[William Sommerwerck]

I finally got around to installing my Sony HD tuner in my main system. (It
supplements the main tuner, a Parasound T3.)

I normally listen only to KING FM (classical, of course), and several Public
Radio outlets, which have generally good sound. But the rock and pop
stations... Their sound can't be /that/ bad by accident.

They sound a lot like AM stations. It's difficult to qualify the sound's
badness, other than as "unnatural". It's as if recordings have been
subjected to processing that strips the life and whatever "musicality" the
sound might once have had.

--
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land

[William Sommerwerck]

PS: "Appallingly" has two Ps.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 16, 8:11*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
PS: "Appallingly" has two Ps.
______________
Ironically some of the stations' "boxes with blinking lights" are
called Exciters(!) or "Maximizers"(I've seen these on the racks of
mobile DJs) What? They don't do anything "exciting" to the sound
IMO! LOL.

-CC

[John Williamson[_2_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
PS: "Appallingly" has two Ps.


Orban multiband compressors or equivalent. Controls the sound (as in
tonal quality) of the stations, making all the "music" gel together
better, while making them intelligible for speech right out to the point
where they get lost in the tuner noise. It doesn't help the music at
all, though it does increase the potential audience by increasing the
effective transmitter range, and a lot of their audience are now
listening on cheap earbuds or cellphone speakers anyway.

A lot of the rock stations in the UK also have a parallel AM output, and
they don't necessarily do different audio processing for both.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[William Sommerwerck]

A lot of the rock stations in the UK also have a parallel AM output,
and they don't necessarily do different audio processing for both.

That crossed my mind. How pathetic.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

I finally got around to installing my Sony HD tuner in my main system.
(It supplements the main tuner, a Parasound T3.)

William, I have one of those Sony HD tuners. It is pretty well established
that the bandwidth conservation techniques used by Ibiquity make it worse
than analog FM with a good signal.

Of course. I mentioned it in passing, as a lead-in. I probably should have
said anything.


I normally listen only to KING FM (classical, of course), and several
Public Radio outlets, which have generally good sound. But the rock
and pop stations... Their sound can't be /that/ bad by accident.

I think this is because, although FM tuners "exist" and can be bought, the
use of such constitutes a negligibly small part of the pie. Most people
who
listen to FM listen either in the car, or with little "transistor radios."

Even though I like the sound of analog FM, I have replaced it with
Internet
radio. The codecs are better than Ibiquity, though not as pleasing,
perhaps,
as the best analog tuners on the very few FM stations that care about
their
signals.

The world has turned, the paradigm has changed, broadcast has been
replaced
by multicast, because it gives you, the listener, more choices. Maybe it's
time for you to make the switch?

To what? Most of my FM listening is done in the car.

[[email protected]]

Our local FM jazz station has the compressor cranked so high you can
hear the pumping, and it's louder than all the AM stations. I have
to turn the volume down before I switch to it, even from AM.

[geoff]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I finally got around to installing my Sony HD tuner in my main
system. (It supplements the main tuner, a Parasound T3.)

I normally listen only to KING FM (classical, of course), and several
Public Radio outlets, which have generally good sound. But the rock
and pop stations... Their sound can't be /that/ bad by accident.


They all try to sound louder and boomier than their peers.

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

Our local FM jazz station has the compressor cranked so high
you can hear the pumping, and it's louder than all the AM stations.

Not that many years ago, KING FM used highly audible compression. They
eventually stopped, but I don't know why.

[John L Stewart]

Originally Posted by William Sommerwerck

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

I finally got around to installing my Sony HD tuner in my main system.
(It supplements the main tuner, a Parasound T3.)

William, I have one of those Sony HD tuners. It is pretty well established
that the bandwidth conservation techniques used by Ibiquity make it worse
than analog FM with a good signal.

Of course. I mentioned it in passing, as a lead-in. I probably should have
said anything.


I normally listen only to KING FM (classical, of course), and several
Public Radio outlets, which have generally good sound. But the rock
and pop stations... Their sound can't be /that/ bad by accident.

I think this is because, although FM tuners "exist" and can be bought, the
use of such constitutes a negligibly small part of the pie. Most people
who
listen to FM listen either in the car, or with little "transistor radios."

Even though I like the sound of analog FM, I have replaced it with
Internet
radio. The codecs are better than Ibiquity, though not as pleasing,
perhaps,
as the best analog tuners on the very few FM stations that care about
their
signals.

The world has turned, the paradigm has changed, broadcast has been
replaced
by multicast, because it gives you, the listener, more choices. Maybe it's
time for you to make the switch?

To what? Most of my FM listening is done in the car.

If you are in the good old USA, your sound quality problems may be caused by iBiquity, simultaneous bdcst of analogue & digital program, all in one channel. See it at this link-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBiquity

Has been in use by many broadcasters, both AM & FM for some time.

Not here yet (Canada), but we won't escape it forever. The original system here was to occupy one of the microwave bands, not iBiquity.

Cheers, John

[Scott Dorsey]

John L Stewart wrote:

If you are in the good old USA, your sound quality problems may be
caused by iBiquity, simultaneous bdcst of analogue & digital program,
all in one channel. See it at this link-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBiquity

Has been in use by many broadcasters, both AM & FM for some time.

FM IBOC is pretty solid. No real interference issues from the subcarrier
and although the digital signal may not have the greatest sound ever, it
doesn't degrade the analogue carrier unless something is very wrong.

AM IBOC is a total disaster and the people responsible for it should be
forced to listen to it.

For the most part, the worst audio problems on radio are caused by misguided
attempts on the part of program directors to have their station stand out
on the dial. After all, if you don't actually broadcast music that is any
different than the other hundred stations with the same playlist in the same
market, you have to do something. And that something involves loudness.

Compression can also improve reception in fringe areas but it actually does
not improve things as much as some station managers seem to believe it will.

Not here yet (Canada), but we won't escape it forever. The original
system here was to occupy one of the microwave bands, not iBiquity.

You guys got Eureka-147, the European system. It uses a piece of L-band
which in the US is allocated to the military, which is why it was not
adopted by the FCC. However, it seems to be more or less a failure in
Canada and the CBC guys I talked to don't seem to think anyone really
cares about it or listens to it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

If you are in the good old USA, your sound quality problems may be
caused by iBiquity, simultaneous bdcst of analogue & digital program,
all in one channel.

I have never heard anything on FM, on any kind of radio or tuner, that could
be attributed to the presence of the digital components. The sound
degradation is of the sort that one associates with lousy AM. (I've heard
good analog stereo AM -- C-QUAM -- and it sounds a lot like good stereo FM.)

The digital components are not all broadcast in the same channel as the
analog.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 16, 8:02*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

For the most part, the worst audio problems on radio are caused by misguided
attempts on the part of program directors to have their station stand out
on the dial. *After all, if you don't actually broadcast music that is any
different than the other hundred stations with the same playlist in the same
market, you have to do something. *And that something involves loudness..

--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
______________
And it's gotten to the point where in my neck of the woods - southwest
CT - the *entire* FM band screams at you. Exceptions: 3 NPR
affiliates, Family Radio, and WBAI-Pacifica. All other FMs are pinned
to the right as all PMs/Engineers are doing the same thing!! As the
WOPR said in the film War Games: "The only winning move is, not to
play". Truer words were never spoken, and these apply also to radio,
TV, and record producing.

-CC

[Jason[_14_]]

Our local public station has recently enabled ibiquity on all its
transmitters. (There are 23! 3 are "big ones" on mountains, 20 are
translators to fill in the gaps.)

The only effect I've noticed - and the station engineer confirms - is
that the primary analog signal is weaker. Places where one of the
mountaintop antennas was full quieting are not any more. Multipath
effects are noticable much of the time.

Does anybody even manufacture a HD car radio tuner? Since the station
acknowledges that most people listen in their cars, why the HD push?

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 16, 9:57*pm, Jason wrote:


Does anybody even manufacture a HD car radio tuner? Since the station
acknowledges that most people listen in their cars, why the HD push?
___________________

H

D

The two most abused letters in slick marketing schemes. SMH!

-CC

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/16/2012 9:48 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:

And it's gotten to the point where in my neck of the woods - southwest
CT - the *entire* FM band screams at you. Exceptions: 3 NPR
affiliates, Family Radio, and WBAI-Pacifica. All other FMs are pinned
to the right as all PMs/Engineers are doing the same thing!!

Donate money to the stations you like. That will tell them
that you're listening and that you care, and will encourage
them to keep doing what they're doing.

But did you notice that when a station discontinues a
program or moves time slots around, it's most often within a
few weeks of the end of a fund drive? Nothing you can do
about that by adjusting the modulation processor properly.

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[Scott Dorsey]

Jason wrote:

Our local public station has recently enabled ibiquity on all its
transmitters. (There are 23! 3 are "big ones" on mountains, 20 are
translators to fill in the gaps.)

The only effect I've noticed - and the station engineer confirms - is
that the primary analog signal is weaker. Places where one of the
mountaintop antennas was full quieting are not any more. Multipath
effects are noticable much of the time.

You should see about 10% reduction in signal strength on the analogue FM
carrier. This makes a noticeable but not great difference in coverage.

Does anybody even manufacture a HD car radio tuner? Since the station
acknowledges that most people listen in their cars, why the HD push?

Yes, a couple of companies do, most notably Kenwood. But car companies
don't want to put HD radios into cars until more stations broadcast it,
and broadcasters don't want to adopt it until more car manufacturers offer
it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 17, 7:27*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:48 PM, ChrisCoaster wrote:

And it's gotten to the point where in my neck of the woods - southwest
CT - the *entire* FM band screams at you. *Exceptions: *3 NPR
affiliates, Family Radio, and WBAI-Pacifica. *All other FMs are pinned
to the right as all PMs/Engineers are doing the same thing!!

Donate money to the stations you like. That will tell them
that you're listening and that you care, and will encourage
them to keep doing what they're doing.

But did you notice that when a station discontinues a
program or moves time slots around, it's most often within a
few weeks of the end of a fund drive? *Nothing you can do
about that by adjusting the modulation processor properly. *

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com- useful and
interesting audio stuff
_________________________
Mike I would loooove to go back in a time machine, first to the early
'80s and then the early '60s, and document with my meters and software
the sound of FM at those points in history. Seriously! I bed I'd see
a return to sonic normalcy and a variety of volumes up & down the
dial. Perhaps less with AM than with FM, but I'm certainly certain(!)
that radio in general did not always sound as it has for the past
decade or so. Ahhh, to imagine when even the most powerful
commericial FMs sounded like NPRs and BAIs. ...sighh...

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
Mike I would loooove to go back in a time machine, first to the early
'80s and then the early '60s, and document with my meters and software
the sound of FM at those points in history. Seriously! I bed I'd see
a return to sonic normalcy and a variety of volumes up & down the
dial. Perhaps less with AM than with FM, but I'm certainly certain(!)
that radio in general did not always sound as it has for the past
decade or so. Ahhh, to imagine when even the most powerful
commericial FMs sounded like NPRs and BAIs. ...sighh...

In the early eighties, I worked for a station in Atlanta that had three
racks worth of processing crap in their signal chain, including eight-band
compression. No composite clipping, though.

In the early sixties, FM was mostly uncompressed but FM was a tiny niche
market that was dominated by hi-fi enthusiasts listening under good conditions
at home. Car radios were AM-only, and AM stations were as balls-to-the-wall
as it was possible to make them at the time. Hell, when I was a kid in Hawaii
there was one AM station that had a spring reverb in their airchain to make
it sound more "full" on a car radio, and a bunch of stations would set their
turntables slightly fast to make everything sharper and more exciting.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 17, 11:33*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
Mike I would loooove to go back in a time machine, first to the early
'80s and then the early '60s, and document with my meters and software
the sound of FM at those points in history. Seriously! *I bed I'd see
a return to sonic normalcy and a variety of volumes up & down the
dial. *Perhaps less with AM than with FM, but I'm certainly certain(!)
that radio in general did not always sound as it has for the past
decade or so. *Ahhh, to imagine when even the most powerful
commericial FMs sounded like NPRs and BAIs. *...sighh...

In the early eighties, I worked for a station in Atlanta that had three
racks worth of processing crap in their signal chain, including eight-band
compression. *No composite clipping, though.

In the early sixties, FM was mostly uncompressed but FM was a tiny niche
market that was dominated by hi-fi enthusiasts listening under good conditions
at home. *Car radios were AM-only, and AM stations were as balls-to-the-wall
as it was possible to make them at the time. *Hell, when I was a kid in Hawaii
there was one AM station that had a spring reverb in their airchain to make
it sound more "full" on a car radio, and a bunch of stations would set their
turntables slightly fast to make everything sharper and more exciting.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
____________________
Under$tood, Scott. The devil i$ in the detail$. Now we know what ha$
motivated commercial FM operation$ even 40-50 year$ ago. You ju$t
have to look closely!

-CC

[William Sommerwerck]

Does anybody even manufacture a HD car radio tuner? Since the station
acknowledges that most people listen in their cars, why the HD push?

Yes, a couple of companies do, most notably Kenwood. But car companies
don't want to put HD radios into cars until more stations broadcast it,
and
broadcasters don't want to adopt it until more car manufacturers offer it.

That's odd, because in the Seattle area, many stations come in when I
perform an HD-only scan.

My guess is that HD hardware is not expensive, so stations say "Why not?".
Anyone know for sure?

[William Sommerwerck]

FM didn't really come into its own until the introduction of stereo FM (not
FM stereo) in 1961. It nevertheless remained a niche market for classical
and jazz listeners. "Modern" listeners might be surprised that many service
areas had two to four full-time classical stations.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 17, 12:38*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
FM didn't really come into its own until the introduction of stereo FM (not
FM stereo) in 1961. It nevertheless remained a niche market for classical
and jazz listeners. "Modern" listeners might be surprised that many service
areas had two to four full-time classical stations.
_______________
Will you're killin' me! What in the daylights is the difference
between "stereo FM" and "FM stereo"?? Because
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the human race
isn't gonna know the difference.

SMH

-CC

[William Sommerwerck]

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 12:38 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

FM didn't really come into its own until the introduction of stereo FM
(not
FM stereo) in 1961.

Will, you're killin' me! What in the daylights is the difference
between "stereo FM" and "FM stereo"?? Because
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the
human race isn't gonna know the difference.


I just fixed the Wikipedia article. Forgive me for comprising that minuscule
difference.

"stereo FM" is the correct term. "FM stereo" is a phonograph record with
severe flutter.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

That's odd, because in the Seattle area, many stations come in when I
perform an HD-only scan.
My guess is that HD hardware is not expensive, so stations say "Why
not?".
Anyone know for sure?

It's not very expensive, and in a lot of cases it's an easy retrofit to
existing transmitters. One big determinant is your antenna system. If
your
antenna is very narrowly tuned and has a lot of [nonlinear] group delay
across
the passband, it will not work with IBOC-FM. Upgrading the antenna system,
though, not only allows IBOC-FM to work but also reduces distortion on the
analog carrier, so it's a win-win situation. It just costs money.

One of the advantages of IBOC -- for commercial stations, anyway -- is that,
in addition to the main HD program, they can have up to two additional HD
programs which, hopefully, will bring in added revenue.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:10:33 -0500, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

I finally got around to installing my Sony HD tuner in my main system. (It
supplements the main tuner, a Parasound T3.)

I normally listen only to KING FM (classical, of course), and several Public
Radio outlets, which have generally good sound. But the rock and pop
stations... Their sound can't be /that/ bad by accident.

They sound a lot like AM stations. It's difficult to qualify the sound's
badness, other than as "unnatural". It's as if recordings have been
subjected to processing that strips the life and whatever "musicality" the
sound might once have had.



Comne on, Bill, you know why.

mp3 storage and loudness wars.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...
On Feb 17, 12:38 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

FM didn't really come into its own until the introduction of stereo FM
(not
FM stereo) in 1961.

Will, you're killin' me! What in the daylights is the difference
between "stereo FM" and "FM stereo"?? Because
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent of the
human race isn't gonna know the difference.


I just fixed the Wikipedia article. Forgive me for comprising that
minuscule
difference.

"stereo FM" is the correct term. "FM stereo" is a phonograph record with
severe flutter.

And of course, you edited Wikipedia without citing a reliable source--just
your own personal "I'm always right", is it?

How long till you cite Wikipedia to "support" your own personal definition?

[William Sommerwerck]

"stereo FM" is the correct term. "FM stereo" is a phonograph record
with severe flutter.

And of course, you edited Wikipedia without citing a reliable source --
just your own personal "I'm always right", is it?

I'm almost always right. You (whoever you are) have a problem with that?

I'm not the first person to point this out. Many years ago someone else
remarked on it.

In English, the adjective usually goes before the noun. "FM stereo"
literally means "frequency-modulated stereo". "Stereo FM" means
"stereophonic frequency modulation". It is the more-accurate term.

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 2/17/2012 1:43 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

One of the advantages of IBOC -- for commercial stations, anyway -- is that,
in addition to the main HD program, they can have up to two additional HD
programs which, hopefully, will bring in added revenue.



What's not always appreciated is that "repeaters"
can repeat, analof, ANY of the main station's digital channels.

Thus ... in our town we now have a substantially classical music FM
analog station and a full-time classical analog one ... the HD
full power one (100kW) has HD1 (analog mirrored on itself) HD2 (analog
mirrored on AM (5kW day, 25 watt night)) and HD3 (analog mirrored on a
so-called repeater (300W)).

Doug McDonald

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 17, 6:53*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"stereo FM" is the correct term. "FM stereo" is a phonograph record
with severe flutter.
And of course, you edited Wikipedia without citing a reliable source --
just your own personal "I'm always right", is it?

I'm almost always right. You (whoever you are) have a problem with that?

I'm not the first person to point this out. Many years ago someone else
remarked on it.

In English, the adjective usually goes before the noun. "FM stereo"
literally means "frequency-modulated stereo". "Stereo FM" means
"stereophonic frequency modulation". It is the more-accurate term.
____
Well, the average joe says 'fm stereo', and most average folks know
what he means. lol!

[geoff]

ChrisCoaster wrote:
In English, the adjective usually goes before the noun. "FM stereo"
literally means "frequency-modulated stereo". "Stereo FM" means
"stereophonic frequency modulation". It is the more-accurate term.


____
Well, the average joe says 'fm stereo', and most average folks know
what he means. lol!

No, most say "FM" and know what it means.

geoff

[Anahata]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:54:00 -0500, None wrote:

And of course, you edited Wikipedia without citing a reliable
source--just your own personal "I'm always right", is it?

How long till you cite Wikipedia to "support" your own personal
definition?

http://xkcd.com/978/

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Mxsmanic]

William Sommerwerck writes:

In English, the adjective usually goes before the noun. "FM stereo"
literally means "frequency-modulated stereo". "Stereo FM" means
"stereophonic frequency modulation". It is the more-accurate term.

Not really true, since "FM stereo," when said by most people, means "FM radio
in stereo," and this is perfectly correct English. Likewise, "stereo FM" can
just as easily mean "stereo FM radio."

The distinction you are making doesn't really exist.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck writes:

In English, the adjective usually goes before the noun. "FM stereo"
literally means "frequency-modulated stereo". "Stereo FM" means
"stereophonic frequency modulation". It is the more-accurate term.

"Stereo FM" is short for "Stereo FM Multiplex" which nobody, nobody
ever says anymore.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 18, 3:48*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
William Sommerwerck writes:

In English, the adjective usually goes before the noun. "FM stereo"
literally means "frequency-modulated stereo". "Stereo FM" means
"stereophonic frequency modulation". It is the more-accurate term.

"Stereo FM" is short for "Stereo FM Multiplex" which nobody, nobody
ever says anymore.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Like" !

-ChrisCoaster

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I finally got around to installing my Sony HD tuner in my main system. (It
supplements the main tuner, a Parasound T3.)

I normally listen only to KING FM (classical, of course), and several
Public
Radio outlets, which have generally good sound. But the rock and pop
stations... Their sound can't be /that/ bad by accident.

They sound a lot like AM stations. It's difficult to qualify the sound's
badness, other than as "unnatural". It's as if recordings have been
subjected to processing that strips the life and whatever "musicality" the
sound might once have had.

I haven't taken FM seriously for decades, except in the car. When I listen
in my car, which BTW has a great sound system, I mostly listen to NPR or MP3
CDs of spoken word.

I have had a Pioneer TX 9100 since it was new in the 70s. I recently had it
checked out by an engineer who is both an audiophile and a FM radio
reception expert. He tells me that other than some noisy level controls
(just don't turn them and they are fine) it is still fully operational. I
never use it and in fact it hasn't been hooked up permanently for over a
decade.

When I was young, some of the better FM stations sounded about as good as
LPs. That all went away in the 80s. The automatic sound quality upgrade
from migrating to CDs probably had as much to do with this evolutionary
change as the loss of SQ from the source.

I don't expect much fidelity from FM and I don't get it.

I'm very happy listening to other sources when I'm interested in sound
quality. I would pick a well made 128 Kb MP3 over FM any day of the week. I
suspect that in the wonderful world of FM station automation, their source
material is often even less than this. I seriously doubt that any of the
mainstream schemes for digital audio over analog FM are as good in terms of
SQ.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I have had a Pioneer TX 9100 since it was new in the 70s. I recently
had it checked out by an engineer who is both an audiophile and an
FM radio reception expert. He tells me that other than some noisy
level controls (just don't turn them and they are fine) it is still fully
operational. I never use it and in fact it hasn't been hooked up
permanently for over a decade.

Oddly, my first component tuner, too. (My first component system was
all-Pioneer. I worked in an audio-photo store, and bought the stuff at
accomodation price.) It had an impluse-noise suppressor, but it didn't seem
to do much good.


When I was young, some of the better FM stations sounded about as good
as LPs. That all went away in the 80s.The automatic sound quality upgrade
from migrating to CDs probably had as much to do with this evolutionary
change as the loss of SQ from the source.
I don't expect much fidelity from FM and I don't get it.

KING-FM and the NPR stations "sound good", but I suspect some if not most of
this is "by comparison". They are not up to the subjective quality of CDs,
SACDs (especially), or even audiophile LPs in my system. "Something is
missing", but I can't put my finger on it. There is no /inherent/ reason
this should be so. My intuition is that there are too many electronic stages
between the source and the transmitter, but that's speculation.


I'm very happy listening to other sources when I'm interested in sound
quality. I would pick a well-made 128 Kb MP3 over FM any day of the
week. I suspect that in the wonderful world of FM station automation,
their source material is often even less than this. I seriously doubt that
any of the mainstream schemes for digital audio over analog FM are as
good in terms of SQ.

We could argue/discuss this ad infinitum. iBiquity HD has the same problems
lossy-compressed audio is accused of -- dryness/graininess, a flattening of
perspective and loss of ambience.

[geoff]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I haven't taken FM seriously for decades, except in the car. When I
listen in my car, which BTW has a great sound system, I mostly listen
to NPR or MP3 CDs of spoken word.

You wanna watch that 'spoken word' stuff. Subliminal brainwashing ;-)

geoff

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:29:13 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

We could argue/discuss this ad infinitum. iBiquity HD has the same problems
lossy-compressed audio is accused of -- dryness/graininess, a flattening of
perspective and loss of ambience.
------------------------------snip------------------------------

I think it's less subtle than that. The reality is that the HD Radio
stations out there could be putting out a 300kbps stream if they wanted to,
and that doesn't sound too awful (assuming they keep most of the dynamic
range intact).

But the problem is, most FM stations choose to subdivide their bandwidth into
multiple streams, and as a result, most of what you hear on HD Radio is maybe
120kbps, at best. And that ain't enough. You get all the flangy, metallic,
harsh distortion of any crappy MP3 recording -- I wouldn't characterize it by
anything as flowery as "dry" or "flattening of perspective" or any of that
crap. My personal joke is, "listening to bad MP3s gives me the same feeling
as chewing on a piece of aluminum foil." Unpleasant, fatiguing, bad.

The Wikipedia entry on HD Radio goes into this quite a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Radio

The amount of signal processing modern FM signals go into is alarming. Read
what radio guru Bob Orban and Frank Foti say about radio dynamic range and EQ
processing in this technical paper:

http://www.orban.com/support/orban/t..._The_Truth_1.3.
pdf

It's as bad as it ever was in rock and pop radio, especially when they take a
stomped-on, over-compressed CD mix and then compress it _again_ on the way to
the transmitter. Orban himself, arguably the father of modern radio
processing, is very upset at how bad dynamic range compression is being used
in the industry and on modern recordings.

--MFW

[Trevor]

"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com...
But the problem is, most FM stations choose to subdivide their bandwidth
into
multiple streams, and as a result, most of what you hear on HD Radio is
maybe
120kbps, at best.

We can only dream of that here, with most digital radio stations closer to
64kbs. :-(
The good news at least is that I don't listen to radio anyway, and I sure
don't need to buy a digital one! :-)
AM provides better coverage for news and traffic reports, which is all I
ever want on radio, and talkback radio seems to be the most listened too by
other people, and that sounds just as bad on anything, or at any bit rate.
CD's are for listening to recorded music!

Trevor.