On Sep 25, 10:33 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
New product is expensive until large quantities are sold so the
development cost is amortized over larger numbers of the devices.

Samsung itself plans to use the chips in various product lines, as well as
selling to third party manufacturers. The reason none of thebig fabs entered
the market earlier is that with fewer stations (now 1500 covering nearly
every viable top 100 market station) and no FCC approval, the volumes they
needed would not be met.

Small quantities mean the chips will remain expensive.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 300 kilobit/
second 5.1 surround into the current FM bands).

SFTV_troy wrote:

On Sep 25, 10:33 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
New product is expensive until large quantities are sold so the
development cost is amortized over larger numbers of the devices.

Samsung itself plans to use the chips in various product lines, as well as
selling to third party manufacturers. The reason none of thebig fabs entered
the market earlier is that with fewer stations (now 1500 covering nearly
every viable top 100 market station) and no FCC approval, the volumes they
needed would not be met.

Small quantities mean the chips will remain expensive.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction.

Why? IBOC sucks. DRM sucks.

They both cause unneeded QRM.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Sep 29, 7:52 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
On Sep 25, 10:33 pm, Telamon





wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
New product is expensive until large quantities are sold so the
development cost is amortized over larger numbers of the devices.

Samsung itself plans to use the chips in various product lines, as well as
selling to third party manufacturers. The reason none of thebig fabs entered
the market earlier is that with fewer stations (now 1500 covering nearly
every viable top 100 market station) and no FCC approval, the volumes they
needed would not be met.

Small quantities mean the chips will remain expensive.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 300 kilobit/
second 5.1 surround into the current FM bands).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The audio quality is only improved if you're very close to the
broadcasting station. If you're not very close to the broadcasting
station, there is NO audio, period. Doesn't sound like a very
appealing package.

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 300 kilobit/
second 5.1 surround into the current FM bands).

Because you can't hear anything unless you've got hundred million
instructions per second running in your digital signal processor.

That means that radios will be
1)expensive (probably $50-90 minimum, compared with the $1.50 credit card
radio today)
2)relativly power hungry
3)use private/secret/obscure modulation (Nobody unliscened can build one)
4)enables digital rights management (nobody without a subscription can listen)

And sound like crap below 50-100 kBPS.

What a way to serve the public. What a way to control the public...

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

On Sep 25, 10:33 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
New product is expensive until large quantities are sold so the
development cost is amortized over larger numbers of the
devices.

Samsung itself plans to use the chips in various product lines,
as well as selling to third party manufacturers. The reason none
of thebig fabs entered the market earlier is that with fewer
stations (now 1500 covering nearly every viable top 100 market
station) and no FCC approval, the volumes they needed would not
be met.

Small quantities mean the chips will remain expensive.


I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio


I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than
DAB (poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like squeezing 300 kilobit/
second 5.1 surround into the current FM bands).

There is plenty to read in this news group on the subject of digital
transmission. Most people in the news group don't want it. The reason
are several but paramount is the fact that the implementations are old
technology and ideas that do not fit the propagation of the bands they
are implemented on.

The best match so far with the applied technology is FM because it most
closely emulates the conditions or transmission path for which those
outdated ideas were originally conceived. Daytime AMBCB comes in next
and nigh time AMBCB and short wave come in last.

Arguments that current digital broadcasts by proponents fall flat
because everyone has or now realizes that this type of transmission has
its own downfalls compared to analog.

Arguments of proposed improved digital broadcast by proponents are just
collections of insipid stupid ideas like using additional bandwidth or
more power or just reduce the coverage area of a transmitter. Just more
dumb-ass ideas on top of the current old and unsuitable concepts
currently applied that reverse the supposed benefits of going to
digital mode to begin with.

Old, inappropriately applied technology ideas currently trashing the
radio bands. Absolutely pathetic.

And just as bad as the poorly considered technology is the
implementation where the whole of the band is used instead of just a
part so a great deal of chaos ensues generally ****ing people off.

But don't worry digital mode proponents; the hilarious HD troll Eduardo
will be along soon with his rationalizations, misunderstandings, market
statistics, and his specially developed for the Internet hubris to
smooth over the pain of the reality of HD and DRM in this post.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

dxAce wrote:
SFTV_troy wrote:


Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction.

Why? IBOC sucks. DRM sucks. They both cause QRM.



I don't know what QRM means - probably interference? In any case,
once the analog is turned off and the HD Radio is constrained to a
standard 10 kilohertz channel (mode 3), there will no longer be
overlapping stations.

Steve wrote:

The audio quality is only improved if you're very close to the
broadcasting station. If you're not very close to the broadcasting
station, there is NO audio, period. ...


Yeah I've heard that, but can't that be fixed simply by boosting more
power to the digital stream?

Steve wrote:

The audio quality is only improved if you're very close to the
broadcasting station. If you're not very close to the broadcasting
station, there is NO audio, period. ...


Yeah I've heard that, but can't that be fixed simply by boosting more
power to the digital stream?

Steve wrote:

The audio quality is only improved if you're very close to the
broadcasting station. If you're not very close to the broadcasting
station, there is NO audio, period. ...


Yeah I've heard that, but can't that be fixed simply by boosting more
power to the digital stream?

Telamon wrote:

There is plenty to read in this news group on the subject of digital
transmission. Most people in the news group don't want it. The reason
are several but paramount is the fact that the implementations are old
technology......

Old? Both HD Radio and DRM (and also DAB+) are using the latest MPEG4
HE-AAC+SRM codecs. That's the newest and most-advanced digital
compression standard currently available.

The modulation is COFDM - also one of the newest ideas available for
sending data via broadcast.


The best match so far with the applied technology is FM because it most
closely emulates the conditions or transmission path for which those
outdated ideas were originally conceived. Daytime AMBCB comes in next
and nigh time AMBCB and short wave come in last.

Interesting. First, what is AMBCB? Second, why do you rank AM lower
than FM? And why do you rank skywave transmission as last?



Arguments that current digital broadcasts by proponents fall flat
because everyone has or now realizes that this type of transmission has
its own downfalls compared to analog.

Such as? You keep telling me "digital has downfalls" but so far
you've not told me what they are. Please share that information,
because I'm curious to know.



Arguments of proposed improved digital broadcast by proponents are just
collections of insipid stupid ideas like using additional bandwidth or
more power or just reduce the coverage area of a transmitter. Just more
dumb-ass ideas on top of the current old and unsuitable concepts

Why are these idea "dumbass"? Please explain.



And just as bad as the poorly considered technology is the
implementation where the whole of the band is used instead of just a
part so a great deal of chaos ensues generally ****ing people off.

How would the FCC go about using "part" of the band in its transition
from AM to Digital, or FM to Digital?


But don't worry digital mode proponents; the hilarious HD troll Eduardo

I've not met him yet.