[BC] Does a Glut of New Signals Mean More Revenue?

[Peter Smerdon]

Oops - they say you should never ass-u-me (dunno about the "u" part).

Then I'd agree with your frustration.

So those same people have heard HD Radio @ 48kbps ("wonderful!"), and 
your link ("ouch!"), and you're sure there's no other quality issue at 
your plant to account for it?

If that's the case, then perhaps you've got the "Emperor's New Clothes" 
all over again.
The only trouble is, I'm not sure too many of the Emperor's subjects are 
as gullible today.

Out of curiosity, what hardware are you using for the link, and is it an 
RF path, partial T1, IP network or what?
I'm always looking for ideas in this area.

Cheers,
Peter Smerdon.

Dana Puopolo wrote:
> I meant MPEG-2 as in MP4 or AAC.
> 
> OR as in here:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-2
> 
> -D
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:40:30 AM EDT
> From: Peter Smerdon <psmerdon at fastmail.com.au>
> To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
> Subject: Re: [BC] Does a Glut of New Signals Mean More Revenue?
> 
> Dana,
> 
> They are two different algorithms (codecs) for different applications.
> 
> MPEG2 (I'm assuming you mean MPEG-1 Layer 2) was developed a l-o-n-g 
> time ago for use with relatively high bitrates.
> It is regarded as "imperceptible" at 256kbps (tho' some say 192kbps is 
> fine).
> Conventional wisdom is that "MP1-LII" is not suited to low bitrate use - 
> and a lot of testing by European broadcast authorities confirms this.
> MP1-L11 is used in Eureka 147 - "EuroDAB" and the UK has a lot of DAB 
> stations at 128kbps (and lower!) and there are a lot of complaints about 
> artifacts from the enthusiasts.
> 
> HD Radio uses a totally different algorithm (codec) - ISTR it's now a 
> close cousin of AAC (remember I'm in Australia - so I'm not dealing with 
> this stuff day-to-day).
> AAC is much newer, and was designed for the much lower bitrates. I 
> recall its "sweet spot" is between 96 and 64 kbps (but I'm open to 
> correction on this).
> 
> AAC will always sound MUCH MUCH better at 48kbps than MP1-LII.
> Though there are variables to take into account, like the quality of the 
> encoder code. I've heard MP1-LII mono audio at 64kbps go from "not good 
> enough for cueing purposes" to "good enough to put to air" (for 3 mins 
> on AM)with a firmware upgrade to a particular ISDN codec.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Peter Smerdon.
> 
> Dana Puopolo wrote:
>> I'm using a 57 kbit mono MPEG2 stream for an STL. What I can't understand
> is
>> that some here who have heard it say it's barely usable for AM, yet these
> same
>> people claim that 48 kbit stereo IBOC sounds great.
>>
>> The numbers simply don't make sense.
>>
>> -D
>>
> 
> 

-- 
=============================
Peter Smerdon.

Radio 3mp - Easy Listening
sen-1116  - Let's Talk Sport

Melbourne, Australia.
=============================