• 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

HD2 Sound Quality

W

wmgcbs

Guest
I have the B.A. HD Receptor Radio HD in the NYC Metro area and was wondering what other listeners thought about the sound quality of HD2 in New York City. The HD-1s have incredible sound, as well as most HD-2s, but, for instance, 101.1 CBS-FM HD2 has been sounding quite mediocre at best. It doesn't compare to the sounds quality of KTU's HD2 or WLTW's HD2. Just the past week, it sounded as if some of the elements (V/O sweepers, jingles, and some songs) were beginning to sound much clearer, but now it's back to the same sound as before.

Anyone else notice the same problem with HD2 in your market? (If in NYC metro, do you notice the same thing with 101.1's HD2?) Just curious... I don't think it is the radio's problem since the other HD2s sound perfectly fine.

Thanks!
 
> I have the B.A. HD Receptor Radio HD in the NYC Metro area
> and was wondering what other listeners thought about the
> sound quality of HD2 in New York City. The HD-1s have
> incredible sound, as well as most HD-2s, but, for instance,
> 101.1 CBS-FM HD2 has been sounding quite mediocre at best.
> It doesn't compare to the sounds quality of KTU's HD2 or
> WLTW's HD2. Just the past week, it sounded as if some of
> the elements (V/O sweepers, jingles, and some songs) were
> beginning to sound much clearer, but now it's back to the
> same sound as before.
>
> Anyone else notice the same problem with HD2 in your market?
> (If in NYC metro, do you notice the same thing with 101.1's
> HD2?) Just curious... I don't think it is the radio's
> problem since the other HD2s sound perfectly fine.
>
> Thanks!

In Boston, most of the HD2s sound fairly decent to me. There is one major exception, though: WMKK HD-2 sounds horrible. Everytime I check it out, it sounds like they're playing disco underwater. Yet it's clear where the bandwidth is going; WMKK HD-1 is the best sounding HD-1 of stations running HD-2s.
 
> > I have the B.A. HD Receptor Radio HD in the NYC Metro area
>
> > and was wondering what other listeners thought about the
> > sound quality of HD2 in New York City. The HD-1s have
> > incredible sound, as well as most HD-2s, but, for
> instance,
> > 101.1 CBS-FM HD2 has been sounding quite mediocre at best.
>
> > It doesn't compare to the sounds quality of KTU's HD2 or
> > WLTW's HD2. Just the past week, it sounded as if some of
> > the elements (V/O sweepers, jingles, and some songs) were
> > beginning to sound much clearer, but now it's back to the
> > same sound as before.
> >
> > Anyone else notice the same problem with HD2 in your
> market?
> > (If in NYC metro, do you notice the same thing with
> 101.1's
> > HD2?) Just curious... I don't think it is the radio's
> > problem since the other HD2s sound perfectly fine.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> In Boston, most of the HD2s sound fairly decent to me. There
> is one major exception, though: WMKK HD-2 sounds horrible.
> Everytime I check it out, it sounds like they're playing
> disco underwater. Yet it's clear where the bandwidth is
> going; WMKK HD-1 is the best sounding HD-1 of stations
> running HD-2s.
>
It all sounds like XM in Chicago.<P ID="signature">______________

</P>
 
> In Boston, most of the HD2s sound fairly decent to me. There
> is one major exception, though: WMKK HD-2 sounds horrible.
> Everytime I check it out, it sounds like they're playing
> disco underwater. Yet it's clear where the bandwidth is
> going; WMKK HD-1 is the best sounding HD-1 of stations
> running HD-2s.
>
Does WGBH HD-1 and HD-2 still sound as awful as it did two weeks ago?
The HD-1 timing was way off, and the audio had more background than frontal programming. What I mean is, I was listening during a praire home companion, and Garrison's voice was normal in analog but gone behind the band in HD.
 
Just wait!
All the stations will eventually be squeezing as many streams in as they can't fit.
Regarding the DAB boquets in Europe, this is all I read about.<P ID="signature">______________
Proud 2 B a pioneering satellite radio subs¢riber
Ai4i is always on the trailing edge of technology
______________</P>
 
> > In Boston, most of the HD2s sound fairly decent to me.
> There
> > is one major exception, though: WMKK HD-2 sounds horrible.
>
> > Everytime I check it out, it sounds like they're playing
> > disco underwater. Yet it's clear where the bandwidth is
> > going; WMKK HD-1 is the best sounding HD-1 of stations
> > running HD-2s.
> >
> Does WGBH HD-1 and HD-2 still sound as awful as it did two
> weeks ago?
> The HD-1 timing was way off, and the audio had more
> background than frontal programming. What I mean is, I was
> listening during a praire home companion, and Garrison's
> voice was normal in analog but gone behind the band in HD.

On the HD-1, everything sounds normal until the radio clicks over to HD. At that point, there's perhaps a 3 or 4 second delay in the audio, which is what I think you were mentioning. The audio also goes down about 20 db on the HD-1. However, the audio is very clean and sounds great once you get the volume adjusted.

One interesting factor that I noticed regarding audio delays was that WMKK-2's disco format is actually a few seconds behind the StarHD.com webstream. Perhaps they're receiving the audio over the internet up in Peabody, though I figure that wouldn't allow them to insert the HD PAD data.

The HD-2's audio doesn't go down like the HD-1, and sounds fine, but it's ridiculous that they're running classical on the HD-2. I've said it before, but knowing that WTKK will have to run classical forever on it's HD-2, couldn't WGBH go with jazz, which has very little representation on the FM dial other than a few hours on WGBH-1 and the "smooth jazz" (read: stale WMJX material) on WMJX-2? Perhaps they're holding out for HD-3.
 
> It all sounds like XM in Chicago.

Same in Phoenix with KPKX-HD2. The main HD channel sounds good, but the HD2 sounds a bit tinny - a little better than XM, but still has the same digital artifacts. Its streaming audio at its website sounds close to CD quality (note that I didn't say total CD quality).
 
>
> In Boston, most of the HD2s sound fairly decent to me. There
> is one major exception, though: WMKK HD-2 sounds horrible.
> Everytime I check it out, it sounds like they're playing
> disco underwater. Yet it's clear where the bandwidth is
> going; WMKK HD-1 is the best sounding HD-1 of stations
> running HD-2s.
>
Ironically, it is the same here. WCBS-FM HD-1 sounds amazing---definitely the best sounding HD-1 in town--It's just unfortunate that I don't enjoy that particular station. On the other hand the HD-2 sounds tinny and, you're right about the "underwater" sound... that about hits the nail on the head.

I should try writing the station (or calling, since last time I never got a return e-mail).<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by wmgcbs on 04/15/06 09:26 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> I have the B.A. HD Receptor Radio HD in the NYC Metro area
> and was wondering what other listeners thought about the
> sound quality of HD2 in New York City. The HD-1s have
> incredible sound, as well as most HD-2s, but, for instance,
> 101.1 CBS-FM HD2 has been sounding quite mediocre at best.
> It doesn't compare to the sounds quality of KTU's HD2 or
> WLTW's HD2. Just the past week, it sounded as if some of
> the elements (V/O sweepers, jingles, and some songs) were
> beginning to sound much clearer, but now it's back to the
> same sound as before.
>
> Anyone else notice the same problem with HD2 in your market?
> (If in NYC metro, do you notice the same thing with 101.1's
> HD2?) Just curious... I don't think it is the radio's
> problem since the other HD2s sound perfectly fine.
>
> Thanks!
>

I have the receptor and don't listen to WCBS FM's second channel. I listen to WNYC's HD 2 & the WPLJ # 2 and they sound fine. If there are audio quality issues on WCBS FM's #2 I'd guess it's an issue of either not enough bandwidth on the HD 2 or the source material. I'd contact CBS FM and ask. I'm sure they'd be happy to get your feedback or to tell you what is happening.
 
>
> I have the receptor and don't listen to WCBS FM's second
> channel. I listen to WNYC's HD 2 & the WPLJ # 2 and they
> sound fine. If there are audio quality issues on WCBS FM's
> #2 I'd guess it's an issue of either not enough bandwidth on
> the HD 2 or the source material. I'd contact CBS FM and ask.
> I'm sure they'd be happy to get your feedback or to tell you
> what is happening.
>
Yes, I did write an e-mail to CBS-FM via the HD-2 website contact form. Hopefully I will get a response. They have always been very attentive in the past when they were still Oldies on the main channel and continue to be helpful with 101.1-2.

Thanks... It sounds like there is not enough bandwith on the HD-2 because the HD1 sounds far superior to any HD1 in the NYC area.
 
channel and continue to be helpful with
> 101.1-2.
>
> Thanks... It sounds like there is not enough bandwith on the
> HD-2 because the HD1 sounds far superior to any HD1 in the
> NYC area.
>


They are all still in the experimental stage. At one time the HD 2's of many of the stations we running approx 80% modulation compared with the HD 1's and there was a delay issue between the analogue and IBOC audio. Today, for the most part the timing issues appear to be a non issue and the levels are fairly good on the HD 2's. WPLJ's HD 3 is a bit undermodulated though. To a degree we're still in the experimental stage and similar to FM in the 50's and 60's. I've found the programing on the HD 2's to be far superior to what is available on the standard AM & FM bands.
 
> > It all sounds like XM in Chicago.
>
> Same in Phoenix with KPKX-HD2. The main HD channel sounds
> good, but the HD2 sounds a bit tinny - a little better than
> XM, but still has the same digital artifacts. Its streaming
> audio at its website sounds close to CD quality (note that I
> didn't say total CD quality).
>

Having put up an HD2 station myself, I can tell you that the audio processing is totally different than on HD1. It took me quite a while to understand the processing, and am STARTING to get closer to where I want to be. Hopefully Jeremy thinks my HD2 has at least decent sound ;-)

When the audio processing is not right, the highs get splashy and sound like XM. I find that WNUAs HD2 audio is real decent.
 
Re: HD2 Sound Quality + Adding More Bandwidth for HD3

> Having put up an HD2 station myself, I can tell you that the
> audio processing is totally different than on HD1. It took
> me quite a while to understand the processing, and am
> STARTING to get closer to where I want to be. Hopefully
> Jeremy thinks my HD2 has at least decent sound ;-)
>
> When the audio processing is not right, the highs get
> splashy and sound like XM. I find that WNUAs HD2 audio is
> real decent.

I'm in Pittsburgh, and my station "WLTJ" is in HD2 (classic rock) and HD3 (Urban AC), and your right processing is the key, it took me over a week to get the signature sound I wanted on HD2, as for my HD3 it sounds better than satellite radio, again thanks to 2 things (1)processing and (2) going from MP1 to MP3 in bandwidth allocation.

To do MP3 instead of MP1 but you must get an STA from the FCC. The bandwidth is 124kbps. The 28Kb chunk must be kept together as an HD3 channel and then you can divide up the original 96 as you want (48/48, 64/32..etc.)<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by RadioEngnr on 04/17/06 04:01 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> >
Hopefully
> Jeremy thinks my HD2 has at least decent sound ;-)
>

>
You're doing pretty good over there. Sounds as good as the Chicago HD-2s.
<P ID="signature">______________

</P>
 
> It all sounds like XM in Chicago.

The one HD2 we have here in Nashville sounds fine, just as good as the HD1. (they run about 50% classical music so it's pretty easy to tell<g>)

While I certainly can't speak for any other market, I have the impression HD2 channels are considered experimental by many stations - that they don't have the full attention of the technical staff. When I first got the HD receiver, we had another HD2, which would occasionally "break up" - go silent for about 15 seconds, roughly once every 3 minutes or so. Since the station's HD1 was rock-solid, I can only assume they had a problem with their automation. They've since simply turned the HD2 off.

We do have one station that has processing problems on their HD1 channel. Everybody lisps<g> - seriously, there's something wrong on the high end. Their analog sounds fine.
 
> > >
> Hopefully
> > Jeremy thinks my HD2 has at least decent sound ;-)
> >
>
> >
> You're doing pretty good over there. Sounds as good as the
> Chicago HD-2s.
>


Well thatsw not bad then because I am running MP3s off of an old laptop right now. Far from decent input audio. I must be getting closer to the right processor settings.
 
> I have the B.A. HD Receptor Radio HD in the NYC Metro area
> and was wondering what other listeners thought about the
> sound quality of HD2 in New York City. The HD-1s have
> incredible sound, as well as most HD-2s, but, for instance,
> 101.1 CBS-FM HD2 has been sounding quite mediocre at best.
> It doesn't compare to the sounds quality of KTU's HD2 or
> WLTW's HD2. Just the past week, it sounded as if some of
> the elements (V/O sweepers, jingles, and some songs) were
> beginning to sound much clearer, but now it's back to the
> same sound as before.
>
> Anyone else notice the same problem with HD2 in your market?
> (If in NYC metro, do you notice the same thing with 101.1's
> HD2?) Just curious... I don't think it is the radio's
> problem since the other HD2s sound perfectly fine.
>
> Thanks!
>
you can get better sq with xm..60s on 6....equipments cheaper also!! :)..so much for cd quality fm huh??:)<P ID="signature">______________
note to the NAB..satellite radio..its worth paying for!!</P>
 
> >
> you can get better sq with xm..60s on 6....equipments
> cheaper also!! :)..so much for cd quality fm huh??:)
>
I've heard both and a properly adjusted IBOC station sounds better than the sats and here's a big plus. Once you've bought the radio there are no further charges. My B.A. in a NY suburb sounds great on all of the IBOC subchannels that I listen to (WPLJ 2, WNYC 2). Let's allow stations time to twaek their equipment. This is a new technology and there is a learning curve. IBOC is very promising so far.
 
autopaint-1 said:
> > > you can get better sq with xm..60s on 6....equipments> cheaper also!! :)..so much for cd quality fm huh??:)> I've heard both and a properly adjusted IBOC station sounds better than the sats and here's a big plus. Once you've bought the radio there are no further charges. My B.A. in a NY suburb sounds great on all of the IBOC subchannels that I listen to (WPLJ 2, WNYC 2). Let's allow stations time to twaek their equipment. This is a new technology and there is a learning curve. IBOC is very promising so far.
Click to expand...
INDEED! MUCH better!And I was even surprised at the quality of HD3! About on par with some of the Satellite channels.So much for quality of Sat radio ;D So much for being cheaper too ;D
 
We all need to face the facts at some point. This is not magic, and there is not enough bandwidth to do what is being attempted. No matter what new algorithm is developed, there is no way to accurately reconstruct the audio with the low sample rates used.Think of it as a Los Angeles Arbitron with only 50 diaries.What is really disappointing is that broadcast engineers are accepting this compromise, and that non-engineers don't question the description of "CD quality".
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom