bob adams
Well-Known Member
Whitehall
You have concisely summed everything I was going to say in Part 2 of my post to Nat. If the analog broadcaster can give the radio listening world a high quality audio signal with 200KHz why do the IBOC folks need 400KHz? Exactly as you stated, they are going to carve up that 400 KHz into as many "stations" as they can parse. The more "stations", the more revenue. And when the little guys can't buy the equipment to broadcast digital, all those overlapping interference problems will go away.
I had linked to this article in another thread. Here's another gem of a quote from it.
It’s Digital!” i.e., better audio quality? To the industry (and any consumer who does their homework) HD Radio is positioned as “Pure Digital. Clear Radio.” The pitch, in other words, is that this is technologically better radio. Where’s the evidence that audio quality is a meaningful benefit, that “bad audio” is one of Radio’s audience problems? Most people don’t have a problem with the audio quality of their radios. The vast majority of your audience is not comprised of audiophiles. In fact, your listeners are less likely to be discriminating musicologists and more likely to be tone deaf.
In other words, we can carve the 400 KHz up and the stupid American public is so tone deaf they won't know the difference.
These guys have the balls don't they? I do hope we can collectively castrate them.
You have concisely summed everything I was going to say in Part 2 of my post to Nat. If the analog broadcaster can give the radio listening world a high quality audio signal with 200KHz why do the IBOC folks need 400KHz? Exactly as you stated, they are going to carve up that 400 KHz into as many "stations" as they can parse. The more "stations", the more revenue. And when the little guys can't buy the equipment to broadcast digital, all those overlapping interference problems will go away.
I had linked to this article in another thread. Here's another gem of a quote from it.
It’s Digital!” i.e., better audio quality? To the industry (and any consumer who does their homework) HD Radio is positioned as “Pure Digital. Clear Radio.” The pitch, in other words, is that this is technologically better radio. Where’s the evidence that audio quality is a meaningful benefit, that “bad audio” is one of Radio’s audience problems? Most people don’t have a problem with the audio quality of their radios. The vast majority of your audience is not comprised of audiophiles. In fact, your listeners are less likely to be discriminating musicologists and more likely to be tone deaf.
In other words, we can carve the 400 KHz up and the stupid American public is so tone deaf they won't know the difference.
These guys have the balls don't they? I do hope we can collectively castrate them.
Last edited: