Revisiting HD Radio - Summer 2006

[Woochifer]

I just can't accept that. Maybe the volume (actual number of units sold) might be greater, but the value of these units compared to all the A/V equipment sold in the US, including all the custom-installed stuff, can't possibly compare.

Doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, the total size of the home audio component market in the U.S. totals about $1 billion, whereas the iPod sales last year were over $2 billion. Despite the relatively variety of companies that produce home audio equipment, as a whole it's not that big an industry. It's not just possible, it's actual.

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6319031.html

I work with data from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys (the data that the federal government uses to calculate the Consumer Price Index), and the average U.S. household spends only about $40 a year on audio gear. The sales trends in that article that I linked are consistent with this data. Basically, if you bought a $1,000 receiver, you've equaled the average annual audio expenditures for 25 households.

Again, I don't think this revolution is Apple's doing. This started with the MP3 file. There were MP3 compatible CD players in cars long before there were iPod hookups - iPods didn't even exist then. And if you remember, there were MP3 players of all sorts before iPods took off.

The revolutionary aspect of the iPod is the expectation that you can now carry your entire music collection with you everywhere you go. The wholesale change is in the mindset. You're no longer tethered to your disc and tape media. That's why you see so many devices now trying to extend the functionality of the iPod, and why people are willing to pay $400 for devices that don't sound any better than a typical mini-system. The MP3 players that you mention either had limited memory capacity or relied on disc media -- a far cry from the capability that the iPod offers.

If it is the MP3 format that people complain about then that does not explain the huge market for better headphones, especially sound-isolating ones like the Shures. I also read online that a lot of people are augmenting their iPods with an outboard amp (usually the BitHead), and that the headphone amp in the iPod is a big source of complaints.

My point is that the iPod is capable of a lot more than how most people use it. You can use higher quality headphones, and you can use lossless formats. Yet, most of the accessories that I see for the iPod have little to do with sound quality. Sound isolating earbuds don't necessary improve the sound quality, but they do make the outside world quieter.

This surprised me when I read it. Even a loss-less format will not sound as good according to many critics. It's almost as if the high-end manufacturer was saying that all those sound improvements and finer quality details that the high-end stuff purports to bring out - sales pitches made for the last 20+ years - was just snake-oil. I'm not denying that WA did this, but it does make one wonder about the industry....

That very well might have been Wilson's message. From what I heard, their demo even went as far as lining up an assortment of very high end looking components and cabling before revealing that the source for this reference system was not some fancy transport/DAC combo with exotic cabling, but an iPod using a rudimentary connection.

Would not be the first time that a manufacturer has done something like this at a trade. McIntosh and Dunlavy reps used to pretend to switch out cables, interconnects, and source components and let the listeners stumble over themselves over how "huge" a difference they could hear, before letting them know that in fact nothing had been changed in between listenings.

There was a noticeable difference between XM's talk-radio and the music channels as well. I don't know if that's just because of studio noise in the talk-radio rooms, but it could also be because they use a higher compression algorythm. Now isn't XM supposed to improve their audio quality sometime soon? I also heard that they would be offering some content in 5.1 surround sound. Any truth to these rumors? And what is the actual compression they use? Anyone have a contact at XM/Sirius that they can ask?

Could be the original source as well. Considering that most talk radio is beamed over to AM radio stations, there's simply less incentive to maintain the signal integrity from end to end. But, I have read that XM and Sirius alter the signal quality based on the content.

XM has started broadcasting three channels in Neural Surround. It's a new encoding format that's supposed to offer backwards compatibility with two-channel carriers along with discrete surround decoding. Yamaha and Pioneer recently began including the feature with their newer receivers. I have no idea if it's true discrete 5.1 or if it's yet another matrix encoding scheme like Dolby Pro Logic II.

NPR / KCRW is indeed HD, but for those of us sorry folks who still listen to classical, it's slim pickins. KMZT and KUSC, the only two classical stations left in LA, are not HD. With KUSC possibly selling out to clear-channel soon, and KMZT getting all kinds of similar pressure, it looks like classical stations will eventually all dissapear before HD can rescue them.

I seriously doubt that the L.A. market will go totally without a classical station. There's too much foundation money and sponsorship out there that any of the other public radio stations would be all too willing to snatch up (you think KPCC would stick with its current format if a classical format were available?), especially if KMZT disappears as well and the L.A. Phil needs a broadcast partner (for me, that would be poetic justice given that the station owner sacrificed a great jazz station and the entire air staff in order to take over the classical format that had been vacated when KFAC changed owners). And who's to say that neither of these stations will eventually go HD?

When I was shopping for a car last year I asked all the dealers about HD radio. None of them even knew what it was, including BMW. They were all trying to push XM & Sirius, but HD radio was unheard of. I also asked Crutchfield about purchasing a car add-on for HD radio reception and they had nothing available (and they also started pitching XM & Sirius). I have a feeling they are all getting quite a kick-back from the satellite guys.

Last year was last year, this year is this year. Crutchfield is part of Clear Channel's HD Radio marketing campaign, so how could they be in satellite radio's pocket? Check the link, they got add-ons for sale.

http://www.crutchfield.com/hdradio
http://www.ibiquity.com/automotive