[BC] Sangean HD component tuner - IBUZ Processing

[James Somich]

Rich:
You are 100% right about the "blend problem" mainly existing in a mobile
environment. So far, my Sangean HDT-1 hasn't blended once and I just have
the supplied dipole tacked up on the wall.

And we haven't even discussed the lack of any blend whatsoever on the HD-2s.

How many people will listen to a signal that just drops out time and again?
Not many.

Ah, problems to solve and devices to invent. Problems like this just
challenge engineers to design solutions.

Look how far we have come with analog fm-stereo.....in 40 years!!!!!


On 12/21/06, Rich Wood <richwood at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> ------ At 02:23 AM 12/21/2006, Robert Orban wrote: -------
>
> >You missed my point. At least in mobile reception, there will be
> >areas where a significant amount of crossfading occurs between the
> >analog FM and HD1 digital streams. If the volume drops 10 dB each
> >time the radio crossfades from analog to digital, this will be a
> >HUGE irritant -- far worse than excessive compression or peak
> >limiting. Indeed, I believe that this would cause 95%+ of the
> >audience to tune out after it happened a few times.
>
> That's exactly my point. How do we deal with it? To sell a receiver
> to anyone other than a radio station employee we need to show there's
> a reason to buy one. I assume the Sangean is capable of entertainment
> quality in digital. It doesn't move, so the crossfading happens less
> often. My Accurian with an attic antenna crossfades often, mostly
> with changes in the weather. The audio section isn't good enough to
> notice. The NPR station here processes gently, so I should notice the
> alleged advantage of digital. With the Accurian there's no
> difference. I can force it to analog by using its supplied antenna.
> When I connect the attic system it sounds exactly the same. All that
> happens is the logo lights up.
>
> We have two incompatible scenarios here. Entertainment quality for
> home systems and lack of irritation in a mobile environment.
>
> >These days, who has the time or budget to carefully adjust the
> >loudness level of every element (including each commercial) before
> >it get entered into a playout system? In theory, this could be done
> >automatically by analyzing each file's subjective loudness level and
> >adjusting the file's level appropriately (which is NOT the same as
> >peak-normalizing the file; peak normalization has nothing to do with
> >subjective loudness). But in practice, this isn't what happens at
> >most stations.
>
> I have to disagree. In the olden days things were often done on the
> fly. In AM, in particular, riding gain meant pinning meter needles
> and letting the processing take care of everything. Today, a cut is
> loaded into an audio system once. There certainly should be time to
> make sure the quality of that cut is the best possible. I find it
> very hard to accept "good enough" when it comes to our only product.
> We don't have time because most of the staff has probably been fired.
> The other problem is the loudness wars going on in CD mastering. How
> do you correct something that has absolutely no dynamic range? How do
> you process it? The YouTube file was a great example. I guess when
> showbiz has been reduced to bean counting you can't expect much.
>
> Rich
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
> Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More!
> www.SystemsStore.com       Tel: 407-656-3719    Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>