HD radio doesn't sound any better - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 148 Old 12-01-2008, 06:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mattdp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Agreed. It isn't "HD sound," but 96k is a heckuva lot better than analog FM stereo. The lower distortion, noise floor and THD levels can make up for the compression artifacts, imo.

For whatever reason, I don't like the sound of FM (even really un-processed stations). I can digg the sound of vinyl, and old music (recorded on tape and tube boards) on CD. Heck, I use tube mics and "warm" plugins in the studio, but even good FM kinda hits me the wrong way, (I think it's the 15KHZ frequency response).

http://rochestermnhd.blogspot.com/ - Tech 55901. Tech news for Rochester. Authored by mattdp and gjvrieze.
http://tvfmantennas.a.wiki-site.com/index.php/Hardware
mattdp is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 148 Old 12-01-2008, 09:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Why didn't you just ask if i'd heard HD radio on a full blown system instead of pretending to be "just curious".

Please excuse my false assumption that the way you listen to it everyday influenced the way you think it sounds. Clearly you had the opportunity to hear it on a quality stereo system [were the speakers more than 12 inches apart I hope? ) in the past and use that to determine how it sounds and not the way you listen to it daily. I stand corrected.


Quote:
Perhaps you also missed where I said I like HD radio and am not criticizing the sound quality.

Two posts earlier:

Quote:
HD Radio is one of the lowest definition audio sources available. Yes it is digital, with all the benefits that digital brings. But it is also lower definition than CD, SACD, DVDA, VHS audio, CableTV, Satelite TV audio, Blu-Ray, Laser Disc, OTA TV, and arguably even analog tape, vinyl, and FM radio some of the time.

How about the drive through intercom they take your order from at McDonalds' ? Is the "definition" at least better than that? So "one of the lowest definition audio sources available" isn't a criticism of the sound quality, huh?

We seem to have different working definitions of what "high" and "definition" mean when applied to audio/video reproduction so it's pointless to continue this conversation. It's like arguing if 372 is a "high" number or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they should have stuck with the technical name so we wouldn't be having these arguments: NRSC-5A.
Just rolls off the tongue now doesn't it. "Now broadcasting in NRSC-5A!"

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #93 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 06:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
If you read my posts at face value, they have been critical only of the term "HD" being used to refer to a relatively low bit-rate audio source.

Most people would consider the sound quality to be good, just as they don't mind mp3 and aac from their iPods. However, these are also not "HD" audio sources (usually). An honest discussion of bit-rate should not be perceived as an attack on HD Radio.
dfiler is offline  
post #94 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 07:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Which bitrate then is the "correct" one to be called "high", to you? Or do we select a different bitrate as the "high" one per codec, per medium? The same bitrate using mp3PRO may for instance have better "highness" than just plain vanilla MP3.

Maybe they should have called it "almost medium-high radio" to please you or is that still too generous in describing the "definition" level?

Since American HDTV is also a a lossy compression scheme, a variety of MPEG-2, I wonder if there are similar threads in the video sections of this forum where people argue it has no place calling itself "high" either?

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #95 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 07:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Certainly there will never be a consensus on an exact bit-rate for audio to qualify as "HD". But there is probably a near unanimous opinion, at least among people who are familiar with bit-rates, that 128kbps and lower is not "HD" audio. The bar is probably much, much higher than that even. But for this discussion the exact number doesn't matter. HD Radio is far below the arguable range, whatever it is.

Audio doesn't have to be high bit-rate to sound good to most people. So this isn't a criticism of HD Radio, but rather an accurate characterization of the sound quality relative to other sources.
dfiler is offline  
post #96 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 09:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Yes, they have a lot in common. But high definition, HD radio is not.

Then HDTV is also not high definition.

Quote:


HD Radio is one of the lowest definition audio sources available. Yes it is digital, with all the benefits that digital brings. But it is also lower definition than CD, SACD, DVDA,

These are "media formats". They're not broadcast across radio waves. They are mass-produced and sold individually.

Quote:


VHS audio,

It may sound good to you with dbx reduction but it's no better than cassette tapes with dbx noise reduction. Is that your standard of high quality audio in the 21st century?

Quote:


CableTV, Satelite TV audio,

Are you serious? Comcast sends me 192 kbps AC-3 audio on most cable channels! This is two generations behind AAC+ compression.

Quote:


Blu-Ray, Laser Disc,

These are media formats.

Quote:


OTA TV,

Yes, 448 kbps AC-3, for the few stations that broadcast it, is the one audio broadcast format that I will say with no hesitation sounds better than HD Radio. However, just because it sounds better doesn't mean HD Radio doesn't sound excellent.

Quote:


and arguably even analog tape, vinyl, and FM radio some of the time.

I have not heard any analog tape, nor vinyl (should I mention that these are media formats again) that consistently sound better than 96 kbps HD Radio. And yes I own thousands of titles in the two formats.

FM radio never sounds better unless you are completely deaf above 15 kHz and never turn the volume above barely-audible.

Quote:


I like listening to HD Radio and do so every day. I'm not criticizing the sound quality of HD radio, but rather pointing out that the term HD is incorrect, and sometimes gives people false expectations.

Head straight to the HD Programming and HDTV Technical forums. You'll discover that HDTV also sometimes gives people false expectations. They don't know why some shows don't look as good as other shows. They don't know why sometimes they see ugly blocks. They don't understand why they see ugly black bars on the edges of their expensive screens.

If the requirement of "high definition" is to meet everyone's expectations then HDTV is a complete failure and should be renamed.


Quote:


(as was the case with the original poster in this thread) HD Radio's sound quality is positioned quite well for people's needs. It's just named wrong.

If HDTV is high definition then HD radio is high definition. Same goal, same technological approach, and same results.

Quote:


Try these on for size...

"1080i Radio"
"720p Radio"
"Progressive Scan Radio"
"ATSC Radio"


So you're saying that there is no such thing as high definition audio. Well that would certainly simplify the issue, wouldn't it!

NOW: my post on AVS Forum.
NEXT: someone else's post on AVS Forum.
scowl is offline  
post #97 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 09:59 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Certainly there will never be a consensus on an exact bit-rate for audio to qualify as "HD". But there is probably a near unanimous opinion, at least among people who are familiar with bit-rates, that 128kbps and lower is not "HD" audio.

I don't listen to bits. I listen to the audio they produce and then make my judgments.

If you go back through my posting history in this forum you'll see several posts in which I criticize things that I've heard on HD Radio (mostly the 48 kbps ones). I've complained about swirling sounds in crash cymbals, ride cymbals not having the correct attack sound, and what clearly sounds like volume masking in complicated recordings.

One thing I don't say is "This is because HD Radio needs more bits." Why? Because I don't know. I don't know because I don't know the source of these problems.

I'm sure you would blame HD Radio for every single one of these problems because it's less than 128 kbps, right? Well it's not that simple. I've had email discussions with engineers at local stations and they say they constantly hear digital artifacts in the studio because their stations use 15 year old playout computers and all the music on them is compressed in 192 kbps MP2 files, usually with everything above 15 kHz removed. This was more than good enough for analog FM but now even they are embarrassed by what they're hearing on their own HD Radios.

One DJ was so frustrated by this that he spent days replacing hundreds of MP2 files with their original PCM files from CD (now that they have systems with large disks) and the audio improvement was incredible. You could easily tell which songs were the PCM ones. They're now the best sounding 48 kbps HD Radio station in town.

I regularly listen to a 96 kbps jazz station which plays exclusively from CDs which I also own. I rarely hear any differences between the two. If I listen very very closely, I can sometimes hear some swirling in a cymbal or a little masking but it's nothing that would distract me from the recording. On the other hand every single evening I am subjected to constant distracting pixelization and blocking from something they call "high definition television".

You tell me which one has the wrong name.

NOW: my post on AVS Forum.
NEXT: someone else's post on AVS Forum.
scowl is offline  
post #98 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 10:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
[Edit: This is a reply to Scowl's post two above this. His second reply came in while authoring the following. That second post kind of negates my first paragraph below. Kudos for taking a position rather than turning every rebutted sentence into a piece-meal tangent.]

Dissecting and rejecting every sentence or phrase separately really obfuscates the discussion. Rather than asserting a position, your goal appears to be to reject everything the opposing side (me) has said. The discussion would be far more interesting if you were supporting a point of view rather than rejecting absolutely everything posted by someone you have an isolated disagreement with.

I'll stick to my assertion that the term "HD" was chosen in order to deceive customers into thinking that HD Radio has "high definition" audio. HDTV is not an analogous situation. It was indeed higher definition than all other even remotely common consumer AV sources. HD Radio isn't. It sounds good but is positioned in the middle of the pack, behind some leading, decades old technologies such as CD.
dfiler is offline  
post #99 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 10:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Dfiler, it's interesting that you seem to measure sound quality across various mediums using vastly different compression algorithms by a single arbitrary number, the "bitrate":

Quote:


there is probably a near unanimous opinion, at least among people who are familiar with bit-rates, that 128kbps and lower is not "HD" audio.

As if the quality and efficiency of the particular perceptual codec used is immaterial. Me, I'm different, I don't worry about which is the "correct" bitrate number to be above, but rather the end result's distortion, frequency response, channel separation, signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, and the possible audibility of any artifacts. The bitrate used is entirely immaterial to me since I'm aware that psychoacoustic testing of different perceptual coders have shown that some advanced designs using spectral band replication (or SBR, which HD radio does by the way) can sound superior to for instance MP3 or AAC using only half their bitrates! By combining SBR technology with existing (modified) codecs, independent tests in subjective, scientifically controlled listening conditions conducted by the EBU found them to be "virtually transparent at 64 kbit/s". [I assume everyone here understands "transparent" means audibly indistinguishable to humans compared to the original, uncompressed source material.]

Source. [Read the end of the third paragraph on page 1, the summary.]

HD radio uses a proprietary compression scheme developed by Coding Technologies called HDC with SBR and PS, parametric stereo, (based upon MPEG-4 HE-AAC v2). Because it is proprietary I don't know of any third party scientifically controlled listen studies, however HE-AAC v1 (aka aacPlus on this chart), without the advantages of PS that v2 and HD radio have, has been independently evaluated by the EBU and others and fairs very well compared to all other codecs tested using MUSHRA scales, even at the embarissingly low bitrate of only 48 kbps, fooling some listeners in some trials that they were hearing the original source:



Keep in mind the data in this chart is not for HD radio but rather an inferior system, HE-AAC v1, which doesn't have the advantages of PS which HD radio (which is based upon MPEG-4 HE-AAC v2) does:


In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #100 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 10:48 AM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Codecs are indeed critical to sound quality. (Just not as easily and quantitatively debated)

HDC is certainly better than previous generations lossy compression techniques. But most people probably still wouldn't consider it "HD" audio at the current bit-rate.

Or at least I don't think people attribute the term "HD" to a level of quality that has been surpassed for decades. Would most people consider CDs to be "HD" audio? I'm working under the premise that the general puclic considers CDs to be of "normal" quality sound.

What's the Y dimension on that graph?
dfiler is offline  
post #101 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Codecs are indeed critical to sound quality.

Then you would agree your previous statement alone is completely meaningless then:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

But there is probably a near unanimous opinion, at least among people who are familiar with bit-rates, that 128kbps and lower is not "HD" audio. .

Sounds to me like you are changing your tune as we go along. Since you get to define what is or isn't "HD" arbitrarily in each post to suit your needs, this discussion is pointless. I take it there is no such thing as "HD audio" in your mind or if you think there is what format or distribution medium is it?

Quote:


What's the Y dimension on that graph?

MUSHRA test method scale (MUltiple Stimulus test
with Hidden Reference and Anchors). It's used by scientists that don't follow your rule of thumb: "there is probably a near unanimous opinion, at least among people who are familiar with bit-rates, that 128kbps and lower is not "HD" audio".

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #102 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 11:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
It has been asserted that at a sufficiently low bit-rate, "HD" sound is impossible. It has also been asserted that codec choice is critical to sound quality. These two assertions are not inconsistent with each other.

Again, what's on the y-axis of that graph?
(Not to dispute it. I'm honestly interested)
dfiler is offline  
post #103 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 01:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

It has been asserted that at a sufficiently low bit-rate, "HD" sound is impossible.

False. You asserted that a specific biterate, 128kbps, without any mention of codec, was insufficient for this nebulous concept of "HD sound" you get to define at will, per post. Proving to you that, say hypotheticlly, humans can't differentiate between HD radio at 96 kbps and SACD would probably simply invoke a response from you that "SACD isn't HD audio". You get to set the bar anywhere you choose to fit your argument so it's pointless to argue what level may properly be addressed as "HD" with you.

Quote:


Again, what's on the y-axis of that graph?
(Not to dispute it. I'm honestly interested)

I answered that already in my last post. You must have missed it. It is called "MUSHRA".

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #104 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 02:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
It would be more productive to debate the facts rather than making up strawmen and slinging ad hominin attacks.

I'll go read the MURSHA document you linked. There's no reason to be indignant about it. My request was about the meaning of the y-axis. Since you're not willing to say what it is, we'll all go research that graph separately.
dfiler is offline  
post #105 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 03:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
narkspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

It would be more productive to debate the facts rather than making up strawmen and slinging ad hominin attacks.

I'll go read the MURSHA document you linked. There's no reason to be indignant about it. My request was about the meaning of the y-axis. Since you're not willing to say what it is, we'll all go research that graph separately.

One thing I've learned after hanging out in this forum for a while ... You're never going to get productive discussions regarding sound quality out of people who consider 48 kbps HD Radio to be "high" anything.

You'll get a lot of BS semantic razzle-dazzle and subject-changing, but that's about it. It's like trying to argue with Ann Coulter.

Eventually you'll give up trying to reason with them. And every time some station's HD2 goes silent for 6 weeks before anyone even notices, you just ... smile.
narkspud is offline  
post #106 of 148 Old 12-02-2008, 05:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RCbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Limerick Pa
Posts: 1,884
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 14
In my area most of the HD signals are cleaner than the equivalant analog stations, some are very close!!
RCbridge is offline  
post #107 of 148 Old 12-03-2008, 10:50 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Dissecting and rejecting every sentence or phrase separately really obfuscates the discussion. Rather than asserting a position, your goal appears to be to reject everything the opposing side (me) has said. The discussion would be far more interesting if you were supporting a point of view rather than rejecting absolutely everything posted by someone you have an isolated disagreement with.

This is what happens when you attempt to make a statement using a laundry list of arguments like you did. If you feel this obfuscates the discussion then make one statement.

Quote:


I'll stick to my assertion that the term "HD" was chosen in order to deceive customers into thinking that HD Radio has "high definition" audio.

Why? You haven't really said what "high definition" audio is.

Quote:


HDTV is not an analogous situation. It was indeed higher definition than all other even remotely common consumer AV sources.

Yes, at times it is... but other times it is measurably less resolution than standard definition. Would you call this "high definition"?



I wouldn't.

In fact I could argue that this "high definition television" is nothing more than a system to deceive customers into thinking that they're seeing 1080 lines of video when often they're seeing closer to 200 lines of video and in some cases closer to 100 lines, far less than standard definition.

Quote:


HD Radio isn't. It sounds good but is positioned in the middle of the pack, behind some leading, decades old technologies such as CD.

What "pack"? HD Radio is not a media format and CD is not a radio broadcast format. Please remember that we're discussing radio broadcasting, not audio stored on a disk drive, or sold on a plastic media, or traveling through wires.

NOW: my post on AVS Forum.
NEXT: someone else's post on AVS Forum.
scowl is offline  
post #108 of 148 Old 12-03-2008, 11:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Are you saying that HDTV isn't "HD" but HD Radio is "HD"?

And what's this about not being allowed to compare HD Radio to anything but analog radio? What's the point of that?
dfiler is offline  
post #109 of 148 Old 12-03-2008, 02:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
narkspud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tustin, CA
Posts: 1,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

Would you call this "high definition"?

I'd call it "not deinterlaced."
narkspud is offline  
post #110 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 10:48 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Are you saying that HDTV isn't "HD" but HD Radio is "HD"?

I'm saying that the term "HD" in the consumer market means the use of digital compression to produce an improved product. It may create digital artifacts that are visible and audible to the consumers, but overall they will perceive improved video and audio. Both HDTV and HD Radio fit that description. To say HD Radio isn't "HD" because it has digital artifacts or it doesn't have enough ones and zeros every second is no different from saying that HDTV is not "HD" because it has digital artifacts and not enough bandwidth to transmit a true high definition picture 100% of the time.

Quote:


And what's this about not being allowed to compare HD Radio to anything but analog radio? What's the point of that?

Do you want to discuss radio or audio? If you want to discuss audio, there are other forums for this. We discuss radio here. HD Radio.

No one goes into the HDTV Programming forum and says "Blu-Ray is the only product that is HD. HDTV should not be called HD. HDTV is not high definition. There is pixelization and blocking all the time. The resolution drops whenever there's motion. It was called "HD" only to mislead people."

That's because everyone but you understand that comparing a media format with a broadcast format is silly. They're two separate things. That's why they both have their own forums here.

NOW: my post on AVS Forum.
NEXT: someone else's post on AVS Forum.
scowl is offline  
post #111 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 10:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by narkspud View Post

I'd call it "not deinterlaced."

Deinterlacing it would have reduced its resolution even more! At least the interlace combing shows how much resolution is actually missing.

NOW: my post on AVS Forum.
NEXT: someone else's post on AVS Forum.
scowl is offline  
post #112 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 11:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 100
+1, Scowl nailed it in his post #110 .

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #113 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 11:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

I'm saying that the term "HD" in the consumer market means the use of digital compression to produce an improved product. It may create digital artifacts that are visible and audible to the consumers, but overall they will perceive improved video and audio. Both HDTV and HD Radio fit that description. To say HD Radio isn't "HD" because it has digital artifacts or it doesn't have enough ones and zeros every second is no different from saying that HDTV is not "HD" because it has digital artifacts and not enough bandwidth to transmit a true high definition picture 100% of the time.


Do you want to discuss radio or audio? If you want to discuss audio, there are other forums for this. We discuss radio here. HD Radio.

No one goes into the HDTV Programming forum and says "Blu-Ray is the only product that is HD. HDTV should not be called HD. HDTV is not high definition. There is pixelization and blocking all the time. The resolution drops whenever there's motion. It was called "HD" only to mislead people."

That's because everyone but you understand that comparing a media format with a broadcast format is silly. They're two separate things. That's why they both have their own forums here.

The term you're describing in paragraph one is "digital" not "HD".

You ask if I want to discuss radio or audio. To that I answer:
We're discussing the audio quality of radio. Limiting audio comparisons to only other radio formats can be an interesting exercise. But in the real world, people listen to more than just radio. Perceptions of quality aren't based solely on the delivery mechanism.

Past that, you're mostly tearing down your own strawman. I haven't claimed HDTV isn't "HD" because it was subsequently surpassed by better technology.

HDTV was significantly higher definition than all other consumer A/V sources when introduced, thus claiming "high definition" was reasonable. HD Radio on the other hand was not. It only appears to be so when pedantically limiting one's comparison to only one other audio source.

Finally, why the personal attack in your closing paragraph? Do you honestly think I'm the only person who compares HD radio to things like CDs? The HD Radio forum is a perfectly reasonable place to discuss the how the name "HD Radio" affects sound quality expectations.
dfiler is offline  
post #114 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 01:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Hey dfiler, since you seem to personally "know" what is and isn't HD in terms of sound reproduction, would you please share with us:

A) What it is exactly or more precisely your descriptive definition of it, that is.

B) An example of a format or broadcast medium that uses it, or does that not exist yet?

Thanks.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #115 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 01:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I obviously have an opposing opinion on what constitutes "HD". Having such an opinion does not make me pompous as you seek to imply.

It isn't necessary to define exactly what constitutes "HD" in order to support the assertion that HD Radio isn't "HD". Please consider the following analogy.

It is safe to assert that a Honda Accord is not a "Pickup Truck" when discussing a Hond Accord. Consensus can be reached on this without assigning exact and non-subjective classification criteria. Otherwise, an argument ensues about whether a Chevy El Camino is a a "Pickup Truck".

I'll reiterate my definition despite it apparently not being specific enough for you in this context.

"HD" entered common usage with the advent of High Definition TV. HDTV was much higher definition than all other alternatives so it was a reasonable use of the term. HD Radio is not higher definition than most of the alternatives. Therefore it is not HD.

If it were accurate to claim that HD Radio is "high definition", iBiquity would go ahead and indicate that that's what "HD" means in their trademarked name. My theory is that their lawyers deemed it too much of a liability to make such a claim.
dfiler is offline  
post #116 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 02:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

It isn't necessary to define exactly what constitutes "HD" in order to support the assertion that HD Radio isn't "HD".

Yeah, it does, at your personal level at least, since we know that HD radio, at least, doesn't cut it for you. The word "high" is a relative term, and I was simply asking what:

A) your personal level was and to describe it as best you can, and
B) give us an example of a medium that hits that mark (assuming there is one).

I still await your answer to these two simple questions which obviously have no "wrong" answers since they are both matters of taste.

When I asked how do you personally define "HD" I wasn't asking for what the letters stood for, silly! Good obfuscation and question evasion on your part, though:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I'll reiterate my definition despite it apparently not being specific enough for you in this context.

"HD" entered common usage with the advent of High Definition TV. HDTV was much higher definition than all other alternatives so it was a reasonable use of the term. HD Radio is not higher definition than most of the alternatives. Therefore it is not HD.

"Most" of the alternatives? There's only one my friend: analog radio. As was mentioned before, it is called HD radio, we are talking about radio, not sound. This forum is for discussing a terrestrial radio broadcast medium called "HD radio". It is considered the best sound quality one available to most people, bar none. Sorry if it is not "high" enough for your standards; you are certainly entitled to your opinion, of course. I won't argue that.

Quote:


If it were accurate to claim that HD Radio is "high definition", iBiquity would go ahead and indicate that that's what "HD" means in their trademarked name. My theory is that their lawyers deemed it too much of a liability to make such a claim.

Interesting theory you have there. I guess what iBiquity fears most is that if a trained technician using a finely calibrated definitionometer were to actually measure the definition of their sound as measured in "defibels", and the actual test instrument found even at best their sound quality only reached "medium" with occasional peaks into "medium-high", they could have a lawsuit on their hands.

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #117 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 03:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
You're still trying to get me to precisely define a cut-off point for HD (high definition). This completely misses the point.

HD radio isn't as high quality as many other audio sources. Since these other sources aren't considered "HD", HD Radio isn't "HD". The exact cut-off isn't pertinent if the above assertion is true.

I acknowledge that you consider comparison to things like CDs as invalid. You want to only compare the sound quality with analog radio. Sorry, I am not willing to limit my analysis in that way.
dfiler is offline  
post #118 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
m. zillch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

HD radio isn't as high quality as many other audio sources. Since these other sources aren't considered "HD"...

Ahem. Says who? Source please. I must not have gotten that memo, the one that states which audio sources are "HD" and which aren't. Please provide a link.

[My premonition: No link will be provided and I'll get a "Well, I think it's perfectly obvious to everyone that we all know that...." sort of response instead. As if that constitutes proof.]

In A/V reproduction accuracy, there is no concept of "accounting for taste". We don't "pick" the level of bass any more than we get to pick the ending of a play. High fidelity is an unbiased, neutral, exact copy (or "reproduction") of the original source's tonal balance, timing, dynamics, etc..

m. zillch is offline  
post #119 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 05:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

You're still trying to get me to precisely define a cut-off point for HD (high definition). This completely misses the point.

Look, you're repeatedly saying "This isn't HD!" over and over and every time you refuse to tell us what on Earth you think this "HD" thing is. Hey, if you know what it is then just tell us. If you don't know what "HD" is then please stop pretending you know what it is.

Quote:


HD radio isn't as high quality as many other audio sources. Since these other sources aren't considered "HD", HD Radio isn't "HD". The exact cut-off isn't pertinent if the above assertion is true.

No audio sources have ever been declared "HD" except for HDCD. If HDCD (20 bit PCM) is your definition of "HD Audio" go ahead and tell us, then admit that almost all audio in the world today including most lossless Blu-Ray audio is "not HD".

Quote:


I acknowledge that you consider comparison to things like CDs as invalid. You want to only compare the sound quality with analog radio. Sorry, I am not willing to limit my analysis in that way.

Why not? You are free to compare it with any other kind of digital audio broadcast through the air waves (FMXtra, DRM, etc.).

Do you want to talk about radio or about some CD you bought at Target?

NOW: my post on AVS Forum.
NEXT: someone else's post on AVS Forum.
scowl is offline  
post #120 of 148 Old 12-04-2008, 06:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
dfiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I've repeatedly said what made HDTV a valid use of the term "high definition" and that HD Radio didn't meet that layman's criteria. You just disagree with that assertion and want to bury us in a discussion of a precise threshold. Since HD Radio isn't anywhere close, it would be pointless to open that can of worms and try to pin down every single audio source.

People don't walk around saying CDs are HD and HD Radio doesn't sound as good as a CD. But I acknowledge that you consider that an invalid comparison.
dfiler is offline  
Reply HD Radio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off