‘Could analog just be fine with the folks?

[audiophile.]

When my car was returned and I was able to recieve my HD2 I was again put in reality of what 48kbps of bandwidth + the right sound processor can blow away analog radio.

I disagree. The best codecs only produce acceptable results at 48 kpbs in stereo. The highs might have more dynamic range but they are smeared and 'chunky', sometimes they even sound like they're running through the blades of slow turning fan. Put your own personal voice through the HD-2 system and notice how much different you sound.

I good site for listening the some of the best AAC codecs in the world at 48k (and others) is http://www.opticodec.net/

Whatever the case, the promise of CD-quality HD radio is a simply not true when the bandwidth is sliced 3 ways...

 

[Chuck]

I suspect listening to digital audio is like a lot of things that you "get used to." Eventually your brain compensates, and it seems to sound fine. Once you have become acclimated to it, if you switch to normal analog audio it will sound odd at first. Try it. I’ve had that effect from satellite radio. At first, I think it sounds quite harsh, but shortly you find yourself compensating for the audio, and enjoying the content.

The same happens at loud rock concerts. Usually the first couple of songs sound awful, but eventually you learn to live with it and enjoy it. Sometimes it's because the sound engineer has made significant changes in his mix and system equalization, but more often than not it is simply your brain has learned to do a lot of compensating as well.

Psychoacoustics is a fascinating area.

 

[ElCheapo]

I suspect listening to digital audio is like a lot of things that you "get used to." Eventually your brain compensates, and it seems to sound fine. Once you have become acclimated to it, if you switch to normal analog audio it will sound odd at first. Try it. I’ve had that effect from satellite radio. At first, I think it sounds quite harsh, but shortly you find yourself compensating for the audio, and enjoying the content.

And sometimes it's what you want to perceive. To me, XM sounds horrible - far worse in terms of compression artifacts than anything I've heard on HD - probably because they're using a much lower bitrate per channel.

That said, I've talked to many XM fans who think it sounds absolutely amazing and FAR better than analog FM.

I always wonder what kind of crack they're smoking.

I guess if you're paying for radio, it's tough to admit the audio sounds worse than very low bitrate MP3s. "Digital" audio quality is one of the satcaster's big selling points - and people really buy into that.

When I was 16, I worked for about 6 months at a Best Buy store. I sold audio - car and home.

It always amazed me how many people walked into our "speaker theater" and refused to listen to anything but Bose. Bose makes speakers that are mediocre at best, but they have an INCREDIBLE marketing team and always have.

I'll never forget this one lady that walked in. She wanted to hear THE BOSE! Not only did she want to hear THE BOSE she wanted to hear their top of the line - which was the 901 at the time (it may still be.) At this time, the store was still fairly new and we hadn't yet received any 901 active equalizers (a device that plugs into your receiver's tape loop and flattens the frequency response of these speakers - they sound like crap without it.)

I explained this to her, but she wanted to hear them anyway, so I selected the 901s, and turned them up. Predictably, it was an overload of midrange with no highs and no lows.

She stood back, listened to them for a minute, then a wide smile came to her face - "Now THAT is what music is supposed to sound like!"

I hope she is still enjoying her active EQ-less 901s.

 

[RadioEngner]

I worked for a car stereo place I did part time sales and installation and I was still a part time radio engineer this was 20+ years ago, and I agree the non audiophile wanted to hear what the TV commercial promoted and that’s what they got. My comparison for HD vs. analog FM is. When CD's came into the picture yes the s/n ratio was almost non existent but to me the quality lacked for what I call warmth, it was missing something that vinyl supplied but we got used to it and now 20+ years later....what’s vinyl? Now that battle is between MP3 and CD, but the non audiophile really doesn't care about “what quality” it’s the song that matters

HD radio has its limitations and we all know its not CD quality and it won't be until they phase out the analog and I think that’s 10 years away at the earliest, if ever. As for HD not being CD quality neither was the 45 or 33 rpm records but they sounded great and nobody ever complained about good ole' vinyl sounding like crap. But if the sound processing for HD is set up to curve the limitations of the bandwidth and remember that there is no noise floor to contend with when setting up the limiters then you can have a product that is marketable to the new consumer who might be interested in HD radio. I have spent over a week fine tuning the sound on HD2 and HD3 and I am very happy with the results, are their noticeable limitations to this, to the trained ear yes. but I am still very pleased with the quality of HD.

I also like the prospects of FMeXtra; I wouldn’t mind seeing a digital hybrid for FM. I believe that this could have won the battle over Ibiguity except in the long run the analog carrier must remain constant for this to stay active and Ibiguity as we all know the analog can go away

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I worked for a car stereo place I did part time sales and installation and I was still a part time radio engineer this was 20+ years ago, and I agree the non audiophile wanted to hear what the TV commercial promoted and that’s what they got. My comparison for HD vs. analog FM is. When CD's came into the picture yes the s/n ratio was almost non existent but to me the quality lacked for what I call warmth, it was missing something that vinyl supplied but we got used to it and now 20+ years later....what’s vinyl? Now that battle is between MP3 and CD, but the non audiophile really doesn't care about “what quality” it’s the song that matters

HD radio has its limitations and we all know its not CD quality and it won't be until they phase out the analog and I think that’s 10 years away at the earliest, if ever. As for HD not being CD quality neither was the 45 or 33 rpm records but they sounded great and nobody ever complained about good ole' vinyl sounding like crap. But if the sound processing for HD is set up to curve the limitations of the bandwidth and remember that there is no noise floor to contend with when setting up the limiters then you can have a product that is marketable to the new consumer who might be interested in HD radio. I have spent over a week fine tuning the sound on HD2 and HD3 and I am very happy with the results, are their noticeable limitations to this, to the trained ear yes. but I am still very pleased with the quality of HD.

I also like the prospects of FMeXtra; I wouldn’t mind seeing a digital hybrid for FM. I believe that this could have won the battle over Ibiguity except in the long run the analog carrier must remain constant for this to stay active and Ibiguity as we all know the analog can go away

FM is a very good, constant amplitude transmission method with a capture ratio digital does not have.
What is wrong with FM modulation carrying a number of digital subcarrier streams, even if the main analog modulation is eventually dropped, and even more (or higher bit rate) digital subcarrier streams added?
There are simply no need or benefits to HD Radio, and a great many defects, problems, complications, expense, incompatibilities, coverage problems, interference, unrealistic promises and ridiculous hype.

 

[ElCheapo]

I worked for a car stereo place I did part time sales and installation and I was still a part time radio engineer this was 20+ years ago, and I agree the non audiophile wanted to hear what the TV commercial promoted and that’s what they got. My comparison for HD vs. analog FM is. When CD's came into the picture yes the s/n ratio was almost non existent but to me the quality lacked for what I call warmth, it was missing something that vinyl supplied but we got used to it and now 20+ years later....what’s vinyl? Now that battle is between MP3 and CD, but the non audiophile really doesn't care about “what quality” it’s the song that matters

HD radio has its limitations and we all know its not CD quality and it won't be until they phase out the analog and I think that’s 10 years away at the earliest, if ever. As for HD not being CD quality neither was the 45 or 33 rpm records but they sounded great and nobody ever complained about good ole' vinyl sounding like crap. But if the sound processing for HD is set up to curve the limitations of the bandwidth and remember that there is no noise floor to contend with when setting up the limiters then you can have a product that is marketable to the new consumer who might be interested in HD radio. I have spent over a week fine tuning the sound on HD2 and HD3 and I am very happy with the results, are their noticeable limitations to this, to the trained ear yes. but I am still very pleased with the quality of HD.

I also like the prospects of FMeXtra; I wouldn’t mind seeing a digital hybrid for FM. I believe that this could have won the battle over Ibiguity except in the long run the analog carrier must remain constant for this to stay active and Ibiguity as we all know the analog can go away

FM is a very good, constant amplitude transmission method with a capture ratio digital does not have.
What is wrong with FM modulation carrying a number of digital subcarrier streams, even if the main analog modulation is eventually dropped, and even more (or higher bit rate) digital subcarrier streams added?
There are simply no need or benefits to HD Radio, and a great many defects, problems, complications, expense, incompatibilities, coverage problems, interference, unrealistic promises and ridiculous hype.

And of course there's HD's biggest problem - non stop whining on this site!

 

[700WLW]

I worked for a car stereo place I did part time sales and installation and I was still a part time radio engineer this was 20+ years ago, and I agree the non audiophile wanted to hear what the TV commercial promoted and that’s what they got. My comparison for HD vs. analog FM is. When CD's came into the picture yes the s/n ratio was almost non existent but to me the quality lacked for what I call warmth, it was missing something that vinyl supplied but we got used to it and now 20+ years later....what’s vinyl? Now that battle is between MP3 and CD, but the non audiophile really doesn't care about “what quality” it’s the song that matters

HD radio has its limitations and we all know its not CD quality and it won't be until they phase out the analog and I think that’s 10 years away at the earliest, if ever. As for HD not being CD quality neither was the 45 or 33 rpm records but they sounded great and nobody ever complained about good ole' vinyl sounding like crap. But if the sound processing for HD is set up to curve the limitations of the bandwidth and remember that there is no noise floor to contend with when setting up the limiters then you can have a product that is marketable to the new consumer who might be interested in HD radio. I have spent over a week fine tuning the sound on HD2 and HD3 and I am very happy with the results, are their noticeable limitations to this, to the trained ear yes. but I am still very pleased with the quality of HD.

I also like the prospects of FMeXtra; I wouldn’t mind seeing a digital hybrid for FM. I believe that this could have won the battle over Ibiguity except in the long run the analog carrier must remain constant for this to stay active and Ibiguity as we all know the analog can go away

FM is a very good, constant amplitude transmission method with a capture ratio digital does not have.
What is wrong with FM modulation carrying a number of digital subcarrier streams, even if the main analog modulation is eventually dropped, and even more (or higher bit rate) digital subcarrier streams added?
There are simply no need or benefits to HD Radio, and a great many defects, problems, complications, expense, incompatibilities, coverage problems, interference, unrealistic promises and ridiculous hype.

And of course there's HD's biggest problem - non stop whining on this site!

Actually, HD's biggest problem that it is a joke, and consumers could care less !

 

[ElCheapo]

Actually, HD's biggest problem that it is a joke, and consumers could care less !

I rest my case...

 

[audiophile.]

I suspect listening to digital audio is like a lot of things that you "get used to." Eventually your brain compensates, and it seems to sound fine. Once you have become acclimated to it, if you switch to normal analog audio it will sound odd at first. Try it. I’ve had that effect from satellite radio. At first, I think it sounds quite harsh, but shortly you find yourself compensating for the audio, and enjoying the content.

The same happens at loud rock concerts. Usually the first couple of songs sound awful, but eventually you learn to live with it and enjoy it. Sometimes it's because the sound engineer has made significant changes in his mix and system equalization, but more often than not it is simply your brain has learned to do a lot of compensating as well.

Psychoacoustics is a fascinating area.

Your brain will compensate for EQ errors, but distortion and audio that sounds like it's running through a fan are harder to overlook.

 

[Chuck]

Your brain will compensate for EQ errors, but distortion and audio that sounds like it's running through a fan are harder to overlook.

That usually manifests itself as listener fatigue. Women are usually more sensitive to it than men, and younger people have seem to have more tolerance to these things than older people do.

Maybe that's why a recent article in a radio trade magazine said that all HD stations needed to be programmed by people under 30.