[BC] Re: HD Receiver returns

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 02/16/2007 10:25:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richwood at pobox.com writes:

> The fact that the receivers are being returned within a few days of 
>  purchase tells me listeners aren't spending time to experiment or 
>  install antennas. The dissatisfaction is immediate.

Most people probably just put the thing back into the box and return it when 
it's convenient to them... else most of the returns would likely occur within 
an hour.

You can be pretty sure that once "burned" like this, those consumers are 
going to be *very* unlikely to try this technology again... and they most 
definitely *will* tell their co-workers, family, and friends, "Don't waste your 
money." Nothing spreads faster than bad news.

> I wish stations 
>  had the luxury of the kind of separate processing you propose.

This is the part I don't understand... they're throwing up to six-digit sums 
into this pit, and they can't afford the three to four thousand more for 
another good processor?? I find that hard to believe. You're looking at probably 3% 
(or less) of the total expenditure. Penny wise/pound foolish??

> The 
>  false claim of Seedy Quality would be less deceptive if stations 
>  could take advantage of the alleged fidelity improvement.

I can't see how a 96Kbps stream (100% of the HD bandwidth) could possibly 
compete with a good analog signal.

Willie...