Re: RRC-06 Maps

Robert Orban wrote:
In article <W%Sng.1658$eQ.543@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...


Pierre PANTALÉON wrote:
steve41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :

Provide me with a precise definition of "near CD-quality". The main
problem with the term is how far is "near". It could be very close,
it could be a significant distance away.

How do you define "good audio quality"?
How do you define "excellent audio quality"?

Where do you draw between average / good / superb / excellent?
Which is best, superb of excellent? Is dire worse than awful?

Moreover, as I've already explained, I wrote the MPEG Coding page
in 2002, and I HAVE learnt a lot since then and I HAVE listened to
a lot of 192 kbps MP2 audio since then - I listen to 192 kbps MP2
on digital TV every day, and it doesn't sound as good as FM sounds.

What is FM quality caracteristic ?
Dynamic ?
sampling rate ?


I would say that FM-quality with well-engineered audio and good
reception would score very highly on a blind listening test.

Fm has three main problems:


Mr Orban, are you or are you not supporting the use of HD Radio, XM Radio
and Sirius Radio? If you are, and if your company is making money from these
digital systems, then DO NOT CRITICISE the audio quality on FM.

HD Radio (HD stands for High Definition - don't you have rules against false
advertising in the US?) broadcasters are apparently planning to use what
they refer to (incorrectly) as "multicasting", where the, what is it, 96
kbps(?) or so of bandwidth IS SPLIT betweeen MULTIPLE stations.

FACE THE FACTS, all the systems used for digital radio in the US provide
poor audio quality - not as bad as DAB in the UK, but approaching that level
of dreadfulness.

I've got a figure from the IEEE Spectrum article a few years ago about
satellite digital radio, and it says that XM has a capacity of 4.0 Mbps and
Sirius has a capacity of 4.4 Mbps. How many radio stations are there, about
120 per system or so? That would make the average bit rate per station as 33
kbps and 37 kbps, respectively. They may be using advanced audio codecs, and
some of the stations may be in mono, but we ain't talking high audio quality
here, pal.

So, save your criticisms of FM unless you and your company is willing to
renounce your support of XM, Sirius and HD Radio, because the issues with FM
are nothing compared to using AAC+ etc at very, very low bit rate levels.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview/freeview_receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DAB Radio & digital audio out
    ... DAB has the ability for the receiver to ... > accept that although radio was once a hi-fi medium, ... audio quality first and foremost from digital radio. ... to allow some niche stations to launch that very few people will ever ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Why do R1 & R2 FM sound so bad
    ... radio in Europe the sound quality of a compact disc. ... problems 5 years before the BBC launched its stations in 2002. ... Quality was inevitably going to go in the same direction as DTT, ... If they had upgraded DAB prior to "properly" launching it in 2002 the audio ...
    (uk.tech.broadcast)
  • Re: Roberts Radio
    ... > range compression) that actually makes it easier to encode than pop and ... > get in terms of the audio quality they use on DAB. ... > providing Radio 3 at higher audio quality than all the other radio ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Whats Your Audio Setup in Your Toyota? Sort of a Poll...
    ... I've been contemplating an audio upgrade. ... I've got basic CD and radio. ... the car, there's no audio port on the ... There is a plethora of stations to choose from here. ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: DAB annual sales 50% below forecast!!
    ... Give me a good explanation for why the BBC won't improve its audio quality, ... Now some stations are using it. ... stations on DAB. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)