In article ,
SMS wrote:

It's a trade-off to be sure. But even now, every independent test of HD
Radio has shown the claims of improved sound quality over FM to be true.
Too many people don't understand that the proper Codec can provide
excellent quality audio at bit rates that digital radio employs.

Unfortunately, "HD Radio" uses an obsolete codec that is not
upgradeable. All I can say about "independent tests" is that the way to
evaluate sound quality is to listen for yourself, not read someone
else's subjective evaluation. Buy what you like, not what someone tells
you that you should like.

You tell people that they should read the "experts'" opinions. I tell
people they should listen for themselves. I can see your point, however.

The issue is also the definition of "CD Quality." In a vehicle, where
most radio listening is done, you're not going to be able to tell much
of a difference between HD Radio and CD unless your vehicle has a very
high end sound system. Similarly, FM Radio is often of poor quality in a
vehicle due to multipath. Drive on 280 from Cupertino until about San
Bruno, and the multipath is horrendous (though until stations increase
their HD power you can't get HD for much of that stretch at all).

Sounds like you need a better radio. I am intrigued, however, at your
definition of "CD Quality". I essence, you are saying that *anything* is
CD Quality as long as it is being evaluated through crappy gear that
adds so much coloration that even trained ears can't hear the
improvement that CD quality provides.

As long as the car's environment, along with bad quality amplifiers and
speakers are the chief impediment to quality sound, any programming
source is "CD Quality".

Wow! Learn something every day.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last