Satélite ou HD?

«HD vs. satellite

Sure, the new radios are expensive. So were XM radios when satellite first became available in 2001. Satellite would seem to be a natural rival for HD radio, but there are wide differences:

• Once you’ve sprung for the radio, you need not part with any more loot with HD radio; with satellite, you’re on the hook for a $13 monthly subscription fee.

• Compared with any form of terrestrial radio, satellite provides many more choices for avid listeners. XM and Sirius each offer more than 120 coast-to-coast channels, including commercial-free music in diverse genres (blues, show tunes, etc.). By contrast, far fewer HD stations are available in any specific market. In New York, just a dozen stations offer multicast options, and only three AM stations transmit digitally.

• Most satellite stations are national; HD stations are local. No matter how good they sound, the regular stations are, well, the regular stations (commercials and all). Depending on your point of view, that’s as easily a plus as a minus. We all have favorites. I still gravitate to AM for traffic and sports talk. »

excerto de um artigo do USA Today, "Listen up for data on digital’s latest DJ domicile: HD radio", de Edward C. Baig, Posted 1/25/2006 9:58 PM, Updated 1/26/2006 10:50 PM

Comentário: "And while I'm pretty much anti-anything when it comes to commercial radio, I really can't argue against this article. HD really is too young to compare it right now, and satellite radio really does offer more selection nationwide. The only thing I would point out is the headstart that satrad has against HD. Only now did the Radio industry start to get organized with this technology - Satellite Radio is already looking far into the future to bring much more than just "radio" to the table. Let's take a look in a few years and see where both industries are, and then let's do a true comparison, shall we?"