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

[Robert Orban]

At 07:49 AM 1/20/2006, you wrote:
>From: Kirk Harnack <kirk at harnack.com>
>Subject: Re: [BC] HD/2 (was: [Fwd: HD2])
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID: <43D10062.7050705 at harnack.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>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.

Although 48 kbps HDC is not "CD-quality" by any stretch of the imagination, 
I don't find that the compression artifacts prevent me from enjoying the 
programming. And that is the bottom line.

Bob Orban