or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › HD Radio › HD radio doesn't sound any better
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HD radio doesn't sound any better - Page 3

post #61 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

If you go back and read the original 2001 or 2002 engineering documents submitted to the FCC, they clearly state "Hybrid Digital". The owner of this proprietary format has since developed amnesia and pretends HD does not mean those words, but the documentation is there to prove what it originally meant.

Not only that, the CEOs involved also used the term "hybrid digital" in a number of interviews that hit the AP wire.

Completely despicable marketing in my opinion. The people who pulled that sham should be embarrassed by their own behavior. Their intention was to purposely deceive.

Just yesterday I heard a KDKA radio promo refer to their own HD radio feed as "high definition". If people in the radio industry can't even remember what the HD means, then the general public stands no chance. I guess the coiners of "HD Radio" can say mission accomplished.
post #62 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

If people in the radio industry can't even remember what the HD means, then the general public stands no chance. I guess the coiners of "HD Radio" can say mission accomplished.

Since no one ever officially defined HD (just like no one defined "Hi-Fi" 50 years ago), it's hard to say what they should be remembering. In the early days of HDTV development in the U.S. it simply meant "twice the resolution of SD". That was the vague goal anyway.

There was never an intention of sending analog or lossless sound with HDTV so "HD audio" is "compressed digital audio". "HD Radio" is also "compressed digital audio". No deception here.
post #63 of 148
Are you seriously claiming that the meaning of HD is unclear, that everybody doesn't interpret it as "high definition"?
post #64 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

There was never an intention of sending analog or lossless sound with HDTV so "HD audio" is "compressed digital audio". "HD Radio" is also "compressed digital audio". No deception here.

Quite a stretch, that logic there.

I call your attention to this, the previous use of "HD" in reference to audio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_De...atible_Digital
post #65 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by narkspud View Post

Quite a stretch, that logic there.

I call your attention to this, the previous use of "HD" in reference to audio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_De...atible_Digital

That "definition" of HD audio is also pure marketing spin.

The audio in HDTV was specifically intended to sound better than analog TV audio. HD radio only promises to be digital, not better. Of course, sometimes it sounds pretty good. Digital does help overcome analog transmission interference.
post #66 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post

If you go back and read the original 2001 or 2002 engineering documents submitted to the FCC, they clearly state "Hybrid Digital".

They called it a hybrid system, not that HD is called Hybrid Digital. Did Ibiquity even trademark HD by then?
post #67 of 148
It's sad that 95% of people's exposure to HD radio is through either a table radio or a car stereo; not real hifi stereo systems by a long shot.

Typical table radio characteristics:

-only one-way speakers, no crossovers or tweeters, that is, just a single "full range" cone, totally unheard of in better loudspeaker designs that at least have tweeters if not also dedicated midranges w/ crossovers.
-stereo separation between L and R speakers usually around 11 inches, not feet, if you can even call that "stereo"
-built-in amps having maybe a few watts of power at best. Puh-leez.

Typical car stereo characteristics:

-listening position is asymmetrically placed between the two speakers making sound-stage localization dubious at best (what audiophiles like to call "imaging")
-extremely noisy environment due to engine noise and road/wind noise makes the better noise floor of HD radio impossible to detect unless you park and turn the ignition off
-maybe component speakers with tweeters and woofers in some systems but most with nothing more than a whizzer cone glued to the cardboard/pressed paper woofer for "the high end" in the vibrating stamped metal car door "cabinet".

The only type of sound reproduction systems lower in quality to these is perhaps the "clock radio" [although defining where table radio ends and clock radio begins might be vague] or perhaps a pocket "transistor" radio.

Add to this insult the fact that most people have a hard time distinguishing what aspects of the sound they hear is from the particular recording or the arbitrary compression setting the transmitting radio station has chosen and it's no wonder many think "It's no better".
post #68 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Walker View Post

HD has several potential advantages, which can be dramatic. There are caveats attached to each of them, as I'll explain in the comment after each.

2)-WIDE OPEN HIGH END, even when pushed to the modulation limits.

3)-Stereo separation is several orders of magnitude greater with digital than analog.

Great points - problem is some stations are just taking the analog feed from the *ANALOG* STL, doing an a/d conversion, and slapping that on the air. This station I know of pre-emphasizes the signal at the studios, shoots that over the stl, de-emphasizes it for the digital feed, then pre-emphasizes it again for the analog feed.

The reason? Money to upgrade everything to make it a truly digital signal from studio to tx site isnt there, so the mantra "if its clean enough, it'll sound good" flew and that was that.

It doesnt sound that bad, but theres no dramatic difference between analog and digital like at WCBS-FM HD-1. It has slightly better stereo seperation, and a touch more hi end, but not like one of the HD FM's from NYC (WPLJ not withstanding - all 3 HD channels sound like crap).

And Im sure there are examples of stations doing things like that across the country, implementing HD in a half hearted way just to get the pilot fired up, and worrying about the quality later when they get the cash (if ever) to upgrade everything.

I truly love HD when it works right - thats the reason I have a FMDX antenna with radials mounted on the roof of my car and a Radio Shack FM signal amp between it and the radio. I expect that if I'm going thru the trouble to get the damn signal, the sound quality should be a digital signal. Might as well plug in the iPod, and not get goofy looks at drive thru windows.
post #69 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by narkspud View Post

Quite a stretch, that logic there.

I call your attention to this, the previous use of "HD" in reference to audio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_De...atible_Digital

That's HDCD. It's a media format. It has nothing to do with radio broadcasting.
post #70 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Are you seriously claiming that the meaning of HD is unclear, that everybody doesn't interpret it as "high definition"?

If you believe that this so-called HDTV is "high definition" then there's no reason to believe that HD Radio is not "high definition".

HDTV has more pixels than analog television. HD Radio has higher frequency response, greater dynamic range, and greater stereo separation than analog AM or FM.

During complicated motion, HDTV resolution drops below the resolution of analog television but overall, the viewer will perceive an improved picture. During complicated audio, HD Radio will have audio artifacts but overall, the listener will perceive improved audio.

The systems have a lot in common.
post #71 of 148
The thing that gets to me is some that don't understand the differences between digital and analog formats. If you want a constant picture but have it fade in and out fine stay with analog. If you want something better albeit it that it's all or nothing then go with digital.

Just don't complain though with analog about the quality...people can't have it both ways.

Heck analog cell phones finally were eliminated and guess where that was opposed by? Areas hardly populated that were way too far out to get a digital signal. then again if you are away from everyone then who are you going to call anyway?
post #72 of 148
"HD" is such a buzz word these days that a local coffee joint near me advertises on their door "Now serving coffee in HD!" [No, they don't have TV's in the place, it's the coffee which is HD.]
post #73 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdovell View Post

The thing that gets to me is some that don't understand the differences between digital and analog formats. If you want a constant picture but have it fade in and out fine stay with analog. If you want something better albeit it that it's all or nothing then go with digital.

Just don't complain though with analog about the quality...people can't have it both ways.

Heck analog cell phones finally were eliminated and guess where that was opposed by? Areas hardly populated that were way too far out to get a digital signal. then again if you are away from everyone then who are you going to call anyway?

I'll take a picture that varies between more or less noisy to one that varies between near-perfect and gone.

Of course you can have analog and quality. Good grief!

Heck, if you're away from everyone, you need to call more than most people. You don't need to call people that are right there.
post #74 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasterfarian View Post

I'll take a picture that varies between more or less noisy to one that varies between near-perfect and gone.

Of course you can have analog and quality. Good grief!

Analog US television has a hard limit of 480 lines in an interlaced pattern, 525 lines are actually broadcast but only 480 make up the image, the rest contain the closed captioning and other data. HD on the other hand is more than double that, 1080 lines, and digitally accurate. Where I live HD fails (due to cable company outages) about once a year for an hour or so. Other than that I get a crystal clear image 24/7. Sorry it seems like this doesn't represent what television reception is like for where you live. Maybe this will change for you in the future. I know this will sound snobbish but its true; I actually find standard definition TV hard to watch now, even though there are like ten times the number of channels available in SD where I live. Thankfully that's changing in my favor bit by bit. My first year of HD had less than ten stations, now there are perhaps 30.

Can you guess which side of the image is HD?


Trivia: The Tonight Show was the first regular network TV show to broadcast in HD. (before that only test shows, PBS loops, and Space shuttle launches had been shown). The make up crew had to entirely relearn their trade to accommodate the higher resolution that the new system offered. Zits, warts, pock marks etc. couldn't be camouflaged as easily as before.
post #75 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

Analog US television has a hard limit of 480 lines in an interlaced pattern, 525 lines are actually broadcast but only 480 make up the image, the rest contain the closed captioning and other data. HD on the other hand is more than double that, 1080 lines, and digitally accurate. Where I live HD fails (due to cable company outages) about once a year for an hour or so. Other than that I get a crystal clear image 24/7. Sorry it seems like this doesn't represent what television reception is like for where you live. Maybe this will change for you in the future. I know this will sound snobbish but its true; I actually find standard definition TV hard to watch now, even though there are like ten times the number of channels available in SD where I live. Thankfully that's changing in my favor bit by bit. My first year of HD had less than ten stations, now there are perhaps 30.

Can you guess which side of the image is HD?

Trivia: The Tonight Show was the first regular network TV show to broadcast in HD. (before that only test shows, PBS loops, and Space shuttle launches had been shown). The make up crew had to entirely relearn their trade to accommodate the higher resolution that the new system offered. Zits, warts, pock marks etc. couldn't be camouflaged as easily as before.

Is the right half of that picture analog? It looks like highly-compressed Standard-Def digital TV, which usually is horrid. If you mean you find digital SD hard to watch, I completely agree with you. I get my locals over the air, and if the program material is SD, the analog feed usually looks much better than the digital feed of the same program. If it's HD, that's another story.

A good analog SDTV picture will beat highly-compressed digital SD every time. Lightly-compressed digital SD can look excellent, but not as good as HD (unless they go overboard with the compression there).
post #76 of 148
Yes, now you are making much more sense to me. I agree with everything you wrote above conceptually, however due to our different environments our practical experiences are very different.

True, an over-the-air (OTA) NTSC analog signal that is ghost/interference free is better than a highly compressed cable/sat digital SD image, but even with the use of massive, rotatable, Yagi, roof-top antennas I've never been able to receive more than one, maybe two, TV stations that way in all the many places I've lived. You are lucky that's not true of you.

When I said I find SD almost unwatchable I would include all forms, even DVD's in that statement. I also don't listen to any form of AM radio, but granted I'm not into talk or sports, just music.

I don't know if it is my imagination but the best looking SD cable channels that seem to use the least compression are the ones I absolutely never watch; the home shopping network(s). What luck.
post #77 of 148
Here's the best NTSC I could get off of my antenna:



Here's the same scene in digital (downconverted to SD resolution):



That was the closest comparison I was ever able to come up with and that required me to downconvert the HD to make it "fair". The NTSC color was surprisingly accurate (the yellows in the lower part of the window are off) but I couldn't get any detail out of the shadows. It looked like when the light level dropped, it dropped like a rock.
post #78 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

The NTSC color was surprisingly accurate (the yellows in the lower part of the window are off) but I couldn't get any detail out of the shadows. It looked like when the light level dropped, it dropped like a rock.

Something's wrong on that analog. The blacks are crushed. I can't tell if it's the station's fault, or whatever it is you're using to digitize the picture.

Funny how the subject has changed to something people are interested in.
post #79 of 148
I'm listening right now to KIIS FM HD2. They just annound the station name & said they were broadcasting in high definition.

First time I heard a station say high definition. I've corrected people before saying that the "HD" in HD Radio stood for Hybrid Digital, not High Definition.
post #80 of 148
That reminds me, yet another reason some people say HD radio sounds no better, besides the fact that the majority of people hearing it for the first time are hearing it through a clock radio, OK "table" radio, whatever;
they hear the DJ announce the signal is now HD and they don't realize that's only true if one also buys a new HD radio to tune it in ! Yes, people are that dumb. We know because we are electronics people but 95% of America probably couldn't even tell you what the acronyms AM, FM, UHF, and VHF stand for. Heck, I bet almost half of the people reading this thread don't know what the standard "NTSC" stands for!

Not referring to you, oc-rdx, but your statement of how radio stations announce, "Now broadcasting in HD!" reminded me of it. 95% of listeners hearing that statement are hearing it over an analog tuner and don't know that's significant.
post #81 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by narkspud View Post

Something's wrong on that analog. The blacks are crushed. I can't tell if it's the station's fault, or whatever it is you're using to digitize the picture.

Yes, they're crushed. There was absolutely no detail in them. About half the stations in town do this to their analog picture for some reason. I guess people like contrast more than shadow detail.

Thank God they don't mess up their digital picture like radio stations mess up their HD audio!
post #82 of 148
On the subject of TV: I've seen some analog stations do the whole "no black detail" thing. I think analog NTSC can look great under ideal conditions, just like a good LP can sound simply excellent when played bad on good equipment.

As a viewer with only SD sets, I've never seen a case where the analog has looked better than the digital, and I can get some jaw dropping analog. Even if compression artifacts are a little more visible, the lack of ghosting low level noise or anything but pure picture is totally worth the cost of admission.

FWIW, I'm constantly amazed at the amount of technology marketing B.S. people get away with. Take an innocent cordless phone for example. Plastered on the front is "USES 2.4GHZ TECHNOLOGY!!!" Once, I saw some GE speaker wire at Home Depot that was "HDTV Compatible." No joke. Pretty much, marketing people can put "technology" in front of anything. Ie:

-This forum runs on v-Bulliten technology.
-You car uses fossil fuel technology.
-Norton uses advanced virus detection technology.

Get my rift? adding "technology" to the end of anything makes it sound like your marketing to rednecks.
post #83 of 148
Using meaningless sciencey terms to market a product is as old as electricity. Well, the discovery of it I mean.

At least it's now illegal to put the word "fresh" on frozen orange juice. That went on for years and years. I guess we'll have high definition orange juice pretty soon.
post #84 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattdp View Post

As a viewer with only SD sets, I've never seen a case where the analog has looked better than the digital, and I can get some jaw dropping analog. Even if compression artifacts are a little more visible, the lack of ghosting low level noise or anything but pure picture is totally worth the cost of admission.

Come out to LA. We have a couple stations running 5 or 6 streams simultaneously. Unless the signal is garbage, their analog looks better.
post #85 of 148
The other thing is the idea of 100% optimal conditions at least in terms of OTA rarely happens. When you factor in everything in the past 35 years of cell phones, beepers, pagers, cordless phones and other rf you can see how clustered it can be.

When I upgraded my grandmothers analog OTA set she lost rhode island channels but she's practically in boston...it looks FAR better than before..also the extra programming is worth it (weather scan, more pbs stations etc)

OTA analog looks horrible. I grew up with it...constantly changing picture, picture changing to b&w for no reason..static sounds.

Like it or not much of the time people prefer digital formats. Yes there are obviously situations where someone would move out of range like hd radio. However digital does look and sound better (hdtv, hd radio etc) For example for the life of me I can't watch NHL on analog tv. I can't see the puck it nearly huts my eyes to try...hdtv I can easily watch. Text is also far clearer. I can read a picture in picture image at my house clearer than that of analog...and this picture is maybe 1/8th of the screen...
post #86 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

If you believe that this so-called HDTV is "high definition" then there's no reason to believe that HD Radio is not "high definition".

HDTV has more pixels than analog television. HD Radio has higher frequency response, greater dynamic range, and greater stereo separation than analog AM or FM.

During complicated motion, HDTV resolution drops below the resolution of analog television but overall, the viewer will perceive an improved picture. During complicated audio, HD Radio will have audio artifacts but overall, the listener will perceive improved audio.

The systems have a lot in common.

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

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.

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. (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.

Try these on for size...

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

post #87 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I like listening to HD Radio and do so every day.

Out of curiosity, what is your HD radio's make and model number? If you don't know he exact model number, just the brand will do. Thanks.
post #88 of 148
I have had use of a Sony XDR-S3HD for a while... liked it enough to order a JBL OnTime 400iHD.
(A glorified clock radio)
post #89 of 148

Based on its 14 inches width spec, I'd say its L/R "stereo" speaker separation is perhaps 11 or 12 inches, one way "full range" driver cones perhaps 2" or 3" in diameter tops, 12 watt amp (with unspecified permissible distortion and bandwidth limited to 75 to 20kHz as per JBL specs, using an FTC traditional 20-20kHz bandwidth it probably has perhaps 6-8 watts).


Quote:
Originally Posted by m. zillch View Post

It's sad that 95% of people's exposure to HD radio is through either a table radio or a car stereo; not real hifi stereo systems by a long shot.

Typical table radio characteristics:

-only one-way speakers, no crossovers or tweeters, that is, just a single "full range" cone, totally unheard of in better loudspeaker designs that at least have tweeters if not also dedicated midranges w/ crossovers.
-stereo separation between L and R speakers usually around 11 inches, not feet, if you can even call that "stereo"
-built-in amps having maybe a few watts of power at best. Puh-leez.

Add to this insult the fact that most people have a hard time distinguishing what aspects of the sound they hear is from the particular recording or the arbitrary compression setting the transmitting radio station has chosen and it's no wonder many think "It's no better".
post #90 of 148
I suspected you were going to do that. Why didn't you just ask if i'd heard HD radio on a full blown system instead of pretending to be "just curious".

Rest assured i've heard HD radio components hooked up to quality stereo systems. Perhaps you also missed where I said I like HD radio and am not criticizing the sound quality. It just isn't "HD" sound.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HD Radio
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › HD Radio › HD radio doesn't sound any better