[[email protected]]

I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?


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).

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:34:26 -0700, wrote:

I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?


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).

You appear to be confusing "more" with "better". Throughout the
history of radio, each innovation in its turn has resulted in better
sound - the switch from the low frequency AM bands to FM at 100MHz,
then the inclusion of stereo. But with the switch to digital radio in
all its forms, that welcome trend has been reversed. Certainly in the
UK, DAB has proved worse then FM (I am talking here about reception of
either under ideal conditions, you understand) and quality has been
replaced by quantity, with immense numbers of so-called channels
running 80kb/sec mono and producing music that is quite impossible to
listen to.

Even the great much-hyped benefit of user-selectable compression
didn't materialize. The stations still compete as to who can produce
the loudest, foulest signal.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[SFTV_troy]

Don Pearce wrote:

DAB has proved worse then FM (I am talking here about reception of
either under ideal conditions, you understand) and quality has been
replaced by quantity, with immense numbers of so-called channels
running 80kb/sec mono and producing music that is quite impossible to
listen to.


True, but I've read the DRB+ standard (already implemented in store
radios) will fix that problem by using MPEG4 HE-AAC+SBR, thus erasing
any compression artifacts. (HE-AAC can achieve FM quality as low as
64 kbps)(CD quality at 96 kbps). Don't you think that's a positive
development?


Even the great much-hyped benefit of user-selectable compression
didn't materialize. The stations still compete as to who can produce
the loudest, foulest signal.

User-selectable compression? That's a new one. I'd not heard of it
before now. I don't even know how such a thing would work, since the
compression is controlled by the Engineer when he encodes the music.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:02:02 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

DAB has proved worse then FM (I am talking here about reception of
either under ideal conditions, you understand) and quality has been
replaced by quantity, with immense numbers of so-called channels
running 80kb/sec mono and producing music that is quite impossible to
listen to.


True, but I've read the DRB+ standard (already implemented in store
radios) will fix that problem by using MPEG4 HE-AAC+SBR, thus erasing
any compression artifacts. (HE-AAC can achieve FM quality as low as
64 kbps)(CD quality at 96 kbps). Don't you think that's a positive
development?


But it won't be happening here any time soon.


Even the great much-hyped benefit of user-selectable compression
didn't materialize. The stations still compete as to who can produce
the loudest, foulest signal.

User-selectable compression? That's a new one. I'd not heard of it
before now. I don't even know how such a thing would work, since the
compression is controlled by the Engineer when he encodes the music.

Oh yes. I bought the first DAB radio from Arcam - the Alpha 10. It has
a selection of - I think - four different compression levels. I was
involved in the BBC trials a few years ago, and much was being made of
the option to compress hard in a car, or not at all for home
listening. That was alongside the CD quality, you understand.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[[email protected]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:02:02 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

DAB has proved worse then FM (I am talking here about reception of
either under ideal conditions, you understand) and quality has been
replaced by quantity, with immense numbers of so-called channels
running 80kb/sec mono and producing music that is quite impossible to
listen to.


True, but I've read the DRB+ standard (already implemented in store
radios) will fix that problem by using MPEG4 HE-AAC+SBR, thus erasing
any compression artifacts. (HE-AAC can achieve FM quality as low as
64 kbps)(CD quality at 96 kbps). Don't you think that's a positive
development?


But it won't be happening here any time soon.

2010 is when DRM will end and DRM+ start (probably) (according to the
UK committee). I've read that some stations are already offering DRM+
starting in 2008.


Oh yes. I bought the first DAB radio from Arcam - the Alpha 10. It has
a selection of - I think - four different compression levels. I was
involved in the BBC trials a few years ago, and much was being made of
the option to compress hard in a car, or not at all for home
listening. That was alongside the CD quality, you understand.


That still doesn't make sense. The broadcaster controls the encoding
rate, not the buttons on the radio. Unless they were using multiple
streams (like 64, 128, 256). But that would be horribly inefficient
of limited bandwidth to broadcast the same station three times.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

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?


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[SFTV_troy]

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.

[Karl Uppiano]

"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).

On the other hand, bit rate reduction using perceptual coding is lossy, no
matter how you slice it. And if it becomes a competitive thing like FM
broadcasting, it won't be "done right" either. They will compress the
dynamic range and clip the snot out of it, just like FM.

[Randy Yates]

"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

[Chris Morriss]

In message .com,
writes
I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?


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).


I know nothing about HDR (is this a US-only scheme?), but European DAB
can be very good. The problem in the UK is that there are far too many
stations, so most of them are running on 128k bps, which is noticeably
inferior to FM. Even Radio3 (The main BBC classical channel) only gets
192k. I believe that on the European mainland, there's fewer stations
and higher bit-rate transmission.
--
Chris Morriss

[SFTV_troy]

Chris Morriss wrote:

I know nothing about HDR (is this a US-only scheme?), but European DAB
can be very good. ....


Hybrid Digital Radio is somewhat similar to DRM. They share a lot of
the same characteristics including COFDM modulation and HE-AAC
compression. Also they are designed to sit side-by-side with current
AM/FM stations, and eventually replace them (pure digital).

[SFTV_troy]

I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 station to 4
stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel)
(and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels). Or maybe a Jazz station
dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big
Band-era Jazz. FM could effectively triple its number of channels.

Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
transition has some growing pains to overcome.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:09:45 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

What is the reason for your optimism? Every other advance in radio has
been better by design, and demonstrated its improvement from day 1.
Digital radio hasn't done that - it has been poor from day one, and to
be better than its predecessor it will need to get a whole heap better
then it is now.

What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Tom[_12_]]

On Sep 29, 4:22 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:09:45 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

What is the reason for your optimism? Every other advance in radio has
been better by design, and demonstrated its improvement from day 1.
Digital radio hasn't done that - it has been poor from day one, and to
be better than its predecessor it will need to get a whole heap better
then it is now.

What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

HDradio is worse than DAB insofar as the so-called IBOC implementation
guarantees interference to both the analog main channel and to
adjacent channel stations. DAB has been implemented on exclusive
spectrum, or, at least, spectrum that is not already used for consumer
applications. As to the quality, yes, a DAB multiplex can be exploited
to provide 1990's pioneer streaming audio quality for many program
streams channels or a few streams at 1980's near-CD quality. HDradio
benefits from a decade of codec and silicon development needed for it
to have marginally acceptable quality in a much more restrictive
bandwidth. So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

Adverse reaction to HDradio is stronger than what it probably was to
DAB because of the perceived negative effects on analog reception and
the lack of new program offerings. DAB takeup has succeeded as well as
it has in the UK because of new program services, not because of audio
quality, and because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

DRM is still an open question - my dabbling with it persuaded me that
it is not really viable where sky-wave propagation is involved, either
as the main path or as an interferer to the desired ground-wave path.
That said, it should do as well or better than HDradio for LW, MW,
26MHz, and VHF but is as disruptive to existing analog stations.

I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.

Tom

[SFTV_troy]

Tom wrote:

...So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to
hear?



DAB...because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

The quality stinks? Really? I listen to XM streams via the internet,
and they sound just fine. Is there really that huge of a difference
between Internet and Mobile Receiver?



I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.


What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks.

[Earl Kiosterud]

"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ups.com...

Tom wrote:

...So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to
hear?



DAB...because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

The quality stinks? Really? I listen to XM streams via the internet,
and they sound just fine. Is there really that huge of a difference
between Internet and Mobile Receiver?



I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.


What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks.


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.
--
Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud
www.smokeylake.com

[Telamon]

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Tom wrote:


Snip

You should not be snipping the header of people you reply too. There is
more then one Tom around.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[Tom[_12_]]

On Sep 29, 7:22 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
Tom wrote:

...So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to
hear?

DAB...because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

The quality stinks? Really? I listen to XM streams via the internet,
and they sound just fine. Is there really that huge of a difference
between Internet and Mobile Receiver?

I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.

What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks.

Earl answered the last question really well.

DRM (and I imagine HDradio-IBOC-AM) are fatiguing (to some people)
because very low audio encoding bitrates must be employed in order to
fit within the allowed spectrum; typically 10kHz of RF spectrum
restricts the audio to perhaps 20kbps. Considering that a CD streams
at about 75 times this rate, losses in encoding at these very low bit
rates along with the consequent artefacts are pretty severe. Low
bitrate audio tends to have a gurgling, grainy, grungy effect - hard
to describe but after a while, I just have to turn it off. Admittedly,
ambient noise (e.g. road noise) can mask a lot of it but I'm not sure
that it's any less fatiguing.

I was too general in my comment about satellite radio. Both XM and
Sirius use a range of encoding standards, putting news/talk on the
lowest and music on the highest. My main channel on Sirius Canada is
CBC Radio One which was stupidly assigned a news/talk standard when it
actually comprises an eclectic mix of content - we're currently
listening to Randy Bachman (BTO) playing #2 hits from the 60's and
70's in his weekly 3-hour program from the local FM. The Sirius news/
talk encoding is not much higher than 20kbps - voice is bad enough but
music really stinks. The highest standards on XM and Sirius are
better, but like Eureka DAB, frozen in quality at that which could be
provided by the adopted codecs of the day (1990's). What you hear over
the Internet will be encoded differently, using codecs popular for
Internet streaming, not their proprietary ones for satellite delivery.
Both XM and Sirius favour offering more choice than higher quality,
so, like Eureka DAB, subdivide their digital channel capacity into
more, smaller chunks - maybe that's what sells subscriptions - ergo,
lower quality.

Tom

[Earl Kiosterud]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ups.com...

Tom wrote:

...So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to
hear?



DAB...because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

The quality stinks? Really? I listen to XM streams via the internet,
and they sound just fine. Is there really that huge of a difference
between Internet and Mobile Receiver?



I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.


What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks.


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. A small amount of carrier would
remain, to give the receiver something to lock on to for use in recovery of the audio.
Analog video uses something similar called vestigial sideband, and we could be talking about
that for AM. Conventional radios with envelope (diode) detectors wouldn't work well at all.
When there's only one set of sidebands, with or without the carrier, the envelope of the
composite RF signal doesn't look much like the original audio, and large amounts of
distortion occur.

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.) This narrow
bandwidth reduces the noise (including the 10 KHz whistle from the carriers of
adjacent-channel stations) that results largely from many distant stations all coming in on
the channel. AM radio, with its low frequencies, travels very far, particularly at night,
so lots of distant stations come roaring in. Converting AM stations to only one sideband
with a reduced carrier would reduce all of that noise. I doubt it will happen.
--
Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud
www.smokeylake.com

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 4:22 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
Tom wrote:

...So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to
hear?

DAB...because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

The quality stinks? Really? I listen to XM streams via the internet,
and they sound just fine. Is there really that huge of a difference
between Internet and Mobile Receiver?

XM talk stations are compressed out the wazoo over the bird, while the
internet stream is fair to maybe good, depending on how picky you are.
XM music over the bird is acceptable.

XM PR (Public Radio) is the exception to the rule regarding over
compression. With NPR mixing music with talk, XM needs to be ready for
anything.


I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.

What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks.

[RHF]

On Sep 29, 2:02 pm, Tom wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:22 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:





On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:09:45 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

What is the reason for your optimism? Every other advance in radio has
been better by design, and demonstrated its improvement from day 1.
Digital radio hasn't done that - it has been poor from day one, and to
be better than its predecessor it will need to get a whole heap better
then it is now.

What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

HDradio is worse than DAB insofar as the so-called IBOC implementation
guarantees interference to both the analog main channel and to
adjacent channel stations. DAB has been implemented on exclusive
spectrum, or, at least, spectrum that is not already used for consumer
applications. As to the quality, yes, a DAB multiplex can be exploited
to provide 1990's pioneer streaming audio quality for many program
streams channels or a few streams at 1980's near-CD quality. HDradio
benefits from a decade of codec and silicon development needed for it
to have marginally acceptable quality in a much more restrictive
bandwidth. So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

Adverse reaction to HDradio is stronger than what it probably was to
DAB because of the perceived negative effects on analog reception and
the lack of new program offerings. DAB takeup has succeeded as well as
it has in the UK because of new program services, not because of audio
quality, and because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

DRM is still an open question - my dabbling with it persuaded me that
it is not really viable where sky-wave propagation is involved, either
as the main path or as an interferer to the desired ground-wave path.
That said, it should do as well or better than HDradio for LW, MW,
26MHz, and VHF but is as disruptive to existing analog stations.

I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.

Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom - Good Response ~ RHF

[Steven]

On Sep 30, 12:08 am, RHF wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:02 pm, Tom wrote:





On Sep 29, 4:22 pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:09:45 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

What is the reason for your optimism? Every other advance in radio has
been better by design, and demonstrated its improvement from day 1.
Digital radio hasn't done that - it has been poor from day one, and to
be better than its predecessor it will need to get a whole heap better
then it is now.

What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

HDradio is worse than DAB insofar as the so-called IBOC implementation
guarantees interference to both the analog main channel and to
adjacent channel stations. DAB has been implemented on exclusive
spectrum, or, at least, spectrum that is not already used for consumer
applications. As to the quality, yes, a DAB multiplex can be exploited
to provide 1990's pioneer streaming audio quality for many program
streams channels or a few streams at 1980's near-CD quality. HDradio
benefits from a decade of codec and silicon development needed for it
to have marginally acceptable quality in a much more restrictive
bandwidth. So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

Adverse reaction to HDradio is stronger than what it probably was to
DAB because of the perceived negative effects on analog reception and
the lack of new program offerings. DAB takeup has succeeded as well as
it has in the UK because of new program services, not because of audio
quality, and because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

DRM is still an open question - my dabbling with it persuaded me that
it is not really viable where sky-wave propagation is involved, either
as the main path or as an interferer to the desired ground-wave path.
That said, it should do as well or better than HDradio for LW, MW,
26MHz, and VHF but is as disruptive to existing analog stations.

I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.

Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom - Good Response ~ RHF
.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I can agree with a lot of it. Critique without a bunch of URLs
also, which is astonishing when you realize that all came from HIM and
not a website. Much obliged!

[SFTV_troy]

Don Pearce wrote:

What is the reason for your optimism? Every other advance in radio has
been better by design, and demonstrated its improvement from day 1.
Digital radio hasn't done that - it has been poor from day one, and to
be better than its predecessor it will need to get a whole heap better
What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?


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).

Both of these will dramatically improve after the analog shutdown (FM
will have room for 300 kbps per station).

[RHF]

On Sep 29, 4:16 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

What is the reason for your optimism? Every other advance in radio has
been better by design, and demonstrated its improvement from day 1.
Digital radio hasn't done that - it has been poor from day one, and to
be better than its predecessor it will need to get a whole heap better
What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?

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).

Both of these will dramatically improve after the analog shutdown (FM
will have room for 300 kbps per station).

What Analog Shut Down ?

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, RHF wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:16 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

What is the reason for your optimism? Every other advance in radio has
been better by design, and demonstrated its improvement from day 1.
Digital radio hasn't done that - it has been poor from day one, and to
be better than its predecessor it will need to get a whole heap better
What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?

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).

Both of these will dramatically improve after the analog shutdown (FM
will have room for 300 kbps per station).

What Analog Shut Down ?

The plan is to kill the analog signals and go strictly digital.

[Telamon]

In article .com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 station to 4
stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel)
(and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels). Or maybe a Jazz station
dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big
Band-era Jazz. FM could effectively triple its number of channels.

Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
transition has some growing pains to overcome.

What do you mean by "the IDEA is sound"? HD and DRM are lousy ideas.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[Ken]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:09:45 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo
to 300 kbps Surround).

No, they are going to increase quantity (more radio channels),
not sound quality. Se how they done in UK.

[SFTV_troy]

Ken wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:09:45 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo
to 300 kbps Surround).

No, they are going to increase quantity (more radio channels),
not sound quality. See how they done in UK.


I agree with you. Mostly. I think that most U.S. stations like Top
40 or Rock will try to squeeze as many programs as possible into their
200 kilohertz channel, but I think other stations like Classical will
go for higher-quality 300 kbps Surround sound, because their listeners
demand the best-possible.

BTW, the HD Radio uses HE-AAC and can achieve FM quality as low as 64
kbps.

[Steve[_12_]]

On Sep 29, 4:09 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

But DAB and DRM are horrible....so?


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

It that's true, then HDR is horrible indeed.


Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

Better sound? Maybe. Much smaller coverage area? Definitely.


Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Not if it's to listen to another informercial.


Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 station to 4
stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel)
(and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels). Or maybe a Jazz station
dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big
Band-era Jazz. FM could effectively triple its number of channels.

I couldn't care less about FM.


Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
transition has some growing pains to overcome.

Can you describe the sound part now?

[SFTV_troy]

On Sep 29, 3:58 pm, Steve wrote:

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Not if it's to listen to another informercial.



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).

[Steven]

On Sep 30, 1:54 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:58 pm, Steve wrote:



Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Not if it's to listen to another informercial.

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).

Where the hell did you come up with that factoid?

[SFTV_troy]

Steven wrote:
On Sep 30, 1:54 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:58 pm, Steve wrote:



Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Not if it's to listen to another informercial.

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).

Where the hell did you come up with that factoid?



Not a factoid; just personal experience. I have never heard any 30-
minute ads on radio, so I consider is a non-issue. Like worrying
about an asteroid hitting the earth in my lifetime (an unlikely event
& a non-issue).

Also:

I tend not to hate commercials. For me commercials provide FREE
television and FREE radio (not having to pay $13 a month).

That's a positive not a negative.

[Telamon]

In article .com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

On Sep 29, 3:58 pm, Steve wrote:

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Not if it's to listen to another informercial.



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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[SFTV_troy]

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).

Thanks.

[Frank Dresser]

"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 29, 3:58 pm, Steve 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).


Yes, they do.


Frank Dresser

[David Eduardo]

"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 29, 3:58 pm, Steve wrote:

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Not if it's to listen to another informercial.



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).


O yes it does, and in fact, there are stations that do infomercials for
their entire broadcast day.

[Ratata]

SFTV_troy wrote:

Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
transition has some growing pains to overcome.

some people argue about wifi radio...

Don't put your head in the microwave to try it ;-)


--
--
Shortwave transmissions in English, Francais, Nederlands, Deutsch,
Suid-Afrikaans, Chinese, Dansk, Urdu, Cantonese, Greek, Spanish,
Portuguese, ...
http://shortwave.blogsite.org/ Updated every month or so ....

[RHF]

On Sep 29, 1:09 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 station to 4
stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel)
(and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels). Or maybe a Jazz station
dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big
Band-era Jazz. FM could effectively triple its number of channels.

Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
transition has some growing pains to overcome.

SFTV-troy,

Do you also post under the Screen Name "Radium" ?

~ RHF

[Frank Dresser]

"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
oups.com...
I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

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.

5.1 surround would drive listeners away. People use the radio for backround
sound. People listen in the car. A wide dynamic range would go from lost
in the ambient noise to the jarring. There's perfectly good practical
reasons that neither AM nor FM isn't braodcast close to their fidelity
limits.

And broadcast high fidelity has been tried several times. Wideband AM was
first tried in the 30s. FM radio took a generation to get going, despite
it's noise immunity. AM stereo failed after a good sincere attempt. A few
wideband stereo receivers were made but they didn't get much interest.

Alot of people like high fidelity but they like control of it. They'll play
it when they want, where they want. And that means they're playing
recordings.



Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 station to 4
stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel)
(and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels). Or maybe a Jazz station
dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big
Band-era Jazz. FM could effectively triple its number of channels.


So? In most markets, most listeners are listening to a few stations. The
bulk of the stations get by with less. And there's alot of stations which
hardly anybody listens to. In fact, it wasn't long ago stations were going
dark for lack of listeners. While it might be nice if radio had more
variety, how do you support it?

Even cheap programming isn't free.



Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
transition has some growing pains to overcome.


But what is the idea? Higher fidelity in a medium in which high fidelity
has already disappointed? More stations in a medium in which a number of
stations are already struggling?

Frank Dresser

[[email protected]]

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.


5.1 surround would drive listeners away. People use the radio for
backround sound. People listen in the car. A wide dynamic
range would go from lost in the ambient noise to the jarring. ...

Just because you have 5.1, doesn't mean you'd have a large dynamic
range. One does not imply the other.

And broadcast high fidelity has been tried several times. Wideband AM was
first tried in the 30s. FM radio took a generation to get going, despite
it's noise immunity. AM stereo failed after a good sincere attempt.


I would hardly call having 4 incompatible methods a "good attempt".
More like a "bass backwards" attempt. Had the FCC selected a single
standard, AM stereo would be as popular in the U.S., as it currently
is in Canada, Japan, and Australia. In those nations, virtually every
station is broadcast in AM Stereo.

As for FM, it was stifled by the AM corporations trying to crush it.
First they delayed its introduction by twenty years via regulatory
roadblocks (else we'd have it in the late 30s), and then they tried to
kill it by giving it inferior programs while saving the best stuff for
AM.

Point: FM and AM Stereo were stifled NOT by disinterest in high
fidelity, but because of poor handling.



your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 to 4

So? In most markets, most listeners are listening to a
few stations. The bulk of the stations get by with less.

Got a citation to back-up this opinion? You stated it as a fact, so
I'd like to see what study you are using to back up that fact.

Thank you.