HD digital radio having seroius trouble

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Robert Case » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 05:47:48



See:
http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/guywire/gw-06-10-03.shtml

As things stand now, "HD" radio sounds like crap.....

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Sven Franklyn We » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:53:30


Quote:

> As things stand now, "HD" radio sounds like crap.....

What I'm concerned about is what it does to the ANALOG side of the
signal.  

Now THAT sounds like crap!!!

Who cares what the digital sounds like....nobody can listen to it.  

That's like worrying about the quality of your color-cast when 99
percent of your viewers are using black & white sets and getting lousy
greyscale picture quality.

--
Sven Weil
New York City, U.S.A.

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Steven Diniu » Sun, 29 Jun 2003 11:57:40


I found I LIKED KNCO! Just that KNXT beat the ***out of it. Pah!



| > As things stand now, "HD" radio sounds like crap.....
|
| What I'm concerned about is what it does to the ANALOG side of the
| signal.
|
| Now THAT sounds like crap!!!
|
| Who cares what the digital sounds like....nobody can listen to it.
|
| That's like worrying about the quality of your color-cast when 99
| percent of your viewers are using black & white sets and getting lousy
| greyscale picture quality.
|
| --
| Sven Weil
| New York City, U.S.A.
 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Scott W. Harve » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:43:54


On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:47:48 -0400, Robert Casey

Quote:

>See:
>http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/guywire/gw-06-10-03.shtml

>As things stand now, "HD" radio sounds like crap.....

"Many industry participants anxiously await the rollout of radio's
most important technological innovation in more than 50 years. "

Gee, shouldn't we WAIT UNTIL THE THING WORKS before such a radical
change is mandated on our broadcast band? AM has been in formal
existance for 80 years now... a couple of more years PERFECTING this
thing and making it FULLY COMPATIBLE with existing receivers won't
make a bit of difference to anyone except Ibiquity's shareholders.

HD digital is a classic example of technology without purpose.  AM
stations are going to spend millions so they can broadcast Rush and
Dr. Laura in crappy, compressed digital sound instead of using their
existing facilities to broadcast crappy, compressed analog signals
containing the same material. And consumers will pay more for the
receivers, because the manufacturers have to pay a licensing fee to
Ibiquity. Wow, what an innovation!

Consumers seem to have no interest at all in this, ask 100 people on
the street about digital AM and 99 o them will look at you with a
stupid blank stare. I seriously doubt you're going see them beating
down the doors of Circuit City or Best Buy to get a capable receiver.

Analog AM BC is the McDonald's hamburger of radio. Not the most
appealing, but if you're hungry, it works. Digital was originally sold
as the Prime Rib replacement, but so far in practice, it's been more
like the culinary equivalent of having a turd rammed down your throat.
Why bother?

-Scott

To reply to this message via e-mail, replace "fromrarp" in the e-mail address with "scott"

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by donu » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:45:16




Quote:
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:47:48 -0400, Robert Casey

>>See:
>>http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/guywire/gw-06-10-03.shtml

>>As things stand now, "HD" radio sounds like crap.....

> "Many industry participants anxiously await the rollout of radio's
> most important technological innovation in more than 50 years. "

> Gee, shouldn't we WAIT UNTIL THE THING WORKS before such a radical
> change is mandated on our broadcast band? AM has been in formal
> existance for 80 years now... a couple of more years PERFECTING this
> thing and making it FULLY COMPATIBLE with existing receivers won't
> make a bit of difference to anyone except Ibiquity's shareholders.

> HD digital is a classic example of technology without purpose.  AM
> stations are going to spend millions so they can broadcast Rush and
> Dr. Laura in crappy, compressed digital sound instead of using their
> existing facilities to broadcast crappy, compressed analog signals
> containing the same material. And consumers will pay more for the
> receivers, because the manufacturers have to pay a licensing fee to
> Ibiquity. Wow, what an innovation!

> Consumers seem to have no interest at all in this, ask 100 people on
> the street about digital AM and 99 o them will look at you with a
> stupid blank stare. I seriously doubt you're going see them beating
> down the doors of Circuit City or Best Buy to get a capable receiver.

> Analog AM BC is the McDonald's hamburger of radio. Not the most
> appealing, but if you're hungry, it works. Digital was originally sold
> as the Prime Rib replacement, but so far in practice, it's been more
> like the culinary equivalent of having a turd rammed down your throat.
> Why bother?

> -Scott

> To reply to this message via e-mail, replace "fromrarp" in the e-mail
> address with "scott"

There is intense pressure from many lobbying groups to get digital radio
off the ground. They would LOVE to get the BCB saturated with these signals
and make analog receivers obsolete because of the QRM. Do you think it's an
accident they are pushing for a "solution" that will shove analog radios
out the door, rather than some format that will allow analog to co-exist?
 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Larry Ozaro » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:11:33


Digital will be a double whammy for MW DXers.
The sidebands will clobber weak-signal adjacent
and alternate channel signals, and I doubt that
digital signals themselves will be decodable under
dx conditions.

Of course DXers are hobbyists and our interests
are not terribly important to either the FCC or
the networks....

Oz

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Larry Ozaro » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:13:52


It also says something about the quality of on-line punditry,
that this "Guy Wire" basically concludes that digital is
both desirable and inevitable basically because it is new.
Quote:

> Gee, shouldn't we WAIT UNTIL THE THING WORKS before such a radical
> change is mandated on our broadcast band? AM has been in formal
> existance for 80 years now... a couple of more years PERFECTING this
> thing and making it FULLY COMPATIBLE with existing receivers won't
> make a bit of difference to anyone except Ibiquity's shareholders.

> HD digital is a classic example of technology without purpose.  AM
> stations are going to spend millions so they can broadcast Rush and
> Dr. Laura in crappy, compressed digital sound instead of using their
> existing facilities to broadcast crappy, compressed analog signals
> containing the same material. And consumers will pay more for the
> receivers, because the manufacturers have to pay a licensing fee to
> Ibiquity. Wow, what an innovation!

> Consumers seem to have no interest at all in this, ask 100 people on
> the street about digital AM and 99 o them will look at you with a
> stupid blank stare. I seriously doubt you're going see them beating
> down the doors of Circuit City or Best Buy to get a capable receiver.

> Analog AM BC is the McDonald's hamburger of radio. Not the most
> appealing, but if you're hungry, it works. Digital was originally sold
> as the Prime Rib replacement, but so far in practice, it's been more
> like the culinary equivalent of having a turd rammed down your throat.
> Why bother?

> -Scott

> To reply to this message via e-mail, replace "fromrarp" in the e-mail address with "scott"

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Frank Dresse » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 03:55:19



Quote:
> It also says something about the quality of on-line punditry,
> that this "Guy Wire" basically concludes that digital is
> both desirable and inevitable basically because it is new.

Well, it's even newer than HDTV.  And if even 2 people in 10,000 want it, it
will be twice as popular!

Frank Dresser

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Larry Ozaro » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 04:37:28


Purely from my parochial point of view, at least HDTV doesn't threaten
to ruin any of my hobbies.

I actually know a few guys who work for Ibiquity (my company was
originally responsible for a lot of the PAC junk). Unfortunately
I'm in the position of having to wish them the worst of luck.

Quote:



> > It also says something about the quality of on-line punditry,
> > that this "Guy Wire" basically concludes that digital is
> > both desirable and inevitable basically because it is new.

> Well, it's even newer than HDTV.  And if even 2 people in 10,000 want it, it
> will be twice as popular!

> Frank Dresser

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by --Bill- » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:28:03


Quote:

> Digital will be a double whammy for MW DXers.
> The sidebands will clobber weak-signal adjacent
> and alternate channel signals, and I doubt that
> digital signals themselves will be decodable under
> dx conditions.

On the other hand, actually copying a distant digital MW signal will be
pretty impressive DX-wise!
-Bill
 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Tim R » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:59:47



Quote:
> It also says something about the quality of on-line punditry,
> that this "Guy Wire" basically concludes that digital is
> both desirable and inevitable basically because it is new.

Didn't they say that about Betamax video tapes?

 "

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Tim R » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:00:41



Quote:
> Purely from my parochial point of view, at least HDTV doesn't threaten
> to ruin any of my hobbies.

It's gonna ruin the most expensive one I have.

Think about it....

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Frank Dresse » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:38:48



Quote:
> Purely from my parochial point of view, at least HDTV doesn't threaten
> to ruin any of my hobbies.

> I actually know a few guys who work for Ibiquity (my company was
> originally responsible for a lot of the PAC junk). Unfortunately
> I'm in the position of having to wish them the worst of luck.

Would it work out better if they set thier sights lower?  How much could be
done with digital sidebands that tapered down to zero power at +/- 10 kHz
from the carrier, rather than filling up the whole channel with a square
sholdered noise profile?  I think most people would get something out of a
system that reduced or eliminated static crashes and heterodynes.  I doubt
there's really much demand for the press kit benefits such wideband audio or
stereo.

Frank Dresser

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Uncle Pete » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:26:54



Quote:



> > It also says something about the quality of on-line punditry,
> > that this "Guy Wire" basically concludes that digital is
> > both desirable and inevitable basically because it is new.

> Didn't they say that about Betamax video tapes?

>  "

But.... Betamax was a superior format...

Pete

 
 
 

HD digital radio having seroius trouble

Post by Brenda An » Mon, 30 Jun 2003 12:46:21




Quote:
> But.... Betamax was a superior format...

> Pete

Compared to VHS, it still is.. :)