|
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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 Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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 |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 29, 4:09 pm, 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 But DAB and DRM are horrible....so? 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? It that's true, then HDR is horrible indeed. 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). Better sound? Maybe. Much smaller coverage area? Definitely. Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio? Not if it's to listen to another informercial. 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. I couldn't care less about FM. Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM) transition has some growing pains to overcome. Can you describe the sound part now? |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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 |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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). |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Tom wrote: ...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. I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to hear? DAB...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. 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? 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. What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message ups.com... Tom wrote: ...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. I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to hear? DAB...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. 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? 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. What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks. 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. -- Regards from Virginia Beach, Earl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote: Tom wrote: Snip You should not be snipping the header of people you reply too. There is more then one Tom around. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 29, 7:22 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
Tom wrote: ...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. I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to hear? DAB...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. 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? 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. What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks. Earl answered the last question really well. 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. Low bitrate audio tends to have a gurgling, grainy, grungy effect - hard to describe but after a while, I just have to turn it off. Admittedly, ambient noise (e.g. road noise) can mask a lot of it but I'm not sure that it's any less fatiguing. 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. The highest standards on XM and Sirius are better, but like Eureka DAB, frozen in quality at that which could be provided by the adopted codecs of the day (1990's). What you hear over the Internet will be encoded differently, using codecs popular for Internet streaming, not their proprietary ones for satellite delivery. Both XM and Sirius favour offering more choice than higher quality, so, like Eureka DAB, subdivide their digital channel capacity into more, smaller chunks - maybe that's what sells subscriptions - ergo, lower quality. Tom |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
----------------------------------------------------------------------- "SFTV_troy" wrote in message ups.com... Tom wrote: ...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. I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to hear? DAB...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. 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? 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. What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks. 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. A small amount of carrier would remain, to give the receiver something to lock on to for use in recovery of the audio. Analog video uses something similar called vestigial sideband, and we could be talking about that for AM. Conventional radios with envelope (diode) detectors wouldn't work well at all. When there's only one set of sidebands, with or without the carrier, the envelope of the composite RF signal doesn't look much like the original audio, and large amounts of distortion occur. As a side issue, the loss of fidelity for which AM is notorious is largely in the receivers, with their narrow bandwidths, resulting in audio that is rolling off pretty fast around the 5 KHz point. (AM stations actually transmit a fairly high-fidelity signal.) This narrow bandwidth reduces the noise (including the 10 KHz whistle from the carriers of adjacent-channel stations) that results largely from many distant stations all coming in on the channel. AM radio, with its low frequencies, travels very far, particularly at night, so lots of distant stations come roaring in. Converting AM stations to only one sideband with a reduced carrier would reduce all of that noise. I doubt it will happen. -- Regards from Virginia Beach, Earl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 29, 4:22 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
Tom wrote: ...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. I've never heard DRM. How does it sound, and why is it "fatiguing" to hear? DAB...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. 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? XM talk stations are compressed out the wazoo over the bird, while the internet stream is fair to maybe good, depending on how picky you are. XM music over the bird is acceptable. XM PR (Public Radio) is the exception to the rule regarding over compression. With NPR mixing music with talk, XM needs to be ready for anything. 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. What's USB? What's synchronous AM demodulation? Thanks. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
SFTV_troy wrote:
Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM) transition has some growing pains to overcome. some people argue about wifi radio... Don't put your head in the microwave to try it ;-) -- -- Shortwave transmissions in English, Francais, Nederlands, Deutsch, Suid-Afrikaans, Chinese, Dansk, Urdu, Cantonese, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, ... http://shortwave.blogsite.org/ Updated every month or so .... |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
|
get kelp
On Sep 29, 11:15 pm, Mel Lerner wrote:
|
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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 |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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! |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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 ? |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 29, 1:09 pm, 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. SFTV-troy, Do you also post under the Screen Name "Radium" ? ~ RHF |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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). |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 30, 1:54 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
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). Where the hell did you come up with that factoid? |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message ups.com... 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). Thanks. Alot of the big time stations run infomertials before 5AM. On weekends, they could show up at almost any time. The smaller brokered stations often run the hours and hours of infomertials. Radio infomertials aren't usually like the Ron Popiel sort of TV informertial. They often masquerade as real call-in shows, but the fake callers are talking about the benefits of a particular investment or hair restorer or something like that. 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? Frank Dresser |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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 Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
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. 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. 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. 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), and then they tried to kill it by giving it inferior programs while saving the best stuff for AM. Point: FM and AM Stereo were stifled NOT by disinterest in high fidelity, but because of poor handling. 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. |
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. 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. |
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Don Pearce wrote: On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:38:36 -0700, SFTV_troy 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. Well yeah, but even shoutcast & live365 have advanced search functions, and they are for entertainment too. It would be impossible to scan through 10,000 stations just to find the ones you like. (Which is why they have the advanced search.) I don't think I'll be using tuner2 any time soon. Not user-friendly. |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com