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!

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.

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