Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Johnson Nguyen
    Guest

    This might be a silly question

    Has anyone ever heard of HD radio? I've heard advertisements on the radio but I've never actually heard from anyone it's quality. Is it something worth investing in? Is there a major difference? Thanks to anyone who responds.

  2. #2
    I have heard of it, but i can not say that i can really tell a difference.
    Manoni Productions
    Pass me another beer...You are still ugly!

  3. #3
    Senior Member SC358's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    608
    Blog Entries
    2
    Not so silly ... it's just a marketing ploy which fools a lot of people. Due to emerging technology radio has taken on Hybrid Digital not High-Definition. It is a brand name of technology (before photocopies, people were calling it Xerox copies). Any station that totes High-Def is really misleading their listeners unless at some point to the transmission path they convert their stereo to create a pseudo-surround sound.

    I am curious about it myself but I'm not setup with surround sound at home yet. Anyway, unless your home audio is setup for critical listening, I'm not too sure either, "how good", it's suppose to sound.
    SC358
    Relationships are based on compromises - behavior accepted is behavior repeated.

  4. #4
    "HD Radio" adds sidebands to the existing signal, cutting down on the primary bandwidth according to diagrams that I've seen, and making the HD radio signal sound better than its FM counterpart [on HD-FM]. I do believe that part of this perception is due to the FM counterpart being compressed, as channels without HD seem to be higher fidelity on a regular tuner than those that have HD.
    Eric Adler (tonsofpcs)
    http://www.videoproductionsupport.com/ Chat at: http://tinyurl.com/vpschat
    Follow me on twitter: @videosupport @eric_adler

  5. #5
    Senior Member SC358's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    608
    Blog Entries
    2
    Right Eric - I think it also used in some AM stations as well. Will this get more listeners to move over? If not, at least it's another option to choose from - for those who still listen to radio .
    SC358
    Relationships are based on compromises - behavior accepted is behavior repeated.

  6. #6
    Quote
    Quote: SC358
    View Post
    for those who still listen to radio .
    That's most.

    Anyway, very few people have HD radio receivers (or have even knowingly heard one). If you want to listen, go to a large a/v/electronics store (like Best Buy or Circuit City, etc), they usually have one or two sets on display that you can listen to and compare with.
    Eric Adler (tonsofpcs)
    http://www.videoproductionsupport.com/ Chat at: http://tinyurl.com/vpschat
    Follow me on twitter: @videosupport @eric_adler

  7. #7
    HD in general is ploy- attack me if you will!

  8. #8

    Hd

    I will.

    FM was invented in the 1930s. FM stereo was invented in the 1950s. (The guy just died last year.) They only had tubes, didn't really understand speaker design, and considered 3% peak distortion excellent.

    There is simply no way to tweak this old system to match today's available audio quality. Over-the-air transmission has to be HD or it's inferior to what you can get from a CD.

    Now the caveats: I'm talking technical capabilities, not necessarily practice. Like anything else, HD can be screwed up if the programming people think listeners have doorknobs for ears - and most programming people do think so. But then FM itself, as it currently exists, is far inferior to what it's capable of. The limiting factor in both cases is how the people at the sending end adjust the processing.

    In my experience, HD sounds lots better than FM. It is technically better, but that's not the reason it sounds better. The reason is that the people who transmit HD know listeners expect it to have CD quality, so they dang well better make it sound that way - but they can get away with cruddy FM because that's what FM listeners are used to.

  9. #9
    Quote
    Quote: karl eilers
    View Post
    In my experience, HD sounds lots better than FM.
    What are you comparing the HD signal with? An identical source on a FM channel that does not have HD encroaching on its sideband or just the FM feed from the same station that has its bandwidth reduced due to HD being added?
    Note: I don't expect anyone to have done the former, but this is the test that should be done.
    Eric Adler (tonsofpcs)
    http://www.videoproductionsupport.com/ Chat at: http://tinyurl.com/vpschat
    Follow me on twitter: @videosupport @eric_adler

  10. #10
    I may not have been completely clear. FM, with or without HD, is capable of excellent sound. HD itself is capable of even better sound; it removes the small but previously-inevitable degradation inherent in FM broadcasting.

    But what you hear on the air isn't a fair comparison, because with FM, radio stations compress and process the sound until they've turned steak into hamburger. They could do that with HD too, of course, but they know they better not. Program directors know HD listeners want steak. They think, rightly or wrongly, that FM listeners want hamburger.

    Put it this way: HD can be a "10" and is usually a "9" in practice. FM, with or without HD, can be an "8" but is usually a "3" because of heavy-handed processing. Some stations that want to push their listeners to HD actually degrade their FM sound, deliberately. This practical disparity swamps any theoretical disparity the systems may have.

    So, is HD a scam? No. You get better sound using it, simply because radio station programmers allow you to.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube