On Sep 29, 2:02 pm, Tom wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:22 pm, (Don Pearce) 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).

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
then it is now.

What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?

d

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

HDradio is worse than DAB insofar as the so-called IBOC implementation
guarantees interference to both the analog main channel and to
adjacent channel stations. DAB has been implemented on exclusive
spectrum, or, at least, spectrum that is not already used for consumer
applications. As to the quality, yes, a DAB multiplex can be exploited
to provide 1990's pioneer streaming audio quality for many program
streams channels or a few streams at 1980's near-CD quality. HDradio
benefits from a decade of codec and silicon development needed for it
to have marginally acceptable quality in a much more restrictive
bandwidth. So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

Adverse reaction to HDradio is stronger than what it probably was to
DAB because of the perceived negative effects on analog reception and
the lack of new program offerings. DAB takeup has succeeded as well as
it has in the UK because of new program services, not because of audio
quality, and because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

DRM is still an open question - my dabbling with it persuaded me that
it is not really viable where sky-wave propagation is involved, either
as the main path or as an interferer to the desired ground-wave path.
That said, it should do as well or better than HDradio for LW, MW,
26MHz, and VHF but is as disruptive to existing analog stations.

I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.

Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom - Good Response ~ RHF

On Sep 30, 12:08 am, RHF wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:02 pm, Tom wrote:





On Sep 29, 4:22 pm, (Don Pearce) 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).

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
then it is now.

What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?

d

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

HDradio is worse than DAB insofar as the so-called IBOC implementation
guarantees interference to both the analog main channel and to
adjacent channel stations. DAB has been implemented on exclusive
spectrum, or, at least, spectrum that is not already used for consumer
applications. As to the quality, yes, a DAB multiplex can be exploited
to provide 1990's pioneer streaming audio quality for many program
streams channels or a few streams at 1980's near-CD quality. HDradio
benefits from a decade of codec and silicon development needed for it
to have marginally acceptable quality in a much more restrictive
bandwidth. So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.

Adverse reaction to HDradio is stronger than what it probably was to
DAB because of the perceived negative effects on analog reception and
the lack of new program offerings. DAB takeup has succeeded as well as
it has in the UK because of new program services, not because of audio
quality, and because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
are unique.

DRM is still an open question - my dabbling with it persuaded me that
it is not really viable where sky-wave propagation is involved, either
as the main path or as an interferer to the desired ground-wave path.
That said, it should do as well or better than HDradio for LW, MW,
26MHz, and VHF but is as disruptive to existing analog stations.

I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
interference.

Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom - Good Response ~ RHF
.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I can agree with a lot of it. Critique without a bunch of URLs
also, which is astonishing when you realize that all came from HIM and
not a website. Much obliged!

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).

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 ?

In article .com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

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).

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 station to 4
stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel)
(and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels). Or maybe a Jazz station
dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big
Band-era Jazz. FM could effectively triple its number of channels.

Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
transition has some growing pains to overcome.

What do you mean by "the IDEA is sound"? HD and DRM are lousy ideas.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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.

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. See how they done in UK.


I agree with you. Mostly. I think that most U.S. stations like Top
40 or Rock will try to squeeze as many programs as possible into their
200 kilohertz channel, but I think other stations like Classical will
go for higher-quality 300 kbps Surround sound, because their listeners
demand the best-possible.

BTW, the HD Radio uses HE-AAC and can achieve FM quality as low as 64
kbps.

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/

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?

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:42:37 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:


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?

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/