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!