• 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

Sound quality on HD2 Not so good

M

midwestclubber

Guest
Well, my friend in Indy got an HD radio the other day. Now, I dont know if all stations are like this, but we have an HD2 channel on Q95 here, NOT DANCE OF COURSE, but the sound quality is actually quite poor, and not as good as fm, not even as good as Satelite radio. It sounded about like a 40k web stream. And reception wise, you either get it, or you dont, and when the HD signal starts to fringe, it just goes off and on, like a re buffering webstream, and the listenable range for the HD2 channel only has a usuable range of about 30 miles, and thats over a fairly flat area, while the same fm station can be heard 60 to 70 miles.
 
Behold! The Truth! :)

So basically, so far HD radio is mainly hype. Good to hear someone tell it like it is, instead of all the press releases that make HD radio sound flawless.
 
Um. Duh?

I'm rather hurt that you didn't read my rants on this IBOC crap. You're only allotted a certain amount of bandwidth...therefore, these secondary and tertiary "channels" will suffer.

It's not going to be dance radio's salvation...in fact, it's not going to be anybody's salvation. It would make more sense to obtain rebroadcasting permission from the weather channel or something and run that on the secondary channel since talk doesn't require decent quality.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Um. Duh?
>
> I'm rather hurt that you didn't read my rants on this IBOC
> crap.

Your opinions are always highly valued, but I thought you might have exaggerated in your statements considering your stance on high quality internet streams.
I know you don't think stations streaming at 128 Kbps sound differently from those at 160 or 192 K, but I notice a richer and fuller sound on some stations (referring to stations that utilize their high streams with the proper technical expertise, such as the stations out of Holland). Over at my office I use a simple laptop with no fancy add-on speakers (like the Bose speakers I have at home), and yet I notice a considerable difference between stations streaming at 24 K versus those using 96 or 128 K streams.
 
Re: Behold! The Truth! :) What about Internet radio in your car.

> So basically, so far HD radio is mainly hype. Good to hear
> someone tell it like it is, instead of all the press
> releases that make HD radio sound flawless.
>
Yeah, If a 50,000 watt HD2 station gets out 30 miles, on fairly level terrain in Indiana, can you imagine what a 6,000 watt HD2 station, in an area like Seattle, L.A, San Franciso, would be like, absolutely horrible, and you know areas like New York and Chicago, with high sky scrapers, would suffer severe drop outs, besides that, the stations in New York are mostly 6,000 watt stations, with Philly adjacent signals. This HD2 success and takeover is never going to be plausible. You would be better off waiting untill internet radio in your car is more pheasable and available. I think Verizon BB already made this possible, all you need is a laptop installed in your car, and a wallet full of cash, Please correct me if im wrong, but im curious as to the limitations of Verizon BB and Wi-FI, Which I know Wi-fi isnt available everywhere.
 
HD, to put in simple words, is a radio transmission in digital form, problem with digital broadcasts is that, while "static" may be eliminated, the problem of buffering begins (internet stations are familiar with this). The REAL benefit of HD radio will be with AM stations , who with HD will be able to sound like the FM radio of today. So why all the hype for HD?

I think its Because the FM radio needs more channels to compete with Satellite Radio, and they needed a new system that would allow more channels on the band.





Well, my friend in Indy got an HD radio the other day. Now,
> I dont know if all stations are like this, but we have an
> HD2 channel on Q95 here, NOT DANCE OF COURSE, but the sound
> quality is actually quite poor, and not as good as fm, not
> even as good as Satelite radio. It sounded about like a 40k
> web stream. And reception wise, you either get it, or you
> dont, and when the HD signal starts to fringe, it just goes
> off and on, like a re buffering webstream, and the
> listenable range for the HD2 channel only has a usuable
> range of about 30 miles, and thats over a fairly flat area,
> while the same fm station can be heard 60 to 70 miles.
>
 
> Um. Duh?
>
> I'm rather hurt that you didn't read my rants on this IBOC
> crap. You're only allotted a certain amount of
> bandwidth...therefore, these secondary and tertiary
> "channels" will suffer.
>
> It's not going to be dance radio's salvation...in fact, it's
> not going to be anybody's salvation. It would make more
> sense to obtain rebroadcasting permission from the weather
> channel or something and run that on the secondary channel
> since talk doesn't require decent quality.
>

I have HD down here in Miami.. and the sound quality kicks the (BLEEP) out of XM and Sirius sound quality.. so its a start in the right direction.<P ID="signature">______________
www.1club.fm</P>
 
> I have HD down here in Miami.. and the sound quality kicks
> the (BLEEP) out of XM and Sirius sound quality.. so its a
> start in the right direction.
>

A station with IBOC and no "-2" channel will sound good. Once stations begin adding "-2", "-3" and "-4" etc, the sound quality will decline. In addition, bet on many stations having poor engineering standards, which will reduce the sound quality further.

IBOC stinks. It's too little, too late to save FM/AM.
 
> > Um. Duh?
> >
> > I'm rather hurt that you didn't read my rants on this IBOC
>
> > crap. You're only allotted a certain amount of
> > bandwidth...therefore, these secondary and tertiary
> > "channels" will suffer.
> >
> > It's not going to be dance radio's salvation...in fact,
> it's
> > not going to be anybody's salvation. It would make more
> > sense to obtain rebroadcasting permission from the weather
>
> > channel or something and run that on the secondary channel
>
> > since talk doesn't require decent quality.
> >
>
> I have HD down here in Miami.. and the sound quality kicks
> the (BLEEP) out of XM and Sirius sound quality.. so its a
> start in the right direction.
> Like I said, Some stations may sound better than others, depending upon the bandwidth of the station, The proccessing ect, plus South Florida is very flat, and is home to a bunch of 100,000 watt blowtorches. Indiana isnt allowed to have over Class B 50,000 watt stations, and most are much lower powered than that.
 
> I have HD down here in Miami.. and the sound quality kicks
> the (BLEEP) out of XM and Sirius sound quality.. so its a
> start in the right direction.

If you're utilizing all the bandwidth for one channel, then fine. When you start splitting it up--which is what we're discussing here--is when problems start.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
> Your opinions are always highly valued, but I thought you
> might have exaggerated in your statements considering your
> stance on high quality internet streams.

It's not the bitrate. It's the encoding algorithm.

> I know you don't think stations streaming at 128 Kbps sound
> differently from those at 160 or 192 K, but I notice a
> richer and fuller sound on some stations (referring to
> stations that utilize their high streams with the proper
> technical expertise, such as the stations out of Holland).

My argument is that the average joe DOES know the difference between a lower quality like 64k and a higher quality like 128k...but will not tell the difference between 128k and 192k. Again, you must take the encoding algorithm into account. They ALL sound different between fraunhoffer, lame, mp3pro (non-enhanced), etc.

It's also the financials. That's fine and dandy that a holland station does it, but we talked about US stations doing it. It's not feasible given the nearly unnoticable gain in frequency bandwidth, but VERY noticable gain in network bandwidth...and that adds cost.

> Over at my office I use a simple laptop with no fancy add-on
> speakers (like the Bose speakers I have at home), and yet I
> notice a considerable difference between stations streaming
> at 24 K versus those using 96 or 128 K streams.

No one argued that. We all know anything less than 96k is quite apparent due to FM radio setting the "standard" in bottom-line audio quality.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Something you all are failing to realize is that this is brand new technology that is being put in which most radio engineers are still learning how to use. Most of your big city engineers have been in the biz for over 20 years. They are learning on the go with this new system. All the bugs are not out and wont be for awhile. I had a meeting on last week discussing this technology for Infinity. Think about it. Was FM great the minute it went into action? How bout cable tv? I remember as kid the cable was going out a lot. What about cell phones? Remember those big ass bag phones people carried around and how was the reception? Hell thats still a problem. Give this technology sometime. Most of the transmitters have been just starting to go in this past year. They are finding out that they can have up to five channels anymore its being scaled back. Most of the secondary stations arent using processing at all either. These companies would not be wasting money on this if they didnt believe in it. I believe in HD as long as they program these extra channels right. AM is going to definately help. I work for an AM station and we are already changing things over to make the HD sound even better.
 
Re: Behold! The Truth! :) What about Internet radio in your car.

> > So basically, so far HD radio is mainly hype. Good to hear
>
> > someone tell it like it is, instead of all the press
> > releases that make HD radio sound flawless.
> >
> Yeah, If a 50,000 watt HD2 station gets out 30 miles, on
> fairly level terrain in Indiana, can you imagine what a
> 6,000 watt HD2 station, in an area like Seattle, L.A, San
> Franciso, would be like, absolutely horrible, and you know
> areas like New York and Chicago, with high sky scrapers,
> would suffer severe drop outs, besides that, the stations in
> New York are mostly 6,000 watt stations, with Philly
> adjacent signals. This HD2 success and takeover is never
> going to be plausible. You would be better off waiting
> untill internet radio in your car is more pheasable and
> available. I think Verizon BB already made this possible,
> all you need is a laptop installed in your car, and a wallet
> full of cash, Please correct me if im wrong, but im curious
> as to the limitations of Verizon BB and Wi-FI, Which I know
> Wi-fi isnt available everywhere.
>



You reafirmmed my take on HD Radio. All the hype while covering up the lies. It can't be heard as far as the primary station. How can we expect "GOOD" programming on these stations if 1)Nobody is buying the units 2)The Range is limited 3)SQ is below quality-wise from the main station?
 
> Something you all are failing to realize is that this is
> brand new technology that is being put in which most radio
> engineers are still learning how to use. Most of your big
> city engineers have been in the biz for over 20 years. They
> are learning on the go with this new system. All the bugs
> are not out and wont be for awhile.

I don't buy that at all. The numbers don't lie. You have a certain amount of deviation...if you exceed that, you stomp on someone. That means you can only fit so much data into this allotted bandwidth. It WILL sound like crap...unless they change the IBOC spec, it's a mathematical certainty.

> Most of the
> secondary stations arent using processing at all either.

Isn't processing irrelevant? In the digital world, -20dB = -20dB. In the analog world, -20dB = static. You would receive an exact duplicate of whatever is originating at the source, eliminating the analog overshoot issue and removing the need to clip the hell out of it for a better s/n ratio. If you're far enough away from the antenna that you can't pick it up, you hear silence. On or off. 1 or 0.

> AM is going to
> definately help. I work for an AM station and we are
> already changing things over to make the HD sound even
> better.

AM IBOC is a disaster. They're suggesting we make AM even more volatile, even at night when it all goes to hell anyway. I believe WPEN 950 is IBOC...I enjoy their programming when I'm standing next to the freaking tower on an adjacent frequency.

I should probably ask this on the engineering board, but what happens when you go under a bridge with AM IBOC? Amplitude modulation means you lose gain under a bridge or in a building...and because of the lower frequency, it doesn't penetrate as well. So everytime I drive under a bridge I hear silence? Whenever I'm in a building, the modulation is so weak I can't acquire a digital stream?

Why didn't they wait for the FCC to take back the analog TV frequencies and do a completely new technology in that space? Now we have a bunch of half-assed FMs with lousy quality (which, unless the spec is changed, will remain sounding like CRAP) and a bunch of AMs that step on each other. The public is still clueless either way.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
 
Re: Behold! The Truth! :) What about Internet radio in your car.

> Yeah, If a 50,000 watt HD2 station gets out 30 miles, on
> fairly level terrain in Indiana, can you imagine what a
> 6,000 watt HD2 station, in an area like Seattle, L.A, San
> Franciso, would be like, absolutely horrible, and you know
> areas like New York and Chicago, with high sky scrapers,
> would suffer severe drop outs, besides that, the stations in
> New York are mostly 6,000 watt stations, with Philly
> adjacent signals.

The 6 kW NY stations are 50 kW equivalents because of their superior height. They get out just as well as a 50kW station in Indiana does.

> I think Verizon BB already made this possible,
> all you need is a laptop installed in your car, and a wallet
> full of cash, Please correct me if im wrong, but im curious
> as to the limitations of Verizon BB and Wi-FI, Which I know
> Wi-fi isnt available everywhere.

It's in most of the major cities now. $60 a month. The next big thing is going to be WiMax, which will help solve the capacity problems that would result if everyone used cellular broadband.
 
HD is going to save AM period. The processing im talking about reverb and the other processing that gives some flavor. Again this is all brand new. It will all be fixed
 
> HD is going to save AM period. The processing im talking
> about reverb and the other processing that gives some
> flavor. Again this is all brand new. It will all be fixed

Notice you don't give any technical details. That's because you have none to support that claim. IB(A)C on AM is total crap. It creates noise and interference and will totally destroy the AM band. If every AM station in this country were to switch to IB(A)C, the whole band would be unlistenable. HD will save AM? I'd like some of what you're smoking.

Post 1010 dedicated to WINS, New York.<P ID="signature">______________
"Once a week, recovering illusionist Roy Horn reportedly visits Montecore, the tiger that mauled him. Though disturbingly, they’re conjugal visits!" -- Horatio Sanz
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
Re: Behold! The Truth! :) What about Internet radio in your car.

> You would be better off waiting untill internet radio in
> your car is more pheasable and available.

Exactly what I've been saying for nearly a decade now. That's the future of radio.

Post 1011 dedicated to 101.1 WCBS-FM... the oldies format, not this flavor-of-the-month Jack crap that's apparently failing in NYC now.<P ID="signature">______________
"Once a week, recovering illusionist Roy Horn reportedly visits Montecore, the tiger that mauled him. Though disturbingly, they’re conjugal visits!" -- Horatio Sanz
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
 
> My argument is that the average joe DOES know the difference
> between a lower quality like 64k and a higher quality like
> 128k...but will not tell the difference between 128k and
> 192k. Again, you must take the encoding algorithm into
> account. They ALL sound different between fraunhoffer,
> lame, mp3pro (non-enhanced), etc.

I agree with most of that, but keep in mind that the average joe's sound system is slowly getting better and better - speakers will start pointing out lower quality streams. Net connectivity also is getting better and faster, and as more average joe's start exploring net radio, they'll start tuning into the 128k+ streams and comparing. I think many people notice better audio quality on a more subconscious level, just as they subconsciously notice avg-to-peak ratios of FM stations. I've already heard average joes talking/complaining about how one satellite provider's streams "sound better" than another's - satellite is in a digital realm and, already, similar listening trends originating in the FM world (favoring station A over station B cause of its "sound") are being identified.

My dad isn't an audio geek, but his musical tastes vary, and he started listening a lot to net radio stations over the past 2 years. He forked over money for a RealPass so he could hear his favorite classical and eclectic stations at 128k cause he didn't like the lower audio quality. He also mentioned (as seems to be the pattern) that he didn't totally appreciate the difference in audio quality until he compared the low vs. high bitrate streams. He's still paying for the subscription today. There must be a conscious OR subconscious force driving all these pay-for-fidelity services out there, else AOL and Real and DI and others wouldn't bother.

As net radio gets bigger and stations start using higher bitrates to entice subscribers and newcomers ("we've got higher sound quality than the other guy"), I think listeners will prove to become much more keen to audio quality. They'll demand better encoding technologies, but they'll first demand higher bitrates... and they'll notice the difference in quality between those bitrates. Initially they'll use the number as a comparison, until other technologies become more mainstream and widely available (AAC for instance). Hell, they're already doing this now.<P ID="signature">______________
Alden "Dogga" Gillespy
Owner/Founder, Dance & Alternative PD
ClubNetRadio.com - Free Internet Radio Dance Hits 24/7</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom