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

[RRSounds@aol.com]

Mr. Orban:
Your footnote quote is exactly what I used to write my 'paraphrase.'

When two separate samples give nearly the same result, then you gotta start 
thinking there could be some congruence. ("Phase One": 16% discontinue 
listening at 96 kbps; "Phase Two:" 17% discontinue. Phase One participants were 
relatively educated ears, Phase Two were 'civilians' recruited from various 
backgrounds).

By setting 96 kbps to a zero base, you are throwing away any data that may 
indicate that the base itself is flawed. For the purposes of comparing 96 to 48 
that may be valid (and, arguably, that is the purpose of the report), but to 
me at least, it doesn't inspire confidence in the quality of the codec at 96 
kbps. Hence my comment about a possible dislike for the various artists, an 
'out' suggested in the footnote.

MAYBE the reason for such a small variance in 'discontinue' responses to 48 
kbps vs. 96 kbps is that the codec sounds equally flawed at BOTH rates. But, 
unless I missed it, that possibility was not highlighted in the report.

Even then, assuming a portion of that 16-17% dissatisfaction figure really is 
due to audio quality and not artist selection, would that really be 
significant? Who knows. It's all just fodder for thought, anyway. This is the system we 
have to work with. And the REAL listening test is just beginning!

Heck, maybe a similar number (maybe more!) find radio's present-day 'sound' 
annoying. THAT comparison is a report I'd like to see!

Kind Regards,
David



David P. Reaves, III
TransLanTech Sound, LLC
Home of the Award-winning "Ariane Sequel" Digital Audio Leveler


On?Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:41:29 -0800,?Robert Orban <rorban at earthlink.net>
?wrote:
<<
At 05:49 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote:

From: RRSounds at aol.com
Subject: [BC] RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <ff.1e8b9797.3086df2c at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Please pardon me if I overly paraphrase...

If I'm reading the NPR report correctly, about 16-17% of listeners would
"discontinue" (their wording) listening to audio coded at 96 kbps with the
iBiquity codec. The survey says this may, however, be a factor of the?
audio samples
used. Maybe a sixth of all listeners just don't like Eric Clapton or The Cars
(the two "Rock" selections), or think Bizet's "Carmen" is bombastic, I dunno.


Footnote 3 from the report says:

17% of Phase 1 and 16% of Phase 2 participants claimed that they would?
discontinue listening to samples coded at
96kbps. However, the mean opinion scores for 96kbps were between 3.5 and?
4.2, and thus we believe that this
inflated "discontinue" rate reflects participants' feelings about the?
source material, not the quality of the sound
through the coder. Further, during this task we did not give participants?
explicit instructions to confine their
judgment to audio quality. Because of these factors, we use 96kbps as our?
benchmark, set it to "0" and report on
the difference between participants' rating of 96kbps and other bit rates.
>>