Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/12/2012 8:40 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

As for being unsuitable for terrestrial, please note that Sirius is
using 2320 to 2332.5MHz and XM at 2332.5 to 2345MHz. While allegedly
a satellite based DAB system, much of the urban coverage is via
terrestrial repeaters, primarily to deal with "urban jungle" building
blockage. If 2.3Ghz works, certainly 1.5Ghz will also work.

I've only had a rental car with satellite radio once, but I was amazed
at how poor satellite radio performed. There apparently is little
buffering, so if I were under an overpass for more than a few seconds
the signal would be lost. The audio quality was mediocre. Maybe
satellite radio is good for Howard Stern, but not for music. I thought
that maybe the GM car I had simply had a sound system that didn't do
satellite radio justice. I see a lot of complaints about satellite radio
signal loss and audio quality, i.e. "their quality isn't even FM Quality."

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

"I just thought I would give you guys the heads up for those who are
interested. The increased audio quality of XM in my car (via streaming
through my phone) has allowed me to re-discover and enjoy the music XM
offers. If only they could bump up the quality though their actual
satellite service..."

So now this person is paying for unlimited data on their phone PLUS an
XM subscription.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/12/12 5:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:52:47 +0100, hwh
wrote:

On 1/12/12 8:10 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Incidentally, there's another nightmare pending, that oddly involves
yet another potential source of GPS interference. In EU, the official
future all digital broadcast band is 1452 to 1492 MHz. There's no
hardware, and several countries are just sitting on the spectrum, but
that's the official ITU dictated direction for S-DAB.

No, the official EU digital (radio +) band is 174-240 MHz. The 'L-band'
you mentioned has been used for digital radio, but it is not suitable
for terrestrial distribution because the frequencies are too high. There
now remain a few transmissions from satellite and just a few thousand
receivers scattered around the continent. I wonder what will happen to
the frequency allocation in 2012.

gr, hwh

I can't predict what will happen in Europe, but in the US, I think
1.5Ghz would be a likely place to move digital radio. How it will be
organized and structured is beyond the abilities of my crystal ball.

As for being unsuitable for terrestrial, please note that Sirius is
using 2320 to 2332.5MHz and XM at 2332.5 to 2345MHz. While allegedly
a satellite based DAB system, much of the urban coverage is via
terrestrial repeaters, primarily to deal with "urban jungle" building
blockage. If 2.3Ghz works, certainly 1.5Ghz will also work.

Sirius uses a dual distribution system, with satellite and terrestrial.
In Europe they tried to use L-Band for terrestrial-only and that doesn't
work. You simply needed too many repeaters, making the system too expensive.

Satellite broadcasting does not work in Europe because there are many
markets. They are too small to make them viable targets. Band III
systems need less transmitters and can easily be split into many
markets. The end of analog TV freed up significant portions of the band
for digital radio (and other services sharing the multiplexes). Digital
TV is moving to UHF-only in many countries, even in less airspace than
before because governments want to cash in on frequencies for mobile
internet. No significant use has been decided (yet) for Band I frequencies.

gr, hwh

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/12/12 6:49 PM, SMS wrote:
I've only had a rental car with satellite radio once, but I was amazed
at how poor satellite radio performed. There apparently is little
buffering, so if I were under an overpass for more than a few seconds
the signal would be lost. The audio quality was mediocre. Maybe
satellite radio is good for Howard Stern, but not for music. I thought
that maybe the GM car I had simply had a sound system that didn't do
satellite radio justice. I see a lot of complaints about satellite radio
signal loss and audio quality, i.e. "their quality isn't even FM Quality."

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

gr, hwh

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/12/2012 8:40 AM, J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
over Internet streams ...

Broadcast radio station owners are living in a dream world if they think
listeners are going to put up with commercials and use their metered
smart phone data to listen to the radio.

If people pay for each kb of data then they'll subscribe to the paid
version of a Pandora-like service.

Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
is one of the central features of capitalism.

Well to be fair, radio isn't really free, it's paid for by advertising.
Nor has wireless bandwidth been free, it was just originally "too cheap
to meter" at least for what most users were able to consume.

Broadcast radio station owners should be thrilled that most of the
wireless companies are not offering unlimited data any more, and that
the ones that are prohibit streaming. This highlights broadcast radio's
value advantage.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/12/12 12:01 , SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 8:40 AM, J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
over Internet streams ...

Broadcast radio station owners are living in a dream world if they think
listeners are going to put up with commercials and use their metered
smart phone data to listen to the radio.


And yet, it happens every day. Not all data plans are as metered as
you think. And many smartphones have wi-fi provisions, so a local
network may be accessed. Couple that with spreading of community wi-fi
networks that are free for access, a good number of listeners do exactly
what you deny: they're putting up with commercials while listening on
their smartphones.



If people pay for each kb of data then they'll subscribe to the paid
version of a Pandora-like service.

Also, not true. For the reasons above.



Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
is one of the central features of capitalism.

Well to be fair, radio isn't really free, it's paid for by advertising.
Nor has wireless bandwidth been free, it was just originally "too cheap
to meter" at least for what most users were able to consume.

Broadcast radio station owners should be thrilled that most of the
wireless companies are not offering unlimited data any more, and that
the ones that are prohibit streaming


Also, not true. I can stream at will on my unlimited plan for my iPhone.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better. The difference is
in coverage. HD Radio coverage is very limited on stations that have not
taken advantage of the power increase.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/12/12 7:20 PM, SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Most stations use subchannels. There are very few stations using more
than 48 kbps. The difference between 46 and 48 kbps or something like
that will be hard to notice.
Of course the smart thing to do would be to use the digital for a second
service *only* and leave the first one on FM (for now). For instance an
owner of an AM and an FM station might simulcast the AM on the HD at 96
kbps to lure the audience over. The big saving would come when the AM
can be switched off. The FM would of course benefit when the FM goes as
well and the bandwidth goes up. A third station could be added then.


Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

Of course, but that is of no use at all for now and many years to come.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better.

Bitrates are similar, sound is similar. I tried both. There are a few
positive exceptions though, indeed some of the ones transmitting just
one service.

gr, hwh

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/12/2012 10:41 AM, hwh wrote:
On 1/12/12 7:20 PM, SMS wrote:
On 1/12/2012 9:53 AM, hwh wrote:

Funny that you say that, because they use an average of about 46 kbps,
which is actually over the average used for HD radio. That this is not
adequate to match FM is what we are trying to tell you for some time now.

Where did you get the idea that HD averages less than 46 kbps? If it's
HD1 only then it's 96 kbps. If there are sub-channels they divide that
up, but unless they have more than one sub-channel, the average could
not be less than 48 kbps.

Most stations use subchannels. There are very few stations using more
than 48 kbps. The difference between 46 and 48 kbps or something like
that will be hard to notice.
Of course the smart thing to do would be to use the digital for a second
service *only* and leave the first one on FM (for now). For instance an
owner of an AM and an FM station might simulcast the AM on the HD at 96
kbps to lure the audience over. The big saving would come when the AM
can be switched off. The FM would of course benefit when the FM goes as
well and the bandwidth goes up. A third station could be added then.


Also remember that once analog is turned off there will be 300 kb/s to
be divided up among the channels.

Of course, but that is of no use at all for now and many years to come.

In any case, there's no contest between the quality of audio on
satellite radio and HD Radio, HD Radio is far better.

Bitrates are similar, sound is similar. I tried both. There are a few
positive exceptions though, indeed some of the ones transmitting just
one service.

gr, hwh

48kbps is where listeners are react overwhelmingly favorable to HD. See
section 3.3.3 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_rate_report.pdf.
If you look at tables 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, you see that the big drop-off in
perceived quality is below 36 kbps.

Satellite radio is going well below 48kbps, down into the bit rates
where listeners are much more negative about digital audio. See
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=64686. Only
two music stations are at 64kbps, most are at 24, 32, and 40 kbps.

The endless complaints about the audio quality on satellite radio
apparently do have a basis in fact. You never see any complaints about
HD audio quality.

On HD Radio, the frame of reference for comparison is FM analog radio,
and HD sounds much better than analog FM under most circumstances,
whereas on satellite radio, apparently many subscribers expected it to
compare to CD quality, maybe because they are paying so much for it.

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:49:15 -0800, SMS
wrote:

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

It's ugly. There are 100 streams, each 8Kbits/sec. With two
channels, they're effectively 4Kbits/sec per channel. These are
conglomerated in the receiver into anything between 4 and 64Kbits/sec.
For music, it seems to hang around the upper end, but I'm not sure.
http://www.google.com/patents/US7075946?dq=7075946
I had XM in my car several years ago when they were giving away 30
days free trials. Coverage in the San Lorenzo Valley was horrible due
to trees, hills, and lack of terrestrial repeaters. The nearest are
two in San Jose.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!
 

On 1/12/2012 11:40 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:49:15 -0800,
wrote:

What is the bit rate for XM/Sirius music channels? I've seen people say
that it's as low as 32 kb/s, but that their streaming is 128 kb/s. But
if you're streaming, you may as well get Pandora rather than satellite.

It's ugly. There are 100 streams, each 8Kbits/sec.

I found a chart here http://www.xm411.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=33127.
It's nearly four years old, but since the satellite radio providers
obviously don't want to talk about bit rates, it'll have to do. It's
pretty clear where the complaints of audio quality on satellite are
coming from. Much lower than even free Pandora in most cases. I can only
imagine the kind of stuff we'd see posted here if digital terrestrial
radio tried to get away with some of those bit rates for music. I can
just imagine some of the radio conglomerates thinking about three 32
kbps digital music channels (or seven once analog is turned off).

What's amazing is that after coming close to failing, satellite radio in
the U.S. is now doing okay financially (not great, but the threat of
bankruptcy is over) so obviously there are many consumers for whom audio
quality is of minimal importance. They even raised prices recently. I
could buy a couple of hundred music CDs at garage sales for what it cost
for satellite radio for a year.

On long trips we like to listen to audio books, and most libraries have
a very good selection.