🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1191357432.375180.243090@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
 SFTV_troy <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Frank Dresser wrote:
> > <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > Frank Dresser wrote:
> > > > And more expenses for the broadcaster.
> > >
> > > They doesn't seem to be stopping them from adding second and third
> > > channels  Like WIYY in Baltimore, which has *voluntarily* added
> > > Classic Rock and Indie Rock to their AOR primary station.  Now
> > > listeners of that style have three times as much content to enjoy.
> >
> > But how is the extra programming being paid for?
> 
> Advertising of course. 

Of course, how obvious.

> Plus the money they save because Digital does not require as much 
> power.

Mr. Digital engineer should know better than to post this.

> > > Plus: If a smaller station can't afford multiple program, then they
> > > don't need to do anything.  They can just limit themselves
> > > to 1 high-quality channel (300 kbps).
> >
> > Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming,
> > they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware.
> 
> It's not that expensive.  No more expensive than a mono to stereo
> upgrade for an FM station.

Really. Just how expensive is it?

> > > > 5.1 would be compromised in similar ways.
> > >
> > > And then the listeners of that Classic Music station would complain,
> > > and the manager would have to decide between (a) increasing
> > > bitrate or (b) losing customers.
> >
> > Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity
> > sound would matter.  Not many.
> 
> Agreed.  But the advantage of the HE-AAC codec is you don't need a
> high bitrate to get FM quality.  Only 24 is sufficient.  At 64kbit/s
> you get near-CD quality.  It's a VERY efficient compression standard.

64kbit/s is only just starting to sound good, it's not high quality. 
Just because you love pixilated, compressed, and distorted in a way you 
love does not mean other people like it.
 
> So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s
> per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD.

Radio is not a wire connection. I know it hard but think that over.

> > > People in Canada, Japan, and Australia bought AM Stereo radio in
> > > droves.  Why?  Because there was a single standard, not the 4-way mess
> > > the FCC left behind.  (It's similar to today's HD DVD versus Blu-ray
> > > battle; most people are just waiting to see who wins.)
> >
> > Oh?  A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios
> >  sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here.
> 
> Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM
> Stereo stations had largely disappeared.  Thus there's no impetus for
> customers to upgrade.
> 
> In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in
> the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not
> wasting money the next Betamax.
> 
> 
> > > I already agreed with you that HQ is not going to motivate people to
> > > upgrade.  It will be seeing their favorite FM stations split into 3 or
> > > 4 programs, thus tripling their options, that will motive people.
> >
> >
> > Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]?
> > And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure
> > how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners
> > to sell commercial advertising.  > Hint:  They won't call it "HD radio"
> 
> I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative to commercial-
> support.

There are alternatives.

-- 
Telamon
Ventura, California