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

[Kent Winrich, K9EZ]

Robert Orban wrote:

> 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
>
>
Thats exactly what I am talking about.