On 11 Jul 2004 15:04:48 GMT, "David Eduardo"
wrote:


Actrually, the AM IBOC sounds far better than analog IBOC, even the kind of
analog you could get on an older receiver and pre-NRSC. FM IBOC is a degree
better than analog FM. The real issue is with occupied bandwidth, not the
quality of the audio.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. The most charitable spin I can put on
AM IBOC is that it sounds bad in a different way than analog AM sounds
bad, and to my ears, the analog is preferable. The damage IBOC does
to the analog signal is serious and quite noticeable on anything but
the very worst-quality receivers, the interference products have the
potential to do great damage to other stations, and IMHO it's a step
backward for the sake of selling equipment.

As for FM IBOC, yes, the digital signal does sound better than a badly
processed analog signal. It is a shade worse than a
properly-processed analog signal. I produce a weekly program for a
public radio station that is delivered as a 320kbps .mp3 file. That's
lower quality than analog or "CD quality," and FM IBOC is worse yet.
I will concede that to the typical non-audiophile listener, the
difference is not noticeable without a direct A-B comparison.

However, there is an adjacent channel interference issue with FM as
well, so the question arises, why are we junking up the band and
reducing everyone's effective coverage area for something that is,
looked at in the most positive possible light, just "not worse" than
what we have? Just to be "digital?" Most listeners think they
already have digital radios, anyway. (They show digits for frequency,
don't they?)

I do not understand this at all, except that a few big corporations
with a lot of lobbying clout stand to profit from it, if it becomes
widely accepted.

Mark Howell