On 1/11/2012 9:26 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Oops. Well, that's been fixed, but the early history of the codec
selection is rather interesting.

You need to read a bit further in the article you quoted:

"Their concerns center mainly on digital AM broadcasts, where critics
point to questionable audio performance, sparse coverage and
interference with adjacent analog channels."

I don't think anyone here would argue that digital AM is a waste of time
and that there are valid concerns about it. Interference is a real
possibility on AM, though as we've seen even in ba.broadcast there's a
tendency for some people that are philosophically opposed to digital
radio to attribute _any_ AM interference to AM HD, even when the accused
AM station isn't even broadcasting in HD!

As I stated, there are valid reasons to be opposed to digital radio but
the quality of the audio on FM digital radio is not one of those reasons.