[BC] HD/2 (was: [Fwd: HD2])

[Kirk Harnack]

Kevin Tekel wrote:
  > But will you like hearing everything you like through a 32 kbps HDC
> stream, or whatever miniscule bitrate the "HD2" channel is given?  And
> when it comes to "HD2" channels, for now at least, they're all just
> automated jukeboxes, so why spend $300+ on an IBOC receiver when you can
> just as easily listen to any one of thousands of 32 kbps online audio
> streams on your computer for free, with the same (crappy) audio quality?

Bit-rate-reduced audio quality doesn't scale at all like you're
imagining.  A 64 kbps stream ISN'T twice as good as a 32 kbps stream
(given the same codec).  Conversely, a 32 kbps stream isn't half as good 
as a 64.  Different codecs "break" at different bit rates
- some dramatically - others more gracefully.

Moreover, MOST Internet streams are NOT properly processed, filtered,
pre-conditioned and sampled prior to encoding.  MANY if not MOST 
Internet streams are poor examples of the tech of bit-rate-reduction, so 
one shouldn't base one's opinion of coded audio quality on Internet 
listening experiences.

This is not to say that all HD Radio stations are well-processed and
conditioned; I've heard a few that definitely are poor examples.
However, properly done, the HD Radio codec sounds quite acceptable to my
ears down to 48 kbps.  Even Bob Orban and Frank Foti agree on this.

WDUQ-FM just put a 16 kbps HD stream up, using an Omnia Multicast
processor.  Their engineer reports that it's very satisfactory, with the
processor "fooling" the codec into sounding quite smooth.

> 
> Until stations put REAL programming on their "HD2" channels, I still see
> the public's reaction to HD Radio being a collective yawn.
> 
> To adapt Joey Reynolds' old AM Stereo put-down, HD2 is "just two channels
> of garbage instead of one".
> 
> In fact, they should call it "HD/2", because the bitrate is shared between
> the two channels, and if you put them together you might get half of
> something worth listening to.

If your arguments are true, then Sirius and XM will fail, too.

> 
> I expect IBOC to die a quick death when broadcasters realize it's a
> lose-lose scenario: they'll lose if the technology gets ignored and
> becomes a dead duck, and they'll also lose if the automated-jukebox HD2
> channels start stealing listeners away from their main full-personality
> formats.  The only good thing to come from it is that someone might get
> the bright idea that "hey, our HD2 channel is so popular with HD
> listeners, why not put it on the main channel where everyone can hear
> it?"....

Ah, yes, and the world is flat.



Kirk Harnack
Telos/Omnia/Axia