On 03/07/2011 02:25 PM, Bob Dobbs wrote:
dave wrote:
On 03/07/2011 06:31 AM, wrote:
When those first iPhones came out, a guy in NYC had just bought one.He
was taking the elevator down to the first floor, he had his brand
spanking new shiney as a new born baby's ass iPhone in a string handle
shopping bag.The elevator door opened, he stepped out, a MOFO grabbed
the guy's shopping bag, nearly ripped off one of the guy's fingers
because it was tangled up in the shopping bag string handle.
BAN ALL STRING BAG SHOPPING BAGS! THEY ARE DANGEROUS!
cuhulin


Designer label shopping bags are kind of like wearing big bullseyes.
I'm a stainless steel kind of guy.

Stainless like this http://bit.ly/fhpoHp
to ensure your purchases arrive home with you?

As in I don't wear gold.

On 03/07/2011 03:55 PM, SMS wrote:
On 3/7/2011 3:22 PM, J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, March 6th, 2011 at 18:45:56h -0800, SMS wrote:

And what many people don't appreciate is the local aspect
of radio.

Especially the management at Clear Channel.

Clear Channel, Cumulus, Citadel, etc., understand what sells advertising
time to generate revenue.

Citadel is more local than Clear Channel. I enjoy their stations KGO and
KKOH. KKOB sometimes. KABC is pretty sucky.

In article ,
Richard Evans wrote:
iBiquity Fraudsters wrote:
On Mar 7, 5:17 pm, spamtrap1888 wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:58 pm, SMS wrote:

But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If
Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the
system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by
(a decreasing number of ) broadcasters,
(some) receiver manufacturers,
(some) automakers, and
(practically no) consumers.

There was never any such quote in the Register article - SMS is lying
again.

And besides, as far as I understand it, HD-Radio was rejected over here,
because it doesn't meet interference standards. :-o

Richard, I think you overlooked that "iBiquity Fraudsters" mistook
"spamtrap's" paraphrasing for SMS's actual posting. Gosh, a stupid
troll...what are the odds???!!!


Patty

Patty Winter wrote:

And besides, as far as I understand it, HD-Radio was rejected over here,
because it doesn't meet interference standards. :-o

Richard, I think you overlooked that "iBiquity Fraudsters" mistook
"spamtrap's" paraphrasing for SMS's actual posting. Gosh, a stupid
troll...what are the odds???!!!

Actually I didn't look that closely, I was wanted to point out that
Europe is never likely to adopt HD-Radio over here, and mention the
interference problems. As far as I remember there was one trial in
Germany, and it was rejected.

On Mar 7, 9:07*am, dave wrote:
On 03/06/2011 10:17 PM, wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:17 am, wrote:
Another Reason I don't tote, especially a smart phone, or a touch tablet
(if I owned one) or sheet like that,,, I wonder how many people are
getting knocked down every day and their toteable touch tablets get
stolen? You remember when the first iPhones came out? and somebody was
waiting by an elevator in a store in NYC.
Don't Tote!
cuhulin

Must be the i- Apple store in the GM Building .

You mean the Apple Store that is in an elevator?

Pretty much .

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 09:02:39 -0800
dave wrote:
Thats because its more advanced than MP2.

Wikipedia isn't hard to use you know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II

B2003

You've mistaken me for someone who gives a ****. I listen to .wav files
or FLAC.

Actually I mistook you for someone who had a ****ing clue. I won't make that
mistake again.

B2003

On 3/8/2011 1:45 PM, Richard Evans wrote:
dave wrote:


They are the Loud& Tinny Ear-Bud Generation ! ~ RHF

That's not true. I know 20 somethings who are very discerning
audiophiles. Truly good sound transcends generations.

I like this for casual listening:

http://somafm.com/


I tend to agree. Young people are still basically human beings, not
really any different from the way we were when we were younger.

It is possible that some young people, who are only just discovering
music, might not yet discovered good sound quality. However, most of
them end up getting IPods, IPods can actually provide surprisingly good
sound quality, and even the standard ear buds sound reasonably good. Not
exactly audiophile quality, but good enough I think, that they will not
like changing to low quality such as that delivered by HD-Radio.

Richard E.

iPods don't do FLAC, but they play wav files. I have a pair of Grados
that sound really nice on an iPod, ripped from CD to wav file.

On Mar 8, 10:04*am, SMS wrote:
On 3/8/2011 9:42 AM, RHF wrote:

Again there is a 'New' Generation that has grown-up
with "Digitized" [MP3] Music in their Ears -and- Only
Knows and Honestly Thinks Loud "Digital" Sounds
Blasting in their Ears -is- Good High Quality Music.
Their "Gold Standard" is iTunes Digital Music and to
this 'New' Generation of 'Digital' Music Listeners
{Audio Content Consumers} : What You or I and 'others'
would say is not good to poor sounding music is still
very good to great to them.

This is very true. I see it with my own kids, as soon as we get in the
car I get "can I plug in my iPod?" though paradoxically they do not want
the music very loud, either for their music or the classical and rock
CDs that I play.

The difference between a CD and an MP3 is much more distinguishable on a
home system with good speakers than on a vehicle's stereo or on junky
ear buds.

By the same token, I've had people in my car and house when I'm playing
HD Radio and they think that it's a CD.

One station in the Bay Area, KDFC, recently experienced an ownership
change and transmitter change and as a result many of its listeners have
to listen to it by streaming it online rather than OTA in FM or in HD.
Here's what one listener stated
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_17562681?nclick_check=1:

"KDFC is gutted. The hiss-free power and dynamic range of its HD-radio
signal at 102.1 FM reaching my home here in Palo Alto was nothing short
of astounding before K-FOX sunk its vampire fangs into it -- CD-quality
for sure.

I had bought an HD radio midway through 2010, expecting something good.
What I got was GREAT. Holy Shostakovitch! It was comparable to the
difference between regular TV over an old glass-tube rabbit-ears set
versus the high-def video signal on a new HD receiver. Light-years better..

Bill Lueth can say what he wants about listening to 90.3 over the Web.
It's nowhere close -- a thin, tightly compressed apparition of its
former wide-open HD glory. And even with a good roof-top antenna,
listening on 89.9 is hopeless."

This was interesting because it validates what most people here have
been saying for a long time:

1) Streaming radio over the web results in lower audio quality than OTA.
2) Streaming radio over the web works at home, albeit at lower quality,
but isn't a solution for many (most?) mobile users.

It was also interesting because while you often hear reviewers praise
the CD-like sound quality of HD or DAB+, here's a listener that actually
understood _why_ it sounds better. If there's one problem with analog
FM, it's the loss of dynamic range. With an AAC+ Codec (DAB+ and HD are
both based on AAC+) you can achieve high quality audio with better
dynamic range with as low as 64kb/s encoding.

Of course the loss of the higher quality signal was completely related
to money. Anyone that's ever listened to digital radio is thrilled with
the audio quality, but that doesn't mean that the station that's
broadcasting the content they want in higher quality digital audio is
going to survive.

One of my Sons who the Schools 'claimed' to have
what is now called ADD/ADDH and they wanted to
put him in a 'Special' Class and 'Med' Him all up.
http://add.about.com/
Back then when KDFC was a wonderful sounding
Analog Classical FM Radio Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDFC-FM
And alternative Medicine Practitioner suggested
Playing Classical Music at a very low sound level
at night while he was sleeping; so we did and it did
seem to work after a few weeks. Something to do
with occupying the Mind with Sounds that cause it
to subprocess them; and allowing the rest of the
Mind to Function more Normally.
http://www.naturaladhdcure.com/holistic.html

Sorry to hear that KDFC is no longer on 102.1 MHz
in the SF Bay Area. But then again KKSF 103.7 MHz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKSF
and KBLX "The Quiet Storm" on 102.9 MHz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBLX-FM
before it both are no longer the Music Formats that
they once were either. Still have most of the KKSF
"Smooth Jazz" Cassettes and CDs from the good
old years.

~ RHF

My two cents:

I've been unfortunately reading your replies Patty. I don't think
Steven reads mail, period. It's one way, he is "broadcasting" and the
sooner you killfile him as I have, the better for you and the rest of
us. - Sorry if I'm being unpleasant to you posting this way, please
forgive me.

Warren

On 08 Mar 2011 20:12:57 GMT, Patty Winter
wrote:


In article ,
SMS wrote:

Anyone that's ever listened to digital radio is thrilled with
the audio quality

Steven, why do you keep saying that, despite many people having
said just the opposite in thread after thread that you've
participated in? Really, why do you do it? Do you read other
people's postings selectively and not see the parts that
don't agree with your worldview? Do you think that repeating
an untruth time after time will make it true? What are you
doing?


Patty

On Mar 8, 10:35*am, Richard Evans
wrote:
RHF wrote:

Again there is a 'New' Generation that has grown-up
with "Digitized" [MP3] Music in their Ears -and- Only
Knows and Honestly Thinks Loud "Digital" Sounds
Blasting in their Ears -is- Good High Quality Music.

It's hard to say, but I know of at least a few young people who do seem
to appreciate real quality. Even a guy in his 20s who isn't keen on 320k
mp3 and prefers FLAC.



Their "Gold Standard" is iTunes Digital Music

The default for ITunes is aac@128k. That is a dam sight better sounding
that low bit rate digital radio systems.

and to
this 'New' Generation of 'Digital' Music Listeners
{Audio Content Consumers} : What You or I and 'others'
would say is not good to poor sounding music is still
very good to great to them.

? Do We Know What Today's Younger Audio
'Content' Consumers Want and Expect ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...d74643496f82dd

They are the Loud & Tinny Ear-Bud Generation ! ~ RHF
*.
*.

- I think may well be a lot of youngsters who think that loud =
quality,
- but I wouldn't put them all into that group. After all, the
difference
- between a CD, and lets say, a YouTube video, is very obvious. I
don't
- think all that many young people are going to be too ignorant to
notice
- the difference. Especially with young ears that can pick up a lot
more
- detail than older ears.
-
- Richard E.

Not after a few Years of Blasting their Ears with
Very Loud Sounding "Pop" Music via Ear Buds !