-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
“a lot of resistance on the part of some of the automakers”
- Thread starter KB1OKL
- Start date
The US hdradio.com website has been shown to be highly inaccurate with highly inflated station counts in the past, I'm sure it hasn't changed.
tomservo
Walk of Fame Participant
In my area it has four stations listed that aren't in HD; two of those have to my knowledge never even broadcast in HD. It also lists incorrect formats for four different stations' subchannels.
They may not purposely inflate the numbers, but they sure don't bother to keep the lists accurate.
They may not purposely inflate the numbers, but they sure don't bother to keep the lists accurate.
Of course I did.
Okay, then what does your comment below have to do with the link I posted showing stations in Mexico that broadcast in IBOC/HD? It's not US-related and isn't showing inflated anything. Are you claiming it isn't accurate? If so, how do you know it isn't accurate?
Inaccuracies in themselves probably wouldn't be unusual for radio websites.
I've seen inaccuracies in some of the talk radio affiliate lists, Sports radio affiliate lists, etc.
CTListener
Walk of Fame Participant
For what it's worth, the hdradio.com site seems to be 100 percent accurate in its representation of the Hartford and New Haven HD enviroment.
Is it maintained by ibiquity who has been shown to be highly inaccurate on their English language website many times here, so logic would say that the Mexican website is also inaccurate. Just for example the English language website says there are 9 HD stations in the Worcester area click the link and there are 5, that is inaccurate.
So, CTListener claims that their website is accurate for the example of Hartford and New Haven and you claim the listing for Worcester is inaccurate? Have you counted or even bothered to verify the number to know it's inaccurate? Is that inaccuracy including AM or FM-HD stations, because several AM stations have dropped off since the original count? Oh that's right...HD= bad AM or FM, so any data around it must be somehow an intentional deception.
iBiquity set itself up to do an impossible task, which is to identify those of its licensees that actually have HD on the air and to determine what format is on either the main signal or the HD sub-signals.
They should really not even try.
To paraphrase someone here, did you even bother to go to the website?
Yes, I sent the link to the Mexican stations and no, I don't know what stations are HD in Worchester to compare. Do you? I believe that's what my question was.
Ai4i
Star Participant
Landtuna,
In the early days, HD stations were processed for quality and there was a big difference in audio quality over FM, then commercial stations began processing the HD's to sound exactly the same as the FM's so as to avoid the sudden changes in audio when HD drops out and the receivers revert to FM, so yes, FM and HD will sound indistinguishable when they are processed to sound that way. Generally, the secular non-comm HD's will not sound much better than FM either, but for a different reason: they are processed so lightly on FM that their lack of compression on HD is only slightly better (more natural), however their frequency response will go to 20K on HD, 5K higher than on FM. Few of us can hear that high at our ages, but there are audible differences in the bright, crisp overtones that even we can hear.
In the early days, HD stations were processed for quality and there was a big difference in audio quality over FM, then commercial stations began processing the HD's to sound exactly the same as the FM's so as to avoid the sudden changes in audio when HD drops out and the receivers revert to FM, so yes, FM and HD will sound indistinguishable when they are processed to sound that way. Generally, the secular non-comm HD's will not sound much better than FM either, but for a different reason: they are processed so lightly on FM that their lack of compression on HD is only slightly better (more natural), however their frequency response will go to 20K on HD, 5K higher than on FM. Few of us can hear that high at our ages, but there are audible differences in the bright, crisp overtones that even we can hear.
L Chanon Gade
Frequent Participant
I've used IBOC at home here in Manhattan for ten years. It is vastly superior to FM in cases of low average modulation programing i.e.: Classical and talk where it eliminates multipath "tear up" and eliminates the noise floor typical of less than ideal FM stereo reception.
Even on commercial mush machines with high mod indexes the digital signal appears cleaner and more detailed than the FM.
As for the AM, there aren't many stations left using the system here and none are music programmed. I've listened to both WINS and WCBS via IBOC, the results are mixed. If they don't try to exaggerate the "highs" -which are mostly replication, the stations do sound somewhat better than analog. However, any noise in the signal causes reversion. It is probably a moot point anyway.
LCG
Even on commercial mush machines with high mod indexes the digital signal appears cleaner and more detailed than the FM.
As for the AM, there aren't many stations left using the system here and none are music programmed. I've listened to both WINS and WCBS via IBOC, the results are mixed. If they don't try to exaggerate the "highs" -which are mostly replication, the stations do sound somewhat better than analog. However, any noise in the signal causes reversion. It is probably a moot point anyway.
LCG
- Status