Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
SFTV_troy SFTV_troy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


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.

;-)

  #42   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
SFTV_troy SFTV_troy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


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.

  #43   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
SFTV_troy SFTV_troy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


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.

  #44   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
SFTV_troy SFTV_troy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


Don Pearce wrote:

For a really good selection that lets you compare rates, try here
http://www.tuner2.com/




All right. How do I do an advanced search, so I can narrow my
selection to just 16 kbit/s stations? (As I routinately do on
shoutcast.com).

  #45   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Brenda Ann Brenda Ann is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...

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.


You do realize (maybe you don't) that that argument is actually a straw man.

There's no such thing as 'free' radio or television. When you buy a product
(Coke, Ford, KFC, Trojan Enz) you're paying for "free" broadcast media. Do
you think that the price of advertising is not passed on to the consumer?
It's sort of like when your employer pulls money from your paycheck to send
to the IRS and SSA, it doesn't hurt so much as it's money you never see
(unless you're lucky enough to have some of it coming back to you at tax
time). I'm sure that you and I pay far more than $13 a month in inflated
prices from paying for advertising.





  #46   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
SFTV_troy SFTV_troy is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 132
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


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

  #47   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Frank Dresser Frank Dresser is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


"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



  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Frank Dresser Frank Dresser is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


"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


  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

Soundhaspriority wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

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).

No, they are not designed to eventually replace them.




Okay. Then how come both HD Radio and Digital Radio Mondiale include
modes for pure digital operation? (Occupying the space where analog
once sat.)

Answer:

They are *designed* (key word) to operate in a world where analog does
not exist. The engineers planned-ahead for that contingency, and
included pure digital modes. (Read the HD and DRM specs.)

  #50   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

Brenda Ann wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...

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.


You do realize (maybe you don't) that that argument is actually a straw man.

There's no such thing as 'free' radio or television. When you buy a product
(Coke, Ford, KFC, Trojan Enz) you're paying for "free" broadcast media.




What makes you think I buy that trash? I actually buy very little
(since I'm not rich). Besides in nations like the UK that have
commercial-free TV and radio, are the products any cheaper than U.S.
products?

NOPE. UK pays the same price.

It's a mistake to think that, if the FCC suddenly declared commercials
can no longer be aired on TV/radio, that U.S. companies would happily
cut their prices in half. That would not happen.



  #51   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Frank Dresser Frank Dresser is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


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



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.


Alot of the big time stations run infomertials before 5AM. On weekends,
they could show up at almost any time. The smaller brokered stations often
run the hours and hours of infomertials.

Radio infomertials aren't usually like the Ron Popiel sort of TV
informertial. They often masquerade as real call-in shows, but the fake
callers are talking about the benefits of a particular investment or hair
restorer or something like that.

I have no idea if these radio informertials are available on the net. After
all, downloading a fake call-in show would destroy the illusion, wouldn't
it?

Frank Dresser


  #52   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Don Pearce Don Pearce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,726
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:38:36 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

For a really good selection that lets you compare rates, try here
http://www.tuner2.com/




All right. How do I do an advanced search, so I can narrow my
selection to just 16 kbit/s stations? (As I routinately do on
shoutcast.com).


Dunno, sorry. Just browse the list and see what takes your fancy. I
don't think it is intended as a technical resource, but as
entertainment.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

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.

  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


Soundhaspriority wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

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 as low as 64 kbps)(CD quality at 96 kbps).
Don't you think that's a positive
development?

I don't believe it. The digital radio advocates have a history of bold-faced
lies, which usually include "CD quality." Don't believe anything you read.



Actually, I don't believe anything I read (including those who are
anti-Digital Radio or anti-HDTV or anti-CD). I try to investigate
things myself, and I was sharing my own experience with the AAC+ codec
which is:

16 kbps == AM quality
24 kbps == near-FM quality
64 kbps == FM quality and near-CD
96 kbps == CD quality

  #55   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Brenda Ann Brenda Ann is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


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.





  #56   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


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.

  #57   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


Frank Dresser wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

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. ......


I have no idea if these radio informertials are available on the net. After
all, downloading a fake call-in show would destroy the illusion, wouldn't
it?





Uh.... no. Almost all radio stations offer "listen live" over the
internet. Pick your favorite station, type in its call letters.com,
and see if they have a stream. For example: WBAL.com has a live
stream of their station in real time.

[edit]

I just checked-out a couple (5) AM stations (4:30 am california time)
and none of them were playing infomercials. So please give me some
call letters of stations you know with certainty will play
infomercials, and I'll check them out myself.

  #58   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Frank Dresser Frank Dresser is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


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.


And more expenses for the broadcaster.




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.


Certainly not. And just because the frequency respose 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 similiar ways.



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.



Sure it was. The radios were available, but people didn't buy them. People
didn't buy them when they had four choices. People didn't buy the
multidecoder radios. People didn't buy the AM stereo radios when there was
only one choice.

Lots of broadcasters transmitted AM stereo, and it worked pretty well. But
people didn't buy the radios.

I know plenty of people who never owned an AM stereo radio. I have no idea
how the FCC kept them from buying 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),


FM was on the air in the late 30s. I have a Stromberg Carlson AM-SW-FM
radio made in 1940. The FCC did change the FM band after WW2. Many people
blame the change for FM's slow restart, but again, the FCC wasn't keeping
people from buying new radios.


and then they tried to
kill it by giving it inferior programs while saving the best stuff for
AM.


The AM corporations didn't have any control over the FM stations they didn't
own. There were independant FM networks but they couldn't develop
competitive programming.



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


If public had a robust interest in high fidelity radio, then presumed poor
handling would not be an issue.




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.


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.

As far as I know, the story is about the same in every market. Here's where
to check it out:

http://www.arbitron.com/home/ratings.htm

Frank Dresser


  #59   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Frank Dresser Frank Dresser is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


wrote in message
ups.com...


I just checked-out a couple (5) AM stations (4:30 am california time)
and none of them were playing infomercials. So please give me some
call letters of stations you know with certainty will play
infomercials, and I'll check them out myself.


WIND AM 560 has an informertial for some sort of health food pills right
now.

http://560wind.townhall.com/

I'll probably be over by 8:00 am Chicago time.

Frank Dresser


  #60   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

On Sep 30, 5:46 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:


Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier
fidelity limits. Plenty are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
perfect audio reproduction would not bring in 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.



Oh well. Somebody else in this forum just got done telling me,
"Listeners don't care about quality", so it shouldn't be an an issue.
People want variety, and lots of stations. And that's what IBOC-FM
provides.

BTW:

IBOC does have an advantage over DAB. DAB only has room for ~100 kbps
per station. IBOC provides each digital FM station with 300 kbps.







  #61   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Steven Steven is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

On Sep 30, 2:50 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Tom wrote:
On Sep 29, 7:22 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:


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?


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.


True.

On the other hand, codecs have advanced a lot over the last few years,
specifically to improve low bit rates. Take a quick listen to these
AAC+SBR stations:

Q93 Louisiana -www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutcast-playlist.pls?rn=377155&file=filename...
SKY FM -www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutcast-playlist.pls?rn=8849&file=filename.pls

IMHO they sound better than the AM Stereo radio in my car. Even as
low as 16 kbps, you have fairly good sound. (If the above link did
not work, here's the station listing.)http://www.shoutcast.com/directory/i...&sgenre=Top%20...

Also:

With a nominal increase (+5 khz each side),
HD and DMR can achieve 40 or 70 kbps
which is as good as FM.

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. .....


I don't know much about the Satellite services, but I see sirius uses
AAC (no plus). AAC is not much better than MP3, and 20 kbps is
definitely not sufficient, even for voice. I'd probably be calling
every day, and complaining to sirius, until they got tired of hearing
from me.

.... What you hear over
the Internet will be encoded differently, using codecs popular for
Internet streaming, not their proprietary ones for satellite delivery.


Ahhh I see. I figured they'd use the same codec, rather than spend
money creating two separate streams for the satellite and the net.

I've been listening on the internet, and considering subscribing, but
if the radio's sound is crap then it's not worth the $13 a month fee.
(later). Ooops hold on. If wikipedia is accurate, XM is using the
superior AAC+. "Audio channels on XM are digitally compressed using
the aacPlus codec". So XM would sound as good as internet.


HD/IBOC does not employ AAC, although an earlier version may have
IIRC. It uses something called PAC(?)

One annoying thing I always found about either service was that even
with a satellite dish the sets at Wal-Mart broke up on and off as you
moved around them. How QUAINT.

  #62   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Steven Steven is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 138
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

On Sep 30, 4:25 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:38:36 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:


For a really good selection that lets you compare rates, try here
http://www.tuner2.com/


All right. How do I do an advanced search, so I can narrow my
selection to just 16 kbit/s stations? (As I routinately do on
shoutcast.com).


Dunno, sorry. Just browse the list and see what takes your fancy. I
don't think it is intended as a technical resource, but as
entertainment.

d

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


It's becoming painfully bloody OBVIOUS that we have a foreign OP who
has the British status quo confused with a purely AMERICAN concept,
hybrid digital (Britain has absolute stark, raving NIL). Nobody else
in the world has bothered much with a halfway approach to digital
radio--only the US..

  #63   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


Frank Dresser wrote:


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.


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.

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).



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


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.



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.



Sure it was. The radios were available, but people didn't buy them.



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.)

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.

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.



If public had a robust interest in high fidelity radio, then presumed poor
handling would not be an issue.


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.



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.


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

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
- and that they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM
dial.

  #65   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


Steven wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:38:36 -0700, SFTV_troy

All right. How do I do an advanced search, so I can narrow my
selection to just 16 kbit/s stations? (As I routinately do on
shoutcast.com).


It's becoming painfully bloody OBVIOUS that we have a foreign OP who
has the British status quo confused with a purely AMERICAN concept,
hybrid digital (Britain has absolute stark, raving NIL).


I'm not confused. I am aware that DAB sits on its own separate band.



Nobody else in the world has bothered much with
a halfway approach to digital radio--only the US..


Not true. The U.S. is not the only place to use IBOC. The E.U. also
uses IBOC for shortwave, AM, and (soon) FM.

(By the way, why do europeans hate america so much? What did we do to
you to create such animosity?)



  #66   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Richard Crowley Richard Crowley is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,172
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

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.
  #67   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


Steven wrote:

HD/IBOC does not employ AAC, although an earlier
version may have IIRC. It uses something called PAC(?)



You have it backwards. It used to be PAC, derived from MP3.

Early testing showed it didn't work very well, so the codec was
switched to MPEG4 AAC+SBR.


One annoying thing I always found about either XM or Sirius
was even with a satellite dish the sets at Wal-Mart broke
up on and off as you moved around them. How QUAINT.


Huh. I thought the "backup" terrestrial stations were supposed to
prevent that. (shrug). When I was last at Walmart I tried to listen
to an XM radio, but they didn't have any operational. Nice. Way to
demo the system.

  #69   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] kimmikat@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

That will millions of radios obsolete. Don't think that will happen.
IBOC will die first...

On Sep 30, 1:37 am, wrote:
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.



  #70   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
David Eduardo David Eduardo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


"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.




  #71   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
David Eduardo David Eduardo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...


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.


When the People Meter comes, it shows more market compression. In fact, in
Houston, the #1 and the #15 station are only 0.2 ratings points apart.

If you look at the Arbitron numbers, which are the useless 12+ figures, you
will see that in nearly every market there is only one AM in the top 10,
save those markets with multiple full coverage 50 kw stations.... like
Chicago. Bit if you go to 18-54, the sales demo range, only one AM is in the
top 15, WBBM, and it is 10th.

The Arbitron lists cut off at a particular point. I show 39 stations with
some listening in Chicago, while the Arbitron page shows less... but not one
is licensed outside the metro.


  #72   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Mel Lerner Mel Lerner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


  #75   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Steve[_12_] Steve[_12_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

On Sep 30, 5:20 am, SFTV_troy wrote:


Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD
quality.



I once road in horse drawn carriage whose ride was smooth as silk.
This didn't alter the fact that it was obsolete technology.

Change happens.

Progress is good.

Learn it.

Live it.

Love it.



  #76   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
Steve[_12_] Steve[_12_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

On Sep 30, 1:45 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message

...



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.


When the People Meter comes, it shows more market compression. In fact, in
Houston, the #1 and the #15 station are only 0.2 ratings points apart.

If you look at the Arbitron numbers, which are the useless 12+ figures, you
will see that in nearly every market there is only one AM in the top 10,
save those markets with multiple full coverage 50 kw stations.... like
Chicago. Bit if you go to 18-54, the sales demo range, only one AM is in the
top 15, WBBM, and it is 10th.

The Arbitron lists cut off at a particular point. I show 39 stations with
some listening in Chicago, while the Arbitron page shows less... but not one
is licensed outside the metro.


Stop clinging to the past. And while you're at it, stop lying about
the past, too.

  #77   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


Steve wrote:
On Sep 30, 5:20 am, SFTV_troy wrote:


Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD
quality.



I once road in horse drawn carriage whose ride was smooth as silk.
This didn't alter the fact that it was obsolete technology.

Change happens.
Progress is good.
Learn it.
Live it.
Love it.



Or buy yourself a coffin, and make room for the younger generation
that is not close-minded and afraid of change.

Some of you have grown into your grandpas.

  #78   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

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 either.

  #79   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
[email protected] SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 103
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

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.




  #80   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
David Eduardo David Eduardo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


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.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FA: New Delco GM Chevy OEM CD/Radio w/Nav TV Aux Connector (for IPod,DVD,Sat Radio etc.) dg Marketplace 0 February 20th 06 04:38 PM
FA: Old Lafayette Radio, Heathkit & Radio Shack Catalogs [email protected] Marketplace 0 August 27th 05 04:05 PM
FA 1953 Crosley radio D25CE "dashboard radio" AHoudini Vacuum Tubes 0 October 21st 04 02:02 AM
Radio reception worse than factory radio, antenna adapter? AC/DCdude17 Car Audio 3 December 24th 03 03:17 PM
HD Radio = mp3 radio, only worse. Dan Popp Pro Audio 25 October 9th 03 02:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"