"Telamon" wrote in message
...

600 stations have second formats on the HD 2 channel.

Really, so if I turn on my current radio and get the programming I want
this will benefit me how?

Then don't listen. None of us will miss you.

Second HD radio trashes my analog reception.

So upgrade to digital.

No thanks. I do not consider HD an "upgrade."

It sounds better and is much more impervious to man made
interference.

I firmly rebuke you for making the sounds better claim and as for more
impervious to man made noise nope. Digital mode is not some magical way
of avoiding the signal to noise issue.

You are confusing system noise with ambient noise in the transmission path
between the transmitter and the receiver. Digital is pretty much impervious
to the ambient noise.

On AM it is even more dramatic. When the analog system is nearly burried by
ambient noise (like computer noise, power line noise, etc.) the HD signal
can be 100% useful and to have only the noise floor of the digital
system.... stations that avoid multiple codecs and multiple DACs and have a
100% digital path from studio to transmitter find that the noise floor in
the digital domain is way below any level where the human ear can hear it.


It has already succeeded. It will continue to grow over the next
number of years, but getting nearly 200 models of radios in the
channels, independent chipset manufacturers (including the new high
efficiency one announced htis week) is success as part of a many year
plan.

You and I have different definitions of success then.

1200 operating stations in the US, 600 HD2 channels with new formats, 200
receivers on shelves or in the channels, new low power chips ready in a few
months, etc., etc. all indicate that, less than a year after the consumer
launch, HD is moving ahead of schedule.

It's certainly more successful than satellite radio, which lost over $1
billion last year, 6 years into that project.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Huh?

Do you understand that DRM is media independent?

DRM means the system of managing (The "M" in DRM) royalties and controlling
copies.

For the moment, there is no encoding, no secret data burst, nothing that is
transmitted. All DRM does in radio and internet streaming at present is
provide a system for the RIAA in the US to establish tariffs for public
performance of digitally recorded and reproduced copyright selections.

On Mar 6, 1:27 pm, wrote:
..I need to go
pee.
cuhulin


Be careful you don't get any on your balls.
Sapper

In article ,
Telamon wrote:

I don't need to get an HD radio and drive around LA. This is just plain
physics. Information transmitted is determined by the amount of power
and bandwidth applied to a signal. You can not have a more reliable
transmittal of a signal on less power and bandwidth. Do you get the
picture?

As much as I dislike giving Mr. Gleason arguement points, you have to
consider that the psycho-acoustic compression schemes used in IBOC-AM
reduce the equivalent analog bandwidth down to a telcom grade signal,
(32-36 kBps = 3 kHz at [mumble 40 dB?] signal to noise ratio). Compared
to the 16-18 kHz of a high-fi AM broadcast signal. (Not than anybody
seems to bother anymore...).

On the other hand, there's going to be a quality loss with all the
gargling kazoo sound effects and other crap from de/compression.
Somebody need to come up with a formula that equates that distortion
to a Signal to Noise ratio.

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Huh?

Do you understand that DRM is media independent?

DRM means the system of managing (The "M" in DRM) royalties and controlling
copies.

For the moment, there is no encoding, no secret data burst, nothing that is
transmitted. All DRM does in radio and internet streaming at present is
provide a system for the RIAA in the US to establish tariffs for public
performance of digitally recorded and reproduced copyright selections.

That right David "For the moment, there is no encoding" but I expect
that in the future there will be without the black helicopters. I expect
organizations such as the RIAA you mentioned will DEMAND it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
(Mark Zenier) wrote:

As much as I dislike giving Mr. Gleason arguement points, you have to
consider that the psycho-acoustic compression schemes used in IBOC-AM
reduce the equivalent analog bandwidth down to a telcom grade signal,
(32-36 kBps = 3 kHz at [mumble 40 dB?] signal to noise ratio). Compared
to the 16-18 kHz of a high-fi AM broadcast signal. (Not than anybody
seems to bother anymore...).

On the other hand, there's going to be a quality loss with all the
gargling kazoo sound effects and other crap from de/compression.
Somebody need to come up with a formula that equates that distortion
to a Signal to Noise ratio.

Oh, that has been worked out and the codecs used by HD are an
intentional form of distortion.

Seriously, there needs to be a way of equating artifact distortion to
bandwidth to keep the media managers from adding more and more channels
to the point where it all sounds (or looks) like crap. The "free market"
won't work, here, because the viewer/listener is either, 1) in the case of
subscription media, trapped in a monopoly situation, or 2) for advertiser
supported media, is not the customer but instead "is the product" (or,
if the wrong age, "not in the demographic" and doesn't count at all).

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

In article ,
(Mark Zenier) wrote:

In article
,
Telamon wrote:
In article ,
(Mark Zenier) wrote:

As much as I dislike giving Mr. Gleason arguement points, you have to
consider that the psycho-acoustic compression schemes used in IBOC-AM
reduce the equivalent analog bandwidth down to a telcom grade signal,
(32-36 kBps = 3 kHz at [mumble 40 dB?] signal to noise ratio). Compared
to the 16-18 kHz of a high-fi AM broadcast signal. (Not than anybody
seems to bother anymore...).

On the other hand, there's going to be a quality loss with all the
gargling kazoo sound effects and other crap from de/compression.
Somebody need to come up with a formula that equates that distortion
to a Signal to Noise ratio.

Oh, that has been worked out and the codecs used by HD are an
intentional form of distortion.

Seriously, there needs to be a way of equating artifact distortion to
bandwidth to keep the media managers from adding more and more channels
to the point where it all sounds (or looks) like crap. The "free market"
won't work, here, because the viewer/listener is either, 1) in the case of
subscription media, trapped in a monopoly situation, or 2) for advertiser
supported media, is not the customer but instead "is the product" (or,
if the wrong age, "not in the demographic" and doesn't count at all).

Every codec can compress audio/video/pictures to a certain extent to
transmit the data in less bandwidth. The no-loss ones don't do enough so
people employ ones that distort the data in acceptable ways. Whether the
distortion is "acceptable" or not depends upon the listener/viewer and
the material that is compressed. The situation is actually a very
complex mix of the depth or detail of the program material and the
person that is hearing or viewing the material. Some combinations will
work well but others poorly. Personally I have a low tolerance of audio
and video artifacts.

I think that what people should understand is that when a codec is
employed it is similar to adding noise to the program material in a
psycho-acoustic way(for radio). It just kills me when some goober comes
along and touts the use of a compression codec as an "improvement" in
the transmit/receive system.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Telamon wrote:
Every codec can compress audio/video/pictures to a certain extent to
transmit the data in less bandwidth. The no-loss ones don't do enough so
people employ ones that distort the data in acceptable ways. Whether the
distortion is "acceptable" or not depends upon the listener/viewer and
the material that is compressed. The situation is actually a very
complex mix of the depth or detail of the program material and the
person that is hearing or viewing the material. Some combinations will
work well but others poorly. Personally I have a low tolerance of audio
and video artifacts.

I think that what people should understand is that when a codec is
employed it is similar to adding noise to the program material in a
psycho-acoustic way(for radio). It just kills me when some goober comes
along and touts the use of a compression codec as an "improvement" in
the transmit/receive system.

Well, I guess what I'm saying is that somebody needs to come up with
"some real world but worst possible" test cases that can be used to
come up with a quantitative number for distortion, instead of the media
manglers being able to say "It sounds ok to 50% of our audience, so what's
your problem".

One thing that bothers me is that there are probably certain program
materials that get censored by default because they look or sound bad
when passed through the compression, so that the broadcasters or DVD
distributors just won't bother to run or sell them.

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)