R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
http://radioinsight.com/blog/headli...y-to-launch-on-up-to-60-hd-radio-subchannels/
One wonders what Houston station will host Radio Disney on HD-2/3?
One wonders what Houston station will host Radio Disney on HD-2/3?
I wonder about San Antonio as well.
HD is better than AM quality any day, in my opinion.
C Quam AM is right up there with AM stereo and quadraphonic FM. Good luck with that.
I would qualify that - HD-2 quality is better than HD AM any day. I would say a good AM signal chain with C-Quam would give HD-2 a run for its money, because it wouldn't have any compression artifacts. The only problem with AM is the receivers and interference in the receiving environment. HD AM is only suitable for speech. Music is virtually unlistenable on HD AM.
HD-2 is not a system. Why do you refer to it as a base point?
"HD-2" is the second of the possible HD channels on an FM station. The HD-1 channel is required to be the same content as the main analog channel of an FM. HD-2 and beyond are optional slices of the total HD bandwidth which is finite. So an HD-2 could share half the bandwidth, or only get a small sliver depending on how high a bitrate the operator wants to give the main HD channel. That is why different HD-2 and HD-3 channels sound better or worse.
Most people won't notice the difference if there are only two HD channels HD-1 and HD-2. I can, because I have better equipment. By they time they add an HD-3, all channels are suffering to point that analog FM sounds better. Typically - stations devote the same bitrate to all HD channels, but I've heard very low bitrate on HD-3's dedicated to NOAA weather radio and the like. You are right, they can allocate the bit rate any way they like. So assuming there are two channels, HD-1 and HD-2, the HD-2 will sound as good or better than an AM stereo station broadcasting in C-Quam and heard on a decent AM tuner in a low interference area.