[MatsudaMan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Calcujun Why is everything new, thats suppose to be better SUCK? ! ? !

Because the majority of new things for the mass market are made to sell. Not to really satisfy the customer. HD radio is made to sell and get people to buy into crap.

Gimicks are gimicks. It is what it is.

FM radio sounds really great. Actually much better than so called "hd" radio. It's more like "ld" radio. Analog signal vs. compressed digital at really low bit rate. Come on.

 

[noseallinit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsudaMan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Because the majority of new things for the mass market are made to sell. Not to really satisfy the customer. HD radio is made to sell and get people to buy into crap. Gimicks are gimicks. It is what it is. FM radio sounds really great. Actually much better than so called "hd" radio. It's more like "ld" radio. Analog signal vs. compressed digital at really low bit rate. Come on.

not even FM radio was even at the quality it is today when it first came out. it was a friggin Mono signal for crying out loud! do you expect every new technology to be at it's best when first released? come on tell me what technology was..

 

[dead of night]

I've been enoying HD radio for a little over 2 weeks now. It is a lot of fun, just receiving a digital radio signal, entirely different from the analog.

 

[granodemostasa]

I've been looking for this type of reciever.. the only problem i have is that i want a digital out to connect it to my own dac...

 

[uzziah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calcajun /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why is everything new, thats suppose to be better SUCK? ! ? !

not compared to AM

 

[uzziah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by noseallinit /img/forum/go_quote.gif not even FM radio was even at the quality it is today when it first came out. it was a friggin Mono signal for crying out loud! do you expect every new technology to be at it's best when first released? come on tell me what technology was..

i think you're missing his point; a type of broadcast that has no purpose other than sounding better, should certainly sound better right away



i don't know whether it does or not as i've not heard it myself

 

[chris_ah1]

DAB radio and also DVB-Taudio in the uk sound very good.
No noise and tons more detail, clarity and I think the sound is far better than just FM.

Sure, the FM receiver I have that is plugged into my denon home amp sounds great too with imperceptible noise, but when you have less than ideal reception, digital radio however you get it either as DAB or through a DVB tuner is a major step up.

 

[noseallinit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah /img/forum/go_quote.gif i think you're missing his point; a type of broadcast that has no purpose other than sounding better, should certainly sound better right away i don't know whether it does or not as i've not heard it myself

maybe I'm missing something about HD Radio but by what I have read it's reception and multi formats that's suppose to be the big plus with HD Radio. HD in HD Radio does not stand for High Definition. it stands for Hybrid Digital Technology.

FM Stations with CD quality sound. AM with FM quality sound. Crystal clear reception with no audio distortion. New artists and new personalities. New genres, new music from abroad. New kinds of programs you’ve never listened to before. New experimental formats that no one has ever heard. New channels to play more of what you like to hear. More talk and music from the stations you’re plugged into. More complete sets and more full albums. More in-depth interviews. More lengthy talk and more detailed news. More info on your dial, such as traffic data and stock info. Real-time artist and song IDs. Free of charge like radio should be. No subscription costs, no plans and no monthly bills. All digital, all the time. No hiss, distortion or station drop off. Reception is free, with no subscription costs.

stations that broadcast in just one format are suppose to have the best sound quality with HD Radio while stations that broadcast in multi format give up some of their sound quality to be able to broadcast in more than one format.

I have not heard it either so I'm not able to compare either. CD quality is a loose term for me but being able to hear AM stations at FM quality means a lot to me cause there are talk shows that I would very much like to hear without all the noise. there are also FM stations in the area that I would also like to receive clearer. if HD Radio will do that for me is left to be seen. plus multi format stations to hear alternative broadcast is very much appealing to me and ya do not have to pay for it.

 

[Geoff Rymer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by noseallinit /img/forum/go_quote.gif not even FM radio was even at the quality it is today when it first came out. it was a friggin Mono signal for crying out loud! do you expect every new technology to be at it's best when first released? come on tell me what technology was..

But, but, but... if people are asked about their experiences with digital radio, they can't give experience of what it's gonna be like in 30 years time, and obviously they are going to compare it to todays FM, not the very first FM broadcasts (which again, you aren't going to hear on your FM tuner). I don't see what relevence the past/future has against the present in this context.

Also you can listen to FM radio with a clear conscience knowing it's not going to result in any more pollution than digital radio!

One more point, from experience with the UK's digital radio: DAB has been advertised from day one as having CD quality sound when this is simply NOT THE CASE. I'm sure it is possible, with a sufficient bitrate, to achieve this, but since the radio authority is intent on granting licences for many channels, there simply isn't enough bandwith to allow for this. Then again, to people who listen to their CDs on crappy boomboxes, any radio which is free of static or interference will sound just like their CDs...

 

[noseallinit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff Rymer /img/forum/go_quote.gif But, but, but... if people are asked about their experiences with digital radio, they can't give experience of what it's gonna be like in 30 years time, and obviously they are going to compare it to todays FM, not the very first FM broadcasts (which again, you aren't going to hear on your FM tuner). I don't see what relevence the past/future has against the present in this context. Also you can listen to FM radio with a clear conscience knowing it's not going to result in any more pollution than digital radio! One more point, from experience with the UK's digital radio: DAB has been advertised from day one as having CD quality sound when this is simply NOT THE CASE. I'm sure it is possible, with a sufficient bitrate, to achieve this, but since the radio authority is intent on granting licences for many channels, there simply isn't enough bandwith to allow for this. Then again, to people who listen to their CDs on crappy boomboxes, any radio which is free of static or interference will sound just like their CDs...

when FM stations fade out now they revert back to a mono signal to bring the station in clearer.

hopefully HD Radio will progress just like FM and many other technologies have.

CD quality is a loose term for me. compressed formats are considered CD quality. by what I have read the quality of the broadcast will depend on the station choosing to be a single format or multi channel format for this is where sound quality is compromised.

CD's are suppose to give people with low quality systems a better sound than what analog offered. even a noise filled AM/ FM signal sounds like crap on a quality system.

 

[Toka]

HD Radio is on the list for for 'huge radio blunders', right up there with AM Stereo and FM Quad. The only positive 'news' about it comes from the company that owns it. I work in the radio industry, and it was a joke from day one. The FCC commissioners are an investor in the technology (IBOC), which is why the US is the only country that uses it (the rest us DAB). If you drive around, you will likely switch between analog/digital, because the digital signal is weaker...even worse, they are not time-aligned, so you will get a 'time shifting' radio signal (ie, jump ahead/back a few seconds). And it causes interference on adjacent channels, so overall reception is decreased. And the 'sub-bands' that the HD folks rave about is incredibly stupid...sure, a second 'deep track' band for a rock station sounds nice, but they have to share the same bandwidth, so with 2 or 3 sub-bands we are talking cell-phone quality audio.

Do not spend any money on it (nobody else is). It tried to solve a problem that didn't exist, and actually made it worse. The real problem with radio is in the programming.

 

[PUGSTUB]

A look inside the HDT-1

http://users.tns.net/~bb/hdt-1.htm

I see a lot of empty spaces

 

[noseallinit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PUGSTUB /img/forum/go_quote.gif A look inside the HDT-1 http://users.tns.net/~bb/hdt-1.htm I see a lot of empty spaces

http://users.tns.net/~bb/hdt-1.htm

HD Radio Listening Tests


The HDT-1 provided my first opportunity to hear HD Radio. Having been involved years ago in the design of low-bit-rate digital voice systems with serious artifacts, I was prepared to dislike the sound. When I finally heard it, I was amazed how similar digital and analog sounded and that I could not hear any encoding artifacts, at least on nonmulticast stations that dedicated the entire 96 kbps to a single program channel. I could hear tonal differences between analog and digital, but they varied greatly from station to station. Some stations transmitted digital audio that was consistently brighter than their analog sound, while for others the reverse was true. One station had close tonal balance but very different stereo soundstages, with analog instruments at times positioned nowhere near their digital counterparts. I had to constantly revise my estimate of HD Radio sound quality as I tuned around. I finally decided that what I was hearing was likely determined primarily by the way the stations had set their transmit processors, both analog and digital, not by the digital coding algorithm.

AM HD Radio was a different story. I heard pronounced artifacts on speech. I finally came across one or two male speakers with voices that didn't sound funny, but this was a rare exception. The typical AM background noise does go away and the bandwidth does broaden, but the cost is just too high for my ears.

 

[Solitary1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toka /img/forum/go_quote.gif HD Radio is on the list for for 'huge radio blunders', right up there with AM Stereo and FM Quad. The only positive 'news' about it comes from the company that owns it. I work in the radio industry, and it was a joke from day one. The FCC commissioners are an investor in the technology (IBOC), which is why the US is the only country that uses it (the rest us DAB). If you drive around, you will likely switch between analog/digital, because the digital signal is weaker...even worse, they are not time-aligned, so you will get a 'time shifting' radio signal (ie, jump ahead/back a few seconds). And it causes interference on adjacent channels, so overall reception is decreased. And the 'sub-bands' that the HD folks rave about is incredibly stupid...sure, a second 'deep track' band for a rock station sounds nice, but they have to share the same bandwidth, so with 2 or 3 sub-bands we are talking cell-phone quality audio. Do not spend any money on it (nobody else is). It tried to solve a problem that didn't exist, and actually made it worse. The real problem with radio is in the programming.

Oooh, AM Stereo. Now that's a carcass I thought was buried deep.

I agree with you totally, especially the last sentence. Another set of radio stations that suck, analog/digital, no difference. Bad programming rules the day.

 

[Kipper]

HD radio is not for me. I mean, this day and age, there is nobody who bothers trying to get "good sound" from radios. The people who want good sound go for CD Players, not radios, so why bother with a new format of radios that cost sooo much?