that fits in your shirt pocket and works
better than HD Radio ever will?
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
Mike Ward
wrote:
>And you can carry it in your pocket, since it doesn't require a car
>battery to power it.
Note that this does NOT apply to the Insignia $49 portable HD Radio,
which really isn't bad, and has a rechargable Li-Ion battery like
everything else.
But among the Insignia's weaknesses - there is no AM, analog, HD or
otherwise.
>Greg Ogonowski has maintained for years that "digital radio" has been
>around for years and most people already have one in their pocket.
Though I've had some sort of PDA or smartphone for years now - most
recently the Windows Mobile-based Treo 700wx - it all came together
for me with this one.
On a modern unit like the iPhone, the Droid, etc., all you have to do
is install an app, and you're one click away. You don't have to do
any of the "heavy lifting" I had to do on the Treo, or on my previous
iPaq. Since the broadcasters are actively seeking this audience, they
make it easy.
Patty Winter
In article <k2j7g5hsbbskbjd2n...@4ax.com>,
Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:51:45 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
>wrote:
>
>is install an app, and you're one click away. You don't have to do
>any of the "heavy lifting" I had to do on the Treo, or on my previous
>iPaq. Since the broadcasters are actively seeking this audience, they
>make it easy.
In fact, do you even need to install an app on the iPhone? I don't
have one, but iTunes comes on Macs and gets radio station streams,
so wouldn't that also be the case on an iPhone?
Patty
Mike Ward
wrote:
>In fact, do you even need to install an app on the iPhone? I don't
>have one, but iTunes comes on Macs and gets radio station streams,
>so wouldn't that also be the case on an iPhone?
That, I don't know. I keep forgetting that the Mac/PC version of
iTunes does streaming internally.
I know that for such things as Clear Channel's IHeartRadio, they need
a separate app on the iPhone.
Either way, it's a MUCH easier process than with the
smartphones-of-old.
HD Radio Farce
All of the formmats are on hdradio.com.
HD Radio Farce
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Astroturf campain? Some people here are adding a dose of reality to
the few HD Haterz who are spamming the internet with anonymous lies,
because they are discgruntled they can't DX AM in their moms
basement."
If you consider "lies" as quotes from Radio World, RBR, and radio
consultants, then that'ts your problem. The Internet has been fully-
loaded now, and you can't stop the ball from rolling.
HD Radio Farce
>
> - Show quoted text -
"HD/IBOC is here to stay, and will only get better."
Really? Is that why a number of stations have been turning of their
IBOC signals? In this economy, thoseendless fees to those scammers at
iNiquity wil get old.
John Higdon
Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
> Note that this does NOT apply to the Insignia $49 portable HD Radio,
> which really isn't bad, and has a rechargable Li-Ion battery like
> everything else.
>
> But among the Insignia's weaknesses - there is no AM, analog, HD or
> otherwise.
And what does it receive? A handful of close-in local stations and
that's it! What does your phone receive? How many hundreds of stations?
> On a modern unit like the iPhone, the Droid, etc., all you have to do
> is install an app, and you're one click away. You don't have to do
> any of the "heavy lifting" I had to do on the Treo, or on my previous
> iPaq. Since the broadcasters are actively seeking this audience, they
> make it easy.
I have faith that broadcasters will ultimately figure it out.
Mike Ward
wrote:
>> But among the Insignia's weaknesses - there is no AM, analog, HD or
>> otherwise.
>
>And what does it receive? A handful of close-in local stations and
>that's it! What does your phone receive? How many hundreds of stations?
Yeah, at the current "state of the art" with HD Radio, it mostly gets
the strong locals...from Akron and the Parma antenna farm Class B's in
the Cleveland market.
It'll get HD out of 107.3/Elyria, a decent mostly-full-market rimshot,
depending on where you are.
We also get listenable analog signals out of nearby Youngstown, but
none of their big signal FMs get an IBOC carriere this far.
The phone? Don't have enough time to count or list, and they haven't
even ported IHeartRadio over to the Android yet. Off the top of my
head, I can get streams (MP3) out of about a half-dozen to a dozen Bay
Area stations here in Ohio, including both KGO and KCBS, KQED, a few
FMs, and those are ones I've spent no effort trying to find.
Here's a link to a list from just one program I use (which is also
available on the iPhone/iPod Touch):
I'm not even counting any non-U.S. streams (which are all over the
list), or my own addition of CBC Radio 1's MP3 streaming.
All of this can be heard anywhere I get a data connection on the
phone, from Akron, Ohio to San Francisco to anywhere in between.
If I'm standing by the Ferry Building in SF, with my Droid in one hand
and the Insignia portable HD Radio in the other, only one of the two
will let me hear KGO...and it's not the Insignia.
Heh!
(There are plenty of HD Radio units with AM on them, just not this
one, for whatever reason. Size/portability/noise reduction?)
Travis James
>
> In fact, do you even need to install an app on the iPhone? I don't
> have one, but iTunes comes on Macs and gets radio station streams,
> so wouldn't that also be the case on an iPhone?
>
desktop version is rather clunky.
But there are plenty of apps for streaming audio of terrestrial radio
and web radio. It's a little clunky having separate apps, but not that bad.
Off the top of my head and on my iPod.
iHeartRadio - free - Clear Channel stations
PublicRadio - free - all public radio and many college stations; also
some streams available on demand: CarTalk, Wait Wait, etc.
AOL Radio - free - prepackaged formats and CBS Radio stations
WunderRadio - $6.99 - streams from around the world. They actively try
to keep updated directories of what's on (with moderate success). For
example, on Sunday, I can browse to Sports | NFL | Saints v. Packers or
whatever other live games they have listed. They integrate with Sirius
too for subscribers, don't know how well that works.
Pandora, Slacker, Shoutcast, iMeem, LastFM, TWiT - all free.
John Higdon
Mike Ward <mw...@iname.remove-this-part.com> wrote:
> If I'm standing by the Ferry Building in SF, with my Droid in one hand
> and the Insignia portable HD Radio in the other, only one of the two
> will let me hear KGO...and it's not the Insignia.
And it will let you hear KGO anywhere in the world.
> (There are plenty of HD Radio units with AM on them, just not this
> one, for whatever reason. Size/portability/noise reduction?)
Even iBiquity tacitly admits that AM HD Radio is done. The audio
"improvement" is questionable (especially on voice, the premiere format
on AM these days), and the interference it causes (even over long
distances) is legendary. One of the reasons KGO dropped all HD
broadcasting was the interference it was causing to other stations
hundreds of miles away in their own markets. It also took a small toll
on KGO's analog audio quality (less than on most stations, but a hit
just the same).
Lining iBiquity's pockets should take a back seat to protecting fellow
broadcasters from interference, especially when it is occurring in their
own local markets.
Let me add one more comment. I have direct, first-hand experience with
this stuff. I work with it every day. Yet, bozos who have probably never
even laid eyes on a broadcast transmitter are attempting to argue about
something they know absolutely nothing about.
Mike Ward
wrote:
>And it will let you hear KGO anywhere in the world.
Well, not unless there's CDMA coverage :D But yes, any Android phone
with international GSM frequencies would fit here, as well as whatever
iPhone GSM frequencies there are.
It certainly worked well to have me "drive home" with the KGO
Afternoon News in Akron, Ohio the other night! I have a car mount for
the Droid, mostly for its navigation features, but plugged in a
cassette adapter to feed the audio to my stereo.
Of course, driving around listening to local radio from San Francisco
in real time can throw an Ohio guy off...time checks alone are three
hours off. :D
You know I've done this before...but with the modern state of the art
in smartphones, it's now ridiculously easy to commute home with a
California station.
>Even iBiquity tacitly admits that AM HD Radio is done. The audio
>"improvement" is questionable (especially on voice, the premiere format
>on AM these days), and the interference it causes (even over long
>distances) is legendary.
I think the bigger problem here with the Insignia portable is that AM
has never really lent itself to high-technology small portable radios,
let alone the mess of including AM IBOC. It was probably cheaper for
them to write off AM.
David Kaye
>Well, not unless there's CDMA coverage :D But yes, any Android phone
>with international GSM frequencies would fit here, as well as whatever
>iPhone GSM frequencies there are.
What is the pricing like on the Android phone, as well as monthly rates? I'm
reluctant to get into newer technologies because I don't want to spend a lot
of money. A little money, ok, a lot, no.
--
"You're in probably the wickedest, most corrupt city, most
Godless city in America." -- Fr Mullen, "San Francisco"
Mike Ward
wrote:
>What is the pricing like on the Android phone, as well as monthly rates? I'm
>reluctant to get into newer technologies because I don't want to spend a lot
>of money. A little money, ok, a lot, no.
Well, I have the Droid from VZW, which is $199 after rebate (I paid
less, and had some other help). Generally $30ish a month for data,
unlimited, on top of voice plans.
VZW has the HTC Droid Eris for $99.
Sprint has the HTC Hero, similar to the Eris.
In the GSM world, T-Mobile has cheaper rates and a couple or three
Android phones, including the G1 (original) and MyTouch. I don't know
if AT&T has an Android phone yet, but they will at some point.
T-Mobile is probably your value proposition Android-wise.
bozo
> In article <4nl8g51cn6qu41i5oiire915got4kh5...@4ax.com>,
Bozos! Excuse me? Do I come to where you hold court and proclaim I
have first hand experience with this stuff and yet there are johns who
have never laid eyes on a hooker are attempting to argue about
something they know nothing about?
-bdn-
Mark Roberts
| On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:51:45 -0800, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com>
| wrote:
|
| >And you can carry it in your pocket, since it doesn't require a car
| >battery to power it.
|
| Note that this does NOT apply to the Insignia $49 portable HD Radio,
| which really isn't bad, and has a rechargable Li-Ion battery like
| everything else.
However, the battery life seems a bit anemic. It's not awful but it
could be better.
It does solve a problem for me in my multipath-laden office
location. And there are some clever things about it (the volume
control is very well thought out, for example).
| But among the Insignia's weaknesses - there is no AM, analog, HD or
| otherwise.
In my experience, a portable will either have good AM reception (and
sound) or good FM reception, but not both. I end up taking about four
little portables with me on trips. Even on a good AM portable, I hate
the bandwidth limitation.
The new DSP-based radios are really hot on FM. They're almost as
good as my beloved NAD 4300 tuner when it comes to reception. The
tuner, of course, still actually *sounds* better.
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
Mark Roberts
| (There are plenty of HD Radio units with AM on them, just not this
| one, for whatever reason. Size/portability/noise reduction?)
It's probably not the market they're going after. San Francisco is
unusual in having a few AM stations that still offer broad-based
programming rather than reactionary talk, ethnic time-broking, or
gospel goosing. Most places, AM is a niche product at best.
So the absence of AM from the Insignia isn't a great loss, in my opinion.
John Higdon
Mark Roberts <markrob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's probably not the market they're going after. San Francisco is
> unusual in having a few AM stations that still offer broad-based
> programming rather than reactionary talk, ethnic time-broking, or
> gospel goosing. Most places, AM is a niche product at best.
> So the absence of AM from the Insignia isn't a great loss, in my opinion.
Actually, there are many stations in the top ten markets that offer
broad-based programming, and many around the country that are still
making money. LA has them; Chicago has them.
Nick Name
> Note that this does NOT apply to the Insignia $49 portable HD Radio,
> which really isn't bad, and has a rechargable Li-Ion battery like
> everything else.
>
> But among the Insignia's weaknesses - there is no AM, analog, HD or
> otherwise.
Most of the people buying these are young people. And to them AM
doesn't exist anyway.
Sometimes it's referred to as the "senior band".
RP
"John Higdon" <hi...@kome.com> wrote in message
news:higgy-229276....@news.announcetech.com...
> In article <7mjrklF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Mark Roberts <markrob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's probably not the market they're going after. San Francisco is
>> unusual in having a few AM stations that still offer broad-based
>> programming rather than reactionary talk, ethnic time-broking, or
>> gospel goosing. Most places, AM is a niche product at best.
>> So the absence of AM from the Insignia isn't a great loss, in my opinion.
>
> Actually, there are many stations in the top ten markets that offer
ANd they are going away one-by-one....
RP
"HD Radio Farce" <hdradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7efeae5d-f49e-4647...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 3:13?pm, A Radio Listener <bostonra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not all of them.
RP
On Nov 16, 3:52?pm, A Radio Listener <bostonra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 3:35?pm, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <e2a33c80-736a-4511-a12b-994271779...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Their has been no marketing as to what formats are available with HD
> > > radio.
>
> > > Once thats been done, THEN you can see if the consumers care about
> > > it.
>
> > > Until then, the final chapter has yet to be written.
>
> > I've been hearing that for eight years. HD Radio technology is getting
> > long in the tooth. There are cheaper, superior ways to get programming
> > into the consumers' hands now. If it were ever going to gain traction,
> > it would have had to do it at least a half-decade ago.
>
> like the extra functionality and possibilities.
>
> there and offer extra functionality right alongside the old analog
> signal.
>
> > > (Except by hobbyist, purist and those living in the past, who keep
> > > offerring their version of the "final chapter"....before the consumer
> > > even has the book in their hands.)
>
> > IBOC is now in the past. It is a has-been that never was. Since IBOC/HD
> > Radio was introduced in the beginning of this decade, many other
> > consumer products have come about and flourished, while HD Radio (due
> > mainly to its antiquated, non-upgradable architecture and its lack of
> > content, not to mention the lack of consumer products worth buying, has
> > gone absolutely nowhere.
>
> records, TV did not replace movies. ?They each have their place.
>
> The reason why HD has not taken off in the short time it's been
> around, is because the beneifts (programming and content) have not
> programming is available thru HD.
>
> The consumer is not making choices based on (your words) "antiquated,
> think about radio enough to even make those qualitative choices.
>
> > I'm forward-looking enough to realize the party's over for IBOC. It's a
> > stiff that, despite all the masturbation by its promoters (and even this
> > astroturf campaign here in this very newsgroup), is done for.
>
> the few HD Haterz who are spamming the internet with anonymous lies,
> because they are discgruntled they can't DX AM in their moms basement.
>
> I am forward looking enough to watch the hobbyist realize they do not
> SOS's about FM and Stereo by the purists. ?And dispite the
> consternations of those living in the past, HD overcomes the hurdles
> slowly and is not going away.
>
> > By the way, I have been a broadcaster for over forty years. In matters
> > relating to IBOC, I am neither a "purist", "hobbyist", or "living in the
> > past". I built some of the finest sounding stations in the market from
> > the ground up, many of them in the past few years.
>
> For someone who works in classical radio, and is watching them die
> across the country, you should embrace the opportunity HD radio will
> give Classical radio to sustain itself.
>
> > IBOC is fifteen-year-old technology that had it caught on way back then,
> > might have gained some traction. But in this day and age, it is a
> > clunker.
>
> DOS is old technology, that gave way to windows...and brought the
> internet into millions of homes.
>
> HD/IBOC is here to stay, and will only get better.
>
> > Regarding the so-called IBOC power increase, I say "bring it on". A
> > number of tests have proven that the analog signals of the host stations
> > are damaged as much as those of dial position neighbors.
>
> And there are numerous people is much higher positions of technology
> and broadcasting who have much more at stake that do not agree with
> your assumptions.
>
> of the negatives for the greater benefit. ?Windows was thought by many
> to unnecessarily complicate matters. ?Yet, it was embraced.
>
> There were engineers that stayed with DOS too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Astroturf campain? Some people here are adding a dose of reality to
the few HD Haterz who are spamming the internet with anonymous lies,
because they are discgruntled they can't DX AM in their moms
basement."
>>If you consider "lies" as quotes from Radio World, RBR, and radio
>> consultants, then that'ts your problem. The Internet has been fully-
>>loaded now, and you can't stop the ball from rolling.
Well if it's on the ineternet...it must be the truth! - LOL!
BTW...there are plenty of articles on the internet praising HD radio as
well.
RP
On Nov 16, 3:52?pm, A Radio Listener <bostonra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 3:35?pm, John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <e2a33c80-736a-4511-a12b-994271779...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Their has been no marketing as to what formats are available with HD
> > > radio.
>
> > > Once thats been done, THEN you can see if the consumers care about
> > > it.
>
> > > Until then, the final chapter has yet to be written.
>
> > I've been hearing that for eight years. HD Radio technology is getting
> > long in the tooth. There are cheaper, superior ways to get programming
> > into the consumers' hands now. If it were ever going to gain traction,
> > it would have had to do it at least a half-decade ago.
>
> like the extra functionality and possibilities.
>
> there and offer extra functionality right alongside the old analog
> signal.
>
> > > (Except by hobbyist, purist and those living in the past, who keep
> > > offerring their version of the "final chapter"....before the consumer
> > > even has the book in their hands.)
>
> > IBOC is now in the past. It is a has-been that never was. Since IBOC/HD
> > Radio was introduced in the beginning of this decade, many other
> > consumer products have come about and flourished, while HD Radio (due
> > mainly to its antiquated, non-upgradable architecture and its lack of
> > content, not to mention the lack of consumer products worth buying, has
> > gone absolutely nowhere.
>
> records, TV did not replace movies. ?They each have their place.
>
> The reason why HD has not taken off in the short time it's been
> around, is because the beneifts (programming and content) have not
> programming is available thru HD.
>
> The consumer is not making choices based on (your words) "antiquated,
> think about radio enough to even make those qualitative choices.
>
> > I'm forward-looking enough to realize the party's over for IBOC. It's a
> > stiff that, despite all the masturbation by its promoters (and even this
> > astroturf campaign here in this very newsgroup), is done for.
>
> the few HD Haterz who are spamming the internet with anonymous lies,
> because they are discgruntled they can't DX AM in their moms basement.
>
> I am forward looking enough to watch the hobbyist realize they do not
> SOS's about FM and Stereo by the purists. ?And dispite the
> consternations of those living in the past, HD overcomes the hurdles
> slowly and is not going away.
>
> > By the way, I have been a broadcaster for over forty years. In matters
> > relating to IBOC, I am neither a "purist", "hobbyist", or "living in the
> > past". I built some of the finest sounding stations in the market from
> > the ground up, many of them in the past few years.
>
> For someone who works in classical radio, and is watching them die
> across the country, you should embrace the opportunity HD radio will
> give Classical radio to sustain itself.
>
> > IBOC is fifteen-year-old technology that had it caught on way back then,
> > might have gained some traction. But in this day and age, it is a
> > clunker.
>
> DOS is old technology, that gave way to windows...and brought the
> internet into millions of homes.
>
> HD/IBOC is here to stay, and will only get better.
>
> > Regarding the so-called IBOC power increase, I say "bring it on". A
> > number of tests have proven that the analog signals of the host stations
> > are damaged as much as those of dial position neighbors.
>
> And there are numerous people is much higher positions of technology
> and broadcasting who have much more at stake that do not agree with
> your assumptions.
>
> of the negatives for the greater benefit. ?Windows was thought by many
> to unnecessarily complicate matters. ?Yet, it was embraced.
>
> There were engineers that stayed with DOS too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"HD/IBOC is here to stay, and will only get better."
> Really? Is that why a number of stations have been turning of their
> IBOC signals?
Why is it the largest stations are gearingup for a power increase?
Why is it CBS just put added effort behind HD?
RP
>
> Nick Name <lo...@gawab.com> wrote:
>
>>HD3 is required to be in mono.
>>
>>Or didn't you know that?
>
> Your point? It doesn't negate my point about ultra-low bitrates.
The point is that it's not in stereo....and you didn't know that.
Try to keep up.
RP
>>Broadcasters matter because they are the ones that will decide if it
>>will stay.
>
> Any broadcaster that believes that is an idiot.
Then I guess all the big companies are idiots.
>>As was stated before, the public doesn't care becasue they don't know
>>of the programming available. Broadcasters haven't made much of an
>>outreach because the HD signals were not comparable to their analog
>>signals.
>
> Indeed. Broadcasters who have any smarts at all are very hesitant to send
> their commercial-listening audience away to a non-revenue program.
Broadcasters who have the smarts know how to extend their brand...and give
their audience more bang for the buck.
>>Not at all. Unless you are of the old guard who hasn't kept up.
>>Rather than grow weary of it, they are upgrading.
>
> Upgrading to what? There has been no technological improvement in IBOC
> technology
> since the CODEC was upgraded at the last minute before launch eight years
> ago. Sounds like you are the one out of touch.
The radios have gotten upgraded...and the signals are about to get upgraded.
Sounds like you have a monochrome mind, and are only able to think in one
direction.
.
>>It is only "bog, clunky & troublesome" to those who have not kept up
>>with todays technologies and chose to live in the past.
>
> Since I have kept up with this stuff from the very beginning, you are
> apparently
> the uninformed person here.
Apparently not. I know how it works, and I know you've been against any
kind of progress. I assume the business has left you in the dust.
>>You have seen the outcry when Jazz or Classical stations have bit the
>>dust in market after market. Tell me these people wouldn't be
>>interested to find their favorite formats available for free.
>
> I haven't found anyone who doesn't know.
Really? Step out into any major market and ask people where & how they can
find the HD jazz station...or Classical station?
10 out of 10 will tell you they do not know.
>Oh, and tell me, if it is free and
> commercial-free, how does it sustain itself in the long term?
How did the early commercial free or limited commercials FM's sustain
themselves?
> Also, I've
> heard complaints about the audio quality.
There have been no studies that have shown that people who have listened to
HD radio have complained about the audio quality. Unless of course you can
point me to one.
>>Not at all. Very in touch. However, the HD RADIO FARTZ have a
>>campain all their own!
>
> You're all from the same campaign.
Fight fire with fire!
>>Not young & not naive. ;-)
>
> Your comments say otherwise.
Your comments say you are old, cranky and living in the past.
>>You have worked in it, and you know the passion people feel for the
>>format which is dropping like flies around the country.
>
> It has nothing to do with the viability of IBOC.
Yout (or was it HD RADIO FARTZ) mentioned it was the listeners who will
decide. (remember that?)
Use the same consitant logic. COntent will decide the viability of HD
radio. So yes, the passion people feel for the music will decide if it
succeeds.
You apparently want to argue this from a purists point of view. Listeners
are not purists. Most people nenver needed a patik-fellippe watch...a timex
told them the time.
>>Of course it can. That's just it. Your thinking is limited to the
>>past. You apparently want to keep the world status quo, as you fear
>>the changes.
>
> If you knew me (as many here do) you would know what nonsense that was!
Using your quote above: Your comments say otherwise.
>>On one hand you state the public doesn't care. Then you claim "they
>>will be heard". Your illogic is a hoot!
>
> Comments like that reveal your naivete. "Silence" is frequently the
> strongest
> comment the public can make.
Again, your illogic and inconsistant reasoning is a hoot!
>>Did the public decide they wanted digital TV? Or was it forced upon
>>them?
>
> Over-the-air broadcasting is such a non-issue these days that it really
> doesn't
> matter. Try to keep up.
Try to stay with the logical flow of thought here higdon.
The public did not decide if they wanted digital TV...the industry did.
John Higdon
"RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
> >>Broadcasters matter because they are the ones that will decide if it
> >>will stay.
> >
> > Any broadcaster that believes that is an idiot.
>
> Then I guess all the big companies are idiots.
Now you're starting to get it.
> Broadcasters who have the smarts know how to extend their brand...and give
> their audience more bang for the buck.
Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just going to spout
marketing jargon?
> The radios have gotten upgraded...and the signals are about to get upgraded.
> Sounds like you have a monochrome mind, and are only able to think in one
> direction.
That's nonsense. There is no mechanism to upgrade a radio that has
already been built.
> Apparently not. I know how it works, and I know you've been against any
> kind of progress. I assume the business has left you in the dust.
How many radio stations have you built and how many are currently
maintaining? What are they?
> Really? Step out into any major market and ask people where & how they can
> find the HD jazz station...or Classical station?
>
> 10 out of 10 will tell you they do not know.
10 out of 10 tell me just the opposite. Are you polling street people in
the Tenderloin?
> How did the early commercial free or limited commercials FM's sustain
> themselves?
Subsidy from their AM sister stations.
> There have been no studies that have shown that people who have listened to
> HD radio have complained about the audio quality. Unless of course you can
> point me to one.
Recent NPR studies.
> Your comments say you are old, cranky and living in the past.
And your comments say that you have absolutely no hands-on or technical
grasp of any aspect of this matter.
> Yout (or was it HD RADIO FARTZ) mentioned it was the listeners who will
> decide. (remember that?)
Doesn't matter who spoke it if it's true. Radio (as insiders know, but
apparently not you) is the most democratic of industries. You serve your
audience and your clients or you die. That means you do what they (not
you) want.
> Use the same consitant logic. COntent will decide the viability of HD
> radio. So yes, the passion people feel for the music will decide if it
> succeeds.
When's that going to happen?
> You apparently want to argue this from a purists point of view. Listeners
> are not purists. Most people nenver needed a patik-fellippe watch...a timex
> told them the time.
I'm arguing from a strictly marketing point of view. If you have no
listeners, you have no product.
> The public did not decide if they wanted digital TV...the industry did.
And look what a debacle it turned out to be. Radio broadcasting doesn't
have that kind of capital slop to afford a repeat of that relative
disaster. Too much competition from other audio delivery systems.
By the way, try this "backwards, living in the past" experiment: hook
your iPhone to your car's sound system and note you can get stations
from all over the world with audio quality that blows "HD Radio" away!
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
John Higdon
"RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
> The point is that it's not in stereo....and you didn't know that.
>
> Try to keep up.
List the radio stations you have built in the past fifteen years, and
the ones you are currently maintaining.
RP
> In article <heevcm$ht4$1...@aioe.org>,
> "RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>> >>Broadcasters matter because they are the ones that will decide if it
>> >>will stay.
>> >
>> > Any broadcaster that believes that is an idiot.
>>
>> Then I guess all the big companies are idiots.
>
> Now you're starting to get it.
That's what the people in the psch ward say. The problem is everyone but
me. But hey, you have an allies in HD RADIO FARTZ and IBARKCROC
>
>> Broadcasters who have the smarts know how to extend their brand...and
>> give
>> their audience more bang for the buck.
>
> Do you actually have anything to say, or are you just going to spout
> marketing jargon?
Radio is marketing, marketing to listeners and marketing to clients. Did
you forget that in the engineering shop?
>> The radios have gotten upgraded...and the signals are about to get
>> upgraded.
>> Sounds like you have a monochrome mind, and are only able to think in one
>> direction.
>
> That's nonsense. There is no mechanism to upgrade a radio that has
> already been built.
Think outside the box higdon.
A power increase will increase the performance of a radio that has already
been built.
And, as you say, sales have been dismal, so most of the radios have not been
built.
>> Apparently not. I know how it works, and I know you've been against any
>> kind of progress. I assume the business has left you in the dust.
>
> How many radio stations have you built and how many are currently
> maintaining? What are they?
5. Do you think I would put my goodwill in the hands of the anonymous
HDRADIOFARTZ?
>> Really? Step out into any major market and ask people where & how they
>> can
>> find the HD jazz station...or Classical station?
>>
>> 10 out of 10 will tell you they do not know.
>
> 10 out of 10 tell me just the opposite. Are you polling street people in
> the Tenderloin?
I just saw a focus group where none of the people knew any formats available
on HD radio. (They had heard about HD radio, but were not aware of the
formats avaialable.)
You have to get out of the engineering shop more often. Maybe they'll allow
you into the meetings upstairs.
>> How did the early commercial free or limited commercials FM's sustain
>> themselves?
>
> Subsidy from their AM sister stations.
And thats how it's working now. programming, talent, marketing being
subsidized. Just like when stations put up web pages, etc. ...or did
anything new.
>> There have been no studies that have shown that people who have listened
>> to
>> HD radio have complained about the audio quality. Unless of course you
>> can
>> point me to one.
>
> Recent NPR studies.
This did not include listeners.
>> Your comments say you are old, cranky and living in the past.
>
> And your comments say that you have absolutely no hands-on or technical
> grasp of any aspect of this matter.
And your comments say that you cannot discuss without talking down to
others, apparently due to your age, and inability to keep up with the
challenges of broadcasting today.
>> Yout (or was it HD RADIO FARTZ) mentioned it was the listeners who will
>> decide. (remember that?)
>
> Doesn't matter who spoke it if it's true. Radio (as insiders know, but
> apparently not you) is the most democratic of industries. You serve your
> audience and your clients or you die. That means you do what they (not
> you) want.
So, back to the original question. Did listeners decide if the wanted
digital TV?
> Use the same consitant logic. COntent will decide the viability of HD
>> radio. So yes, the passion people feel for the music will decide if it
>> succeeds.
>
> When's that going to happen?
When the programming is compelling, and they are made aware of it. There is
no finish line.
>> You apparently want to argue this from a purists point of view.
>> Listeners
>> are not purists. Most people nenver needed a patik-fellippe watch...a
>> timex
>> told them the time.
>
> I'm arguing from a strictly marketing point of view. If you have no
> listeners, you have no product.
Then lets not live in the past and hope listeners dont go to other
choices...let's offer them more available formats.
Right now the "prduct" has to be added choice.
>> The public did not decide if they wanted digital TV...the industry did.
>
> And look what a debacle it turned out to be.
So, unlike TV, we are not turning off the analog signals.
RP
> In article <heevcn$ht4$2...@aioe.org>,
> "RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>> The point is that it's not in stereo....and you didn't know that.
>>
>> Try to keep up.
>
> List the radio stations you have built in the past fifteen years, and
> the ones you are currently maintaining.
Currently running 5.
Ran 15 over my career.
Will HD RADIO FARTZ answer the same question?
John Higdon
"RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>That's what the people in the psch ward say. The problem is everyone but
>me.
I have plenty of successful, pioneering broadcasters who agree with me.
>But hey, you have an allies in HD RADIO FARTZ and IBARKCROC
They're not MY allies, their your sockpuppets.
>Radio is marketing, marketing to listeners and marketing to clients. Did
>you forget that in the engineering shop?
I have worked every position there is to work in a radio station, including
ownership. You? You don't even have a real name!
>> That's nonsense. There is no mechanism to upgrade a radio that has
>> already been built.
>A power increase will increase the performance of a radio that has already
>been built.
>
>And, as you say, sales have been dismal, so most of the radios have not
been
>built.
You (whoever you are) desperately need to learn a little theory. When the
stations all begin to use the "new coding", all of the radios that have
been sold up to then will be obsolete. That's a really good marketing strategy.
That will convince the public it needs to spend even MORE money! What credibility
enhancer for IBOC!
>> How many radio stations have you built and how many are currently
>> maintaining? What are they?
>
>5.
Pretty small number...but it's something. Which ones? Email me if you like.
I'm a real person with a real email address.
>I just saw a focus group where none of the people knew any formats available
>on HD radio. (They had heard about HD radio, but were not aware of the
>formats avaialable.)
Focus groups? Which one's, specifically?
>You have to get out of the engineering shop more often. Maybe they'll allow
>you into the meetings upstairs.
Meetings I always attend. I'm on the board of directors.
>And thats how it's working now. programming, talent, marketing being
>subsidized. Just like when stations put up web pages, etc. ...or did
>anything new.
Subsidies end, eventually.
>> Recent NPR studies.
>
>This did not include listeners.
Get the latest one, and read for comprehension.
>And your comments say that you cannot discuss without talking down to
>others, apparently due to your age, and inability to keep up with the
>challenges of broadcasting today.
I'd be happy to talk to you as a peer if you could give me the slightest
indication that you are one.
>Then lets not live in the past and hope listeners dont go to other
>choices...let's offer them more available formats.
Hope has nothing to do with it. The moment the -10db IBOC goes into effect,
listeners will leave radio broadcasting in droves. I'm going to love it.
>So, unlike TV, we are not turning off the analog signals.
Might as well. They'll not be receivable soon.
I noticed you chose not to comment about using an iPhone in the car as a
substitute for HD Radio. What's the matter? Stuck in the past?
John Higdon
"RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>> List the radio stations you have built in the past fifteen years, and
>> the ones you are currently maintaining.
>
>Currently running 5.
>
>Ran 15 over my career.
That's not a list, that's a number you could have pulled out of your ass.
>Will HD RADIO FARTZ answer the same question?
Will YOU answer it?
HD Radio Farce
> "John Higdon" <hi...@kome.com> wrote in message
>
> news:higgy-B81D9F....@news.announcetech.com...
>
> > "RP" <rpal...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >> The point is that it's not in stereo....and you didn't know that.
>
> >> Try to keep up.
>
> > List the radio stations you have built in the past fifteen years, and
> > the ones you are currently maintaining.
>
> Currently running 5.
>
> Ran 15 over my career.
>
> WillHD RADIOFARTZ answer the same question?
I am not even in the broadcast industry, but have learned a huge amout
about the HD Radio farce over the past two years - enough to grab the
attention of the FCC, automakers, retailers/manufacturers, iBiquity
investors, Congress, The Congressional Quarterly, media consultants,
law firms, European radio commissions, etc, and 95 countries around
the world. Eat me.
HD Radio Farce
> "RP" <rpal...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
> >That's what the people in the psch ward say. �The problem is everyone but
> >me.
>
> I have plenty of successful, pioneering broadcasters who agree with me.
>
>
> They're not MY allies, their your sockpuppets.
>
> >Radio is marketing, marketing to listeners and marketing to clients. �Did
> >you forget that in the engineering shop?
>
> I have worked every position there is to work in a radio station, including
> ownership. You? You don't even have a real name!
>
>
>
> >> That's nonsense. There is no mechanism to upgrade a radio that has
> >> already been built.
> >A power increase will increase the performance of a radio that has already
> >been built.
>
> >And, as you say, sales have been dismal, so most of the radios have not
> been
> >built.
>
> You (whoever you are) desperately need to learn a little theory. When the
> stations all begin to use the "new coding", all of the radios �that have
> been sold up to then will be obsolete. That's a really good marketing strategy.
> That will convince the public it needs to spend even MORE money! What credibility
> enhancer for IBOC!
>
> >> How many radio stations have you built and how many are currently
> >> maintaining? What are they?
>
> >5. �
>
> Pretty small number...but it's something. Which ones? Email me if you like.
> I'm a real person with a real email address.
>
> >I just saw a focus group where none of the people knew any formats available
> >formats avaialable.)
>
> Focus groups? Which one's, specifically?
>
> >You have to get out of the engineering shop more often. �Maybe they'll allow
> >you into the meetings upstairs.
>
> Meetings I always attend. I'm on the board of directors.
>
> >And thats how it's working now. �programming, talent, marketing being
> >subsidized. �Just like when stations put up web pages, etc. �...or did
> >anything new.
>
> Subsidies end, eventually.
>
> >> Recent NPR studies.
>
> >This did not include listeners.
>
> Get the latest one, and read for comprehension.
>
> >And your comments say that you cannot discuss without talking down to
> >others, apparently due to your age, and inability to keep up with the
> >challenges of broadcasting today.
>
> I'd be happy to talk to you as a peer if you could give me the slightest
> indication that you are one.
>
> >Then lets not live in the past and hope listeners dont go to other
> >choices...let's offer them more available formats.
>
> Hope has nothing to do with it. The moment the -10db IBOC goes into effect,
> listeners will leave radio broadcasting in droves. I'm going to love it.
>
> >So, unlike TV, we are not turning off the analog signals.
>
> Might as well. They'll not be receivable soon.
>
> I noticed you chose not to comment about using an iPhone in the car as a
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
> AT&T-Free
Radio Guard is supposed to be installed in all future HD radios (like
anyome is going to pay for shit programming), but will obsolete all
current HD radios. The same thing happened after multicasting was
rolled out, and it pissed of owners of previous HD radios. I've have a
warning on my blog about it - LOL!
RP
>
> "RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> List the radio stations you have built in the past fifteen years, and
>>> the ones you are currently maintaining.
>>
>>Currently running 5.
>>
>>Ran 15 over my career.
>
> That's not a list, that's a number you could have pulled out of your ass.
>
>>Will HD RADIO FARTZ answer the same question?
>
> Will YOU answer it?
When HD RADIO FARTZ comes clean, then I will be glad to do so.
Pardon me if I dont trust people on the internet not to harass me at home or
at my work. ;-)
RP
On Nov 23, 5:21?pm, "RP" <rpal...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
> "John Higdon" <hi...@kome.com> wrote in message
>
> news:higgy-B81D9F....@news.announcetech.com...
>
> > In article <heevcn$ht...@aioe.org>,
> > "RP" <rpal...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >> The point is that it's not in stereo....and you didn't know that.
>
> >> Try to keep up.
>
> > List the radio stations you have built in the past fifteen years, and
> > the ones you are currently maintaining.
>
> Currently running 5.
>
> Ran 15 over my career.
>
> WillHD RADIOFARTZ answer the same question?
>> I am not even in the broadcast industry...
Credilitiy? Zero.
A hobbyist who likes to listen to DX AM radio.
RP
>
> "RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>>That's what the people in the psch ward say. The problem is everyone but
>>me.
>
> I have plenty of successful, pioneering broadcasters who agree with me.
And plenty of sucessful responsible broadcasters who disagree with you. (In
fact most of them.)
>>But hey, you have an allies in HD RADIO FARTZ and IBARKCROC
> They're not MY allies, their your sockpuppets.
Their signing the same tune!
>>Radio is marketing, marketing to listeners and marketing to clients. Did
>>you forget that in the engineering shop?
>>> That's nonsense. There is no mechanism to upgrade a radio that has
>>> already been built.
>
>>A power increase will increase the performance of a radio that has already
>>been built.
>>
>>And, as you say, sales have been dismal, so most of the radios have not
> been built.
>
> You (whoever you are) desperately need to learn a little theory. When the
> stations all begin to use the "new coding", all of the radios that have
> been sold up to then will be obsolete.
You need to learn how to look at new ideas and solutions, and less
one-dimensional.
When a power increase happens, the radio reception will improve.
> That's a really good marketing strategy.
> That will convince the public it needs to spend even MORE money! What
> credibility
> enhancer for IBOC!
Nope. It's just giving them an extra option. They dont have to spend any
money if they dont want to. However, if they want some of the format
choices available, if it means that much for them to hear their favorite
music...then they can chose to but one if they want.
>>> How many radio stations have you built and how many are currently
>>> maintaining? What are they?
>>
>>5. Currently running 5 profitable stations. (Well, one is barely
>>profitable.)
I've run 15 different outlets over my career.
> Pretty small number...but it's something. Which ones? Email me if you
> like.
> I'm a real person with a real email address.
I'm a real person with a real email address too!
>>I just saw a focus group where none of the people knew any formats
>>available
>>on HD radio. (They had heard about HD radio, but were not aware of the
>>formats avaialable.)
>
> Focus groups? Which one's, specifically?
Each of our stations does a focus group of P1's and P2's.
We did one combined for people who listened to one of our stations on HD.
>>You have to get out of the engineering shop more often. Maybe they'll
>>allow
>>And thats how it's working now. programming, talent, marketing being
>>subsidized. Just like when stations put up web pages, etc. ...or did
>>anything new.
>
> Subsidies end, eventually.
They do! Just like they did for FM. And then the FM's subsidize the AM's.
;-)
>>> Recent NPR studies.
>>
>>This did not include listeners.
>
> Get the latest one, and read for comprehension.
Unless I read an incorrect one, there were no "listeners" involved.
You are free to point me to the one you mean.
>>And your comments say that you cannot discuss without talking down to
>>others, apparently due to your age, and inability to keep up with the
>>challenges of broadcasting today.
>
> I'd be happy to talk to you as a peer if you could give me the slightest
> indication that you are one.
Maybe if you didn't talk down to people so much and realized there are other
opinions beisdes yours, people would be more civilized to you.
You appear to be a bit of a curmudgeon, who likes to argue. So that's what
you get back. A little civility would go a long way.
>>Then lets not live in the past and hope listeners dont go to other
>>choices...let's offer them more available formats.
>
> Hope has nothing to do with it.
You're right. Especially if we do nothing.
> The moment the -10db IBOC goes into effect,
> listeners will leave radio broadcasting in droves.
That's your opinion, and apparently you believe you can tell the future
without error.
Please tell me what next weeks megamilliollions number is.
>>So, unlike TV, we are not turning off the analog signals.
>
> Might as well. They'll not be receivable soon.
Oh soothseer...please tell us more? How could we have doubted your infinite
wisdom? Oh, that's right....a lot of other engineers disagree with you. SO
your just anohte bozo on the bus with an opinion.
> I noticed you chose not to comment about using an iPhone in the car as a
> substitute for HD Radio. What's the matter? Stuck in the past?
I did comment. There are going to be lots of ways to deliver the
content...online may be one of them analog may be another, HD2's might be
another. They are not mutually exclusive of each other.
Radio should seek all the platforms it can to deliver it's content.
If someone wants to listen to one of my stations online...great! If someone
wants to listen on their phone...great! If someone wants to hear one of the
secondary formats on the back porch...maybe they can use an HD radio.
One mode is not at war with the others.
John Higdon
"RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>Pardon me if I dont trust people on the internet not to harass me at home
or
>at my work. ;-)
Nice dodge. I didn't really expect you to be real.
John Higdon
"RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>And plenty of sucessful responsible broadcasters who disagree with you.
(In
>fact most of them.)
Name one, and specify the exact points that are in disagreement.
>You need to learn how to look at new ideas and solutions, and less
>one-dimensional.
Could you be specific? Please tell me specifically how I'm wrong.
>When a power increase happens, the radio reception will improve.
The dropout point will be extended. There will be less reversion to the analog.
But the CODEC will not improve, and will be just as grungy. And, of course,
the host station's analog signal will become un-listenably noisy.
>Each of our stations does a focus group of P1's and P2's.
>
>We did one combined for people who listened to one of our stations on HD.
Which station?
>Maybe if you didn't talk down to people so much and realized there are other
>opinions beisdes yours, people would be more civilized to you.
>
>You appear to be a bit of a curmudgeon, who likes to argue. So that's what
>you get back. A little civility would go a long way.
That sounds very much like a dodge to avoid discussing the specific issues.
People who don't have any answers do things like attack the speaker himself.
Do you wish to discuss the issues? I'm not really concerned what an anonymous
nobody like you thinks about me personally.
>> The moment the -10db IBOC goes into effect,
>> listeners will leave radio broadcasting in droves.
>
>That's your opinion, and apparently you believe you can tell the future
>without error.
Let's come back after it occurs and see.
>Please tell me what next weeks megamilliollions number is.
Unlike others here, such as yourself, I do not predict things outside my
scope of knowledge.
>Oh soothseer...please tell us more? How could we have doubted your infinite
>wisdom? Oh, that's right....a lot of other engineers disagree with you.
SO
>your just anohte bozo on the bus with an opinion.
You keep saying that. Name an engineer who disagrees with me, as well as
the specific points of disagreement. You're right: I'm just another person
with an opinion. But for over forty years, many people have paid for those
opinions and not regretted doing so. Let's see if the disagreement is real
or just in your mind.
By the way, I know many knowledgeable engineers who say one thing in public
and another over lunch. They like their jobs, and the iBiquity/HD Radio Alliance
is so fraught with politics, many feel that they would lose their jobs if
they ever said anything uncomplimentary about HD Radio in public.
>I did comment. There are going to be lots of ways to deliver the
>content...online may be one of them analog may be another, HD2's might be
>another. They are not mutually exclusive of each other.
I never said they were. An increase of IBOC level will damage analog FM,
but that doesn't have to happen.
>Radio should seek all the platforms it can to deliver it's content.
I couldn't agree more.
>If someone wants to listen to one of my stations online...great! If someone
>wants to listen on their phone...great! If someone wants to hear one of
the
>secondary formats on the back porch...maybe they can use an HD radio.
If you care so little about the quality of your bread and butter analog signal,
fine. What station are you talking about?
>One mode is not at war with the others.
Not until one damages the other.
You know, until you are ready to talk specifics, there isn't much more to
say. By the way, when you name the engineers who disagree with me about IBOC,
please tell me specifically which technical points are in dispute. Maybe
I can help them understand reality. Anyone you name, I WILL contact.
RP
>
> "RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>>Pardon me if I dont trust people on the internet not to harass me at home
> or
>>at my work. ;-)
>
> Nice dodge. I didn't really expect you to be real.
> I could be real, I could be an alien, I could be your co-worker or your
> neighbor. Or I could work for iBiquity. ;-)
None of that matters. Not a dodge, but a realization that there are nuts
out there....who obsess about things like HD radio, I wouldn't take a
chance.
But you could argue the points, instead of talking down to people and
personal zingers.
John Higdon
"RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
> None of that matters. Not a dodge, but a realization that there are nuts
> out there....who obsess about things like HD radio, I wouldn't take a
> chance.
>
> But you could argue the points, instead of talking down to people and
> personal zingers.
I think you're doing a little projecting there. I bring up technical
issues with IBOC; you spout marketing jargon. I bring up actual cases of
IBOC interference to stations within their own protected contours, and
you ignore them and blow them off.
I am a known and respected member of the Bay Area broadcast community.
My accomplishments, for good or ill, are fixed in reality. I can't make
up nonsense (as you can) without people calling me on it. I am not
afraid to mention call letters (which I have), names of major players
(which I have), but you hide behind "there are nuts out there" like they
were boogeymen and give absolutely no support for anything you have to
say.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
RP
>
> "RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>>And plenty of sucessful responsible broadcasters who disagree with you.
> (In
>>fact most of them.)
>
> Name one, and specify the exact points that are in disagreement.
The chiefs of engineering at Clear Channel, CBS, Cummulus, etc.
They probably agree with your assessment that there is some degradationof
the purity of the broadcast spectrum, but disagree that the benefits
outweight the negatives. They don't see it as the begining of the end of
radio broadcasting, as you have proclaimed.
>>You need to learn how to look at new ideas and solutions, and less
>>one-dimensional.
>
> Could you be specific? Please tell me specifically how I'm wrong.
I'm not sure what the specific issue was that we were discussing at that
point in the post. :-(
>>When a power increase happens, the radio reception will improve.
>
> The dropout point will be extended. There will be less reversion to the
> analog.
> But the CODEC will not improve, and will be just as grungy. And, of
> course,
> the host station's analog signal will become un-listenably noisy.
Wether it will be "un-listenably noisy" enough to make a difference among
the listening public is something that we'll have to wait and see. You have
come to the conclusion that it will make it "un-listenable"...others
disagree. I can respect your opinion as valid. I hear other valid
arguments as well. I'm willing to give it a shot.
> That sounds very much like a dodge to avoid discussing the specific
> issues.
No. But your quesdtion asks me more specific questions about my
comp;etitive situation that I am not going to tip my hand to.
> People who don't have any answers do things like attack the speaker
> himself.
I have lots of answers. Which ones do you want? But my points about your
posting style and discussion technique are simply constructive criticism.
> Do you wish to discuss the issues? I'm not really concerned what an
> anonymous
> nobody like you thinks about me personally.
Good for you! But you'll find more people willing to discuss, if you don't
talk down to others like you are the only one with understanding and
experience in the field.
>>> The moment the -10db IBOC goes into effect,
>>> listeners will leave radio broadcasting in droves.
>>
>>That's your opinion, and apparently you believe you can tell the future
>>without error.
>
> Let's come back after it occurs and see.
Deal! ;-)
>>Please tell me what next weeks megamilliollions number is.
>
> Unlike others here, such as yourself, I do not predict things outside my
> scope of knowledge.
What have I predicted? I dont think I've made any predictions aabout the
future.
> You keep saying that. Name an engineer who disagrees with me, as well as
> the specific points of disagreement.
Cheifs of Engineering at CBS, CC, Citadel, Bonneville, Cummulus, etc.
I am not going to argue for them or speak for them.
> You're right: I'm just another person
> with an opinion. But for over forty years, many people have paid for those
> opinions and not regretted doing so.
Same here. almost the same amount of experience. And I have done very well
for myself.
> Let's see if the disagreement is real
> or just in your mind.
Like I said, I thinkwe agree on many issues...but you seem to want to
squash HD radio like a bug. I'm willing to give it a go.
>>I did comment. There are going to be lots of ways to deliver the
>>content...online may be one of them analog may be another, HD2's might be
>>another. They are not mutually exclusive of each other.
>
> I never said they were.
Good another thing we agree on. ;-)
> An increase of IBOC level will damage analog FM,
> but that doesn't have to happen.
The question is will it be enough to make a difference. SOme people
complain that MP3's are lacking in sound quality. But the public doesn't
care and the popularity of the (lesser quality) MP3 format has exploded.
(with one person controlling the licenses.)
>>Radio should seek all the platforms it can to deliver it's content.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
Great!
>>If someone wants to listen to one of my stations online...great! If
>>someone
>
>>wants to listen on their phone...great! If someone wants to hear one of
> the
>>secondary formats on the back porch...maybe they can use an HD radio.
>
> If you care so little about the quality of your bread and butter analog
> signal,
> fine.
I care about compelling content. And I care enough about the quality of my
bread and butter signal to be concerned. But, again, when I see women in
offices listening off of crappy little speakers online, I realize that
superiro quality is not theprimary issue.
>>One mode is not at war with the others.
>
> Not until one damages the other.
(There are many good engineers who dont think that will happen.)
BTW...I thought we were gonna wait and see hows that turns out?
> You know, until you are ready to talk specifics, there isn't much more to
> say.
If you want to talk about how many angels will dance on a pin, there isn't
much more to say.
> By the way, when you name the engineers who disagree with me about IBOC,
> please tell me specifically which technical points are in dispute. Maybe
> I can help them understand reality. Anyone you name, I WILL contact.
Maybe they dont want to talk to you. Maybe they already understand your
position and disagree with your conclusions. ;-)
But, apprantly you are like a findamentalist preacher, who believes reality
is only what he percieves it to be....and what matters is only what he
thinks matters.
John Higdon
"RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
> The chiefs of engineering at Clear Channel, CBS, Cummulus, etc.
I don't see a name in there.
> They probably agree with your assessment that there is some degradationof
> the purity of the broadcast spectrum, but disagree that the benefits
> outweight the negatives. They don't see it as the begining of the end of
> radio broadcasting, as you have proclaimed.
I guess they're entitled to their public opinions. Whoever they are.
> I'm not sure what the specific issue was that we were discussing at that
> point in the post. :-(
Another dodge? When you get nailed down, you conveniently forget what it
is you were talking about!
> Wether it will be "un-listenably noisy" enough to make a difference among
> the listening public is something that we'll have to wait and see. You have
> come to the conclusion that it will make it "un-listenable"...others
> disagree. I can respect your opinion as valid. I hear other valid
> arguments as well. I'm willing to give it a shot.
OK. I, on the other hand, believe that risking major damage to an entire
industry is unacceptable.
> No. But your quesdtion asks me more specific questions about my
> comp;etitive situation that I am not going to tip my hand to.
Oh, puhlease! I haven't heard that line since the sixties. That's dodge
number two in this post alone. For the record, I simply asked for your
call letters.
> I have lots of answers. Which ones do you want? But my points about your
> posting style and discussion technique are simply constructive criticism.
So will you now answer my questions about the obsolete CODEC, IBOC noise
re-growth, the host analog noise problem, the interference (now
occurring) to FM stations within their 70dbu contours?
> Good for you! But you'll find more people willing to discuss, if you don't
> talk down to others like you are the only one with understanding and
> experience in the field.
I have discussions here all the time...with people who actually discuss
anything.
> What have I predicted? I dont think I've made any predictions aabout the
> future.
You seem to be willing to risk the future of broadcasting on the notion
that IBOC will not destroy the host that feeds it.
> Cheifs of Engineering at CBS, CC, Citadel, Bonneville, Cummulus, etc.
>
> I am not going to argue for them or speak for them.
You already have asserted what their positions are. Names? Dodge #3.
> Same here. almost the same amount of experience. And I have done very well
> for myself.
I am John Higdon. I have worked at or on just about every station in the
Bay Area at one time or another. I am currently involved with stations
at Nextmedia, Coast Radio, Empire Broadcasting and Duarte Broadcasting.
I have worked for Clear Channel (San Jose cluster), CBS (south bay), as
well as a half-dozen local owners. That's the short list. My email
address is at the top of this post and my real, main phone number is at
the bottom. And you are???
Oh, that's right...the boogeymen will get you if you tell me.
> Like I said, I thinkwe agree on many issues...but you seem to want to
> squash HD radio like a bug. I'm willing to give it a go.
I have no idea who you are. I have no idea what we agree on.
> The question is will it be enough to make a difference. SOme people
> complain that MP3's are lacking in sound quality. But the public doesn't
> care and the popularity of the (lesser quality) MP3 format has exploded.
> (with one person controlling the licenses.)
Test show that they will. That you can't seem to find the tests is not
my problem. What you think doesn't matter in the world of reality.
> I care about compelling content.
Really! What do you consider to be "compelling content"?
> Maybe they dont want to talk to you. Maybe they already understand your
> position and disagree with your conclusions. ;-)
Then they can speak for themselves and tell me so. In fact, I just might
already be on a first name basis with them...and that is what you are
afraid of, isn't it?
> But, apprantly you are like a findamentalist preacher, who believes reality
> is only what he percieves it to be....and what matters is only what he
> thinks matters.
I'm the one who is ready and willing to talk to real people to discuss
real issues. You are the one who cannot seem to ever talk real issues,
mention real radio stations, or give names of the very people appear to
hide behind. You tell me that so much as telling me what station you are
talking about is "revealing competitive strategy". Funny how at the SBE
Chapter 40 monthly meeting the Bay Area's engineers can talk in detail
about their operations, but you can't even so much as mention your call
letters.
You are a fake and a fraud.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
RP
>
> "RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>>And plenty of sucessful responsible broadcasters who disagree with you.
> (In
>>fact most of them.)
>
> Name one, and specify the exact points that are in disagreement.
The chiefs of engineering at Clear Channel, CBS, Cummulus, etc.
They probably agree with your assessment that there is some degradationof
the purity of the broadcast spectrum, but disagree that the benefits
outweight the negatives. They don't see it as the begining of the end of
radio broadcasting, as you have proclaimed.
>>You need to learn how to look at new ideas and solutions, and less
>>one-dimensional.
>
> Could you be specific? Please tell me specifically how I'm wrong.
I'm not sure what the specific issue was that we were discussing at that
point in the post. :-(
>>When a power increase happens, the radio reception will improve.
>
> The dropout point will be extended. There will be less reversion to the
> analog.
> But the CODEC will not improve, and will be just as grungy. And, of
> course,
> the host station's analog signal will become un-listenably noisy.
Wether it will be "un-listenably noisy" enough to make a difference among
the listening public is something that we'll have to wait and see. You have
come to the conclusion that it will make it "un-listenable"...others
disagree. I can respect your opinion as valid. I hear other valid
arguments as well. I'm willing to give it a shot.
> That sounds very much like a dodge to avoid discussing the specific
> issues.
No. But your quesdtion asks me more specific questions about my
comp;etitive situation that I am not going to tip my hand to.
> People who don't have any answers do things like attack the speaker
> himself.
I have lots of answers. Which ones do you want? But my points about your
posting style and discussion technique are simply constructive criticism.
> Do you wish to discuss the issues? I'm not really concerned what an
> anonymous
> nobody like you thinks about me personally.
Good for you! But you'll find more people willing to discuss, if you don't
talk down to others like you are the only one with understanding and
experience in the field.
>>> The moment the -10db IBOC goes into effect,
>>> listeners will leave radio broadcasting in droves.
>>
>>That's your opinion, and apparently you believe you can tell the future
>>without error.
>
> Let's come back after it occurs and see.
Deal! ;-)
>>Please tell me what next weeks megamilliollions number is.
>
> Unlike others here, such as yourself, I do not predict things outside my
> scope of knowledge.
What have I predicted? I dont think I've made any predictions aabout the
future.
> You keep saying that. Name an engineer who disagrees with me, as well as
> the specific points of disagreement.
Cheifs of Engineering at CBS, CC, Citadel, Bonneville, Cummulus, etc.
I am not going to argue for them or speak for them.
> You're right: I'm just another person
> with an opinion. But for over forty years, many people have paid for those
> opinions and not regretted doing so.
Same here. almost the same amount of experience. And I have done very well
for myself.
> Let's see if the disagreement is real
> or just in your mind.
Like I said, I thinkwe agree on many issues...but you seem to want to
squash HD radio like a bug. I'm willing to give it a go.
>>I did comment. There are going to be lots of ways to deliver the
>>content...online may be one of them analog may be another, HD2's might be
>>another. They are not mutually exclusive of each other.
>
> I never said they were.
Good another thing we agree on. ;-)
> An increase of IBOC level will damage analog FM,
> but that doesn't have to happen.
The question is will it be enough to make a difference. SOme people
complain that MP3's are lacking in sound quality. But the public doesn't
care and the popularity of the (lesser quality) MP3 format has exploded.
(with one person controlling the licenses.)
>>Radio should seek all the platforms it can to deliver it's content.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
Great!
>>If someone wants to listen to one of my stations online...great! If
>>someone
>
>>wants to listen on their phone...great! If someone wants to hear one of
> the
>>secondary formats on the back porch...maybe they can use an HD radio.
>
> If you care so little about the quality of your bread and butter analog
> signal,
> fine.
I care about compelling content. And I care enough about the quality of my
bread and butter signal to be concerned. But, again, when I see women in
offices listening off of crappy little speakers online, I realize that
superiro quality is not theprimary issue.
>>One mode is not at war with the others.
>
> Not until one damages the other.
(There are many good engineers who dont think that will happen.)
BTW...I thought we were gonna wait and see hows that turns out?
> You know, until you are ready to talk specifics, there isn't much more to
> say.
If you want to talk about how many angels will dance on a pin, there isn't
much more to say.
> By the way, when you name the engineers who disagree with me about IBOC,
> please tell me specifically which technical points are in dispute. Maybe
> I can help them understand reality. Anyone you name, I WILL contact.
Maybe they dont want to talk to you. Maybe they already understand your
position and disagree with your conclusions. ;-)
But, apprantly you are like a findamentalist preacher, who believes reality
RP
> In article <hel7ak$93h$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "RP" <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>> The chiefs of engineering at Clear Channel, CBS, Cummulus, etc.
>
> I don't see a name in there.
I'm not doing your homework for you. If you want to find someone at the
largest companies to argue with, look it up. ...and good luck in trying to
get through to them. One google search will show them your lack of
understanding of todays broadcast world.
>> They probably agree with your assessment that there is some degradationof
>> the purity of the broadcast spectrum, but disagree that the benefits
>> outweight the negatives. They don't see it as the begining of the end of
>> radio broadcasting, as you have proclaimed.
>
> I guess they're entitled to their public opinions. Whoever they are.
And you are as well.
>> I'm not sure what the specific issue was that we were discussing at that
>> point in the post. :-(
>
> Another dodge? When you get nailed down, you conveniently forget what it
> is you were talking about!
Nope, not a dodge at all, you had eliminated the vital quote in your
'trimming'...so no one can be sure what point you were referring to.
>> Wether it will be "un-listenably noisy" enough to make a difference among
>> the listening public is something that we'll have to wait and see. You
>> have
>> come to the conclusion that it will make it "un-listenable"...others
>> disagree. I can respect your opinion as valid. I hear other valid
>> arguments as well. I'm willing to give it a shot.
>
> OK. I, on the other hand, believe that risking major damage to an entire
> industry is unacceptable.
And others (those in control) believe that it ISN'T risking major damage.
They are free to believe what they want, and you are free to believe what
you want.
>> No. But your quesdtion asks me more specific questions about my
>> comp;etitive situation that I am not going to tip my hand to.
>
> Oh, puhlease! I haven't heard that line since the sixties. That's dodge
> number two in this post alone. For the record, I simply asked for your
> call letters.
And for the record, I am not willing to risk my competitive situation, or my
financial situtaion to newsgroup numbnuts.
>> I have lots of answers. Which ones do you want? But my points about
>> your
>> posting style and discussion technique are simply constructive criticism.
>
> So will you now answer my questions about the obsolete CODEC...
It's not an agreed upon fact that it is obsolete. It's just yur opinion.
> IBOC noise
No measurable listner complaints. It's just your imagination.
> re-growth...
What about it?
> the host analog noise problem, the interference (now
> occurring) to FM stations within their 70dbu contours?
They are few and far between. If people want to quote the WYSL situation,
it's a flawed facility. The situation with KFMB? One station has been
operating under an interference waiver for years.
>> Good for you! But you'll find more people willing to discuss, if you
>> don't
>> talk down to others like you are the only one with understanding and
>> experience in the field.
>
> I have discussions here all the time...with people who actually discuss
> anything.
Great!
>> What have I predicted? I dont think I've made any predictions aabout the
>> future.
>
> You seem to be willing to risk the future of broadcasting on the notion
> that IBOC will not destroy the host that feeds it.
Was that a prediction? What I think I have been saying is that there are
more people who have a lot more at rish thatn who, who do not believe it is
a major risk. There have been marketing, engineering, and perceptuals and
focus groups. ALong with independent technical research by every major
company...and they don't believe it's a major risk.
If it does become an issue....they can always cease.
>> Cheifs of Engineering at CBS, CC, Citadel, Bonneville, Cummulus, etc.
>>
>> I am not going to argue for them or speak for them.
>
> You already have asserted what their positions are. Names? Dodge #3.
Their positions are public knowledge. Look up their names if you want to..
Better yet, give them a call, and see if they'll waste their time with you.
>> Same here. almost the same amount of experience. And I have done very
>> well
>> for myself.
>
> I am John Higdon. I have worked at or on just about every station in the
> Bay Area at one time or another.
Good for you.
> Oh, that's right...the boogeymen will get you if you tell me.
Or mad dog nutcakes like HD RADIO FARTZ, IBARKCRAP, and the guy at WTSL.
They have all rpoven to be nutcakes.
>> Like I said, I thinkwe agree on many issues...but you seem to want to
>> squash HD radio like a bug. I'm willing to give it a go.
>
> I have no idea who you are. I have no idea what we agree on.
You dont have to know who I am. If you want to know what we agreee on,
re-read the posts.
>> The question is will it be enough to make a difference. SOme people
>> complain that MP3's are lacking in sound quality. But the public doesn't
>> care and the popularity of the (lesser quality) MP3 format has exploded.
>> (with one person controlling the licenses.)
>
> Test show that they will. That you can't seem to find the tests is not
> my problem. What you think doesn't matter in the world of reality.
SOME test have shown what you claim, other tests have shown otherwise...and
once again, there is no test that shows listeners complaining aboput IBOC.
That you can't p[rovide said tests says a lot.
What I think matters, beauce my radio stations do what I tell them. But you
are free to ignore my posts if you like. I'm just here playing rope-a-dope
with you.
>> I care about compelling content.
>
> Really! What do you consider to be "compelling content"?
Any format that will garner listeners.
>> Maybe they dont want to talk to you. Maybe they already understand your
>> position and disagree with your conclusions. ;-)
>
> Then they can speak for themselves and tell me so. In fact, I just might
> already be on a first name basis with them...and that is what you are
> afraid of, isn't it?
Not at all. If so, say so.
>> But, apprantly you are like a findamentalist preacher, who believes
>> reality
>> is only what he percieves it to be....and what matters is only what he
>> thinks matters.
>
> I'm the one who is ready and willing to talk to real people to discuss
> real issues.
No, not really. You say you discuss issues, but anyone who comes to a
different conclusion is called a name....so much for discussion of the
issues.
> You are the one who cannot seem to ever talk real issues,
> mention real radio stations, or give names of the very people appear to
> hide behind.
I'm not hiding behind anyone. They speak for themselves. Maybe you are
just afraid that they are dismissive of the issues you cling to.
>You tell me that so much as telling me what station you are
> talking about is "revealing competitive strategy". Funny how at the SBE
> Chapter 40 monthly meeting the Bay Area's engineers can talk in detail
> about their operations, but you can't even so much as mention your call
> letters.
Nope, not with people who are mentally unstable, and obviously have a lot of
time on their hands.
> You are a fake and a fraud.
You'll never know, will you.
You are an old fart that is living in the past, afrazid that the technical
world is passing you by. You can't seem to comprehend that there are
reliable educated people who come to a different conclusion than you.
Again, you remind me of a fundamentalist, who believes one thing...and can't
accept that anyone else with much debate and thought comes to a different
conclusion. That's where this who discussion has gone.
However, you are free to ignore my posts.....and put me in your killfile.
But like a good fundametalist, you cvcan't let it alone! ;-)