Current Issue:



In the April 7 issue:
What Is Nielsen's Plan For Radio?
On The Cover:
Nielsen's Farshad Family


Click here to subscribe to Radio Ink.






Radio Ink Writers




















User Feedback

Pew: "We Stand By Our Research On HD"



Add a Comment

(3/22/2013 1:56:13 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
HD Radio sounds great! However, unless you're a stockholder in iBiquity, adding IBOC to your station is a losing proposition. Who--other than a major radio group stockholder--would agree to pay a portion of their gross revenue forever? Not THIS broadcaster...not EVER! And one more thing: we HAD an AM Stereo system that worked--IBOC AM still doesn't and probably never will. So, who's willing to pay forever for something that'll probably never work? Time for something else!
- John Hendricks
(3/22/2013 11:23:50 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
That being said, look at the growth in satellite and online and what is the biggest difference? It's certainly not quality, it's content. The vast majority of HD stations I've heard are throwing away their sub-channels with automated jukeboxes. Who wants that? FM didn't take off just because it came in cars. It was the different formats, particularly AOR, that helped it establish (more than 20 years after the technology was developed, too). HD needs to learn from that.
- Frank
(3/22/2013 11:10:32 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
If anyone here bothered to actually read the Pew study before they commented, they would find a misunderstanding in the study itself. The study states "HD failed to both entice AM/FM listeners to pay up rather than continue listening for free and to draw those willing to pay away from satellite." Um, unless you count the cost of the receiver, there's nothing to pay for, and the prices now are nearly identical. If Pew doesn't understand HD is free, where else did they screw up?
- Frank
(3/22/2013 11:03:38 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
It sounds as if we have two competing sets of data -- Pew Reserch and iBuity. Is there not a third source -- even a local study -- that can tell us which of these two studies may be more accurate? It seems strange to me that we don't have more research on this issue, since it's been promoted in some circles as the salvation of radio. Third source, anyone?
- Jeremy Mott
(3/22/2013 10:56:50 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
"HD" radio is a kludge if ever there was one.It simply cannot beat a properly modulated FM signal,and (under the old rules, and with properly designed receivers) could not best a good, clean AM signal either.
Now let's add mp3 to the mix. Who out there will tell me that broadcasting mp3 material through an "HD" signal chain is "high definition"? Come on.
"HD" radio offers hash and grunge in exchange for syntho-audio on AM, and it cannot be used at night. (Might that bring to mind another example of kludge technology for AM?)(hint: Motorola AM stereo). On FM it's worse than useless, unless, of course, you've come to appreciate raspy digital sound. It might, however sound a bit better than the 0db dynamic range signals most stations transmit. One of radio's few advantages in today's world is it's ability to transmit real high-fidelity sound, an advantage it largely ignores.

- J.P. Ferraro
(3/22/2013 10:42:01 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
HD Radio was loser from the get go. AM Stereo anyone? It's just a money trip.
The Commission and Friends screwed AM with an inferior system...and repeated the process with iBiq. and their money.

Digital FM was the answer...but all those owners of 10 dollar FM rat-tail receivers would have to replace them. Oh no!

Uncle Ralphie

- Uncle Ralphie
(3/22/2013 10:11:50 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
Littlejohn @ CC was responsible for spreading a lot of propaganda about HD and I see it as a conflict of interest.
- L Morris


Add a Comment



 
Advertisements

Advertisements