Sound and Vision now counts lack of HD in the "cons" section

[Mike Walker]

This month for the first time, I noticed that in their receiver reviews, Sound and Vision Magazine (formerly Stereo Review) now counts the lack of HD in the "cons" section...in the little "pros" and "cons" summary. Not surprising, because HD is now kind of a badge of honor in high end home theater receivers. MOST of the best ones include it.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

This month for the first time, I noticed that in their receiver reviews, Sound and Vision Magazine (formerly Stereo Review) now counts the lack of HD in the "cons" section...in the little "pros" and "cons" summary. Not surprising, because HD is now kind of a badge of honor in high end home theater receivers. MOST of the best ones include it.

HD Radio rightfully deserves to be in the "cons" section.

 

[passtheword]

HD Radio rightfully deserves to be in the "cons" section.

ROTFLOL

[EDIT-unauthorized promotion]

 

[scanman1]

"Badge of honor" LOL! HD means Huge Dogpile because it sounds like crap! True audiophile grade receivers shouldn't include a standard relying on low bitrate digital transmission standard which will make sound worse than a $99 receiver which receives analog only.

 

[wgliradio]

I'm sure Quad and C-Quam were badges of honor as well............. :

 

[dumber than a box of hair]

HD is now kind of a badge of honor in high end home theater receivers. MOST of the best ones include it.

Best laugh of the day. Putting HD in high-end systems, where its horribly distorted artifacts become even more apparent to the average listener, is the kiss of death.

The old Stereo Review never would have made such an obvious gaffe.

I shopped for a high-end home theater system a few months ago, at some big-box retailers and a specialty store. NONE of them had HD. NONE.

 

[clouseau]

Ah yes. A legitimate observation from a noted publication and the buffoons and the children chime in with their "Con" and "Dogpile" references.

Nice to see somte things never change.

Clouseau

 

[Mike Walker]

Admittedly home theater publications tend to prefer reviewing the truly expensive stuff (800 dollars is considered "economy" or "entry level"), so we're talking mostly receivers above 1500 dollars. But the vast majority of receiver reviews I've read (see above caveat) recently are for models including HD.

By the way, "The Audio Critic" finds HD to have dramatic clarity, a stunning absence of noise, and somewhat compromised sense of depth at bitrates of 48kbps and above. At 96kbps, the clarity is startling compared to analog FM stereo...WDAV in Davidson NC being a shining example of great engineering on the analog and digital sides, with no multicasting to dumb down the bitrates.

The HDC codec is very similar to aac+, generally thought to be the most transparent low bitrate codec for internet streaming. HD sounds pretty much like good internet radio...no better, and no worse. Want to know what WDAV (for instance) sounds like in HD? Check out their online stream...I find the two (internet and HD) pretty much indistinguishable.

 

[Savage]

(Almost as stunning as the lack of HD sales. ANYwhere. The product has essentially disappeared from retail shelves here in Rochester, NY. And I think the local situation is hardly unique from what I've read.)

 

[audioguy]

The HDC codec is very similar to aac+, generally thought to be the most transparent low bitrate codec for internet streaming. HD sounds pretty much like good internet radio...no better, and no worse. Want to know what WDAV (for instance) sounds like in HD? Check out their online stream...I find the two (internet and HD) pretty much indistinguishable.

So let me understand; HD radio at its best sounds "no better, and no worse" than internet streaming? Is that supposed to make me want to go out and buy one? Is that an improvement over analog?

I already own a half dozen computers. Why should I buy an HD radio if the sound quality isn't any better than that, and the reception isn't as reliable?

Our local classical station here in Chi-town went "HD" today, and now they have the same hissy, whiny sidebands of all the others. And in addition, the analog sound is now distorted. That is no improvement in my estimation.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

The HDC codec is very similar to aac+, generally thought to be the most transparent low bitrate codec for internet streaming. HD sounds pretty much like good internet radio...no better, and no worse. Want to know what WDAV (for instance) sounds like in HD? Check out their online stream...I find the two (internet and HD) pretty much indistinguishable.

So let me understand; HD radio at its best sounds "no better, and no worse" than internet streaming? Is that supposed to make me want to go out and buy one? Is that an improvement over analog?

I already own a half dozen computers. Why should I buy an HD radio if the sound quality isn't any better than that, and the reception isn't as reliable?

Our local classical station here in Chi-town went "HD" today, and now they have the same hissy, whiny sidebands of all the others. And in addition, the analog sound is now distorted. That is no improvement in my estimation.

Amen

 

[audiomusiclover]

Admittedly home theater publications tend to prefer reviewing the truly expensive stuff (800 dollars is considered "economy" or "entry level"), so we're talking mostly receivers above 1500 dollars. But the vast majority of receiver reviews I've read (see above caveat) recently are for models including HD.

By the way, "The Audio Critic" finds HD to have dramatic clarity, a stunning absence of noise, and somewhat compromised sense of depth at bitrates of 48kbps and above. At 96kbps, the clarity is startling compared to analog FM stereo...WDAV in Davidson NC being a shining example of great engineering on the analog and digital sides, with no multicasting to dumb down the bitrates.

The HDC codec is very similar to aac+, generally thought to be the most transparent low bitrate codec for internet streaming. HD sounds pretty much like good internet radio...no better, and no worse. Want to know what WDAV (for instance) sounds like in HD? Check out their online stream...I find the two (internet and HD) pretty much indistinguishable.

I listen to WDAV often via HD radio. When comparing HD radio vs. their analog, I can detect a dynamic range reduction and/or a midrange change between the two, with the analog sound winning out. The HD radio signal does have better treble when driving in the car, but one can note that it is missing something in the compressed signal otherwise. Don't get me wrong, WDAV wipes out the other local metro stations in sound quality, be it analog or HD radio, but I no longer feel that HD signal is superior really in many cases, depending on the type of music played. Having a single HD channel is the only way to go if a station is striving for the best sound quality, as with classical or jazz. I am growing tired of the low bit rate fans claiming there is no difference and I will argue that is a main reason people tend to grow restless listening to music so quickly now. It is understandably difficult to listen to a long string of music when more than 9 out of 10 bits of the song were thrown out. I do enjoy HD radio in the car as it does offer maybe a slight improvement in sound quality, even if artificial, for many stations. It can also add alternative programming (no more than HD1 & 2, unless for talk radio though). There is the HD radio signal issue that I hope can be corrected for FM (10db increase). HD signals are okay in this region of NC, but I would bet the 10db increase would improve many areas drastically, as the dropouts can be annoying when listening to stations over 25 mi away.

 

[Savage]

Yes. Let's all remember: digital is not an audio waveform. It's a digital REPLICA of an audio waveform. As another poster aptly noted, digital is a connect-the-dots approximation of the original analog source. The fewer the dots, the more inaccurate the resulting facsimile becomes. And THAT'S the problem with HD-FMs which utilize HD-2 and HD-3 streams and the concomitant reduction to 32 Kbps per stream stereo. Maybe the marvelous compression scheme gets the resulting product "pretty close" - but, as the old saying goes, "'close' only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades." If the final product ends up sounding like a gritty approximation of the original analog sound, the sophistication of the encoder doesn't really amount to much in practice.

The whole HD-encoding debate reminds me of the debate over intermodulation distortion of forty to fifty years ago. Back then, "audio experts" - arguably the antecedents of HD's mad scientists - stubbornly insisted that intermod was undetectable by the human ear. This was the basis of the insistence on cheap single-ended vacuum tube radios and phono amps which produced 10% or worse IMD. Engineers pointed to "listening tests" during which the audience supposedly rejected wide-range reproduction, preferring the mellow, muffled sound of the radios and recorded discs of the day with bandpass of about 5000 Hz.

Turns out: what the audience was REALLY rejecting was pronounced IMD in the supposedly "wide-range" test reproduction. When listeners got the opportunity to hear CLEAN reproduction up to 15 kHz, it was overwhelmingly preferred to the limited quality coming out of a 50C5 beam-power single tube into a six-inch speaker.

"Listener fatigue" has a pronounced - and undesirable - effect on TSL when it comes to radio listening. The civilian listener may not be able to tell you what's wrong when there are digital artifacts. But they detect that something is missing, and all-too-soon they reach for the power switch to turn off the noise. It's a real problem with HD Radio IMO - of ALL flavors, AM & FM. The artifacting is a tuneout.

It's time to stop sacrificing all the interests of radio on the irrelevant altar of "it's gotta be digital." What's it's GOTTA be is - "listenable." If analog provides the more universally satisfying listening experience and encourages longer listening periods, then I vote for analog every time.

 

[KB1OKL]

Admittedly home theater publications tend to prefer reviewing the truly expensive stuff (800 dollars is considered "economy" or "entry level"), so we're talking mostly receivers above 1500 dollars. But the vast majority of receiver reviews I've read (see above caveat) recently are for models including HD.

In the home theater arena what matters is not how good it sounds or how well it is made but how many bells and whistles it has whether they work well or not, kind of like the old 16 transistor radios of the 60's 10 of them were just dummy's stuck on the circuit board to inflate the number of transistors to fool people into thinking they were more powerful. The people who buy these are the type who have to have every latest gadget no matter how bad or good it is which is why lack of IBOC is seen as a con, it is one less gadget to brag about.

 

[Chuck]

I somehow doubt that Sound and Vision is the arbiter of public taste. It's a specialty magazine for people who enjoy that kind of thing. I doubt that Joe The Plumber is a subscriber. Even if he is, I'll bet that their circulation is less than the number of people who have HD radios.

 

[hipporadio]

I'm sure Quad and C-Quam were badges of honor as well............. :

[I’ll leave “Quad” out of this equation – for obvious purposes], but C-QUAM came much closer to “badge of honor” status than the [in]ability of a current-day AM receiver to hiss, gargle, and whine in “HD”!