Europe's digital radio sector is a not a happy place, as consumers vote with their wallets - LMFAO!!!
iBiquity Fraudsters
Stone the Kroes
By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author
Posted in Music and Media, 3rd March 2011 16:30 GMT
Free whitepaper – The Register Guide to Enterprise Virtualization
Europe's digital radio sector is a not a happy place, as consumers
vote with their wallets. It isn't just a DAB thing, which is a
uniquely British disaster: the appetite for digital radio is similarly
depressed all over the continent. And this is not good enough for
Neelie Kroes, Europe's unelected digital czar.
"Some people even question the fact that we really need digital radio
or claim that radio is 'a special case' which could exist forever on a
combination of analogue and online services," she has told the
Association for European Radio's annual conference. Kroes reminds us
that "it is not for us in Brussels to dictate the pace or the way
change should happen in this diverse sector".
Which is true. But that's not going to stop her chipping in. Why?
"My job is to help content providers scale up their offer [sic] at
least to the Single Market size – and that cannot be done with FM
analogue radio alone," she says.
There is hope then, for Alan Partridge – whose Mid Morning Matters may
soon be heard in Latvia and Greece.
Kroes does, to her credit, admit there's a problem, saying, "we need
to understand why the EU-wide consensus in 1986 that led to the
technically impressive DAB standard has drifted to today’s inertia. Is
it because digital radio is the new 'betamax'?"
She then goes on to cite the UK as an example of the potential of DAB.
If only.
"How can radio best participate in convergence?" she wants to know.
"What incentives would encourage user and manufacturers to shift to
the digital format?
Kroes's intervention doesn't go much beyond exhorting her industry
audience to do some creative thinking. Which really highlights the
perils of top-down intervention: there's only so much you can do.
Digital technology has fragmented the market for devices: digital
radio is a variety of incompatible standards, while FM analog still
works anywhere. But as she notes, the WorldDMB group is working on
this. As she doesn't note, "harmonising" Europe's digital radio masts
is too costly for Europe's radio industry to afford. And debt-
encumbered governments don't see it as a priority.
Kroes compares the digital radio migration path to dial-up to
broadband, and the introduction of GSM. But in each case consumers
didn't need to be prodded into action. GSM took off because the
economies of scale made mobile telephony affordable to the masses.
Broadband took off because it was faster.
The problem with digital radio is that it doesn't really doesn't
anything like as new or compelling. There are advantages, some are
interesting, fun and useful. But there are costs, too. And the cost of
paying for carriage over two infrastructures is crippling an industry
that would be struggling to pay for one. Kroes's job is to promote
anything with digital on the label. She forgets that many digital
technologies end up in the fail bucket: digital audio tape, for
example. And while our radio listening in the future most probably
will be mostly digital one day, it may well be over IP, not purpose-
built digital multiplexes.
Expect an enquiry. Or something. ®
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eu_czar_digital_radio_do_something/
Yup, you can throw Struble's hunk-of-junk into that too - LMFAO!!!
Virtually no one gives a fuck outside of the HD broadcasters, and they
don't really care either, as most HD stations are not time-aligned and
are just jukeboxes - LMFAO!!!
RHF
wrote:
>
> Yup, you can throw Struble's hunk-of-junk into that too - LMFAO!!!
> Virtually no one gives a fuck outside of the HD broadcasters, and they
> don't really care either, as most HD stations are not time-aligned and
> are just jukeboxes - LMFAO!!!
Your Many Multiple {Spamming} Screen IDs
All End-Up ~translating~to~ LAMFAO !
clearly time-and-time again
demonstrating you are a 'fao' ~ RHF
.
-ps- it's just an 'opinion'
.
.
SMS
> Your Many Multiple {Spamming} Screen IDs
> All End-Up ~translating~to~ LAMFAO !
>
> clearly time-and-time again
> demonstrating you are a 'fao' ~ RHF
It's a natural reaction. He's bitter and disappointed about the success
digital radio has had in the marketplace. When Mexico adopted HD Radio
last week he must have been in tears.
I've seen a lot on Usenet over the years, and he and several of the
anti-digital-radio shills are right up there with the best of the best
in terms of trolls.
But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If
Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the
system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by broadcasters,
receiver manufacturers, automakers, and consumers. FM analog radio is
one of the few technologies that's relatively the same throughout the
world (the differences are small enough that receiver makers don't need
completely different receivers for each market). It would be nice if FM
digital followed the same path, and since HD is the furtherst ahead it
makes sense for the rest of the world to use the HD system.
iBiquity Fraudsters
I think we all need to applaud RHF, SMS and FarceWatch for their
incessent spin and lies on every post about digital radio. iBiquity
must be paying SMS and FarceWatch a fortune for disrupting and
hijacking all posts about digital radio. I am truely amazed by these
characters, and one would never see this type of manipulation and
obsessiveness from successful technologies such as Apple. SMS and
FarceWatch seem to think that their posts in Usenet make any
difference, but one has to have a site/blog that sits on Google's
Homepage for searches on "hd radio" to make a huge impact.
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
RHF
>
> Yup, you can throw Struble's hunk-of-junk into that too - LMFAO!!!
> Virtually no one gives a fuck outside of the HD broadcasters, and they
> don't really care either, as most HD stations are not time-aligned and
- are just jukeboxes - LMFAO!!!
What else is a Top 40 Radio Station
{Be It Analog -or- Digital IBOC/DAB}
To Be -or- Not To Be -but-a- JukeBox !
.
.
Eureka/DAB Forces something 'new' on Audio Consumers
.
Eureka/DAB Forces Another Radio Band on Audio Consumers
.
Eureka/DAB Forces Requires an Immediate Change by Audio Consumers
.
IBOC Allows Most Audio Consumers To Stay With The Old
-and- Early Adopters Can Try Something "New" :o)
.
IBOC Keeps The Same Old Bands For All Audio Consumers
-and- Provides for Early Adopters to Try Something "New" :o)
.
IBOC Does NOT Require an Immediate Change by Consumers
-and- All Allows Early Adapters Experience Something "New" :o)
.
Within a Decade ~2016+ IBOC {HD-Radio} in the USA
will reach the Tipping-Point and Analog Radio will be
like 8-Tracks and BetaMaxs... a something that fewer
and fewer remember with each passing year . . .
the times... they are a changing . . . ~ RHF
.
.
SMS
> Within a Decade ~2016+ IBOC {HD-Radio} in the USA
> will reach the Tipping-Point and Analog Radio will be
> like 8-Tracks and BetaMaxs... a something that fewer
> and fewer remember with each passing year . . .
I'd say more like 2020 to 2025 for analog terrestrial radio to disappear
in the U.S. Because of the recession you're not going to see HD Radio in
every new car for five to seven more years, and thus there will be too
many relatively new vehicles with analog-only radios in "~2016+." Look
how long it took every vehicle to have FM, after FM was invented, more
than thirty years!
I'd predict that by 2020, buying a vehicle with an analog FM radio will
be like buying a vehicle with a cassette deck in 2011. I could be wrong
of course, all of a sudden something so much better could come along
that everyone abandoned digital radio.
The big advantage in the U.S. and other HD countries, is that it's a
more gradual transition than in Europe. This causes some problems in
terms of co-existence of analog and digital on the same band, but it
also makes the transition a lot easier. It's still possible that if DAB+
fails that the European countries will look to the success of HD Radio
in the U.S. and realize that even though it's an American system that
it's a better solution than DAB+.
RHF
By 2020 IBOC HD-Radio will have proven itself {or Failed}
and be a Cookie-Cutter Adaptation for any Country that
wants to make use of it. Plenty of 'cheap' Consumer AM
& FM HD-Radios in Production and Proven Transmitters.
time will tell... time will tell . . . ~ RHF
.
.
iBiquity Fraudsters
How long do you think that investors will continue to float iBiquity?
iBiquity was supposed to go IPO by 2009, but now it is too late,
especially since many investment firms out of NY, and some direct
iBiquity investors, have repeatedly visited my blog and know about the
car HD Radio investigations.
cuh...@webtv.net
or three dollars in discount stores.
cuhulin, the Analog
arthr...@webtv.net
They must love it the usual way . By sacrificing .
arthr...@webtv.net
Are they in working condition ? Sounds a little too cheap for a
regular product , or are they being dumped ...
Nick_G
If any post proves that SMS doesn't know what he's talking about, then
this is it. FM channel spacing in Europe is 100kHz. How on earth would
IBOC work with channels that close together? OK, the frequency
planning ensures that stations 100kHz apart are geographically
relatively distant but here there are many signals 200kHz apart that
are relatively close to each other, enough so that the boundaries
between them have usable signals.
Oh, and trying to convince the public to adopt a new digital radio
system that offers no advantages to DAB (which is struggling) would be
another bad idea!
RHF
SMS,
It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-
Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .
but,, But... BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .
That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC & HD-Radio One Generation . . .
RHF
Let Me Think . . .
HD-Radio is is the USA -and--not- 'Uber' Euro-Land
-we-think-therefore-we-are-euro-landers-
wow that is profound , , , ~ RHF
.
-ps- There Is A Real World There : Beyond Euro-Land !
.
.
RHF
wrote:
The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed
~translation~ YOU LOSE !
.
.
RHF
- - AM/FM radios for as little two or three dollars
- - in discount stores.
- - cuhulin, the Analog
- Are they in working condition ?
- Sounds a little too cheap for a
- regular product , or are they being dumped ...
and they . . . t u n e . . . from here...
all-the-way-to-there . . .
.
.
Brenda Ann
"Nick_G" wrote in message
news:2438c06f-5fbc-49c1...@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
If any post proves that SMS doesn't know what he's talking about, then
this is it. FM channel spacing in Europe is 100kHz. How on earth would
IBOC work with channels that close together? OK, the frequency
planning ensures that stations 100kHz apart are geographically
relatively distant but here there are many signals 200kHz apart that
are relatively close to each other, enough so that the boundaries
between them have usable signals.
Oh, and trying to convince the public to adopt a new digital radio
system that offers no advantages to DAB (which is struggling) would be
another bad idea!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still trying to figure out how they can claim that IBLOCK is doing well.
The sales are abysmal. The radios don't sell, and the stores have been
dropping the prices to try to get rid of them.
The conversion of stations has slowed dramatically because of this, and most
stations say they won't convert till there is a significant listener base.
iBiquity's own sales records show ~3,000,000 licenses sold (this doesn't
mean that 3,000,000 receivers have been sold, only that they have been built
and the licenses paid for), and even if these all represented an actual
receiver sold, it's a pretty ugly figure, since it's less than a 1%
penetration of the market. Compare this with something over 500,000,000
analog radios currently in use. And those are not going away.
As an aside, it was figured that as prices dropped on flat panel televisions
that their market penetration would reach over 90% after analog was shut
off.. this has not happened. With so much of the country living below the
poverty level, folks don't just discard perfectly good working electronics
and/or appliances just because someone tells them they must but the next
"big thing." And personally, (this is among people I know personally, not
those in some newgroup or another) I don't know anyone with a flatscreen TV
that isn't still watching more than 2/3 of what they watch in analog or
digital 480i, mostly because the cable companies are charging for anything
HD that they make available, even the OTA local channels.
RHF
Nick omG oh,,, Oh... OH ! ! !
Digital Mulit-Channel Divide By Two
Plus Digital Tuning and Decoding -V- Analog
The Digital Age Requires Digital Thinking
-not- stall analog hysteria :
hiss,,, Hiss... HISS ! ! ! . . . Her-Ri-A !
-yes-it-sis-that-simple- ~ RHF
.
.
RHF
wrote:
BAD : The 'Technology' -is- The "Technology" !
What You Hear [Noise] on an Analog AM/FM Receiver
-is-not-the-same-as-
What You Hear [No-Noise] on a Digital HD-Radio
AM/FM Receiver
-again- The 'Technology' -is- The "Technology" !
simply try listening to hd-radio on a
hd-radio receiver ~ RHF
.
hd-radio listeners,, we ask : : : what noise . . .
.
.
Brenda Ann
"Nick_G" wrote in message
news:2438c06f-5fbc-49c1...@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Oh, and trying to convince the public to adopt a new digital radio
system that offers no advantages to DAB (which is struggling) would be
another bad idea!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, DAB, with it's dedicated band, would be a far better digital radio
system, implemented properly. The way the UK is doing it is far from
properly, unfortunately. They allotted far too narrow a band for the
service, so in the beginning, the signals were robust and quite high
fidelity. But, as it began to "mature", and more and more services were
added, it became necessary to decrease the bitrate of each stream and
quality began to suffer in short order. This is no fault of the system, it's
the fault of shortsighted planners.
This is all beside the fact that digital radio just really has no charm for
the average person, who has known analog radio all their life and finds it
to be quite satisfactory and much cheaper to utilize. Not to mention that
radio listenership in general has been plummeting ever since personal
stereos came into vogue, much more so since mp3 players that can hold
hundreds or thousands of tracks with no commercial interruption, (mostly) no
dropouts, and no inane, headache inducing air "personalities". DJ's used to
be much better... now they're mostly just obnoxious.
Personal observation: We have around 30,000 troops in country, as of now
about 7,000 of those on post just a few blocks from me.. and as a rule, the
only place I ever hear the "radio" on base is in the commissary or the PX.
And that isn't even OTA radio, it's satellite fed directly to those stores.
SMS
<snip>
> SMS,
>
> It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
> First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
> and then country after Country after COUNTRY
> Adopts HD-Radio . . .
> -truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-
>
> Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
> -or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .
>
> but,, But... BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .
>
> That Generation Changes Take A Generation
> Give IBOC& HD-Radio One Generation . . .
>
> time will tell . . . ~ RHF
I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.
If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition, it's how
bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
any money). Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.
I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
or on your iPod.
Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically. The
exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
as digital power levels are allowed to rise.
With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.
SMS
<snip>
> The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed
> ~translation~ YOU LOSE !
Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver manufacturers
are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and clueless
individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with an
HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite radio.
If that's the best that those opposed to digital radio can do, then
digital radio has a very bright future indeed.
The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
monthly fees. The lack of multipath interference is a plus, but the same
thing that sells satellite radio and Pandora is what's driving adoption
of digital radio, except that digital radio doesn't have a recurring
monthly charge.
If you look at what radio stations are doing with their HD sub-channels
it's adding more content, especially content where the audience isn't
sufficient to warrant continuing the genre on the main station. Even if
the audio quality could technically be better on analog FM, in practice,
the sound quality and lack of interference, even at a lower bit rate on
the sub-channels, still provides a superior product in most cases than
analog FM.
SMS
> The conversion of stations has slowed dramatically because of this,
The conversion of stations has slowed because you can only convert once!
The majority of major market stations have already converted. Smaller
stations will take their time.
> since it's less than a 1% penetration of the market. Compare this with
> something over 500,000,000 analog radios currently in use. And those are
> not going away.
The big increase in HD receivers will come as sales of vehicles with HD
receivers takes off. Toyota just announced, and Ford is in production,
along with a bunch of smaller manufacturers like VW and BMW. It's very
similar to how FM radio evolved--once FM receivers became standard
equipment, or a low cost option, FM radio took off.
The one fear is that what happened to FM will happen to HD, when it
becomes popular. I don't know how many people remember early FM radio,
but it was a home to less top-40 genres and more alternative formats,
and because of the low penetration of receivers there was not so much
advertising. That's where we are today with HD. My favorite HD2 station
runs no advertising at all, it's completely supported by the FM/HD1 station.
Clearly the broadcasters would like to monetize HD, but that's several
years out. The broadcasters that converted early did so with a long term
view of the advantages of digital radio. It doesn't cost much to add
digital at a 1% power level, so it's not like they were investing a huge
amount of money in the technology. The big question for broadcasters now
is this "what percentage of the listening public must have HD receivers
in order for it to make sense for us to increase digital power to 10%?"
A 10x power increase is going to cost some real money.
> As an aside, it was figured that as prices dropped on flat panel
> televisions that their market penetration would reach over 90% after
> analog was shut off.
No, it was never expected that flat panels would quickly reach 90% of
the installed base. Anyone with digital cable or satellite had no need
to even get a converter. Flat panels did quickly reach nearly 100% of
new sales.
> people I know personally, not those in some newgroup or another) I don't
> know anyone with a flatscreen TV that isn't still watching more than 2/3
> of what they watch in analog or digital 480i, mostly because the cable
> companies are charging for anything HD that they make available, even
> the OTA local channels.
I have Dish Network (much less expensive than cable or DirecTV) and they
do not charge for HD ("for life") if you agree to paperless billing (or
if you pay them a one-time $99 fee).
<http://www.dishnetwork.com/packages/free-hdtv/default.aspx>. Those that
are still on cable have more money than sense, or they want broadband
internet from the cable company so they also get their TV from them. I
did get a flat panel HDTV when my 1987 Toshiba 27" CRT television
stopped working last year (on/off relay controlled by remote control
stopped working). I could have repaired it (replaced the relay before
myself once), but I thought 23 years was a reasonable expectation of
service.
cuh...@webtv.net
of the wall outlets there (just like I always do with plug em in the
wall thingys to try them out) and see what happens.If the sales clerk
says over a dollar, Forget It!
cuhulin
iBiquity Fraudsters
>
> - Show quoted text -
"With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously."
So glad that I bother you so much. Posting in newsgroups, as you and
FarceWatch are forced to do, has zero affect with such a small
audience. One has to have a site that sits on Google's Homepage for
searches on "hd radio". Even then, there is very little interest in HD
Radio. But, what counts are searches from the FCC, US Courts, Keefe
Bartels, law firms, the FTC, the GAO, Congress, Congressonal Quartly,
GM, Ford, Sanyo (daily regular), iBiquity investors, many foreign
broadcasters, and on and on and on - LMFAO!
Richard Evans
> On 3/6/2011 1:02 AM, RHF wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The Economic Tipping Point Has Passed
>> ~translation~ YOU LOSE !
>
> Well I'm sure that the 2000+ stations broadcasting in HD, the
> multi-national automobile manufacturers, and the receiver manufacturers
> are operating in fear of a hysterical blog by an anonymous and clueless
> individual, and a page on a web site of a personal injury law firm in
> New Jersey that complains that the range of digital radio signals is
> insufficient because one of the principals purchased a vehicle with an
> HD Radio and didn't realize that it was not the same as satellite radio.
>
> If that's the best that those opposed to digital radio can do, then
> digital radio has a very bright future indeed.
Now there's spin if ever I heard it.
I don't remember hearing about any legal suits against Woolworth's
stores here in the UK, so by your logic they also should have had a very
bright future indeed. And yet they still went Bankrupt.
Having no strong legal suits against a company, doesn't automatically
make them a success, that it just pure spin.
For digital radio to be a success, it needs to get the public interested
in buying receivers and in using them. So far (judging from what I've
ready here) the sales of HD-Radio receivers has been tiny. I accept that
sales might increase (as I can't prove otherwise), but that hasn't
happened yet. So you can't yet claim that digital radio has been a
success, and you can not assume that it is going to be a success, and
you can not claim that it has a bright future. At least not without some
strong evidence to back it up, and so far I've not seen any such strong
evidence, just a lot of spin from people like you.
>
> The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
> monthly fees. The lack of multipath interference is a plus, but the same
> thing that sells satellite radio and Pandora is what's driving adoption
> of digital radio, except that digital radio doesn't have a recurring
> monthly charge.
They tried to see us DAB based upon content here in the UK, and that
approach hasn't worked. The forecasts for DAB listening figures keep on
having to be revised down, and it's actually got to the point where
sales grown of often negative. The sales of DAB receivers seems to have
levelled off, while only a small minority of people are listening to it.
>
> If you look at what radio stations are doing with their HD sub-channels
> it's adding more content, especially content where the audience isn't
> sufficient to warrant continuing the genre on the main station. Even if
> the audio quality could technically be better on analog FM, in practice,
> the sound quality and lack of interference, even at a lower bit rate on
> the sub-channels, still provides a superior product in most cases than
> analog FM.
Still more spin, but no sign of significant receiver sales.
Richard E.
iBiquity Fraudsters
According to the FCC database only 1800+ stations have converted, not
the 2100 iBiquity claims, and a number of them have turned off IBOC.
iBiquity Fraudsters
You wouldn't be spending so much time bashing me and my blog, if you
weren't so worried. I see that you visit my blog obsessively from West
Virginia.
iBiquity Fraudsters
"HD Radio Increasing Format Diversity?"
"From there, we can derive that 15% - or a whopping 130 multicast
channels - exist right now that might actually offer up something new
to a listener lucky enough to be in that innovative market (and
equipped with the proper receiver, which in itself is an interesting
story), as opposed to a derivation on the same-old."
http://www.diymedia.net/archive/0809.htm#082509
Only 15% of HD channels, if they haven't been tuned off already, are
offering anything new.
D. Peter Maus
> The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
> monthly fees.
The content on digital subchannels is no different than the
content on the baseband. A different shuffling of the records, but
the same records as are heard elsewhere.
And as for monthly fees....conditional access has been under test
for more than a year, now. And that IS the goal of digital radio.
It's been the holy grail of broadcast since KDKA. Digital doesn't
make it possible. But digital does make it practical.
Public interest is still waning for HD radio, and more stations
are turning off the IBOC transmitters across the country every
month. Audio quality is poor and coverage is spotty.
And no, it's not a philosophical difference that has most in
opposition to HD Radio, it's the interference, the lesser audio
quality for the addition of programming that's no different than
what's on the baseband that's got so many people opposed.
Your protests to the contrary not withstanding, HD Radio is not a
growth industry.
iBiquity Fraudsters
With RadioGuard consumers would have to call 1-800-rip-poff Not going
to happen! LOL!
iBiquity Fraudsters
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now, it's two law firms working in concert. I talked with Keefe's
office about a month ago (we are in email contact with him, and I just
fed him information about Microsoft's and iBiquity's fraud to sell the
Zune HD in Canada where there are zero HD Radio stations), and they
indicated they were having a conference call with a bunch of
"experts". I wouldn't be surprised to see more specialized
communications law firms getting involved. Broadcasters are already
involved. There is so much iBiquity deception and fraud to investigate.
SMS
> On 3/6/11 09:00 , SMS wrote:
>
>> The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
>> monthly fees.
>
>
> The content on digital subchannels is no different than the content on
> the baseband. A different shuffling of the records, but the same records
> as are heard elsewhere.
The HD2 (and HD3, 4 if they exist) content is very different than the
analog/HD1 content. In a great many locales, "niche" formats like jazz,
classical, R&B, oldies, etc., only exist anymore on HD2.
> And as for monthly fees....conditional access has been under test for
> more than a year, now. And that IS the goal of digital radio. It's been
> the holy grail of broadcast since KDKA. Digital doesn't make it
> possible. But digital does make it practical.
Yes, it's possible that stations could offer commercial-free paid
conditional access if the public would go along with it. I think it's
unlikely to happen considering the alternative paid services.
> Public interest is still waning for HD radio, and more stations are
> turning off the IBOC transmitters across the country every month. Audio
> quality is poor and coverage is spotty.
Some AM is being turned off, but it's extremely rare for an FM IBOC
station to stop digital transmission. More and more FM stations are
adding HD, but since most major stations have already converted the rate
of increase of conversions is less than when it was brand new. Audio
quality is excellent, but coverage is definitely an issue at 1% of
analog power. The hope by everyone is that as receiver penetration
continues to increase that HD stations will increase their power levels.
> And no, it's not a philosophical difference that has most in opposition
> to HD Radio, it's the interference, the lesser audio quality for the
> addition of programming that's no different than what's on the baseband
> that's got so many people opposed.
LOL, no matter how many times you claim "lesser audio quality" it won't
make it true.
> Your protests to the contrary not withstanding, HD Radio is not a growth
> industry.
Apparently radio stations, receiver makers, auto makers, and broadcast
equipment manufacturers have a different view of things. But then
they're actually knowledgeable about the industry so clearly their view
isn't valid!
cuh...@webtv.net
cuhulin
Patty Winter
In article <4d739e11$0$22171$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
>or not digital radio succeeds or fails.
It may not affect you financially, but you clearly have a dog in this
fight in terms of your ego, because you keep saying the same wrong
things over and over again, apparently in a desperate attempt to have
people agree that you're right.
>But it's disappointing to see so
>many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
>on facts and logic.
Forget the out-and-out trolls (and it's disingenous of you to neglect
to mention the pro-IBOC ones); there are plenty of neither-pro-nor-
anti-IBOC folks who are simply trying to discuss the topic. (And btw,
note my change to "pro-IBOC" and "anti-IBOC"; it was awfully arrogant
of you to apply the sweeping term "anti-digital" to people who have
concerns about a single digital radio format, namely IBOC. Especially
when several of them have explicitly said that they would be perfectly
happy to see a *good* digital standard. So please, drop the sweeping
generalization, okay?)
A number of people here have attempted to have reasonable discussions
with you using facts and logic, yet you either completely ignore them
(such as John Higdon's postings) or you just toss back the same wrong
information again and again (such as that multipath is a major annoyance
to analog FM radio listeners).
>Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
>valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically.
There you go again, equating concerns about IBOC with some kind of
sweeping unwillingness to accept any kind of digital platform.
>With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
>concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll.
Or our favorite HD troll? Surely you aren't going to lose further
credibility (not that you have much at this point) by neglecting
to admit that there are pro-IBOC trolls on these groups, too?
>It would be
>nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
>research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
>verified their statements prior to posting them.
Oh, you mean like actual working broadcasters who have hands-on
experience with digital radio that you don't want to hear about?
What sort of research have you done on digital radio besides reading
online articles? At how many stations have you implemented an IBOC
system and gotten firsthand knowledge of its benefits and challenges?
How have you dealt with its effects on the entire audio chain, or
with phone calls from CEs at other stations about interference within
their protected contours? Please, enlighten us about your real-world
research. As the old saying goes, it's time to put up or shut up.
>Their consistent
>reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
>people not to take them seriously.
See that mirror over there? You might want to go look in it...
Patty
Kevin McMurtrie
I'm all for digital radio but Ibiquity will screw it up. According to
their specification, the removal of analog bandwidth does not increase
the bandwidth for audio. It goes to some other unspecified use that I
can only imagine isn't for free radio. The current encoding, which is
barely good enough for interim use, remains.
--
I will not see posts from Google or e-mails from Yahoo because I must
filter them as spam
Richard Evans
>> Their consistent
>> reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
>> people not to take them seriously.
>
> See that mirror over there? You might want to go look in it...
Well said. I agreed with everything in your post. I didn't quote the
rest as there's not much point in just repeating everything.
From my point of view, when I first heard about digital radio (many
many years ago when DAB was still an aspiration for the future), I
thought great. CD quality radio in the car.
But oh what a huge disappointment it is today. Rather than good sound
quality, we have the opposite. Audio that is so bad I find it too
annoying to listen to it. I ended up on alt.radio.digital, because of
the poor sound quality issue. All the other stuff about codecs and
transmission systems are, to me, just part of the many reasons why
digital radio today sounds so sh*t. And now to add insult to injury,
there is talk of switching off FM in favour of these dreadful digital
radio systems. It's got to the point where I would be content to 'put
up' with digital radio, if only it sounded as good as FM.
A good modern digital radio system might not fix all the problems, but
it would at least make good sound quality a feasible option.
Richard E.
iBiquity Fraudsters
> In article <4d739e11$0$22171$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
The all-digital mode has never been tested - it may not even work. The
only thing iBiquity is interested in is an IPO, which now will never
happen.
dave
Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
> card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
> may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.
>
News is the killer app for free radio.
dave
> Where, oh where? is Eduardo to chime in on that.
> cuhulin
>
"Dwardo's all over it. But you knew that.
dxAce
dave wrote:
'Eduardo' is a clown 'tard whose mommy sent him away because he was an
embarrassment to the family.
She also fronted him the $$ for his Ecuadorian adventures.
Bet on it.
D. Peter Maus
> On 3/6/2011 7:55 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
>> On 3/6/11 09:00 , SMS wrote:
>>
>>> The fact is that digital radio is all about content and a lack of
>>> monthly fees.
>>
>>
>> The content on digital subchannels is no different than the
>> content on
>> the baseband. A different shuffling of the records, but the same
>> records
>> as are heard elsewhere.
>
> The HD2 (and HD3, 4 if they exist) content is very different than
> the analog/HD1 content.
Not so. Not by a long shot. If you look, as I stated above, the
content on the digital subchannels is just a repackaging of the same
crap that's on the baseband. What makes it so 'different' is the
classic rock stations have R&B subchannels. While the R&B stations
have 80's and classic rock subchannels.
Not very different at all.
>
>> And as for monthly fees....conditional access has been under test for
>> more than a year, now. And that IS the goal of digital radio. It's
>> been
>> the holy grail of broadcast since KDKA. Digital doesn't make it
>> possible. But digital does make it practical.
>
> Yes, it's possible that stations could offer commercial-free paid
> conditional access if the public would go along with it. I think
> it's unlikely to happen considering the alternative paid services.
It's currently under development.
>
>> Public interest is still waning for HD radio, and more stations are
>> turning off the IBOC transmitters across the country every month.
>> Audio
>> quality is poor and coverage is spotty.
>
> Some AM is being turned off, but it's extremely rare for an FM IBOC
> station to stop digital transmission. More and more FM stations are
> adding HD,
Not for the last 18 months, they haven't. And a good number of
FM's have turned off their IBOC transmitters. This in direct
conflict with the contracts with iBiquity. And they're have been
threatened lawsuits. But so far, the only thing that's come of it
have been a lot of threats. And more IBOC transmitters leaving the air.
but since most major stations have already converted the
> rate of increase of conversions is less than when it was brand new.
It's zero, going backward.
>
>> And no, it's not a philosophical difference that has most in
>> opposition
>> to HD Radio, it's the interference, the lesser audio quality for the
>> addition of programming that's no different than what's on the
>> baseband
>> that's got so many people opposed.
>
> LOL, no matter how many times you claim "lesser audio quality" it
> won't make it true.
It's not my claim. Test after test, by broadcasters, by
consultants, have been controverted by real double blind listening
tests involving listeners.
The audio quality simply doesn't measure up. Less processing,
yes. But more digital artifacts. More than a low bit MP3.
Deny all you want. Known and documented by iBiquity themselves.
Richard Evans
>
> I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
> or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
> many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
> on facts and logic.
Myths and lies?? It's no myth of lie that when I listen to digital radio
I hear sound quality so poor that all I want to do is switch it off. For
me the question is why does digital radio sound so bad, and a large part
of the answer is the use of outdated in efficient technologies. But then
I've already explained all of that to you, and you just ignored it.
>
> If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
> radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition,
Why? Nobody has provided any logical reason why radio has to be digital.
If digital radio provided real benefits then that would be fair enough,
but for me, all it provides is a few extra stations that I didn't need,
with sound quality so low that it is too annoying to listen to it. If
listening to the radio becomes annoying then it is pointless.
> it's how
> bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
> radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
> been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
> get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
> rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
> no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
> to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
> any money).
You missed out the option is staying with FM. FM is not perfect, but it
does at least work and work well. Mobile internet, is a bit of an
unknown as far as I'm concerned. I accept that at the moment it isn't
good enough, but whether or not it will eventually become good enough
with the introduction of newer technologies, is something hard to predict.
> Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
> card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
> may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.
So you do admit that people want quality.
>
> I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
> can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
> don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
> or on your iPod.
I like radio too, although I do often find the audio processing used on
many radio stations can be annoying. Hence I often resort to listening
to CDs.
>
> Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
> valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically.
Actually I think the majority of the public don't buy digital radios,
because they are content with what they already have. So why spend money
on something they don't need.
For me, it's not digital radio that I'm against, it's poor sound quality
that I'm against. A lot of the reasons for digital radio sounding too
poor, are technical. And as for philosophical, well there is nothing
philosophical about not liking poor sound quality.
> The
> exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
> low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
> of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
> would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
> as digital power levels are allowed to rise.
>
> With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
> concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll.
Well then I belong in the group with valid concerns. I'm concerned that
they might replace FM with some digital broadcasts that sound so poor
they are not worth listening too.
> It would be
> nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
> research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and
I don't need research to tell me what my ears tell me, that the DAB
system we have here sounds dreadful. As for HD-Radio, I have found out
as much as I reasonably can, and it all points to more outdated in
efficient technology delivering poor sound quality, but with the added
disadvantage of being likely to cause interference to FM services.
Oh and BTW. One of the reasons why it was rejected after the trial in
Germany, was because it didn't meet interference standards.
> b)
> verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
> reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
> people not to take them seriously.
I've been frustrated by digital radio for many years now, and spent many
hours finding out the facts, so I think I have a pretty good idea what
I'm talking about.
One of the things that frustrates me is that digital radio could have
been so good, but instead we end up with broadcasters just trying to
cram in as many services as they can, using outdated technology, and the
result sounds dreadful.
Richard E.
Richard Evans
>>
>> LOL, no matter how many times you claim "lesser audio quality" it
>> won't make it true.
>
> It's not my claim. Test after test, by broadcasters, by consultants,
> have been controverted by real double blind listening tests involving
> listeners.
>
> The audio quality simply doesn't measure up. Less processing, yes. But
> more digital artifacts. More than a low bit MP3.
>
> Deny all you want. Known and documented by iBiquity themselves.
Well it's nice to know that somebody is actually trying to verify this
fact, which seems so obvious when I use my own ears.
Over here in the UK, we have had years of the problem being denied and
denied and denied. More recently the BBC seem to have changes tactics
slightly, now giving us some bullsh*t about sound quality depending upon
distance from the transmitter. The one thing that they never do is
proper listening tests, which I suspect is because it would tell them
what they don't want to know (or don't want us to know).
When I first got a DAB radio in my car, I tried tuning into the same
station on both FM and on DAB, and switched from one to the other, while
parked in my garage. The improvement every time I switched to FM was
very obvious. And BTW. That was a station using 160k on DAB which is a
higher bit rate than the vast majority of DAB broadcasts.
Richard E.
Brenda Ann
"dave" wrote in message
news:4d73ddab$0$5675$bd46...@news.dslextreme.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I get all the news I want, even video if I want that, on my iPhone. Lots of
free apps, and with unlimited internet (Korea DOES have its benefits) it's
all basically free.
dave
Except for the iphone part. Do you enjoy charging it 3 times a day?
Richard Evans
> A good modern digital radio system might not fix all the problems, but
> it would at least make good sound quality a feasible option.
>
> Richard E.
Speaking of good digital radio systems, I just did a bit of searching
for information on a standard called DVB-NGH. This is a intended to be a
standard for broadcasting to hand held devices, most likely based upon
the DVB-T2 standard. It's actually being developed as a mobile TV
standard, but there is no reason why it couldn't carry digital radio.
That should be very good as a digital radio standard. It seems that they
plan to have it all standardised around about the year 2013.
DVB-T2 has a mode that with a bandwidth of 1.7 Mhz, which ought to make
it suitable for Band III channels designed for DAB/DAB+. Hopefully NGH
will also have this option. Whether or not it is actually used, and
whether it is actually used for digital radio is however another matter.
I'm not especially optimistic about it as broadcasters don't seem to
like introducing new standards.
Richard E.
Brenda Ann
"dave" wrote in message
news:4d740c5c$0$5638$bd46...@news.dslextreme.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More like once every three days... unless I'm actually talking on the phone
a lot. It's no worse on batteries than any other cell phone I've owned.
cuh...@webtv.net
can dig it up.You can make your own Apps.
cuhulin
dave
>
>>
>> I get all the news I want, even video if I want that, on my iPhone. Lots
>> of free apps, and with unlimited internet (Korea DOES have its benefits)
>> it's all basically free.
>
> Except for the iphone part. Do you enjoy charging it 3 times a day?
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> More like once every three days... unless I'm actually talking on the
> phone a lot. It's no worse on batteries than any other cell phone I've
> owned.
>
>
Then you obviously aren't using it to listen to the radio all day. You
can buy a radio for $10 that'll run for a week on a pair of AA
batteries. People charge batteries in the sun to listen to the radio.
People who have never seen a power line, let alone an iPhone.
If you trash free radio by making it all digital that will be the end of
freedom as we know it.
Digital is not efficient. You can't run a digital radio for a week on a
pair of AA batteries.
m II
"dave" wrote in message
news:4d742c8b$0$5672$bd46...@news.dslextreme.com...
Then you obviously aren't using it to listen to the radio all day. You
can buy a radio for $10 that'll run for a week on a pair of AA
batteries. People charge batteries in the sun to listen to the radio.
People who have never seen a power line, let alone an iPhone.
If you trash free radio by making it all digital that will be the end of
freedom as we know it.
Digital is not efficient. You can't run a digital radio for a week on a
pair of AA batteries.
------------------------
That's because you can't fit a pair of AA batteries in those new multiband,
all in the earpiece, digital radios available now.
They take some micro battery and you throw them out when the batteries go
dead in 15 years 'cause the bands have been outlawed and moved into the
teraHertz band. I am talking about thee two way units, though. The high
frequencies keeps the wax evaporated from your ears and close proximity to
film keeps your doctor seeing what you are thinking when you get a checkup.
mike
cuh...@webtv.net
course, I don't need to worry about that.
cuhulin
dave
dave
cuh...@webtv.net
///Hell NO!///
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=How+to+make+your+own+Apps
cuhulin
SMS
That's true. And what many people don't appreciate is the local aspect
of radio. Those that do appreciate it are the ones trying to move
forward to improve terrestrial radio to make it relevant. One station
that can offer a choice of different content has a big advantage over
its competition.
Ironically, one thing the web does really well is to deliver news, while
one thing it does relatively poorly is to stream music.
Brenda Ann
"dave" wrote in message
news:4d742c8b$0$5672$bd46...@news.dslextreme.com...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preaching to the choir there... I don't bash analog radio. I believe it
should exist permanently. Too many problems with digital, not the least of
which is that it's nowhere near as robust as analog, and you have to do too
much to detect and decode it. Once you are absolutely FORCED to buy
someone's technology to listen to radio, it's no longer a true public
medium.
And once HF is all DRM, that will pretty much put an end to all that remote
listening off the power grid. Again, not robust enough. When analog fades a
bit, you can still use your ears to figure out what's being said/played.
With DRM, if it fades, it's gone. Nothing.
BTW, when I DO listen to the radio on my iPhone, I can play it for many
hours easily. I've yet to run the battery completely down on the phone (4G).
Now, talk time... THAT eats the battery pretty good... but I keep a backup
with me that plugs right into the 40 pin jack and runs the phone for several
hours of talk time. (never used it yet, either).
Brenda Ann
"SMS" wrote in message news:4d7446e4$0$22103$742e...@news.sonic.net...
That's true. And what many people don't appreciate is the local aspect
of radio.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're assuming more than a tertiary "local aspect."
By far most stations have perhaps, at best, a morning and evening "drive
time" program. Other than that, the only local content seems to be
commercials. I can't say that I've heard a newscast on a (non-news/talk)
commercial station in many years. Even our AFN stations have dropped all
local content except for emergency command information. And figure that the
FM band is starting to get really crowded with sports/talk/religious
stations... and who needs to hear Rush, Jim Rome and sanctimonious self
righteous preachers in digital?
cuh...@webtv.net
USA channel, every once in a while there is a Walgreen's apps
commercial, and Motorola Xoom commercials too.(Dude, You are getting
'Dell'!)
Download them apps baby, y'all Zombies and Droids out there, drink your
Koolaid.
Nienty Nine point nienty nine point nienty percent of them apps, I
couldn't care less about.Everywhere I go, I see them Zombies out there
everywhere they go, pecking on those little screens of their gadgets
with their fingers, (They are ready for the Dawn of No Return!) those
MOFOs get Dumber by the minute!
I Refuse to be turned into a Zombie MOFO!
http://www.wallgreens.com/mobile
cuhulin
SMS
> By far most stations have perhaps, at best, a morning and evening "drive
> time" program. Other than that, the only local content seems to be
> commercials. I can't say that I've heard a newscast on a (non-news/talk)
> commercial station in many years. Even our AFN stations have dropped all
> local content except for emergency command information. And figure that
> the FM band is starting to get really crowded with sports/talk/religious
> stations... and who needs to hear Rush, Jim Rome and sanctimonious self
> righteous preachers in digital?
A lot of public radio stations have gone all news/commentary/talk on
analog/HD1 and moved music to HD2, often classical and jazz. It doesn't
make sense from an audio standpoint to have the music on HD2 and talk on
analog/HD1, but the market for news/commentary/talk has expanded as
listeners have switched to other ways of listening to music content. If
everyone had an HD receiver then they'd be more likely to swap where
talk and music reside.
cuh...@webtv.net
Talk Missy Sippy.And you can too, if you tune in via your computery.
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=Infrared+Virtual+Keyboards
Oh yeahhh, I wants me one of them.
cuhulin, the Virtual
SMS
> I'm all for digital radio but Ibiquity will screw it up. According to
> their specification, the removal of analog bandwidth does not increase
> the bandwidth for audio. It goes to some other unspecified use that I
> can only imagine isn't for free radio. The current encoding, which is
> barely good enough for interim use, remains.
As I understand the HD-FM spec, the maximum bitrate for stereo audio is
around 98kbps. Upper and Lower secondary channels replace the analog in
all-digital, and it's about the same bps, but at lower power for the
secondary channels.
So all-digital does allow for more "virtual CD" quality audio channels,
but no, you cannot combine multiple audio channels for even higher
quality audio.
The big advantage of all-digital is that raising power levels no longer
will interfere with analog, presuming all stations do a complete digital
switchover. This is many years in the future of course.
cuh...@webtv.net
(if I owned one) or sheet like that,,, I wonder how many people are
getting knocked down every day and their toteable touch tablets get
stolen? You remember when the first iPhones came out? and somebody was
waiting by an elevator in a store in NYC.
Don't Tote!
cuhulin
arthr...@webtv.net
wrote:
> "Nick_G" wrote in message
>
> news:2438c06f-5fbc-49c1...@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> If any post proves that SMS doesn't know what he's talking about, then
> this is it. FM channel spacing in Europe is 100kHz. How on earth would
> IBOC work with channels that close together? OK, the frequency
> planning ensures that stations 100kHz apart are geographically
> relatively distant but here there are many signals 200kHz apart that
> are relatively close to each other, enough so that the boundaries
> between them have usable signals.
>
> Oh, and trying to convince the public to adopt a new digital radio
> system that offers no advantages to DAB (which is struggling) would be
> another bad idea!
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm still trying to figure out how they can claim that IBLOCK is doing well.
> The sales are abysmal. The radios don't sell, and the stores have been
> dropping the prices to try to get rid of them.
>
> The conversion of stations has slowed dramatically because of this, and most
> stations say they won't convert till there is a significant listener base.
> iBiquity's own sales records show ~3,000,000 licenses sold (this doesn't
> mean that 3,000,000 receivers have been sold, only that they have been built
> and the licenses paid for), and even if these all represented an actual
> receiver sold, it's a pretty ugly figure, since it's less than a 1%
> penetration of the market. Compare this with something over 500,000,000
> analog radios currently in use. And those are not going away.
>
> As an aside, it was figured that as prices dropped on flat panel televisions
> that their market penetration would reach over 90% after analog was shut
> off.. this has not happened. With so much of the country living below the
> poverty level, folks don't just discard perfectly good working electronics
> and/or appliances just because someone tells them they must but the next
> "big thing." And personally, (this is among people I know personally, not
> those in some newgroup or another) I don't know anyone with a flatscreen TV
> that isn't still watching more than 2/3 of what they watch in analog or
> digital 480i, mostly because the cable companies are charging for anything
> HD that they make available, even the OTA local channels.
Absolutely . We keep on running our good old CRT based tee-vee's till
they burn out . Some of them are more than 20 years old !
arthr...@webtv.net
> On 3/6/2011 5:18 PM, cuhu...@webtv.net wrote:> Those cell phones and those smart phones 'cook' your brain too.Of
> > course, I don't need to worry about that.
> > cuhulin
>
> The steel plate deflects the radiation?
We prefer non-ferrous materials !
arthr...@webtv.net
Must be the i- Apple store in the GM Building .
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> So all-digital does allow for more "virtual CD" quality audio channels,
> but no, you cannot combine multiple audio channels for even higher
> quality audio.
Thank you for finally acknowledging that. I've only had to mention it
about five times. And YOU'RE the "expert"!
From the actual iBiquity handbook the rate is 96Kbps. There is no
"98Kbps" spec in the system. So going with the real figure, we find that
the bit rate is approximately one-fifteenth that of an ordinary CD, the
CD including forward error-correction. Amazing! "Virtual CD quality"
with seven percent of the data used by the CD. And using a ten-year-old
codec at that. You don't have to be an audio engineer to discover why
"HD Radio" sounds the way it does.
> The big advantage of all-digital is that raising power levels no longer
> will interfere with analog, presuming all stations do a complete digital
> switchover. This is many years in the future of course.
But since there will be no improvement over the audio quality it
provides today, what does that buy you? And wait until digital start
interfering with other digital stations. Even though you're not willing
to admit it, the allocation table on the present FM band was designed
for analog, not digital.
It's a good thing it will never happen because it will never work, at
least not the way the stations expect.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
tony sayer
>"98Kbps" spec in the system. So going with the real figure, we find that
>the bit rate is approximately one-fifteenth that of an ordinary CD, the
>CD including forward error-correction. Amazing! "Virtual CD quality"
>with seven percent of the data used by the CD. And using a ten-year-old
>codec at that. You don't have to be an audio engineer to discover why
>"HD Radio" sounds the way it does.
Well over here a broadcaster claims that a 64K Mono channel offers
superior sound quality thats Crystal Clear;!...
Who was it who said tell the people lies often enough and they become
the truth .. Dr Goebbels was it or someone similar?..
--
Tony Sayer
arthr...@webtv.net
Yea, it's him, I reckon .
dave
>
>
>
>
> Preaching to the choir there... I don't bash analog radio. I believe it
> should exist permanently. Too many problems with digital, not the least
> of which is that it's nowhere near as robust as analog, and you have to
> do too much to detect and decode it. Once you are absolutely FORCED to
> buy someone's technology to listen to radio, it's no longer a true
> public medium.
>
> And once HF is all DRM, that will pretty much put an end to all that
> remote listening off the power grid. Again, not robust enough. When
> analog fades a bit, you can still use your ears to figure out what's
> being said/played. With DRM, if it fades, it's gone. Nothing.
>
> BTW, when I DO listen to the radio on my iPhone, I can play it for many
> hours easily. I've yet to run the battery completely down on the phone
> (4G). Now, talk time... THAT eats the battery pretty good... but I keep
> a backup with me that plugs right into the 40 pin jack and runs the
> phone for several hours of talk time. (never used it yet, either).
>
It depends on how close you are to the cell site. Out here in the
boonies the transceivers have to work harder.
dave
I got an iPod Touch specifically to run apps. It's a crappy music player.
dave
KPFT is now carrying KTRU on an HD2 stream. Rice sold KTRU's frequency
to the University of Houston for a classical station.
dave
You mean the Apple Store that is in an elevator?
dave
64K mono would be about as crystal clear as 128 stereo, no? That's
crystal clear to most people. I listen to 32 K web streams which are
great for all but most critical applications.
cuh...@webtv.net
was taking the elevator down to the first floor, he had his brand
spanking new shiney as a new born baby's ass iPhone in a string handle
shopping bag.The elevator door opened, he stepped out, a MOFO grabbed
the guy's shopping bag, nearly ripped off one of the guy's fingers
because it was tangled up in the shopping bag string handle.
BAN ALL STRING BAG SHOPPING BAGS! THEY ARE DANGEROUS!
cuhulin
cuh...@webtv.net
Jackson,Missy Sippy area.It is located at 1000 Highland Colony Parkway,
in Ridgeland.I reckon that is about nine something miles North of
doggy's couch.Doggy said, WOO WOO WOOF! Look it up.
cuhulin
bolta...@boltar.world
dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
>> Who was it who said tell the people lies often enough and they become
>> the truth .. Dr Goebbels was it or someone similar?..
>
>64K mono would be about as crystal clear as 128 stereo, no? That's
You'd think , but DAB isn't that simple. I'm sure people more in the know
can correct me but AFAIK it doesn't simply send 2 channels of data for left
and right. I think like FM it sends mono data then some sort of difference
data which uses up much less bandwidth so a 128K DAB signal has a mono
component of something like (I'm guessing) 100K. I think this is why a lot
of people complain about the stereo image of DAB being very flat.
I'm sure wikipedia has more info.
>crystal clear to most people. I listen to 32 K web streams which are
>great for all but most critical applications.
DAB uses the MP2 codec from the late 80s. 32K would be unintelligable.
B2003
Richard Evans
> So all-digital does allow for more "virtual CD" quality audio channels,
Virtual CD quality at 98kb/s? Not even aac can manage that, aac+
wouldn't either as it's designed for low bit rates rather than for high
quality.
Just another example of spin, that doesn't add up when you look at the
facts.
Richard E.
Richard Evans
> 64K mono would be about as crystal clear as 128 stereo, no? That's
> crystal clear to most people. I listen to 32 K web streams which are
> great for all but most critical applications.
I think Tony forgot to mention that DAB uses the mp2 codec, which is
*very* in-efficient compared to modern codecs.
At 128k in stereo, the sound quality is not much better than aac+ at 32k
in stereo. So I would expect aac+ 32k in mono to sound significantly
better than mp2 64k in mono.
Richard E.
SMS
<snip>
> KPFT is now carrying KTRU on an HD2 stream. Rice sold KTRU's frequency
> to the University of Houston for a classical station.
Yeah, it's too bad that so many universities are in such dire straits
that they're giving up their radio stations, something that they can't
readily get back when the economy recovers.
<http://www.kpft.org/index.php?option=com_idoblog&view=idoblog&Itemid=145>
It's interesting in that article that they mention what the biggest
attraction of digital radio actually is to broadcasters: "It also allows
a station to offer multiple stations to the public without obtaining a
new FCC license." While the better quality audio is often touted, the
reality is that that's just a side benefit of the digital system, the
read advantage is the multiple channels.
Richard Evans
>
> You'd think , but DAB isn't that simple. I'm sure people more in the know
> can correct me but AFAIK it doesn't simply send 2 channels of data for left
> and right. I think like FM it sends mono data then some sort of difference
> data which uses up much less bandwidth so a 128K DAB signal has a mono
> component of something like (I'm guessing) 100K. I think this is why a lot
> of people complain about the stereo image of DAB being very flat.
You're on the right lines, but I'll correct you :-)
Mid side is not available in mp2, instead is has a intensity stereo, and
it only uses it in the higher frequencies. The lower frequencies are
still in discrete stereo. The Intensity stereo as the name suggests, is
basically mono, with a parameter to select the difference in volume
between left and right channels. As far as I understand each audio sub
band would have it's own intensity stereo parameter.
A lot of the reason for the poor stereo image is that intensity stereo
doesn't preserve any of the phase information between the channels. Or
then again, perhaps it just that whole system is cr*p. :-o
Richard E.
dave
Designer label shopping bags are kind of like wearing big bullseyes.
I'm a stainless steel kind of guy.
dave
MP3 is Mpeg 1. It seems to do OK.
m II
Hash: SHA1
On 11-03-06 06:18 PM, cuh...@webtv.net wrote:
> Those cell phones and those smart phones 'cook' your brain too.Of
> course, I don't need to worry about that.
> cuhulin
>
You shouldn't encourage the troll. Check the headers before you respond.
mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNdQpPAAoJEJXfKw5kUPt7slsH/AxyJxA8KrYFLB4HJ13EQHb4
4+WoTi6LhnZnJsCpKwr7C49Nf5+n5OfZmYSsMZ9J5TNp1F8Ha7vw7Y6zHRnzcvhu
wkRA2/JOPYmKIlvGPr/CfF4jEUstQ2FobMbco/XKyIIZ2m9lv7MEb6urJuG/SGV8
HucN2ydtQk4cdpZnz3Myzw7HKZc073QHe4d8O2dplDDhgf32yLECx70zx2LrAFTN
KKNo8Q10g7xBjxQkBVrhDRFF2TUFlqRrEw9bnf3xyr4syQ+7YEFxVneZl9+LKoA2
1ronqqClzqQHqMH1MfSD+k6j7weky/KwIyzXr6xW9jeGhBtpe4PZ97AtOjJeRHM=
=9NBd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
cuh...@webtv.net
But, y'all keep on,,,,,, y'all keep on keeping onnnnnn,,,,,,
cuhulin
bolta...@boltar.world
dave <da...@dave.dave> wrote:
>>> crystal clear to most people. I listen to 32 K web streams which are
>>> great for all but most critical applications.
>>
>> DAB uses the MP2 codec from the late 80s. 32K would be unintelligable.
>>
>> B2003
>>
>>
>
>MP3 is Mpeg 1. It seems to do OK.
Thats because its more advanced than MP2.
Wikipedia isn't hard to use you know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II
B2003
dave
or FLAC.
tony sayer
p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus
>dave wrote:
>
>> 64K mono would be about as crystal clear as 128 stereo, no? That's
>> crystal clear to most people. I listen to 32 K web streams which are
>> great for all but most critical applications.
>
>I think Tony forgot to mention that DAB uses the mp2 codec, which is
>*very* in-efficient compared to modern codecs.
>
I thought our friends in the far West knew that already?..
>At 128k in stereo, the sound quality is not much better than aac+ at 32k
>in stereo. So I would expect aac+ 32k in mono to sound significantly
>better than mp2 64k in mono.
>
>Richard E.
--
Tony Sayer
hwh
> In article<4d746231$0$10542$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> So all-digital does allow for more "virtual CD" quality audio channels,
>> but no, you cannot combine multiple audio channels for even higher
>> quality audio.
>
> Thank you for finally acknowledging that. I've only had to mention it
> about five times. And YOU'RE the "expert"!
>
> From the actual iBiquity handbook the rate is 96Kbps. There is no
> "98Kbps" spec in the system. So going with the real figure, we find that
> the bit rate is approximately one-fifteenth that of an ordinary CD, the
> CD including forward error-correction. Amazing! "Virtual CD quality"
> with seven percent of the data used by the CD. And using a ten-year-old
> codec at that. You don't have to be an audio engineer to discover why
> "HD Radio" sounds the way it does.
And in reality they split the bandwidth in two when broadcasting two
services. One of them may have more than half, so the other one will be
crippled even more.
gr, hwh
hwh
> 64K mono would be about as crystal clear as 128 stereo, no? That's
> crystal clear to most people.
A 128 k DAB stream uses mono with a bit of panning information to derive
the stereo.
Stereo is only available on DAB from 192 kbps. upwards.
> I listen to 32 K web streams which are
> great for all but most critical applications.
They could be 32k AAC+ which is not like FM or anything but some people
can enjoy music at that rate.
gr, hwh
SMS
> And in reality they split the bandwidth in two when broadcasting two
> services. One of them may have more than half, so the other one will be
> crippled even more.
That won't be required once they move to all-digital at higher power levels.
OTOH they may decide to add more lower bit rate channels rather than
have two higher bit rate channels.
spamtrap1888
>
> But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If
> Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the
> system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by
(a decreasing number of ) broadcasters,
(some) receiver manufacturers,
(some) automakers, and
(practically no) consumers.
J G Miller
> And what many people don't appreciate is the local aspect
> of radio.
Especially the management at Clear Channel.
iBiquity Fraudsters
There was never any such quote in the Register article - SMS is lying
again.
SMS
Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, etc., understand what sells advertising
time to generate revenue.
Terrestrial radio, whether it's analog or digital, is local. You can't
say that about satellite radio or services like Pandora. Even a music
station will have some local advertisers, local weather, traffic, and
sometimes some news.
It would be interesting to see an update of Nielsen's 2009 study that
looked at daily average use of audio, and the sources of that audio. In
2009, terrestrial radio had the highest average daily use, and the
greatest reach, by far, of any audio source.