On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:35:18 -0800, sms88
wrote:

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."

Note the word "mainly". There apparently were also concerns over FM
quality.

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

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

Note the word "mainly". There apparently were also concerns over FM
quality.

Only by the diehard HD Haterz.

On 1/11/2012 10:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:35:18 -0800,
wrote:

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."

Note the word "mainly". There apparently were also concerns over FM
quality.

Unlikely. It's just a weasel word inserted by the author. If there were
concerns about FM quality then they would have raised them. You can see
by the independent tests of audio quality that FM digital consistently
ranks much higher in quality than FM analog. Perhaps the concern on FM
was that they thought "near CD quality" wasn't enough and they wanted
better than CD quality.