Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

[HDRadioFarce]

"The Biggest CES Flops of All Time"

"2003 -- HD Radio: Dubbed the "next great thing" in free broadcast
radio, HD radio offered digital CD-quality sound but poor marketing
and manufacturing costs meant this would always remain a pipe dream
for the masses."

http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2012/01/06/biggest-ces-flops-time/?test=faces#slide=8

Hey, Struble - ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RHF]

On Jan 6, 4:12 pm, HDRadioFarce <gosmith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time"
>
> "2003 -- HD Radio: Dubbed the "next great thing" in free broadcast
> radio, HD radio offered digital CD-quality sound but poor marketing
> and manufacturing costs meant this would always remain a pipe dream
> for the masses."
>

> http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/scitech/2012/01/06/biggest-ces-flops...
>
> Hey, Struble - ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a 'HD-Radio" New Year 'HDRadioFarce' ;;-}}

may the 'farce' be with you throughout the year ~ RHF
-may-you-lyfao-all-year-long- -lyfao- -lyfao- -lyfao-
.

[Truth Teller]

On Jan 6, 6:12 pm, HDRadioFarce <gosmith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time"

So when is the experiment finally going to OFFICIALLY be declared a
failure and cease to exist? When are ALL station managers throughout
the nation going to stop broadcasting in HD? We've been reading what a
disaster it is for years but it still hasn't gone away. Why?

I still can't listen to 1120 (KMOX), 840 (WHAS), et.al. because the
HASH is so intrusive. Even to the point of interfering with adjacent
stations on the dial. Don't the decision makers realize they are
driving away listeners in droves? As if the internet hasn't depleted
their audiences enough they have to throw gas on the fire to hasten
their demise. It appears to be a terminal case of falling in love with
your toys coupled with an inability to acknowledge one's mistake.

"Pride goeth before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Proverbs 16:18

[Richard Evans]

On 07/01/2012 00:12, HDRadioFarce wrote:
> "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time"
>
> "2003 -- HD Radio: Dubbed the "next great thing" in free broadcast
> radio, HD radio offered digital CD-quality sound but poor marketing
> and manufacturing costs meant this would always remain a pipe dream
> for the masses."

CD-Quality sound. That sounds like the same nonsense we had with DAB
advertising.

Surely it is technically impossible for HD radio to provide CD quality
sound. (DAB could technically provide near CD quality sound, but here in
the UK, no DAB transmissions actually provide it, and most are way way
below CD quality).

Richard E.

[extra class]

Loser technology for losers

[HDRadioFarce]

On Jan 7, 5:10 am, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

"DAB radio: now you hear it, now you don't"

"This would not be the first time that the marketing of DAB radio in
the UK has come under legal scrutiny for potentially misleading
consumers. In 2004, Ofcom banned an advertisement broadcast on London
station Jazz FM which had claimed falsely that DAB radio offers
consumers CD-quality sound. In 2005, the Advertising Standards
Authority upheld a complaint against DAB multiplex owner Switchdigital
for a misleading radio advert which had claimed that DAB radio was
distortion free and crystal clear."

http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/dab-radio-now-you-hear-it-in-store-now.html

At least in the UK, the DAB liars got called out for their false
claims. iBiquity uses the same dishonest tactics as the DAB folks. It
also appears that iBiquity has enlisted the help of that liar James
Cridland to shill for HD Radio. iBiquity has been under investigation
for about a year by two law firms looking to file class-action
lawsuits.

[Richard Evans]

On 07/01/2012 14:53, HDRadioFarce wrote:

>
> "DAB radio: now you hear it, now you don't"
>
> "This would not be the first time that the marketing of DAB radio in
> the UK has come under legal scrutiny for potentially misleading
> consumers. In 2004, Ofcom banned an advertisement broadcast on London
> station Jazz FM which had claimed falsely that DAB radio offers
> consumers CD-quality sound. In 2005, the Advertising Standards
> Authority upheld a complaint against DAB multiplex owner Switchdigital
> for a misleading radio advert which had claimed that DAB radio was
> distortion free and crystal clear."
>
> http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/dab-radio-now-you-hear-it-in-store-now.html
>
> At least in the UK, the DAB liars got called out for their false
> claims. iBiquity uses the same dishonest tactics as the DAB folks.

Well I think we are a few years further along the road than you are.
They did get away with calling it CD quality, for a while.

Pretty twisted in some ways, bearing in mind, that DAB can support bit
rates of up to 320k, and so can provide near CD quality.

However it has been many years since they provided even good sound
quality. With the possible exception of Radio 3, which is the only
station to use 192k, but even that is a far bit less than CD quality.

> It
> also appears that iBiquity has enlisted the help of that liar James
> Cridland to shill for HD Radio. iBiquity has been under investigation
> for about a year by two law firms looking to file class-action
> lawsuits.

I'm not sure whether Cridland is actually a liar. I think he just has a
tenancy to talk about things that he doesn't fully understand.

Richard E.

[tony sayer]

In article <je9t2d$f22$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos
p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus

>On 07/01/2012 14:53, HDRadioFarce wrote:
>
>>
>> "DAB radio: now you hear it, now you don't"
>>
>> "This would not be the first time that the marketing of DAB radio in
>> the UK has come under legal scrutiny for potentially misleading
>> consumers. In 2004, Ofcom banned an advertisement broadcast on London
>> station Jazz FM which had claimed falsely that DAB radio offers
>> consumers CD-quality sound. In 2005, the Advertising Standards
>> Authority upheld a complaint against DAB multiplex owner Switchdigital
>> for a misleading radio advert which had claimed that DAB radio was
>> distortion free and crystal clear."
>>
>> http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/dab-radio-now-you-hear-it-
>in-store-now.html
>>
>> At least in the UK, the DAB liars got called out for their false
>> claims. iBiquity uses the same dishonest tactics as the DAB folks.
>
>Well I think we are a few years further along the road than you are.
>They did get away with calling it CD quality, for a while.
>
>Pretty twisted in some ways, bearing in mind, that DAB can support bit
>rates of up to 320k, and so can provide near CD quality.
>
>However it has been many years since they provided even good sound
>quality. With the possible exception of Radio 3, which is the only
>station to use 192k, but even that is a far bit less than CD quality.

A new setup station round these parts is using 64 K mono and claims its
digital quality .. so thats all right then;!...

>
>> It
>> also appears that iBiquity has enlisted the help of that liar James
>> Cridland to shill for HD Radio. iBiquity has been under investigation
>> for about a year by two law firms looking to file class-action
>> lawsuits.
>
>I'm not sure whether Cridland is actually a liar. I think he just has a
>tenancy to talk about things that he doesn't fully understand.
>
>Richard E.

--
Tony Sayer

[Scott]

On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 18:51:42 +0000, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

Indeed. My cordless phone is digital quality.

[Richard Evans]

On 07/01/2012 19:01, Scott wrote:

>>
>> A new setup station round these parts is using 64 K mono and claims its
>> digital quality .. so thats all right then;!...
>>
> Indeed. My cordless phone is digital quality.

And so was an old fashioned telegraph ;-)

[alexd]

HDRadioFarce (for it is he) wrote:

> Hey, Struble - ROTFLMFAO!

I wonder if having to cite Faux News actually helps you with your seemingly
terminal obsession?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
19:49:17 up 7 days, 6:31, 3 users, load average: 0.05, 0.08, 0.08
"People believe any quote they read on the internet
if it fits their preconceived notions." - Martin Luther King

[Steve Stone]

HD (aka IBOC) radio in the USA:

For the general public has to compete along with traditional analog
radio against
satellite radio, portable mp3 players, and Internet radio.

Automobile drivers have decided satellite wins hands down IF the
subscription price is not an issue for the listener.

MP3 players win for the rest.

IBOC in New York City Metro survives on a handful of AM stations,
many more on FM with multiple sub channels,
the FM sub channels being used to simulcast their AM sister stations,
ethnic or alternate programming.

Bottom line IMHO, its the programming content, not the technology that
is killing free radio.
It they had something on free radio that people wanted to listen to then
the technology would be embraced. Crap is crap no matter what you wrap
it in.

The rare BCB DXer or tech-know-geek is not in this horse race.
Hardware price is no longer an issue with so many fire sales on IBOC
enabled radios.

Steve
N2UBP

[SMS]

On 1/7/2012 1:00 PM, Steve Stone wrote:

> Bottom line IMHO, its the programming content, not the technology that
> is killing free radio.

I can't speak for NYC, but in the San Francisco Bay Area it's the
digital technology that's making terrestrial radio palatable at all.
There are several HD2 stations, including the only decent jazz station
on HD2.

Cost of the receivers is not an issue, there are so many different
models available now and the cost adder is only around $10. A bigger
issues is that on newer vehicles you can't easily replace the stock head
unit.

[Richard Evans]

On 07/01/2012 21:00, Steve Stone wrote:

>
> Bottom line IMHO, its the programming content, not the technology that
> is killing free radio.
> It they had something on free radio that people wanted to listen to then
> the technology would be embraced. Crap is crap no matter what you wrap
> it in.

I agree to some extent. If the content is cr*p, then not many people
will want to listen to it.

However I don't agree that this is the only factor.
In fact I think the most important factor is that people are content
with what they can already get on FM, and although FM is not perfect, it
does at least work well enough the vast majority of the time.

Also, with digital radio, I do think that technical factors could affect
whether people listen. If the audio keeps cutting out, then that will
put a lot of people off. Also if the sound quality is very poor, then I
do believe that will put a fair number of people off.

> The rare BCB DXer or tech-know-geek is not in this horse race.
> Hardware price is no longer an issue with so many fire sales on IBOC
> enabled radios.

Except that vehicle manufacturers tend to want to fit the cheapest car
stereo they can get away with, and an ordinary AM/FM receiver, is still
cheaper than a digital radio.

Richard E.

[sms88]

On 1/8/2012 2:04 AM, Richard Evans wrote:

> Except that vehicle manufacturers tend to want to fit the cheapest car
> stereo they can get away with, and an ordinary AM/FM receiver, is still
> cheaper than a digital radio.

That may be the case in the UK, and for very low end vehicles in the
U.S., but at least in the U.S., one way manufacturers distinguish
similar vehicles is with components like the sound system. The price
adder for the manufacturer for adding digital radio is very low, $5-10.
Higher end manufacturers simply add it, BMW is not going to lose sales
to Volvo, Cadillac is not going to lose sales to Lincoln, etc., over a
feature that costs very little to include. It's like leaving out
cup-holders.

My 70 year old next door neighbor just got a new Ford Taurus and
yesterday she spent an hour in the car while her daughter taught her how
to use the optional navigation system and the optional Ford Sync system
with HD Radio. I told her that now she needs a smart phone to link to
Sync system. I was rather surprised that she got those options since she
only drives about 8000 miles per year and doesn't drive on long trips.

One thing that's changed is that people are keeping their vehicles
longer and are willing to spend a little extra up front for something
they are going to live with for ten years, and those with older vehicles
that still have a DIN or double DIN opening for a head unit are willing
to replace it with something with more capability, not just digital
radio, but Bluetooth, iPod control, AUX-In, etc..

[Steve Stone]

> One thing that's changed is that people are keeping their vehicles
> longer and are willing to spend a little extra up front for something
> they are going to live with for ten years, and those with older vehicles
> that still have a DIN or double DIN opening for a head unit are willing
> to replace it with something with more capability, not just digital
> radio, but Bluetooth, iPod control, AUX-In, etc..

A fairly recent issue I stumbled across on aftermarket upgrading auto
radios is the CAN_BUS linkage of just about anything, including the
radio, to the rest of the the electronics in the car.
It creates a whole new headache above and beyond getting the replacement
radio to fit in the opening and matching the wiring harness.

Steve
N2uBP

[sms88]

That's right, and the few high-end replacement units that have CAN
capability are not cheap. When you buy a new car these days you'd better
get the features you want at the time of purchase since you're not going
to be able to add them on later.

Manufacturers need to be careful to not lose sales to a competitor that
includes capabilities that they try to charge extra for. It's sometimes
amazing what consumers will focus on when choosing one vehicle over
another. From the design of cup holders, to the audio system, when
you're deciding between very similar vehicles at similar cost, these
things make a difference.

[HDRadioFarce]

On Jan 8, 5:04 am, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

Re: Fox News

Follow the HD Radio dead thread on Broadcast Archives:

http://lists.radiolists.net/pipermail/broadcast/2012-January/127213.html

LOL!

[extra class]

What and miss The Biggest Flops of All Time

[HDRadioFarce]

On Jan 8, 9:23 pm, MotoFox <confucius-say@enlightenment!to!him!lead!it!
for!bangpath!follow!man!wise.UUCP> wrote:
> And it came to pass that HDRadioFarce delivered the following message unto
> the people, saying~

>
> > "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time"
>

> I'm going to tell you this again and I expect you to remember it: QUIT
> CROSSPOSTING TO THE REC.RADIO.SHORTWAVE BOARD. The Ibiquity system has no
> presence on shortwave (and in all likelihood, never will.) DRM and
> Ibiquity are two entirely different, incompatible systems, both
> technically and politically, so your pointless bloviating is completely
> irrelevant on there.
>
> Think you can remember that?
>
> --
>    _  _  ______________  ___________  __
>
>   / \/ \/ __  _  _  __ \/  __  __   \/ /          Originator of the word
>
>  / /\/\  /_/ // // /_/ / __// /_/ /\  \                      "enubulous"
>
> /_/    \____//_/ \______/   \____//_/\_\  !i84w!exit210!304senye!motofox

Fuck off! LMFAO!!!!

[leansto...@democrat.com]

They really do need to kill AM IBOC. I could handle waiting a few
years for FM IBOC to die, but AM IBOC is a crime against nature.

[SMS]

On 1/8/2012 7:43 PM, leansto...@democrat.com wrote:

<snip>

> They really do need to kill AM IBOC. I could handle waiting a few
> years for FM IBOC to die, but AM IBOC is a crime against nature.

Yes, AM IBOC should be ended. There's no future for AM anyway, and
whenever you see complaints (valid) about digital radio it's about AM,
not FM. Many AM stations are already doing simulcasting on FM HD, and
this will increase as digital radio receivers continue to gain market share.

Digital radio is very big at this year's CES with about 60 new products.
But it's FM where the value is in digital radio.

While the digital radio receivers can be considered a consumer product,
digital radio is very different than something like a tablet computer,
and you have to take a big-picture view. Digital radio requires
thousands of radio stations to commit to new broadcasting technology,
something that historically has taken decades after a new broadcasting
technology is announced to become mainstream. Whenever you see any
consumer product compared to an iPod or iPad and then proclaimed a
failure because it hasn't sold in comparable quantities, you have to
shake your head and wonder if the person doing the comparison is simply
clueless or if they have an agenda.

It's difficult to sell receivers until broadcasters sign on, and it's
difficult to get broadcasters to sign on until there's an installed base
of receivers. You really need broadcasters that look at the big picture
and take a long term view, and unfortunately a lot of smaller
broadcasters don't do this.

[FarceWatch3]

"Truth Teller" <salty...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:15344192-5d11-41ae...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 6, 6:12 pm, HDRadioFarce <gosmith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time"

>> So when is the experiment finally going to OFFICIALLY be declared a
failure and cease to exist? When are ALL station managers throughout
the nation going to stop broadcasting in HD? We've been reading what a
disaster it is for years but it still hasn't gone away. Why?
<<

Because it's NOT going away. HD radio is here to stay on FM.

AM is a different story...but AM is dying a slow death anyway.

[FarceWatch3]

"MotoFox"
<confucius-say@enlightenment!to!him!lead!it!for!bangpath!follow!man!wise.UUCP>
wrote in message
news:pan.2012.01.09...@motofox-rules.dont-email.me...

> And it came to pass that HDRadioFarce delivered the following message unto
> the people, saying~
>
>

> I'm going to tell you this again and I expect you to remember it: QUIT
> CROSSPOSTING TO THE REC.RADIO.SHORTWAVE BOARD. The Ibiquity system has no
> presence on shortwave (and in all likelihood, never will.) DRM and
> Ibiquity are two entirely different, incompatible systems, both
> technically and politically, so your pointless bloviating is completely
> irrelevant on there.
>
> Think you can remember that?

I doubt it. He's Farce....he can't stop thinking about anything besides
HD Radio!

[extra class]

HBGary Federal was contracted by the U.S. war loving government to develop
astroturfing software to manipulate and sway public opinion

[FarceWatch3]

> I still can't listen to 1120 (KMOX), 840 (WHAS), et.al. because the
> HASH is so intrusive.

Where are you trying to listen to them? Someone living in Australia can't
hear them either.

> Don't the decision makers realize they are
> driving away listeners in droves?

There is no evidence to suggest that they are "drivi9ng listeners away in
droves". Most (if not all) listeners do not notice any difference.

[RHF]

On Jan 9, 11:23 am, "FarceWatch3" <FarceWat...@Comcast.net> wrote:
> "Truth Teller" <saltyfis...@gmail.com> wrote in message

OMG - Let the HD-Radio 'Farce' Wars Begin !

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-and-just-listen-:o)-
.
.

[RHF]

On Jan 9, 11:26 am, "FarceWatch3" <FarceWat...@Comcast.net> wrote:
> "MotoFox"
> <confucius-say@enlightenment!to!him!lead!it!for!bangpath!follow!man!wise.UUCP>
> wrote in messagenews:pan.2012.01.09...@motofox-rules.dont-email.me...

>
> > And it came to pass that HDRadioFarce delivered the following message unto
> > the people, saying~
>
> > I'm going to tell you this again and I expect you to remember it: QUIT
> > CROSSPOSTING TO THE REC.RADIO.SHORTWAVE BOARD. The Ibiquity system has no
> > presence on shortwave (and in all likelihood, never will.) DRM and
> > Ibiquity are two entirely different, incompatible systems, both
> > technically and politically, so your pointless bloviating is completely
> > irrelevant on there.
>
> > Think you can remember that?

- I doubt it.
-  He's Farce....he can't stop thinking
- about anything besides HD Radio!

Hey -omg- ? Did they 'Farce' It [HD-Radio]
Up His [HDRadioFarce] Ass !
-and-now-hd-radio-farce-has-hd-radio-on-his-mind-
.
It's 2012 -so- Let the HD-Radio 'Farce' Wars Begin !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/a223dd6d19425484
.

[Richard Evans]

On 09/01/2012 02:26, MotoFox wrote:
> And it came to pass that Richard Evans delivered the following message
> unto the people, saying~
>

>> Pretty twisted in some ways, bearing in mind, that DAB can support bit
>> rates of up to 320k, and so can provide near CD quality.
>

> I thought it was 384k, which is the upper standard limit of MPEG 1 layer 2
> encoding. Does the EU147 spec limit it to 320k for some reason?
>
Actually I'm not sure, but in the past there have been broadcasts in
foreign countries, at up to 320k, and never at any bit rate higher than
that. Also I thought the limit for mp2 was 320k, but I might be wrong
about that.

Richard E.

[sms88]

On 1/10/2012 9:29 PM, MotoFox wrote:
> And it came to pass that Richard Evans delivered the following message
> unto the people, saying~
>

>> Actually I'm not sure, but in the past there have been broadcasts in
>> foreign countries, at up to 320k, and never at any bit rate higher than
>> that. Also I thought the limit for mp2 was 320k, but I might be wrong
>> about that.
>

> MP3 tops out at 320k. MP2 tops out at 384; sample rates, 32000-48000 Hz. I
> don't believe MP3 is used over the air, but it is widely used for Internet
> audio streams.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II#Technical_specifications
>
> (Oh yeah, and MP3 can't claim to have won an Emmy....)

LOL.

In the real world of radio what matters in terms of audio quality is
what radio listeners perceive. There have been extensive tests comparing
perceived audio quality of the different digital sources.

The iBiquity codec is based upon the AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec. "Scientific
testing by the European Broadcasting Union has indicated that HE-AAC at
48 kbit/s was ranked as "Excellent" quality using the MUSHRA scale.[8]
MP3 in the same testing received a score less than half that of HE-AAC
and was ranked "Poor" using the MUSHRA scale. Data from this testing
also indicated that some individuals confused 48 kbit/s encoded material
with an uncompressed original." Look at figure 9 at
<http://www.ebu.ch/fr/technical/trev/trev_305-moser.pdf>.

Also read
<http://www.nrscstandards.org/Reports%20ref%20docs/iBiquity%20Gen%203%20report/FM%20IBOC%20subj%20eval.pdf>.
You can see where "near CD quality" came from in figure 3.2. As that
report shows, the big problem with analog radio, is in impaired
conditions. Unimpaired, some analog radio was only a bit below the
quality of digital. Impaired, digital fared far better than analog
because of the multipath on FM analog. Of course the big problem is that
in impaired conditions, at 10% power, it would be difficult to even
receive the HD signal. That's why it's so important for radio stations
to increase their digital power.

Where we need to move to is FM HD Radio in pure digital at higher power.
It's the best transition to digital (at least the best one that anyone
has come up with), that preserves the present FM band during the
transition. It's time for the FCC to set some dates.

The consumer electronics industry has made a huge commitment to digital
radio, as evidenced by this years CES. Now it's the broadcasters turn to
take advantage of the increased penetration of digital receivers, and
increase power levels. The stations that have not yet added digital
service need to get with the program as well.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 07:09:26h -0800, SmS 88 declared:

> The iBiquity codec is based upon the AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec. "Scientific
> testing by the European Broadcasting Union has indicated that HE-AAC at
> 48 kbit/s was ranked as "Excellent" quality using the MUSHRA scale.[8]

Since the iBiquity codec is *based upon* but not *is* the AAC+ (HE-AAC)
codec, it is not valid to use tests on the original AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec
as evidence that the iBiquity codec its-self delivers quality.

[SMS]

On 1/11/2012 8:03 AM, J G Miller wrote:

> Since the iBiquity codec is *based upon* but not *is* the AAC+ (HE-AAC)
> codec, it is not valid to use tests on the original AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec
> as evidence that the iBiquity codec its-self delivers quality.

iBiquity tweaked the AAC+ Codec to improve it for radio. So while the
iBiquity Codec is going to sound better than the generic AAC+ Codec,
it's not going to be orders of magnitude better. Hence the tests of AAC+
do apply to the iBiquity Codec, just realize that the iBquity Codec is a
bit better.

In any case, other tests, of the iBquity Codec confirm the results in
terms of sound quality.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 08:28:21h -0800, SMS wrote:

> In any case, other tests, of the iBquity Codec confirm the
> results in terms of sound quality.

And who conducted these other tests?

[SMS]

The most detailed test that compared a CD source versus digital radio at
various bit rates was conducted by Sheffield Audio Consulting and
prepared for NPR.

<http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf>.
See Table 5.2.1 on page 11. The test methodology is in the appendix.

There are valid reasons to be opposed to digital radio, and I have
posted those in the past. Audio quality is not one of the reasons. Every
test by every testing entity, whether a double-blind test or just the
opinion of the reviewer, has shown that the "near CD quality" is not
just marketing hype, but is actually true.

I would caution you against falling in with the likes of Mr. Farce who
has demonstrated his lack of knowledge about broadcasting in general and
digital radio in particular.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:00:45 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>I would caution you against falling in with the likes of Mr. Farce who
>has demonstrated his lack of knowledge about broadcasting in general and
>digital radio in particular.

Disclosure: I'll classify myself along with Mr Farce, as my knowledge
of broadcasting ended in about 1972. I know just enough to be
dangerous.

I was doing some Googling the codec and found this item for 2003.

"Last-minute change casts doubt on U.S. digital radio spec"
<http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4045254/Last-minute-change-casts-doubt-on-U-S-digital-radio-spec>
The National Radio Standard Committee (NRSC) questioned the
audio quality of iBiquity's original low-bit-rate PAC codec
in May and then suspended its standards-setting process,
with committee members bluntly saying they did not consider
the audio quality of the proprietary 36-kbit/second codec
fit for prime time.

Oops. Well, that's been fixed, but the early history of the codec
selection is rather interesting.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[sms88]

On 1/11/2012 9:26 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Oops. Well, that's been fixed, but the early history of the codec
> selection is rather interesting.

You need to read a bit further in the article you quoted:

"Their concerns center mainly on digital AM broadcasts, where critics
point to questionable audio performance, sparse coverage and
interference with adjacent analog channels."

I don't think anyone here would argue that digital AM is a waste of time
and that there are valid concerns about it. Interference is a real
possibility on AM, though as we've seen even in ba.broadcast there's a
tendency for some people that are philosophically opposed to digital
radio to attribute _any_ AM interference to AM HD, even when the accused
AM station isn't even broadcasting in HD!

As I stated, there are valid reasons to be opposed to digital radio but
the quality of the audio on FM digital radio is not one of those reasons.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:35:18 -0800, sms88 <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/11/2012 9:26 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Oops. Well, that's been fixed, but the early history of the codec
>> selection is rather interesting.
>
>You need to read a bit further in the article you quoted:
>
>"Their concerns center mainly on digital AM broadcasts, where critics
>point to questionable audio performance, sparse coverage and
>interference with adjacent analog channels."

Note the word "mainly". There apparently were also concerns over FM
quality.

[FarceWatch3]

>>"Their concerns center mainly on digital AM broadcasts, where critics
>>point to questionable audio performance, sparse coverage and
>>interference with adjacent analog channels."
>
> Note the word "mainly". There apparently were also concerns over FM
> quality.

Only by the diehard HD Haterz.

[SMS]

On 1/11/2012 10:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:35:18 -0800, sms88<scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2012 9:26 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>>> Oops. Well, that's been fixed, but the early history of the codec
>>> selection is rather interesting.
>>
>> You need to read a bit further in the article you quoted:
>>
>> "Their concerns center mainly on digital AM broadcasts, where critics
>> point to questionable audio performance, sparse coverage and
>> interference with adjacent analog channels."
>
> Note the word "mainly". There apparently were also concerns over FM
> quality.

Unlikely. It's just a weasel word inserted by the author. If there were
concerns about FM quality then they would have raised them. You can see
by the independent tests of audio quality that FM digital consistently
ranks much higher in quality than FM analog. Perhaps the concern on FM
was that they thought "near CD quality" wasn't enough and they wanted
better than CD quality.

[RHF]

On Jan 11, 7:09 am, sms88 <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/10/2012 9:29 PM, MotoFox wrote:
>
> > And it came to pass that Richard Evans delivered the following message
> > unto the people, saying~
>
> >> Actually I'm not sure, but in the past there have been broadcasts in
> >> foreign countries, at up to 320k, and never at any bit rate higher than
> >> that. Also I thought the limit for mp2 was 320k, but I might be wrong
> >> about that.
>
> > MP3 tops out at 320k. MP2 tops out at 384; sample rates, 32000-48000 Hz. I
> > don't believe MP3 is used over the air, but it is widely used for Internet
> > audio streams.
>

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II#Technical_specific...

>
> > (Oh yeah, and MP3 can't claim to have won an Emmy....)
>
> LOL.
>
> In the real world of radio what matters in terms of audio quality is
> what radio listeners perceive. There have been extensive tests comparing
> perceived audio quality of the different digital sources.
>
> The iBiquity codec is based upon the AAC+ (HE-AAC) codec. "Scientific
> testing by the European Broadcasting Union has indicated that HE-AAC at
> 48 kbit/s was ranked as "Excellent" quality using the  MUSHRA scale.[8]
> MP3 in the same testing received a score less than half that of HE-AAC
> and was ranked "Poor" using the MUSHRA scale. Data from this testing
> also indicated that some individuals confused 48 kbit/s encoded material
> with an uncompressed original." Look at figure 9 at
> <http://www.ebu.ch/fr/technical/trev/trev_305-moser.pdf>.
>
> Also read

> <http://www.nrscstandards.org/Reports%20ref%20docs/iBiquity%20Gen%203%...>.

> You can see where "near CD quality" came from in figure 3.2. As that
> report shows, the big problem with analog radio, is in impaired
> conditions. Unimpaired, some analog radio was only a bit below the
> quality of digital. Impaired, digital fared far better than analog
> because of the multipath on FM analog. Of course the big problem is that
> in impaired conditions, at 10% power, it would be difficult to even
> receive the HD signal. That's why it's so important for radio stations
> to increase their digital power.
>
> Where we need to move to is FM HD Radio in pure digital at higher power.
> It's the best transition to digital (at least the best one that anyone
> has come up with), that preserves the present FM band during the
> transition. It's time for the FCC to set some dates.
>
> The consumer electronics industry has made a huge commitment to digital
> radio, as evidenced by this years CES. Now it's the broadcasters turn to
> take advantage of the increased penetration of digital receivers, and
> increase power levels. The stations that have not yet added digital
> service need to get with the program as well.

A Noisy Car/Trunk driving on a Road is not exactly
the best environment to judge Audio 'quality' in.

IBOC will become accepted {Standard} when the
FCC Mandates that all new AM/FM Radios built
for the US Market are IBOC Compliant and have
Plug-N-Pay SAT Radio built-in.

~ RHF
.

[Mark Elder]

"sms88" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:jekh8r$oa3$1...@dont-email.me...

AM interference to AM HD, even when the accused
> AM station isn't even broadcasting in HD!
>

How many times are you going to spew that crap? It was the OTHER adjacent
channel polluting my A's game.

Mark

[Kevin Alfred Strom]

On 1/11/2012 12:35 PM, sms88 wrote:
[...]

>
> As I stated, there are valid reasons to be opposed to digital radio
> but the quality of the audio on FM digital radio is not one of those
> reasons.

You write in an Orwellian Newspeak in which IBOC becomes "digital
radio."

The truth is that IBOC is a pathetically poor excuse for digital
radio in the same sense that a plastic ring from a Crackerjack box
is a poor excuse for a precious gem. And that is the real issue here.

If we had real digital radio, and we don't, there would be no such
thing as "AM digital" or "FM digital." There would only be digital
radio -- in a dedicated band with all licensees having
full-quieting, and full-time, and full-fidelity signals with
bandwidth to spare.

That, of course, is exactly what the money men did _not_ want.

So they did everything in their power to prevent it.

They were selfish and criminal, to be sure. But worse, they were
stupid. Their IBOC system, designed to preserve the "superiority" of
the big stations owned by the money men by continuing and
accentuating the inferiority of the small stations' signals, is
pretty much a retarded turkey that few have heard of and that no one
wants. It rings a pathetic and hokey death knell for radio broadcasting.



With every good wish,



Kevin Alfred Strom.

[SMS]

On 1/11/2012 6:12 PM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

> The truth is that IBOC is a pathetically poor excuse for digital radio
> in the same sense that a plastic ring from a Crackerjack box is a poor
> excuse for a precious gem. And that is the real issue here.

IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

You have to look at the big picture and recognize the practical
considerations in moving from analog to digital, including the business
considerations. We've seen how well creating a new digital band
worked--it didn't.

We'll have to live with analog and digital co-existing, and the problems
that causes, for at least another decade.

[sms88]

On 1/11/2012 3:18 PM, RHF wrote:

> A Noisy Car/Trunk driving on a Road is not exactly
> the best environment to judge Audio 'quality' in.

No one ever claimed that it was. Even digital radio is really not for
audiophiles, though some would argue that CDs aren't for audiophiles
either, though historically attempts to sell higher definition audio and
video to those that appreciate it have failed. Witness Elcassette,
Minidisc, and DVD-A.

> IBOC will become accepted {Standard} when the
> FCC Mandates that all new AM/FM Radios built
> for the US Market are IBOC Compliant and have
> Plug-N-Pay SAT Radio built-in.

Perhaps, though education is preferable to compulsion. iBiquity has
educated most auto manufacturers as to the desirability of HD Radio,
something that wasn't easy given HD coverage of stations that haven't
upped their power.

[Brenda Ann]

"SMS" wrote in message news:4f0e5391$0$1698$742e...@news.sonic.net...

On 1/11/2012 6:12 PM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

> The truth is that IBOC is a pathetically poor excuse for digital radio
> in the same sense that a plastic ring from a Crackerjack box is a poor
> excuse for a precious gem. And that is the real issue here.

IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, yes... yet another denial of service to rural users of the media, just
like HD(?*)TV has been. I guess if you don't live in a core city area, you
just don't count (sort of like if you're over 50).

* Quite a bit of supposed HDTV, isn't. Stations that have multiple channels
cannot use full bandwidth for their main channel. Most don't use 1080p,
opting for 720p with an additional channel or two. The ones with 5 side
channels can't even use 720p, and run mostly 480p, which is only marginally
"better" than good old NTSC analog (and you could still receive the analog
signal at a distance, which you cannot do with ATSC.)

[Kimmi]

On Jan 11, 7:29 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
> HD Radio will be all digital.

That will never happen.

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

[RHF]

On Jan 11, 9:11 pm, "Brenda Ann" <newsgro...@fullspectrumradio.org>
wrote:
> "SMS"  wrote in messagenews:4f0e5391$0$1698$742e...@news.sonic.net...

>
> On 1/11/2012 6:12 PM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
>
> > The truth is that IBOC is a pathetically poor excuse for digital radio
> > in the same sense that a plastic ring from a Crackerjack box is a poor
> > excuse for a precious gem. And that is the real issue here.
>
> IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
> HD Radio will be all digital.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ah, yes... yet another denial of service to rural users of the media, just
> like HD(?*)TV has been. I guess if you don't live in a core city area, you
> just don't count (sort of like if you're over 50).

Ah Yes Indeed :o) !

But Then "All Advertising Is Local" {Protecting the
Revenue Stream} and Rural {Local} AM/MW Radio
Stations will then have a 'captive' audience of rural
AM Radio Listeners who will only hear the IBOC
"Buzz" from the Urban Metros {non-locals}
-fits-the-'local'-radio-advertising-business-model-

IBOC the Future of Profitable AM Radio - imho ~ RHF

.
> * Quite a bit of supposed HDTV, isn't.  Stations that have multiple channels
> cannot use full bandwidth for their main channel. Most don't use 1080p,
> opting for 720p with an additional channel or two. The ones with 5 side
> channels can't even use 720p, and run mostly 480p, which is only marginally
> "better" than good old NTSC analog (and you could still receive the analog
> signal at a distance, which you cannot do with ATSC.)

Lets See One "HD" Channel of PBS Programming
-or- Three Channels of PBS Programming

i will take the three channels {choice-in-content*}
with very good sound and image quality -versus-
one channel {no-choice-in-content*} with excellent
sound and superior image quality
-freedom-of-'choice'-

* Axiom : Content Is King ! **
** Once you have achieve a very good level
of sound and image quality on TV.
-cause-:-first-of-all-i-watch-what-i-want-to-watch-
.
.

[RHF]

On Jan 11, 9:32 pm, Kimmi <kimmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 7:29 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
> > HD Radio will be all digital.

- That will never happen.

Oops Yes It Can 'Happen'
-follow-the-nab-&-fcc-2-decade-iboc-plan-

- If broadcast radio ever goes all digital,
- it'll be a completely different digital system
- then ibiquity's crapola.

Not for the next 1+ decades... -so- For Now
until ~2020 IBOC is what you got in the USA.

First 1% : Then 10% and At 20% the IBOC 'Digital'
Signal will in most cases be superior to the former
100% 'Analog' Signal of most FM Radio Stations in
their 'Defined' Service Areas. -game-over-

Followed by a IBOC "Digital' Signal Boost to ~40%
with the Analog Signal turned 'OFF' ~2020.
-follow-the-nab-&-fcc-2-decade-iboc-plan-

OBTW : IBOC is all about FM Radio Broadcasting
and AM/MW Radio will be on life-support or die
for the future with or with-out IBOC
-actually-ibco-will-drive-more-am/mw-radio-listeners-to-
-fm-radio-and-the-nab-&-fcc-see-that-as-a-good-thing-
*The*Future*of*Terrestrial*Radio*is*FM*Radio*
.
.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:29:18 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/11/2012 6:12 PM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
>
>> The truth is that IBOC is a pathetically poor excuse for digital radio
>> in the same sense that a plastic ring from a Crackerjack box is a poor
>> excuse for a precious gem. And that is the real issue here.
>
>IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
>HD Radio will be all digital.

If that's true, the real trick will be to switch to pure digital DAB,
without destroying the investments of the existing IBOC stake holders.
If you just spent $250,000 on an FM HD Radio conversion, you're not
going to be thrilled with tossing it all away just to go pure digital.
Similarly, I doubt if IBiquity has any interest in a technology that
would obsolete their existing technology. Unless they could somehow
own the all digital solution, I doubt if they're going to be very
helpful.

>You have to look at the big picture and recognize the practical
>considerations in moving from analog to digital, including the business
>considerations. We've seen how well creating a new digital band
>worked--it didn't.

I have looked at the big picture. See above and below.

>We'll have to live with analog and digital co-existing, and the problems
>that causes, for at least another decade.

Maybe. I predict that the FCC will backpedal on their restrictions
for the station not being able to lease the HD1 and HD2 channels, and
possibly remove the restrictions on data broadcasting, for no better
reason that to prevent the stations from abandoning the whole mess.

Incidentally, there's another nightmare pending, that oddly involves
yet another potential source of GPS interference. In EU, the official
future all digital broadcast band is 1452 to 1492 MHz. There's no
hardware, and several countries are just sitting on the spectrum, but
that's the official ITU dictated direction for S-DAB. Details:
<http://www.plumconsulting.co.uk/pdfs/Plum_June2011_Benefits_of_1.4GHz_spectrum_for_multimedia_services.pdf>
Note that the band is listed as "unavailable" in the US. That's
because the military is sitting on the frequencies in the US. So much
for the US following ITU recommendations (WARC-92).

In my never humble opinion, this will also be the direction the FCC
will push DAB in the future, especially if they can auction off the
frequencies and sell overpriced licenses.

The problem is that it very close to the GPS frequency bands. It
won't be a problem if it's a satellite only DAB service. However, if
it follows the Sirius/XM model of using terrestrial repeaters, it's
going to trash GPS exactly in the same manner and LightSquared.

[hwh]

On 1/12/12 8:10 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Incidentally, there's another nightmare pending, that oddly involves
> yet another potential source of GPS interference. In EU, the official
> future all digital broadcast band is 1452 to 1492 MHz. There's no
> hardware, and several countries are just sitting on the spectrum, but
> that's the official ITU dictated direction for S-DAB.

No, the official EU digital (radio +) band is 174-240 MHz. The 'L-band'
you mentioned has been used for digital radio, but it is not suitable
for terrestrial distribution because the frequencies are too high. There
now remain a few transmissions from satellite and just a few thousand
receivers scattered around the continent. I wonder what will happen to
the frequency allocation in 2012.

gr, hwh

[SMS]

On 1/11/2012 9:11 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:

> Ah, yes... yet another denial of service to rural users of the media,
> just like HD(?*)TV has been. I guess if you don't live in a core city
> area, you just don't count (sort of like if you're over 50).

Rural residents willingly give up certain services because the cost of
providing the services is prohibitive. No piped natural gas, often no
cable TV, often no sewers. There are workarounds at higher cost. For
radio there is satellite radio versus terrestrial radio.

Rural radio stations can provide digital service if they desire.

What's lost with digital AM is the ability to receive distant stations,
but that was never guaranteed to either the stations or the listeners.

[D. Peter Maus]

On 1/11/12 09:09 , sms88 wrote:
> On 1/10/2012 9:29 PM, MotoFox wrote:
>> And it came to pass that Richard Evans delivered the following
>> message
>> unto the people, saying~
>>
>>> Actually I'm not sure, but in the past there have been broadcasts in
>>> foreign countries, at up to 320k, and never at any bit rate
>>> higher than
>>> that. Also I thought the limit for mp2 was 320k, but I might be
>>> wrong
>>> about that.
>>
>> MP3 tops out at 320k. MP2 tops out at 384; sample rates,
>> 32000-48000 Hz. I
>> don't believe MP3 is used over the air, but it is widely used for
>> Internet
>> audio streams.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II#Technical_specifications
>>
>>
>> (Oh yeah, and MP3 can't claim to have won an Emmy....)
>
> LOL.
>
> In the real world of radio what matters in terms of audio quality is
> what radio listeners perceive. There have been extensive tests
> comparing perceived audio quality of the different digital sources.
>

And here's what you're missing. This is a survey of a general
population. Of which many will be audiophiles. Many will be audio
neutral. Many will be tone deaf. And many will simply not understand
what they're hearing well enough to give a meaninful answer.

Many of audiophiles have spent tens of thousands of dollars in
hardware, and can tell the difference between a high bit mp3 and a
full bandwidth CD reject out of hand the forced acceptance of low
bit audio simply because those who don't know, don't hear, and don't
care, accept the performance of HD radio as high quality, based on
untrained perception.

Low bit mp3s do not, will not and cannot be made to sound as
detailed, as clean, or as ear pleasing to those who know the
difference as what's currently in place, even when processed to
death. And there is no perceptual market place study of those who
don't know, don't hear, or don't care which will change that.

These perceptions are not reality.

And those of use who can hear the difference, take offense at the
reduction in audio quality that's being rammed down our throats by a
company that takes the perceptions of those without discriminating
ears as defacto proof that their marketing claims are truth.

The fact is that HD radio does NOT perform as claimed. And
there's no mass marketing perception that will change that reality.

HD radio is a fraud perpetrated on the public by a company
looking to make a killing on a technical claim that the public
doesn't understand, and is largely unaware of.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, January 12th, 2012, at 14:11:52h +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

> Most don't use 1080p, opting for 720p with an additional channel or two.

The "standard" for North American terrestrial transmissions is
1080i not 1080p, or as you say 720p@60.

The bandwidth of the UHF channels (6 MHz) is inadequate for 1080p@60.

A possible compromise is 1080p@30, or for movies 1080p@24
but not terrestrial TV transmissions in North America use
this mode.
See the list of official ATSC modes at

<http://www.hdtvprimer.COM/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html>

In Europe where the mains frequency is 50 Hz as opposed to the
North American 60 Hz, the TV norm is similarly 50 Hz, and the
equivalent resolutions are 1080p@25 and 1080p@50.

Again because there is not sufficient bandwidth for 1080p@50,
broadcasters use either 720p@50 or 1080i. The BBC on terrestrial
transmissions has started dynamically switching the transmission mode
on their BBC HD station from 1080i to 1080p@25 and back when it is
appropriate for picture content (material recorded on location
as opposed to studio content).

<http://www.reghardware.COM/2011/05/23/bbc_hd_1080p/>

This caused a problem for some SONY televisions.

<http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/bbc-hd-quietly-begins-broadcasting-in-1080p-but-not-all-sony-hd/>

A check on Wikipedia reveals that some North American stations
on satellite do broadcast 1080p@24 or 1080p@30 as appropriate.

Please note that the maximum resolution supported by BluRay
is 1080p@24, or 1080i@50 or 1080i@60, bit *not* 1080p@50 or 1080p@60.

[Jeff Liebermann]

I can't predict what will happen in Europe, but in the US, I think
1.5Ghz would be a likely place to move digital radio. How it will be
organized and structured is beyond the abilities of my crystal ball.

As for being unsuitable for terrestrial, please note that Sirius is
using 2320 to 2332.5MHz and XM at 2332.5 to 2345MHz. While allegedly
a satellite based DAB system, much of the urban coverage is via
terrestrial repeaters, primarily to deal with "urban jungle" building
blockage. If 2.3Ghz works, certainly 1.5Ghz will also work.

Sirius repeater map:
<http://www.dogstarradio.com/sirius_map.php>

"Indoor" repeater:
<http://www.uniquesys.com/DVB/DVB_Transmitters/50WRPTR-Indoor-Repeater.php>

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:

> If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
> different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
over Internet streams ...

Big businesses also favor this because it means that instead of
people listening for free to the public airwaves because they
can charge for every kilobyte received regardless of the content.

Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
is one of the central features of capitalism.

[D. Peter Maus]

Ironically, broadcasters are the most frequently guilty of attempting
not to pay for the products they use to make their money.

[SMS]

On 1/12/2012 8:40 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> As for being unsuitable for terrestrial, please note that Sirius is
> using 2320 to 2332.5MHz and XM at 2332.5 to 2345MHz. While allegedly
> a satellite based DAB system, much of the urban coverage is via
> terrestrial repeaters, primarily to deal with "urban jungle" building
> blockage. If 2.3Ghz works, certainly 1.5Ghz will also work.

I've only had a rental car with satellite radio once, but I was amazed
at how poor satellite radio performed. There apparently is little
buffering, so if I were under an overpass for more than a few seconds
the signal would be lost. The audio quality was mediocre. Maybe
satellite radio is good for Howard Stern, but not for music. I thought
that maybe the GM car I had simply had a sound system that didn't do
satellite radio justice. I see a lot of complaints about satellite radio
signal loss and audio quality, i.e. "their quality isn't even FM Quality."

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

"I just thought I would give you guys the heads up for those who are
interested. The increased audio quality of XM in my car (via streaming
through my phone) has allowed me to re-discover and enjoy the music XM
offers. If only they could bump up the quality though their actual
satellite service..."

So now this person is paying for unlimited data on their phone PLUS an
XM subscription.

[hwh]

On 1/12/12 5:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:52:47 +0100, hwh
> <iime...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 1/12/12 8:10 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> Incidentally, there's another nightmare pending, that oddly involves
>>> yet another potential source of GPS interference. In EU, the official
>>> future all digital broadcast band is 1452 to 1492 MHz. There's no
>>> hardware, and several countries are just sitting on the spectrum, but
>>> that's the official ITU dictated direction for S-DAB.
>>
>> No, the official EU digital (radio +) band is 174-240 MHz. The 'L-band'
>> you mentioned has been used for digital radio, but it is not suitable
>> for terrestrial distribution because the frequencies are too high. There
>> now remain a few transmissions from satellite and just a few thousand
>> receivers scattered around the continent. I wonder what will happen to
>> the frequency allocation in 2012.
>>
>> gr, hwh
>
> I can't predict what will happen in Europe, but in the US, I think
> 1.5Ghz would be a likely place to move digital radio. How it will be
> organized and structured is beyond the abilities of my crystal ball.
>
> As for being unsuitable for terrestrial, please note that Sirius is
> using 2320 to 2332.5MHz and XM at 2332.5 to 2345MHz. While allegedly
> a satellite based DAB system, much of the urban coverage is via
> terrestrial repeaters, primarily to deal with "urban jungle" building
> blockage. If 2.3Ghz works, certainly 1.5Ghz will also work.

Sirius uses a dual distribution system, with satellite and terrestrial.
In Europe they tried to use L-Band for terrestrial-only and that doesn't
work. You simply needed too many repeaters, making the system too expensive.

Satellite broadcasting does not work in Europe because there are many
markets. They are too small to make them viable targets. Band III
systems need less transmitters and can easily be split into many
markets. The end of analog TV freed up significant portions of the band
for digital radio (and other services sharing the multiplexes). Digital
TV is moving to UHF-only in many countries, even in less airspace than
before because governments want to cash in on frequencies for mobile
internet. No significant use has been decided (yet) for Band I frequencies.

gr, hwh

[hwh]

On 1/12/12 6:49 PM, SMS wrote:
> I've only had a rental car with satellite radio once, but I was amazed
> at how poor satellite radio performed. There apparently is little
> buffering, so if I were under an overpass for more than a few seconds
> the signal would be lost. The audio quality was mediocre. Maybe
> satellite radio is good for Howard Stern, but not for music. I thought
> that maybe the GM car I had simply had a sound system that didn't do
> satellite radio justice. I see a lot of complaints about satellite radio
> signal loss and audio quality, i.e. "their quality isn't even FM Quality."
>
> What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
> that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
> if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

gr, hwh

[SMS]

On 1/12/2012 8:40 AM, J G Miller wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:
>
>> If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
>> different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.
>
> Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
> over Internet streams ...

Broadcast radio station owners are living in a dream world if they think
listeners are going to put up with commercials and use their metered
smart phone data to listen to the radio.

If people pay for each kb of data then they'll subscribe to the paid
version of a Pandora-like service.

> Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
> is one of the central features of capitalism.

Well to be fair, radio isn't really free, it's paid for by advertising.
Nor has wireless bandwidth been free, it was just originally "too cheap
to meter" at least for what most users were able to consume.

Broadcast radio station owners should be thrilled that most of the
wireless companies are not offering unlimited data any more, and that
the ones that are prohibit streaming. This highlights broadcast radio's
value advantage.

[D. Peter Maus]

On 1/12/12 12:01 , SMS wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 8:40 AM, J G Miller wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:
>>
>>> If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
>>> different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.
>>
>> Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
>> over Internet streams ...
>
> Broadcast radio station owners are living in a dream world if they think
> listeners are going to put up with commercials and use their metered
> smart phone data to listen to the radio.

And yet, it happens every day. Not all data plans are as metered as
you think. And many smartphones have wi-fi provisions, so a local
network may be accessed. Couple that with spreading of community wi-fi
networks that are free for access, a good number of listeners do exactly
what you deny: they're putting up with commercials while listening on
their smartphones.

>
> If people pay for each kb of data then they'll subscribe to the paid
> version of a Pandora-like service.

Also, not true. For the reasons above.

>
>> Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
>> is one of the central features of capitalism.
>
> Well to be fair, radio isn't really free, it's paid for by advertising.
> Nor has wireless bandwidth been free, it was just originally "too cheap
> to meter" at least for what most users were able to consume.
>
> Broadcast radio station owners should be thrilled that most of the
> wireless companies are not offering unlimited data any more, and that
> the ones that are prohibit streaming

Also, not true. I can stream at will on my unlimited plan for my iPhone.

[SMS]

On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

> Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
> which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
> adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better. The difference is
in coverage. HD Radio coverage is very limited on stations that have not
taken advantage of the power increase.

[hwh]

On 1/12/12 7:20 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:
>
>> Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
>> which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
>> adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.
>
> Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
> HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
> up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
> not be less than 48 kbps.

Most stations use subchannels. There are very few stations using more
than 48 kbps. The difference between 46 and 48 kbps or something like
that will be hard to notice.
Of course the smart thing to do would be to use the digital for a second
service *only* and leave the first one on FM (for now). For instance an
owner of an AM and an FM station might simulcast the AM on the HD at 96
kbps to lure the audience over. The big saving would come when the AM
can be switched off. The FM would of course benefit when the FM goes as
well and the bandwidth goes up. A third station could be added then.

> Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
> be divided up among the channels.

Of course, but that is of no use at all for now and many years to come.

> In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
> satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better.

Bitrates are similar, sound is similar. I tried both. There are a few
positive exceptions though, indeed some of the ones transmitting just
one service.

gr, hwh

[SMS]

48kbps is where listeners are react overwhelmingly favorable to HD. See
section 3.3.3 at
<http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf>.
If you look at tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, you see that the big drop-off in
perceived quality is below 36 kbps.

Satellite radio is going well below 48kbps, down into the bit rates
where listeners are much more negative about digital audio. See
<http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64686>. Only
two music stations are at 64kbps, most are at 24, 32, and 40 kbps.

The endless complaints about the audio quality on satellite radio
apparently do have a basis in fact. You never see any complaints about
HD audio quality.

On HD Radio, the frame of reference for comparison is FM analog radio,
and HD sounds much better than analog FM under most circumstances,
whereas on satellite radio, apparently many subscribers expected it to
compare to CD quality, maybe because they are paying so much for it.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:49:15 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
>that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
>if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

It's ugly. There are 100 streams, each 8Kbits/sec. With two
channels, they're effectively 4Kbits/sec per channel. These are
conglomerated in the receiver into anything between 4 and 64Kbits/sec.
For music, it seems to hang around the upper end, but I'm not sure.
<http://www.google.com/patents/US7075946?dq=7075946>
I had XM in my car several years ago when they were giving away 30
days free trials. Coverage in the San Lorenzo Valley was horrible due
to trees, hills, and lack of terrestrial repeaters. The nearest are
two in San Jose.

[SMS]

On 1/12/2012 11:40 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:49:15 -0800, SMS<scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
>> that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
>> if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.
>
> It's ugly. There are 100 streams, each 8Kbits/sec.

I found a chart here <http://www.xm411.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=33127>.
It's nearly four years old, but since the satellite radio providers
obviously don't want to talk about bit rates, it'll have to do. It's
pretty clear where the complaints of audio quality on satellite are
coming from. Much lower than even free Pandora in most cases. I can only
imagine the kind of stuff we'd see posted here if digital terrestrial
radio tried to get away with some of those bit rates for music. I can
just imagine some of the radio conglomerates thinking about three 32
kbps digital music channels (or seven once analog is turned off).

What's amazing is that after coming close to failing, satellite radio in
the U.S. is now doing okay financially (not great, but the threat of
bankruptcy is over) so obviously there are many consumers for whom audio
quality is of minimal importance. They even raised prices recently. I
could buy a couple of hundred music CDs at garage sales for what it cost
for satellite radio for a year.

On long trips we like to listen to audio books, and most libraries have
a very good selection.

[Dave Barnett]

On 1/11/2012 7:09 AM, sms88 wrote:
> Of course the big problem is that in impaired conditions, at 10% power,
> it would be difficult to even receive the HD signal. That's why it's so
> important for radio stations to increase their digital power.

So now they're saying that even 10% power is impaired, huh? Gee. Why
don't we just turn the entire FM band into a bunch of digital haystacks?

Dave B.

[Dave Barnett]

On 1/11/2012 7:29 PM, SMS wrote:
> IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
> HD Radio will be all digital.

I still haven't heard how you plan to allocate 400 KHz worth of digital
signal into a 200 KHz assigned FM channel. How does that work again?

Dave B.

[SMS]

No, my mistake, I meant to say "at 1% power..."

[SMS]

I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
trying to maximize spectral efficiency.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:09:37 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>It's nearly four years old, but since the satellite radio providers
>obviously don't want to talk about bit rates, it'll have to do.

Actually, I'm not all that interested in bit rate. What methinks is a
problem is the error rate. You could be running the full 64Kbits/sec
per channel, but with a sufficiently high uncorrectable error rate,
the quality will suck. FEC helps, but isn't a cure all. Same problem
with HD Radio. It's difficult enough to find the data rate without
ripping open the receiver and probing the guts. Getting the error
rate is even more difficult.

>It's
>pretty clear where the complaints of audio quality on satellite are
>coming from.

Ummm... the complaints are coming from listeners. Should they be
coming from elsewhere?

>... obviously there are many consumers for whom audio

>quality is of minimal importance.

I guess that includes me. You wouldn't believer the OTA FM noise I
have to tolerate. Driving through the hills, the stations alternately
appear and disappear. In between the radio just belches noise. Trying
to hear anything over the road noise, scanner, and 2way radio noise is
difficult. Meanwhile, the GPS mapping display is yelling at me to
turn here and there. At the same time, my Droid is mumbling something
about email and reminders. Even if the music were distortion free, I
probably wouldn't notice.

>On long trips we like to listen to audio books, and most libraries have
>a very good selection.

Well, they've passed laws against driving while talking on the phone.
Perhaps the next step is to pass a law against driving while listening
to audio books. It's too much of a distraction for the GUM (great
unwashed masses).

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

[SMS]

With HD Radio if signal strength is too low (error rate too high) it
simply won't lock on to HD.

[Dave Barnett]

On 1/12/2012 5:26 PM, SMS wrote:
>
> I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
> able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
> small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
> trying to maximize spectral efficiency.
>

In fact a very small percentage will be able to use 400 KHz at their
assigned frequencies. We had this discussion once before, since the
Ibiquity spec posted here:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/SG/NRSC-5-B/1026sE.pdf

shows double the occupied bandwidth for a digital signal.

You said that most stations are spaced far enough from their
adjacent-channel neighbors that this wouldn't be a problem, despite
numerous examples of adjacent-channel interference right here in the Bay
Area. The fact is that this would work somewhat in the plains of
Western Nebraska, but never in the Bay Area. Moving just one station
has a severe domino effect. Let me give you an example of one such
situation right here in the Bay Area:

The South Bay will soon have a full-power FM station on 93.7. Why?

93.7 KXZM in Felton will be increasing power. Why?

KXSM in Hollister is moving from 93.5 to 93.1 and increasing power. Why?

KOSO in Patterson moved from 93.1 to 92.9 and decreased power. Why?

So 93.1 KHLX in Pollock Pines could move their transmitter closer to
Sacramento.

How did Pollock Pines get a radio station? Somebody bought a radio
station in Susanville and moved it to Pollock Pines.

This is just one example of how tightly sandwiched signals are
throughout the US. A transaction in Susanville has an effect on the Bay
Area. Spacing is already so close that adjacent-channel HD interference
is very obvious to those who know what it is. Those who don't know the
difference between regular static and digital noise just turn off their
radio. That is why those of us who care about the real future of
broadcasting and know how to use a spectrum analyzer would like to see
the Ibiquity scheme just go away and be replaced with a truly viable
digital radio medium.

Dave B.

[SMS]

On 1/12/2012 10:49 PM, Dave Barnett wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 5:26 PM, SMS wrote:
>>
>> I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
>> able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
>> small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
>> trying to maximize spectral efficiency.
>>
> In fact a very small percentage will be able to use 400 KHz at their
> assigned frequencies. We had this discussion once before, since the
> Ibiquity spec posted here:

That's why the industry is pushing for asymmetric sidebands. 200 KHz is
a compromise when 400 KHz isn't feasible.

It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
market which matters to broadcasters.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:25:59 -0800
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
>digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.

Oh BS. The average radio listener doesn't give a rats arse what medium its
on so long as the content is good and it sounds reasonable. And for speech
radio AM is perfectly satisfactory.

If music radio stations want to know why they're slowly haemoraging listeners
perhaps they should listen to the computer generated playlist drivel they
pump out occasionally.

B2003

[hwh]

On 1/13/12 3:25 PM, SMS wrote:
> It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
> digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
> We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
> market which matters to broadcasters.

Listeners are perfectly happy with the technical side of things. When FM
radio started, stations knew... it is content that the people are going for.

So if stations worry about their future they should worry about content.

gr, hwh

[SMS]

On 1/13/2012 7:16 AM, hwh wrote:
> On 1/13/12 3:25 PM, SMS wrote:
>> It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio to move to
>> digital broadcasting. It's the only way to remain a relevant choice.
>> We're not talking about radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
>> market which matters to broadcasters.
>
> Listeners are perfectly happy with the technical side of things. When FM
> radio started, stations knew... it is content that the people are going for.

Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.
It's a mistake to not look at the big picture though. Audio quality
matters, and _every_ study has shown that digital radio's audio quality
is perceived as much higher than analog radio. Cost matters too.

If content were all that mattered then everyone would be on satellite
radio, which has relatively poor audio quality but an enormous selection
of content at a relatively high price. Yet satellite radio can barely
add enough new subscribers to make up for churn.

If cost didn't matter then everyone would have an unlimited data plan on
a smart phone and would buy all all the music they wanted.

Coverage also matters. Streaming is fine if you have an unlimited data
plan, but not on long trips outside wireless coverage areas.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:47:24 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.
>It's a mistake to not look at the big picture though. Audio quality
>matters, and _every_ study has shown that digital radio's audio quality
>is perceived as much higher than analog radio. Cost matters too.
>
>If content were all that mattered then everyone would be on satellite
>radio, which has relatively poor audio quality but an enormous selection
>of content at a relatively high price. Yet satellite radio can barely
>add enough new subscribers to make up for churn.
>
>If cost didn't matter then everyone would have an unlimited data plan on
>a smart phone and would buy all all the music they wanted.
>
>Coverage also matters. Streaming is fine if you have an unlimited data
>plan, but not on long trips outside wireless coverage areas.

Methinks content is everything with one big catch. Polluted content
is a big problem. Having the correct content will attract listeners.
Interleaving the content with advertising, irritating announcers, and
worthless PSA's, will drive them away. I've noticed that I tend to
always change stations in the middle of commercials and announcements
and rarely in the middle of a song or tune. I'm sure there's a study
somewhere on WHEN listeners change stations, but I can't find it.

Another problem is convenience. I've only played with HD Radio in the
stores and in a friends vehicle. I forgot the exact ordeal process
required but one thing stood out. It was not possible to tune or scan
across the band, catching all the regular FM and HD stations in
sequence. You had to tune to the regular FM channel, and then switch
to HD1 or HD2. As long as HD1 and HD2 are the poor step child of the
regular FM station on the dial, people are not going to listen.

Incidentally, it was really irritating to listen to HD1 while moving.
Every time the error rate climbed to an unacceptable level, it would
switch to the regular FM audio. No provisions for locking it on HD1
or switching to dead air. I forgot the maker and model, but I can ask
the owner if necessary. I will admit that when the signal was strong
enough, HD1 sounded quite good.

Convenience is also a problem with the lack of genre selection. On
many computerized (PC based) radios, you don't just have a few
presets. You have the stations programmed into memory by the type of
music or talk they offer. I vaguely recall it can be rather fine
grain to include genre changes by the hour. For example, I've been
listening to KUFX lately. Repetitive "Classic rock" during the day,
with sports in the evenings. Ideally, you should be able to punch a
"60's rock" button and limit the selections to only those stations
doing classical. The radio and the station support RBDS, the PTY
(program type) data that allegedly accompanies the music or talk
should contain the necessary genre info.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Data_System>

As for streaming, that's what I'm doing after my Subaru stock CD
player died (low output in the laser head) and my favorite classical
FM station changed format. I preload about 8 hours of music, audio
books, and TED talks onto a cheap MP3 player, which is hot-wired into
the car radio. The only reason I bother to listen to FM is when I
forget to preload the MP3 player or charge the player battery. I
could also rip streaming content from the internet, but haven't
bothered as it ties up my computers for too long a time.

HD Radio has been around long enough to make a determination if it's
going to live or die. I suspect it will die because there's no
compelling reason for Joe Sixpack to buy or install one. That's
because the content of HD1 and HD2 often is quite similar to the
regular FM channel. To the buyer, it's more of the same thing. Were
HD1 and HD2 to offer commercial free or subscription based commercial
free service, there might be an incentive, but those have been
proscribed by economic necessity and FCC rules.

Installing an HD Radio is also not a trivial exercise. There are few
plug in converters and those tend to be tied to specific high end
radios. At this time, installing and HD Radio consists of ripping out
the existing radio, and installing an upgraded radio. That's neither
cheap nor easy. Lacking a compelling reason to do this, Joe Sixpack
will probably install whatever the dealer has in stock. I checked
Best Buy in Capitola. One radio on the shelf has HD and nobody in the
store seemed to know anything about it. I asked a few questions and
got some bad guesses. As long as that situation persists, the
retrofit market is a lost cause.

[hwh]

On 1/13/12 4:47 PM, SMS wrote:
> Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.

Most markets are already fully loaded with stations. It's not more
content, it is content people want that matters.

Non-stop music in any flavor might as well be played from a personal
audio system, so I'm not surprised people won't pay a substantial
monthly fee to get them.

gr, hwh

[FarsWatch4]

"hwh" <iime...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:4f10731a$0$6894$e4fe...@news2.news.xs4all.nl...

> On 1/13/12 4:47 PM, SMS wrote:
>> Content is one component. With HD Radio you can deliver more content.
>
> Most markets are already fully loaded with stations.

The dial is fully loaded. That's doesn't mean the "menu" of choices is
fully loaded.

[hwh]

How about the economic viability to get more stations in? Or does more
stations mean less money per station and therefore less interesting content?

gr, hwh

[D. Peter Maus]

If what you say were true, HD radios would be flying off the shelves.

They're not.

If what you say were true, HD stations would not be turning off the
digital transmitters.

They are.

Technology does NOT drive listening. Content and convenience of
availability do.

IBOC is a technological travesty. It does not live up to its claims.

HD radio programming suffers from the same ills as the baseband.
Because it's being developed by the same people through the same
research. Look at Chicago. The so called alternative offerings in HD are
in fact, repackaged playlists of what's elsewhere on the dial. Check the
actual songs. Same songs, different order.

HD radio programming has not lived up to its claims either.

If HD radio is to gain the traction it needs to drive listening, it
has to 1) Be vastly better in audio quality. Perceptuals show marginal
perceived improvements. And the numbers are not dramatic.

2) offer content that excites the listeners. So far, it doesn't.

3) offer that content in quickly, easily and reliably accessible
form. It's not doing that, either.

HD radio is not living up to its hype. The claims made for it are not
true.

[FarsWatch4]

> IBOC is a technological travesty. It does not live up to its claims.

IBOC, HD...it will eventually end up with some form of digital broadcasting.

Analog is not long for this world.

> HD radio is not living up to its hype. The claims made for it are not
> true.

I don't know what "hype" you are referring to.

It's just some extra functionality added to the radio.

It's there....want to use it...go ahead.

No...just ignore it.

[D. Peter Maus]

On 1/13/12 13:48 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
>> IBOC is a technological travesty. It does not live up to its claims.
>
> IBOC, HD...it will eventually end up with some form of digital broadcasting.
>
> Analog is not long for this world.

That may be true. But what we have, today, isn't the working
solution. It's the equivalent of hanging chrome on an AVEO and
calling it a Cadillac.

Conditional access, which is currently under test, won't be an
improvement, either. And when pay radio hits the marketplace, the
value of Sirius/XM will skyrocket with the public.


If you're going to have to pay for radio, why pay for just one
market contour? For similar money, you can have radio in the whole
country.

But this whole matter of broadcasting OTA may becoming moot,
anyway. Digital alternatives, condition access or not, are becoming
commonplace. More and more people are no longer using radios to
access the content of their choice. iPods are becoming as
upbiquitous in cars as vanity mirrors. PC listening is has replaced
OTA radio in many of the homes in my neighborhood, and I've met a
great number of teenagers (church group) who've never owned a radio.
Most of them have never used one.

In my brother-in-law's household, there are no radios. None. They
get they're music from Pandora, they listen to XM, or the iPod in
the car, and couldn't tell you the last time they've listened to
terrestrial radio.

One of my side businesses is building sound systems. Theatre
systems. Public address. And lots of variations on music
distribution in businesses and homes. In the last 5 years, I've not
installed one broadcast tuner. Satellite radio receivers, yes.
AM/FM, no. And when I ask my customers about HD, most have no idea
what it is, the rest have no interest. Why? Because they get all the
content they want off the net, off Satellite, or off...yes, it's
true...they're cell phones. A number of years ago, I built a sound
system for an airport. Distributed over a campus of a half dozen
buildings at the ramp, and though all the hangars. I installed AM,
FM and XM, with an airband radio in the administration building, and
two of the FBO's. Unicom for ordering fuel, and the like. One one of
my semi-annual routine maintenance calls, I noticed the AM/FM tuner
was not only turned off, but disconnected, and sitting off in a
corner. The administrator told me I could take it with me. They've
never used it. All content piped throughout the campus was either
XM, or it was a PC, plugged into the ports previously occupied by
the tuner.

Of the home systems I've installed over the years, only 5 still
use an FM Tuner. A fanfare, to be precise. The rest...entirely
internet connected. They listen to their favorite stations over the
internet. No radio reception involved. Or they listen to XM. Or
Pandora. Only 5 still listen OTA. And they're beginning to complain
about the increased noise floors and interferences from the
sidebands of "IBOC" digital transmissions.

HD radio, may be a technological solution in search of a problem.
It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised. And programming
alternatives are merely repackages of the same content on other
stations. WLS-FM, for instance, broadcast it's baseband on HD-1, and
its AM on HD-2. With wildly apathetic results.

In the meantime, HD radio, IBOC is not the solution.

And the public has shown its disinterest in creating a market for
a product that does not live up to the claims made for it.

>
>> HD radio is not living up to its hype. The claims made for it are not
>> true.
>
> I don't know what "hype" you are referring to.

I explained that in the previous post. It's a shame you ignored it.

>
> It's just some extra functionality added to the radio.

Which, again, hasn't lived up to the claims made for it.

[FarsWatch4]

"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@att.net> wrote in message
news:jeq3ko$8d6$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 1/13/12 13:48 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
>>> IBOC is a technological travesty. It does not live up to its claims.
>>
>> IBOC, HD...it will eventually end up with some form of digital
>> broadcasting.
>>
>> Analog is not long for this world.
>
>
> That may be true. But what we have, today, isn't the working solution.
> It's the equivalent of hanging chrome on an AVEO and calling it a
> Cadillac.

If you are saying we need more development and improvment for digital radio
to be a primary platform...I would agree. Let's hope it only gets better.

Right now...this is what we got.

> HD radio, may be a technological solution in search of a problem.

Gee, was this is a "sound bite" that is oft repeated from HD WHiners.

The problem is...not enough choices on the (free) broadcast band to keep up
with what the populace is expecting these days.

HD IBOC is one solution.

> It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.

It does. However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

> And programming alternatives are merely repackages of the same content on
> other stations.

This is not true. There has been great efforts not to simply duplicate
programming available on analog.

> In the meantime, HD radio, IBOC is not the solution.

Ity's not THE solution...it's A solution.

Don't like it...don't use it.

Want to take advantage of it? Go ahead.

Just another choice.

> And the public has shown its disinterest in creating a market for a
> product that does not live up to the claims made for it.

The public has shown disinterest in ALL radio.....hard to get anyone
interested in antyhing to do with radio these days.

>> It's just some extra functionality added to the radio.
>
> Which, again, hasn't lived up to the claims made for it.

Works fine for me. I have it on all day in my office.

[D. Peter Maus]

On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:

>> It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.
>
> It does.

Actually, it doesn't. Perceptuals are not reality. A number of
studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded trained
ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved,
uninterested, and unhearing individuals, who detect a contrast
between two sources and declare improvement, by the way the question
is worded. Easy to do with passersby who have no interest in the
product, or who have neither experience nor expectation.


9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

The only meaningful studies that will determine HD Radio's
technological solutions to improving audio quality will be studies
that measure noise, distortion, and precision of reproduction,
comparing one technology to another, against a control--source
material.

Here, HD falls quite flat.

> However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".

"People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking. If HD
Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the
audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the
shelves. They're not.

Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to
have told. And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what
iBiquity is selling.

> The public has shown disinterest in ALL radio.....hard to get anyone
> interested in antyhing to do with radio these days.

Hence my comment: HD is a technological solution in search of a
problem. The public has shown little interest in the solutions IBOC
presents, just as they're showing little interest in broadcasting as
a whole. As I explained in the previous post.

>
>>> It's just some extra functionality added to the radio.
>>
>> Which, again, hasn't lived up to the claims made for it.
>
> Works fine for me. I have it on all day in my office.

As I have FM on in my office, all day. My objection is that IBOC
not only doesn't produce the audio quality I'm getting now, but it's
also responsible for increased noise and distortion on my FM's,
reducing my available audio quality as a whole.

All based on the perceptuals of those who could care less about
audio quality.

Thanks, for nothing.





>
>

[FarsWatch4]

"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@att.net> wrote in message

news:jeqem5$r4s$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
>
>>> It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.
>>
>> It does.
>
>
> Actually, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?

> A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded
> trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved,
> uninterested, and unhearing individuals,

This is not true.

> 9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
> improve digestion.

Where is this study?

> The only meaningful studies that will determine HD Radio's technological
> solutions to improving audio quality will be studies that measure noise,
> distortion, and precision of reproduction,

> Here, HD falls quite flat.

I have not seen a study where people can tell a difference in any of the
attributes mentioned above.

>> However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".
>
> "People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.

> If HD Radio offered the vastly sought after programming you claim, and the
> audio quality is so superior, radios would be flying off the shelves.
> They're not.

I didn't say "vastly sought after"...I would use the term alternative
programming. It's more niche.

I already addressed the fact that people are not moved by the argument of
quality.

> Hard reality. Sales tells the story that marketing wants not to have
> told.

Again, the whole story is that there is apathy about ALL radio, Ham, SWL,
Scanners, XM, HD, AM....

Does sales tell a story about that too?

> And sales demonstrate that the pubic isn't buying what iBiquity is
> selling.

No, it doesn't. There is no "sales finish line"...

As has been said before...content and programming is what people go to radio
for.

There has been no effort made by iBiquity or stations themselves to sell HD
based on the additional formats streams available.

> Thanks, for nothing.

Your welcome. Let me know if you need any more. ;-)

[RHF]

On Jan 12, 8:47 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 6:47 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:09:37 -0800, SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com>

- With HD Radio if signal strength is too low (error rate too high) it
- simply won't lock on to HD.

That is how the IBOC "HD" Radio Systems is
supposed to work Digial when possible and the
default is Analog.
In-Band On-Channel (IBOC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBOC

When you can not get KCBS-AM 740 kHz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCBS_%28AM%29
You either get the 'HD' Digital Signal or the Analog
Signal and if you are just getting the Analog Signal
then the Digital {Hash} Side-Bands don't matter
cause you are "On-Channel" between them.

Like it or not; for the Radio Listener who is listening
to his/her Favorite 'Local' Radio Station the IBOC Side
Bands are a non-issue : That's a problem for someone
else who is listing to some other Radio Station.

Think about it; did you care about what was happening
on all the other Radio Stations across the band; while
you were listening to your Favorite 'Local' Radio Station
10~20~30 Years Ago . . . NAH !

Mostly people listen to what they 'can' hear as mindless
background noise while they go about their daily lives
at home, work or driving.

The beauty of Radio is that it is often a secondary
{background} activity while you are focused on something
else : While TV Watching {Viewing} requires your full
{fool} involvement as a primary activity; and that usually
means that you have to sit down and 'Watch' IT[TV].

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)-
.
.

[RHF]

On Jan 12, 10:49 pm, Dave Barnett <dave.dbarnet...@SPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

- Spacing is already so close that adjacent-channel
- HD interference is very obvious to those who know
- what it is.

NAH - To the average Radio Listener the simply will
continue to listen to their Favorite 'Local' Radio Station.
To the 99% : Radio Listening It's About Your 'Station*'
not the entire Radio Band.

* Maybe 1~2~3 Favorite 'Local' Radio Stations.

- Those who don't know the difference between regular
- static and digital noise just turn off their radio.

NAH - They will continue to listen to their Favorite
'Local' Radio Station. -again- To the 99% : Radio
Listening It's About Your 'Station*' not the entire
Radio Band.

- That is why those of us who care about the real
- future of broadcasting and know how to use a
- spectrum analyzer would like to see the Ibiquity
- scheme just go away and be replaced with a truly
- viable digital radio medium.
-
- Dave B.

"spectrum analyzer" ROTFL clearly you are one of
the 1%ers; and thus are NOT worthy of consideration
when it comes to the Income Stream, Broadcast
Revenue and Expenditures related to the operation
of one (1) Radio Station as a 'Local' Business Enterprise
versus Managing the Entire Radio Band for a Metro
Area.

[RHF]

On Jan 13, 6:25 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 1/12/2012 10:49 PM, Dave Barnett wrote:
>
> > On 1/12/2012 5:26 PM, SMS wrote:
>
> >> I think you're well aware of the answer. Not every FM station will be
> >> able to use 400 Khz. Some can have only one sideband at maximum power. A
> >> small percentage can't use either sideband. Life is rough when you're
> >> trying to maximize spectral efficiency.
>
> > In fact a very small percentage will be able to use 400 KHz at their
> > assigned frequencies. We had this discussion once before, since the
> > Ibiquity spec posted here:
>
> That's why the industry is pushing for asymmetric sidebands. 200 KHz is
> a compromise when 400 KHz isn't feasible.

- It's absolutely vital to the future of terrestrial radio
- to move to digital broadcasting. It's the only way to
- remain a relevant choice. We're not talking about
- radio enthusiasts, we're talking about the mass
- market which matters to broadcasters.

Spoken/Written like a true disciple of D'Eduardo !
http://www.davidgleason.com/

Terrestrial Radio serving up Audio Content to The Masses
-radio-where-content-is-king-and-audio-quality-
-just-needs-to-be-good-enough-to-be-enjoyable-
-to-the-radio-listener-

[RHF]

Most Cable TV and Dish SAT-TV services offer
30~60 Channels of good quality "Non-stop music
in any flavor" along with all those TV Channels.

At Home turning on 'My' All Music All The Time is
done by turning on the Set Top Box and the Audio
System plugged into the back of it {the TV stays
'Off'}. Also have an FM Transmitter in-line for 'My'
All Music All The Time on any FM Radio in and
around the House. -use-what-you-already-have-
?Why?Pay?Again?For?What?You?Already?Have?

[RHF]

-  If HD radio is to gain the traction it needs to drive
- listening, it has to
- 1) Be vastly better in audio quality.
- Perceptuals show marginal perceived improvements.
- And the numbers are not dramatic.

This is key the 'Perceptuals' did not show that it got worse.

IBOC : The Path To HD-Radio Acceptance and Use . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/48550a920c4eade6
.
.
IBOC : The Killer-App for FM "HD" Radio's HD-2 Channels
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/08e05095a43bec7b
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5e276d6331cf001b
.
The Second 'best' use of the HD-2 Channels on the new
"Digital" FM HD-Radio Band would be... another current
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/726c1a11c04b603b
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7b7b5fb395ebac94
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulcast
Audio Sound Product with an Loyal Radio Listener Base
and Established Advertisers :
1a - Simulcasting AM Radio Sound on the FM HD-2 Channels
1b - Simulcasting TV Channel Sound* on the FM HD-2 Channels
* Your Favorite TV Channel 'On-the-Radio' in your
Car/Truck and At-Work {while you work}
1c - Ethnic & Religious & Commerce Programming
on the FM HD-2 Channels
2 - Transitioning AM Radio Stations to an Expanded FM HD-Radio Band.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/d8dd8d5d3b0865c7
-result- HD-2 Channels become a new independent
Revenue Stream for the FM Radio Station
.
IBOC : FM HD-Radio - The Trend-to-Watch :
Money Making HD-2 Channels
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.broadcasting/msg/6008ec3b49d272f2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.broadcasting/msg/aa4c405119878ebc
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.broadcasting/msg/638632a417824286
.
HD Radio - Trend To Watch: Team-Branded HD-2s !
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.broadcasting/msg/4faf688eaee6321c
NFL* Team Branded HD-2 is a 24/7 InfoMercial
for every NFL Team in it's 'Local' Market Media
Area - b r i l l i a n t ! ~ RHF .

* Also NBA & MLB & NHL Teams :
20~25% Local Team Content
with 50~60% League Content
and 20~25% Advertising Time $Revenue$
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.broadcasting/msg/fe57bf2c8035fb77
.
The Future of "HD" Radio Lives and Dies on the FM Radio Band -and- the
AM Radio Band is just being Dragged-a-long for the ride down a bumpy
road.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/53bf73868a2d043a
.
Expand the FM Radio Band -by- Moving AM's to Old TV Channels 5 & 6 !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/8b403d27fe07c27f
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/92eec9db49629a49
.
Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band
from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now !
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/116e98129d42d730
.
IBOC : Hey FCC The Future of Terrestial Radio in the USA is an
Expanded FM Radio Band : That Uses the Former VHF "TV" Channels 5 & 6
{Not IBOC}
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/16cf0b38561d93fd
.
IBOC : The Future of Terrestrial Radio Broadcasting is FM Radio and
the Future of FM Radio is IBOC Multi-Channel "HD" Radio
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7acdb337d9029df4
.
IBOC : 'Digital' FM HD-Radio with HD2 Channels in Canada Makes Sense
Too...
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/d1bd71e6b52581f8
.
IBOC FM HD-Radio Implementation : The FCC Is Planning For Failure [No
Mandated Plan of Action]
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/d9d2d43266b40a1f
.

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)-
.
.
>

[RHF]

On Jan 13, 3:28 pm, "D. Peter Maus" <dpeterm...@att.net> wrote:
> On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
>
> >> It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.
>
> > It does.
>

- Actually, it doesn't. Perceptuals are not reality.
- A number of studies which have been conducted
- have specifically excluded trained ears, musicians,
- and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved,
- uninterested, and unhearing individuals, who detect
- a contrast between two sources and declare
- improvement, by the way the question is worded.

OK so here on the left [#1] we have the audio/sound
output of an old analog radio.
-turns-on-audio-source-#1-for-30-seconds-
Soft [slightly lower] Audio Output

And Here On The Right [#2] We Have The Audio/
Sound Output of a New 'Digital' "HD" Radio !
-turns-on-audio-source-#2-for-a-minute-
Stronger [slightly higher] Audio Output

Oh Did I Mention that "HD" Stands For 'High Definition' !
-hint- -hint- -hint- -hint- -hint- -hint- -hint- -hint- -hint- -hint-

...so...
? Which Sounds Better To You ?

D'Oh ! What Answer Do You Expect ;;-}}

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)-
.
.

[RHF]

On Jan 13, 10:55 pm, "FarsWatch4" <FarsWat...@Comcast.net> wrote:
> "D. Peter Maus" <dpeterm...@att.net> wrote in messagenews:jeqem5$r4s$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> > On 1/13/12 14:52 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
>
> >>> It doesn't offer the improvement in audio promised.
>
> >> It does.
>
> >   Actually, it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does.  Have you listened to any AM stations in HD?
>
> > A number of studies which have been conducted have specifically excluded
> > trained ears, musicians, and audiophiles, in favor of largely uninvolved,
> > uninterested, and unhearing individuals,
>
> This is not true.
>
> >   9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
> > improve digestion.
>
> Where is this study?
>
> >   The only meaningful studies that will determine HD Radio's technological
> > solutions to improving audio quality will be studies that measure noise,
> > distortion, and precision of reproduction,
> >   Here, HD falls quite flat.
>
> I have not seen a study where people can tell a difference in any of the
> attributes mentioned above.
>
> >> However, people are not buying it for "audio improvment".
>
> >   "People" aren't buy it at all. Comparatively speaking.

- Well...people aren't buying RADIOS at all....so it's a non-starter.

Actually People and incidentally buy Radios with each
New and Used Car/Truck Purchase.

The biggest transitional-migratory path for Audio
Content Consumers to HD-Radio is via Automobile
Purchases; and experiencing HD-Radio in their
Autos. So figure that for some their 'new' Auto Radio
experience is a 3~5 Year cycle and for many their
'new' Auto Radio experience is around a decade
~10 Years. Therefore the HD-Radio "Evolution"
{transitional-migratory period} can be seen as a
one to two decade process.

Note that WDMK-FM 105,9 MHz is claim to be the
'First' FCC Authorized IBOC HD-Radio Broadcaster
around 11 NOV 2002 [2003].

So consider that HD-Radio's 1st Decade will end
around 2013; and the 2nd Decade ends around 2023.

Also some {not all} Media Players include an FM Radio*
as a secondary feature.

* Note : But not an AM Radio

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)-
.
.
>

[hwh]

On 1/14/12 10:51 AM, RHF wrote:
> Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band
> from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now !

I have to say that using 76 - 88 MHz for digital radio sounds like a
good idea. ANy objections? ;-)

gr, hwh

[RHF]

On Jan 12, 7:25 am, "D. Peter Maus" <dpeterm...@att.net> wrote:
> On 1/11/12 09:09 , sms88 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/10/2012 9:29 PM, MotoFox wrote:
> >> And it came to pass that Richard Evans delivered the following
> >> message
> >> unto the people, saying~
>
> >>> Actually I'm not sure, but in the past there have been broadcasts in
> >>> foreign countries, at up to 320k, and never at any bit rate
> >>> higher than
> >>> that. Also I thought the limit for mp2 was 320k, but I might be
> >>> wrong
> >>> about that.
>
> >> MP3 tops out at 320k. MP2 tops out at 384; sample rates,
> >> 32000-48000 Hz. I
> >> don't believe MP3 is used over the air, but it is widely used for
> >> Internet
> >> audio streams.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II#Technical_specific...
>
> >> (Oh yeah, and MP3 can't claim to have won an Emmy....)
>
> > LOL.
>
> > In the real world of radio what matters in terms of audio quality is
> > what radio listeners perceive. There have been extensive tests
> > comparing perceived audio quality of the different digital sources.
>
>    And here's what you're missing. This is a survey of a general
> population. Of which many will be audiophiles. Many will be audio
> neutral. Many will be tone deaf. And many will simply not understand
> what they're hearing well enough to give a meaninful answer.
>
>    Many of audiophiles have spent tens of thousands of dollars in
> hardware, and can tell the difference between a high bit mp3 and a
> full bandwidth CD reject out of hand the forced acceptance of low
> bit audio simply because those who don't know, don't hear, and don't
> care, accept the performance of HD radio as high quality, based on
> untrained perception.
>
>    Low bit mp3s do not, will not and cannot be made to sound as
> detailed, as clean, or as ear pleasing to those who know the
> difference as what's currently in place, even when processed to
> death. And there is no perceptual market place study of those who
> don't know, don't hear, or don't care which will change that.
>
>    These perceptions are not reality.
>

Oops These 'Perceptions' Are The Very Real "REALITY"
of the Masses of Radio Listeners {Audio Content
Customers} that Experience {Feel} them with their
own two ears. -we-like-sound-of-radio-:-
-we-know-what-we-like-and-that-is-good-enough-for-us-

And after all Radio is a Mass Media : A Radio Station
Serves the Masses Thousands & Millions of Radio
Listeners* : Not just the few hundreds of Audiophiles
and Radio Aficionados -it's-a-business-not-a-hobby-

* Radio Connecting Consumers and Advertisers in the
Mass Media Market Place of 'Local' Business Marketing.

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-:o)-
.
.

>    And those of use who can hear the difference, take offense at the
> reduction in audio quality that's being rammed down our throats by a
> company that takes the perceptions of those without discriminating
> ears as defacto proof that their marketing claims are truth.
>
>    The fact is that HD radio does NOT perform as claimed. And
> there's no mass marketing perception that will change that reality.
>
>    HD radio is a fraud perpetrated on the public by a company
> looking to make a killing on a technical claim that the public
> doesn't understand, and is largely unaware of.