David Eduardo wrote:
"craigm" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:


A:B comparison of HD and a CD is nearly indistinguishable, but with
Analog
FM it shows coloring.
How about something more quantitative?

Radio listenening is based on perception, not statistics. S/n is only
important if the noise is audible... the big difference is the very
perceptable difference between preemphasized analog FM audio, vs.
non-preemphasized digital audio in the HD stream.



Not even close to being true.

I did some perceptual studies in Texas, this was about 1984, to make
a point to my chief engineer who was trying to say the same things.

Without going into numerical analysis, we discovered that, though the
test subjects, and two of the testers, couldn't put language to it, they
did prefer sounds with the highest S/N, even though in a dead room with
no program applied, they couldn't distinguish between various noise floors.

The results surprised everyone, at how sharp the perceptions were.
Not only did the listeners prefer, all other parameters being equal, the
higher S/N, but they did so by an overwhelming majority. In two tests,
as high as 78%.

The tests were quadruple blind, and conducted over several weeks,
with a subject field of 100 participants. The tests were done in several
acoustically variable environments...a common living room, a music
listening room, a studio listening room, a recording performance space,
a theatre, a stationary vehicle, a moving vehicle, and an open area
outdoors. Actually, a game preserve.

Acoustic outlets included Klipschorns, Heresy's, AR58's (don't hold
me to that one), KLH-23's, KEF 104's, JBL L200's, and headphones
including Sennheiser 414's, Pioneer SE-L40's, Koss Pro4AA, and a pair of
Radio Shack, the model of which I've forgotten.

All acoustic devices were used in all acoustic environments, except
the vehicles, where Jensen auto speakers were used, and each of the
headphones.

Even where the respondents could not distinguish between baseline
noise floors, they expressed opinions of preference for the programs
with higher S/N values. Even though, in most cases, they could not
explain what it was they were hearing that was different.

More detailed analysis of this phenomenon has been written about in
engineering texts for years. The best of them by Harry Olson.

As part of the same tests, we did comparisons of broadcast exciters,
using the same models and configurations of exciters used by all the
stations in town, and compared them, again quadruple blind A/B tests
into single receivers, and there was no discernable pre/de-emphasis
difference. We did this with a number of test receivers, as well.

Receivers included those by Yamaha, H-K, Sansui, and Pioneer, and
tuners by Nakamichi, Pioneer, and Kenwood.

There was no statistical perception of any pre/de-emphasis error by
the same test subjects who could discern S/N differences in a moving
Cadillac.

And Fanfare Electronics at the Consumer Electronics Shows, when they
were in Chciago, stunned audiophiles by playing a CD through an
unmodified Broadcast Electronics exciter over the air into their FT-1
tuner, into a Jadis amplifier, and B&W speakers and in an A/B with a
direct feed from the Studer A730, audiophiles from all over the country
could not tell the difference. Statistically, no preference between the
CD over the FM and the CD direct. Zero. Over 10 days, with thousands of
subjects.

This test had been done also by Magnum Dynalab at CES, and has been
repeated at every CES where Fanfare has shown up since it's inception.

So, your claims of pre/de-emphasis coloration are nonsense. The
pre/de-emphasis complex is 100% complementary and of no discernable
impact on the output.

Opening heavy drapes in the listening room will have more impact on
the listening experience than pre/de-emphasis tracking errors.

The difference between HD and analog FM audio, is 100% a factor of
the processing done to the audio. Which is dynamic and spectral in
analog, and digital in HD.

What's more, is that, with your engineering experience, you should
know that.

One more thing that raises questions.

On Dec 13, 9:36 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"David" wrote in message

...



Preemphasis/deemphasis curves (plural) that are 100% complimentary. An
analog noise reduction solution 80 or so years old, that works quite well.

But the curve changes the noise level, which can not be ignored in analog.
It changes the color overall.



"CD like" is a bull**** term with no meaning. They also like to throw
"digital quality" around. CT aac+ SBR sounds bad. It causes listener
fatigue.

The test is to have people who are not technical listen to a CD, HD and
analog FM with the same source. HD and CD are perceived as being the same,
while analog FM audio is not.

Did you hear this as part of a shortwave broadcast? If so, what was
the frequency, time and date, and what sort of antenna were you using?

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"craigm" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:


A:B comparison of HD and a CD is nearly indistinguishable, but with
Analog
FM it shows coloring.
How about something more quantitative?

Radio listenening is based on perception, not statistics. S/n is only
important if the noise is audible... the big difference is the very
perceptable difference between preemphasized analog FM audio, vs.
non-preemphasized digital audio in the HD stream.


Not even close to being true.

Not much of what 'Eduardo' says is...



I did some perceptual studies in Texas, this was about 1984, to make
a point to my chief engineer who was trying to say the same things.

Without going into numerical analysis, we discovered that, though the
test subjects, and two of the testers, couldn't put language to it, they
did prefer sounds with the highest S/N, even though in a dead room with
no program applied, they couldn't distinguish between various noise floors.

The results surprised everyone, at how sharp the perceptions were.
Not only did the listeners prefer, all other parameters being equal, the
higher S/N, but they did so by an overwhelming majority. In two tests,
as high as 78%.

The tests were quadruple blind, and conducted over several weeks,
with a subject field of 100 participants. The tests were done in several
acoustically variable environments...a common living room, a music
listening room, a studio listening room, a recording performance space,
a theatre, a stationary vehicle, a moving vehicle, and an open area
outdoors. Actually, a game preserve.

Acoustic outlets included Klipschorns, Heresy's, AR58's (don't hold
me to that one), KLH-23's, KEF 104's, JBL L200's, and headphones
including Sennheiser 414's, Pioneer SE-L40's, Koss Pro4AA, and a pair of
Radio Shack, the model of which I've forgotten.

All acoustic devices were used in all acoustic environments, except
the vehicles, where Jensen auto speakers were used, and each of the
headphones.

Even where the respondents could not distinguish between baseline
noise floors, they expressed opinions of preference for the programs
with higher S/N values. Even though, in most cases, they could not
explain what it was they were hearing that was different.

More detailed analysis of this phenomenon has been written about in
engineering texts for years. The best of them by Harry Olson.

As part of the same tests, we did comparisons of broadcast exciters,
using the same models and configurations of exciters used by all the
stations in town, and compared them, again quadruple blind A/B tests
into single receivers, and there was no discernable pre/de-emphasis
difference. We did this with a number of test receivers, as well.

Receivers included those by Yamaha, H-K, Sansui, and Pioneer, and
tuners by Nakamichi, Pioneer, and Kenwood.

There was no statistical perception of any pre/de-emphasis error by
the same test subjects who could discern S/N differences in a moving
Cadillac.

And Fanfare Electronics at the Consumer Electronics Shows, when they
were in Chciago, stunned audiophiles by playing a CD through an
unmodified Broadcast Electronics exciter over the air into their FT-1
tuner, into a Jadis amplifier, and B&W speakers and in an A/B with a
direct feed from the Studer A730, audiophiles from all over the country
could not tell the difference. Statistically, no preference between the
CD over the FM and the CD direct. Zero. Over 10 days, with thousands of
subjects.

This test had been done also by Magnum Dynalab at CES, and has been
repeated at every CES where Fanfare has shown up since it's inception.

So, your claims of pre/de-emphasis coloration are nonsense. The
pre/de-emphasis complex is 100% complementary and of no discernable
impact on the output.

Opening heavy drapes in the listening room will have more impact on
the listening experience than pre/de-emphasis tracking errors.

The difference between HD and analog FM audio, is 100% a factor of
the processing done to the audio. Which is dynamic and spectral in
analog, and digital in HD.

What's more, is that, with your engineering experience, you should
know that.

One more thing that raises questions.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"craigm" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:


It sounds worse. It has a greasy XM-like sound to it.

Actually, it has CD-like sound. The difference is that analog FM has a
preemphasis curve, which is not used for HD.

David,

What does "CD-like" really mean?

It has audio that sounds like a CD, not FM analog, with the difference being
that anaalog FM is "colored" by the preemphasis curve.

Is it...
same noise level?
same frequency response?
same dynamic range?
same freedom from compression artifacts?
same distortion?
same skipping and pausing as I drive down a rough road?

The hype says like a CD, but never defines what it means.

A:B comparison of HD and a CD is nearly indistinguishable, but with Analog
FM it shows coloring.

You can't be serious.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"David" wrote in message
...

Preemphasis/deemphasis curves (plural) that are 100% complimentary. An
analog noise reduction solution 80 or so years old, that works quite well.

But the curve changes the noise level, which can not be ignored in analog.
It changes the color overall.

This does not make sense to me at all. I listened to HD and it sucks.
The distortion is terrible. Sure the noise level is low compared to
analog so what when it sounds like crap most of the time.

"CD like" is a bull**** term with no meaning. They also like to throw
"digital quality" around. CT aac+ SBR sounds bad. It causes listener
fatigue.

The test is to have people who are not technical listen to a CD, HD and
analog FM with the same source. HD and CD are perceived as being the same,
while analog FM audio is not.

My eyes and ears are not technical. Low resolution or noise make
pictures or sound poor. The problem here is HD is distorted ALL THE TIME
where analog is noisy SOME OF THE TIME.

The argument that HD is better than analog is BS.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

David Eduardo wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
Preemphasis/deemphasis curves (plural) that are 100% complimentary. An
analog noise reduction solution 80 or so years old, that works quite well.

But the curve changes the noise level, which can not be ignored in analog.
It changes the color overall.
"CD like" is a bull**** term with no meaning. They also like to throw
"digital quality" around. CT aac+ SBR sounds bad. It causes listener
fatigue.

The test is to have people who are not technical listen to a CD, HD and
analog FM with the same source. HD and CD are perceived as being the same,
while analog FM audio is not.



I don't see the point. I do know that there are new kinds of distortion
that you don't know how to measure.

The argument that HD is better than analog is BS.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD or IBOC is the system first to be dropped.
DRM has the same options and could work for ALL bands, AM (= MW) AND
LW, and SW.
IBOC for AMBCB takes far to much spectrum, and is useless, both in and
out the USA.
DRM can also do simulcasting, but now also takes to much bandwith.

Digital Radio is a nightmare by itself, having more than one system is
outragious.

But Digital Radio or DRM. wether simulcasting or digital only, will
never fly and does noy solve any problem.
Apart from technical disadvantages: ALL bands suffer from instabality
- night- day, summer winter ansd are vulnerable for noise blocking
digital reception at a certain level. The answer to that will be more
POWER and now also the digital signals will block their co-channel
outlets. And this will bring us back in the stone-age of AM, to many
stations, with to much power. CReating a real mess after dark.

An even better solution would be to increase AM bandwith by re-
allocate the entire band and use 20 kHz grid. in Europe 18 kHz. This
will leave the strong stations in better audio-quality and is
competable for existing receivers, even they wil have the advantage of
better audio, however not fully. New receivers will be adapted to the
new system. But you dont NEED to by a new receiver, and the wider
audio spectrum doest not cuase the level of interference (hiss) as
digital radio.

Digital radio should be on VHF/UHF, and there must be one system.
T-DAB is obsolute, here in Europe DAB + seems to be the future.

But this will take a very long time, so the idea is to use all
analogue capacity for a very long transition period.

BTW, WW2 is back in Europe, believe it or not.
During WW2 the Germans misused radio heavily for Nazi propaganda.
After the war in the Copenhague conference Germany was sanctioned for
this and got very limited AM channels. The answer from Germany was
FM!!
So Germany became worlds first FM country, the AM's were on and did
nothing but copying the FM-signals. Later many AM's were dropped. The
Germans did not know what to do with it, untill recently, and many
dark AM's has been fitred up again with ......DRM.
Causing terrible noise to other stations, co and adjacent channel.
The Krauts dont care, they dont use analogue AM, but neigbouring
countries AM reception is suffering. So WW2 lives on........
ruud (Holland)

On Dec 13, 7:38 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"craigm" wrote in message

...

David Eduardo wrote:

It sounds worse. It has a greasy XM-like sound to it.

Actually, it has CD-like sound. The difference is that analog FM has a
preemphasis curve, which is not used for HD.

David,

What does "CD-like" really mean?

It has audio that sounds like a CD, not FM analog, with the difference being
that anaalog FM is "colored" by the preemphasis curve.



Is it...
same noise level?
same frequency response?
same dynamic range?
same freedom from compression artifacts?
same distortion?
same skipping and pausing as I drive down a rough road?

The hype says like a CD, but never defines what it means.

A:B comparison of HD and a CD is nearly indistinguishable, but with Analog
FM it shows coloring.

See and that's something that has never impressed me -- I listen to
CD's - but golly, there is something lost here from the old time LP
era. I know CD's are cleaner, etc, but sometimes I don't want cleaner
- I want the sound as it was produced. Especially with the older
recordings. So, I think maybe this HD stuff might be like that -- but
as with CD's - I'm sure HD will eventually take off -- progress and
all. But that doesn't mean that it is necessarily better.

And the other thing that confuses me is -- I thought terrestial radio
stations had formats. HD seems to be touting - specific radio genre
-- well, isn't that what radio formats are all about.??

On Dec 13, 9:19 am, D Peter Maus wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"craigm" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

A:B comparison of HD and a CD is nearly indistinguishable, but with
Analog
FM it shows coloring.
How about something more quantitative?

Radio listenening is based on perception, not statistics. S/n is only
important if the noise is audible... the big difference is the very
perceptable difference between preemphasized analog FM audio, vs.
non-preemphasized digital audio in the HD stream.

Not even close to being true.

I did some perceptual studies in Texas, this was about 1984, to make
a point to my chief engineer who was trying to say the same things.

Without going into numerical analysis, we discovered that, though the
test subjects, and two of the testers, couldn't put language to it, they
did prefer sounds with the highest S/N, even though in a dead room with
no program applied, they couldn't distinguish between various noise floors.

The results surprised everyone, at how sharp the perceptions were.
Not only did the listeners prefer, all other parameters being equal, the
higher S/N, but they did so by an overwhelming majority. In two tests,
as high as 78%.

The tests were quadruple blind, and conducted over several weeks,
with a subject field of 100 participants. The tests were done in several
acoustically variable environments...a common living room, a music
listening room, a studio listening room, a recording performance space,
a theatre, a stationary vehicle, a moving vehicle, and an open area
outdoors. Actually, a game preserve.

Acoustic outlets included Klipschorns, Heresy's, AR58's (don't hold
me to that one), KLH-23's, KEF 104's, JBL L200's, and headphones
including Sennheiser 414's, Pioneer SE-L40's, Koss Pro4AA, and a pair of
Radio Shack, the model of which I've forgotten.

All acoustic devices were used in all acoustic environments, except
the vehicles, where Jensen auto speakers were used, and each of the
headphones.

Even where the respondents could not distinguish between baseline
noise floors, they expressed opinions of preference for the programs
with higher S/N values. Even though, in most cases, they could not
explain what it was they were hearing that was different.

More detailed analysis of this phenomenon has been written about in
engineering texts for years. The best of them by Harry Olson.

As part of the same tests, we did comparisons of broadcast exciters,
using the same models and configurations of exciters used by all the
stations in town, and compared them, again quadruple blind A/B tests
into single receivers, and there was no discernable pre/de-emphasis
difference. We did this with a number of test receivers, as well.

Receivers included those by Yamaha, H-K, Sansui, and Pioneer, and
tuners by Nakamichi, Pioneer, and Kenwood.

There was no statistical perception of any pre/de-emphasis error by
the same test subjects who could discern S/N differences in a moving
Cadillac.

And Fanfare Electronics at the Consumer Electronics Shows, when they
were in Chciago, stunned audiophiles by playing a CD through an
unmodified Broadcast Electronics exciter over the air into their FT-1
tuner, into a Jadis amplifier, and B&W speakers and in an A/B with a
direct feed from the Studer A730, audiophiles from all over the country
could not tell the difference. Statistically, no preference between the
CD over the FM and the CD direct. Zero. Over 10 days, with thousands of
subjects.

This test had been done also by Magnum Dynalab at CES, and has been
repeated at every CES where Fanfare has shown up since it's inception.

So, your claims of pre/de-emphasis coloration are nonsense. The
pre/de-emphasis complex is 100% complementary and of no discernable
impact on the output.

Opening heavy drapes in the listening room will have more impact on
the listening experience than pre/de-emphasis tracking errors.

The difference between HD and analog FM audio, is 100% a factor of
the processing done to the audio. Which is dynamic and spectral in
analog, and digital in HD.

What's more, is that, with your engineering experience, you should
know that.

One more thing that raises questions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ya lost me here. What does S/N have to do with radio listening. Are
you referring to noise on the transmission end or noise on the
reciever end?? Or both? Not trying to be difficult- - just not really
following what your point here is. Do you think then that HD
provides a better listening signal - or perhaps I should say cleaner
- or do you think that's largely the preception of the listener when
they are told they are doing a survey - though I assume your test
subjects were blind. Thanks.

In article
,
candy rosa wrote:

On Dec 13, 7:38 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"craigm" wrote in message

...

David Eduardo wrote:

It sounds worse. It has a greasy XM-like sound to it.

Actually, it has CD-like sound. The difference is that analog FM has a
preemphasis curve, which is not used for HD.

David,

What does "CD-like" really mean?

It has audio that sounds like a CD, not FM analog, with the difference being
that anaalog FM is "colored" by the preemphasis curve.



Is it...
same noise level?
same frequency response?
same dynamic range?
same freedom from compression artifacts?
same distortion?
same skipping and pausing as I drive down a rough road?

The hype says like a CD, but never defines what it means.

A:B comparison of HD and a CD is nearly indistinguishable, but with Analog
FM it shows coloring.

See and that's something that has never impressed me -- I listen to
CD's - but golly, there is something lost here from the old time LP
era. I know CD's are cleaner, etc, but sometimes I don't want cleaner
- I want the sound as it was produced. Especially with the older
recordings. So, I think maybe this HD stuff might be like that -- but
as with CD's - I'm sure HD will eventually take off -- progress and
all. But that doesn't mean that it is necessarily better.

And the other thing that confuses me is -- I thought terrestial radio
stations had formats. HD seems to be touting - specific radio genre
-- well, isn't that what radio formats are all about.??

HD is nowhere near CD quality. Not even close.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California