• 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

IBOC vs. Satellite Question

N

Nu_Roo_2

When travelling recently, I rented a car that had XM. One thing I liked is the fact that the stereo separation was always at max. As a result, everything sounded so much better and more "alive" then when I tuned in local terrestrial stations (I was in suburban New York City). I assume this is because car receivers have long been notoriously quick to reduce separation when there is even the tiniest bit of interference or loss of signal strength -- even when the associated audio "degradation" that triggered to blend-to-mono circuitry would have been imperceptible to 999 out of 1000 drivers. Most of today's car receivers are WAAAAY to quick to fade into mono. And (correct me if I'm wrong), satellite is the equivalent of being right in the neighborhood of the stick at all times.

Anyway, does anyone know if IBOC digital will share this quality, i.e., if anything is coming out of your speakers it will have 100% separation like satellite? If so, that would be a big benefit as far as I'm concerned, and would help keep terrestrial strong. This would seem to be of particular significance both in geographically large markets and in markets like Columbus that depend on a lot of Class A rimshots. (Not that I wouldn't miss some of the unique aspects of analog...)<P ID="signature">______________
Nu_Roo_2 formerly Nu__Roo formerly Nu_Roo</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Nu_Roo_2 on 10/05/05 05:29 PM.</FONT></P>
 
> When travelling recently, I rented a car that had XM. One
> thing I liked is the fact that the stereo separation was
> always at max. As a result, everything sounded so much
> better and more "alive" then when I tuned in local
> terrestrial stations (I was in suburban New York City). I
> assume this is because car receivers have long been
> notoriously quick to reduce separation when there is even
> the tiniest bit of interference or loss of signal strength
> -- even when the associated audio "degradation" that
> triggered to blend-to-mono circuitry would have been
> imperceptible to 999 out of 1000 drivers. Most of today's
> car receivers are WAAAAY to quick to fade into mono.

Don't forget that with terrestrial radio you have P.D.'s and engineers who tinker with seperation, reducing it to add a little more punch in the fringe reception areas. Of course each person who tinkers has a different concept of how much you can reduce seperation without hacking off the majority of listeners.
 
> > When travelling recently, I rented a car that had XM. One
>
> > thing I liked is the fact that the stereo separation was
> > always at max. As a result, everything sounded so much
> > better and more "alive" then when I tuned in local
> > terrestrial stations (I was in suburban New York City). I
>
> > assume this is because car receivers have long been
> > notoriously quick to reduce separation when there is even
> > the tiniest bit of interference or loss of signal strength
>
> > -- even when the associated audio "degradation" that
> > triggered to blend-to-mono circuitry would have been
> > imperceptible to 999 out of 1000 drivers. Most of today's
>
> > car receivers are WAAAAY to quick to fade into mono.
>
> Don't forget that with terrestrial radio you have P.D.'s and
> engineers who tinker with seperation, reducing it to add a
> little more punch in the fringe reception areas. Of course
> each person who tinkers has a different concept of how much
> you can reduce seperation without hacking off the majority
> of listeners.
>

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that practice.

But in general, that would be a smaller factor than car radios' stereo-blending circuitry, wouldn't it? When I was in suburban NY, all the terrestrial stations that sounded nearly mono on the car radio had plenty of separation when I listened to them in my second-floor hotel room, on my cheap 20-year-old Walkman. <P ID="signature">______________
Nu_Roo_2 formerly Nu__Roo formerly Nu_Roo</P>
 
Well, one thing, reg radio I don't think will have all the choices XM or Sirius does. Also, I wonder about the times when the signal goes between analog and dig because I think there is a delay when IBOC kicks in. I still thinks it's quanity, not quality. I didn't get XM and Sirius because of the quality--how radio sounds, I got it to hear stuff on satelite I can't get on radio.

Chuck> When travelling recently, I rented a car that had XM. One
> thing I liked is the fact that the stereo separation was
> always at max. As a result, everything sounded so much
> better and more "alive" then when I tuned in local
> terrestrial stations (I was in suburban New York City). I
> assume this is because car receivers have long been
> notoriously quick to reduce separation when there is even
> the tiniest bit of interference or loss of signal strength
> -- even when the associated audio "degradation" that
> triggered to blend-to-mono circuitry would have been
> imperceptible to 999 out of 1000 drivers. Most of today's
> car receivers are WAAAAY to quick to fade into mono. And
> (correct me if I'm wrong), satellite is the equivalent of
> being right in the neighborhood of the stick at all times.
>
> Anyway, does anyone know if IBOC digital will share this
> quality, i.e., if anything is coming out of your speakers it
> will have 100% separation like satellite? If so, that would
> be a big benefit as far as I'm concerned, and would help
> keep terrestrial strong. This would seem to be of
> particular significance both in geographically large markets
> and in markets like Columbus that depend on a lot of Class A
> rimshots. (Not that I wouldn't miss some of the unique
> aspects of analog...)
>
 
> Well, one thing, reg radio I don't think will have all the
> choices XM or Sirius does. Also, I wonder about the times
> when the signal goes between analog and dig because I think
> there is a delay when IBOC kicks in. I still thinks it's
> quanity, not quality. I didn't get XM and Sirius because of
> the quality--how radio sounds, I got it to hear stuff on
> satelite I can't get on radio.

I believe Clear Channel in Columbus is delaying the analog signals to match with the digital signals. The delay on WTVN is like 15 seconds with their normal delay and the "digital" delay. I have heard that a lot of stations delay the analog signal to match with the inherit digital delay so that when it does flip from analog to digital it's in sync.
 
> > Well, one thing, reg radio I don't think will have all the
>
> > choices XM or Sirius does. Also, I wonder about the times
> > when the signal goes between analog and dig because I
> think
> > there is a delay when IBOC kicks in. I still thinks it's
> > quanity, not quality. I didn't get XM and Sirius because
> of
> > the quality--how radio sounds, I got it to hear stuff on
> > satelite I can't get on radio.
>
> I believe Clear Channel in Columbus is delaying the analog
> signals to match with the digital signals. The delay on WTVN
> is like 15 seconds with their normal delay and the "digital"
> delay. I have heard that a lot of stations delay the analog
> signal to match with the inherit digital delay so that when
> it does flip from analog to digital it's in sync.
>
I guess that explains why the delay with Cleveland Browns football on 105.7. It is delayed more than Directv is.
 
> > > Well, one thing, reg radio I don't think will have all
> the
> >
> > > choices XM or Sirius does. Also, I wonder about the
> times
> > > when the signal goes between analog and dig because I
> > think
> > > there is a delay when IBOC kicks in. I still thinks it's
>
> > > quanity, not quality. I didn't get XM and Sirius because
>
> > of
> > > the quality--how radio sounds, I got it to hear stuff on
>
> > > satelite I can't get on radio.
> >
> > I believe Clear Channel in Columbus is delaying the analog
>
> > signals to match with the digital signals. The delay on
> WTVN
> > is like 15 seconds with their normal delay and the
> "digital"
> > delay. I have heard that a lot of stations delay the
> analog
> > signal to match with the inherit digital delay so that
> when
> > it does flip from analog to digital it's in sync.
> >
> I guess that explains why the delay with Cleveland Browns
> football on 105.7. It is delayed more than Directv is.
>

That's surprising that you're hearing a delay because I called them one time and they told me they are going to be turning off the IBOC so that the audio is with the TV feeds. Maybe they aren't doing that anymore...if at all?
 
> > > > Well, one thing, reg radio I don't think will have all
>
> > the
> > >
> > > > choices XM or Sirius does. Also, I wonder about the
> > times
> > > > when the signal goes between analog and dig because I
> > > think
> > > > there is a delay when IBOC kicks in. I still thinks
> it's
> >
> > > > quanity, not quality. I didn't get XM and Sirius
> because
> >
> > > of
> > > > the quality--how radio sounds, I got it to hear stuff
> on
> >
> > > > satelite I can't get on radio.
> > >
> > > I believe Clear Channel in Columbus is delaying the
> analog
> >
> > > signals to match with the digital signals. The delay on
> > WTVN
> > > is like 15 seconds with their normal delay and the
> > "digital"
> > > delay. I have heard that a lot of stations delay the
> > analog
> > > signal to match with the inherit digital delay so that
> > when
> > > it does flip from analog to digital it's in sync.
> > >
> > I guess that explains why the delay with Cleveland Browns
> > football on 105.7. It is delayed more than Directv is.
> >
>
> That's surprising that you're hearing a delay because I
> called them one time and they told me they are going to be
> turning off the IBOC so that the audio is with the TV feeds.
> Maybe they aren't doing that anymore...if at all?
>
I thought that all live TV sports feeds were on delay these days. I just read about a new, expensive radio which allows the listener to add an audio delay so that the radio play-by-play will synch up with what they see on their TV screens.<P ID="signature">______________
Nu_Roo_2 formerly Nu__Roo formerly Nu_Roo</P>
 
> > > When travelling recently, I rented a car that had XM.
> One
> >
> > > thing I liked is the fact that the stereo separation was
>
> > > always at max. As a result, everything sounded so much
> > > better and more "alive" then when I tuned in local
> > > terrestrial stations (I was in suburban New York City).
> I
> >
> > > assume this is because car receivers have long been
> > > notoriously quick to reduce separation when there is
> even
> > > the tiniest bit of interference or loss of signal
> strength
> >
> > > -- even when the associated audio "degradation" that
> > > triggered to blend-to-mono circuitry would have been
> > > imperceptible to 999 out of 1000 drivers. Most of
> today's
> >
> > > car receivers are WAAAAY to quick to fade into mono.
> >
> > Don't forget that with terrestrial radio you have P.D.'s
> and
> > engineers who tinker with seperation, reducing it to add a
>
> > little more punch in the fringe reception areas. Of
> course
> > each person who tinkers has a different concept of how
> much
> > you can reduce seperation without hacking off the majority
>
> > of listeners.
> >
>
> Interesting. I wasn't aware of that practice.
>
> But in general, that would be a smaller factor than car
> radios' stereo-blending circuitry, wouldn't it? When I was
> in suburban NY, all the terrestrial stations that sounded
> nearly mono on the car radio had plenty of separation when I
> listened to them in my second-floor hotel room, on my cheap
> 20-year-old Walkman.
>

In Columbus, WWCD is currently running very "dry" with very little separation. It's not my 4 radios either. They tweaked their audio recently down from a much more "stereo" audio to the dry sound. (It irks me quite a bit.) On the opposite side of the spectrum, WTDA runs so much "stereo" that some songs freak out my Toyota stock radio and it make it blend to mono instantly. So I get this pumping of stereo to mono and back with the song. It's not as bad as it was when they started the format though. I love Ted's audio.
I had a new Nissan Altima rental earlier this year and the radio in that car spent most of it's time in mono. It was the most annoying thing. It would even blend the strongest signals in town. It had to be a design flaw in the receiver or it was just scared to be in stereo.

Mono bad, stereo good.

Digital, for all it's flaws won't have that problem. Either you have a signal or you don't. No blending.

Yes, Nu_Roo_2, I know what you are saying with car radios. The GM Delco ones have been quite good though.

Has anyone every heard IBOC except chief engineers and WOSU listeners at a fund drive? No idea what it sounds like.

And to the previous poster, I don't know why you wouldn't want the most lush, clear STEREO audio rather than lifeless mono no matter your format. I KNOW I'm pickier than most but it just sounds better. Bad audio drives me away. Don't give me the cheap radio argument either. Bad audio sounds even bad-ER on bad equipment. Anyone else agree?

Trick_Magnet
 
> > > > When travelling recently, I rented a car that had XM.
>
> > One
> > >
> > > > thing I liked is the fact that the stereo separation
> was
> >
> > > > always at max. As a result, everything sounded so
> much
> > > > better and more "alive" then when I tuned in local
> > > > terrestrial stations (I was in suburban New York
> City).
> > I
> > >
> > > > assume this is because car receivers have long been
> > > > notoriously quick to reduce separation when there is
> > even
> > > > the tiniest bit of interference or loss of signal
> > strength
> > >
> > > > -- even when the associated audio "degradation" that
> > > > triggered to blend-to-mono circuitry would have been
> > > > imperceptible to 999 out of 1000 drivers. Most of
> > today's
> > >
> > > > car receivers are WAAAAY to quick to fade into mono.
> > >
> > > Don't forget that with terrestrial radio you have P.D.'s
>
> > and
> > > engineers who tinker with seperation, reducing it to add
> a
> >
> > > little more punch in the fringe reception areas. Of
> > course
> > > each person who tinkers has a different concept of how
> > much
> > > you can reduce seperation without hacking off the
> majority
> >
> > > of listeners.
> > >
> >
> > Interesting. I wasn't aware of that practice.
> >
> > But in general, that would be a smaller factor than car
> > radios' stereo-blending circuitry, wouldn't it? When I
> was
> > in suburban NY, all the terrestrial stations that sounded
> > nearly mono on the car radio had plenty of separation when
> I
> > listened to them in my second-floor hotel room, on my
> cheap
> > 20-year-old Walkman.
> >
>
> In Columbus, WWCD is currently running very "dry" with very
> little separation. It's not my 4 radios either. They
> tweaked their audio recently down from a much more "stereo"
> audio to the dry sound. (It irks me quite a bit.) On the
> opposite side of the spectrum, WTDA runs so much "stereo"
> that some songs freak out my Toyota stock radio and it make
> it blend to mono instantly. So I get this pumping of stereo
> to mono and back with the song. It's not as bad as it was
> when they started the format though. I love Ted's audio.
> I had a new Nissan Altima rental earlier this year and the
> radio in that car spent most of it's time in mono. It was
> the most annoying thing. It would even blend the strongest
> signals in town. It had to be a design flaw in the receiver
> or it was just scared to be in stereo.
>
> Mono bad, stereo good.
>
> Digital, for all it's flaws won't have that problem. Either
> you have a signal or you don't. No blending.
>
> Yes, Nu_Roo_2, I know what you are saying with car radios.
> The GM Delco ones have been quite good though.
>
> Has anyone every heard IBOC except chief engineers and WOSU
> listeners at a fund drive? No idea what it sounds like.
>
> And to the previous poster, I don't know why you wouldn't
> want the most lush, clear STEREO audio rather than lifeless
> mono no matter your format. I KNOW I'm pickier than most
> but it just sounds better. Bad audio drives me away. Don't
> give me the cheap radio argument either. Bad audio sounds
> even bad-ER on bad equipment. Anyone else agree?
>
> Trick_Magnet
>

Thanks for the reply, Trick_Magnet. I was beginning to think hardly anyone even noticed the stereo blending problem, let alone cared about it. But obviously you and I are in the same camp on this one. I so much prefer the vibrant sound of full-separation stereo that I'd even be willing to put up with some TRULY audible background noise in lieu of b-o-r-i-n-g mono or near-mono. (I say "TRULY" to indicate that I am talking about the kind of background noise most of us humans can actually hear, not the essentially inaudible kind that seems to freak out engineers. Why can't they design for real-world people and real-world listening conditions?)

Interesting that you should cite GM Delco as being less prone to blending, as my recent experience with them has been pretty disappointing in this regard. Maybe it depends on the particular Delco model and/or the individual unit you get. I think higher-end receivers may actually be MORE prone to blending in many cases. Perhaps engineers overshoot the mark on more expensive units that they feel must never emit a millisecond of "noise" (again put in quotes since we're talking about "noise" that hardly anyone could really perceive, especially in an automobile).

And I see what you mean about CD101. It does sound dry and boring.

As for IBOC, earlier posts seem to indicate that the IBOC radios will switch to analog when signal-strength falls below some threshold (which implies that analog has a greater range, although I don't understand why). If so, couldn't this switching create the kind of discordant stereo in-and-out effect you describe with Ted in the Toyota?
<P ID="signature">______________
Nu_Roo_2 formerly Nu__Roo formerly Nu_Roo</P>
 
> >
> > In Columbus, WWCD is currently running very "dry" with
> very
> > little separation. It's not my 4 radios either. They
> > tweaked their audio recently down from a much more
> "stereo"
> > audio to the dry sound. (It irks me quite a bit.) On the
> > opposite side of the spectrum, WTDA runs so much "stereo"
> > that some songs freak out my Toyota stock radio and it
> make
> > it blend to mono instantly. So I get this pumping of
> stereo
> > to mono and back with the song. It's not as bad as it was
>
> > when they started the format though. I love Ted's audio.
> > I had a new Nissan Altima rental earlier this year and the
>
> > radio in that car spent most of it's time in mono. It was
>
> > the most annoying thing. It would even blend the
> strongest
> > signals in town. It had to be a design flaw in the
> receiver
> > or it was just scared to be in stereo.
> >
> > Mono bad, stereo good.
> >
> > Digital, for all it's flaws won't have that problem.
> Either
> > you have a signal or you don't. No blending.
> >
> > Yes, Nu_Roo_2, I know what you are saying with car radios.
>
> > The GM Delco ones have been quite good though.
> >
> > Has anyone every heard IBOC except chief engineers and
> WOSU
> > listeners at a fund drive? No idea what it sounds like.
> >
> > And to the previous poster, I don't know why you wouldn't
> > want the most lush, clear STEREO audio rather than
> lifeless
> > mono no matter your format. I KNOW I'm pickier than most
> > but it just sounds better. Bad audio drives me away.
> Don't
> > give me the cheap radio argument either. Bad audio sounds
>
> > even bad-ER on bad equipment. Anyone else agree?
> >
> > Trick_Magnet
> >
>
> Thanks for the reply, Trick_Magnet. I was beginning to
> think hardly anyone even noticed the stereo blending
> problem, let alone cared about it. But obviously you and I
> are in the same camp on this one. I so much prefer the
> vibrant sound of full-separation stereo that I'd even be
> willing to put up with some TRULY audible background noise
> in lieu of b-o-r-i-n-g mono or near-mono. (I say "TRULY" to
> indicate that I am talking about the kind of background
> noise most of us humans can actually hear, not the
> essentially inaudible kind that seems to freak out
> engineers. Why can't they design for real-world people and
> real-world listening conditions?)
>
> Interesting that you should cite GM Delco as being less
> prone to blending, as my recent experience with them has
> been pretty disappointing in this regard. Maybe it depends
> on the particular Delco model and/or the individual unit you
> get. I think higher-end receivers may actually be MORE
> prone to blending in many cases. Perhaps engineers
> overshoot the mark on more expensive units that they feel
> must never emit a millisecond of "noise" (again put in
> quotes since we're talking about "noise" that hardly anyone
> could really perceive, especially in an automobile).
>
> And I see what you mean about CD101. It does sound dry and
> boring.
>
> As for IBOC, earlier posts seem to indicate that the IBOC
> radios will switch to analog when signal-strength falls
> below some threshold (which implies that analog has a
> greater range, although I don't understand why). If so,
> couldn't this switching create the kind of discordant stereo
> in-and-out effect you describe with Ted in the Toyota?
>

I was referring to late 80's early 90's Delcos. I've not heard any recently.

The in and out from digital to analog would certainly be affected by two things: Receiver design and the audio quality on analog vs. digital. Does the receiver blend the analog but doesn't the digital? Also, station engineers and other personnel (PD's) concerned with audio quality would have to make a decision to make the digital sound just like the analog or sound better than the analog. In theory, digital has more headroom than analog so the highs can be stronger more like CD.
Digital is supposed to be better but will it be used that way? Hmm...

Trick_Magnet
 
I've heard complaints about XM because there is no processing on their signal. As a consequence the levels vary widely on announced shows.

Much more noticeable in the auto environment where there is a lot of ambient noise.

Now digital could suffer from the same problem. It's not that digital allows the "highs to be stronger", (although CD and digital do not have pre-emphasis, while analog FM does) it is that the two formats have more dynanmic range.

Good thing for home listening, but not necessarily so for automotive listening.
 
> I've heard complaints about XM because there is no
> processing on their signal. As a consequence the levels
> vary widely on announced shows.
>
> Much more noticeable in the auto environment where there is
> a lot of ambient noise.
>
> Now digital could suffer from the same problem. It's not
> that digital allows the "highs to be stronger", (although CD
> and digital do not have pre-emphasis, while analog FM does)
> it is that the two formats have more dynanmic range.
>
> Good thing for home listening, but not necessarily so for
> automotive listening.
>

For me the bottom line is that the in-car audio I heard on XM was so much more vibrant and compelling overall than for the terrestrial stations whose transmitters were atop Manhattan skyscrapers about 10-30 miles away (depending on where I was driving at the time -- obviously the closer in I was, the better the NY stations sounded). In fact, I was kind of blown away by the difference, especially since I had read in trade publications that XM audio was inferior to Sirius (which I've never heard). I'm thinking mainly of music, but I also thought talk was just as listenable on XM as on terrestrial, mainly even better.

I'll gladly take XM's lush sound coupled with occasional momentary blank-outs, over the low-separation sound of the terrestrials that are transmitting from more than 10-15 miles away. ("10-15 miles" is just an example...as discussed, the actual terrestrial fade-toward-mono distance would be influenced by a host of different factors.)

But again, are industry people and audiophiles too focused on aspects that have little relevance to the average real-world listener? Were the complaints you heard about XM coming from industry people and/or true audiophiles, or were they from family, friends and casual acquaintances?

<P ID="signature">______________
Nu_Roo_2 formerly Nu__Roo formerly Nu_Roo</P>
 
> I was referring to late 80's early 90's Delcos. I've not
> heard any recently.

That could explain it. My '85 and earlier Delcos were great in terms of maintaining stereo separation until fading-to-mono was REALLY needed. I could drive so much farther out and still hear glorious stereo. When I bought a Chrysler in the early 90's (don't know the radio mfr), I actually thought the radio in the new car was defective. That's when I discovered the widespread engineering "improvements" (over-active fade-to-mono) that had in reality diminished in-car listening experiences. I wish the mfrs would put in a control that would let you adjust the stereo-blend threshold (or deactivate it completely).<P ID="signature">______________
Nu_Roo_2 formerly Nu__Roo formerly Nu_Roo</P>
 
> For me the bottom line is that the in-car audio I heard on
> XM was so much more vibrant and compelling overall than for
> the terrestrial stations whose transmitters were atop
> Manhattan skyscrapers about 10-30 miles away (depending on
> where I was driving at the time -- obviously the closer in I
> was, the better the NY stations sounded). In fact, I was
> kind of blown away by the difference, especially since I had
> read in trade publications that XM audio was inferior to
> Sirius (which I've never heard). I'm thinking mainly of
> music, but I also thought talk was just as listenable on XM
> as on terrestrial, mainly even better.
>
> I'll gladly take XM's lush sound coupled with occasional
> momentary blank-outs, over the low-separation sound of the
> terrestrials that are transmitting from more than 10-15
> miles away. ("10-15 miles" is just an example...as
> discussed, the actual terrestrial fade-toward-mono distance
> would be influenced by a host of different factors.)
>
> But again, are industry people and audiophiles too focused
> on aspects that have little relevance to the average
> real-world listener? Were the complaints you heard about XM
> coming from industry people and/or true audiophiles, or were
> they from family, friends and casual acquaintances?
>

If I remember correctly, WOBN up at Otterbein had very very little processing (except for the optimod and an equalizer), and had true stereo seperation going. As for the satellite services. I have XM, and I think it blows away FM in sound! The sound is so much cleaner, not heavily processed (there is some processing), and I have a portable unit, and it sounds really good on my home stereo. If I turn on a FM station it just sounds so much different, and so heavily processed. I don't have a factory radio in my car (it's a Pioneer), and I have the XM going into my AUX input and sounds fantastic. The only terrestrial radio I listen to is 610 WTVN in the morning for traffic/weather/news, and I hate to admit but sometimes the interviews that BC does is really good, and the only other time is when I am going to bed on my clock radio. Other than that's it's XM! FM radio in this town lost me a long time ago.
 
> I've heard complaints about XM because there is no
> processing on their signal. As a consequence the levels
> vary widely on announced shows.
>
> Much more noticeable in the auto environment where there is
> a lot of ambient noise.
>
> Now digital could suffer from the same problem. It's not
> that digital allows the "highs to be stronger", (although CD
> and digital do not have pre-emphasis, while analog FM does)
> it is that the two formats have more dynanmic range.

Headroom = greater signal to noise ratio = greater dynamic range, it's all contributing to a reduction in dynamic range for FM which is largely irrelevant given today's audio processing acrobatics.
It's the pre-emphasis that does the highs in therefore limiting dynamic range... in the highs. FM can sound very good but we're marketing for the car environment in which masking wind noise is more important.
I know this is not a technical board, so I'll stop now. (I can't believe anyone hasn't mention Shawn Ireland yet...)

Trick_Magnet

>
> Good thing for home listening, but not necessarily so for
> automotive listening.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom