Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
edit:
September 1st, @03:04PM
|  Take the simulated HD radio test drive?
Talk about dirty rotten lies. Listen to their simulated comparisons of Am/Fm and their supposed HD sound.
My 10 year old ANALOG RADIO sounds 1000% better than this crap!!
They are just trying to push this garbage and my opinion is: GET IT OFF OUR ANALOG BANDS!!!
I tell ya something is wrong when they have to degrade the sound of Am/Fm on purpose to make their system sound better. My GE superradio sounds just as good if not better! (IBOC is pure crap)
»www.hdradio.com/how_does_hd_digi···ound.php |
|
Thane_Bitter
join:2005-01-20
London, ON
| I am familiar with DAB, the digital radio equivalent over in Europe, but was not even aware digital radio was available over here other then satellite (Sirus/XM).
EDIT - well shucks, looks like some places in North America do broadcast in DAB - but there are no HD radio stations in Canada, only the US).
It is not about quality (though that is how they are marketing it - most people would assume HD stands for High Definition rather then a trademark), it is about making more money by selling monthly access subscriptions (and licensing the technology as well).
The sad thing is eventually this will knock analogue off the air. 
"The medium is the message" Marshall McLuhan
--
...A bitter ray of sunshine |
|
IllIlIlllIll
Elitedata
Premium
join:2003-07-06
Lindenhurst, NY
| reply to Dude111
the only thing i see coming out of this that makes it worthwhile is the sub-channels for each station.
that means more stations to choose from.
--
S.C.P.D. Live Scanner Feed
N.C.P.D. Live Scanner Feed |
|
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA | reply to Dude111
Yes but that isnt worth what we are losing in my opinion (GOOD SOUND,etc)
DXing is getting harder from .53 to 1.7Mhz because of this IBOC crap..... |
|
NoCommercials4Me
@comcast.net | reply to Dude111
After enjoying commercial-free music on XM for so many years now, I can't believe believe AM/FM is still around. |
|
Jahntassa
What, I can have feathers
join:2006-04-14
Conway, SC
| reply to Thane_Bitter
said by Thane_Bitter  :It is not about quality (though that is how they are marketing it - most people would assume HD stands for High Definition rather then a trademark), it is about making more money by selling monthly access subscriptions (and licensing the technology as well). As you're in Canada i'll correct you.
HD Radio is not a subscription service. Satellite however, is. HD Radio is just the cost of the receiver (plus the cost of advertising you have to listen to on the 'side' digital stations.) |
|
Thane_Bitter
join:2005-01-20
London, ON
| said by Jahntassa :HD Radio is not a subscription service. Satellite however, is. HD Radio is just the cost of the receiver (plus the cost of advertising you have to listen to on the 'side' digital stations.) Opps, yes your right Jahntassa, HD radio doesn't carry a consumer subscription cost, my mistake. 
I wonder why the FCC opted for iBiquity's HD system over the DAB standard.
--
...A bitter ray of sunshine |
|
alphapointe
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-10
Columbia, MO
clubs:
 ·Mediacom
| said by Thane_Bitter :I wonder why the FCC opted for iBiquity's HD system over the DAB standard. Probably because iBiquity lined some pockets at the FCC... |
|
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
| reply to Dude111
On the other side of the argument though, HD/Digital Radio in general brings the same advantages that the likes of the current OTA DTV does and more.
Take this scenario for example: You have a favorite station that still has REAL live on-air personalities and is in your genre of music as well. But it's just distant enough that you can only pull it in somewhat clear in the evening and either have it half clobbered with static during the day or just stomped on by another station from the opposite direction.
HD/Digital radio would help cure this up to a point. It only needs enough signal to differentiate between 0s and 1s and that's often much less than that needed to have a crisp static-free analog signal. In addition, HD radio has the added benefit of bitrate fallback if it can't keep up in a really low signal environment or a seamless transfer back to analog in a worst case scenario.
I do agree though that the whole iBOC system was horridly designed in favor of the license holders and the US would have been much better off to have used the DAB standard instead.
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz |
|
disconnected
@sbcglobal.net
| IBOC has within it's protocols, the future ability to encrypt broadcasts, so it's quite possible that once analog is bannished, digital radio will become subscription-based.
The big problem with IBOC, politically, is that the high cost of the equipment places a nearly impossible barrier to entry for independant fledgling stations. Large conglomerates can afford the $50K exciter, a couple hundred grand for the combiners and new antennas, but the small stations that are barely breaking even will not afford it. It's another case of stacking the odds in favor of Big Broadcasting. |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
edit:
September 6th, @02:02AM
| reply to Dude111
I listened to an HD radio at the Sony outlet in Seattle last weekend.
I would have to say I was not impressed, CD quality my butt, it sounded about as good as a 128K MP3 to me...
I guess for free it's "ok", but the radios are still too expensive and I don't think any HD signal reaches all the way up here. |
|
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to Dude111
quote:
I would have to say I was not impressed, CD quality my butt, it sounded about as good as a 128K MP3 to me...
Exactly right......
Digital cannot produce the same sound,ANALOG is the best/most pure sound... |
|
SmokChsr
Who let the magic smoke out?
Premium
join:2006-03-17
Saint Augustine, FL
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to Dude111
said by Dude111 :DXing is getting harder from .53 to 1.7Mhz because of this IBOC crap..... The Majority of the AM IBOC are getting turned off. (cause they aren't working).
Sound quality? you want sound quality? What kind of weirdo are you? it's all about being "DIGITAL!" it's new stuff so it must be better. So you've got digital artifact, compression, lost bits, it's digital it's better! remember that!  |
|
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA | reply to Dude111
Yes i know........
People were idiotic way back thinking DIGITAL is better..... DIGITAL IS GARBAGE!!
From cell phones to Ipods,they all sound like crap........(To me anyway) -- Analog sounds much better! |
|
TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·800Hosting.com
·Dreamhost
·TELUS
·Shaw
edit:
September 11th, @07:31PM
| Lol they make it sound like AM and FM radio have horrible frequency response. Actually their demonstration is more like comparing a CB radio to AM radio.
If I'm not mistaking, a good strong FM signal can actually have better-than-CD quality in terms of distortion and noise levels. A good radio receiver (and antenna if external) is all you need. Yeah, of course the cheap radios you pick up at the dollar store are gonna suck.
The reason why I don't listen to FM radio anymore? Too much crap, especially the commercials it's getting really terrible. Some stations have nearly 50% of their airtime used up just by commercials.
So I find myself a good high-bitrate and ad-free internet radio station and call it a day, but not because of the quality. |
|
Dude111
An Awesome Dude
Premium
join:2003-08-04
USA
| reply to Dude111
quote:
Lol they make it sound like AM and FM radio have horrible frequency response. Actually their demonstration is more like comparing a CB radio to AM radio.
Yes they are clearly wanting people who dont know the first thing about radio to get reeled in by thier lies...... |
|
SmokChsr
Who let the magic smoke out?
Premium
join:2006-03-17
Saint Augustine, FL
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to TheMG
said by TheMG :If I'm not mistaking, a good strong FM signal can actually have better-than-CD quality in terms of distortion and noise levels. A good radio receiver (and antenna if external) is all you need. Yeah, of course the cheap radios you pick up at the dollar store are gonna suck. Not exactly true, keep in mind that FM signals are limited to 15 KHz audio frequency response. FM does have noise, and it has preemphsis. All of which do limit its capabilities.
AM is limited by NRSC-2 which requires a roll off at 9.5 KHz. Add to that cheep narrow band receiver circuits. The typical AM receiver on the market can barely pass 3.5 KHz of audio on the AM band.
Now what I do want to pick on is the way they did the audio in the simulation. In the supposed terrestrial sections more than anything they rolled off the bass. EXCUSE ME??? the bass?? The Bass passes extremely well on analog. What can I say marketers, they are just like politicians. |
|
TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·800Hosting.com
·Dreamhost
·TELUS
·Shaw
| said by SmokChsr :Not exactly true, keep in mind that FM signals are limited to 15 KHz audio frequency response. FM does have noise, and it has preemphsis. All of which do limit its capabilities. Hmmm I guess that's true, maybe it was 'near CD quality', not 'better than'. |
|
batsona
Maryland
join:2004-04-17
Ellicott City, MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Vonage
| reply to Dude111
It's all in the bitrate. CD-quality sound is 172KByte/sec. that sounds pretty good. now, a cellphone is digital too, but its sampling rate is MUCH less (can someone post info about this rate..?) this is why all cellphones sound like you're in a tin-can, 1,500 mi away...
also, does anyone know what the sampling-rate is for HD Radio? Is it close to, or exceeding 172KByte/sec? |
|
alphapointe
Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-10
Columbia, MO
clubs:
·Mediacom
edit:
September 15th, @09:37AM
| said by batsona : now, a cellphone is digital too, but its sampling rate is MUCH less (can someone post info about this rate..?) The GSM codec is between 6 and 13kbps, I don't know about CDMA, but I'd imagine it's similar.
GSM has used a variety of voice codecs to squeeze 3.1 kHz audio into between 5.6 and 13 kbit/s. Originally, two codecs, named after the types of data channel they were allocated, were used, called Half Rate (5.6 kbit/s) and Full Rate (13 kbit/s). These used a system based upon linear predictive coding (LPC). In addition to being efficient with bitrates, these codecs also made it easier to identify more important parts of the audio, allowing the air interface layer to prioritize and better protect these parts of the signal.
GSM was further enhanced in 1997[11] with the Enhanced Full Rate (EFR) codec, a 12.2 kbit/s codec that uses a full rate channel. Finally, with the development of UMTS, EFR was refactored into a variable-rate codec called AMR-Narrowband, which is high quality and robust against interference when used on full rate channels, and less robust but still relatively high quality when used in good radio conditions on half-rate channels.
From the GSM wikipedia article..
Edited to clarify infomation...It pays to look stuff up before quoting it...  |
|
