Tuesday, August 16, 2005
HD radio - 5 comments from others
Here are some other's comments about HD Radio.
-Rich
5 comments
Radio isn’t dying because its programming isn’t sufficiently focused into musical niches; it’s failing because the product is irrelevant and unlistenable. Short playlists, especially in formats playing music from earlier decades, burn out classic tunes and ignore much of what the audience wants to hear. If they want an audience to listen to music-oriented programming, they need to relearn how to present it. Fortunately, some are trying.
Radio was supposed to be local. The technology–and the policy–initially demanded a local element to radio that is endangered now. If HD radio, with its niche formats, becomes the functional equipment of a juke box or iPod, what will differentiate it from satellite (or an iPod, for that matter)? If local stations pipe in nationally syndicated shows, what’s the difference? The only content that is truly local on far too many stations is the advertising. If that’s all they can do, then we won’t lose much by having them replaced by the satellite companies.
Nathan Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 1:44 PM PT
Radio’s Liferaft
Om Malik has written an article for Business 2.0 where he wonders if HD can save the traditional radio industry. This question is important, as terrestrial broadcasters are engadged in a fierce battle with satellite radio and podcasting.
One of the…
Backdrifter.com Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 3:09 PM PT
HD Radio — Too Little, Too Late
I had been meaning to write about HD Radio for a while but Om’s article in B2.0 just reminded me to do so.
Rags' Soapbox Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 10:47 PM PT
The ugly truth is: HD radio doesn’t sound very good. The receivers are insanely expensive (Kenwood sells a $400 add on tuner to a $400 head unit. So $800 to get HD radio in your car.)
Ibiquity is so worried about making money off licensing the technology it’s been developing over the last 10 years that HD radio will probably end up being priced out of the market.
And given all the adjacent channel interference we’re starting to see from stations switching on their HD radio, it make be yet another nail in the coffin of traditional over the air radio!
Rusty Hodge Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 1:33 AM PT
If radio were still local, HD radio might work. The problem is that one company (Clear Channel) controls too many stations, and that company has claimed more than once that they are only in business to sell ads. They don’t care at all about local programming.
So all HD radio is going to do is give us 8 versions of the same crap on one frequency. Yeah, that’ll work.
Plus, it’s been established that most listeners don’t care that much about sound quality, because they’re buying iPods and encoding their music at 128 Kbps, so even if HD radio has better quality audio, it’s practically irrelevant.
The only thing that’s going to “save†radio is a fundamental shift toward local ownership of all stations. I’m not holding my breath…
Permanent4 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at
-Rich
5 comments
Radio isn’t dying because its programming isn’t sufficiently focused into musical niches; it’s failing because the product is irrelevant and unlistenable. Short playlists, especially in formats playing music from earlier decades, burn out classic tunes and ignore much of what the audience wants to hear. If they want an audience to listen to music-oriented programming, they need to relearn how to present it. Fortunately, some are trying.
Radio was supposed to be local. The technology–and the policy–initially demanded a local element to radio that is endangered now. If HD radio, with its niche formats, becomes the functional equipment of a juke box or iPod, what will differentiate it from satellite (or an iPod, for that matter)? If local stations pipe in nationally syndicated shows, what’s the difference? The only content that is truly local on far too many stations is the advertising. If that’s all they can do, then we won’t lose much by having them replaced by the satellite companies.
Nathan Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 1:44 PM PT
Radio’s Liferaft
Om Malik has written an article for Business 2.0 where he wonders if HD can save the traditional radio industry. This question is important, as terrestrial broadcasters are engadged in a fierce battle with satellite radio and podcasting.
One of the…
Backdrifter.com Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 3:09 PM PT
HD Radio — Too Little, Too Late
I had been meaning to write about HD Radio for a while but Om’s article in B2.0 just reminded me to do so.
Rags' Soapbox Tuesday, June 14, 2005 at 10:47 PM PT
The ugly truth is: HD radio doesn’t sound very good. The receivers are insanely expensive (Kenwood sells a $400 add on tuner to a $400 head unit. So $800 to get HD radio in your car.)
Ibiquity is so worried about making money off licensing the technology it’s been developing over the last 10 years that HD radio will probably end up being priced out of the market.
And given all the adjacent channel interference we’re starting to see from stations switching on their HD radio, it make be yet another nail in the coffin of traditional over the air radio!
Rusty Hodge Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 1:33 AM PT
If radio were still local, HD radio might work. The problem is that one company (Clear Channel) controls too many stations, and that company has claimed more than once that they are only in business to sell ads. They don’t care at all about local programming.
So all HD radio is going to do is give us 8 versions of the same crap on one frequency. Yeah, that’ll work.
Plus, it’s been established that most listeners don’t care that much about sound quality, because they’re buying iPods and encoding their music at 128 Kbps, so even if HD radio has better quality audio, it’s practically irrelevant.
The only thing that’s going to “save†radio is a fundamental shift toward local ownership of all stations. I’m not holding my breath…
Permanent4 Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at
