Blogia
Transistor kills the radio star?

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?"

0 comentarios