iBiquity finally under investigation - LMFAO!!!!!!
 

hwh wrote:


I have. And didn't like it. Trouble is you keep referring to sound
quality while you're talking about reception issues like multipath.

Reception can be better, while sound quality will not be better as long
as second channels are being broadcast on HD.

FM can *sometimes* sound bad.
Low bit rate digital *Always* sounds bad.

I haven't actually heard HD-Radio for myself. But come on, 40k!!!

iBiquity finally under investigation - LMFAO!!!!!!
 

On 9/3/2010 9:35 AM, Richard Evans wrote:
hwh wrote:


I have. And didn't like it. Trouble is you keep referring to sound
quality while you're talking about reception issues like multipath.

Reception can be better, while sound quality will not be better as
long as second channels are being broadcast on HD.

FM can *sometimes* sound bad.
Low bit rate digital *Always* sounds bad.

I haven't actually heard HD-Radio for myself. But come on, 40k!!!

Since you can't listen to it, you might want to actually read what some
of the experts have said about HD sound quality, rather than believe the
rantings of our favorite troll, or the opinions of those that have a
vested interest in its failure.

_Every_ review, by those without any vested interest in HD, has
confirmed that the HD sound quality is far better than that of analog
FM. It could be that they did not find that perfect FM station and that
they did not listen to it with the perfect analog receiver hooked up to
the perfect antenna. A lot has to do with the quality of the broadcast,
both for digital and analog, but it's a lot easier to do a high quality
digital broadcast.

It's similar to analog LPs versus digital CDs. With a high end
turntable, and an LP that is in perfect condition with no warpage or
scratches, the LP could conceivably sound better. But that's not
representative of most people's equipment.

As Consumer Reports stated:

"Digital HD Radio has the potential to deliver better sound quality than
the usual analog FM and AM radio, with deeper bass, more extended
treble, more stereo separation, and greater dynamic range (the
difference between the loudest and quietest sounds). The actual quality
depends on what the radio station transmits and how good a job the tuner
does with it.

In our tests of the HDT-1 tuner in the New York metropolitan region, the
HD FM and AM broadcasts generally sounded clearer and fuller than analog
content from the same station. All of the HD FM broadcasts, whether the
main channel or the "side" channels multicast on the same frequency,
were free of background noise--the hiss or crackle you occasionally hear
with standard radio. The better-quality broadcasts had frequency
response, detail, separation, and dynamic range that approached audio CD
quality. HD AM programs were received in stereo with audio quality
comparable to standard analog FM radio, minus the background noise."

iBiquity finally under investigation - LMFAO!!!!!!
 

On 9/3/10 7:08 PM, SMS wrote:
_Every_ review, by those without any vested interest in HD, has
confirmed that the HD sound quality is far better than that of analog
FM. It could be that they did not find that perfect FM station and that
they did not listen to it with the perfect analog receiver hooked up to
the perfect antenna.

The last sentense says it exactly. And did hey use just one digital
channel on the HD part of the system? At 96k it will sound better than
FM. At half that rate it will not.

gr, hwh

iBiquity finally under investigation - LMFAO!!!!!!
 

On Sep 3, 1:08*pm, SMS wrote:
On 9/3/2010 9:35 AM, Richard Evans wrote:

hwh wrote:

I have. And didn't like it. Trouble is you keep referring to sound
quality while you're talking about reception issues like multipath.

Reception can be better, while sound quality will not be better as
long as second channels are being broadcast on HD.

FM can *sometimes* sound bad.
Low bit rate digital *Always* sounds bad.

I haven't actually heard HD-Radio for myself. But come on, 40k!!!

Since you can't listen to it, you might want to actually read what some
of the experts have said about HD sound quality, rather than believe the
rantings of our favorite troll, or the opinions of those that have a
vested interest in its failure.

_Every_ review, by those without any vested interest in HD, has
confirmed that the HD sound quality is far better than that of analog
FM. It could be that they did not find that perfect FM station and that
they did not listen to it with the perfect analog receiver hooked up to
the perfect antenna. A lot has to do with the quality of the broadcast,
both for digital and analog, but it's a lot easier to do a high quality
digital broadcast.

It's similar to analog LPs versus digital CDs. With a high end
turntable, and an LP that is in perfect condition with no warpage or
scratches, the LP could conceivably sound better. But that's not
representative of most people's equipment.

As Consumer Reports stated:

"Digital HD Radio has the potential to deliver better sound quality than
the usual analog FM and AM radio, with deeper bass, more extended
treble, more stereo separation, and greater dynamic range (the
difference between the loudest and quietest sounds). The actual quality
depends on what the radio station transmits and how good a job the tuner
does with it.

In our tests of the HDT-1 tuner in the New York metropolitan region, the
HD FM and AM broadcasts generally sounded clearer and fuller than analog
content from the same station. All of the HD FM broadcasts, whether the
main channel or the "side" channels multicast on the same frequency,
were free of background noise--the hiss or crackle you occasionally hear
with standard radio. The better-quality broadcasts had frequency
response, detail, separation, and dynamic range that approached audio CD
quality. HD AM programs were received in stereo with audio quality
comparable to standard analog FM radio, minus the background noise."

Struble has many of these media groups in his back-pocket, just like
the FCC. You can rant-and-rave all you want, but HD Radio works even
less reliably in moving vehicles. It's over, especially with
broadcasters getting involved.

iBiquity finally under investigation - LMFAO!!!!!!
 

SMS wrote:


I haven't actually heard HD-Radio for myself. But come on, 40k!!!

Since you can't listen to it, you might want to actually read what some
of the experts have said about HD sound quality, rather than believe the
rantings of our favorite troll, or the opinions of those that have a
vested interest in its failure.

Oh the same old story.
I don't need to read reviews to tell me that 40k is not going to sound good.

Perhaps if you want to let us know what HD-Radio sounds like, perhaps
you could upload a few samples. Connect a radio to a computer, record
the sound, encode it into FLAC format, and upload it.

Although if 40k can produce good sound quality, I'd be about as
surprised as I would be if somebody made a good cup of tea in a
Chocolate Tea Pot.

Richard E.

iBiquity finally under investigation - LMFAO!!!!!!
 

hwh wrote:
On 9/3/10 7:08 PM, SMS wrote:
_Every_ review, by those without any vested interest in HD, has
confirmed that the HD sound quality is far better than that of analog
FM. It could be that they did not find that perfect FM station and that
they did not listen to it with the perfect analog receiver hooked up to
the perfect antenna.

The last sentense says it exactly. And did hey use just one digital
channel on the HD part of the system? At 96k it will sound better than
FM. At half that rate it will not.

gr, hwh

Also, it's possible that they may be using excessive levels of dynamic
compression on some of the FM broadcasts. If so, that doesn't mean that
HD-Radio OK, it just means that FM is sometimes used very badly.

Richard E.

iBiquity finally under investigation - LMFAO!!!!!!
 

SMS wrote:
On 9/3/2010 9:35 AM, Richard Evans wrote:


Since you can't listen to it, you might want to actually read what some
of the experts have said about HD sound quality, rather than believe the
rantings of our favorite troll, or the opinions of those that have a
vested interest in its failure.



As Consumer Reports stated:


Consumer Reports has tin ears. They've never gotten an audio review right.

Radio is dead.

Maybe we will eventually have DRM for AM here in the US.

IBOC on AM is a disaster.

AM radio should stay analog
 

harddisque wrote:
Maybe we will eventually have DRM for AM here in the US.

IBOC on AM is a disaster.



AM radio sounds great if you know what you're doing. The NRSC mask
needs to go away, along with every station (or night-time operation)
authorized since the late '70s.

AM radio should stay analog
 

Dancing dog is Web sensation
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=295206

WOOF WOOF.
cuhulin