Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Telamon wrote: 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Telamon wrote: 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message oups.com... 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message oups.com... 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Frank Dresser wrote:
"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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Frank Dresser wrote: "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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message ups.com... 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 5:46 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 2:50 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 4:25 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Frank Dresser wrote: 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. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Don Pearce wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:11:21 -0700, wrote: If I were you, I would call Arcam and ask them if they still have the Alpha 10. If not, do they have an equivalent model with Volume compression? I bet they do. I have the Alpha 10. It is the purchase that cured me of being an early adopter. Unfortunately all the DAB stations (except for one) already compress their dynamics before transmission, so it doesn't help me that my radio can add some more. Probably the result of the lousy MP2 codec at 96-128 bps, rather than anything the engineer did. Once DAB upgrades to AAC+ you should hear a dramatic improvement. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message oups.com... 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Frank Dresser" wrote 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
|
#73
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:17:22 -0700, wrote: [snip] No, this is nothing to do with encoding. I am talking about the "make it loud" dynamics compression that all radio stations do. The big idea with DAB was that they would not do this on the digital feed, and the choice would lie with the listener whether to squash the nuts out of everything or not. Didn't happen. The technology simply won't overcome human nature and marketing stupidity. They're compressing/clipping the crap out of CDs now, too. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message ups.com... Peter Larsen wrote: wrote: Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a transition from analog to digital broadcasting, and there will be some growing pains, but it's only temporary. The Digital radio will provide better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 5.1 surround into the current FM bands). What is it that makes you assume that digital radio will be ACTUALLY better than FM directly off the air? For the same reason why Digital satellite radio, or digital internet radio sounds better than FM. Better encoding of the signal yields better sound. Digital internet radio sounds better than FM? How? Are you talking about raw technology or current practices? Because FM done right can sound spectacular (it is practically never done right). On the other hand, bit rate reduction using perceptual coding is lossy, no matter how you slice it. And if it becomes a competitive thing like FM broadcasting, it won't be "done right" either. They will compress the dynamic range and clip the snot out of it, just like FM. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 5:20 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 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
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 30, 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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: New Delco GM Chevy OEM CD/Radio w/Nav TV Aux Connector (for IPod,DVD,Sat Radio etc.) | Marketplace | |||
FA: Old Lafayette Radio, Heathkit & Radio Shack Catalogs | Marketplace | |||
FA 1953 Crosley radio D25CE "dashboard radio" | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Radio reception worse than factory radio, antenna adapter? | Car Audio | |||
HD Radio = mp3 radio, only worse. | Pro Audio |