[BC] What is "better?" HOW do we get there?

[Robert Orban]

At 12:15 PM 1/21/2006, you wrote:
>From: Barry Mishkind <barry at oldradio.com>
>Subject: Re: [BC] What is "better?" HOW do we get there?
>To: Broadcasters' Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20060121114943.04090ad8 at oldradio.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>At 11:23 AM 1/21/2006, Kent Winrich, K9EZ wrote
> >Indeed Steve,  But you can consider patching to be upgrading.  If
> >they find a way to make the CODEC better then that would be a good
> >thing.  I completely agree that it needs to be invisible to the consumer.
> >As I said before I have not dug into the receive CODEC and how (or
> >even IF) it can be upgraded.  If someone has more information I
> >would love to hear about it.
>
>          We had quite a bit of discussion a few months back,
>          and Mike Bergman correctly pointed out that manufacturers
>          don't want to build upgradeable radios, they want to
>          sell new radios.
>
>          There is also, what he termed a "liability issue" if the
>          downloads (over the air or - at what cost?- at the dealer)
>          fail, cause problems, or even a perceived problem.
>
>          It would seem that, at least for the near future,
>          upgrading the codecs is not a viable option.

The codecs can always be improved at the encoder side. Both MP2 and MP3 
have gotten a lot better over the last 10 years as engineers have optimized 
the coding side of the codec. This doesn't require the decoder to change.

Bob Orban