• 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

LACKLUSTER RADIOS SHOULDN'T HAVE "HD" LABEL

I just read the specs on the new Jensen HD5112 HD car radio - and I don't think that they should allow them to put the HD Logo on the unit for the lackluster specs: FM 30-12KHz, and AM 50-2KHz with 15uV sensitivity. The AM is not going to sound "FM-LIKE" with a 2KHz upper frequency response, and FM isn't even up to it's 15KHz analog potential.
I suggest no HD labels on radios that are crap, without meeting some minimum requirements. What do you think?
 
JohnnyElectron said:
I just read the specs on the new Jensen HD5112 HD car radio - and I don't think that they should allow them to put the HD Logo on the unit for the lackluster specs: FM 30-12KHz, and AM 50-2KHz with 15uV sensitivity. The AM is not going to sound "FM-LIKE" with a 2KHz upper frequency response, and FM isn't even up to it's 15KHz analog potential.
I suggest no HD labels on radios that are crap, without meeting some minimum requirements. What do you think?

If you're a CE manufacturer forced to pay iBiquity's license fee (reported to be near 50.00 a unit, according to Mark Ramsey) and keep your products at an attractive price point, something's going to have to give.

BTW, was in my local Circuit City last weekend. At the car stereo section, people were crowded around the selection of in-dash DVD player/GPS systems on display. No one was looking at the lone JVC HD-Radio unit. I almost felt sorry for it.

db
 
JohnnyElectron said:
I just read the specs on the new Jensen HD5112 HD car radio - and I don't think that they should allow them to put the HD Logo on the unit for the lackluster specs: FM 30-12KHz, and AM 50-2KHz with 15uV sensitivity. The AM is not going to sound "FM-LIKE" with a 2KHz upper frequency response, and FM isn't even up to it's 15KHz analog potential.
I suggest no HD labels on radios that are crap, without meeting some minimum requirements. What do you think?

I am sure this refers to the ANALOG reception.
 
Frank Provasek said:
JohnnyElectron said:
I just read the specs on the new Jensen HD5112 HD car radio - and I don't think that they should allow them to put the HD Logo on the unit for the lackluster specs: FM 30-12KHz, and AM 50-2KHz with 15uV sensitivity. The AM is not going to sound "FM-LIKE" with a 2KHz upper frequency response, and FM isn't even up to it's 15KHz analog potential.
I suggest no HD labels on radios that are crap, without meeting some minimum requirements. What do you think?

I am sure this refers to the ANALOG reception.

It would pretty much have to. I don't think iBiquity would license a radio with frequency response that limited in HD mode.
 
That is the analog section. The HD section will only state "20khz on FM and 15khz on AM." No actual "Hi-Fi" lab measurements have been published and probably will not be for the foreseeable future. Such data taking is not "recommended" by iBqiuity. Specs on distortion, separation, etc. missing so far. Limited availablity of HD test equipment for test labs in current problem. Report any HD test equipment that is on the market.
 
OBVIOUSLY 2khz is the analog section. That anyone would think differently is kind of amusing. Still, frequency response specifications without db tolerances have no meaning. The exact same component, with the exact same test material can ACCURATELY be said to have frequency response 100-2kz, 50-15khz, 20-20khz, 5-50khz, etc...if the tolerances given are +-.01db, +-.1db, +-.3db, +-1db, +-1db, and +-3db.

DB tolerances mean everything, and a frequency response "specification" without them means nothing. Still, it's all about WHAT YOU HEAR, especially when one gets into the realm of perceptual coding. It's not about WHAT IS THERE, but what we HEAR...often two entirely different things. Think of tv or movies. When we look at the screen, we see moving images. It's completely fluid, and natural looking. And it isn't what's there at all! Nothing on the screen is actually "moving". It's just a very rapidly evolving "slide show". But it's too fast for us to see individual "pictures".

That's not EXACTLY what happens with perceptual coding, of course. Actual sound IS being produced, and the waveforms are far more similar to the original sound than is the "motion" from tv or movies. But moment to moment we ARE being tricked into believing we hear complex overtone structures, and natural harmonics, which have been altered by necessity. There's no room for "purists' in this brave new world. Lossy compression, and perceptual coding are everywhere. That we seldom even think about it proves how well it works...how thoroughly our senses are "fooled" into thinking we see, or hear, something different than what is actually being presented.

If it sounds "good", then it IS good. And if it actually sounds LIKE THE UNCOMPRESSED/UNALTERED ORIGINAL, then it's GREAT, whatever measurements tell us. (Likewise, if it doesn't pass the "stink test" with double-blind methodology, then it IS AWFUL, regardless of what measurements tell us.) Measurements have their place. And they can even be useful for helping us learn WHY we hear what we hear. But they're completely useless in telling us WHAT WE HEAR!
 
I think it would be great if the manufacturers actually made a fantastic analog section in the HD radios as well, so that radio would sound as good as it could, regardless of the transmission method. With the HD chipset, there's no reason that they couldn't have a variable wide-bandwidth analog AM with appropriate digital noise reduction technologies, and better yet, diversity antennae in cars. It's a great time to make a decent sounding radio - period.
 
I agree Johnny, except that there is a VERY good reason why it's not happenind (radios with the features you talked about...diversity antennas, variable bandwidth, digital noise reduction, etc.) It would cost more, at a time when manufacturers are pulling out all the stops to kill the perception that HD radios are "too expensive".
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom