|
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
Another Reason I don't tote, especially a smart phone, or a touch tablet
(if I owned one) or sheet like that,,, I wonder how many people are getting knocked down every day and their toteable touch tablets get stolen? You remember when the first iPhones came out? and somebody was waiting by an elevator in a store in NYC. Don't Tote! cuhulin |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On Mar 7, 12:17*am, wrote:
Another Reason I don't tote, especially a smart phone, or a touch tablet (if I owned one) or sheet like that,,, I wonder how many people are getting knocked down every day and their toteable touch tablets get stolen? You remember when the first iPhones came out? and somebody was waiting by an elevator in a store in NYC. Don't Tote! cuhulin Must be the i- Apple store in the GM Building . |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time Has Not Yet Come . . .
In article ,
SMS wrote: So all-digital does allow for more "virtual CD" quality audio channels, but no, you cannot combine multiple audio channels for even higher quality audio. Thank you for finally acknowledging that. I've only had to mention it about five times. And YOU'RE the "expert"! From the actual iBiquity handbook the rate is 96Kbps. There is no "98Kbps" spec in the system. So going with the real figure, we find that the bit rate is approximately one-fifteenth that of an ordinary CD, the CD including forward error-correction. Amazing! "Virtual CD quality" with seven percent of the data used by the CD. And using a ten-year-old codec at that. You don't have to be an audio engineer to discover why "HD Radio" sounds the way it does. The big advantage of all-digital is that raising power levels no longer will interfere with analog, presuming all stations do a complete digital switchover. This is many years in the future of course. But since there will be no improvement over the audio quality it provides today, what does that buy you? And wait until digital start interfering with other digital stations. Even though you're not willing to admit it, the allocation table on the present FM band was designed for analog, not digital. It's a good thing it will never happen because it will never work, at least not the way the stations expect. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time Has Not Yet Come . . .
From the actual iBiquity handbook the rate is 96Kbps. There is no
"98Kbps" spec in the system. So going with the real figure, we find that the bit rate is approximately one-fifteenth that of an ordinary CD, the CD including forward error-correction. Amazing! "Virtual CD quality" with seven percent of the data used by the CD. And using a ten-year-old codec at that. You don't have to be an audio engineer to discover why "HD Radio" sounds the way it does. Well over here a broadcaster claims that a 64K Mono channel offers superior sound quality thats Crystal Clear;!... Who was it who said tell the people lies often enough and they become the truth .. Dr Goebbels was it or someone similar?.. -- Tony Sayer |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time HasNot Yet Come . . .
On Mar 7, 4:01*am, tony sayer wrote:
From the actual iBiquity handbook the rate is 96Kbps. There is no "98Kbps" spec in the system. So going with the real figure, we find that the bit rate is approximately one-fifteenth that of an ordinary CD, the CD including forward error-correction. Amazing! "Virtual CD quality" with seven percent of the data used by the CD. And using a ten-year-old codec at that. You don't have to be an audio engineer to discover why "HD Radio" sounds the way it does. Well over here a broadcaster claims that a 64K Mono channel offers superior sound quality thats Crystal Clear;!... Who was it who said tell the people lies often enough and they become the truth .. Dr Goebbels was it or someone similar?.. -- Tony Sayer Yea, it's him, I reckon . |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On 03/06/2011 07:36 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:
Preaching to the choir there... I don't bash analog radio. I believe it should exist permanently. Too many problems with digital, not the least of which is that it's nowhere near as robust as analog, and you have to do too much to detect and decode it. Once you are absolutely FORCED to buy someone's technology to listen to radio, it's no longer a true public medium. And once HF is all DRM, that will pretty much put an end to all that remote listening off the power grid. Again, not robust enough. When analog fades a bit, you can still use your ears to figure out what's being said/played. With DRM, if it fades, it's gone. Nothing. BTW, when I DO listen to the radio on my iPhone, I can play it for many hours easily. I've yet to run the battery completely down on the phone (4G). Now, talk time... THAT eats the battery pretty good... but I keep a backup with me that plugs right into the 40 pin jack and runs the phone for several hours of talk time. (never used it yet, either). It depends on how close you are to the cell site. Out here in the boonies the transceivers have to work harder. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On 03/06/2011 08:20 PM, SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2011 7:41 PM, Brenda Ann wrote: By far most stations have perhaps, at best, a morning and evening "drive time" program. Other than that, the only local content seems to be commercials. I can't say that I've heard a newscast on a (non-news/talk) commercial station in many years. Even our AFN stations have dropped all local content except for emergency command information. And figure that the FM band is starting to get really crowded with sports/talk/religious stations... and who needs to hear Rush, Jim Rome and sanctimonious self righteous preachers in digital? A lot of public radio stations have gone all news/commentary/talk on analog/HD1 and moved music to HD2, often classical and jazz. It doesn't make sense from an audio standpoint to have the music on HD2 and talk on analog/HD1, but the market for news/commentary/talk has expanded as listeners have switched to other ways of listening to music content. If everyone had an HD receiver then they'd be more likely to swap where talk and music reside. KPFT is now carrying KTRU on an HD2 stream. Rice sold KTRU's frequency to the University of Houston for a classical station. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
|
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
On 03/07/2011 01:01 AM, tony sayer wrote:
From the actual iBiquity handbook the rate is 96Kbps. There is no "98Kbps" spec in the system. So going with the real figure, we find that the bit rate is approximately one-fifteenth that of an ordinary CD, the CD including forward error-correction. Amazing! "Virtual CD quality" with seven percent of the data used by the CD. And using a ten-year-old codec at that. You don't have to be an audio engineer to discover why "HD Radio" sounds the way it does. Well over here a broadcaster claims that a 64K Mono channel offers superior sound quality thats Crystal Clear;!... Who was it who said tell the people lies often enough and they become the truth .. Dr Goebbels was it or someone similar?.. 64K mono would be about as crystal clear as 128 stereo, no? That's crystal clear to most people. I listen to 32 K web streams which are great for all but most critical applications. |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeH...
When those first iPhones came out, a guy in NYC had just bought one.He
was taking the elevator down to the first floor, he had his brand spanking new shiney as a new born baby's ass iPhone in a string handle shopping bag.The elevator door opened, he stepped out, a MOFO grabbed the guy's shopping bag, nearly ripped off one of the guy's fingers because it was tangled up in the shopping bag string handle. BAN ALL STRING BAG SHOPPING BAGS! THEY ARE DANGEROUS! cuhulin |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeH...
There is an Apple store listed in my phone book, here in backwater hick
Jackson,Missy Sippy area.It is located at 1000 Highland Colony Parkway, in Ridgeland.I reckon that is about nine something miles North of doggy's couch.Doggy said, WOO WOO WOOF! Look it up. cuhulin |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:18:09 -0800
dave wrote: Who was it who said tell the people lies often enough and they become the truth .. Dr Goebbels was it or someone similar?.. 64K mono would be about as crystal clear as 128 stereo, no? That's You'd think , but DAB isn't that simple. I'm sure people more in the know can correct me but AFAIK it doesn't simply send 2 channels of data for left and right. I think like FM it sends mono data then some sort of difference data which uses up much less bandwidth so a 128K DAB signal has a mono component of something like (I'm guessing) 100K. I think this is why a lot of people complain about the stereo image of DAB being very flat. I'm sure wikipedia has more info. crystal clear to most people. I listen to 32 K web streams which are great for all but most critical applications. DAB uses the MP2 codec from the late 80s. 32K would be unintelligable. B2003 |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
SMS wrote:
So all-digital does allow for more "virtual CD" quality audio channels, Virtual CD quality at 98kb/s? Not even aac can manage that, aac+ wouldn't either as it's designed for low bit rates rather than for high quality. Just another example of spin, that doesn't add up when you look at the facts. Richard E. |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
dave wrote:
64K mono would be about as crystal clear as 128 stereo, no? That's crystal clear to most people. I listen to 32 K web streams which are great for all but most critical applications. I think Tony forgot to mention that DAB uses the mp2 codec, which is *very* in-efficient compared to modern codecs. At 128k in stereo, the sound quality is not much better than aac+ at 32k in stereo. So I would expect aac+ 32k in mono to sound significantly better than mp2 64k in mono. Richard E. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On 3/7/2011 6:04 AM, dave wrote:
snip KPFT is now carrying KTRU on an HD2 stream. Rice sold KTRU's frequency to the University of Houston for a classical station. Yeah, it's too bad that so many universities are in such dire straits that they're giving up their radio stations, something that they can't readily get back when the economy recovers. http://www.kpft.org/index.php?option=com_idoblog&view=idoblog&Itemid=1 45 It's interesting in that article that they mention what the biggest attraction of digital radio actually is to broadcasters: "It also allows a station to offer multiple stations to the public without obtaining a new FCC license." While the better quality audio is often touted, the reality is that that's just a side benefit of the digital system, the read advantage is the multiple channels. |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time
|
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeH...
|
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time
|
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time
That digital radio Crap just doesn't cut it.It Doesn't Cut the Mustard!
But, y'all keep on,,,,,, y'all keep on keeping onnnnnn,,,,,, cuhulin |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 08:31:12 -0800
dave wrote: crystal clear to most people. I listen to 32 K web streams which are great for all but most critical applications. DAB uses the MP2 codec from the late 80s. 32K would be unintelligable. B2003 MP3 is Mpeg 1. It seems to do OK. Thats because its more advanced than MP2. Wikipedia isn't hard to use you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II B2003 |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time Has Not Yet Come . . .
|
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
On 3/7/11 8:01 AM, John Higdon wrote:
In , wrote: So all-digital does allow for more "virtual CD" quality audio channels, but no, you cannot combine multiple audio channels for even higher quality audio. Thank you for finally acknowledging that. I've only had to mention it about five times. And YOU'RE the "expert"! From the actual iBiquity handbook the rate is 96Kbps. There is no "98Kbps" spec in the system. So going with the real figure, we find that the bit rate is approximately one-fifteenth that of an ordinary CD, the CD including forward error-correction. Amazing! "Virtual CD quality" with seven percent of the data used by the CD. And using a ten-year-old codec at that. You don't have to be an audio engineer to discover why "HD Radio" sounds the way it does. And in reality they split the bandwidth in two when broadcasting two services. One of them may have more than half, so the other one will be crippled even more. gr, hwh |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
On 3/7/11 3:18 PM, dave wrote:
64K mono would be about as crystal clear as 128 stereo, no? That's crystal clear to most people. A 128 k DAB stream uses mono with a bit of panning information to derive the stereo. Stereo is only available on DAB from 192 kbps. upwards. I listen to 32 K web streams which are great for all but most critical applications. They could be 32k AAC+ which is not like FM or anything but some people can enjoy music at that rate. gr, hwh |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeHas Not Yet Come . . .
On 3/7/2011 10:44 AM, hwh wrote:
And in reality they split the bandwidth in two when broadcasting two services. One of them may have more than half, so the other one will be crippled even more. That won't be required once they move to all-digital at higher power levels. OTOH they may decide to add more lower bit rate channels rather than have two higher bit rate channels. |
Clearly Time-and-Time Again Demonstrating You Are A 'FAO' !
On Mar 4, 7:58*pm, SMS wrote:
But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by (a decreasing number of ) broadcasters, (some) receiver manufacturers, (some) automakers, and (practically no) consumers. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On Sunday, March 6th, 2011 at 18:45:56h -0800, SMS wrote:
And what many people don't appreciate is the local aspect of radio. Especially the management at Clear Channel. |
Clearly Time-and-Time Again Demonstrating You Are A 'FAO' !
On Mar 7, 5:17*pm, spamtrap1888 wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:58*pm, SMS wrote: But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by (a decreasing number of ) broadcasters, (some) receiver manufacturers, (some) automakers, and (practically no) consumers. There was never any such quote in the Register article - SMS is lying again. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On 3/7/2011 3:22 PM, J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, March 6th, 2011 at 18:45:56h -0800, SMS wrote: And what many people don't appreciate is the local aspect of radio. Especially the management at Clear Channel. Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, etc., understand what sells advertising time to generate revenue. Terrestrial radio, whether it's analog or digital, is local. You can't say that about satellite radio or services like Pandora. Even a music station will have some local advertisers, local weather, traffic, and sometimes some news. It would be interesting to see an update of Nielsen's 2009 study that looked at daily average use of audio, and the sources of that audio. In 2009, terrestrial radio had the highest average daily use, and the greatest reach, by far, of any audio source. |
Clearly Time-and-Time Again Demonstrating You Are A 'FAO' !
iBiquity Fraudsters wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:17 pm, spamtrap1888 wrote: On Mar 4, 7:58 pm, SMS wrote: But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by (a decreasing number of ) broadcasters, (some) receiver manufacturers, (some) automakers, and (practically no) consumers. There was never any such quote in the Register article - SMS is lying again. And besides, as far as I understand it, HD-Radio was rejected over here, because it doesn't meet interference standards. :-o |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's TimeH...
On 03/07/2011 02:25 PM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
dave wrote: On 03/07/2011 06:31 AM, wrote: When those first iPhones came out, a guy in NYC had just bought one.He was taking the elevator down to the first floor, he had his brand spanking new shiney as a new born baby's ass iPhone in a string handle shopping bag.The elevator door opened, he stepped out, a MOFO grabbed the guy's shopping bag, nearly ripped off one of the guy's fingers because it was tangled up in the shopping bag string handle. BAN ALL STRING BAG SHOPPING BAGS! THEY ARE DANGEROUS! cuhulin Designer label shopping bags are kind of like wearing big bullseyes. I'm a stainless steel kind of guy. Stainless like this http://bit.ly/fhpoHp to ensure your purchases arrive home with you? As in I don't wear gold. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On 03/07/2011 03:55 PM, SMS wrote:
On 3/7/2011 3:22 PM, J G Miller wrote: On Sunday, March 6th, 2011 at 18:45:56h -0800, SMS wrote: And what many people don't appreciate is the local aspect of radio. Especially the management at Clear Channel. Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, etc., understand what sells advertising time to generate revenue. Citadel is more local than Clear Channel. I enjoy their stations KGO and KKOH. KKOB sometimes. KABC is pretty sucky. |
Clearly Time-and-Time Again Demonstrating You Are A 'FAO' !
In article , Richard Evans wrote: iBiquity Fraudsters wrote: On Mar 7, 5:17 pm, spamtrap1888 wrote: On Mar 4, 7:58 pm, SMS wrote: But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by (a decreasing number of ) broadcasters, (some) receiver manufacturers, (some) automakers, and (practically no) consumers. There was never any such quote in the Register article - SMS is lying again. And besides, as far as I understand it, HD-Radio was rejected over here, because it doesn't meet interference standards. :-o Richard, I think you overlooked that "iBiquity Fraudsters" mistook "spamtrap's" paraphrasing for SMS's actual posting. Gosh, a stupid troll...what are the odds???!!! Patty |
Clearly Time-and-Time Again Demonstrating You Are A 'FAO' !
Patty Winter wrote:
And besides, as far as I understand it, HD-Radio was rejected over here, because it doesn't meet interference standards. :-o Richard, I think you overlooked that "iBiquity Fraudsters" mistook "spamtrap's" paraphrasing for SMS's actual posting. Gosh, a stupid troll...what are the odds???!!! Actually I didn't look that closely, I was wanted to point out that Europe is never likely to adopt HD-Radio over here, and mention the interference problems. As far as I remember there was one trial in Germany, and it was rejected. |
They can't carry the news around on a thumb drive
On Mar 7, 9:07*am, dave wrote:
On 03/06/2011 10:17 PM, wrote: On Mar 7, 12:17 am, wrote: Another Reason I don't tote, especially a smart phone, or a touch tablet (if I owned one) or sheet like that,,, I wonder how many people are getting knocked down every day and their toteable touch tablets get stolen? You remember when the first iPhones came out? and somebody was waiting by an elevator in a store in NYC. Don't Tote! cuhulin Must be the i- Apple store in the GM Building . You mean the Apple Store that is in an elevator? Pretty much . |
IBOC : A Natural Evolution Requires Time and HD-Radio's Time
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:02:39 -0800
dave wrote: Thats because its more advanced than MP2. Wikipedia isn't hard to use you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II B2003 You've mistaken me for someone who gives a ****. I listen to .wav files or FLAC. Actually I mistook you for someone who had a ****ing clue. I won't make that mistake again. B2003 |
IBOC ? : Do We Know What Today's Younger Audio 'Content' ConsumersWant and Expect ?
On 3/8/2011 1:45 PM, Richard Evans wrote:
dave wrote: They are the Loud& Tinny Ear-Bud Generation ! ~ RHF That's not true. I know 20 somethings who are very discerning audiophiles. Truly good sound transcends generations. I like this for casual listening: http://somafm.com/ I tend to agree. Young people are still basically human beings, not really any different from the way we were when we were younger. It is possible that some young people, who are only just discovering music, might not yet discovered good sound quality. However, most of them end up getting IPods, IPods can actually provide surprisingly good sound quality, and even the standard ear buds sound reasonably good. Not exactly audiophile quality, but good enough I think, that they will not like changing to low quality such as that delivered by HD-Radio. Richard E. iPods don't do FLAC, but they play wav files. I have a pair of Grados that sound really nice on an iPod, ripped from CD to wav file. |
IBOC ? : Do We Know What Today's Younger Audio 'Content'Consumers Want and Expect ?
On Mar 8, 10:04*am, SMS wrote:
On 3/8/2011 9:42 AM, RHF wrote: Again there is a 'New' Generation that has grown-up with "Digitized" [MP3] Music in their Ears -and- Only Knows and Honestly Thinks Loud "Digital" Sounds Blasting in their Ears -is- Good High Quality Music. Their "Gold Standard" is iTunes Digital Music and to this 'New' Generation of 'Digital' Music Listeners {Audio Content Consumers} : What You or I and 'others' would say is not good to poor sounding music is still very good to great to them. This is very true. I see it with my own kids, as soon as we get in the car I get "can I plug in my iPod?" though paradoxically they do not want the music very loud, either for their music or the classical and rock CDs that I play. The difference between a CD and an MP3 is much more distinguishable on a home system with good speakers than on a vehicle's stereo or on junky ear buds. By the same token, I've had people in my car and house when I'm playing HD Radio and they think that it's a CD. One station in the Bay Area, KDFC, recently experienced an ownership change and transmitter change and as a result many of its listeners have to listen to it by streaming it online rather than OTA in FM or in HD. Here's what one listener stated http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_17562681?nclick_check=1: "KDFC is gutted. The hiss-free power and dynamic range of its HD-radio signal at 102.1 FM reaching my home here in Palo Alto was nothing short of astounding before K-FOX sunk its vampire fangs into it -- CD-quality for sure. I had bought an HD radio midway through 2010, expecting something good. What I got was GREAT. Holy Shostakovitch! It was comparable to the difference between regular TV over an old glass-tube rabbit-ears set versus the high-def video signal on a new HD receiver. Light-years better.. Bill Lueth can say what he wants about listening to 90.3 over the Web. It's nowhere close -- a thin, tightly compressed apparition of its former wide-open HD glory. And even with a good roof-top antenna, listening on 89.9 is hopeless." This was interesting because it validates what most people here have been saying for a long time: 1) Streaming radio over the web results in lower audio quality than OTA. 2) Streaming radio over the web works at home, albeit at lower quality, but isn't a solution for many (most?) mobile users. It was also interesting because while you often hear reviewers praise the CD-like sound quality of HD or DAB+, here's a listener that actually understood _why_ it sounds better. If there's one problem with analog FM, it's the loss of dynamic range. With an AAC+ Codec (DAB+ and HD are both based on AAC+) you can achieve high quality audio with better dynamic range with as low as 64kb/s encoding. Of course the loss of the higher quality signal was completely related to money. Anyone that's ever listened to digital radio is thrilled with the audio quality, but that doesn't mean that the station that's broadcasting the content they want in higher quality digital audio is going to survive. One of my Sons who the Schools 'claimed' to have what is now called ADD/ADDH and they wanted to put him in a 'Special' Class and 'Med' Him all up. http://add.about.com/ Back then when KDFC was a wonderful sounding Analog Classical FM Radio Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDFC-FM And alternative Medicine Practitioner suggested Playing Classical Music at a very low sound level at night while he was sleeping; so we did and it did seem to work after a few weeks. Something to do with occupying the Mind with Sounds that cause it to subprocess them; and allowing the rest of the Mind to Function more Normally. http://www.naturaladhdcure.com/holistic.html Sorry to hear that KDFC is no longer on 102.1 MHz in the SF Bay Area. But then again KKSF 103.7 MHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKSF and KBLX "The Quiet Storm" on 102.9 MHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBLX-FM before it both are no longer the Music Formats that they once were either. Still have most of the KKSF "Smooth Jazz" Cassettes and CDs from the good old years. ~ RHF |
IBOC ? : Do We Know What Today's Younger Audio 'Content' Consumers Want and Expect ?
My two cents:
I've been unfortunately reading your replies Patty. I don't think Steven reads mail, period. It's one way, he is "broadcasting" and the sooner you killfile him as I have, the better for you and the rest of us. - Sorry if I'm being unpleasant to you posting this way, please forgive me. Warren On 08 Mar 2011 20:12:57 GMT, Patty Winter wrote: In article , SMS wrote: Anyone that's ever listened to digital radio is thrilled with the audio quality Steven, why do you keep saying that, despite many people having said just the opposite in thread after thread that you've participated in? Really, why do you do it? Do you read other people's postings selectively and not see the parts that don't agree with your worldview? Do you think that repeating an untruth time after time will make it true? What are you doing? Patty |
IBOC ? : Do We Know What Today's Younger Audio 'Content'Consumers Want and Expect ?
On Mar 8, 10:35*am, Richard Evans
wrote: RHF wrote: Again there is a 'New' Generation that has grown-up with "Digitized" [MP3] Music in their Ears -and- Only Knows and Honestly Thinks Loud "Digital" Sounds Blasting in their Ears -is- Good High Quality Music. It's hard to say, but I know of at least a few young people who do seem to appreciate real quality. Even a guy in his 20s who isn't keen on 320k mp3 and prefers FLAC. Their "Gold Standard" is iTunes Digital Music The default for ITunes is aac@128k. That is a dam sight better sounding that low bit rate digital radio systems. and to this 'New' Generation of 'Digital' Music Listeners {Audio Content Consumers} : What You or I and 'others' would say is not good to poor sounding music is still very good to great to them. ? Do We Know What Today's Younger Audio 'Content' Consumers Want and Expect ? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...d74643496f82dd They are the Loud & Tinny Ear-Bud Generation ! ~ RHF *. *. - I think may well be a lot of youngsters who think that loud = quality, - but I wouldn't put them all into that group. After all, the difference - between a CD, and lets say, a YouTube video, is very obvious. I don't - think all that many young people are going to be too ignorant to notice - the difference. Especially with young ears that can pick up a lot more - detail than older ears. - - Richard E. Not after a few Years of Blasting their Ears with Very Loud Sounding "Pop" Music via Ear Buds ! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com