On 1/17/12 01:45 , Dave Barnett wrote:
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.

What's also not being addressed, is that stations are also processing
the dynamics on the HD streams. Like record companies do with CD audio.
Like ITunes does with MP3's. The way nearly all web audio, and satellite
radio audio is processed.

The comparison between processed and unprocessed audio in these
demonstrations implies that what will be heard on the air is, in fact,
unprocessed audio.

This is not the case.

So, virtually from the moment of implementation, HD radio fails to
live up to the promise.

What's also not being addressed, is that stations are also processing
the dynamics on the HD streams.

It's not being addressed because it's not true.

There is seperate processing. SOme stations don't use virtually any
processing at all on their HD streams.

On 1/20/12 15:22 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
What's also not being addressed, is that stations are also processing
the dynamics on the HD streams.

It's not being addressed because it's not true.


Even yet another case where you're denying a simple truth.
Stations ARE processing their HD streams. Sometimes as heavily as
their baseband streams. Which, with increased distortions and
digital artifacts from the lossy encoding algorithm, makes for some
pretty poor, significantly audible, unclean audio.

There is seperate processing. SOme stations don't use virtually any
processing at all on their HD streams.


Most, however, do.

And of the stations I work with, the call, every week from
Programming, and Manglement, is for more processing.

Something I have to adjust everytime I go up to the transmitter.

Now, I, personally, agree with Brenda Ann...there is really no
need for it, with today's audio, and with today's listening
environments...but Radio has never heard it that way.

So, manglement calls for more processing on the HD Streams.

Yes, it does happen. It happens quite a lot, actually.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 1/20/12 15:22 , FarsWatch4 wrote:
What's also not being addressed, is that stations are also processing
the dynamics on the HD streams.

It's not being addressed because it's not true.

Even yet another case where you're denying a simple truth. Stations ARE
processing their HD streams. Sometimes as heavily as their baseband
streams.

And many are not processing them at all.

But the truth is, that they are not processing it just like they do on the
broadcast band.

There is seperate processing. SOme stations don't use virtually any
processing at all on their HD streams.

Most, however, do.

I would say that MOST do not. (As someone currently working in the
industry.)

So, manglement calls for more processing on the HD Streams.

Yes, it does happen. It happens quite a lot, actually.


This is a vast generalization. No, it doesn't happen "quite a lot".