HD Radio has no "sound"

[Mike Walker]

Is anyone else getting tired of people lamenting HD Radios poor "sound"? Here's a news flash: HD RADIO HAS NO SOUND! It (IBOC) is a method of delivering packets of information from point a to point d. Now CODECS, they have a sound. Actually, an infinite variety of "sounds", depending upon bitrate, audio, and the quality and amount of pre-processing.

"OK", you say, "so HDC sounds bad". Not so fast, Buster! You can't generalize about codecs with catch-alls like "MP3 sounds bad", or "AAC+ sounds bad". Because codecs aren't one thing, locked in place. They're a combination of standards. For instance, no well designed codec at 20kbps in mono is doing the same thing to the signal as the same codec at 96kbps in stereo. No codec band-limited to 15khz is doing the same thing as one without such restructions (hint: at low bitrates, the band-limited one WILL SOUND BETTER!)

Show me a codec that an almost deaf person could detect 100 percent of the time at 32kbps, and I'll show you one that might just pass double-blind testing close to 100 percent of the time at 96kbps.

So regardless of what you think about HD Radio, you do yourself and your argument no favors with generalizations such as "HD Radio sounds bad". I wonder how many people who complain about spectral replication on HD Radio enjoy XM or internet radio (with aac+, mp3 pro, or another codec) which ALSO uses spectral replication. Many of the same names who have bitched about the "bad sound" of HD Radio have enthused on the wonders of internet and satellite radio...which of course often use nearly identical codecs, with identical coding issues. Perhaps a little thought would keep all of us from digging such obvious metaphorical holes in which to bury flawed arguments!

 

[hipporadio]

Mike... Very simply” “What’s WRONG with ANALOG FM that is processed and transmitted prudently? FOR DECADES, WFMT—Chicago has been that market’s leader in fine arts programming. Back in the 80s, CE—Alfred Antlitz BUILT HIS OWN CONSOLES and PROCESSING [called the “Antlizer”] for the 98.7 transmission. FANS AGREED—WFMT WAS TOPS in audio quality. It was a tue “ICON” of “FM audio quality”.

Today, WFMT STILL survives—and it is THE ONLY full-power commercial station in Market #3 that DOES NOT transmit in “HD Radio”!

 

[Mike Walker]

Hipporadio, thee's nothing wrong with analog FM. We've both heard EXCELLENT audio from analog FM over the years (imho lots less of it now than 25-30 years ago, before the digital blaster-boxes from Orban and others). But analog FM has ALWAYS been plagued with limited coverage for noise-free stereo (it IS 20db noisier than mono much beyond the city), and the pre-emphasis curve that allows FM to be either loud, or bright, never both.

Digital solves these problems, allows (with a good antenna) dead-silent background many miles beyond where noise-free analog FM stereo is possible (in my experience), AND the possibility of multicasting...RETURNING classical music (and other missing formats) to those of us who don't live near a WFMT!

What's wrong with analog? Nothing. It has a long life ahead...alongside newer, more efficient digital!

 

[hipporadio]

Mike, you make a decent point; but. I MUST ADMIT, I LIKE ANALOG AUDIO on FM! It’s NOT about “anti-digital” on FM—I like CDs that are presented in non-losey 44.1 format—re-mastered to their pristine. I love a station [like WFMT]-playing Aaron Copeland at his best—then would I enjoy “Frat-FM” playing “Hair-Bands ‘n Rock ‘n Roll Hazers” with a barley-wiggling VU-meter! I guess I subscribe to the “Randy M. School of Radio”... I consider the source!

HD Radio—even on the MAIN CHANNEL does NOT offer compelling audio! IT’S DEAD... And the side channels are little-better than “an internet experience”—and they have THE SAME drop-outs! Essentially, THIS IS NOT A GOOD TECHNOLOGY... Reception is TERRIBLE! I have [now] had in my hands—a “good HD FM receiver” and NOT received “lock” or HD-2 a mere 40-MILES across water on a 100kw FM [a full Class-C] on a THIRD-generation receiver. WHAT can you say about this, Mike? Is THIS 'technology" the consumer should be expected to pay for?

 

[Ray22]

But your "perfect" HD-1 96kbs (split that in half for stereo) audio is NOT used by most of the IBOCers. Since many stations want HD-2 and HD-3 channels all of sudden now you have the "perfect" HD-1 reduced to 48kbs or less and that is also cut in half to get stereo channels. Get real...some of us out here can actually hear that the HD-1 isn't "perfect" at that point. Also, while "real world" driving around in actual hilly "real" cities the HD-1, 2, and 3's have less coverage than the "very excellent" analog.
The hype somehow is that when the analog gets noisy, boy the digital HD-1 will kick in and give you "noise free" audio. Just the opposite happens. When the radio gets enough signal that the digital signal is stable and strong, the analog is also excellent. It could have been designed differently but wasn't.

 

[Mike Walker]

Uh, you don't "split that in half for stereo". That isn't the way the codec works. 96kbps stereo isn't just two 48kbps streams (ARRGH!) Think of stereo as two components...NO NOT left and right, but sum and difference (which is also what FM stereo transmits). There is what's common to the two channels (most of the information to some degree) and what's different.

96kbps would have been a shockingly low bitrate if this were 1998, and the codec was mp3. It isn't, and it isn't. The science of coding has marched on, and today's codecs are far more efficient...i.e. they can encode with equal quality at far lower bitrates.

Claims of big losses due to the codecs just don't hold up to double-blind testing. It's not as if these codecs just appeared on the scene. They're the result of many years of audibility TESTING.

Probably the best engineered station in North Carolina is WDAV (89.9) in Davidson NC (north of Charlotte). WDAV is one of the very few remaining fulltime classical stations (NPR affiliates have long-since learned that they get far more pledge money, and have far more listeners with talk). I've always found WDAV's audio to be of extremely high quality. But the first time I heard it in HD was a revelation. A layer of distortion that I never noticed before is lifted. Recordings are no longer an unfocused mess, but of pristine perfection, with each instrument in an ensemble easily discernible. Despite the fact that it's at least 60 miles away, WDAV puts a MONSTER signal into my antenna. I had never noticed background noise. But when the radio switches to digital, I sure as hell notice it's absence. After all, HD is as much as 30db quieter than the quietest analog FM stereo.

Look, once upon a time I thought dolby c recordings were quiet. Then I heard cd.

I'm not dismissing those who say "HD sounds bad". Much of it does. But it's not as simple as "analog is good, digital is bad". HD (and analog) can sound excellent, or awful, depending upon the quality of the engineering at a particular station. Good analog will always sound better than bad digital. I have many lps that are immensely more enjoyable than the cd versions. That doesn't mean that lp is superior technology! But you're right that analog can sound much better than most people will ever know. Those of us over 45 remember when FM stereo reoutinely DID sound much better. But that ship has sailed. We're not going back. And we shouldn't. Future engineering advances will be on the digital side, not analog. We're a larger, far more diverse country now than when "analog ruled", and digital technology addresses that (with multicasting).

Yes I believe digital CAN "sound" better. But as far as eventual market success, I believe that's the least important factor. Diversity of programming options will win the day, IF those programming options actually answer unserved needs in the community.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

HD Radio has no "sound"

No listeners=no "sound".

 

[Mike Walker]

I'm a listener. And there are many others. More every day.

 

[JohnnyElectron]

IF, and this is a big IF, local stations go to their local Best Buy and have they get their freakin' HD radios WORKING in the store, they will sell, as they are FINALLY low enough in cost - IF they can perform.

BB now has a housebranded $120 HD-car radio (not on display), a $150 HD combo unit (that sucked), and the Sony tabletop HD (that just needs antennaes adjusted properly in the store to work).

So the listener CAN come to the HD table - but we still need a programming reason to show up at the table (at least locally the 3 CC HD2 formats are crap, and the 4 Cumulus stations are HD1 only as they don't want to pay the fees for HD2).

 

[SUPERCASTER]

I'm a listener. And there are many others. More every day.

I'm referring to real listeners. Ordinary people who are not HD DXers or in the broadcast industry, who (used to) listen to the radio for entertainment and information, and who are not "early adopters" who buy into almost any new technology just to be first on their block. The "early adopters" are soon off buying the "next new thing" and abandon listening to their HD radios after a short time. Broadcast industry personnel often have other reasons and motivations for listening to HD radio and their opinions about the HD radio technology are often influenced by other factors.

After several years of incredible HD radio hype, intense support, promotion, and lobbying from the HD cartel, Arbitron still can't find enough HD radio listeners to publish any HD radio ratings.

An HD radio signal makes no sound unless someone is listening. Not many are.