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.