|
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
That will millions of radios obsolete. Don't think that will happen.
IBOC will die first... On Sep 30, 1:37 am, wrote: On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, RHF wrote: On Sep 29, 4:16 pm, SFTV_troy wrote: Don Pearce wrote: What is the reason for your optimism? Every other advance in radio has been better by design, and demonstrated its improvement from day 1. Digital radio hasn't done that - it has been poor from day one, and to be better than its predecessor it will need to get a whole heap better What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement? Well FM-Hybrid Digital *already* sounds better than the old analog FM. The AM also sounds better, albeit at the loss of hearing distant stations (which can still be done via internet streaming). Both of these will dramatically improve after the analog shutdown (FM will have room for 300 kbps per station). What Analog Shut Down ? The plan is to kill the analog signals and go strictly digital. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message oups.com... On Sep 29, 3:58 pm, Steve wrote: Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio? Not if it's to listen to another informercial. You're the second person to say something like that. But that's not problem a with HD Radio, because U.S. radio doesn't air infomercials (half-hour ads). O yes it does, and in fact, there are stations that do infomercials for their entire broadcast day. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
David Frackelton Gleason, still posing as 'Eduardo, the faux Hispanic, wrote: "SFTV_troy" wrote in message oups.com... On Sep 29, 3:58 pm, Steve wrote: Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio? Not if it's to listen to another informercial. You're the second person to say something like that. But that's not problem a with HD Radio, because U.S. radio doesn't air infomercials (half-hour ads). O yes it does, and in fact, there are stations that do infomercials for their entire broadcast day. Kinda like your ongoing infomercial for HD-IBOC... |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. When the People Meter comes, it shows more market compression. In fact, in Houston, the #1 and the #15 station are only 0.2 ratings points apart. If you look at the Arbitron numbers, which are the useless 12+ figures, you will see that in nearly every market there is only one AM in the top 10, save those markets with multiple full coverage 50 kw stations.... like Chicago. Bit if you go to 18-54, the sales demo range, only one AM is in the top 15, WBBM, and it is 10th. The Arbitron lists cut off at a particular point. I show 39 stations with some listening in Chicago, while the Arbitron page shows less... but not one is licensed outside the metro. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
|
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 5:20 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD quality. I once road in horse drawn carriage whose ride was smooth as silk. This didn't alter the fact that it was obsolete technology. Change happens. Progress is good. Learn it. Live it. Love it. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 1:45 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. When the People Meter comes, it shows more market compression. In fact, in Houston, the #1 and the #15 station are only 0.2 ratings points apart. If you look at the Arbitron numbers, which are the useless 12+ figures, you will see that in nearly every market there is only one AM in the top 10, save those markets with multiple full coverage 50 kw stations.... like Chicago. Bit if you go to 18-54, the sales demo range, only one AM is in the top 15, WBBM, and it is 10th. The Arbitron lists cut off at a particular point. I show 39 stations with some listening in Chicago, while the Arbitron page shows less... but not one is licensed outside the metro. Stop clinging to the past. And while you're at it, stop lying about the past, too. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Steve wrote: On Sep 30, 5:20 am, SFTV_troy wrote: Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD quality. I once road in horse drawn carriage whose ride was smooth as silk. This didn't alter the fact that it was obsolete technology. Change happens. Progress is good. Learn it. Live it. Love it. Or buy yourself a coffin, and make room for the younger generation that is not close-minded and afraid of change. Some of you have grown into your grandpas. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 1:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, RHF wrote: What Analog Shut Down ? The plan is to kill the analog signals and go strictly digital. wrote: That will millions of radios obsolete. Don't think that will happen. IBOC will die first... There are millions of obsolete televisions which will stop working in just over a year. Does it look like the advertisers care? They won't care about obsolete radios either. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 9:15 am, wrote:
Frank Dresser wrote: In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to 5% of the listeners, per station). That seems to suggest listeners do what I do: - jump from station to station - looking for variety across multiple channels - they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial. SILENCE? Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie. Typical grandpa. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 30, 1:37 am, wrote: On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, RHF wrote: What Analog Shut Down ? The plan is to kill the analog signals and go strictly digital. wrote: That will millions of radios obsolete. Don't think that will happen. IBOC will die first... There are millions of obsolete televisions which will stop working in just over a year. Does it look like the advertisers care? If they are on cable, it does not matter. 70-some percent of the US is on cable, and another significant percent is on satellite. They won't care about obsolete radios either. Radio stations are not ready to go all digital, and probably will not be for 8 to 10 years.... if ever. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 30, 9:15 am, wrote: Frank Dresser wrote: In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to 5% of the listeners, per station). That seems to suggest listeners do what I do: - jump from station to station - looking for variety across multiple channels - they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial. SILENCE? Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie. Typical grandpa. The average radio listener has three stations they regularly use, with very few listening to only one (mostly evangelical stations) and many listening to 4 or 5. In the People meter, the average listener has 5 to 7 stations they sample at least once every two weeks. Having more local choices increases use of terrestrial radio. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. SoCal Tom |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:48:23 -0700, "SoCal Tom"
wrote: If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. 100Hz to 6000Hz would be an unbelievably good telephone connection. 300 to 3000 is more like a normal one. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SoCal Tom" wrote in message ... "SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
SFTV_troy wrote:
Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD quality. Let me say that I am thoroughly grateful that I don't have your ears. |
HD RADIO is NO!, and your mother will back me up so don't bother asking
On Sep 30, 3:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"SoCal Tom" wrote in message ... "SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. Bob Orban is the alien from the late Weekly World News. god darn it, we've had EVERY TROLL in the group except the K-Man, the Scott Lifshine/Wereo entity, and the RRAP brigade in this thread! Morein/McCarty/66.6% of the world's asshole postings has chimed in even. I predict the world will simply implode and then go back to whatever it was doing beforehand. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 29, 4:42?pm, Ken wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:09:45 -0700, SFTV_troy wrote: Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300 kbps Surround). No, they are going to increase quantity (more radio channels), not sound quality. Se how they done in UK. Consumer interest in DAB in the UK is slowing (only 3.5 million DAB radios have been sold in ten years), DAB stalled in Canada, and there is almost zero consumer interest in HD Radio in the US - consumers must realize that digital radio is a farce: http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/ |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Steve" wrote in message ps.com... On Sep 30, 5:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote: Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. The document was linked from one of Mr. Orban's posts on this ng, and is searchable by Google. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 6:53 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message ps.com... On Sep 30, 5:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote: Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. The document was linked from one of Mr. Orban's posts on this ng, and is searchable by Google. You must have been posting under an alias. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote: Consumer interest in DAB in the UK is slowing (only 3.5 million DAB radios have been sold in ten years), DAB stalled in Canada, and there is almost zero consumer interest in HD Radio in the US - consumers must realize that digital radio is a farce: http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/ Do you have a similar website for DAB? |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message oups.com... Earl Kiosterud wrote: Synchronous AM demodulation uses a locally regenerated carrier, fed along with the AM signal (upper or lower set of sidebands) to a multiplier (modulator). The result is the audio. It replaces the envelope (diode) detector usually used. You can think of it as another superhet stage where the result, instead of another IF frequency, is the baseband audio. That's because the local oscillator is the same frequency as the carrier of the (IF) signal, so the difference is zero. The sidebands wind up translated to baseband audio instead of to another IF frequency. There are advantages. Since one set of sidebands or the other can be used, if there's a distant station 10KHz away, causing that AM whistle, you just switch to the other set of sidebands, whichever comes in the cleanest. Also, it doesn't depend on proper amplitude and phase of both sets of sidebands to work properly, as does the regular envelope detector, so it works better with impaired signals. I only understood about 75% of what your wrote, but if I understand your meaning, this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. Troy, Well, the 6 KHz limit is due to the narrow bandwidth of the receivers, not the detector used, or the stations. I think most AM radios actually do much worse than that. AM radios are designed with a limited bandpass because it gets noisy as the bandwidth goes up. The AM band is a soup of distant stations, particularly at night, and that's the source of much of the noise. AM radio stations in the US are allowed up to 10 KHz audio. That's pretty listenable -- there's only a little over a half octave to the 15 KHz limit of FM. The synchronous detector, in addition to being able to use one set of sidebands or the other, whichever is the best under the conditions, is not subject to distortion from asymmetrical sidebands, such as when there is fading, multipath, etc. There may be a non-flat audio bandpass from those conditions, but a conventional detector will also have distortion. -- Regards from Virginia Beach, Earl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message There are millions of obsolete televisions which will stop working in just over a year. Does it look like the advertisers care? They won't care about obsolete radios either. Radio stations are not ready to go all digital, and probably will not be for 8 to 10 years.... if ever. Both the UK and Germany have "tentatively" set 2015 as the shut-down for FM. (They expect DAB to fill that role.) I figure the U.S. transition will require a similar time period of fifteen years, so sometime around 2020 will be the end of analog. Although, I'd like to see AM die as early as 2010 since so few people listen to it. Just make it pure digital, 10 kHz per channel. FM can continue until 2020 (it has no interference problems). |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote: Telamon wrote: You're the second person to say something like that. But that's not problem a with HD Radio, because U.S. radio doesn't air infomercials (half-hour ads). Good heavens. I suggest you listen to more radio more often. Make it a portable so you get out more often. Heck there are infomercials that go on for hours on the radio. Please list a couple stations that do "hours" of infomercials, and then point me to some of the Station websites, so I can check it out for myself. This is a whole new phenomenon to me, because I've never heard anything like that locally (neither on FM Music, nor AM Talk). A local talk news station to me KVEN 1450 Sunday mornings has these stupid supplement programs selling the latest bottle of pills that will make you healthier or Realtors, loan brokers, CPA's, lawyers trying to get your business. Any of these professions usually are selling books and tapes. I hear this sort of thing up and down the dial. If you listen to radio you got to be hearing this stuff. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote: Telamon wrote: SFTV_troy wrote: Earl Kiosterud wrote: I think the USB to which Tom refers is upper sideband. Converting AM stations would mean they'd transmit only one set of sidebands, the upper set, reducing the bandwidth to almost half. More stations could be licensed in the same band. ... But still have the same poor AM sound. Digital offers an upgrade to near-FM quality. I'll take the AM sound over low bit rate digital anytime. Uh huh. Take a quick listen to these "low bit rate digital" AAC+ stations. They sound better than the AM Stereo radio in my car. SKY FM New Age - http://160.79.128.40:7030 SKY- http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls Q93 - http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls I have listened. Terrible sound similar to looking at pixilated pictures. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote: Soundhaspriority wrote: "SFTV_troy" wrote in message Well FM-Hybrid Digital *already* sounds better than the old analog FM. The AM also sounds better, albeit at the loss of hearing distant stations (which can still be done via internet streaming). No, it doesn't. Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD quality. Oh god. Another idiot. Oh yeah you are an electrical engineer that doesn't understand the difference between a CD and radio propagation. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
|
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Frank Dresser wrote: "SFTV_troy" wrote in message Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio? Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier technical fidelity limits. Plenty of people are happy with the current mid-fi radio and perfect audio reproduction, even if it were possible, would not bring in more listeners. I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4 channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener. For every additional channel a station adds in IBOC, their main channel bitrate MUST suffer, as bandwidth is taken away from it, so it of necessity MUST cut back the bitrate. DAB in the UK suffers greatly from this. Back when they first started broadcasting, reports are that the Eureka system sounded quite good, but as more streams were added, and the bandwidth and bitrate of all stations had to be throttled back, complaints of artifacting and poor audio reproduction started coming in. For God's sake the guy claims to be a digital engineer. Clearly he should understand this elementary concept. You shouldn't have to explain it to him. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
|
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 30, 9:15 am, wrote: Frank Dresser wrote: In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to 5% of the listeners, per station). That seems to suggest listeners do what I do: - jump from station to station - looking for variety across multiple channels - they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial. SILENCE? Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie. Typical grandpa. The average radio listener has three stations they regularly use, with very few listening to only one (mostly evangelical stations) and many listening to 4 or 5. In the People meter, the average listener has 5 to 7 stations they sample at least once every two weeks. Having more local choices increases use of terrestrial radio. Oh great! Now your talking to your sock puppet. Well, that should be more enjoyable than conversing with other people. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article om,
Steve wrote: On Sep 30, 5:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote: "SoCal Tom" wrote in message ... "SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. Bob didn't test all the different model radios. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Telamon" wrote in message ... That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. Bob didn't test all the different model radios. -- Telamon Ventura, California He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm guessing you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the term Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who reinvented audio processing. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Telamon wrote:
For God's sake the guy claims to be a digital engineer. Clearly he should understand this elementary concept. You shouldn't have to explain it to him. This guy is no engineer. That should be obvious. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. Bob didn't test all the different model radios. He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm guessing you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the term Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who reinvented audio processing. Yep, that where you got stuck somehow. Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again. Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Looking good. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article XNWLi.896$ht5.398@trnddc02,
"Earl Kiosterud" wrote: "SFTV_troy" wrote in message oups.com... Earl Kiosterud wrote: Synchronous AM demodulation uses a locally regenerated carrier, fed along with the AM signal (upper or lower set of sidebands) to a multiplier (modulator). The result is the audio. It replaces the envelope (diode) detector usually used. You can think of it as another superhet stage where the result, instead of another IF frequency, is the baseband audio. That's because the local oscillator is the same frequency as the carrier of the (IF) signal, so the difference is zero. The sidebands wind up translated to baseband audio instead of to another IF frequency. There are advantages. Since one set of sidebands or the other can be used, if there's a distant station 10KHz away, causing that AM whistle, you just switch to the other set of sidebands, whichever comes in the cleanest. Also, it doesn't depend on proper amplitude and phase of both sets of sidebands to work properly, as does the regular envelope detector, so it works better with impaired signals. I only understood about 75% of what your wrote, but if I understand your meaning, this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. Troy, Well, the 6 KHz limit is due to the narrow bandwidth of the receivers, not the detector used, or the stations. I think most AM radios actually do much worse than that. AM radios are designed with a limited bandpass because it gets noisy as the bandwidth goes up. The AM band is a soup of distant stations, particularly at night, and that's the source of much of the noise. AM radio stations in the US are allowed up to 10 KHz audio. That's pretty listenable -- there's only a little over a half octave to the 15 KHz limit of FM. The synchronous detector, in addition to being able to use one set of sidebands or the other, whichever is the best under the conditions, is not subject to distortion from asymmetrical sidebands, such as when there is fading, multipath, etc. There may be a non-flat audio bandpass from those conditions, but a conventional detector will also have distortion. I just made a few empirical measurements on a receiver with digitally adjustable filters and noted increased high end audio response out to 8K. 8 khz wide is not pleasing because most radio stations are apparently boosting the high end. I usually set the bandwidth 4.4 khz for best sound otherwise it is to sharp. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. Bob didn't test all the different model radios. He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm guessing you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the term Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who reinvented audio processing. Yep, that where you got stuck somehow. Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again. Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Looking good. Anyone who would question the objectivity or the ability of Bob Orban is seriously sicko. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 10:31 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way, that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head. Bob didn't test all the different model radios. He tested enough for a reliable sample of what Americans use. I'm guessing you don't know who Bob Orban is, so you might google him and the term Optimod or NRSC to learn a little bit about the man who reinvented audio processing. Yep, that where you got stuck somehow. Reality = Take some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Oops! It's not quite what you wanted. Try again. Reality = Makeup some samples + apply statistics + shake vigorously Looking good. Anyone who would question the objectivity or the ability of Bob Orban is seriously sicko.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Anyone who'd falsely attribute claims to Bob Orban is even sicker. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 4:50 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
I don't know much about the Satellite services, but I see sirius uses AAC (no plus). AAC is not much better than MP3 This whole thread is disturbing for the level of misinformation within it. Let's take these two convenient examples. 1) Sirius satellite radio uses a codec called PAC. While PAC and AAC are both "perceptual" codecs, and while they are both rooted in some very early Bell Labs research and patents, the two are completely different and nowhere near compatable with each other. (XM uses a Coding Technologies implementation of HE-AAC, trade named aacPlus.) 2) AAC is a huge leap forward from MP3 -- that's the whole point of it. The MPEG working group was unable to improve codec technology while staying forwards and backward compatable with MP3. So, they started over with a clean slate. AAC (no plus) is the compression format that iTunes uses. (The iPod plays both AAC and MP3 files, but AAC is the preferred format.) You are free to experiment on an iPod comparing the same material encoded to the same compression ratio using alternately MP3 and AAC. - Jonathan |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
They won't be shutting down at all. Something a lot better then IBOC
needs to come around. We all know Ibiquity is a farce. On Sep 30, 5:18 pm, wrote: David Eduardo wrote: wrote in message There are millions of obsolete televisions which will stop working in just over a year. Does it look like the advertisers care? They won't care about obsolete radios either. Radio stations are not ready to go all digital, and probably will not be for 8 to 10 years.... if ever. Both the UK and Germany have "tentatively" set 2015 as the shut-down for FM. (They expect DAB to fill that role.) I figure the U.S. transition will require a similar time period of fifteen years, so sometime around 2020 will be the end of analog. Although, I'd like to see AM die as early as 2010 since so few people listen to it. Just make it pure digital, 10 kHz per channel. FM can continue until 2020 (it has no interference problems). |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
wrote in message ups.com... Frank Dresser wrote: And more expenses for the broadcaster. They doesn't seem to be stopping them from adding second and third channels Like WIYY in Baltimore, which has *voluntarily* added Classic Rock and Indie Rock to their AOR primary station. Now listeners of that style have three times as much content to enjoy. But how is the extra programming being paid for? Plus: If a smaller station can't afford multiple program, then they don't need to do anything. They can just limit themselves to 1 high- quality channel (300 kbps). Gee, maybe if some independant station can't afford multiple programming, they'll have even have trouble justifing buying the IBOC hardware. Certainly not. And just because the frequency response of AM radio can go from 20 to 15kHz, or better doesn't mean it does. And FM radio is also capable of excellent fidelity but it doesn't really happen either. 5.1 would be compromised in similar ways. And then the listeners of that Classic Music station would complain, and the manager would have to decide between (a) increasing bitrate or (b) losing customers. Yeah, there's a few stations in which true high fidelity sound would matter. Not many. People in Canada, Japan, and Australia bought AM Stereo radio in droves. Why? Because there was a single standard, not the 4-way mess the FCC left behind. (It's similar to today's HD DVD versus Blu-ray battle; most people are just waiting to see who wins.) Oh? A great many radios sold in the US are the same as the radios sold in other countries and AM stereo still pretty rare here. If the FCC had picked just ONE standard, then u.s. citizens would have acted like canadians, japanese, and australians, and bought the radio upgrade. If they cared. The demand for AM stereo was fragile. But with a 4-way race.... well u.s. citizens were left confused. And it was the FCC's fault. NOTE: This situation doesn't exist today. FCC has selected HDR, and thus people know what they need to buy to get double or triple the # of stations on the dial. Yep. And HD radio is selling about as well as AM stereo did. I already agreed with you that HQ is not going to motivate people to upgrade. It will be seeing their favorite FM stations split into 3 or 4 programs, thus tripling their options, that will motive people to buy. Are they making money on the secondary channels yet? Are they even carrying commercial advertising? And I'm sure a fellow as clever and imaginative as you are can figure how they might try to make money even if there aren't enough listeners to sell commercial advertising. Hint: They won't call it "HD radio" In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And there are a number of stations which don't even make the list. Hmm, interesting. In my markets (Lancaster, York, Harrisburg, Baltimore), the listeners are fairly evenly divided bwtween the stations. They all get a piece of the pie. See: http://www1.arbitron.com/tlr/public/report.do Baltimore, huh? Got any friends at ibiquity? Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to 5% of the listeners, per station). OK, I would have supported my point better if I had said: "Many people listen to a few top rated stations, and a few people listen to many bottom rated stations." Either way, I'm aiming at the same point. And my point is that there are alot of stations which don't have many listeners, already. And HD radio does little to increase the number of people listening to the radio. HD radio does little to aid the health of the radio industry in general, but it may be harmful to those people who are trying to run a small time low profit station. That seems to suggest listeners do what I do: - jump from station to station - looking for variety across multiple channels - and that they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial. Good for you! Keep up the bandscanning!! And if you double and redouble your efforts, you just might stumble across a radio infomertial!!! Frank Dresser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com