Should I wait for IBOC or not ?
 

Thinking about updating a high end home audio system.

Should I wait for IBOC to be brought out for consumers or will I be waiting a real long time
for this to happen ??


I like quality gear but don't want to waste big bucks on traditional receiver if it will be
obsolete in 6 months to a one year.

Steve

Steve Stone wrote:

Thinking about updating a high end home audio system.

Should I wait for IBOC to be brought out for consumers or will I be waiting a real long time
for this to happen ??

What do you mean? IBOC receivers are on the shelf right now. Kenwood
is probably the big vendor currently. Expect prices to drop, though.
Not that this is high end stuff by any stretch, but it's out there.

I like quality gear but don't want to waste big bucks on traditional receiver if it will be
obsolete in 6 months to a one year.

If you have a high end system, why do you even bother with a tuner anyway?
I will say that high end tuners like the McKay-Dymek are probably not ever
going to get digital back ends... and if anything, they are probably going
to have to be equipped with tighter and tighter IF filters to deal with the
noise issues.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 3 Mar 2004 16:06:09 GMT, Steve Stone
wrote:

Thinking about updating a high end home audio system.

Should I wait for IBOC to be brought out for consumers or will I be waiting a real long time
for this to happen ??

I've heard IBOC. The last thing you want to connect it to is a high
end audio system. It's sort of like buying a Rolls Royce and using it
to haul manure.

Rich

In article , Rich Wood wrote:
I've heard IBOC. The last thing you want to connect it to is a high

Owch....and that coming from a former WOR staffer.... :)

--
Sven Weil
New York City, U.S.A.

"Rich Wood" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mar 2004 16:06:09 GMT, Steve Stone
wrote:

Thinking about updating a high end home audio system.

Should I wait for IBOC to be brought out for consumers or will I be
waiting a real long time
for this to happen ??

I've heard IBOC. The last thing you want to connect it to is a high
end audio system. It's sort of like buying a Rolls Royce and using it
to haul manure.

I heard IBOC on the almost de facto Kenwood car radio today in Chicago on
all-music WIND. It sounded marvelous, with no noticeable artifacts and very
nice resolution, clarity and feel on music. It is not FM, which I would
expect as the FM preemphasis curve really colors the high-frequency content;
in some senses the IBOC AM is nicer than processed FM.

On 5 Mar 2004 15:44:46 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:

I've heard IBOC. The last thing you want to connect it to is a high
end audio system. It's sort of like buying a Rolls Royce and using it
to haul manure.

I heard IBOC on the almost de facto Kenwood car radio today in Chicago on
all-music WIND. It sounded marvelous, with no noticeable artifacts and very
nice resolution, clarity and feel on music. It is not FM, which I would
expect as the FM preemphasis curve really colors the high-frequency content;
in some senses the IBOC AM is nicer than processed FM.

IBOC may sound fine on a car radio in a high ambient noise
environment, but the question was about high end audio.

When you have audiophiles refusing to play CDs because they don't
sound as good as vinyl you're not going to find them pleased with IBOC
on either AM or FM.

I know audiophiles who have no audio source other than a turntable on
systems costing $20,000 or more.

The Emperor is a nudist.

Rich

On 5 Mar 2004 18:05:03 GMT, Rich Wood wrote:


I know audiophiles who have no audio source other than a turntable on
systems costing $20,000 or more.

The Emperor is a nudist.

Rich


Want to send them to a Psych ward? Have an audiologist do a spectrum
analysis on their hearing.....(c;

Too funny......



Larry W4CSC
POWER is our friend!

Is this to say, Rich, that IBOC sounds worse than what Sirius has? (Yeah, I
installed one in the car a while ago, although I haven't had a lot of time
to listen because not soon after I've had a series of long-term mechanics
needs.) I've noticed that Sirius uses different codecs rates for their
streams...the voice-based streams are particularly low-fi, with artifacts
that I can hear pretty easily. The music-based streams obviously use a
higher-quality codecs, although even then I can still hear artifacts similar
to what Windows Media Player will exhibit on even high-rate streams.

Yes, I'm a "golden-eared *******", as I can still hear the difference
between vinyl and CD recordings. For the same reasons, I won't use an iPod
or similar MP3 device because I can't stand the fidelity loss (and needless
to say, that means that downloading music is not an option...free or
otherwise, it's not worth the price)...but seeing as you've said you have a
Sirius receiver yourself, where would you put IBOC (AM and FM versions) with
the Sirius streams? In any event, I suspect that I'd be similarly
underwhelmed with either IBOC service (I'm just barely satisfied with the
Canadian DRB solution, although in fairness, it does sound better than the
associated analog services, at least). -- For direct replies, take out the
contents between the hyphens. -Really!-



"Rich Wood" wrote in message
...
On 3 Mar 2004 16:06:09 GMT, Steve Stone
wrote:

Thinking about updating a high end home audio system.

Should I wait for IBOC to be brought out for consumers or will I be waiting
a real long time
for this to happen ??

I've heard IBOC. The last thing you want to connect it to is a high
end audio system. It's sort of like buying a Rolls Royce and using it
to haul manure.

Rich

On 6 Mar 2004 17:45:54 GMT, "Bob Haberkost"
wrote:

Yes, I'm a "golden-eared *******", as I can still hear the difference
between vinyl and CD recordings. For the same reasons, I won't use an iPod
or similar MP3 device because I can't stand the fidelity loss (and needless
to say, that means that downloading music is not an option...free or
otherwise, it's not worth the price)...but seeing as you've said you have a
Sirius receiver yourself, where would you put IBOC (AM and FM versions) with
the Sirius streams? In any event, I suspect that I'd be similarly
underwhelmed with either IBOC service (I'm just barely satisfied with the
Canadian DRB solution, although in fairness, it does sound better than the
associated analog services, at least).

I can hear the difference between CDs and vinyl. In a perfect world
I'd chose vinyl. However, the surface noice and scratches drive me
nuts. Maybe it's because I spent time depopping music tapes for
syndication and It brings back nightmares.

The IBOC I've heard annoys me. I can listen for a short time, then
have to turn it off. It's fatiguing. MP3. Forget it. If I listen to it
it's usually with headsets and I hear artifacts that take the pleasure
out of the music for me, even at high sample rates.

I have both Sirius and XM. I agree that the quality depends on the
streams. Classical and Jazz seem to be the highest quality. For analog
I listen to WFCR, Amherst, MA. It's NPR, Classical and Jazz. Very
lightly processed.

My preference is CD, then Satellite, Analog FM when done right, good
analog AM, MP3 (high rates), FM IBOC and AM IBOC. In fairness, IBOC is
still a work in progress and may sound acceptable a few years from
now. Then there's the interference issue that might wipe out
broadcasting entirely.

We're not spending much time caring about quality. Digital audio
systems should have improved things. It makes broadcasting easier but
with the compression used in almost all systems to save disk space we
won't be hearing improvements that will satisfy audiophiles. When it's
well recorded DVD-Audio pleases me the most.

Rich

On 6 Mar 2004 01:52:51 GMT, (Larry W4CSC) wrote:

Want to send them to a Psych ward? Have an audiologist do a spectrum
analysis on their hearing.....(c;

It had better be a quiet psych ward. An analysis would be futile when
you're dealing with people who believe they need power cables that are
$400 a foot because they make the system sound better.

If you want real proof, look at the back advertising section of
Stereophile magazine and see what's being sold, how much it costs and
what it claims to do. I have an audiophile friend who falls for all of
it. 20 watt mono tube power amps at $20,000 each. I'll bet his system
cost him $100,000 or more and it only has an incredibly expensive
turntable as a source. There isn't a CD within eyeshot.

IBOC will be perfect for those who are content with 64kbps MP3s and
have no live music frame of reference. Look at what the manufacturers
did to AM sections of their radios. I don't think that's where good
quality is going to come from.

The best test is with a very high quality pair of headsets where
you'll hear every artifact up close. I can't even listen to C-Quam
because of the gyrating stereo image. It causes motion sickness
standing still.

Rich

"Rich Wood" wrote in message
...
On 5 Mar 2004 15:44:46 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:

I've heard IBOC. The last thing you want to connect it to is a high
end audio system. It's sort of like buying a Rolls Royce and using it
to haul manure.

I heard IBOC on the almost de facto Kenwood car radio today in Chicago on
all-music WIND. It sounded marvelous, with no noticeable artifacts and
very
nice resolution, clarity and feel on music. It is not FM, which I would
expect as the FM preemphasis curve really colors the high-frequency
content;
in some senses the IBOC AM is nicer than processed FM.

IBOC may sound fine on a car radio in a high ambient noise
environment, but the question was about high end audio.

Actually, it was a car radio in an office. Since there are no availble
tuners, one makes do..
When you have audiophiles refusing to play CDs because they don't
sound as good as vinyl you're not going to find them pleased with IBOC
on either AM or FM.

That I agree with. I refused to use CDs for my Música en Flor service in the
80's, even when many things were reissued in Japan on that medium; the cuts
did not sound right mixed with mostly-vinyl origin material. So I could
definitely understand a purist.

I don't find most conusmers to fall in that definition. Most will see the
"digital" label and _know_ it must be better.

"Rich Wood" wrote in message
...

I have both Sirius and XM. I agree that the quality depends on the
streams. Classical and Jazz seem to be the highest quality. For analog
I listen to WFCR, Amherst, MA. It's NPR, Classical and Jazz. Very
lightly processed.

And how does NPR get to them? Isn't there a little bird up there chirping
digits to all the NPR affiliates?

I presume they do their music locally from CDs - but haven't the CDs been
compressed onto some automation system's hard disk...?

Bob C.

There are two kinds of codecs....destructive and (you might figure) non-destructive.

...WAV files are encoded with a non-destructive codecs...basically a 1-for-1 ratio of
bits to the waveform's voltage at the instant of sampling. The digital encoding for
NPR is, at most, companded, but this, like Dolby, can be undone....thus,
non-destructive encoding.

MP3s and methods like IBOC or, from what I've heard, Canadian DAB radio, have
encoding artifacts due to the effort used to eliminate redundant (and I guess the use
of that word is a judgement call, considering what IBOC concludes is redundant) leave
out too much, and thus when the encoded audio is reconstituted, it's missing stuff.
Sortof like freeze-dried ice cream.

And from what I know about the one production audio system, Dalet, this
implementation uses .wav files for storage. So it's about as good as the source, and
thus quite suitable for air. Even these jukeboxes you speak of use a codecs which
result in larger files than MP3s at the same sample rate, but the audio's quite
unaffected by the process. MP3s and other internet and broadcast streaming methods
need to cut down the data rate to levels that can't possibly allow true high fidelity
or even a facsimile of it.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-



"R J Carpenter" wrote in message
...

"Rich Wood" wrote in message
...

I have both Sirius and XM. I agree that the quality depends on the
streams. Classical and Jazz seem to be the highest quality. For analog
I listen to WFCR, Amherst, MA. It's NPR, Classical and Jazz. Very
lightly processed.

And how does NPR get to them? Isn't there a little bird up there chirping
digits to all the NPR affiliates?

I presume they do their music locally from CDs - but haven't the CDs been
compressed onto some automation system's hard disk...?

Bob C.

I'll continue the spirit of topposting...

When NPR went on the birds I think they were using EBU compression. That is
essentially a floating-point encoding of the waveform with 10 or 11 bits of
precision sent in one millisecond blocks with a scale factor [exponent] for
each block. There were 31 kilosamples per second??? Didn't NPR change to a
method - unknown to me - which claimed a much lower the bit rate? I'd think
that EBU, with its low sampling rate and only 10-bit encoding, would have
real artifacts. This is certainly destructive encoding since you can only
approximately recreate the input, more nearly so than MP3, I'll grant.

One Dalet system I know of uses MPEG 2 encoding with a 256 (?) kilobit per
second rate.

Bob C.



"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...
There are two kinds of codecs....destructive and (you might figure)
non-destructive.

..WAV files are encoded with a non-destructive codecs...basically a
1-for-1 ratio of
bits to the waveform's voltage at the instant of sampling. The digital
encoding for
NPR is, at most, companded, but this, like Dolby, can be undone....thus,
non-destructive encoding.

MP3s and methods like IBOC or, from what I've heard, Canadian DAB radio,
have
encoding artifacts due to the effort used to eliminate redundant (and I
guess the use
of that word is a judgement call, considering what IBOC concludes is
redundant) leave
out too much, and thus when the encoded audio is reconstituted, it's
missing stuff.
Sortof like freeze-dried ice cream.

And from what I know about the one production audio system, Dalet, this
implementation uses .wav files for storage. So it's about as good as the
source, and
thus quite suitable for air. Even these jukeboxes you speak of use a
codecs which
result in larger files than MP3s at the same sample rate, but the audio's
quite
unaffected by the process. MP3s and other internet and broadcast
streaming methods
need to cut down the data rate to levels that can't possibly allow true
high fidelity
or even a facsimile of it.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-


"R J Carpenter" wrote in message
...

"Rich Wood" wrote in message
...

I have both Sirius and XM. I agree that the quality depends on the
streams. Classical and Jazz seem to be the highest quality. For analog
I listen to WFCR, Amherst, MA. It's NPR, Classical and Jazz. Very
lightly processed.

And how does NPR get to them? Isn't there a little bird up there
chirping
digits to all the NPR affiliates?

I presume they do their music locally from CDs - but haven't the CDs
been
compressed onto some automation system's hard disk...?

Bob C.

On 7 Mar 2004 16:47:18 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:

That I agree with. I refused to use CDs for my Música en Flor service in the
80's, even when many things were reissued in Japan on that medium; the cuts
did not sound right mixed with mostly-vinyl origin material. So I could
definitely understand a purist.

Early CDs were terrible. The masters were equalized with vinyl in mind
and would shatter coffee mugs.

Most will see the "digital" label and _know_ it must be better.

That's why much of this discussion is really irrelevant. IBOC doesn't
have to be good. The majority of the market will be satisfied with
quality not much higher than MP3 at 64 kbps.

I was asked about the quality difference between XM's talk channels
vs. the music channels. I tuned in to the new traffic and weather
channels. The quality was awful, both technically and programatically.
It sounded (on every traffic channel) like the studio was a tiled
bathroom with awesomely bad artifacts. The announcers were among the
worst I've ever heard. This is clearly being done on the cheap with
kids who can barely read. Hide the expensive glassware until their
voices change.

I was extremely disappointed with what I heard. I think I'll keep my
AM/FM radio for when I travel between Boston, New York and Washington.
WINS, WCBS, WBZ and WTOP have nothing to fear. It's strange that
they're starting in major markets with small market talent.

Rich

On 8 Mar 2004 05:16:40 GMT, "R J Carpenter" wrote:

And how does NPR get to them? Isn't there a little bird up there chirping
digits to all the NPR affiliates?

I presume they do their music locally from CDs - but haven't the CDs been
compressed onto some automation system's hard disk...?

Yes. I recall saying that in my original message. I like both the
Sirius and XM Jazz channels. The rock stuff has been so heavily
processed on the CD that it's hard to say where the low quality is
introduced. I can't blame either satellite service for that.

Personally, I've given up hope for improved audio quality from any
source. The market doesn't demand it.

Rich

Bob Haberkost wrote:
Topposting works for me, and no doubt the fairly significant number of
readers who use the google interface, with that fairly annoying habit of
putting the end of any excessively-long message behind the preview when
viewing the thread. I know, I know...that's not what newsgroup ettiquette
demands, but times change, eh?

You might want to consider using a newsreading system that actually works,
rather than the google interface. Honestly, once you try a conventional
newsreader, you won't go back.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I don't use the google interface (which I'd think would have been pretty obvious).
I'm just saying that there are undoubtedly many who do, and the limitations that the
interface presents should be considered (or are these features for the convenience of
these users? It's a judgement call).

Besides, hanging on to one method in changing times could be a real impediment to
advancing your own future. Topposting puts the new material where most readers,
albeit not the best ones, will be presented to the user, and what's wrong with that?
It's much more inconvenient to have to scroll down, or in the case of the google
interface, click to the entire document, to find the added comments, especially if
another bane to an active newsgroup, the unedited content of the thread before it,
remains.

I'm not going to get into a "my newsreader is better than yours is" debate. If the
means existed to impose standards on the various clients out there, then there'd be
incentive to make non-compliant clients tow the line. In the meantime, I think it's
a losing battle, much like the Beta/VHS wars in the 80s. I have enough stress in my
life without having to worry if I'll be banished for not using what could be
considered obsolete ettiquette.

And that's all I have to say about that.
--
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-



"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
Bob Haberkost wrote:
Topposting works for me, and no doubt the fairly significant number of
readers who use the google interface, with that fairly annoying habit of
putting the end of any excessively-long message behind the preview when
viewing the thread. I know, I know...that's not what newsgroup ettiquette
demands, but times change, eh?

You might want to consider using a newsreading system that actually works,
rather than the google interface. Honestly, once you try a conventional
newsreader, you won't go back.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 7 Mar 2004 16:47:18 GMT, Rich Wood wrote:

On 6 Mar 2004 01:52:51 GMT, (Larry W4CSC) wrote:

Want to send them to a Psych ward? Have an audiologist do a spectrum
analysis on their hearing.....(c;

It had better be a quiet psych ward. An analysis would be futile when
you're dealing with people who believe they need power cables that are
$400 a foot because they make the system sound better.

I got a great story for that, too. A new audiofool neighbor moved in
under the main lobe of my 1500W HF ham radio station. He installed
his $20K stereo system with the train engine starting cables to the
speakers, big enough to crank the train with no loss in voltage up to
800 yards. I could hear a terrible buzz right through the walls of my
house from way over there when my packet radio modem keyed up the
beast for a beacon. Man, those are SOME audio power amps! Are they
240VAC? 480? 3 phase?

Well, my ham antennas are pretty easy to spot. Looks like a little
VOA installation. I'm responsible for any toaster that won't toast
within 20 miles. "It's that damned ham radio of his!", they curse. I
guess he didn't notice them before he moved in. Of course, I got a
threatening phone call, referred him to FCC so he could get the free
RFI booklets, all very friendly and helpful.

"Listen, I'd be happy to come over and solve YOUR interference
problem. I'll even pay for the new cables and any connectors YOU
need.", I offered. After he cooled down a few days and his BP dropped
below 200/170, he asked what I wanted to do.

I wanted to replace the starter cables with #14 foil-shielded mic
cable, because I had a 500' roll in my service truck. Oh, ballistic
we went again. That would make his stereo sound like a Radio Shack
Flavoradio! Oh, God, NO! Ok, let's compromise. I'll come install
the new cable and we'll compare it to the battery cables off the
train. Should be easy to hear the difference, eh?

Wrong......There wasn't any difference in the sound. There also
wasn't any RF feedback from the speaker-leads-acting-like-big-antennas
back into the input balancing act of the big DC-coupled power amps,
either. 1500W on 20 meter SSB never made so much as a click. The
cable is made for XLR mic cords I make up for churches whos PA systems
I fix. The speaker was hooked to the two #14 conductors and the foil
shield drain wire was connected to the stereo chassis ground lug and
left open on the speaker end, creating a Faraday Shield (the late
Michael Faraday (1791-1867):
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Faraday.html
would have been proud of me using his invention.

Happy neighbor, now good friend. Several audio myths blown all to
hell. Better informed consumer...(c;


If you want real proof, look at the back advertising section of
Stereophile magazine and see what's being sold, how much it costs and
what it claims to do. I have an audiophile friend who falls for all of
it. 20 watt mono tube power amps at $20,000 each. I'll bet his system
cost him $100,000 or more and it only has an incredibly expensive
turntable as a source. There isn't a CD within eyeshot.

I'm an ASCAP and BMI-licensed DJ and do a lot of outdoor audio work
for parties, car lots, etc. Thousands of hours of MP3 music on 360GB
of hard drives pumping a nice DJ board from Winamp (before AOHell)
with compander and cross-fader plugins. It runs itself until some
cutie has a request to look up at the party.

Time and Time again I have been asked what kind of source I use for
all this wonderful music that sounds SO good being played through
APPROPRIATE speakers, those that require TWO people to lift and load,
not something 6" across in a pasteboard box labeled "woofer" by
Tweeters at $800. The just can't believe it's ALL MP3 music being
played. (No, I can't hear the 128Kbps sampling rate, either...(c;)

IBOC will be perfect for those who are content with 64kbps MP3s and
have no live music frame of reference. Look at what the manufacturers
did to AM sections of their radios. I don't think that's where good
quality is going to come from.

I'm still wondering why we're buying IBOC, now that "music" is no
longer played on AM, AT ALL, outside of Nashville's WSM. Who needs to
hear Rush or Bill or Gripe Radio Locals in digital? A little white
noise makes the program more interesting!

The best test is with a very high quality pair of headsets where
you'll hear every artifact up close. I can't even listen to C-Quam
because of the gyrating stereo image. It causes motion sickness
standing still.

I'm very protective of my Sennheisers, here. Have you played with
those $150 little plastic Bose phones? HOW CHEAP they're built! Best
Buy can't keep them out for a demo because the plastic headbands keep
snapping off.

Most all headphones over $20 have about the same sound. BUT, I rate
them with NO INPUT. I put them on and move around, listening for the
headphone-induced, plastic creaking noises most all of them make. The
better Sennheisers are like HEAVEN in comparison to most other
brands......they just don't CLICK OR CREAK...which drives me crazy.

I seldom listen to "broadcasting" any more because I used to be in the
business back when you HAD to actually put program material on the air
that didn't include an 800 number and playing 40 minutes of Di-Teck
Dot CON per hour would result in license revocation and heavy
fines.....you remember....when the FCC was run by SANE ENGINEERS, not
political hacks and lawyers trying to sell off the publics property on
Clear Channel's payroll.



Larry W4CSC
POWER is our friend!