or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › HD Radio › HD Radio Isn't High Definition!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HD Radio Isn't High Definition! - Page 2

post #31 of 277
rwagoner has a point that "hybrid digital" doesn't make sense, since it's not a hybrid of two different digital formats, but digital and analog. Perhaps it should have been called "hybrid analog/digital". Hell...call it "DAM" for "Digital-Analog-Modulation". Then we can all say it's a "dam(n) fine system, this DAM radio!"

I agree with MasterThesus that you can't say internet access, for instance, isn't "high speed" just because there's something faster out there. While there may be no absolutes about the height of "definition", or the speed of internet access, I think reasonable people can agree that 96kbps HD IS "higher definition" than analog fm stereo, and in 2007 300kbs AIN'T "high speed internet"
post #32 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. AIX View Post

I think it does matter. My definition of HD Audio goes something like this: HD Audio is recording and reproduction fidelity that is equal to or almost equal to the limits of human hearing.

You're talking about HD Audio. We're talking about HD Radio. Two different things.
post #33 of 277
Thread Starter 
It's the use of the HD prefix not the "Audio or Radio" part that matters. It is my hope that HD might mean something. When someone purchases an HDTV, I think that they expect it to be capable of delivering content at the ATSC HD Standard. If someone purchases an "HD" Radio unit, I also think that they should expect to hear HD Audio...this is not the case. If it had been called Hybrid Digital Radio...then no problem.

It may be higher definition than existing fm broadcasts...again no disagreement. But I believe it matters and I believe that the confusion is deliberate on the part of HD Radio seller, stations and iBiquity.
post #34 of 277
The next logical step is now to start a heated flamewar over the difference between 44.1/16 and what you get by going higher than that.

Seeing as you are in some way related to http://www.aixrecords.com/, I think I know where you stand.
post #35 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. AIX View Post

It's the use of the HD prefix not the "Audio or Radio" part that matters.

No, the noun qualifies the adjective. Without the noun, the adjective has no meaning. You may have have your own opinion on what the letters "HD" must mean for everything in the world but not everyone shares this opinion.

HD Radio and HD Audio are two different things just like HD Audio and HD Video are two different things, just like HD trucks are yet another thing.
post #36 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

No, the noun qualifies the adjective. Without the noun, the adjective has no meaning. You may have have your own opinion on what the letters "HD" must mean for everything in the world but not everyone shares this opinion.

HD Radio and HD Audio are two different things just like HD Audio and HD Video are two different things, just like HD trucks are yet another thing.

I think we are spending way too much time arguing this instead of enjoying HD Radio and/or HD Audio! Stop typing and get to listening your Sangean HDT-1!!
post #37 of 277
Why, I'm listening to HD Radio while typing this, well, on the Boston Recepter though.

I've never heard HD Audio.
post #38 of 277
HD RADIO is higher definition than other forms of RADIO. And double-blind listening tests have proven time and again that 16 bit 44.1khz audio, with dither/noise shaping IS "at the limit of human hearing". Other claims fall to pieces every time when the listening is double-blind, and people don't know what they're comparing.
post #39 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Walker View Post

HD RADIO is higher definition than other forms of RADIO. And double-blind listening tests have proven time and again that 16 bit 44.1khz audio, with dither/noise shaping IS "at the limit of human hearing". Other claims fall to pieces every time when the listening is double-blind, and people don't know what they're comparing.

Robert Harley who wrote several editions of the COMPLETE GUIDE TO HIGH-END AUDIO as well as over 650 articles on high-quality music and is the editor-in-chief of ABSOLUTE SOUND has stated many times that the CD standard of 44.1kHz and 16 bit quantization is not sufficient to encode all the musical information humans can hear. If it was sufficient why would High Resolution Digital Audio SACD and DVD-AUDIO be available.
Richard
post #40 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonblair View Post

Consumers THINK the term means "high definition," and that is what matters.

That's why they did it.
post #41 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by doxytuner View Post

If it was sufficient why would High Resolution Digital Audio SACD and DVD-AUDIO be available.

Because people are obsessed with details that don't matter.

Ok... just kidding. I know a guy whose currently in college getting his BS in Recording Technology (kind of an analog tape and vinyl nut) and he claims to hear a difference between 44.1/16 and higher resolution formats.

btw - He likes analog tape and vinyl for the colorations it adds to the sound [not claiming that they are technically superior to digital]
post #42 of 277
a local station promo is "Listen in crystal clear Handy Dandy HD radio" but they also run a line of "get your money for nothing and your chicken for free"
post #43 of 277
I'm well aware of Robert Harley and his pseudo-science. A funny thing...none of these guys who claim to hear such enormous differences will EVER submit to double-blind testing, because it always proves the emperor is NEKKID! (To use a term borrowed from the late/great Lewis Grizzard).

16 bit linear PCM sounds just like the feed straight off the board (blindfolded, people can't tell the difference). How can that be "improved" upon.
post #44 of 277
Thread Starter 
I don't claim to have done double blind testing either...but I do maintain that there is improvement in dynamic range using 24-bit PCM over 16-bits. I've recorded over 800 tracks using 96 kHz/24-bits and been able to deliver them straight to consumers using DVD-Audio and lossless encoding. There is a quality of sound that has to be experienced to be believed. All I have to do is play HD Audio recordings made in this HD purist method jaws drop.

At the recent UK AES conference, Robert Stuart of Meridian posted a quote from Carl Jung that went roughly as follows, "Just because something cannot be measure or quantified doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or cannot be perceived". Maybe HD Audio is one of those things.
post #45 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. AIX View Post

There is a quality of sound that has to be experienced to be believed. All I have to do is play HD Audio recordings made in this HD purist method jaws drop.

Of course they do. If they don't hear a difference, they're not purists. They're just worthless nobodies.

Bands I know do live recordings in 24 bit audio because they don't have to be too careful about setting the levels. Their recordings rarely use the upper four bits!

Quote:


At the recent UK AES conference, Robert Stuart of Meridian posted a quote from Carl Jung that went roughly as follows, "Just because something cannot be measure or quantified doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or cannot be perceived". Maybe HD Audio is one of those things.

And that, my friend, is exactly what double-blind testing is for, to prove that a difference can be perceived, otherwise it might as well be snake oil. You can't prove anything by citing the opinions of authorities.

Maybe something I learned back in seventh grade will help. My science teacher explained that the scientific method is important because not every person's senses are as sensitive as other's. As an example, he opened up a bottle of rose perfume and said that some people are very sensitive to this odor but others have trouble smelling it. Many students said they could smell it immediately while others like me had to have the bottle shoved in their faces before they could smell it. To everyone's relief, eventually every student in the class could smell it.

It was a bottle of water. He had steam-washed it and soaked it in acid to remove any trace of the perfume. He said after almost twenty years of using the bottle no student ever admitted to not smelling perfume because no person wants to look like an idiot among their peers.

And that's why you need the scientific method to qualify these things. Do your HD Audio discs sound better after you mark them with a green pen? Why not? Can't you hear it?
post #46 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. AIX View Post

I don't claim to have done double blind testing either...but I do maintain that there is improvement in dynamic range using 24-bit PCM over 16-bits.

Well yea... but most sane people don't have a system that can accurately produce audio up to 144db, and even if they did, one of two things would happen:
a)Their neighbors would call the police, and the 144db goodness wouldn't last very long.
b)They'd go stone deaf after the first song

If I can see double blind tests that prove people can actually tell a difference between 44.1/16 and 96/24 or 192/24, I'll believe it. Otherwise, it goes in the same bucket as green pens, Tice clocks and $3k/meter interconnects.
post #47 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Walker View Post

I'm well aware of Robert Harley and his pseudo-science. A funny thing...none of these guys who claim to hear such enormous differences will EVER submit to double-blind testing, because it always proves the emperor is NEKKID! (To use a term borrowed from the late/great Lewis Grizzard).

16 bit linear PCM sounds just like the feed straight off the board (blindfolded, people can't tell the difference). How can that be "improved" upon.

If 44.1/16 is the limit of human hearing why do we have higher resolution formats such as SACD, DVD-A, etc. I presume you're suggesting that the higher resolution serves no purpose.
Richard
post #48 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.F. Burns View Post

Ibiquity never said that HD radio was high definition radio.

Question: If I type "LOL" what do you think it means? I could mean the traditional meaning, or I could pull an iBiquity and mean "living out loud." HD has meaning in and of itself without iB's out-clause, saying "it never meant high-definition."
post #49 of 277
Let me be clear. 24 bit 96khz audio IS SUPERIOR to 16 bit 44.1khz, and the improvement is easily measurable. But our ears aren't laboratory instruments. 96db dynamic range is so great that if you turned up your system so that you could clearly hear a signal recorded at -96db, one recorded at 0dbfs (all 16 bits exercised) would be loud enough to cause hearing damage. So yes, better is possible, Even measurable. But does it have any audible impact in the real world, where almost no recording studio is quieter than, say, -70db below the loudest sound being recorded.

I should have been more clear. The REAL reason for SACD and DVD-A is that they have somewhat more robust copy-protection schemes, and cannot be easily 'ripped' to mp3 (or other formats). The record company didn't just decide we deserved better audio (awww, wouldn't that be sweet?) They tried to sell us "better" sound, in order to take away our listening choices. For decades they've wanted to take away fair-use rights. Again they've failed. Rejoice!
post #50 of 277
24 bits looks great for live recording. It used to be that you'd want the peaks to just touch the highest level. The bands I've watched recording their performances on a laptop set it so it's only about two-thirds of the highest level. Their recordings sound great on CD.

It's also crazy that people can record eight tracks (maybe more) in digital quality with a fairly cheap box plugged into the USB port on a standard laptop. Even crappy four track cassette recorders cost more than this twenty years ago.
post #51 of 277
So true, Scowl. The days of people using tape for anything are quickly dying!
post #52 of 277
Thread Starter 
My passion and business is to produce the very best sounding recordings that I can, in HD Audio and in 5.1 surround...and thankfully the response to our tracks over the past 7 years has been extremely gratifying. We've built a loyal following amongst readers of this forum and among reviewers. It perfectly OK for the posters on this thread to be satisfied with standard definition audio recording and reproduction...be it vinyl, CDs, MP3s at 256 kbps or 48 kbps HD Radio, to each his own.

In all honesty, I have to wonder how many people commenting above have actually heard one of our tracks...especially the "Mosaic" guitar piece by Laurence Juber that took the Demmy award from the CEA a couple of years back. It is a true reference recording for dynamic range and frequency response.
post #53 of 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. AIX View Post

It is a true reference recording for dynamic range and frequency response.

How does the "standard definition" CD sound?
post #54 of 277
Thread Starter 
There really isn't a standard definition CD of the track available as a commercial product. Much as you and others of this list believe in compact discs at 44.1 kHz/16-bits...I do not and therefore do not release CD versions of our content. Although I have taken the original HD files and downconverted them in several different ways to 44.1 for companies interested in playing our recordings but who use CD players to drive their system. Unfortunately, I have been unable to create a CD that sounds as good as the 96 kHz/24-bit version. It does sound really terrific but still somewhat lacking next to the HD original.

To the point about dynamic range to 144 dB...the primary point is that there is the potential for range almost that large. Just as your power amps rarely have to push levels beyond a comfortable wattage of 30-50...so too the dynamic range. When someone hits a rim shot, that moment requires all of the resources of a truely dynamic system. For me that makes the music more engaging...knowing it has not been subjected to compression or modification of any sort.
post #55 of 277
MIKE WALKER ,MATTDP, and others including myself are of the view that you cannot hear a difference between 44.1/16 and 96/24 or higher resolution. Is there a VALID double-blind test putting this matter to rest?
Richard
post #56 of 277
There were (double-blind tests) several years ago conducted by Stereo Review. I'm sorry, I can't direct you to a specific issue. Stereo Review is now "Sound and Vision".

Most audio magazines now are "subjectivist"...which means they don't even attempt to scientifically quantify what they believe they "hear". Pretty sad!
post #57 of 277
To ascertain if there is a VALID double-blind test with reference to hearing a difference between 44.1/16(CD STANDARD) and 96/24 or higher resolution, I went on-line and could only find subjective detailed technical analysis which really answers nothing. Until a VALID test is available, I will stay with the view that there is no difference.
Richard
post #58 of 277
Thread Starter 
Would you kindly share, what experience you've had with 96 kHz/24-bit recordings. Have you heard something that was captured with no signal processing at that standard? It's important because most people think that an analog transfer of an older track at 96 khZ/24-bits is the same thing as a recording actually done at the higher standard.

Put your ears and system to the test and listen to a 96 kHz/24-bit stereo PCM source recording and then share your experience. Does the disc have greater dynamic range and increased frequency range and accuracy...I find both things to be true. But judge for yourself.
post #59 of 277
Unfortunately my 77 year old ears will only come up with a subjective conclusion. You also have a subjective conclusion but from what you have stated it appears that you consider your conclusion to be more objective than subjective. What we need is a VALID double-blind test and only that will be a valid objective answer. No matter how many people say there is a difference or not a difference, that in itself will not be objectively conclusive.
Richard
post #60 of 277
Yea, of course 96/24 has response up to 48KHZ and 144db dynamic range, but last I checked... I (a teenager) am practically deaf over 18KHZ, and when I listen to my music, I rarely hit 90db, much less 144db.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HD Radio
AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › HD Radio › HD Radio Isn't High Definition!