HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

Frank Dresser wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

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. ......


I have no idea if these radio informertials are available on the net. After
all, downloading a fake call-in show would destroy the illusion, wouldn't
it?




Uh.... no. Almost all radio stations offer "listen live" over the
internet. Pick your favorite station, type in its call letters.com,
and see if they have a stream. For example: WBAL.com has a live
stream of their station in real time.

[edit]

I just checked-out a couple (5) AM stations (4:30 am california time)
and none of them were playing infomercials. So please give me some
call letters of stations you know with certainty will play
infomercials, and I'll check them out myself.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

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.

And more expenses for the broadcaster.




5.1 surround would drive listeners away. People use the radio for
backround sound. People listen in the car. A wide dynamic
range would go from lost in the ambient noise to the jarring. ...

Just because you have 5.1, doesn't mean you'd have a large dynamic
range. One does not imply the other.

Certainly not. And just because the frequency respose 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 similiar ways.



And broadcast high fidelity has been tried several times. Wideband AM
was
first tried in the 30s. FM radio took a generation to get going,
despite
it's noise immunity. AM stereo failed after a good sincere attempt.


I would hardly call having 4 incompatible methods a "good attempt".
More like a "bass backwards" attempt. Had the FCC selected a single
standard, AM stereo would be as popular in the U.S., as it currently
is in Canada, Japan, and Australia. In those nations, virtually every
station is broadcast in AM Stereo.


Sure it was. The radios were available, but people didn't buy them. People
didn't buy them when they had four choices. People didn't buy the
multidecoder radios. People didn't buy the AM stereo radios when there was
only one choice.

Lots of broadcasters transmitted AM stereo, and it worked pretty well. But
people didn't buy the radios.

I know plenty of people who never owned an AM stereo radio. I have no idea
how the FCC kept them from buying AM stereo.



As for FM, it was stifled by the AM corporations trying to crush it.
First they delayed its introduction by twenty years via regulatory
roadblocks (else we'd have it in the late 30s),

FM was on the air in the late 30s. I have a Stromberg Carlson AM-SW-FM
radio made in 1940. The FCC did change the FM band after WW2. Many people
blame the change for FM's slow restart, but again, the FCC wasn't keeping
people from buying new radios.


and then they tried to
kill it by giving it inferior programs while saving the best stuff for
AM.

The AM corporations didn't have any control over the FM stations they didn't
own. There were independant FM networks but they couldn't develop
competitive programming.



Point: FM and AM Stereo were stifled NOT by disinterest in high
fidelity, but because of poor handling.

If public had a robust interest in high fidelity radio, then presumed poor
handling would not be an issue.




your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 to 4

So? In most markets, most listeners are listening to a
few stations. The bulk of the stations get by with less.

Got a citation to back-up this opinion? You stated it as a fact, so
I'd like to see what study you are using to back up that fact.

Thank you.


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.

As far as I know, the story is about the same in every market. Here's where
to check it out:

http://www.arbitron.com/home/ratings.htm

Frank Dresser

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

wrote in message
ups.com...


I just checked-out a couple (5) AM stations (4:30 am california time)
and none of them were playing infomercials. So please give me some
call letters of stations you know with certainty will play
infomercials, and I'll check them out myself.


WIND AM 560 has an informertial for some sort of health food pills right
now.

http://560wind.townhall.com/

I'll probably be over by 8:00 am Chicago time.

Frank Dresser

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Sep 30, 5:46 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
wrote in message
Frank Dresser wrote:

Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier
fidelity limits. Plenty are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
perfect audio reproduction would not bring in 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.


Oh well. Somebody else in this forum just got done telling me,
"Listeners don't care about quality", so it shouldn't be an an issue.
People want variety, and lots of stations. And that's what IBOC-FM
provides.

BTW:

IBOC does have an advantage over DAB. DAB only has room for ~100 kbps
per station. IBOC provides each digital FM station with 300 kbps.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Sep 30, 2:50 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Tom wrote:
On Sep 29, 7:22 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:

The quality stinks? Really? I listen to XM streams via the internet,
and they sound just fine. Is there really that huge of a difference
between Internet and Mobile Receiver?

DRM (and I imagine HDradio-IBOC-AM) are fatiguing (to some people)
because very low audio encoding bitrates must be employed in order to
fit within the allowed spectrum; typically 10kHz of RF spectrum
restricts the audio to perhaps 20kbps. Considering that a CD streams
at about 75 times this rate, losses in encoding at these very low bit
rates along with the consequent artefacts are pretty severe.

True.

On the other hand, codecs have advanced a lot over the last few years,
specifically to improve low bit rates. Take a quick listen to these
AAC+SBR stations:

Q93 Louisiana -www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutcast-playlist.pls?rn=377155&file=filename...
SKY FM -www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutcast-playlist.pls?rn=8849&file=filename.pls

IMHO they sound better than the AM Stereo radio in my car. Even as
low as 16 kbps, you have fairly good sound. (If the above link did
not work, here's the station listing.)http://www.shoutcast.com/directory/i...&sgenre=Top%20...

Also:

With a nominal increase (+5 khz each side),
HD and DMR can achieve 40 or 70 kbps
which is as good as FM.

I was too general in my comment about satellite radio. Both XM and
Sirius use a range of encoding standards, putting news/talk on the
lowest and music on the highest. My main channel on Sirius Canada is
CBC Radio One which was stupidly assigned a news/talk standard when it
actually comprises an eclectic mix of content - we're currently
listening to Randy Bachman (BTO) playing #2 hits from the 60's and
70's in his weekly 3-hour program from the local FM. The Sirius news/
talk encoding is not much higher than 20kbps - voice is bad enough but
music really stinks. .....

I don't know much about the Satellite services, but I see sirius uses
AAC (no plus). AAC is not much better than MP3, and 20 kbps is
definitely not sufficient, even for voice. I'd probably be calling
every day, and complaining to sirius, until they got tired of hearing
from me.

.... What you hear over
the Internet will be encoded differently, using codecs popular for
Internet streaming, not their proprietary ones for satellite delivery.

Ahhh I see. I figured they'd use the same codec, rather than spend
money creating two separate streams for the satellite and the net.

I've been listening on the internet, and considering subscribing, but
if the radio's sound is crap then it's not worth the $13 a month fee.
(later). Ooops hold on. If wikipedia is accurate, XM is using the
superior AAC+. "Audio channels on XM are digitally compressed using
the aacPlus codec". So XM would sound as good as internet.

HD/IBOC does not employ AAC, although an earlier version may have
IIRC. It uses something called PAC(?)

One annoying thing I always found about either service was that even
with a satellite dish the sets at Wal-Mart broke up on and off as you
moved around them. How QUAINT.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Sep 30, 4:25 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:38:36 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

For a really good selection that lets you compare rates, try here
http://www.tuner2.com/

All right. How do I do an advanced search, so I can narrow my
selection to just 16 kbit/s stations? (As I routinately do on
shoutcast.com).

Dunno, sorry. Just browse the list and see what takes your fancy. I
don't think it is intended as a technical resource, but as
entertainment.

d

--
Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

It's becoming painfully bloody OBVIOUS that we have a foreign OP who
has the British status quo confused with a purely AMERICAN concept,
hybrid digital (Britain has absolute stark, raving NIL). Nobody else
in the world has bothered much with a halfway approach to digital
radio--only the US..

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

Frank Dresser wrote:


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.

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.

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).



Just because you have 5.1, doesn't mean you'd have
a large dynamic range. One does not imply the other.

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.



I would hardly call having 4 incompatible methods a "good attempt".
More like a "bass backwards" attempt. Had the FCC selected a single
standard, AM stereo would be as popular in the U.S., as it currently
is in Canada, Japan, and Australia. In those nations, virtually every
station is broadcast in AM Stereo.


Sure it was. The radios were available, but people didn't buy them.


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.)

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.

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.



If public had a robust interest in high fidelity radio, then presumed poor
handling would not be an issue.

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.



your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 to 4

So? In most markets, most listeners are listening to a
few stations. The bulk of the stations get by with less.

Got a citation to back-up this opinion? You stated it as a fact, so
I'd like to see what study you are using to back up that fact.

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

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
- and that they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM
dial.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

Steven wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:38:36 -0700, SFTV_troy

All right. How do I do an advanced search, so I can narrow my
selection to just 16 kbit/s stations? (As I routinately do on
shoutcast.com).

It's becoming painfully bloody OBVIOUS that we have a foreign OP who
has the British status quo confused with a purely AMERICAN concept,
hybrid digital (Britain has absolute stark, raving NIL).

I'm not confused. I am aware that DAB sits on its own separate band.



Nobody else in the world has bothered much with
a halfway approach to digital radio--only the US..

Not true. The U.S. is not the only place to use IBOC. The E.U. also
uses IBOC for shortwave, AM, and (soon) FM.

(By the way, why do europeans hate america so much? What did we do to
you to create such animosity?)

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

wrote ...
(By the way, why do europeans hate america so much?
What did we do to you to create such animosity?)

It comes and goes. Look up the recent French presidential
elections, etc.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

Steven wrote:

HD/IBOC does not employ AAC, although an earlier
version may have IIRC. It uses something called PAC(?)


You have it backwards. It used to be PAC, derived from MP3.

Early testing showed it didn't work very well, so the codec was
switched to MPEG4 AAC+SBR.


One annoying thing I always found about either XM or Sirius
was even with a satellite dish the sets at Wal-Mart broke
up on and off as you moved around them. How QUAINT.

Huh. I thought the "backup" terrestrial stations were supposed to
prevent that. (shrug). When I was last at Walmart I tried to listen
to an XM radio, but they didn't have any operational. Nice. Way to
demo the system.