[BC] Balancing processing from analog to digital

[Rich Wood]

------ At 01:03 AM 12/21/2006, Dana  Puopolo wrote: -------

>AND...In the case of the standout stations, EVERY ONE is a few db softer then
>their analog main channels. Secondaries too. I'm talking about audio that
>sounds noticeably BETTER then the main analog channel. Who cares if I have to
>turn the radio up a bit? I'd do it anyway, because the music DRAWS ME IN when
>it sounds really good, instead of pushing me away, as crushed, clipped analog
>FM does.

If stations process separately what's the solution to mode switching 
and the change in quality every time it switches? Fortunately, there 
are so few IBUZ receivers in the hands of listeners that it doesn't 
matter. I can tell you it was very annoying to hear WBOS, Boston, 
switch modes as I was driving. At the time I had the Kenwood the 
switching became unbearable at about Framingham (about 20 miles). By 
far the worst was WSRS, Worcester. The digital had the high end 
cranked up to painful levels and the low end stripped away.

I think I'm going to move to San Francisco where IBUZ seems to be 
working perfectly. First, I'll have to replace my Accurian with no 
punch no how and get something that has decent Seedy Quality capability.

>If we are going to claim 'CD like audio' for HD FM radio, we'd better deliver
>- and the crushed, limited MESS I hear on most stations just doesn't cut it!

With the current receivers, retailers tell me even those who don't 
care about quality (most of the population) can't tell when the mode 
switches. Everyone here, except the NPR station is mashing the 
daylights out of both modes. I recently read an article that advised 
stations how to keep both modes sounding the same. That's bad for 
selling receivers but good to avoid irritation in a moving vehicle. 
The "Wow Factor" we have in this market is "Wow, that sounds awful." 
I think the WPLJ processing consultants made the rounds of this market.

Rich