On 9/3/2010 8:30 AM, hwh wrote:
On 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
On the surface, this sounds like a bad thing, but for those listeners
willing to make the small one time investment in an HD Radio, it's
actually a big positive for several reasons. First, they'll have a lot
fewer commercials. Second, they'll have far better audio quality.

Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels.

Clearly you've never listened to HD.

On Sep 3, 11:35*am, SMS wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:30 AM, hwh wrote:

On 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
On the surface, this sounds like a bad thing, but for those listeners
willing to make the small one time investment in an HD Radio, it's
actually a big positive for several reasons. First, they'll have a lot
fewer commercials. Second, they'll have far better audio quality.

Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels.

Clearly you've never listened to HD.

Broadcasters that got duped by false promises from iBiquity and that
have lost revenue from IBLOCK interference are already getting
involved. Sprint/Nextel had a direct link to my blog, yesterday. I
have posted links to the law firm in most of the auto forums that had
complaints about HD Radio. No more automakers will go near iBiquity,
now, and I bet some drop their HD Radio offerings. Consumers are now
becoming aware of this huge scam, and will not order HD Radio in
automobiles. If you check these auto forums, delearships are getting
bring-backs for "defective" HD radios. I see this potentially blowing
up into a huge investigation and class-action suit from broadcasters
and consumers. This will be the death of iBiquity. Here is what
iBiquity promised the broadcasters:

"A Station Owner's View of HD Radio Industry"

"We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be
equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding
out this is not the case... We've also found that even in a strong HD
signal area, a dipole antenna is required... We were also told that
the HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel signals. That
also appears not to be the case. This is really very discouraging and
is leading us to wonder why we should bother to promote HD. To do so
will only disappoint, and, perhaps, antagonize a significant segment
of the audience who finds that the system doesn't deliver."

http://www.audiographics.com/agd/061206-1.htm

On 9/3/10 10:35 , SMS wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:30 AM, hwh wrote:
On 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
On the surface, this sounds like a bad thing, but for those listeners
willing to make the small one time investment in an HD Radio, it's
actually a big positive for several reasons. First, they'll have a lot
fewer commercials. Second, they'll have far better audio quality.

Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels.

Clearly you've never listened to HD.


Actually, I have. And I agree with him.



It's not what's been claimed for it.

On 9/3/10 5:35 PM, SMS wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:30 AM, hwh wrote:
On 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
On the surface, this sounds like a bad thing, but for those listeners
willing to make the small one time investment in an HD Radio, it's
actually a big positive for several reasons. First, they'll have a lot
fewer commercials. Second, they'll have far better audio quality.

Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels.

Clearly you've never listened to HD.

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.

gr, hwh

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!!!

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."

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

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.

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.

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.