Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 15th 12, 02:17 PM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2010
Posts: 27
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use
any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and
presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse.


And that is the sad reality of the situation.

And if the FM band is ever cleared of analog stations, by the time
that that happens, iBiquity HD radio will be a dinosaur in the
broadcasting world, like eight tracks cassettes are in the CD world.

The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what
digital system could be developed for future use, rather than
continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio.
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 15th 12, 05:02 PM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2010
Posts: 63
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

On 15/01/2012 14:17, J G Miller wrote:


The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what
digital system could be developed for future use, rather than
continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio.


Agreed.

We did have high hopes for DRM+, and what they developed was a pretty
good narrow band broadcasting standard, although not as good as it could
have been, mostly due to not using the best error correction. Also I
think they should have extended it's frequency range up to Band III.
That would allow one DAB channel to be used for many small local radio
stations.

For wider band multiplexes, we appear to have got exactly what we needed
with DVB-T2-Lite. The problem now is whether it ever actually gets used
for radio.

I'm also thinking, perhaps they ought to come out with a version of DVB
to rival DRM+. Basically a narrow band version of DVB-T2-Lite. Perhaps
they could call it DVB-TN or something like that. Basically use any
relevant techniques used for T2-Lite but designed for much narrower
channels. Perhaps a choice of 100Khz or 200Khz bandwidth. (The reason
why I included 200Khz is for situations where a broadcaster can not use
Qam64, in which case a wider bandwidth would be required to achieve a
good bit rate).

I would also suggest that a narrow band standard should also be designed
to be able work well in SFN mode. The problem here would be signals from
different TX sites being out of phase and so cancelling each other out.
I think this problem could be solved by allowing the phase of the
transmission to be changed randomly at regular intervals. Different TX
sites could then change their phase in different ways, so if the signal
cancels at one moment in time, the phases would soon change, and then it
would no longer cancel.

Richard E.
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 15th 12, 05:33 PM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
SMS SMS is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 66
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use
any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and
presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse.


And that is the sad reality of the situation.


Thankfully that is not the reality at all.

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.

The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what
digital system could be developed for future use, rather than
continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio.


Only clueless listeners and radio stations would be asking that
question. Those living in the real world know that the digital system in
use in the U.S. is going to be around for a long time. And as HD
continues to be deployed in other countries, there will be pressure for
the ROW to go along with it as well. That's the actual reality of the
situation.
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 15th 12, 05:46 PM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2010
Posts: 63
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

On 15/01/2012 17:33, SMS wrote:
On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use
any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and
presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse.


And that is the sad reality of the situation.


Thankfully that is not the reality at all.

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.


To me that table seems to suggest that more than 1/2 the listeners could
tell the difference between a slightly lower it rate, and a slightly
higher bit rate.

Where is there a table showing how many people thought lower bit rates
sounded OK, or were comparable to CD quality, or even comparable to FM
quality.

Of did they conveniently not include things like this, as it did not
show what they wanted.



The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what
digital system could be developed for future use, rather than
continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio.


Only clueless listeners and radio stations would be asking that
question. Those living in the real world know that the digital system in
use in the U.S. is going to be around for a long time.


It may well be around for a long time, but whether people actually want
to listen to it is another matter.

Here in the UK we've had DAB for about 15 years now, but still only a
minority of people actually listen to it.

And as HD
continues to be deployed in other countries, there will be pressure for
the ROW to go along with it as well. That's the actual reality of the
situation.


I think perhaps you accidentally added an "s" to the end of the word
country ;-)

But seriously. What other countries are actually seriously deploying
HD-Radio. I suspect the answer will be very few, if any.

Richard E.
  #5   Report Post  
Old January 15th 12, 05:52 PM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2010
Posts: 63
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

On 15/01/2012 17:33, SMS wrote:


The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what
digital system could be developed for future use, rather than
continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio.


Only clueless listeners and radio stations would be asking that
question. Those living in the real world know that the digital system in
use in the U.S. is going to be around for a long time. And as HD
continues to be deployed in other countries, there will be pressure for
the ROW to go along with it as well. That's the actual reality of the
situation.


And what is so wrong with the idea of developing good modern digital
broadcast systems, instead of using old out dated system like DAB and
HD-Radio.

When I bought my new computer, I didn't buy a Sinclair ZX spectrum. I
bought a modern Laptop.

Richard E.


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 15th 12, 06:01 PM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Aug 2010
Posts: 63
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

On 15/01/2012 17:33, 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.


Why don't you just record a sample of HD radio audio,
encode it into FLAC format, and the upload it for us,
so that we can judge the audio quality with our own ears.
Or are you worried that we will find out just how bad it sounds.

Richard E.
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 16th 12, 11:40 AM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
RHF RHF is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,652
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

On Jan 15, 9:33*am, SMS wrote:
On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote:

On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:


Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use
any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and
presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse.


And that is the sad reality of the situation.


Thankfully that is not the reality at all.

If you look at table 5.2.1 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_r...
you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality.

The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what
digital system could be developed for future use, rather than
continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio.


- Only clueless listeners and radio stations
- would be asking that question. Those living
- in the real world know that the digital system
- in use in the U.S. is going to be around for
- a long time. And as HD continues to be deployed
- in other countries, there will be pressure for
- the ROW to go along with it as well.
- That's the actual reality of the situation.

OOPS! -sad-reality-:-but-very-true-

Generating Radio Listener {Consumer} Interest
in Digital "HD" Radio and sell new "HD" FM Radios.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...0896f2d354a658
-by- Expanding the present FM Radio Band; and
making it an All Digital "HD" Radio FM Band

More FM Radio Channels and Digital 'HD' Sound !
-yes-we-are-selling-the-'sizzle'-not-the-steak-

As always this is RHF and...
I'll leave the Radio 'On' ~ RHF
www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1jpxlEPHX8
-ps-:-turn-your-radio-'on'-&-just-listen-)-
  #8   Report Post  
Old January 16th 12, 04:07 PM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2012
Posts: 6
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

On 1/16/2012 3:40 AM, RHF wrote:
On Jan 15, 9:33 am, wrote:
On 1/15/2012 6:17 AM, J G Miller wrote:

On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 12:11:07h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:


Add to this the fact that most HD-Radio broadcasters, don't actually use
any bit rates higher than 40k. At 40k even aac+ sounds poor, and
presumably the HD-Radio codec will sound even worse.


And that is the sad reality of the situation.


Thankfully that is not the reality at all.

If you look at table 5.2.1 at
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/Non-NRSC%20reports/NPRmultiple_bit_r...
you can actually learn where listeners begin to not like the audio quality.

The question listeners and radio stations should be asking is, what
digital system could be developed for future use, rather than
continuing with the present failures of DAB and HD(tm) radio.


- Only clueless listeners and radio stations
- would be asking that question. Those living
- in the real world know that the digital system
- in use in the U.S. is going to be around for
- a long time. And as HD continues to be deployed
- in other countries, there will be pressure for
- the ROW to go along with it as well.
- That's the actual reality of the situation.

OOPS! -sad-reality-:-but-very-true-


It's not sad at all. IBOC was chosen in the U.S. for some very good reasons:

1. Expands content choices with no additional bandwidth
2. Improves audio quality (or at least perceived audio quality) to radio
listeners
3. Provides a clear path to all-digital while protecting existing
broadcasters.

Do you think that both broadcasters and the FCC was not aware of the
drawbacks of the IBOC approach during the transition to all digital FM?
In fact they clearly stated what the drawbacks were and decided that the
benefits were worth it.

Personally I think they might have just left AM alone and let AM
continue its slow decline rather than make another attempt to improve
it. We saw where "AM Stereo" went. However, to be fair, AM-HD is simply
piggybacking onto the success and desirability FM-HD, something that AM
Stereo did not have the advantage of doing.
  #9   Report Post  
Old January 16th 12, 07:09 PM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 300
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of All Time" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:07:05 -0800, sms88
wrote:

Do you think that both broadcasters and the FCC was not aware of the
drawbacks of the IBOC approach during the transition to all digital FM?


Of course they were. But money talks much more louder than
engineering with the present incarnation of my former employer.
---
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

  #10   Report Post  
Old January 17th 12, 07:45 AM posted to ba.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Default Fox News 2012: HD Radio one of "The Biggest CES Flops of AllTime" LMFAO!!!!!!!!!

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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Struble on Zune HD: "But in many ways, it did more for HD Radio thanhad been hoped." LMFAO!!! SMSbuster Shortwave 0 March 16th 11 06:33 PM
NRA Flip-Flops -FAUX plays the "brown note" & the Stupid buyguns? Joe from Kokomo[_2_] Shortwave 5 March 10th 10 01:47 AM
NRA Flip-Flops -FAUX plays the "brown note" & the Stupid buy guns? swiggy[_2_] Shortwave 1 March 9th 10 02:40 AM
NRA Flip-Flops -FAUX plays the "brownnote" & the Stupid buy ... [email protected] Shortwave 1 March 7th 10 05:39 AM
"Screw you HD radio" LMFAO! [email protected] Shortwave 5 July 22nd 08 01:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:23 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017