🚀 go-pugleaf

"SFTV_troy" <SFTV_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1191096585.135753.167530@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 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 upgrading FM Stereo to 300
> kbps Surround).
>
> Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier technical fidelity
limits.  Plenty of people are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
perfect audio reproduction, even if it were possible, would not bring in
more listeners.

5.1 surround would drive listeners away.  People use the radio for backround
sound.  People listen in the car.  A wide dynamic range would go from lost
in the ambient noise to the jarring.  There's perfectly good practical
reasons that neither AM nor FM isn't braodcast close to their fidelity
limits.

And broadcast high fidelity has been tried several times.  Wideband AM was
first tried in the 30s.  FM radio took a generation to get going, despite
it's noise immunity.  AM stereo failed after a good sincere attempt.  A few
wideband stereo receivers were made but they didn't get much interest.

Alot of people like high fidelity but they like control of it.  They'll play
it when they want, where they want.  And that means they're playing
recordings.


>
> Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1  station to 4
> stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel)
> (and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels).  Or maybe a Jazz station
> dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big
> Band-era Jazz.  FM could effectively triple its number of channels.


So?  In most markets, most listeners are listening to a few stations.  The
bulk of the stations get by with less.  And there's alot of stations which
hardly anybody listens to.  In fact, it wasn't long ago stations were going
dark for lack of listeners.  While it might be nice if radio had more
variety, how do you support it?

Even cheap programming isn't free.


>
> Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
> transition has some growing pains to overcome.
>

But what is the idea?  Higher fidelity in a medium in which high fidelity
has already disappointed?  More stations in a medium in which a number of
stations are already struggling?

Frank Dresser