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 . . .
 

In article , Richard Evans rp.evans.nos
scribeth thus
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.


I thought our friends in the far West knew that already?..

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.

--
Tony Sayer

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