> > Anyway, do you think that IBOC is fundamentally bad
> because
> > it causes problems for DX'ing, or other reasons? I am
> > correct in thinking that you're againt IBOC, right?
>
> I'm against the AM version because it tromps on other
> stations turf. What you do on your own turf is your
> business. Run test tones, for all I care. I don't care about
> DXing. It's fun but has absolutely no impact on our
> business.
>
> Kenwood loaned me a tuner for a couple of months. I drove
> all over New England and, with their blessing, reported on
> what I heard.
>
> The receiver was great. Virtually everyone was processing
> both the analog and HD1 the same, so mode changes were
> virtually undetectable. Bob Orban is a proponent of separate
> processing. He and I agree, since there's no preemphasis
> curve on the digital. Only one station, WBOS, Boston, was
> clearly processing separately. The downside is that the mode
> changes are very obvious when the digital collapses. In a
> purely digital world that wouldn't be an issue. Stations
> were delaying their analog so low digital signal areas
> wouldn't be as obvious. No 8 second delay every time the
> mode switched. Remember, also that BMW has the earlier
> version and dealers won't tolerate an expensive car being
> returned for warranty service because of the radio.
>
> I'm critical about FM only because I've watched people
> online moan for years about how horrible cookie-cutter
> voicetracked jukeboxes are. Now they seem to think they're
> radio's salvation. I believe radio should be showbiz.
>
> In order to move receivers I believe the content has to be
> good enough to inspire consumers to buy radios. We don't
> have the kind of receivers we need at the right price points
> and we don't have the programming we need. I'm afraid a
> non-radio groupie consumer will audition a radio, be
> unimpressed and never give it another try. Clearly, it's a
> chicken and eggs situation. It's going to require
> broadcasters to bite the bullet and program secondaries as
> if they were real radio stations even before there's hope of
> making a penny.
>
> Personally, I haven't heard the FM adjacent channel problem,
> so I can't comment on it. I did notice that I was unable to
> listen to digital for as long as I could analog. The
> artifacts were subconsciously fatiguing. I'm concerned about
> TSL, particularly with women. This was on an NPR station
> that's well engineered and lightly processed so the high end
> wasn't squashed. Classical music.
>
> The rest of the stations in all markets I visited had the
> usual smashed and mashed processing on both, making no use
> of the extended response of the HD signal.
>
> There's also the sales/ratings issue. Without the
> peoplemeter how will we differentiate for an advertiser
> which channel they're listening to? Everything gives display
> credit to the analog call letters. It might be better to
> leave the display off and develop stationality by ear they
> way we do now.
>
> Keep installing the FMs. Hold off on promoting until we can
> fulfill the promise we'll make on the air. An unimpressed
> prospective consumer won't come back when the $49 XM and
> SIRIUS receivers are on display everywhere.
>
> Rich
>
I'm glad I asked the question -
I completely agree with you. I believe that the AM system does have problems. As for programming, while I hope something good comes out of it, it's not in my sphere of influence. I simply design, install, and maintain. I do think that if the programming is good HD can provide some benefits compared to XM and Sirius (and I'm a Sirius subscriber).
There is still a good chunk of the population that wil never pay a subscription fee for radio. Once the cost comes down, it will be a natural to replace old radios with new, HD ones.
At least, that's my $.02.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
