Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2018 15:35:34 GMT
Digital Radio Mondiale on WINBWINB is a U.S. shortwave station from Red Lion, PA DRM Tests on SW
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Jun 8, 2018 16:41:47 GMT
Oh boy this could be a rough ride. I've read how DAB and DRM are getting popular overseas and it makes me wonder of the USA's future in Radio broadcasting. I hope the public will have some say so about all of this.
I suggest we keep a sharp eye on these tests and results alongside any talk of Digital Radio in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Jun 8, 2018 19:28:40 GMT
Oh boy this could be a rough ride.I've read how DAB and DRM are getting popular overseas and it makes me wonder of the USA's future in Radio broadcasting. I hope the public will have some say so about all of this. I suggest we keep a sharp eye on these tests and results alongside any talk of Digital Radio in the USA. It's already legal in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Jun 9, 2018 1:16:45 GMT
DRM has an unlucky name
My idea to re-do digital broadcasting is to make the technology more open, with licensing the format, software and who's allowed to manufacture products, flexibility that manufacturers need now to move quickly on their product lines. Radio should get radical digitally if it wants a better digital future.
The radio industry seemed to fall behind iBiquity quickly, knowing broadcasting had to rush to establish itself digitally, due to competitors like satellite radio, radio on line, and the connected car, plus the risk of falling behind other countries' digital radio systems.
I suppose radio people also didn't want a repeat of the AM stereo debacle, which stretched on in approval processes, format wars and indecision for over ten years, or nearly 20 if you put all of the discussions together, from mid-1970s talks to selection of C-QUAM as the US standard in the mid-90s.
I read about DAB and DRM getting popular overseas too, but I can't tell what the real numbers are, what's fact or fiction, some say it's great, others think that DRM at least, is bombing out.
Is anyone actually excited about digital radio as a technology? It's trying, but it seems to me that people look at it as an add-on to a Legacy technology that they have to accept because it's improvement or because it's there, but if you want to see real tech excitement, look at smart speakers or something that picks up audio on your phone, that's what people are buying. It's not that people don't listen to radio, I just don't think most understand what digital means to it, radio is so established as the one thing it is.
In my dream appointment as head of both the FCC and NAB, I'd stay away from both DAB and DRM, and call for a US based standards body to work on it, with liberal licensing and use terms all around, and using an open codec like OPUS. I'd want set the standard with a bit rate high enough for transparent audio on all channels.
One of the big reasons I don't listen to HD radio is the lower audio quality on nearly every station. It was good when FM stations started with just the main HD channel's full bandwidth, but now that it's been subdivided with up to 4, I hear a distinctive audio whine, mushy sounding ringing music tones, and lisps on voice sibilances. It's only tolerable to listen to through small speakers in my opinion, the vast majority of stations.
I'd want to mandate bandwidth for every channel and not allow stations to subdivide, but I know that's against broadcast freedom, so I couldn't do it. It's just that broadcasters will use every chance to add more channels at the expense of quality, in every case I know about, from DAB, to satellite radio, FM-HD, it's a race to the bottom.
We had a transparent digital service at one time, it was in the 1990s and called Digital Music Express, from your cable TV provider. It was still around recently, under another name now, and using digital compression as I understand, but the compression isn't severe, so it still sounds good.
Boomer
|
|
|
Post by thelegacy on Jun 9, 2018 2:32:03 GMT
it's how you process the digital radio technology. Let's take for example MP3s for computer audio and streaming. Okay when MP3's first became really popular most people share them on P2P Networks in 128 kilobits per second this was around 1998 in the old Napster days.
Many audiophiles what associate MP3 technology with a ringing sound that became fatiguing to them after several minutes of listening.
As hard drives became bigger and bigger and portable players had more storage more people started to in code at higher bit rates like 192 which became a sweet spot for sharing and streaming but the real audio files would encode at 320 kilobits.
AAC Plus was a new codec that started from Apple and allowed a higher sounding bitrate at a lower bandwidth without the artifacts associated with the lore bit rates such a 64k. With a a AAC plus a 64K stream would sound like 128k.
What I can't understand about HD radio is the fact that they are using such low bit-rate. There is really no reason that since they are using a version of a a AAC plus that they cannot at least stream at 64K or 128k.
Another fact that hurts HD radio is the fact that it requires such a high power to actually get your coverage to be the same as analog. I was over there on the Isle of AM radio forum on Facebook and several of these people are saying if you want more formats on radio you have to go digital.
It's a vicious circle some of the people in that very same form will talk about how they hate digital but then on the other hand when I begin talking about c-quam AM stereo are telling me that radio must go digital to support floor mats like I intend to broadcast which is Elmo and The Rock.
There seems to be quite the problem that I see happening you have folks who run radio stations that want to believe that people cannot tell the difference between AM stereo and mono also the folks can't tell the difference between a stream that is only 16k and a 320K. I feel this is an insult to my intelligence along with many other people that I know darn well can tell the difference.
Without getting into any ad hominem attacks I'm not sure how to solve this issue. And that's going to be a problem for the engineers in the scientist to try to figure out. Meanwhile I think the FCC is on the sidelines waiting for that magic pill.
|
|