On Sep 9, 10:22*am, John Smith wrote:
On 9/9/2010 10:08 AM, DigitalRadioScams wrote:



...
According to my contact over onhttp://keeppublicradiopublic.com/,
Keefe Bartels has spent about 25 hours on the site, and I have also
gotten a number of hits from them, too. Also, I am getting hits from
many foreign countries, including Brazil where they are considering
DRM and HD Radio. Struble can lie and hide, but now, there is no where
to run. I bet his investors start pulling out, for fear of being
dragged into court over a class-action suit. Radio World is obviously
down-playing the negative affects of FM-HD, as many FM stations are
receiving severe interference, too. I can see this escalating all the
way to the FCC. I do know that broadcasters are getting involvded,
too. Perhaps, the Courts and the DOJ will get a whiff of this
investigation, and file criminal charges against all those connected
with HD Radio for fraud. This has been a long time coming, and wil not
go away, just like HD chearleaders claimed about HD Radio. Maybe, all
of the unhappy analog listeners should jump on the clas-action aganst
iBiquity for breaking all of their analog radios, especially the AM-
sections.

I would like to see radio go digital. In that, compression algorithms
covert audio into bit steams, which a digital radio receives on a RF
carrier and decodes to audio fed to the speaker.

I would like to see something open source used, in the encoding
algorithms, like the Ogg Vorbis protocol, so anyone can create software
to encode/decode the streams without infringing on someones patent
rights, and so it is open source.

Cheap converters should be able to be produced which decode the audio
bit streams and produce a voice modulated signal to feed to old analog
radios ... but then, people in hell want ice water ...

I have a certain fondness for analog signals the fact very simple simple
circuits can be used to construct a radio ... but, it is time.

Regards,
JS

IBOC -aka- "HD-Radio" may be the only future
of FM Radio -but- not so for AM/MW Radio.

On Sep 9, 11:58*am, DigitalRadioScams
wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:51*pm, dave wrote:

John Smith wrote:

I have a certain fondness for analog signals the fact very simple simple
circuits can be used to construct a radio ... but, it is time.

Regards,

AAC sounds like ****. *Whether it's "HD" FM, XM, or POS iTunes.

- Subject restored...

DRS - Your 'Sanity' Not . . .
-wrt- HD-Radio Dementia . . .
-and- Anti HD-Radio OCD . . .
-get-help-

On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote:

...
aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could detect
a pea placed under her mattress! You are special, special ed ... err,
special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds great, 32
ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even any
loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is
made uncomfortable! ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:


That statement reeks of stupidity ... like saying radios sound like chit
... some implementation do, others don't ... a statement which is both
true and false is worthless.

Regards,
JS


aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

On Sep 9, 7:08*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote:

...
aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could detect
a pea placed under her mattress! *You are special, special ed ... err,
special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds great, 32
ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even any
loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is
made uncomfortable! *ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

Subject restored...

DigitalRadioScams wrote:
On Sep 9, 7:08 pm, John wrote:
On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote:

...
aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could detect
a pea placed under her mattress! You are special, special ed ... err,
special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds great, 32
ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even any
loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is
made uncomfortable! ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

Subject restored...

128 sounds very ragged to me. It's fine for the car or background music
but when I put on my Grado headphones the lossy compression is not
really a pleasure to listen to.

On 9/9/2010 8:33 PM, dave wrote:

...
128 sounds very ragged to me. It's fine for the car or background music
but when I put on my Grado headphones the lossy compression is not
really a pleasure to listen to.

This:
"Audio (MP3)
32 kbit/s – MW (AM) quality
96 kbit/s – FM quality - This is questionable since FM broadcast is
transmitted in analog 30hz-15khz. Similarly one cannot compare directly
an LP record to CD using kbit/s.
128–160 kbit/s – Standard Bitrate quality; difference can sometimes be
obvious (e.g. lack of low frequency quality and high frequency "swashy"
effects)[citation needed]
224–320 kbit/s – VBR to highest MP3 quality"

from he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate

At 225 kbit, it is strange it is so offensive to your ear, it is
approaching concert hall quality ... 96 kbit is ~equal to fm radio ... I
think what your are hearing is more in your mind than anywhere else.

Regards,
JS

On Sep 9, 4:08*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/9/2010 4:11 PM, dave wrote:

...
aac at 256 kbps still sounds like crap compared to FLAC or WAV.

- Well, that is because you are like that damn princess which could
detect
- a pea placed under her mattress! *You are special, special ed ...
err,
- special dave ... to the rest of us, am radio at 64 kbps sounds
great, 32
- ain't bad and 16 will suffice ... at 128 kbps I doubt there is even
any
- loss at all ... only one with special ed (special dave) abilities is
- made uncomfortable! *ROFLOL
-
- Regards,
- JS

Yeah Dave is so s p e c i a l . . .
Wez Call Him 'Super Dave'
http://www.stevemandich.com/evelincarnate/superdave.jpg

On 9/9/2010 10:03 PM, RHF wrote:

...
Yeah Dave is so s p e c i a l . . .
Wez Call Him 'Super Dave'
http://www.stevemandich.com/evelincarnate/superdave.jpg
.

To me, he is special dave, most likely a close relative of special ed.
Cousins marrying and all that, yanno' ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
[...]
At 225 kbit, it is strange it is so offensive to your ear, it is
approaching concert hall quality ... 96 kbit is ~equal to fm radio ... I
think what your are hearing is more in your mind than anywhere else.
[...]


Those comparisons are interesting, and there's some truth in them.

But it's a huge simplification to say that 96 kbps "is equal to FM
radio." FM radio has drawbacks and artifacts, and so does a 96 kbps
mp3 or AAC stream. Maybe they're roughly the same level of
degradation to most people's ears, but each has a very different
sort of degradation.

Some people object more to the odd added "details" and
phasing/intermodulation anomalies of compressed digital than to the
increased hiss and (pre-emphasis related) reduction in high-end
levels of FM. And some feel the opposite.

And Dave is right. A compressed-data signal that sounds quite
acceptable in the car, or on speakers in a noisy home, can sound
_much_ worse on headphones or in a pristine, silent listening
environment, where its subtle details can be heard.

At 260 or 320 kbps, I'm very happy with stereo mp3s, even on
headphones. At 128 kbps, headphones and my best speakers reveal some
occasionally annoying flaws.



With every good wish,

Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/