Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Struble on Zune HD: "But in many ways, it did more for HD Radio thanhad been hoped." LMFAO!!! | Shortwave | |||
NRA Flip-Flops -FAUX plays the "brown note" & the Stupid buyguns? | Shortwave | |||
NRA Flip-Flops -FAUX plays the "brown note" & the Stupid buy guns? | Shortwave | |||
NRA Flip-Flops -FAUX plays the "brownnote" & the Stupid buy ... | Shortwave | |||
"Screw you HD radio" LMFAO! | Shortwave |