[BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!

[Robert Orban]

At 05:49 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote:
>From: "Bill Sepmeier" <dcpowerandlight at hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
>To: broadcast at radiolists.net
>Message-ID: <BAY107-F269013FCBD92ED13796368A2700 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>
> >From: Robert Orban :: Dr. Sheffield's double-blind listening tests made for
> >the NRSC clearly showed that in a study with enough participants to permit
> >statistical significance, listeners from the consumer space preferred the
> >sound of the HDC codec at 36 kbps to the sound of analog AM. They preferred
> >the digital to the analog with all genres when compared to three different
> >AM analog radios. The average mean opinion score when rating sound quality
> >was, one the average, about 1 to 1.5 points higher for the digital on a
> >scale of 1 to 5. On rock music, gap widened to approximately 2 points in
> >favor of the digital channel.
>
>Bob - Not being as familiar with this study as you are, can I ask you:
>
>Was the study done in real moving automobiles in real traffic with the
>random BER muting/blending we can expect in real life, especially in places
>like SF where the same multipath will cause these problems at greater levels
>of incidence than say, west Texas? Or was it in a lab environment,
>stationary, with no artifacts introduced to simulate BER muting/blending?
>Just curious ... since if these studies don't emulate/simulate the real
>world they're just PR flak....

These the results compared "unimpaired" analog AM reception to digital 
reception at 36 kbps with no muting or blending. In this context, 
"unimpaired" means that the analog radios were not receiving audible buzz, 
crackles, static, interference etc., even though these are all significant 
issues with real world analog AM reception, particularly indoors.

I believe that the results of this test were filed with the FCC, but I'm 
not absolutely sure.

Bob Orban