[[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either under ideal conditions, you understand) and quality has been
replaced by quantity, with immense numbers of so-called channels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

[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

[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

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:43:28 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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)

But your DAB is better than U.S IBOC Ibquity, is it not? Don't some of your
stations share a single spread spectrum carrier?


No, our DAB is COFDM, so each station has 256 carriers, although
several stations are multiplexed onto each carrier group (the M bit of
COFDM). It is "better" in the sense that the long slow symbols permit
a single frequency network with no interference, but it isn't the
radio technology that is the problem. It is the MP2 coding at
pathetically low bit rates that is the cause of most of the grief. AAC
would be a very welcome alternative.

d

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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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).

[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.

[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 ....

[Mel Lerner]

[Steven]

On Sep 29, 11:15 pm, Mel Lerner wrote:

[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!

[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 ?

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

Earl Kiosterud wrote:

Synchronous AM demodulation uses a locally regenerated carrier, fed along with the AM signal
(upper or lower set of sidebands) to a multiplier (modulator). The result is the audio. It
replaces the envelope (diode) detector usually used. You can think of it as another superhet
stage where the result, instead of another IF frequency, is the baseband audio. That's
because the local oscillator is the same frequency as the carrier of the (IF) signal, so the
difference is zero. The sidebands wind up translated to baseband audio instead of to
another IF frequency.

There are advantages. Since one set of sidebands or the other can be used, if there's a
distant station 10KHz away, causing that AM whistle, you just switch to the other set of
sidebands, whichever comes in the cleanest. Also, it doesn't depend on proper amplitude and
phase of both sets of sidebands to work properly, as does the regular envelope detector, so
it works better with impaired signals.



I only understood about 75% of what your wrote, but if I understand
your meaning, this new receiving technique would not improve the sound
(it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce
interference.

[[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.

[SFTV_troy]

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 - http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls
SKY FM - http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=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...&maxbitrate=32

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.

[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]

Earl Kiosterud wrote:

I think the USB to which Tom refers is upper sideband. Converting AM stations would mean
they'd transmit only one set of sidebands, the upper set, reducing the bandwidth to almost
half. More stations could be licensed in the same band. ...


But still have the same poor AM sound. Digital offers an upgrade to
near-FM quality.

As a side issue, the loss of fidelity for which AM is notorious is largely in the receivers,
with their narrow bandwidths, resulting in audio that is rolling off pretty fast around the
5 KHz point. (AM stations actually transmit a fairly high-fidelity signal.)

How high? 0-10000 hertz? That's not as good as the 0-15000 possible
with AAC+SBR.

[Telamon]

In article . com,
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.

Snip

I'll take the AM sound over low bit rate digital anytime.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:50:43 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:

.... 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.

For a really good selection that lets you compare rates, try here

http://www.tuner2.com/

I use Winamp to listen as it has the right codec built in.

d

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

[SFTV_troy]

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

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.

Tom - Good Response ~ RHF

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!



Unfortunately the spectrum DAB occupies is currently reserved by the
U.S. military. So that literally means there's no place in U.S. Radio
to insert a DAB-exclusive band. (The FCC is selling tv channels
51-69, but it will likely go to Internet Wireless.)

Personally, I don't want to see DAB in the U.S.

I like the FCC's plan to keep the current FM band (rather than
discontinue it, as the UK/Germany is planning to do circa 2015). That
means my favorite stations, the ones I grew up with like FM97 or
WARM103 or WJTL90, will still be in their proper places ..... just
upgraded to digital quality..... and with more sub-channels.

I like the IBOC plan, even if the execution has been a little flawed.
(For example, I would have banned AM-HD from nighttime, until after
the analog shutdown.)