> > I believe digital is going to be great for NPR stations
> > where they'll run Classical music on one channel and Talk
> > the other. It's live. It's compelling and it's real radio.
> > Rich
> That's something I can agree with 100%. Please keep in mind
> that K9EZ are defending the technology, not the programming.
> We think the FM technology is good, and holds lots of
> promise. Whether or not the programming will live up to
> that is a big question - one I can't answer.
> More importantly, though, is your accusation that we as
> engineers are "unable" to speak out against HD. Do you
> speak of the technology, or the programming? Not that it
> matters either way, since obviously we have both spoken out
> about AM IBOC. My point is, I guess, that arguing with me
> about programming is pointless, since I have no control over
> it. I absolutely agree that programming is going to be what
> makes or breaks it. I just install and run the stuff,
> though. I simply defend the technical side of IBOC, not the
> programming one.
> Will I be disappointed if after all of this work we don't
> use it to broadcast compelling programming? Yes I will. I
> am reserving judgement, however, until it gets all rolled
> All I can say is that Satellite Radio and iPods are nothing
> but big jukeboxes, and they're worrying traditional
> broadcasters. So there is something to be said for
> jukeboxes, as well as good, solid, local programming.
> In Chicago, I enjoy Biondi on WJMK-HD2, as well as the
> "jukebox" dance programming on WBBM-HD2.
> There is room for both.
> Not that you care one bit how I feel about you, but I really
> do respect a lot of your views. I think you could present
> them better, but that's a personal opinion. You are wanting
> great radio. So am I. I grew up listening to WLS and WCFL,
> and was on the air in the "Big 80's" when CHR blossomed. I
> think radio is getting to be a former shell of itself.
> I sure don't think that the IBOC technology alone will help
> radio, but it's a good start. FM IBOC sounds good. CD
> quality? It may or may not be, but it is better than
> satellite, and a lot of the MP3's that consumers are
> downloading today. The average listener will notice the
> difference. If we provide some compelling content through
> that technology, it may just drag terrestrial radio into
> this century.
> Anyway, that's my $.02 on the whole thing.
Indeed. There seems to be a disconnect when people talk about HD radio. I am talking about the technical aspect of things. I, like you, do not do much with the programming. If it was up to me, things would be different :-D
If terrestrial broadcasting takes full advantage of what is being offered to them then this rollout should go well. If they dont, then there will be no reason for people to tune in.
I do also enjoy Dick Biondi on WJMK HD2. I also enjoy the totally 80's on WTMX HD2. I am heading back to Detroit next weekend to see what other goodies await! Last time I was there, there were a couple of stations using a talk format, in addition to music. The closest HD3 to me is in Ft Wayne, IN and hope to make a drive through to see what that is all about.
This is still so new to people, engineers and programmers. I think the expectation is to have a perfect rollout of stations and programming. I think there is a lot to learn about what formats are going to work, and what needs to be done engineerign wise (including processing). I know I learn something every day about HD Radio from a technical aspect.
I guess if NPR can have interesting programming for HD2 and 3 why cant commercial radio? Personally I find a lot of NPR programming rather dry. I do enjoy some programming, like Whadya Know? and Car Talk.