S
SignalSeeker
Guest
Tune into CSpan-2 Tonight at 8:00 PM Eastern (7 May 2007) to hear Robert Struble of Ibiquity describe the goals of HD radio. The topic is mistakenly labled, High Definition Radio.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
HD radio mistakenly labled High Definition on CSpan2 Intervue Toninght at 8PM
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Actually it's not a mistake. Ibiquity says that "HD" stands for either nothing, or whatever people want it to. Kind of like "DVD". Does it stand for "digital video disc"? "Digital versatile disc"? "Deadly Voodoo Dog"? Why yes it does!
"HD" is certainly more high definition than existing analog fm stereo...dynamic range of 96db, 20khz response, no pre/de-emphasis, nearly infinite separation, distortion figures that would be the envy of any amplifier. Sounds "high definition" to me!
"HD" is certainly more high definition than existing analog fm stereo...dynamic range of 96db, 20khz response, no pre/de-emphasis, nearly infinite separation, distortion figures that would be the envy of any amplifier. Sounds "high definition" to me!
Mike Walker said:
"Radio Must Reframe and Rebrand" April 16, 2007
"Driving home the point of using the right words, Rehr turned to HD Radio. When iBiquity used the term IBOC-In-Band On-Channel Radio-no one, well, perhaps a few of us, had a clue what it meant," he said. "Then iBiquity did something very smart. They changed IBOC to HD Radio. And suddenly a light bulb went on. People got it. Because they already knew what HDTV meant. That changed vocabulary is one reason, I believe, HD Radio is taking off. iBiquity's change in terminology is an example of how we should all be thinking differently."
http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=137563&pt=todaysnews
"HD Radio is already lost and really isn't 'HD'"
"If you want to get an idea of how lost and confused the radio industry is, just look at the name "HD Radio" itself. Fact is, the "HD" in HD Radio doesn't actually stand for "high definition" at all. Quite honestly, it doesn't stand for anything," said Peter Ferrera, president and CEO of the HD Digital Radio Alliance. "The concept was somewhat of a steal from HD television, where viewers know it means better quality." That's a great idea. I think Volkswagon should rename their diesel vehicles to "hybrid" vehicles - because afterall they both get high gas mileage."
http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/hd-radio-is-already-lost-and-really-isnt-hd.html
But Rher, Ferrera said that "HD Radio" doesn't stand for anything !
http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?...&ShowVidDays=365&ShowVidDesc=&ArchiveDays=365
Yiou can watch this program at the link above
Yiou can watch this program at the link above
M
Mike Walker
Guest
"Definition" in audio is generally defined by two parameters...frequency response, related to sample rate, and dynamic range, related to "bit depth" (6db per bit with digital audio, other than DSD). By those two parameters, HD radio is indeed "higher in definition" than analog...with at least a half-octave greater frequency response, and as much as 40db greater dynamic range. Other measures of "definition" are much improved too...including separation, and distortion.
Ibiquity may not specifically claim that HD is "high definition" in comparison to analog, but I will. It sure as hell is!
Ibiquity may not specifically claim that HD is "high definition" in comparison to analog, but I will. It sure as hell is!
M
Mike Walker
Guest
People who have no ties to broadcast radio have criticisms of it. Shock! Horror!
Radio's future will be decided by PEOPLE IN RADIO. We've done pretty damn good so far...eight decades and counting.
Radio's future will be decided by PEOPLE IN RADIO. We've done pretty damn good so far...eight decades and counting.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
For whatever reason, RF, the link to the interview isn't working (9:11am EDT May 8)
Mike Walker said:
Like everything else, the future of radio will be determined by consumer interest.
Mike Walker said:
In digital, such things define the "definition". In analog, the sampling is continuous, and limited by whatever equipment, media,
skill, care can deliver. Digital modes are not noteworthy for how much data they move, but how much they throw away.
A scanned in cursive-script "fax" of this post would contain a lot more information than what I've typed "digitally".
Digital was introduced to help make all this technology foolproof.
I never saw any need to accomodate fools too much.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
And theory dictates that with a 44.1khz sample rate, and 16 bit resolution, NOTHING IS "THROWN AWAY" between DC and 20khz. Anything "between the samples" is by definition higher than 20khz, hence inaudible. NOTHING is "thrown away", no matter what voo-doo high end audionuts choose to believe.
Digital= sparkling clear window on the recording
Analog= dirty, cloudy (noise/distortion/hiss/crackles/etc) window on the recording
Audiophies frequently claim to "hear more ambience" on analog recordings. DUH! Due to dynamic range limitations, analog recordings are compressed to keep audio above the noise level, then limited to keep peaks below the level of audible distortion. You hear more ambience because IT'S RECORDED AT A HIGHER LEVEL TO OVERCOME NOISE!
Digital= sparkling clear window on the recording
Analog= dirty, cloudy (noise/distortion/hiss/crackles/etc) window on the recording
Audiophies frequently claim to "hear more ambience" on analog recordings. DUH! Due to dynamic range limitations, analog recordings are compressed to keep audio above the noise level, then limited to keep peaks below the level of audible distortion. You hear more ambience because IT'S RECORDED AT A HIGHER LEVEL TO OVERCOME NOISE!
I can record a CD from either a good LP or good tape, and immediately hear in A/B comparison just how much is lost,Mike Walker said:
and furthermore that my JVC cassette deck from 1978 can record in higher resolution than the CD deck.
Everything that is not measured is thrown away.
The whole point of transmitting analog is that it IS information, not a description of how to assemble data back into a usable form.
Noise, distortion and hiss are detrimental, but I'd rather have these than a "perfect" file with low resolution, or a glitch that renders a "file" unusable.
In the same way I'd rather drive a 42 year old car with old-fashioned problems than a modern car with modern problems.
And I do drive a 42 year old car.
I don't beleive the theory stating that a Fourier transform will permit full resolution of a waveform,
unless we define in advance that we only want to consider reproducing sinusoidal waves.
The theory presupposes sine waves, and accurately measuring the the form, and its first derivative, the rate in the CHANGE of the waveform,
requires measuring much more often than 44,100 times per second.
Yes, I know about mass, accelaration, groove velocity, stylus mass, leaky caps in audio chain, hum, and all the other bugaboos of analog.
As most audio has lots of non-sinusoidal waveform components, digital recording degrades a waveform just as much as any analog
recording, it is only that the mode of distortion is different.
If anything, there is less definition in any digital reproduction. It could be called more efficient, because we are not
sending all the data, only what we've decided is important. Subtle harmonics are deemed irrelevant and ignored.
If AM HD were truly Hi-Definition, it would need to be 80 khz wide to move enough data digitally to sound as good as the analog can sound with a good radio and situation.
Why didn't they put the sidebands on AM HD between 10 and 20 khz out?
At least then there could be a chance of hearing the host anaolg without hiss, and the sidechannels would still be as bad as now.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
I'd love, and I mean DEARLY LOVE to put your beliefs to a double-blind test. If you truly believe your 1978 cassette deck has "higher resolution" than a cd, then God bless you! Some people believe George Bush is a great president. Some believe the Apollo moon missions were fake. Some believe the world is flat. I won't be trying to convince them otherwise, either.
Mike Walker said:
I don't have to "believe" that which is true and obvious.
I am certain I could see the result in test equipment, as it is clear to my ears.
I am not stating that every cassette deck exceeds CD capabilities, only that my deck, with good tape, and fully using all the "room" for
modulation gives higher frequency response than my Denon CD deck.
I could never hear the difference unless I put on the headphones, but it's there.
I never said CDs are bad, and for many, it would be easier to make higher quality recording to CDs than tapes.
If I can pull out a CD I made 20 years from now and have it work as well as some of my 20-year old tapes, I'll be impressed.
Mike Walker said:
Mike
For someone as you claim has worked in radio all your life, you'd say that the industry you were in prior to IBOC 'sucked' sound quality wise? So all your work as a radio professional sucked on the air because analog was "dirty, cloudy (noise/distortion/hiss/crackles/etc)"?
This equates to I hate my company because they make lousy aircraft, but I'm an aerospace engineer and it provides a check.
FM and AM were fine prior to IBOC and people had no problems with it... sure radio studios/transmitters/antennas could have been upgraded to make the broadcast be percieved by the listeners as a big improvement in sound quality, but instead they've gone downhill with poor quality broadcast on top of poor programming....
IBOC was not the answer even if it may sound better to the percieved ear of the listener, but like I said in my prior post... it taked the listener to be 'trained' to not percieve he's not listening to CD quality sound on FM HD. Read page 5 at the bottom and page 6 on top paragraph.
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/USADR test data report/Appendixb.pdf
Radiopilot
M
MotoMuzak
Guest
"I'd love, and I mean DEARLY LOVE to put your beliefs to a double-blind test. If you truly believe your 1978 cassette deck has "higher resolution" than a cd, then God bless you! Some people believe George Bush is a great president. Some believe the Apollo moon missions were fake. Some believe the world is flat. I won't be trying to convince them otherwise, either."
What Mike, you afraid to admit you just got your ego stomped by somebody who actually appears to know what s/he's talking about? Admit it, Analogue does sound better than digital. Reach deep into your subconscious and you'll discover that all along you have had, and still have, a love for all things Analogue.
No? Well EXCUUUUUUUUUSE me!! *laughing*
What Mike, you afraid to admit you just got your ego stomped by somebody who actually appears to know what s/he's talking about? Admit it, Analogue does sound better than digital. Reach deep into your subconscious and you'll discover that all along you have had, and still have, a love for all things Analogue.
No? Well EXCUUUUUUUUUSE me!! *laughing* MotoMuzak said:"I'd love, and I mean DEARLY LOVE to put your beliefs to a double-blind test. If you truly believe your 1978 cassette deck has "higher resolution" than a cd, then God bless you! Some people believe George Bush is a great president. Some believe the Apollo moon missions were fake. Some believe the world is flat. I won't be trying to convince them otherwise, either."
What Mike, you afraid to admit you just got your ego stomped by somebody who actually appears to know what s/he's talking about? Admit it, Analogue does sound better than digital. Reach deep into your subconscious and you'll discover that all along you have had, and still have, a love for all things Analogue.
"Admit it, Analogue does sound better than digital."
The entire world disagrees with you. Other than that you might be right.
R.F. Burns said:
I don't know. Have you ever listened to a 2" analog tape running at 30 IPS? Maybe through a set of McIntosh powered Westlake Studio Monitors? Or maybe some Meyer Studio Monitors?
It can sound REALY GOOD. Of course, I'm not talking consumer stuff here. For most of us, the CD is an amazingly good sounding device
- Status