Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 30, 9:15 am, wrote: Frank Dresser wrote: In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to 5% of the listeners, per station). That seems to suggest listeners do what I do: - jump from station to station - looking for variety across multiple channels - they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial. SILENCE? Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie. Typical grandpa. The average radio listener has three stations they regularly use, with very few listening to only one (mostly evangelical stations) and many listening to 4 or 5. In the People meter, the average listener has 5 to 7 stations they sample at least once every two weeks. Having more local choices increases use of terrestrial radio. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. SoCal Tom |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:48:23 -0700, "SoCal Tom"
wrote: If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. 100Hz to 6000Hz would be an unbelievably good telephone connection. 300 to 3000 is more like a normal one. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SoCal Tom" wrote in message ... "SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
SFTV_troy wrote:
Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD quality. Let me say that I am thoroughly grateful that I don't have your ears. |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 4:06 pm, wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:37 am, wrote: On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, RHF wrote: What Analog Shut Down ? The plan is to kill the analog signals and go strictly digital. wrote: That will millions of radios obsolete. Don't think that will happen. IBOC will die first... There are millions of obsolete televisions which will stop working in just over a year. Does it look like the advertisers care? They won't care about obsolete radios eith Yeah, but it's doubtful enough HD radios will be sold to make a difference. The few that are sold will certainly be obsolete soon, though. |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 4:17 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 30, 1:37 am, wrote: On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, RHF wrote: What Analog Shut Down ? The plan is to kill the analog signals and go strictly digital. wrote: That will millions of radios obsolete. Don't think that will happen. IBOC will die first... There are millions of obsolete televisions which will stop working in just over a year. Does it look like the advertisers care? If they are on cable, it does not matter. 70-some percent of the US is on cable, and another significant percent is on satellite. They won't care about obsolete radios either. Radio stations are not ready to go all digital, and probably will not be for 8 to 10 years.... if ever.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Internet radio stations are already all digital. Those are the stations everyone will be listening do after analog is dead, Wimax is deployed, and HD radio has become a mere anachronism. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 2:20 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Soundhaspriority wrote: "SFTV_troy" wrote in message Well FM-Hybrid Digital *already* sounds better than the old analog FM. The AM also sounds better, albeit at the loss of hearing distant stations (which can still be done via internet streaming). No, it doesn't. Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD quality. Both of these will dramatically improve after the analog shutdown (FM will have room for 300 kbps per station). No shutdown is anticipated. Riiiight. And my analog television will still be operational in 2010. And the UK/German committee discussions to shut-down analog in 2015, didn't actually happen. It was all faked. Riiight. The FCC's going to let analog/digital coexist forever on TV and Radio Riiight. And California doesn't have earthquakes. Denial is fun. ;-) SFTV - DOH ! - Internet Radio - Ain't Radio * It's Wire-to-Wire -aka- Telegraph / Telephone Free Over-the-Air Radio is Radio [.] -PS- No "CoDec" Required ! SFTV, { DOH ! - Hybrid Digital Radio Fanatic } AM/MW "HD" Radio is 'by-design' Engineered to Interfer with the two Adjacent AM/MW Radio Channels at 10 kHz. http://electronicdesign.com/Files/29.../Figure_02.gif 1 - Sear This Graphic Into Your Minds Eye. 2 - Then Actually Listen To What AM/MW Radio Has Become Due To IBOC {HD} Radio Broadcasting. I Ask Myself : What IBOC ? All I See Is The Blinking Blue Light ! ~ RHF In That Distant Land* Where IBOC Fears To Go : Life Exists and Radio Listeners Live Beyond the 10mv/m Contour. * Twain Harte, CA -USA- |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 5:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"SoCal Tom" wrote in message ... "SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 8:33 am, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
wrote ... (By the way, why do europeans hate america so much? What did we do to you to create such animosity?) It comes and goes. Look up the recent French presidential elections, etc. It depends on whether we saved their asses from Uncle Adolph and the SS meat tenderizers and married their women or we want their oil to triple in price and sell them software and save their asses again. Who knows. They're Europeans. We got in rickedy old ships to escape them and ever since have wanted to run to the Tyrolian mountainsides and get happy with drunk chicks in tiny cars. This interloper is only 23.53 percent better than Chuckie. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is NO!, and your mother will back me up so don't bother asking
On Sep 30, 3:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"SoCal Tom" wrote in message ... "SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. Bob Orban is the alien from the late Weekly World News. god darn it, we've had EVERY TROLL in the group except the K-Man, the Scott Lifshine/Wereo entity, and the RRAP brigade in this thread! Morein/McCarty/66.6% of the world's asshole postings has chimed in even. I predict the world will simply implode and then go back to whatever it was doing beforehand. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 6:53 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message ps.com... On Sep 30, 5:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote: Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. The document was linked from one of Mr. Orban's posts on this ng, and is searchable by Google. You must have been posting under an alias. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote: Consumer interest in DAB in the UK is slowing (only 3.5 million DAB radios have been sold in ten years), DAB stalled in Canada, and there is almost zero consumer interest in HD Radio in the US - consumers must realize that digital radio is a farce: http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/ Do you have a similar website for DAB? |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message oups.com... Earl Kiosterud wrote: Synchronous AM demodulation uses a locally regenerated carrier, fed along with the AM signal (upper or lower set of sidebands) to a multiplier (modulator). The result is the audio. It replaces the envelope (diode) detector usually used. You can think of it as another superhet stage where the result, instead of another IF frequency, is the baseband audio. That's because the local oscillator is the same frequency as the carrier of the (IF) signal, so the difference is zero. The sidebands wind up translated to baseband audio instead of to another IF frequency. There are advantages. Since one set of sidebands or the other can be used, if there's a distant station 10KHz away, causing that AM whistle, you just switch to the other set of sidebands, whichever comes in the cleanest. Also, it doesn't depend on proper amplitude and phase of both sets of sidebands to work properly, as does the regular envelope detector, so it works better with impaired signals. I only understood about 75% of what your wrote, but if I understand your meaning, this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. Troy, Well, the 6 KHz limit is due to the narrow bandwidth of the receivers, not the detector used, or the stations. I think most AM radios actually do much worse than that. AM radios are designed with a limited bandpass because it gets noisy as the bandwidth goes up. The AM band is a soup of distant stations, particularly at night, and that's the source of much of the noise. AM radio stations in the US are allowed up to 10 KHz audio. That's pretty listenable -- there's only a little over a half octave to the 15 KHz limit of FM. The synchronous detector, in addition to being able to use one set of sidebands or the other, whichever is the best under the conditions, is not subject to distortion from asymmetrical sidebands, such as when there is fading, multipath, etc. There may be a non-flat audio bandpass from those conditions, but a conventional detector will also have distortion. -- Regards from Virginia Beach, Earl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message There are millions of obsolete televisions which will stop working in just over a year. Does it look like the advertisers care? They won't care about obsolete radios either. Radio stations are not ready to go all digital, and probably will not be for 8 to 10 years.... if ever. Both the UK and Germany have "tentatively" set 2015 as the shut-down for FM. (They expect DAB to fill that role.) I figure the U.S. transition will require a similar time period of fifteen years, so sometime around 2020 will be the end of analog. Although, I'd like to see AM die as early as 2010 since so few people listen to it. Just make it pure digital, 10 kHz per channel. FM can continue until 2020 (it has no interference problems). |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote: Telamon wrote: You're the second person to say something like that. But that's not problem a with HD Radio, because U.S. radio doesn't air infomercials (half-hour ads). Good heavens. I suggest you listen to more radio more often. Make it a portable so you get out more often. Heck there are infomercials that go on for hours on the radio. Please list a couple stations that do "hours" of infomercials, and then point me to some of the Station websites, so I can check it out for myself. This is a whole new phenomenon to me, because I've never heard anything like that locally (neither on FM Music, nor AM Talk). A local talk news station to me KVEN 1450 Sunday mornings has these stupid supplement programs selling the latest bottle of pills that will make you healthier or Realtors, loan brokers, CPA's, lawyers trying to get your business. Any of these professions usually are selling books and tapes. I hear this sort of thing up and down the dial. If you listen to radio you got to be hearing this stuff. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote: Telamon wrote: SFTV_troy wrote: Earl Kiosterud wrote: I think the USB to which Tom refers is upper sideband. Converting AM stations would mean they'd transmit only one set of sidebands, the upper set, reducing the bandwidth to almost half. More stations could be licensed in the same band. ... But still have the same poor AM sound. Digital offers an upgrade to near-FM quality. I'll take the AM sound over low bit rate digital anytime. Uh huh. Take a quick listen to these "low bit rate digital" AAC+ stations. They sound better than the AM Stereo radio in my car. SKY FM New Age - http://160.79.128.40:7030 SKY- http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls Q93 - http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls I have listened. Terrible sound similar to looking at pixilated pictures. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote: Soundhaspriority wrote: "SFTV_troy" wrote in message Well FM-Hybrid Digital *already* sounds better than the old analog FM. The AM also sounds better, albeit at the loss of hearing distant stations (which can still be done via internet streaming). No, it doesn't. Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD quality. Oh god. Another idiot. Oh yeah you are an electrical engineer that doesn't understand the difference between a CD and radio propagation. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
|
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Frank Dresser wrote: "SFTV_troy" wrote in message Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio? Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier technical fidelity limits. Plenty of people are happy with the current mid-fi radio and perfect audio reproduction, even if it were possible, would not bring in more listeners. I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4 channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener. For every additional channel a station adds in IBOC, their main channel bitrate MUST suffer, as bandwidth is taken away from it, so it of necessity MUST cut back the bitrate. DAB in the UK suffers greatly from this. Back when they first started broadcasting, reports are that the Eureka system sounded quite good, but as more streams were added, and the bandwidth and bitrate of all stations had to be throttled back, complaints of artifacting and poor audio reproduction started coming in. For God's sake the guy claims to be a digital engineer. Clearly he should understand this elementary concept. You shouldn't have to explain it to him. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Karl Uppiano" writes:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message ups.com... Peter Larsen wrote: wrote: Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a transition from analog to digital broadcasting, and there will be some growing pains, but it's only temporary. The Digital radio will provide better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 5.1 surround into the current FM bands). What is it that makes you assume that digital radio will be ACTUALLY better than FM directly off the air? For the same reason why Digital satellite radio, or digital internet radio sounds better than FM. Better encoding of the signal yields better sound. Digital internet radio sounds better than FM? How? Are you talking about raw technology or current practices? Because FM done right can sound spectacular (it is practically never done right). I'm not sure what your point is, but even though FM "done right" may sound spectacular, a digital system can easily be more efficient in terms of either power or bandwidth (or both) for an equivalent sound quality using today's technology. This can be shown from first principles using Shannon, entropy and all that. -- % Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by %%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..." %%%% % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
|
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 30, 9:15 am, wrote: Frank Dresser wrote: In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to 5% of the listeners, per station). That seems to suggest listeners do what I do: - jump from station to station - looking for variety across multiple channels - they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial. SILENCE? Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie. Typical grandpa. The average radio listener has three stations they regularly use, with very few listening to only one (mostly evangelical stations) and many listening to 4 or 5. In the People meter, the average listener has 5 to 7 stations they sample at least once every two weeks. Having more local choices increases use of terrestrial radio. Oh great! Now your talking to your sock puppet. Well, that should be more enjoyable than conversing with other people. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article om,
Steve wrote: On Sep 30, 5:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote: "SoCal Tom" wrote in message ... "SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. Bob didn't test all the different model radios. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Telamon" wrote in message ... That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. Bob didn't test all the different model radios. -- Telamon Ventura, California He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm guessing you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the term Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who reinvented audio processing. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Telamon wrote:
For God's sake the guy claims to be a digital engineer. Clearly he should understand this elementary concept. You shouldn't have to explain it to him. This guy is no engineer. That should be obvious. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. Bob didn't test all the different model radios. He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm guessing you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the term Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who reinvented audio processing. Yep, that where you got stuck somehow. Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again. Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Looking good. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article XNWLi.896$ht5.398@trnddc02,
"Earl Kiosterud" wrote: "SFTV_troy" wrote in message oups.com... Earl Kiosterud wrote: Synchronous AM demodulation uses a locally regenerated carrier, fed along with the AM signal (upper or lower set of sidebands) to a multiplier (modulator). The result is the audio. It replaces the envelope (diode) detector usually used. You can think of it as another superhet stage where the result, instead of another IF frequency, is the baseband audio. That's because the local oscillator is the same frequency as the carrier of the (IF) signal, so the difference is zero. The sidebands wind up translated to baseband audio instead of to another IF frequency. There are advantages. Since one set of sidebands or the other can be used, if there's a distant station 10KHz away, causing that AM whistle, you just switch to the other set of sidebands, whichever comes in the cleanest. Also, it doesn't depend on proper amplitude and phase of both sets of sidebands to work properly, as does the regular envelope detector, so it works better with impaired signals. I only understood about 75% of what your wrote, but if I understand your meaning, this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. Troy, Well, the 6 KHz limit is due to the narrow bandwidth of the receivers, not the detector used, or the stations. I think most AM radios actually do much worse than that. AM radios are designed with a limited bandpass because it gets noisy as the bandwidth goes up. The AM band is a soup of distant stations, particularly at night, and that's the source of much of the noise. AM radio stations in the US are allowed up to 10 KHz audio. That's pretty listenable -- there's only a little over a half octave to the 15 KHz limit of FM. The synchronous detector, in addition to being able to use one set of sidebands or the other, whichever is the best under the conditions, is not subject to distortion from asymmetrical sidebands, such as when there is fading, multipath, etc. There may be a non-flat audio bandpass from those conditions, but a conventional detector will also have distortion. I just made a few empirical measurements on a receiver with digitally adjustable filters and noted increased high end audio response out to 8K. 8 khz wide is not pleasing because most radio stations are apparently boosting the high end. I usually set the bandwidth 4.4 khz for best sound otherwise it is to sharp. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
They won't be shutting down at all. Something a lot better then IBOC
needs to come around. We all know Ibiquity is a farce. On Sep 30, 5:18 pm, wrote: David Eduardo wrote: wrote in message There are millions of obsolete televisions which will stop working in just over a year. Does it look like the advertisers care? They won't care about obsolete radios either. Radio stations are not ready to go all digital, and probably will not be for 8 to 10 years.... if ever. Both the UK and Germany have "tentatively" set 2015 as the shut-down for FM. (They expect DAB to fill that role.) I figure the U.S. transition will require a similar time period of fifteen years, so sometime around 2020 will be the end of analog. Although, I'd like to see AM die as early as 2010 since so few people listen to it. Just make it pure digital, 10 kHz per channel. FM can continue until 2020 (it has no interference problems). |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message ups.com... Frank Dresser wrote: And more expenses for the broadcaster. They doesn't seem to be stopping them from adding second and third channels Like WIYY in Baltimore, which has *voluntarily* added Classic Rock and Indie Rock to their AOR primary station. Now listeners of that style have three times as much content to enjoy. But how is the extra programming being paid for? Plus: If a smaller station can't afford multiple program, then they don't need to do anything. They can just limit themselves to 1 high- quality channel (300 kbps). Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming, they'll have even have trouble justifing buying the IBOC hardware. Certainly not. And just because the frequency response of AM radio can go from 20 to 15kHz, or better doesn't mean it does. And FM radio is also capable of excellent fidelity but it doesn't really happen either. 5.1 would be compromised in similar ways. And then the listeners of that Classic Music station would complain, and the manager would have to decide between (a) increasing bitrate or (b) losing customers. Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity sound would matter. Not many. People in Canada, Japan, and Australia bought AM Stereo radio in droves. Why? Because there was a single standard, not the 4-way mess the FCC left behind. (It's similar to today's HD DVD versus Blu-ray battle; most people are just waiting to see who wins.) Oh? A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here. If the FCC had picked just ONE standard, then u.s. citizens would have acted like canadians, japanese, and australians, and bought the radio upgrade. If they cared. The demand for AM stereo was fragile. But with a 4-way race.... well u.s. citizens were left confused. And it was the FCC's fault. NOTE: This situation doesn't exist today. FCC has selected HDR, and thus people know what they need to buy to get double or triple the # of stations on the dial. Yep. And HD radio is selling about as well as AM stereo did. I already agreed with you that HQ is not going to motivate people to upgrade. It will be seeing their favorite FM stations split into 3 or 4 programs, thus tripling their options, that will motive people to buy. Are they making money on the secondary channels yet? Are they even carrying commercial advertising? And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio" In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. Hmm, interesting. In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Baltimore), the listeners are fairly evenly divided bwtween the stations. They all get a piece of the pie. See: http://www1.arbitron.com/tlr/public/report.do Baltimore, huh? Got any friends at ibiquity? Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to 5% of the listeners, per station). OK, I would have supported my point better if I had said: "Many people listen to a few top rated stations, and a few people listen to many bottom rated stations." Either way, I'm aiming at the same point. And my point is that there are alot of stations which don't have many listeners, already. And HD radio does little to increase the number of people listening to the radio. HD radio does little to aid the health of the radio industry in general, but it may be harmful to those people who are trying to run a small time low profit station. That seems to suggest listeners do what I do: - jump from station to station - looking for variety across multiple channels - and that they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial. Good for you! Keep up the bandscanning!! And if you double and redouble your efforts, you just might stumble across a radio infomertial!!! Frank Dresser |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 30, 9:15 am, wrote: Frank Dresser wrote: In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to 5% of the listeners, per station). That seems to suggest listeners do what I do: - jump from station to station - looking for variety across multiple channels - they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial. SILENCE? Hey, I've got a life. I spend hours -- even days away from usenet. It's pretty common. Get used to it. This isn't a chatroom. Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie. I overstated my arguement when I said: "In most markets, most listeners are listening to a few stations." I'm sure we can agree on: "Many people listen to a few top rated stations, and a few people listen to many bottom rated stations." Is there really an important difference between the two statements? Typical grandpa. Oh, yeah I'm quite the old timer. Why, I remember when that Armstrong kid was telling me about the high fidelity radio system he was working on which would quickly obselete the old AM system. Ah, the optimism of youth. Frank Dresser |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:42:37 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote: wrote: Consumer interest in DAB in the UK is slowing (only 3.5 million DAB radios have been sold in ten years), DAB stalled in Canada, and there is almost zero consumer interest in HD Radio in the US - consumers must realize that digital radio is a farce: http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/ Do you have a similar website for DAB? http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Frank Dresser wrote: wrote in message Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie. I overstated my arguement when I said: "In most markets most listeners are listening to a few stations." I'm sure we can agree on: "Many people listen to a few top rated stations, and a few people listen to many bottom rated stations." Is there really an important difference between the two statements? Yeah it's false. The ratings show there are at least 20 channels with near-identical numbers of listeners. That's more than a "few" |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message ups.com... Frank Dresser wrote: wrote in message Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie. I overstated my arguement when I said: "In most markets most listeners are listening to a few stations." I'm sure we can agree on: "Many people listen to a few top rated stations, and a few people listen to many bottom rated stations." Is there really an important difference between the two statements? Yeah it's false. The ratings show there are at least 20 channels with near-identical numbers of listeners. That's more than a "few" I thought I've heard every possible claim about the Arbitron numbers here, but this is the first time I've heard that a 5.8 share is nearly identical to a 1.9 share. And that supports your arguement as well as it can be supported. It's all a matter of semantics, I suppose. What do words such as many, top rated, bottom rated and few mean? By the way, Chicago's a big market. At least a few stations didn't make the list. And those stations really do have "near identical numbers". Frank Dresser |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Frank Dresser wrote: wrote in message Yeah it's false. The ratings show there are at least 20 channels with near-identical numbers of listeners. That's more than a "few" I thought I've heard every possible claim about the Arbitron numbers here, but this is the first time I've heard that a 5.8 share is nearly identical to a 1.9 share. That's not a big difference. 6 months ago the 5.8 station had dropped to 4-something, and the 1.9 station had almost 3. There really is not a huge different between ~5% and ~2% of an audience. Now contrast that with: YOU stated that "the top 2 stations have 90% of the listeners" (or something like that) which is so wrong, it's a borderline lie. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message s.com... Frank Dresser wrote: wrote in message Yeah it's false. The ratings show there are at least 20 channels with near-identical numbers of listeners. That's more than a "few" I thought I've heard every possible claim about the Arbitron numbers here, but this is the first time I've heard that a 5.8 share is nearly identical to a 1.9 share. That's not a big difference. 6 months ago the 5.8 station had dropped to 4-something, and the 1.9 station had almost 3. There really is not a huge different between ~5% and ~2% of an audience. A 5.8 that moves to a 4.0 has lost nearly a third of its audience. You measure each station over time against itself, first. Like TV shows, some radio stations go up, others bomb or go down. In a market like Chicago, every share point is worth about $7 million on the average. A 25-54 share is probably worth close to $9 million, so a difference of a single share is huge. YOU stated that "the top 2 stations have 90% of the listeners" (or something like that) which is so wrong, it's a borderline lie. He said the top two alone have 10%, which is absolutely true. Frank's point here is totally valid. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Frank Dresser wrote:
wrote in message Frank Dresser wrote: And more expenses for the broadcaster. They doesn't seem to be stopping them from adding second and third channels Like WIYY in Baltimore, which has *voluntarily* added Classic Rock and Indie Rock to their AOR primary station. Now listeners of that style have three times as much content to enjoy. But how is the extra programming being paid for? Advertising of course. Plus the money they save because Digital does not require as much power. Plus: If a smaller station can't afford multiple program, then they don't need to do anything. They can just limit themselves to 1 high-quality channel (300 kbps). Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming, they'll have even have trouble justifying buying the IBOC hardware. It's not that expensive. No more expensive than a mono to stereo upgrade for an FM station. 5.1 would be compromised in similar ways. And then the listeners of that Classic Music station would complain, and the manager would have to decide between (a) increasing bitrate or (b) losing customers. Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity sound would matter. Not many. Agreed. But the advantage of the HE-AAC codec is you don't need a high bitrate to get FM quality. Only 24 is sufficient. At 64kbit/s you get near-CD quality. It's a VERY efficient compression standard. So a station could divide itself into 300 / 4 channels == 64-96 kbit/s per channel, and still have quality ranging from near-CD to CD. People in Canada, Japan, and Australia bought AM Stereo radio in droves. Why? Because there was a single standard, not the 4-way mess the FCC left behind. (It's similar to today's HD DVD versus Blu-ray battle; most people are just waiting to see who wins.) Oh? A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here. Because by the time the U.S. fixed on a standard (circa 1990), the AM Stereo stations had largely disappeared. Thus there's no impetus for customers to upgrade. In contrast, Japan and Canada and Australia had a fixed standard in the early 80s, thus giving consumers confidence that they were not wasting money the next Betamax. I already agreed with you that HQ is not going to motivate people to upgrade. It will be seeing their favorite FM stations split into 3 or 4 programs, thus tripling their options, that will motive people. Are they carrying commercials [on secondary channels]? And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio" I have no idea what you have in mind as an alternative to commercial- support. In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Baltimore)..... Baltimore, huh? Got any friends at ibiquity? Sorry. There are roughly 50 million people living in the Philly- Wilmington-Baltimore-DC "megaopolis". The odds of me meeting someone from iBiquity, by sheer random event, are about nil. HD radio does little to aid the health of the radio industry in general, but it may be harmful to those people who are trying to run a small time low profit station. My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing alright. They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3 separate programs. |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Oct 2, 4:37 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
My "smalltime" low-profit Christian station seems to be doing alright. They happily embraced the new technology, streaming out 3 separate programs. It's a shame they've never heard about audio streaming on the internet. Could have saved them a bundle and prepared them for the future. |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
I read once that AM radio in the US was allowed up to 15 KHz, but the NRSC standard, adopted
by the FCC, calls for a limit of 10 KHz. THat's only about a half octave from the 15 KHz limit of FM, and sounds pretty OK, certainly better than rendered by most AM radios. -- Regards from Virginia Beach, Earl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com Note: Top-posting has been the norm here. Some folks prefer bottom-posting. But if you bottom-post to a reply that's already top-posted, the thread gets messy. When in Rome... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "SFTV_troy" wrote in message ups.com... Earl Kiosterud wrote: I think the USB to which Tom refers is upper sideband. Converting AM stations would mean they'd transmit only one set of sidebands, the upper set, reducing the bandwidth to almost half. More stations could be licensed in the same band. ... But still have the same poor AM sound. Digital offers an upgrade to near-FM quality. As a side issue, the loss of fidelity for which AM is notorious is largely in the receivers, with their narrow bandwidths, resulting in audio that is rolling off pretty fast around the 5 KHz point. (AM stations actually transmit a fairly high-fidelity signal.) How high? 0-10000 hertz? That's not as good as the 0-15000 possible with AAC+SBR. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: New Delco GM Chevy OEM CD/Radio w/Nav TV Aux Connector (for IPod,DVD,Sat Radio etc.) | Marketplace | |||
FA: Old Lafayette Radio, Heathkit & Radio Shack Catalogs | Marketplace | |||
FA 1953 Crosley radio D25CE "dashboard radio" | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Radio reception worse than factory radio, antenna adapter? | Car Audio | |||
HD Radio = mp3 radio, only worse. | Pro Audio |