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

"none" wrote in message
...
"HD Radio Not High Definition"

HD radio parallels HDTV in that if you transmit more than one program stream
on an RF channel the quality of each sub-channel lowers.

HDTV advancements in MPEG2 encoding and a healthy 19MBits make multicasting
bearable.

FM-HD radio at best has 96kBits which is slightly better than average FM and
much worse when you carve that pie up. And the fun part starts when your
favorite stations multicasts and clean analog blends to cheap internet
quality and you can't change back.

AM-HD is a joke that reminds people how bad things were when the internet
was only available via dial-up. Believe me, there is audio that sounds worse
than analog AM.

Not to mention your digital carriers can be jammed by first-adjacent
stations (93.7 by 93.9 & 93.5 and 640 by 650 & 630) and DRM becomes a much
better idea.

There, I feel much better. The above is as was always IMHO so YMMV.

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

If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

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

On Sep 2, 4:05*pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

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

DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

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

On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote:
DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off
using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.



A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier
than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The
other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs
getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier
finished release product.

Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half.

Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history.

ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this
thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to
new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to
expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release
purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors,
whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released".
They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised.

It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular.

But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even
Apple uses it.

In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the
product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release
for sale makes good business sense.

That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with
liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up
early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those
interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content.

If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly
off the shelves.

So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold.
One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live
up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is
no compelling reason fostering desire to use it.

By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM
had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and
specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive
complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive
uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there.

What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in
mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be
compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour.

Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.

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

On Sep 2, 5:48*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote:





DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off
using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

* *A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier
than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The
other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs
getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier
finished release product.

* *Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half.

* *Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history.

* *ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this
thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to
new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to
expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release
purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors,
whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released".
They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised.

* *It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular.

* *But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even
Apple uses it.

* *In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the
product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release
for sale makes good business sense.

* *That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with
liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up
early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those
interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content.

* *If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly
off the shelves.

* *So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold.
One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live
up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is
no compelling reason fostering desire to use it.

* *By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM
had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and
specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive
complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive
uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there.

* *What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in
mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be
compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour.

* *Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

RIP, iBiquity. These lawyers are going to tear Struble and the
automakers new assholes. Broadcasters are already contacting the law
firm, so this could potentially blow up into something much larger. No
automaker will come near iBiquity, now. iBiquity has had no comment
for once - LOL!

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

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:48:21 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.

A well-known story in the microwave field is that in the mid-1980s a
major manufacturer (name withheld to protect the guilty) could not
produce bandpass filters in time to meet the deadline of a military
contract so they shipped identical cans filled with sand. Of course
the system did not work and the filters were sent back (from Saudi
Arabia, the story went) and exchanged for real filters which by that
time had been manufactured. The warranty exchange cost, eaten by the
manufacturer, was far less than the penalty payment would have been
for missing the deadline.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

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

"Richard Evans" wrote in message
...
DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using
DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

I couldn't agree more especially since 76-88MHz may be opening up in the US
for radio broadcasting due to these frequencies proving poor for HDTV.

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

On Sep 2, 2:48*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote:



DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off
using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

* *A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier
than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The
other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs
getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier
finished release product.

* *Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half.

* *Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history.

* *ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this
thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to
new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to
expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release
purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors,
whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released".
They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised.

* *It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular.

* *But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even
Apple uses it.

* *In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the
product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release
for sale makes good business sense.

* *That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with
liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up
early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those
interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content.

* *If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly
off the shelves.

* *So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold.
One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live
up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is
no compelling reason fostering desire to use it.

* *By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM
had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and
specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive
complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive
uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there.

* *What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in
mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be
compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour.

* *Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.

Beat the Competition to the Market Place and
Define the Market : Becoming the Identified
Market Leader ! - That's "APPLE !" ~ RHF

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

On Sep 2, 1:05*pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

IBOC is about 'morphing'* the existing FM Radio Band
not replacing all at once with a new Technology or
an new FM/UHF Band.

* Creating a natural Analog to Digital transition over
a Decade or two as both Radio Listeners and Radio's
in-service migrate from the old mode to the new mode.

IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation
-ROTFL- ~ RHF
Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.br...b5d6149534c9ae

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

On Sep 2, 2:08*pm, DigitalRadioScams
wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05*pm, Richard Evans
wrote:

If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

- No one is interested in buing digital radios.

DigitalRadioScams are you 'buing' yourself too much ?

IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation
-ROTFL- ~ RHF
Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.br...b5d6149534c9ae

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

On Sep 2, 2:17*pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

- Perhaps not. But if they are going to try
- and sell them to people, they could at least
- have tried selling then a descent system.

A $300~$450 Option on a Car is NOT a
Decent HD Radio System !?!

Yes better HD-Radios are needed . . .

=BUT= FM HD-Radio has done this with 1%
of the Analog's 100% Power; and Analog
still has 99% EFP.

What Happens : When FM HD-Radio has 10%
of the Analog's 100% Power; and Analog is
then down to 90% ?

-by- 2015~2020 most FM HD-Radio Stations
will be at 15%~20% of the former Analog 100%
and will be considering treminating the remaining
80% of the Analog Output because the Radio
Listeners will no-longer be there . . .

IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation
-ROTFL- ~ RHF
Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.br...b5d6149534c9ae

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

On Sep 2, 4:12*pm, DigitalRadioScams
wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:48*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:



On 9/2/10 16:17 , Richard Evans wrote:

DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off
using DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

* *A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier
than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The
other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs
getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier
finished release product.

* *Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half.

* *Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history.

* *ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this
thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to
new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to
expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release
purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors,
whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released".
They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised.

* *It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular.

* *But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even
Apple uses it.

* *In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the
product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release
for sale makes good business sense.

* *That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with
liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up
early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those
interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content.

* *If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly
off the shelves.

* *So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold..
One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live
up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is
no compelling reason fostering desire to use it.

* *By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM
had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and
specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive
complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive
uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there.

* *What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in
mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be
compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour.

* *Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

- RIP, iBiquity. These lawyers are going to tear Struble and the
- automakers new assholes. Broadcasters are already contacting the law
- firm, so this could potentially blow up into something much larger.
No
- automaker will come near iBiquity, now. iBiquity has had no comment
- for once - LOL!

DigitalRadioScams - more wishful thinking on your part

IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation
-ROTFL- by RHF
Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.br...b5d6149534c9ae

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

On Sep 2, 8:49*pm, "Drewdove" wrote:
"Richard Evans" wrote in message

...



DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using
DRM+.

Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.

No one is interested in buing digital radios.

Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.

- I couldn't agree more especially since 76-88MHz
- may be opening up in the US for radio broadcasting
- due to these frequencies proving poor for HDTV.

yes, Yes. YES ! - Expand the FM Radio Band
-by- Moving AM's to Old TV Channels 5 & 6 !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...403d27fe07c27f
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...eec9db49629a49
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...56e4adae3ab587
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...ba020aff11f5f0
"Expanded" FM Radio Band to cover 76 MHz to
88 MHz to create and additional 60 FM Channels.

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

On 9/3/2010 12:48 AM, RHF wrote:

Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere

LOL, talk about a clueless law firm trying to extort a settlement out of
someone. Who's the braniac that came up with this idea? Are they suing
the semiconductor manufacturer who made the decoder chip, the radio
manufacturer, the auto manufacturer, the radio stations that failed to
add HD service, the radio stations that have HD but that didn't increase
their power to the legal limit, the FCC for approving the HD system, or
the company that licenses the technology to both the stations and the
equipment manufacturers? Maybe add in the transmitter and antenna
manufacturers for good measure. This just too funny.

There is one _big_ problem that HD Radio has been causing all over the
country, but no one can sue anyone about it. Hardly a week goes by where
you don't read of a format change where a station moves its classical or
jazz or other niche format over to HD2, and changes their main format to
something that they believe will increase their market share and let
them charge more for advertising. Of course there's nothing to say that
in the absence of HD that they would not simply abandon the niche format
entirely.

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. Third,
they'll experience no multipath interference. But for those unwilling to
upgrade to HD Radio, they lose their favorite station and usually there
is no competing analog station with which they can replace it. They
either switch to CDs, an iPod or other portable music player, or listen
to some other format.

HD Radio is not the perfect digital radio technology. It is a compromise
solution for digital radio that required no additional spectrum or
licenses. Adoption was fast by urban radio stations, but slow by
consumers, mainly because of the free-fall in new car sales, caused by
the recession. As Neil Glassman wrote at RBR.com, "...the introduction
of HD Radio in the US met the perfect storm of roadblocks — the decline
of radio advertising, the recession and the failure of consumers to
consider broadcast radio as an element to be included in their digital
entertainment toy box." The recession will eventually end, advertising
will pick up, and the "digital entertainment toy box" was dealt a major
blow by AT&T with the elimination of unlimited data on the iPhone.

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

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. Stop repeating
these commercials.

gr, hwh

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

AM radio should stay analog
 

dave wrote:
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.



You're pretty much right on.

Standard AM does have more background noise at low and moderate
signal strengths. And the extreme high end, above, say, 10 kHz, is
hard to get perfectly flat at some (but not all) directional facilities.

But with analogue AM you can transmit high-fidelity audio with no
data compression whatever (and none of its attendant artifacts) in
30 kHz of RF bandwidth. You can't do that with IBOC of either the AM
or FM varieties.

And with standard analogue AM, no de-emphasis need be used on the
receiving end, so high frequencies that are 100 per cent. modulated
come through at full level on the receiving end. You can't do that
with pre-emphasized FM.

When WEAM 1390 in Arlington ran its progressive format in the 1970s,
they used very modest amounts of optical compression and peak
limiting, and subtle equalization -- and they sounded absolutely
stunning on my McKay Dymek AM5 tuner.

With all good wishes,


Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

Why AM/MW Radio Should Stay Analog -or- Not ! : IBOC Alternativesfor AM/MW Radio
 

RHF wrote:

.
RHF's Plan For The "HD" AM/MW Radio Band :
Going All Digital And Beyond !

.

You can't decode digital with a diode and a capacitor. We need some kind
of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.

Why AM/MW Radio Should Stay Analog -or- Not ! : IBOC Alternativesfor AM/MW Radio
 

On Sep 6, 10:41*am, dave wrote:
RHF wrote:
* .
RHF's Plan For The "HD" AM/MW Radio Band :
Going All Digital And Beyond !
* .

- You can't decode digital with a diode
- and a capacitor. We need some kind
- of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.

Dave -if- there is a 'Great Collapse'
no one will be working and

no radio stations will be on the air . . .

no electrical power, natural gas and heating oil . . .

no gasoline for the cars and trucks . . .

Dave - just you, your axe and the
all american wood pile . . .

dave - hope you do have an axe ! - pal ~ RHF

Why AM/MW Radio Should Stay Analog -or- Not ! : IBOC Alternatives for AM/MW Radio
 

"Bob Dobbs" wrote in message
news:4c861aa4.11844859@chupacabra...
dave wrote:
We need some kind
of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.

Why would anyone need some kind of working radio
to tune in all those stations (radios themselves) that won't be working?
Sort of a paradox, eh?
...or is it only receivers that will mysteriously stop working?

If enough of me survives any 'great collapse'
to be able to listen to something, I bet my radios will too.

Anyone transmitting at a time such as that would be running very limited
power, likely no more than a couple hundred watts (the max power output of a
common ham mobile rig that can be run from 12V battery power), since it
would be likely that no commercial power would be available.

Why AM/MW Radio Should Stay Analog -or- Not ! : IBOC Alternativesfor AM/MW Radio
 

On Sep 7, 4:06*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
dave wrote:
We need some kind
of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.

Why would anyone need some kind of working radio
to tune in all those stations (radios themselves) that won't be working?
Sort of a paradox, eh?
...or is it only receivers that will mysteriously stop working?

If enough of me survives any 'great collapse'
to be able to listen to something, I bet my radios will too.

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

Sort of like a Farmer in the 1920s who bought a
"Farm Radio"; and when his Son asked him 'why'
the Farmer replied 'why' Son some day we will
have elect-tric-city just like your Uncle in the City.
http://everything2.com/title/Farm+radio

Actually so-called "Farm Radios" were usually
powered by Batteries and some/many Farms
had their own Electrical Generating Systems.
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/far...0s/life_18.htm
Note - Back then you could not go off-the-grid . . .
-cause- There Was No Grid [.]

Why AM/MW Radio Should Stay Analog -or- Not ! : IBOC Alternativesfor AM/MW Radio
 

On Sep 7, 5:08*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
RHFwrote:
On Sep 7, 4:06*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
dave wrote:
We need some kind
of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.

Why would anyone need some kind of working radio
to tune in all those stations (radios themselves) that won't be working?
Sort of a paradox, eh?
...or is it only receivers that will mysteriously stop working?

If enough of me survives any 'great collapse'
to be able to listen to something, I bet my radios will too.

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42

Sort of like a Farmer in the 1920s who bought a
"Farm Radio"; and when his Son asked him 'why'
the Farmer replied 'why' Son some day we will
have elect-tric-city just like your Uncle in the City.
http://everything2.com/title/Farm+radio

That article mentioned 45v or 90v "B" batteries,
yet I seem to remember a 67v one too
like my uncles used to menace me with.
- We had a long wire antenna running out the window to a walnut tree,
- always got disconnected during lightning storms
- and the end placed in a mason jar for insulation.

Was it 'filled' with "White Lightning" after the storm :oP


Actually so-called "Farm Radios" were usually
powered by Batteries and some/many Farms
had their own Electrical Generating Systems.
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/far...0s/life_18.htm

- They also talked about kerosene lanterns,
- which we called 'coal oil'.

-wrt- 'Coal Oil Johnny'

Note - Back then you could not go off-the-grid . . .
-cause- There WasNoGrid [.]

I didn't come on the scene until the early forties
and in town there was a grid of sorts.
Even a telephone system (number please)

--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42