Clear Channel Goes High Def
Big news out of Clear Channel this morning.
They are going to convert 1000 stations to HD Radio.
That's big news for Clear Channel, big news for the Radio industry, and very big news for my portfolio company iBiquity, who is the developer of HD Radio.
The Radio business needs HD Radio. They need the additional programming that HD will bring. They need the data broadcasting capabilities that HD will bring. They need the better sound quality (surround sound in the FM band and near stereo in the AM band) that HD will bring.
It's about time. Now we'll see if the rest of the industry hops on the HD bandwagon. I'm hoping they will.
I'm psyched for you and iBiquity, but my hatred for Clear Channel is on par with that of the regime that is currently squatting in the White House.
Posted by: Jackson | July 22, 2004 at 02:53 PM
HD Radio... great idea. It was inevitable. Digital sound on radio... we are lacking behind many other countries on implementing this new technology. We also are the only country in the world using the IBOC
(In-band, on-channel) approach. FM that sounds like a CD, and AM that sounds like analog FM stereo. (No, it's not "near" stereo, it's real stereo.) Somehow I expected to see digital radio before digital TV, but TV did it first!
Will HD Radio be the saving grace of radio? The technology is great, but unless the stations do something to improve their programming, it won't matter. Crap is crap, whether it's analog or digital. Clear Channel, the company that wants to monopolize the media, is to be commended for their decision to convert their stations to digital. Cox Broadcasting and Beasley are also doing this. But let's face it; radio programming is what attracts listeners, not whether they broadcast in analog or digital. The recent announcement by Clear Channel regarding reducing commercial loads on their stations is encouraging. It may start a trend. I made the move to satellite radio to get away from commercials. In the nearly two years since installing Sirius in my car, I haven't listened to a regular AM or FM station while driving. Yes, I pay for what I listen to. But I don't have to deal with all the product hawking. If I want traffic or weather reports, I turn to stream 159.
What this all boils down to is that radio programmers need to get it together to attract and keep listeners. HD Radio alone isn't going to do it. I'm glad to see so many group owners embracing the technology, but they have to make their stations more attractive to more listeners, and the ONLY way to do that is with better programming.
Posted by: Jay | August 10, 2004 at 07:43 AM
HD Radio... great idea. It was inevitable. Digital sound on radio... we are lacking behind many other countries on implementing this new technology. We also are the only country in the world using the IBOC
(In-band, on-channel) approach. FM that sounds like a CD, and AM that sounds like analog FM stereo. (No, it's not "near" stereo, it's real stereo.) Somehow I expected to see digital radio before digital TV, but TV did it first!
Will HD Radio be the saving grace of radio? The technology is great, but unless the stations do something to improve their programming, it won't matter. Crap is crap, whether it's analog or digital. Clear Channel, the company that wants to monopolize the media, is to be commended for their decision to convert their stations to digital. Cox Broadcasting and Beasley are also doing this. But let's face it; radio programming is what attracts listeners, not whether they broadcast in analog or digital. The recent announcement by Clear Channel regarding reducing commercial loads on their stations is encouraging. It may start a trend. I made the move to satellite radio to get away from commercials. In the nearly two years since installing Sirius in my car, I haven't listened to a regular AM or FM station while driving. Yes, I pay for what I listen to. But I don't have to deal with all the product hawking. If I want traffic or weather reports, I turn to stream 159.
What this all boils down to is that radio programmers need to get it together to attract and keep listeners. HD Radio alone isn't going to do it. I'm glad to see so many group owners embracing the technology, but they have to make their stations more attractive to more listeners, and the ONLY way to do that is with better programming.
Posted by: Jay | August 10, 2004 at 07:43 AM
I'm from canada and my personnal view is that HD radio, or the proprietary digital broadcast system behind it has been choosen not on technical merit but only because the company has practicly paid the FCC to adopt it. The IBOC standard is proprietary with means it will cost more to implement than open standard like Eureka-147. Also, it will be restricted to US only market. The standard is also poor in term of sound quality: don't ever expect to get something close to CD quality at 96kbit/s, the highest supported bitstream of HD radio. The standard also can't support multi-channel surround-sound, large bundle of channels on same carrier, seamless signal repeaters like Eureka-147 or any decent digital radio system. The FCC has really been shortsighted and corrupt to approve this system. And we don
Posted by: Pierre Proulx | January 05, 2005 at 03:57 PM