Beating a dead-horse - FM-HD power increase won't help much
IBOCcrock
and Alternative...I usually listen to it when Satellite is not
available to me, example in malls or on the go when I can pick it
up,...and due to the lousy Christmas selection this year on T-radio I
have been listening to them more often, 97-5 HD-2 is not an easy catch
in most spots...I guess HD is very unpredictable... they did get the
power upgrade permission, so why are they still so weak..."
"In many cases, new transmitters need to be ordered."
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,157776.msg1339326.html#msg1339326
I remember those coverage maps submitted by iNiquity under Docker
99-325, after tests for
-10db. Made very little difference in coverage. In this economy - LOL!
RP
> I remember those coverage maps submitted by iNiquity under Docker
> 99-325, after tests for -10db. Made very little difference in coverage. In
> this economy - LOL!
We shall see won't we! LOL!
Maybe we need a BIGGER increase! LMAO!
(Thanks for the re-post from ANOTHER anonymous source, the R-I haterz board!
LOL!)
HD Radio Farce
"Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
"To wit, how many existing installations will have sufficient headroom
to implement the increase without significant retooling of
transmission hardware?.. Some simply won't make it with their existing
transmitters, and plant cooling capacity will also have to be bumped
up along with electrical power mains service, and back-up generating
plant output... Those using high level combining schemes will face
similar issues, as reject loads, digital transmitters, etc., will all
have to be upsized... One thing's for certain: approval of a 6dB HD
digital boost will mean lots of extra hours, as managers and owners
task their engineers with delivering a wee bit more digital drive
without melting down already overheated corporate budgets. For many,
actually making it happen is likely to be an agonizing process."
LOL!
RP
"HD Radio Farce" <hdradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d6d18156-08ae-439b...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 29, 4:38?pm, "RP" <rpal...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
> > I remember those coverage maps submitted by iNiquity under Docker
> > 99-325, after tests for -10db. Made very little difference in coverage.
> > In
> > this economy - LOL!
>
>
> Maybe we need a BIGGER increase! ?LMAO!
>
> (Thanks for the re-post from ANOTHER anonymous source, the R-I haterz
> board!
> LOL!)
> "Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
LOL!
In a development that could vastly improve HD Radio signal reception
and propel the digital radio service forward, iBiquity and NPR have
reached an agreement for an HD power increase. It would give all HD
FMs a FOUR-FOLD POWER HIKE, but some stations could get an EVEN BIGGER
BUMP."
Tom Lemos
<rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
But if no one is listening, what does it matter?
John Higdon
Tom Lemos <toml...@tomlemos.com> wrote:
> > In a development that could vastly improve HD Radio signal reception
> > and propel the digital radio service forward, iBiquity and NPR have
> > reached an agreement for an HD power increase. It would give all HD
> > FMs a FOUR-FOLD POWER HIKE, but some stations could get an EVEN BIGGER
> > BUMP."
> >
> >
>
> But if no one is listening, what does it matter?
I've killfiled all that astroturfing noise, but thanks for responding
for me! As I have said before, iBiquity and all of its sycophants can
thrash around increasing this and reducing that, but without some
interest on the part of the public, it is just masturbation without the
happy ending.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
HD Radio Farce
> In article <C73C8FD2.8D93%tomle...@tomlemos.com>,
Don't forget NPR and the FCC is that circle-jerk - LOL!
SMS
<snip>
> But if no one is listening, what does it matter?
You're not looking at the big picture.
HD is in a stage quite similar to the early days of analog FM. There
were no FM receivers in cars, and only enthusiasts were interested in
the sparse FM offerings. It literally took decades for FM to take off.
FM radio began in the 1930's, and by the early 1940's there were still
only about 50 FM stations, many of which shut down by the end of the
1940's because television replaced radio as the entertainment medium.
FM really didn't come into its own until portable FM radios become
common in the late 1960's then there was a huge increase in the number
of stations when FM receivers became standard equipment in mass market
vehicles, in the 1970's, eventually relegating AM to talk radio and
sports where audio quality was less important.
HD has been on a much steeper adoption curve in its first six years than
FM was in its first six years. The power increase combined with the
increasing number of vehicle makers that are including HD as standard
equipment makes it look more and more that HD will be successful. Just
as with FM, higher end vehicles are including HD as standard equipment
first, and the mass market manufacturers will follow in a few years. Of
course one of the advantages that HD has over FM is that the cost of the
electronics to add HD capability to FM receivers is very small.
Similarly, the cost for an FM broadcaster to add HD sub-channels is
miniscule compared to what it cost to launch an FM radio station back in
the olden days.
The experts expect HD radio to do to analog FM what analog FM did to AM.
As HD becomes standard equipment on vehicles, and older vehicles are
replaced with newer HD equipped vehicles, you'll see FM music stations
moving their music offerings to the HD sub-channels and using their
analog FM for other offerings where sound quality is of lower
importance. This will not happen overnight of course. Just as with FM,
the migration to HD radio will occur over a couple of decades.
Higdon and Farce are in denial. You expect it from Farce, but Higdon
really needs to take his head out of the sand and get with the program.
HD Radio Farce
HD Radio is hampered by costly royalty fees to iBiquity. It costs the
automakers about $45 per HD radio to install:
"U.S. automakers not jumping into HD Radio"
"The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install, or each
of the three carmakers about $150 million to $200 million annually,
automotive industry sources said."
With General Motors installing standard Internet, and with Chryslet
also installing Internet (with other surely to follow), HD Radio will
be bypassed all together:
"Chrysler announces wireless Internet access in 2009 models"
"Fourth, that tiny whimper you just heard was the final gasp of HD
Radio. Time to move on to the real challenges, radio. Fifth, why do I
want a satellite radio when an Internet-enabled device offers so much
more? Based on the importance of the auto listening audience to
radio's sales equation, there are few questions more important than
these."
http://www.hear2.com/2008/06/chrysler-announ.html
One can't compare the emergence of HD Radio to that of analog FM - HD
Radio is simply more of the same, and actually, an inferior
technology. Another difference is that iBiquity must be floated for
years, and HD Radio conversions are prohibitedly expensive, with on-
going royalty payments, and increased electrical and maintenance
bills. At best, HD Radio will remain a luxery item with automakers
that can hide the costs to consumers in expensive vehicles. Many of
these luxery vehicles include HD Radio in $2000 - $4000 sound systems,
only. iBiquity is nothing but a drain on broadcasters. John is smart
to stay clear of the fraud and farce.
HD Radio Farce
Automakers are probably regretting HD Radio, now:
If you check the BMW message boards, they are filled with HD Radio
complaints.
RP
>> Don't forget NPR and the FCC is that circle-jerk - LOL!
I thought you put all your faith into NPR Labs and their recommendations!
LMAO!
RP
"Tom Lemos" <toml...@tomlemos.com> wrote in message
news:C73C8FD2.8D93%toml...@tomlemos.com...
Who was listening "in stereo" when stations started doing that?
RP
"John Higdon" <hi...@kome.com> wrote in message
news:higgy-E05E5C....@news.announcetech.com...
Well, with HD there is no "happy ending"...there is no finish line.
Just like when FM started, the public had little use or need for it...until
it became standard equipment, and the programming increased and got better.
HD Haterz are funny and obsessive.
RP
> replaced with newer HD equipped vehicles, you'll see FM music stations
> moving their music offerings to the HD sub-channels and using their
> analog FM for other offerings where sound quality is of lower
> importance. This will not happen overnight of course. Just as with FM,
> the migration to HD radio will occur over a couple of decades.
>
> Higdon and Farce are in denial. You expect it from Farce, but Higdon
> really needs to take his head out of the sand and get with the program.
> HD Radio is hampered by costly royalty fees to iBiquity. It costs the
> automakers about $45 per HD radio to install:
Wrong, this is not true. Which is why there are $79 + $35 radio's
available.
BTW...How much did FM cost per install? - LOL!
RP
> Higdon and Farce are in denial. You expect it from Farce, but Higdon
> really needs to take his head out of the sand and get with the program.
Higdon claims he just killfiled all HD topics...How's that for sticking your
head in the sand?! LOL
> If you check the BMW message boards, they are filled with HD Radio
>complaints.
I think my first auto FM radio had the same "troubleshooting guide" for FM!
SMS
> Just like when FM started, the public had little use or need for it...until
> it became standard equipment, and the programming increased and got better.
>
> HD Haterz are funny and obsessive.
You expect it from Farce, but for Higdon to put his head in the sand
with his kill-filing, and his obsession with what leads up to the "happy
ending" is rather bizarre.
SMS
> Wrong, this is not true. Which is why there are $79 + $35 radio's
> available.
>
> BTW...How much did FM cost per install? - LOL!
The actual extra cost to automakers, per receiver, is about $5. If you
purchase an HD radio receiver in the after-market, and identically
equipped model with HD sells for about $10 more than the non-HD model.
However $5 is a huge amount of money to an automobile manufacturer like
Toyota or Honda when they can't raise the price because of a feature
that buyers expect to be included. Probably no one decides on which
vehicle to buy based on the presence or absence of an HD radio, at least
not yet. Luxury car buyers expect HD to be there, but non-luxury buyers
do not.
HD Radio Farce
"U.S. automakers not jumping into HD Radio"
"The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install, or each
of the three carmakers about $150 million to $200 million annually,
automotive industry sources said."
Who's coaching you - Bob Struble? LOL! Or, maybe you are Bob Struble,
since we shut down his Twittering - LOL!
RP
> > available.
>
> > BTW...How much did FM cost per install? - LOL!
>
> The actual extra cost to automakers, per receiver, is about $5. If you
> purchase an HD radio receiver in the after-market, and identically
> equipped model with HD sells for about $10 more than the non-HD model.
>
> However $5 is a huge amount of money to an automobile manufacturer like
> Toyota or Honda when they can't raise the price because of a feature
> that buyers expect to be included. Probably no one decides on which
> vehicle to buy based on the presence or absence of an HD radio, at least
> not yet. Luxury car buyers expect HD to be there, but non-luxury buyers
> do not.
>>"The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install, or each
of the three carmakers about $150 million to $200 million annually,
automotive industry sources said."
>>
Again...how much did FM radio's cost to install?
Didn't hamper that technology did it? LOL!
SMS
<snip>
> Again...how much did FM radio's cost to install?
>
> Didn't hamper that technology did it? LOL!
Remember, Mr. Farce is citing a 2.5 year old article that states that
the HD radios would cost $45 to install. But what's left unsaid is that
the non-HD radios don't cost $0 to install. The typical standard sound
system in a vehicle is now an AM/FM/CD player which has a cost to the
manufacturer of around $30. So the cost difference, 2.5 years ago, was
about $15. Now it's much less, around $5. Interesting that he has to
resort to such lame lies to try to prove a point he's unable to prove.
Indeed, the FM radio cost is a valid comparison. It cost the automakers
much more than $5 when they went from AM radios to AM/FM radios, and the
percentage of FM stations out of the total number of radio stations was
about the same as the percentage of HD stations out of the total number
of FM stations. OTOH, back then, the attitude was "I'm not buying a car
without an AM/FM radio" whereas were not to the point yet where many
people would not buy a car simply because it lacked an HD radio.
Presently 17% of FM stations have deployed HD. Once the power increase
is approved this is predicted to quickly rise to 60%, then level off at
about 80%, with rural stations probably not adding HD.
Dave Barnett
>
> Just like when FM started, the public had little use or need for it...until
> it became standard equipment, and the programming increased and got better.
>
in its own little zone for the experimenters and elitists. If HD did
not broadcast on top of existing stations there wouldn't be the
resistance on the part of those who understand interference.
As it sits now, people hear static on their radio. So they switch to
MP3 players, podcasts, and online streaming. They are lost as a radio
audience. In contrast, FM radio did not cause people to switch from AM
to phonograph records.
Dave B.
HD Radio Farce
"Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
"To wit, how many existing installations will have sufficient headroom
to implement the increase without significant retooling of
transmission hardware?.. Some simply won't make it with their existing
transmitters, and plant cooling capacity will also have to be bumped
up along with electrical power mains service, and back-up generating
plant output... Those using high level combining schemes will face
similar issues, as reject loads, digital transmitters, etc., will all
have to be upsized... One thing's for certain: approval of a 6dB HD
digital boost will mean lots of extra hours, as managers and owners
task their engineers with delivering a wee bit more digital drive
without melting down already overheated corporate budgets. For many,
actually making it happen is likely to be an agonizing process."
Only in your wet-dreams, Bob - LOL!
HD Radio Farce
Yup, listeners will have no clue the interference is being caused by
IBOC, and will simply turn to other entertainment mediums, while
terrestrial radio makes its final leap into the toilet - good riddance.
HD Radio Farce
"U.S. automakers not jumping into HD Radio"
"The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install, or each
of the three carmakers about $150 million to $200 million annually,
automotive industry sources said."
During iBiquity's attempt at forcing their failed technology into
Satrad radios, the FCC looked into iBqiuity's claim that HD radios
cost only $12 to install, but the FCC called their bluff, after
finding out that they cost at lease $45 to install, or more.
SMS
> As it sits now, people hear static on their radio. So they switch to
> MP3 players, podcasts, and online streaming. They are lost as a radio
> audience.
In reality, HD Radio attracts a whole new audience, one that left for
MP3 players, iPods, CDs, and satellite radio. I used to connect my
phone/MP3 player to the car stereo a lot more than I do now. The quality
of the HD Radio broadcasts is so high that it's just easier. OTOH if I'm
going to non-urban areas then I'll connect the phone/MP3 player, via
Bluetooth, to the car stereo.
You may lose a few listeners of low power FM stations when the HD power
increase is approved and stations up their power, but it's a small
number of listeners. For regular FM stations the interference complaints
are non-existent, inside the protected contours of the station.
Yeah, it'd be nice to have a whole separate band for digital radio, or
to have a deadline for turning off analog radio and let digital have the
whole FM band, but that's not going to happen so we're left with a
hybrid system for the foreseeable future.
Dave Barnett
> I used to connect my
> phone/MP3 player to the car stereo a lot more than I do now. The quality
> of the HD Radio broadcasts is so high that it's just easier.
You're obviously not in the Bay Area. I haven't heard anything
high-quality out of our HD channels yet. At least nothing nearly as
good as the signals we lost. Maybe someday that good quality will
filter down to market 4.
Dave B.
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>
>> I used to connect my phone/MP3 player to the car stereo a lot more
>> than I do now. The quality of the HD Radio broadcasts is so high that
>> it's just easier.
>
> You're obviously not in the Bay Area.
I most certainly am in the Bay Area, and the Bay Area's no different
than the rest of the country aside from some terrain issues.
Without the FM multipath distortion HD sounds awesome. When I first got
the receiver with HD my wife asked me if I was playing a CD! I hope the
remaining FM stations sign on to HD ASAP, and that everyone ups their
power when allowed to do so. And I'm saying this as someone that bought
a receiver not caring whether it had HD or not, thinking I'd never
bother with it. Now I'm hooked.
I'm curious, do you actually have an HD Radio, or do you just
complaining about HD?
Here's a list of the HD stations just in the SF Bay area:
KQED-HD 88.5 FM Nws/Tlk/Inf, KQED, Inc.
KCSM-HD 91.1 FM Jazz, San Mateo County Community College
KALW-HD 91.7 FM Nws/Tlk/Inf, San Francisco Unified
KSJO-HD 92.3 FM Span/Oldes, Clear Channel
KSJO-HD2 92.3-2 FM Hispanic Hits, Clear Channel
KYLD-HD 94.9 FM Rhymc/Top40, Clear Channel
KYLD-HD2 94.9-2 FM FuZic, Clear Channel
KBWF-HD 95.7 FM Country, Entercom Communications Corp.
KBWF-HD2 95.7-2 FM Country, Entercom Communications Corp.
KOIT-HD 96.5 FM AC, Entercom Communications Corp.
KOIT-HD2 96.5-2 FM 50's 60's oldies, Entercom
KLLC-HD 97.3 FM AC, CBS Radio
KLLC-HD2 97.3-2 FM Chill, CBS Radio
KISQ-HD 98.1 FM Rhythm/Blue, Clear Channel
KISQ-HD2 98.1-2 FM Classic Hip Hop, Clear Channel
KSOL-HD 98.9 FM Mexican, Univision Radio
KSOL-HD2 98.9-2 FM Spanish, Univision Radio
KMVQ-HD 99.7 FM Rhymc/AC, CBS Radio
KMVQ-HD2 99.7-2 FM Pulse Radio, CBS Radio
KBRG-HD 100.3 FM Span/Oldes, Univision Radio
KBRG-HD2 100.3-2 FM Spanish, Univision Radio
KIOI-HD 101.3 FM Hot AC, Clear Channel
KIOI-HD2 101.3-2 FM Pride Radio, Clear Channel
KDFC-HD 102.1 FM Classical, Entercom Communications Corp.
KDFC-HD2 102.1-2 FM Classical Deep Cuts, Entercom
KKSF-HD 103.7 FM Clsc Hits, Clear Channel
KKSF-HD2 103.7-2 FM Oldies, Clear Channel
KFOG-HD 104.5 FM Album Adult Alternative, Cumulus Media
KFOG-HD2 104.5-2 FM The New Music Matrix, Cumulus Media
KITS-HD 105.3 FM Alternative, CBS Radio
KITS-HD2 105.3-2 FM Classic Alternative, CBS Radio
KITS-HD3 105.3-3 FM Last.fm Discover, CBS Radio
KMEL-HD 106.1 FM HpHop/RhyBl, Clear Channel
Dave Barnett
> I'm curious, do you actually have an HD Radio, or do you just
> complaining about HD?
I have three HD radios - 2 mobiles and a Sony in the house. I ordered
one of those Big Red things too. The surprising thing is that the Sony
is actually an excellent analog radio - when the analog signals aren't
covered in hash. But I'm still hopeful. I honestly think HD has
promise if two things happen:
1) The programmers really put some effort into it
and
2) They get rid of the cascaded compression in the audio chains
> Here's a list of the HD stations just in the SF Bay area:
>
It's pretty accurate - a few are incorrect and you're missing bone2 -
arguably one of the brighter spots in terms of programming. But we lost
our Americana station, an excellent AAA signal, and an active rock
station. Those are just the ones my wife & I used to listen to. But
we've moved on, and found lots better stuff on the Internet now that
radio isn't that great any more.
Oh - and for amusement - try 92.7. That one is KREV in analog mode, but
when the HD locks you get country from the Monterey Bay. Yeah, it only
happens outside of the "protected contour" down towards Milpitas. But
it's still amusing.
Dave B.
John Higdon
Dave Barnett <dave.db...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> You're obviously not in the Bay Area. I haven't heard anything
> high-quality out of our HD channels yet. At least nothing nearly as
> good as the signals we lost. Maybe someday that good quality will
> filter down to market 4.
Maybe. I'm still finding my stations on the car radio displays in east
bay stores. I asked the Concord Frys floor manager why they had a
station on that wasn't even HD. "It's a good sounding station; that's
why we use it."
RP
> > available.
>
> > BTW...How much did FM cost per install? - LOL!
>
> The actual extra cost to automakers, per receiver, is about $5. If you
> purchase an HD radio receiver in the after-market, and identically
> equipped model with HD sells for about $10 more than the non-HD model.
>
> However $5 is a huge amount of money to an automobile manufacturer like
> Toyota or Honda when they can't raise the price because of a feature
> that buyers expect to be included. Probably no one decides on which
> vehicle to buy based on the presence or absence of an HD radio, at least
> not yet. Luxury car buyers expect HD to be there, but non-luxury buyers
> do not.
> "U.S. automakers not jumping into HD Radio"
> "The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install...
Can you say 2.5 year old study?
Sure ya' can! LMAO!more.
RP
"Dave Barnett" <dave.db...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b184408$0$1602$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> RP wrote:
>>
>> Just like when FM started, the public had little use or need for
>> it...until it became standard equipment, and the programming increased
>> and got better.
>>
> FM didn't hamper the reception of existing stations.
It has not, and does not cause widescale reception problems with existing
stations.
There is no research to show the public is haveing reception problems due to
HD.
> As it sits now, people hear static on their radio. So they switch to MP3
> players, podcasts, and online streaming. They are lost as a radio
> audience.
The ratings and research do not bear that out.
RP
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4b1864e3$0$1586$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Dave Barnett wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>
>>> I used to connect my phone/MP3 player to the car stereo a lot more than
>>> I do now. The quality of the HD Radio broadcasts is so high that it's
>>> just easier.
>>
>> You're obviously not in the Bay Area.
>
> I most certainly am in the Bay Area, and the Bay Area's no different than
> the rest of the country aside from some terrain issues.
>
> Without the FM multipath distortion HD sounds awesome. When I first got
> the receiver with HD my wife asked me if I was playing a CD! I hope the
> remaining FM stations sign on to HD ASAP, and that everyone ups their
> power when allowed to do so. And I'm saying this as someone that bought a
> receiver not caring whether it had HD or not, thinking I'd never bother
> with it. Now I'm hooked.
>
> I'm curious, do you actually have an HD Radio, or do you just complaining
> about HD?
LOL! Atta' boy Steve!
RP
On Dec 3, 5:32?pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> RP wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Again...how much did FM radio's cost to install?
>
>
> Remember, Mr. Farce is citing a 2.5 year old article that states that
> the HD radios would cost $45 to install. But what's left unsaid is that
> the non-HD radios don't cost $0 to install. The typical standard sound
> system in a vehicle is now an AM/FM/CD player which has a cost to the
> manufacturer of around $30. So the cost difference, 2.5 years ago, was
> about $15. Now it's much less, around $5. Interesting that he has to
> resort to such lame lies to try to prove a point he's unable to prove.
>
> Indeed, the FM radio cost is a valid comparison. It cost the automakers
> much more than $5 when they went from AM radios to AM/FM radios, and the
> percentage of FM stations out of the total number of radio stations was
> about the same as the percentage of HD stations out of the total number
> of FM stations. OTOH, back then, the attitude was "I'm not buying a car
> without an AM/FM radio" whereas were not to the point yet where many
> people would not buy a car simply because it lacked an HD radio.
>
> Presently 17% of FM stations have deployed HD. Once the power increase
> is approved this is predicted to quickly rise to 60%, then level off at
> about 80%, with rural stations probably not adding HD.
> "Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
Quoting a 2.5 year old study, huh farce? LOL!
Notice how MR FARCE just ignores facts he doesn't like!
Facts are stubborn things!
RP
<<
Yup, listeners will have no clue the interference is being caused by
IBOC, and will simply turn to other entertainment mediums, while
terrestrial radio makes its final leap into the toilet - good riddance.
<<
So, you're an enemy of ALL terrestrial radio...not just HD! LOL!
SMS
<snip>
> Notice how MR FARCE just ignores facts he doesn't like!
>
> Facts are stubborn things!
They are indeed. Higdon got so upset at the facts that he closed his
eyes and pretended that no one could see him!
Dave Barnett
>
> It has not, and does not cause widescale reception problems with existing
> stations.
>
of a listener in the suburban San Francisco Bay Area and the Sierra
Nevada mountains of California. If you search the newsgroup archives
you'll find a thread from January of 2004 called "KPIG Interference - Is
this DAB?". That interference still exists today, almost six years
later. But you can add KKUP, KRSH, KKDV, and others to the list of
stations whose signals are compromised by HD.
I don't have a horse in this race economically speaking, as I don't work
professionally in broadcasting anymore. But I still love all kinds of
radio - digital, analog, web-based, satellite, and over-the-air. It is
arguably the most innovative medium around. And I hate what HD is doing
to it.
There are many technical flaws in the existing HD Radio system, from the
modulation scheme (?how many bits per hertz do you get?) to the
non-upgradable decoder to the occupied bandwidth. It's a fragile
system, but I do think it could be made to work more reliably if those
who have control over it really cared.
Dave B.
SMS
<snip>
> The ratings and research do not bear that out.
There's another issue that broadcasters are worried about now that HD is
becoming standard equipment in more and more vehicles, especially higher
end vehicles. If you don't broadcast on the HD sidebands, even just
duplicating your analog broadcasts, you risk writing off many, if not
most, of the listeners with HD radios. HD radios typically have an "HD
Seek" button, where the radio only seeks stations broadcasting in HD. If
a station doesn't broadcast in HD then they're not reaching those high
income listeners in those Volvos, BMWs, etc.. It doesn't matter if the
station's analog FM is of high quality, these listeners will scan right
over the station. Once a listener experiences digital radio they're
unlikely to want to listen to analog at all. It's like watching HD
versus SD television--SD looks okay until you experience HD.
HD Radio Farce
HD Radio is only included in $2000 - $4000 entertainment packages,
where the costs of HD can be hidden to consumers, BMW is having
nothing but complaints about HD. HD Radio costs about $45 each to
install, or about $150 - $200 million anuualy to install for the Big
3. In this economy, forget it. GM is already installing standard
Internet, as other will have to follow. Intenet bypasses HD and
Satrad, altogether.
HD Radio Farce
You sure accomplished what you initially set out to do - convince John
to "upgrade" to HD Radio. Now, he has tuned you out - LMFAO!
SMS
> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> "U.S. automakers not jumping into HD Radio"
>
>> "The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install...
>
> Can you say 2.5 year old study?
With components like the SiPort SP1010 HD radio chip, which integrates a
CMOS tuner and baseband chip, with a port for an external AM tuner, the
cost of building a receiver with HD capability is now very low. This is
the chip used in the Zune, as well as in many newer car receivers.
Including HD now only costs the radio manufacturer $2-3 more than
building a non-HD receiver. This is why you�re suddenly seeing much
wider adoption of HD Radio by vehicle makers. By 2012, HD will be
standard equipment even on mid-priced vehicles, there�s just no way that
any automaker will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by not
including HD in their entertainment systems. Similarly, well before 2012
you�ll see the vast majority of FM stations add the HD sidebands. It�s
only 17% now, it�ll probably be 80% by 2012 (and close to 100% of
stations in urban areas).
Mr. Farce is desperately clinging to a very old story that came out long
before the highly integrated HD components became available. It's the
best he can do. And as was explained to him, the $45 was not the _extra_
cost for HD capability, it was the _total_ cost for an HD capable
receiver. The non-HD receivers were not free, they still had a cost to
the manufacturer of around $30. $15 extra for HD was a huge amount to
pay. $2-3 is more palatable, even to lower cost vehicle makers, and that
cost will come down as competition in the chip market increases, and as
volumes increase.
Looks like a very bright future for HD Radio with the imminent power
increase, the expanded number of receivers, and many more FM stations
coming on board once the power increase is official.
HD Radio Farce
> >> "U.S. automakers not jumping into HD Radio"
>
> >> "The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install...
>
> > Can you say 2.5 year old study?
>
> With components like the SiPort SP1010 HD radio chip, which integrates a
> CMOS tuner and baseband chip, with a port for an external AM tuner, the
> cost of building a receiver with HD capability is now very low. This is
> the chip used in the Zune, as well as in many newer car receivers.
> Including HD now only costs the radio manufacturer $2-3 more than
> wider adoption of HD Radio by vehicle makers. By 2012, HD will be
> any automaker will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by not
> including HD in their entertainment systems. Similarly, well before 2012
> only 17% now, it’ll probably be 80% by 2012 (and close to 100% of
> stations in urban areas).
>
> Mr. Farce is desperately clinging to a very old story that came out long
> before the highly integrated HD components became available. It's the
> best he can do. And as was explained to him, the $45 was not the _extra_
> cost for HD capability, it was the _total_ cost for an HD capable
> receiver. The non-HD receivers were not free, they still had a cost to
> the manufacturer of around $30. $15 extra for HD was a huge amount to
> pay. $2-3 is more palatable, even to lower cost vehicle makers, and that
> cost will come down as competition in the chip market increases, and as
> volumes increase.
>
> Looks like a very bright future for HD Radio with the imminent power
> increase, the expanded number of receivers, and many more FM stations
> coming on board once the power increase is official.
Installing HD radios costs automakers about $45 each to install, due
partly to iBiquity's high royalty fees. The only way costs for the HD
chipsets could be lowered is through consumer demand for HD Radio,
which there isn't any:
"Radio: Gossip Churl"
"HD Radio, which doesn’t work, is further hampered by a costly chip,
which keeps its retail price high. The chip won’t get cheaper unless
HD Radio goes into mass production. But it won’t because there is no
demand for HD Radio. Come to think of it – isn’t that the definition
of terminal?"
http://gormanmediablog.blogspot.com/2008/01/radio-gossip-churl.html
HD Radio Farce
> > "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> "U.S. automakers not jumping into HD Radio"
>
> >> "The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install...
>
> > Can you say 2.5 year old study?
>
> With components like the SiPort SP1010 HD radio chip, which integrates a
> CMOS tuner and baseband chip, with a port for an external AM tuner, the
> cost of building a receiver with HD capability is now very low. This is
> the chip used in the Zune, as well as in many newer car receivers.
> Including HD now only costs the radio manufacturer $2-3 more than
> wider adoption of HD Radio by vehicle makers. By 2012, HD will be
> any automaker will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by not
> including HD in their entertainment systems. Similarly, well before 2012
> stations in urban areas).
>
> Mr. Farce is desperately clinging to a very old story that came out long
> before the highly integrated HD components became available. It's the
> best he can do. And as was explained to him, the $45 was not the _extra_
> cost for HD capability, it was the _total_ cost for an HD capable
> receiver. The non-HD receivers were not free, they still had a cost to
> the manufacturer of around $30. $15 extra for HD was a huge amount to
> pay. $2-3 is more palatable, even to lower cost vehicle makers, and that
> cost will come down as competition in the chip market increases, and as
> volumes increase.
>
> Looks like a very bright future for HD Radio with the imminent power
> increase, the expanded number of receivers, and many more FM stations
> coming on board once the power increase is official.
"Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
"To wit, how many existing installations will have sufficient headroom
HD Radio Nutcake
On Dec 4, 11:20?am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> RP wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > The ratings and research do not bear that out.
>
> There's another issue that broadcasters are worried about now that HD is
> becoming standard equipment in more and more vehicles, especially higher
> end vehicles. If you don't broadcast on the HD sidebands, even just
> duplicating your analog broadcasts, you risk writing off many, if not
> most, of the listeners with HD radios. HD radios typically have an "HD
> Seek" button, where the radio only seeks stations broadcasting in HD. If
> income listeners in those Volvos, BMWs, etc.. It doesn't matter if the
> station's analog FM is of high quality, these listeners will scan right
> over the station. Once a listener experiences digital radio they're
> unlikely to want to listen to analog at all. It's like watching HD
> versus SD television--SD looks okay until you experience HD.
> HD Radio is only included in $2000 - $4000 entertainment packages,
Wrong. It's standard in the Volvo.
> HD Radio costs about $45 each to install
Wrong again, that's 3 year old data you (continue) to quote.
>Intenet bypasses HD and Satrad, altogether.
Internet in the car is prohibitively expensive right now. People dont want
to play $10 for satellite, you think they want to pay a ton more so they can
hear a Jazz station from someone's basement?
RP
>>Installing HD radios costs automakers about $45 each to install...
Wrong...Again! You keep continuing to spew incorrect information and
opinions and state them as fact.
You have been told this figure is wrong, yet the truth bothers you...so you
simply ignore it.
Not the way to win an argument.
HD Radio Nutcake
Nobody was trying to convince John to do anything...except stop spewing out
the same misconceptions and opinions that he viewed as facts.
But closing his eyes helps him apparently...so does sticking his head in the
sand.
HD Radio Nutcake
"Dave Barnett" <dave.db...@SPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
> RP wrote:
>>
>> It has not, and does not cause widescale reception problems with existing
>> stations.
>>
> You have to define "widescale" here.
Any research indicative of a larger problem with audience.
> There are many technical flaws in the existing HD Radio system..
There are many technical flaws with the AM radio system. Yet, it's benefit
exceeds whatever flaws someone may have with it.
RP
In a development that could vastly improve HD Radio signal reception
and propel the digital radio service forward, iBiquity and NPR have
reached an agreement for an HD power increase. It would give all HD
FMs a FOUR-FOLD POWER HIKE, but some stations could get an EVEN BIGGER
BUMP."
HD Radio Farce
> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a79caa60-3dae-49b9...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
It won't matter, because very few stations will be willing to bump the
power, due to lack of headroom and high costs. The FCC hasn't even
acted on the power increase, yet, whcih tells there are serious
issues, like pending class-action suits.
HD Radio Farce
Obsess...@compulsive.com> wrote:
> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:46a3b741-2869-4c90...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Optional HD Radio is about $350 for consumers - not an option.
HD Radio Farce
On Dec 4, 1:56 pm, "RP" <rpal...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:a79caa60-3dae-49b9...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 1:21 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > RP wrote:
> > > "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> "U.S. automakers not jumping into HD Radio"
>
> > >> "The radios are estimated to cost about $45 each to install...
>
> > > Can you say 2.5 year old study?
>
> > With components like the SiPort SP1010 HD radio chip, which integrates a
> > CMOS tuner and baseband chip, with a port for an external AM tuner, the
> > cost of building a receiver with HD capability is now very low. This is
> > the chip used in the Zune, as well as in many newer car receivers.
> > Including HD now only costs the radio manufacturer $2-3 more than
> > wider adoption of HD Radio by vehicle makers. By 2012, HD will be
> > any automaker will put themselves at a competitive disadvantage by not
> > including HD in their entertainment systems. Similarly, well before 2012
> > only 17% now, it�ll probably be 80% by 2012 (and close to 100% of
> > stations in urban areas).
>
> > Mr. Farce is desperately clinging to a very old story that came out long
> > before the highly integrated HD components became available. It's the
> > best he can do. And as was explained to him, the $45 was not the _extra_
> > cost for HD capability, it was the _total_ cost for an HD capable
> > receiver. The non-HD receivers were not free, they still had a cost to
> > the manufacturer of around $30. $15 extra for HD was a huge amount to
> > pay. $2-3 is more palatable, even to lower cost vehicle makers, and that
> > cost will come down as competition in the chip market increases, and as
> > volumes increase.
>
> > Looks like a very bright future for HD Radio with the imminent power
> > increase, the expanded number of receivers, and many more FM stations
> > coming on board once the power increase is official.
> > "Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
>
> In a development that could vastly improve HD Radio signal reception
> and propel the digital radio service forward, iBiquity and NPR have
> reached an agreement for an HD power increase. It would give all HD
> FMs a FOUR-FOLD POWER HIKE, but some stations could get an EVEN BIGGER
> BUMP."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It won't matter, because very few stations will be willing to bump the
power, due to lack of headroom and high costs.
Wrong again!
> Every station I know that is currently broadcasting in HD wants to
> istitute the power increase as soon as they can.
> The FCC hasn't even acted on the power increase, yet,
It's only a matter of time...it's a done deal.
HD Radio Farce
On Dec 4, 1:58?pm, "HD Radio Nutcake" <HD-Radio-
Obsess...@compulsive.com> wrote:
> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:46a3b741-2869-4c90...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 4, 11:20?am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > RP wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > The ratings and research do not bear that out.
>
> > There's another issue that broadcasters are worried about now that HD is
> > becoming standard equipment in more and more vehicles, especially higher
> > end vehicles. If you don't broadcast on the HD sidebands, even just
> > duplicating your analog broadcasts, you risk writing off many, if not
> > most, of the listeners with HD radios. HD radios typically have an "HD
> > Seek" button, where the radio only seeks stations broadcasting in HD. If
> > ? a station doesn't broadcast in HD then they're not reaching those high
> > income listeners in those Volvos, BMWs, etc.. It doesn't matter if the
> > station's analog FM is of high quality, these listeners will scan right
> > over the station. Once a listener experiences digital radio they're
> > unlikely to want to listen to analog at all. It's like watching HD
> > versus SD television--SD looks okay until you experience HD.
> > HD Radio is only included in $2000 - $4000 entertainment packages,
>
>
> > HD Radio costs about $45 each to install
>
> Wrong again, that's 3 year old data you (continue) to quote.
>
> >Intenet bypasses HD and Satrad, altogether.
>
> to play $10 for satellite, you think they want to pay a ton more so they
> can
> hear a Jazz station from someone's basement?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> Optional HD Radio is about $350 for consumers.
Wrong once again!
Note: HD Radio is standard equipment on all Volvos.
http://www.volvocars.com/us/salesandservices/Pages/HDRadio.aspx
SMS
> Nobody was trying to convince John to do anything...except stop spewing out
> the same misconceptions and opinions that he viewed as facts.
>
> But closing his eyes helps him apparently...so does sticking his head in the
> sand.
John is an old-school broadcast engineer. He doesn't like the whole idea
of digital radio being deployed in a hybrid manner, which is what HD
radio is doing. HD Radio _does_ affect analog FM, but in such a minor
way that the only reason to oppose is if you've been getting a free ride
by being able to easily broadcast outside your contours, which may go
away with HD.
Still, with John's long history in ba.broadcast, it was sad to see him
acting in such a childish manner.
Tom Lemos
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Tom Lemos wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But if no one is listening, what does it matter?
>
> You're not looking at the big picture.
No, once again, you don't get it.
It doesn't matter. NO ONE IS LISTENING.
Tom Lemos
<rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> "Tom Lemos" <toml...@tomlemos.com> wrote in message
> news:C73C8FD2.8D93%toml...@tomlemos.com...
>> On 12/1/09 10:43 PM, in article hf5387$36i$8...@news.albasani.net, "RP"
>> <rpa...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d6d18156-08ae-439b...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Nov 29, 4:38?pm, "RP" <rpal...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>>>>> I remember those coverage maps submitted by iNiquity under Docker
>>>>> 99-325, after tests for -10db. Made very little difference in coverage.
>>>>> In
>>>>> this economy - LOL!
>>>>
>>>> We shall see won't we! ?LOL!
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we need a BIGGER increase! ?LMAO!
>>>>
>>>> (Thanks for the re-post from ANOTHER anonymous source, the R-I haterz
>>>> board!
>>>> LOL!)
>>>
>>>> "Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> In a development that could vastly improve HD Radio signal reception
>>> and propel the digital radio service forward, iBiquity and NPR have
>>> reached an agreement for an HD power increase. It would give all HD
>>> FMs a FOUR-FOLD POWER HIKE, but some stations could get an EVEN BIGGER
>>> BUMP."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But if no one is listening, what does it matter?
>
> Who was listening "in stereo" when stations started doing that?
People who actually went out and bought radios that WANTED to listen in
stereo.
Plus, the US Radio market is a LOT different and there are a LOT more ways
to "listen" to radio now, especially online and on phones.
This wasn't the case when stereo was new.
This is not the same. You're comparing something that happened because it
was probably the ONLY way to listen to now where there's several ways to
listen, not just over the air.
I guess you'll never get it. You can't force the people to buy something
they see no need for.
This isn't stereo.
This is a totally useless technology that most of the US radio listening
public doesn't care about.
You'd think the industry would have learned from AM Stereo.
Tom Lemos
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Presently 17% of FM stations have deployed HD. Once the power increase
> is approved this is predicted to quickly rise to 60%, then level off at
> about 80%, with rural stations probably not adding HD.
Wow. I would have thought there was more deployment from all the screaming
about it in here. I won't even mention the dismal failure that is AM IBOC.
I think this is the "AM stereo" of this decade, and I even bought an AM
stereo. Will I buy a new radio? Nope. The one I had works just fine.
Again, you can't sell the public something they don't want, and from the
looks of what's coming, probably don't need.
There's a lot more variety available online and once there's easy ways to
get access to that content away from a computer, more choice on FM isn't
going to cut it.
It's more about what's going to be ON the FM that will.
Far be it for me to put words in Mr. Higdon's mouth, but from my years of
following his posts and predictions online, I think he's right.
To take a cue from Mr. Kaye,I just did an informal survey. I ask people if
they listen to FM radio. When I ask them if they know about HD Radio, most
have no idea what it is.
For those who are cheerleading for this to take off, I think it's too
little. Too late.
John Higdon
Tom Lemos <toml...@tomlemos.com> wrote:
> On 12/3/09 2:32 PM, in article 4b183c81$0$1630$742e...@news.sonic.net,
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Presently 17% of FM stations have deployed HD. Once the power increase
> > is approved this is predicted to quickly rise to 60%, then level off at
> > about 80%, with rural stations probably not adding HD.
>
> Wow. I would have thought there was more deployment from all the screaming
> about it in here. I won't even mention the dismal failure that is AM IBOC.
> I think this is the "AM stereo" of this decade, and I even bought an AM
> stereo. Will I buy a new radio? Nope. The one I had works just fine.
AM stereo stereo actually worked and increased the listening enjoyment
of the programming available on AM. Many stations did not adopt it for
the same reason they have held off on IBOC: cost.
Most AM stations of the era had mono studio facilities and a mono STL.
So the first order of business was to create stereo programming.
Replacing everything in the studio is not cheap, and STL equipment isn't
cheap, either...be it a new radio link or a second phone line. Back
then, digital channel equipment was a bloody fortune (and it isn't THAT
cheap today).
Then came the transmitter. Most of the old rigs had nasty IQM, caused by
everything from the modulation scheme itself to the power supply. The
usual fix was to get a new transmitter. AM transmitters cost about
double that of equivalent power FM units, and regardless of what one
bought, there was the outlay for the STX (stereo generator). An AM
stereo generator is much more complex than FM, and it must fully
cooperate with the transmitter in which it is installed. Setup is a
bear.
I did AM stereo on a Harris MW5 and on a Harris DX-10. The former was a
kludge, but when perfectly in adjustment with new tubes, it was
passable. The DX-10 sounded superb. Great separation; good, clean audio.
Remember no IBOC mask modifications to worry about!
Everything I have said above applies to IBOC as well, with some
additions. Studios need to be digital (otherwise, what's the point?) and
sometimes TWO new transmitters need to be purchased. The electricity
bill usually doubles due to the extra heat load, both from the second,
highly inefficient transmitter and the dummy load that dissipates 90%
(not a typo) of the IBOC transmitter's output. Sometimes a new A/C plant
is necessary. Sometimes more space must be leased, or the building
remodeled. Sometimes a new antenna is necessary.
Bottom line: every IBOC installation I have planned went easily into six
figures. None of that includes the licensing fees to iBiquity or the
record companies. The cost will not come down with any power increase,
and in fact will likely go up. That 60% penetration after the power
increase came out of someone's ass.
> Again, you can't sell the public something they don't want, and from the
> looks of what's coming, probably don't need.
This is why stations will, at some point start turning off the IBOC. It
is a pain in the neck to keep running, so much so that the biggest
cluster of stations in Fresno turned the IBOC off on all of their
stations, AM and FM alike.
> Far be it for me to put words in Mr. Higdon's mouth, but from my years of
> following his posts and predictions online, I think he's right.
I'm probably the only one who posts to these threads who actually lays
hands on this stuff and deal with it every day AND I don't work for a
conglomerate who is in bed with the HD Radio Alliance. I actually have
no horse in this race other than standing to make a lot of money each
time certain stations decide to "go digital". In other words, my
comments are all "against interest". I'm speaking my mind without a
fiduciary interest lurking somewhere.
> To take a cue from Mr. Kaye,I just did an informal survey. I ask people if
> they listen to FM radio. When I ask them if they know about HD Radio, most
> have no idea what it is.
People find out about things that interest them, and ignore that which
doesn't...no matter how much anyone tries to cram it down their throats.
> For those who are cheerleading for this to take off, I think it's too
> little. Too late.
I have found that cheerleaders (at least in public) fall into to one or
more of three categories: 1) they have no clue how any of it works; 2)
they have a monetary incentive to promote it; 3) their corporate
employers have made it quite clear that there will be NO criticism if HD
Radio if they value their jobs. So, I guess I actually fall into
category #2, but apparently integrity wins out over greed.
In 2002, iBiquity did dog and pony shows in the top radio markets to
sell IBOC to stations. The engineers laughed their heads off, and you
should have heard the discussions at the lunch tables during the noon
break. Then, suddenly, the engineering managers for the conglomerates
(the ones that joined the HD Radio Alliance) suddenly went silent.
That's when they got the word: no bad-mouthing HD Radio, or else.
My own philosophy is simple: if after knowing all the facts, if a
station owner wants to install IBOC, I'll be happy to do it for him. It
is, after all, what I do for a living.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
SMS
> There's a lot more variety available online and once there's easy ways to
> get access to that content away from a computer, more choice on FM isn't
> going to cut it.
What you don't understand is that the vast majority of radio listening
is done in a car, where the desire for "choice" is what led to satellite
radio. The problem with satellite is that they didn't realize that while
people want more choice, they also want this choice to be free.
No one has to be willing to go out and buy a digital radio, eventually
it will come to them as part of the factory radio, just like FM was
added, just like an AUX jack was added, just as Bluetooth is being
added, just as iPod docks are being added, etc. The cost to add digital
reception to an existing analog system during the design and
manufacturing phase is very low, and getting lower. That's why you see
all the higher end vehicle manufacturers adding digital radio, and
eventually it'll trickle down.
It doesn't even matter whether iBiquity survives as an independent
company, or is bought out by an intellectual property company and
functions more like Rambus. The momentum for digital radio is unlikely
to stop, especially with the power increase a virtual certainty, and so
many stations planning to add digital service once the power increase is
official.
David Kaye
>AM stereo stereo actually worked and increased the listening enjoyment
>of the programming available on AM. Many stations did not adopt it for
>the same reason they have held off on IBOC: cost.
And the KNX contribution to stereo as I recall was stereo commercials and
teletype sound effects.
ThrobbingMember
"Warp Factor 6, Mr. Scott"
"To wit, how many existing installations will have sufficient headroom
to implement the increase without significant retooling of
transmission hardware?.. Some simply won't make it with their existing
transmitters, and plant cooling capacity will also have to be bumped
up along with electrical power mains service, and back-up generating
plant output... Those using high level combining schemes will face
similar issues, as reject loads, digital transmitters, etc., will all
have to be upsized... One thing's for certain: approval of a 6dB HD
digital boost will mean lots of extra hours, as managers and owners
task their engineers with delivering a wee bit more digital drive
without melting down already overheated corporate budgets. For many,
actually making it happen is likely to be an agonizing process."
Good-luck in this economy. The FCC still hasn't decided on any power
increase. More stations are turning off IBOC than actualy converting.
Conversions have stalled. If a power increase is approved, stations
converting still run the risk of either having to turn IBOC off, or
power down to lower levels due to interference. Also, these are FMs,
and I'm guessing more likely to file class-action suits, when they
start losing advertisers due to increased interference, as Bob Savage
lost a $50,000 sports advertiser due to WBZ. I've heard that
comunications lawyers are just waiting to take IBOC on.
ThrobbingMember
When iBiquity goes under, it will mean the end of HD Radio. Stations
don't have the resources to harass the automakers and retailers as
iBiquity. iBiquity was supposed to go IPO this year, but that will
never happen, if they have indeed had a massive layoff, and it still
won't. An IPO was the whole point of this scam, but I saw Strube's
post on Twitter and contacted John Anderson at DIYmedia, who posted
about it. I then piicked up his post in my blog and almost immedialy
started to get his from CCU, iBiquity, Price Waterhouse Coopers, and
others who searched on "iBiquity IPO". iBqiuty fired their overseas
guy, and that is why Struble was forced to go overseas in October to
shill for his snake-oil. BTW - if you read http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/
which I'm sure you don't, you will see that digital radio has
effectively failed everywhere, even in the UK. I imagine iBiquity full
of telemarketer-types who spemd all day on the phone harassing
everyone.
ThrobbingMember
In many cases, HD Radio remains a $350 - $500 option in cars- not a
reasonable option for consumers. BMW is getting nothing but complaints
about HD Radio. I get almost weekly hits from General Motors and Ford
on my blog, and now, they have direct links. Got a visit last week
from Honda of Canada. Best Buy also has a direct link, as does the
FCC. Word has gotten out about this scam.
ThrobbingMember
If you look at this Quantcast graph, you will see that the little
consumer interest in HD Radio peaked January of 2008, and is fading
fast:
http://www.quantcast.com/wd:com.hdradio
You can run Google Trends, Alexa, and Compete to get the same results.
The HD Alliance (whatever happened to the) lied when they claimed that
they got over a million hits one month - that figure have never gone
over 70,000, and now, is in the 20,000 area.
HD Radio Farce
>> Far be it for me to put words in Mr. Higdon's mouth, but from my years of
>> following his posts and predictions online, I think he's right.
>
Funny, I thought Higdon "killfiled" this who discussion of HD. Like the
other HD Hatertz and obsesives he just can't stay away! ;-)
HD Radio Farce
"ThrobbingMember" <Sherr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:549a3990-3e6f-4e31...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Open your mind and stop posting the same thing over and over again
IBOC Crock, {HD Radio Farce}
D'Oh ! -reality-check- It's Ain't All Bad News
about HD-Radio and it's Questionable Future :
HD-Radio Continues Slow-But-Steady Growth in 2009
http://www.twice.com/article/253539-HD_Radio_Continues_Slow_But_Stead...
HD-Radio On Upswing At Some Retailers
http://www.twice.com/article/355562-HD_Radio_On_Upswing_At_Some_Retai...
NAB 2009 Conference -news-
Zune & HD-Radio Getting Tons of Buzzz
http://www.marioarmstrong.com/blog/2009/9/28/nab-2009-conf-zune-hdrad...
Pictures Via HD-Radio : The Next Hot Application
http://www.ibiquity.com/nab_radio_show_2009_resolution_in_philly
HD-Radio Some Good and Bad News
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/06/22/hd-radio-still-pushing-the-roc...
SiPort Takes Market Lead in HD-Radio
IC Shipments to the Consumer Products Market
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS107748+21-Oct-2009+PR...
Power Boost or Bust for HD-Radio
http://www.rwonline.com/article/75514
Is HD-Radio Toast ? {HD-Radio Has It's Issues}
http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=487772
More HD-Radio News . . .
http://www.insideradio.com/sectional.asp?id=33080
NOTE - One 'Farcical' Blog Ain't Going To Stop HD-Radio
* HD Radio Farce [Blog]
http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/
* Stop IBOC Now !
http://www.stopiboc.com/
Especially when it is so one-sided, biased
and filled with distortions.
HD-Radio FAQs
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-apen3SAcXFf/learn/learningcenter/car/hdr...
IBOC : FM HD-Radio :
The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2 Channels
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6008ec3b49d272f2
Plus New Car/Truck Installs & Percentage On-the-Road
looking forward to 2015 and fm hd-radio's future
HD Radio Farce
> I think this is the "AM stereo" of this decade, and I even bought an AM
> stereo.
> AM stereo had different modes of stereo all competing ont he air...you had
> to decide whioch klind of radio to buy, depending on what statiuon you
> wanted to listen to.
They elarned from that ewxperience and endorse one standard. (And people
still whine.)
> Will I buy a new radio? Nope. The one I had works just fine.
No one is forcing you to buy one. It's an added mode that you can either
take advantage of, or not.
> Again, you can't sell the public something they don't want, and from the
> looks of what's coming, probably don't need.
Selling "choices" to the consumer.
> There's a lot more variety available online and once there's easy ways to
> get access to that content away from a computer, more choice on FM isn't
> going to cut it.
Yeah, I'll carry a laptop up the ladder with me next time I am painting the
house. I'll take the laptop with me next time I go to the beach.
> It's more about what's going to be ON the FM that will.
Agreed!
> Far be it for me to put words in Mr. Higdon's mouth, but from my years of
> following his posts and predictions online, I think he's right.
Higdon has stuck his head in the saend, p[ining for the good old days...and
has not advanced.
> To take a cue from Mr. Kaye,I just did an informal survey. I ask people
> if
> they listen to FM radio. When I ask them if they know about HD Radio, most
> have no idea what it is.
So what?
> For those who are cheerleading for this to take off, I think it's too
> little. Too late.
For those that think that hobbyist and DX-ers are going to change broadcast
policy...it's a little too late.
HD Radio Farce
No. that is not correct. Just like when Citadel or Clear Channel go under,
it not mean the end of their broadcast stations.
HD Radio Farce
Just like FM was. ANd some people would even buy a car without a radio to
save money. Now radios (FM) are stock items just like HD radios will be.
> BMW is getting nothing but complaints...
Again, no data to back this up.
"Nothing but complaints" is you trying to overstate something.
But my first car FM radio came with a booklet. "How to improve FM
reception" as well.
> I get almost weekly hits from General Motors and Ford
on my blog...
You keep stating this as if "hits" means changed minds. HOwever, once they
see your blog (anyone can blog), your anonymity (apparently you cant stand
behind this), and your lack of broadcast, auto, or technical creditentials),
they realize you are just another bozo on the bus.
HD Radio Farce
Probably because it's "newness" is starting to wear off. People know about
HD radio now...they've "heard" of it (but the stations ahve not done a very
good job of telling them why they might enjoy it.)
> You can run Google Trends, Alexa, and Compete to get the same results.
For the same reasons.
HD Radio Farce
You let John decide for you to stop posting about HD Radio?
HD Radio Farce
> "ThrobbingMember" <SherryHo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> HD-Radio On Upswing At Some Retailershttp://www.twice.com/article/355562-HD_Radio_On_Upswing_At_Some_Retai...
>
> NAB 2009 Conference -news-
> Zune & HD-Radio Getting Tons of Buzzzhttp://www.marioarmstrong.com/blog/2009/9/28/nab-2009-conf-zune-hdrad...
>
> Pictures Via HD-Radio : The Next Hot Applicationhttp://www.ibiquity.com/nab_radio_show_2009_resolution_in_philly
>
> HD-Radio Some Good and Bad Newshttp://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/06/22/hd-radio-still-pushing-the-roc...
>
> SiPort Takes Market Lead in HD-Radio
>
> Power Boost or Bust for HD-Radiohttp://www.rwonline.com/article/75514> More HD-Radio News . . .http://www.insideradio.com/sectional.asp?id=33080
>
> NOTE - One 'Farcical' Blog Ain't Going To Stop HD-Radio
> * HD Radio Farce [Blog]http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/
> Especially when it is so one-sided, biased
> and filled with distortions.
>
>
> IBOC : FM HD-Radio :
> The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2 Channelshttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6008ec3b49d272f2
> Plus New Car/Truck Installs & Percentage On-the-Road
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cut-and-paste meaningless articles, because media groups are on
iBiquity's payroll, as are the commissioners at the FCC.
HD Radio Fartz
HD Radio Fartz
Same thing for HD.
> Plus, the US Radio market is a LOT different and there are a LOT more ways
> to "listen" to radio now, especially online and on phones.
And HD is just one more.
> This wasn't the case when stereo was new.
No, but Stereo didn't even offer new content. HD offers newer content. And
more choices....and more choices are a good thing.
> You're comparing something that happened because it
> was probably the ONLY way to listen to now where there's several ways to
> listen, not just over the air.
It is the same in that no one had to buy a stereo radio to listen to the
radio.
And as stated above, HD is just one more way.
> I guess you'll never get it. You can't force the people to buy something
> they see no need for.
I guess you'll never get it. The number one complaint people have when they
go to satellite radio is "I went to satellite for more choices".
HD offers more choices.
> This isn't stereo.
It's better than stereo!
> This is a totally useless technology that most of the US radio listening
> public doesn't care about.
They didn't care about FM either when that first came along either.
> You'd think the industry would have learned from AM Stereo.
They did. This time there is a chosen standard, instead of the "marketplace
solution" of AM stereo.
ThrobbingMember
> "ThrobbingMember" <SherryHo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
It will mean the end in anymore investments in HD Radio
ThrobbingMember
> "ThrobbingMember" <SherryHo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is BMW's HD Radio troubleshooting Guide:
id=0B1QRb49JClLEM2Y3MmVlY2YtNzg4Ny00M2Q0LWFlNzktYjUzNGUwNThmMjdh&hl=en
Checking BMW message boards reveals nothing but comlaints about HD
Radio. HD Radio is too expensive of an option for consumers, and too
expensive to install by most automakers. HD Radio simply doesn't work
well, and never will.
ThrobbingMember
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yea, that's why they keep returning for more visits. I quote nothing
but professionals.
ThrobbingMember
> "Tom Lemos" <tomle...@tomlemos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:C7406924.8E8B%toml...@tomlemos.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/3/09 10:29 AM, in article hf90bo$bd...@news.albasani.net, "RP"
> > <rpal...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Tom Lemos" <tomle...@tomlemos.com> wrote in message
> >>news:C73C8FD2.8D93%toml...@tomlemos.com...
> >>> On 12/1/09 10:43 PM, in article hf5387$36...@news.albasani.net, "RP"
> >>> <rpal...@NOSPAMmailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Consumers don't want a zillion choices. HD Radio is simply another
form of FM that consumers have zero interest.
Travis James
> On Dec 6, 1:29�pm, "HD Radio Farce"<hdradiofar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "ThrobbingMember"<SherryHo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
Y'all should learn how to trim and post relevant portions.
SMS
> They did. This time there is a chosen standard, instead of the "marketplace
> solution" of AM stereo.
The FCC really did their homework on the digital radio standard. Some
groups proposed separate digital radio spectrum, with separate
licensing, but this posed a myriad of problems. The hybrid digital
scheme is technologically elegant and also solves the business issues
related to digital radio. The technology is inexpensive for stations to
deploy (at least for the stations that are not already close to going
under where $100K is considered a huge amount of money to spend on
transmitter upgrades). The technology is also inexpensive to implement
on the receiver side now that there are single chip solutions from
multiple semiconductor companies, which is why you're seeing more auto
manufacturers including HD as standard.
David Kaye
>The FCC really did their homework on the digital radio standard. Some
>groups proposed separate digital radio spectrum, with separate
>licensing, but this posed a myriad of problems. The hybrid digital
>scheme is technologically elegant and also solves the business issues
>related to digital radio.
While people do complain about the splatter problem interfering with out of
market stations, what they never mention is that out of market stations
usually don't have measurable audiences.
I don't like the idea that this "HD" thing is not open source. It works for
platforms such as Linux; it works for tons of software, even audio editing
software such as Audacity. It even works for Wikipedia, an open source
encyclopedia when you think about it.
There is no reason digital radio should be a closed system.
ThrobbingMember
"FCC Admits Ignorance on Digital Radio, Adopts Standard Anyway"
"The Commissioners seemed completely unconcerned about the documented
evidence illustrating potentially disastrous interference problems
with IBOC technology. But the whopper came from the mouth of Michael
Copps, who admitted with incredible candor he had no idea what the
hell he was unleashing: 'A few questions remain to be settled,
including how the IBOC system will function in the real world; what is
the potential for and extent of interference that IBOC could cause to
existing services; and the technical feasibility of nighttime AM IBOC
transmissions'... Everybody involved pretty much admitted from the
outset that the digital radio initiative is all about giving the
broadcast industry more avenues to make money rather than actually
improving radio from the perspective of the listener... You can watch
and listen to the deed being done at our special report on the IBOC
vote."
http://www.diymedia.net/archive/1002.htm#101002
Yup, they sure did - LMFAO! Gotcha!
ThrobbingMember
"Road-Testing the FMeXtra"
"In summary, FMeXtra is an economical and quick way for an FM station
to add additional programming channels and to begin digital
broadcasting. The system, which caught the attention of many
attendees, requires the purchase of an $8,900 encoder that can be
installed in less than an hour’s time, on average. There are no
licensing fees to use the FMeXtra system."
http://www.rwonline.com/article/276
"FMeXtra: Another On-Channel Solution"
"Eventually DRE asked the NRSC to reactivate the DAB subcommittee.
Early on, we saw that IBOC was going nowhere as long as there were
multiple proponents, and even in the best estimates, it would be many
years before there would be any return on investment. So we decided to
license our patent portfolio for use in IBOC to USA Digital Radio,
which eventually merged with Lucent’s IBOC group to form Ibiquity. We
are an Ibiquity shareholder... There is no significant difference in
spectrum occupancy between the 'extended hybrid' mode of IBOC today
and these earlier systems, which were deemed by the NRSC and others to
be incompatible with the host analog FM signal."
http://www.bext.com/RW/RWFMeXtraDec05.pdf
FMeXtra does the same thing - LMFAO! Gotcha!
Eric Weaver
Yes there is... so that they can charge an outrageous royalty from
manufacturers and broadcasters for the use of their system. The whole
approach reeks of top-of-bull-market greed scheming.
SMS
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The FCC really did their homework on the digital radio standard. Some
>> groups proposed separate digital radio spectrum, with separate
>> licensing, but this posed a myriad of problems. The hybrid digital
>> scheme is technologically elegant and also solves the business issues
>> related to digital radio.
>
> While people do complain about the splatter problem interfering with out of
> market stations, what they never mention is that out of market stations
> usually don't have measurable audiences.
LOL, exactly. And those out of market stations have no basis to complain
either. But don't say "people do complain" when almost no one has ever
complained.
> I don't like the idea that this "HD" thing is not open source. It works for
> platforms such as Linux; it works for tons of software, even audio editing
> software such as Audacity. It even works for Wikipedia, an open source
> encyclopedia when you think about it.
>
> There is no reason digital radio should be a closed system.
The fact that it's not open source is the reason for much of the
criticism. Just as much of the original antipathy towards CDMA was the
royalties for Qualcomm. In the case of Qualcomm, the world finally
realized that they needed CDMA, at least in the short term, and that the
royalties were worth it. Even LTE has a lot of intellectual property
that will require royalites to Qualcomm and others. People need to get
used to the fact that companies that invent technology get money for it.
Dolby does. Qualcomm does. Rambus does. iBiquity does.
I question how well open source works for Linux and Audacity. There are
so many versions of Linux out there that it can drive you mad trying to
get them to work with specific hardware, and often the choice of version
is based on web searches of which version works the least badly with
specific hardware. If there's one good thing about OSX and Windows
(starting with XP) is that hardware just works. Microsoft spent a
fortune on WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) because of all the
problems with earlier versions of Windows. Some versions of Linux do
really well, like Mepis Simply Linux, some do poorly. Linux still has
almost no market share among regular users, and those users that do use
it still keep a Windows system for the stuff that doesn't run on Linux.
As to Audacity, my recent experience with it on one of my daughter's
projects left me pretty disgusted with it. No matter which system I
tried it on, if you tried to play back something with a lot of tracks
(like 40) it would just crash without any useful information. Once I
removed enough tracks and manually combined them, it would play. At
least it could export a sound file with so many tracks, but it was a
huge hassle and time-sink to have to export it to listen, then go back
and make corrections, then export again. I was longing for a Mac and
Garage Band.
A lot of these open source programs deserve the motto, "It's Free if
Time has No Value." OTOH, Open Office is a great program.
HD Radio Farce
> David Kaye wrote:
You now have ZERO credibility, after getting ripped a new asshole -
LOL!
SMS
> Yes there is... so that they can charge an outrageous royalty from
> manufacturers and broadcasters for the use of their system. The whole
> approach reeks of top-of-bull-market greed scheming.
Indeed they do charge royalties and licensing. As does Qualcomm on
virtually every cell phone manufactured that supports 3G, as does Dolby
on most set top boxes (and previously on virtually every cassette deck),
as does Rambus on most DRAM, as do Apple and Microsoft on their
operating systems.. That's the way the world works. You invent the
technology and get others to use your invention and pay you for it.
Ideally there would have been some sort of open source digital FM
broadcasting technology rather than HD Radio. Often what's available,
and "good enough" gets adopted and becomes a standard even though better
options may become available later.
Digital Radio Express's FM Extra had numerous problems, and eventually
they licensed some of their technology to iBiquity and became an
iBiquity shareholder, while continuing work onf FMeXtr which has
numerous technological and regulatory barriers to overcome. And of
course it was not free either.
The reason Mr. Farce has no credibility is because he lacks even the
slightest understanding of the technical, regulatory, and commercial
hurdles that digital radio needs to overcome to be successful. For the
next several decades at least, HD Radio will be the U.S. standard. It
isn't even up to iBiquity any more, they could become wholly owned by a
larger intellectual property firm and just do licensing and whatever
further development is needed to the standard would take only a few
engineers.
ThrobbingMember
Mr. ZERO credibility (who made false claims about the FCC) wrote:
"The reason Mr. Farce has no credibility is because he lacks even the
slightest understanding of the technical, regulatory, and commercial
hurdles that digital radio needs to overcome to be successful. For the
next several decades at least, HD Radio will be the U.S. standard. It
isn't even up to iBiquity any more, they could become wholly owned by
a larger intellectual property firm and just do licensing and whatever
further development is needed to the standard would take only a few
engineers.
Bob - is it time for Vicki to change your diapers, or was she laid-
off, too? LOL! Got two more direct links from Seoul, South Korea and
RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL - must be from those folks evaluating IBOC -
LOL!
ThrobbingMember
> ?And
> more choices....and more choices are a good thing.
>
> > You're comparing something that happened because it
> > was probably the ONLY way to listen to now where there's several ways to
> > listen, not just over the air.
>
> It is the same in that no one had to buy a stereo radio to listen to the
> radio.
>
> And as stated above, HD is just one more way.
>
> > I guess you'll never get it. You can't force the people to buy something
> > they see no need for.
>
> go to satellite radio is "I went to satellite for more choices".
>
> HD offers more choices.
>
> > This isn't stereo.
>
> It's better than stereo!
>
> > This is a totally useless technology that most of the US radio listening
> > public doesn't care about.
>
> They didn't care about FM either when that first came along either.
>
> > You'd think the industry would have learned from AM Stereo.
>
> solution" of AM stereo.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> Consumers don't want a zillion choices.
Says who? Anything to back up that claim by the person with no technical,
programming, or marketing credentials?
Every consumer item that has taken off has all been about giving the conumer
choices.
Ipod, Iphones, MP3's players, Limewire, P2P, Internet, cabletv, etc
> HD Radio is simply another form of FM that consumers have zero interest.
Just like no one had interest in Stereo......and we see how that turned out
huh? LOL!
ThrobbingMember
"Eric Weaver" <we...@sigma.net> wrote in message
news:4b1d222e$0$1644$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Kind of like Microsoft and Intel does? And we all know how bad that was for
them and theconsumer. ;-)
ThrobbingMember
BTW - I also got another hit today from Harvard Univeristy where
Struble graduated, which makes about 10 hits, altogether. The person
was searching on "hd radio", as my site sits right under iBiquity's. I
bet that word has spread to Harvard about the HD Radio scam, and what
a name Bob must be making for his Alma Mater - LOL! A while back, I
got a hit from Sony Investor Relations, from overseas - my guess is
that Sony got contacted about their involvement in the HD Radio scam.
These are things Bob probably hasn't thought about, as this must be
his first major scam, but it won't be his last unless she ends up in
Jessup Prison, Maryland, near where hs lives.
ThrobbingMember
> "Eric Weaver" <w...@sigma.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b1d222e$0$1644$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Kaye wrote:
>
> >>> The FCC really did their homework on the digital radio standard. Some
> >>> groups proposed separate digital radio spectrum, with separate
> >>> licensing, but this posed a myriad of problems. The hybrid digital
> >>> scheme is technologically elegant and also solves the business issues
> >>> related to digital radio.
>
> >> While people do complain about the splatter problem interfering with out
> >> of market stations, what they never mention is that out of market
> >> stations usually don't have measurable audiences. �I don't like the idea
> >> that this "HD" thing is not open source. �It works for platforms such as
> >> Linux; it works for tons of software, even audio editing software such as
> >> Audacity. �It even works for Wikipedia, an open source encyclopedia when
> >> you think about it. �There is no reason digital radio should be a closed
> >> system.
>
> > Yes there is... � so that they can charge an outrageous royalty from
> > manufacturers and broadcasters for the use of their system. � The whole
> > approach reeks of top-of-bull-market greed scheming.
>
> Kind of like Microsoft and Intel does? �And we all know how bad that was for
>
> - Show quoted text -
Throbbing member imposter - pretty childish and desperate
ThrobbingMember
> > solution" of AM stereo.
>
> The FCC really did their homework on the digital radio standard. Some
> groups proposed separate digital radio spectrum, with separate
> licensing, but this posed a myriad of problems. The hybrid digital
> scheme is technologically elegant and also solves the business issues
> related to digital radio. The technology is inexpensive for stations to
> deploy (at least for the stations that are not already close to going
> under where $100K is considered a huge amount of money to spend on
> transmitter upgrades). The technology is also inexpensive to implement
> on the receiver side now that there are single chip solutions from
> multiple semiconductor companies, which is why you're seeing more auto
> manufacturers including HD as standard.
> "FCC Admits Ignorance on Digital Radio, Adopts Standard Anyway"
Another opinion peice passed off as fact.
HD Haterz are thrilled when they find other hobbyist who agree with them
But hobbyist do not direct broadcast policy (except for amateur/ham maybe.)
ThrobbingMember
On Dec 7, 12:48 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> HD Radio Fartz wrote:
> > They did. This time there is a chosen standard, instead of the
> > "marketplace
> > solution" of AM stereo.
>
> The FCC really did their homework on the digital radio standard. Some
> groups proposed separate digital radio spectrum, with separate
> licensing, but this posed a myriad of problems. The hybrid digital
> scheme is technologically elegant and also solves the business issues
> related to digital radio. The technology is inexpensive for stations to
> deploy (at least for the stations that are not already close to going
> under where $100K is considered a huge amount of money to spend on
> transmitter upgrades). The technology is also inexpensive to implement
> on the receiver side now that there are single chip solutions from
> multiple semiconductor companies, which is why you're seeing more auto
> manufacturers including HD as standard.
"Road-Testing the FMeXtra"
> FMeXtra does the same thing - LMFAO! Gotcha!
How may FMeXtra's are there? LOL!
ThrobbingMember
> > manufacturers and broadcasters for the use of their system. ? The whole
Very thoughtful response!
> Got two more direct links from Seoul, South Korea and
> RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL - must be from those folks evaluating IBOC -
> LOL!
Doesn't mean a thing. The Nazi website gets a lot of links and hits too.
ThrobbingMember
On Dec 7, 10:51?am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> David Kaye wrote:
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The FCC really did their homework on the digital radio standard. Some
> >> groups proposed separate digital radio spectrum, with separate
> >> licensing, but this posed a myriad of problems. The hybrid digital
> >> scheme is technologically elegant and also solves the business issues
> >> related to digital radio.
>
> > While people do complain about the splatter problem interfering with out
> > of
> > market stations, what they never mention is that out of market stations
>
> LOL, exactly. And those out of market stations have no basis to complain
> either. But don't say "people do complain" when almost no one has ever
> complained.
>
> > platforms such as Linux; it works for tons of software, even audio
> > editing
> > encyclopedia when you think about it. ?
>
> > There is no reason digital radio should be a closed system.
>
> The fact that it's not open source is the reason for much of the
> criticism. Just as much of the original antipathy towards CDMA was the
> royalties for Qualcomm. In the case of Qualcomm, the world finally
> realized that they needed CDMA, at least in the short term, and that the
> royalties were worth it. Even LTE has a lot of intellectual property
> that will require royalites to Qualcomm and others. People need to get
> used to the fact that companies that invent technology get money for it.
>
> I question how well open source works for Linux and Audacity. There are
> so many versions of Linux out there that it can drive you mad trying to
> get them to work with specific hardware, and often the choice of version
> is based on web searches of which version works the least badly with
> specific hardware. If there's one good thing about OSX and Windows
> (starting with XP) is that hardware just works. Microsoft spent a
> fortune on WHQL (Windows Hardware Quality Labs) because of all the
> problems with earlier versions of Windows. Some versions of Linux do
> really well, like Mepis Simply Linux, some do poorly. Linux still has
> almost no market share among regular users, and those users that do use
> it still keep a Windows system for the stuff that doesn't run on Linux.
>
> As to Audacity, my recent experience with it on one of my daughter's
> projects left me pretty disgusted with it. No matter which system I
> tried it on, if you tried to play back something with a lot of tracks
> (like 40) it would just crash without any useful information. Once I
> removed enough tracks and manually combined them, it would play. At
> least it could export a sound file with so many tracks, but it was a
> huge hassle and time-sink to have to export it to listen, then go back
> and make corrections, then export again. I was longing for a Mac and
> Garage Band.
>
> A lot of these open source programs deserve the motto, "It's Free if
> Time has No Value." OTOH, Open Office is a great program.
> You now have ZERO credibility, after getting ripped a new asshole -
Yes, I'm sure he is bothered about "getting ripped" by the anonymous guy
with no broadcast, technical or business experience...LOL!
I'm sure that bothes him!
Don Freeman
> "ThrobbingMember" <Sherr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:96c59505-c3ed-4c06...@g25g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> Consumers don't want a zillion choices.
>
> Says who? Anything to back up that claim by the person with no technical,
> programming, or marketing credentials?
>
Why are you arguing with yourself?
--
-Don
SMS
> Kind of like Microsoft and Intel does? And we all know how bad that was for
> them and the consumer. ;-)
Without royalties we'd have little technological innovation. I think Ray
Dolby was one of the biggest innovators in the use of the licensing
approach, which charged manufacturers, but not consumers.
It was rather amusing to do a Google search of "HD Radio" and see the
results. Where the heck was our favorite troll's blogsite? Eighth! LOL.
I have a bunch of different web sites and my sites are always first or
second. Of course my sites actually have useful and original content. If
you're going to end up eighth then you'll get very very few hits other
than those from automated bots.
ThrobbingMember
On Dec 6, 1:23?pm, "HD Radio Farce" <hdradiofar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "ThrobbingMember" <SherryHo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> IBOC Crock, {HD Radio Farce}
>
> D'Oh ! -reality-check- It's Ain't All Bad News
> about HD-Radio and it's Questionable Future :
>
> HD-Radio Continues Slow-But-Steady Growth in
> 2009http://www.twice.com/article/253539-HD_Radio_Continues_Slow_But_Stead...
>
> HD-Radio On Upswing At Some
> Retailershttp://www.twice.com/article/355562-HD_Radio_On_Upswing_At_Some_Retai...
>
> NAB 2009 Conference -news-
> Zune & HD-Radio Getting Tons of
> Buzzzhttp://www.marioarmstrong.com/blog/2009/9/28/nab-2009-conf-zune-hdrad...
>
> Pictures Via HD-Radio : The Next Hot
> Applicationhttp://www.ibiquity.com/nab_radio_show_2009_resolution_in_philly
>
> HD-Radio Some Good and Bad
> Newshttp://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/06/22/hd-radio-still-pushing-the-roc...
>
> SiPort Takes Market Lead in HD-Radio
> IC Shipments to the Consumer Products
> Markethttp://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS107748+21-Oct-2009+PR...
>
> Power Boost or Bust for HD-Radiohttp://www.rwonline.com/article/75514
>
> Is HD-Radio Toast ? {HD-Radio Has It's
> Issues}http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=487772
>
> More HD-Radio News . . .http://www.insideradio.com/sectional.asp?id=33080
>
> NOTE - One 'Farcical' Blog Ain't Going To Stop HD-Radio
> * HD Radio Farce [Blog]http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/
> * Stop IBOC Now !http://www.stopiboc.com/
> Especially when it is so one-sided, biased
> and filled with distortions.
>
> HD-Radio
> FAQshttp://www.crutchfield.com/S-apen3SAcXFf/learn/learningcenter/car/hdr...
>
> IBOC : FM HD-Radio :
> The Trend-to-Watch - Money Making HD-2
> Channelshttp://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6008ec3b49d272f2
> Plus New Car/Truck Installs & Percentage On-the-Road
>
> looking forward to 2015 and fm hd-radio's future- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> Cut-and-paste meaningless articles, because media groups are on
> iBiquity's payroll,
Cut-and-paste meaningless aricles, because hobbysists cannot DX from mom's
basement.
> as are the commissioners at the FCC.
Let's see...you hate broadcasters, iBiquity, the FCC...and professional
publications, terrestrial radio.....
Anyone else?
You readily advocate the end of terrestrial radio.....all so you can DX AM
and hope to get a LPFM station?
Not THATS a non-bias analysis!
ThrobbingMember
Not at all....it'll mean a reorganiztion...and maybe a purchase of the FCC
license to anothe company to pursue.
But it's not gonna happen, cuz banks dont want to own stations, nor
iBiquity.
No bank has taken over and radio chain. They dont want them.
ThrobbingMember
> save money. ? Now radios (FM) are stock items just like HD radios will be.
>
> > BMW is getting nothing but complaints...
>
> Again, no data to back this up.
>
> "Nothing but complaints" is you trying to overstate something.
>
> reception" as well.
>
> > I get almost weekly hits from General Motors and Ford
>
> on my blog...
>
> see your blog (anyone can blog), your anonymity (apparently you cant stand
> behind this), and your lack of broadcast, auto, or technical
> creditentials),
> they realize you are just another bozo on the bus.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yea, that's why they keep returning for more visits. I quote nothing
but professionals.
Wow! You actually responded?
YOu only quote professionals who agree with you. That's a lopsided
analysis.
ANyone visitng your "blog" (BTW...anyone can blog) can see that you have an
agenda...not independent analysis. Anyone with anything good to say about
HD radio is excluded from your site.
DO you think a blog of one-sided commentary convinced anyone?
ThrobbingMember
No response to the issues presented above...another distraction to another
cut-and-pate job.
> This is BMW's HD Radio troubleshooting Guide:
Reminds me of the first troubleshooting guide I got with my first FM car
radio.
Chapter 1...how to get better fm reception. LOL!
And we know what a disaster FM radio was! LOL!