On 1/16/2012 10:29 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/16/12 6:23 PM, SMS wrote:
DAB+ offers audio quality almost as good as HD, but a)
it wasn't available when HD was selected, and b) it wasn't IBOC.

DAB+ can deliver a lot better audio quality than HD, even if it is used
in digital-only mode.

Nope. Testing by the European Broadcasting Union showed similar results
in perceived audio quality with the HE-AAC Codec (which is not
surprising since the iBiquity Codec is a slightly modified HE-AAC Codec).

"at an audio bit rate of 48 kbps, HE-AAC offers good to excellent quality

at an audio bit rate of 64 kbps it offers excellent quality."

On 1/16/12 15:30 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/16/12 11:35 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"Phil wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:55:32 -0500, "FarsWatch4"
wrote:

9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

This was highly touted in advertising during the 1940s.

It was an advertising ploy. Not a study, per se.

I hope we can tell the difference.

Insult aside, it WAS indeed based on surveys.

A survey designed by an advertising company....again, I hope you can tell
the difference.



Insult aside, it was a survey designed by the Tobacco Industry.
It was a survey designed by the business its conclusion supported.
The results were used to promote sales the industry's products.

Not unlike iBiquity designing and sponsoring surveys the results
of which supports sales of its products.

Again, I'd hope you could see the similarities.

On 1/17/12 12:11 AM, SMS wrote:
On 1/16/2012 10:29 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/16/12 6:23 PM, SMS wrote:
DAB+ offers audio quality almost as good as HD, but a)
it wasn't available when HD was selected, and b) it wasn't IBOC.

DAB+ can deliver a lot better audio quality than HD, even if it is used
in digital-only mode.

Nope. Testing by the European Broadcasting Union showed similar results
in perceived audio quality with the HE-AAC Codec (which is not
surprising since the iBiquity Codec is a slightly modified HE-AAC Codec).

"at an audio bit rate of 48 kbps, HE-AAC offers good to excellent quality

at an audio bit rate of 64 kbps it offers excellent quality."

And DAB+ can deliver 128 kbps while HD radio can't. 128 kbps sounds
quite a lot better than 96 kbps.
Digital radio people try to fool us into believing that 48 kbps sounds
decent. It doesn't.

gr, hwh

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 1/16/12 15:30 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/16/12 11:35 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"Phil wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:55:32 -0500, "FarsWatch4"
wrote:

9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid
and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

This was highly touted in advertising during the 1940s.

It was an advertising ploy. Not a study, per se.

I hope we can tell the difference.

Insult aside, it WAS indeed based on surveys.

A survey designed by an advertising company....again, I hope you can tell
the difference.



Insult aside, it was a survey designed by the Tobacco Industry.

Yes it was.

It was a survey designed by the business its conclusion supported.

Yes it was.

The results were used to promote sales the industry's products.

Yes it was.

Not unlike iBiquity designing and sponsoring surveys the results of
which supports sales of its products.

The surveys I have seen were not designed nor sponsored by iBiquity...but
were seperate research projects done by stations themselves by hiring
outside research companies with no stake in the outcome.

Again, I'd hope you could see the similarities.

Nope. I hope you now see the dissimilarities.

On 1/15/2012 9:33 AM, SMS wrote:
If you look at table 5.2.1 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf
you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality.

If you look at section 2.2 of that paper you'll find that Ibiquity
controlled the audio samples used in that test. The "digital" signal
fed to the participants was the output of a CD player with the level
carefully controlled and run through the Ibiquity codec with no other
audio processing whatsoever. The "analog" signal was run through an
Omnia 6EX and an Optimod 8400 where it was compressed (in the analog
domain, I'm speaking of now).


Is it any wonder that people felt the HD signal had superior audio
quality? Things don't sound so good when you squash the dynamic range.
So this is just a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse, isn't it.

Dave B.

"Dave Barnett" wrote in message
...


Is it any wonder that people felt the HD signal had superior audio
quality? Things don't sound so good when you squash the dynamic range.
So this is just a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse, isn't it.

Dave B.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My very favorite complaint about broadcast radio. There is no LEGITIMATE
reason to process broadcast audio. Yes, I know they try to tell us that that
they need to sculpt it for listening in a car. And of course, the stations
do it to try to compete for the attention of listeners by "who's the
loudest?" All it really does, though, is distort the program material, and
ruin the listening experience by cutting the dynamic range so far that in
many cases the difference between highest and lowest levels in a given track
is 6 dB or less. This not an exaggeration.

On Jan 16, 1:30*pm, "FarsWatch4" wrote:
"D. Peter Maus" wrote in ...









On 1/16/12 11:35 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"Phil *wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:55:32 -0500, "FarsWatch4"
*wrote:

* *9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

This was highly touted in advertising during the 1940s.

It was an advertising ploy. *Not a study, per se.

I hope we can tell the difference.

* Insult aside, it WAS indeed based on surveys.

- A survey designed by an advertising company....
- again, I hope you can tell the difference.

Otherwise know as form of 'Push-Polling'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

On 1/17/12 01:03 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/16/12 15:30 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 1/16/12 11:35 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
"Phil wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:55:32 -0500, "FarsWatch4"
wrote:

9 out of 10 doctors also recommended cigarette smoking to aid
and
improve digestion.

Where is this study?

This was highly touted in advertising during the 1940s.

It was an advertising ploy. Not a study, per se.

I hope we can tell the difference.

Insult aside, it WAS indeed based on surveys.

A survey designed by an advertising company....again, I hope you can tell
the difference.



Insult aside, it was a survey designed by the Tobacco Industry.

Yes it was.

It was a survey designed by the business its conclusion supported.

Yes it was.

The results were used to promote sales the industry's products.

Yes it was.

Not unlike iBiquity designing and sponsoring surveys the results of
which supports sales of its products.

The surveys I have seen were not designed nor sponsored by iBiquity...but
were seperate research projects done by stations themselves by hiring
outside research companies with no stake in the outcome.


As someone who participated in the execution of several such surveys,
that is simply not true.

On 1/17/12 10:05 , Dave Barnett wrote:
On 1/16/2012 11:03 PM, FarsWatch4 wrote:

The surveys I have seen were not designed nor sponsored by
iBiquity...but
were seperate research projects done by stations themselves by hiring
outside research companies with no stake in the outcome.

You mention "surveys" in the plural. The only one I have seen is this:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/Reports...ubj%20eval.pdf


where Ibiquity purposely controlled the audio chain to make the
analog sample sound bad. What others are there?

Dave B.

There have been many across the country. I've been involved in 8,
I think. Maybe one more.

In two, the process for selection of participants specifically
ruled out those who had audio experience...musicians, producers,
engineers...and audiophiles. This was accomplished several ways.

In 3 or 4 others, the results were selectively compiled to
produce a desired result.

In one, a public demonstration at a remote, the results were
tainted by a poor location to receive the FM analog signal.

In all of them, the analog source was specifically chosen for its
inferiour sound.

And all were conducted according to guidelines specificed in
documents from iBiquity. And all, had a stake in the outcome.
"Promotional consideration" doesn't even begin to cover it.

All but one were conducted by 'independent companies' that do
focus groups, perceptuals, and other surveys for the broadcast and
advertising industries. The exception, was conducted by a radio
station, itself, at one of its public appearances.

And has been asserted here, the results were, indeed,
overwhelmingly in favor of HD radio. But, again, none were
scientific. Most were highly selective. None were double, or often
single blind. They were, in fact, surveys conducted to promoted a
product.

I got involved in the process as a part-time employee of an
entity contracted to conduct the tests. How I got to be a part time
employee...well that's a circuitous tale that began by me calling a
colleague at a radio station promoting HD and asking how I could
participate in a survey. He told me I couldn't. Period. But, in the
conversation he did drop a couple of names of persons, that I then
contacted looking for employment, on a part time basis, which got me
in to participate in the studies. And several non HD broadcast
related studies, as well. Watching focus groups discuss language
while high on pizza and Code Red was better than "30 Rock." Of
course, nothing was as eye opening as helping conduct focus group
research at CBS.

On 1/17/12 01:45 , Dave Barnett wrote:
On 1/15/2012 9:33 AM, SMS wrote:
If you look at table 5.2.1 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf

you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio
quality.

If you look at section 2.2 of that paper you'll find that Ibiquity
controlled the audio samples used in that test. The "digital" signal fed
to the participants was the output of a CD player with the level
carefully controlled and run through the Ibiquity codec with no other
audio processing whatsoever. The "analog" signal was run through an
Omnia 6EX and an Optimod 8400 where it was compressed (in the analog
domain, I'm speaking of now).


Is it any wonder that people felt the HD signal had superior audio
quality? Things don't sound so good when you squash the dynamic range.
So this is just a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse, isn't it.

Dave B.

What's also not being addressed, is that stations are also processing
the dynamics on the HD streams. Like record companies do with CD audio.
Like ITunes does with MP3's. The way nearly all web audio, and satellite
radio audio is processed.

The comparison between processed and unprocessed audio in these
demonstrations implies that what will be heard on the air is, in fact,
unprocessed audio.

This is not the case.

So, virtually from the moment of implementation, HD radio fails to
live up to the promise.