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

[Robert Orban]

At 06:36 PM 1/20/2006, you wrote:
>From: DANA PUOPOLO <dpuopolo at usa.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] HD/2 (was: [Fwd: HD2])
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID: <150kaTVSa3680S22.1137793440 at cmsweb22.cms.usa.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>That's fine for you Bob - and you're a 60ish man.
>
>Will a 20ish woman (with much better HF hearing then all of us) feel the same
>way you do?
>
>THAT's the question we need to answer!

I think that the success (or lack of same) of Sirius and XM with that 
demographic already points to the answer (although I don't know what those 
numbers are). XM's codec is roughly equivalent in performance to one 48 
kbps HD2 channel, although XM's presentation is held back by lame, 
inconsistent audio processing, IMO.

Sirius' channels a comparable bit rate (it varies due to their statistical 
multiplexing), but are limited by the performance of the PAC codec that is 
part of the Sirius system spec. However, in my biased opinion :-), their 
audio processing (6200s and 1100s) is better than XM's.

>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