4 ms·

The following is NOT about USA: Some lobbying very hard in various countries to introduce digital radio. When you look up the implementation details, it would

by frik 10y ago

The following is NOT about USA: Some lobbying very hard in various countries to introduce digital radio. When you look up the implementation details, it would be pretty bad idea to stop analog radio. Now some countries already mandate that radio in new cars and also try to mandate that all new sold radio in those countries are digital radio. It's absurde as people listen less and less radio, and analog radio has a lot better coverage - even in bad signal quality you can actually hear something - something vital in emergency situations. Of course you cannot censor analog radio at all, pirate radio stations were common back then when things went wrong. And we already had a time when certin countries allowed just one type of radio device with just one radio channel.

DiabloD3 10y ago
The biggest issue is, even when you have clear signal conditions, even if you're dialed into a channel that is broadcasting HE-AACv2 (aka HE-ACC+ or eACC+) and your radio decodes it natively as HE-ACCv2... it's still a goddamned 128kbit or less stream. Arguably, this is worse quality than ye olde FM on average. I mean, I could get behind a transition if they were using Opus instead of a nearly decade old hack of an even older codec... but they're not. Thank God we're not making this mistake in the US, and digital radio in this form has been rejected: people instead are either adopting SiriusXM or phones+BT playing mixed online/offline content. TBH I'd rather knock down all the US radio towers, reclaim all of the AM and FM radio space, and deploy 802.16? 802.11ah? something and provide low bandwidth but freeish Internet.
- CharlesW 10y ago
  > ... it's still a goddamned 128kbit or less stream. Arguably, this is worse quality than ye olde FM on average. I don't claim to be a "golden ears" or anything, but I find 64 kbps HE-AAC to offer better-than-FM quality. (HE-AACv2 benefits really only make sense at 48 kbps or lower.) Hydrogenaudio tests showed that a good HE-AAC encoder does just slightly (imperceptibly) worse than Opus at 64 kbps[1]. [1] http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
  - DiabloD3 10y ago
    The problem with those listening tests is the playback medium is not controlled: ie, what were they using (what headphones, what headphone amp, what DAC, etc; or what speakers, what speaker amp, what DAC, was the room properly treated, etc); and what is their level of hearing damage (ie, their age)? If everyone is taking their test on their phone with low grade earbuds plugged in, or exceptionally bad car audio systems, everything sounds bad, ergo, the same. I own a pair of Stax, among other higher end headphones, with the proper gear to drive them. I can tell the difference between modern-LAME-encoded 320kbps MP3 and lossless, albeit just barely, in an ABX test. Everything 64kbps sounds bad unless it's something like Opus doing conventional speech. I know I'm setting the bar high, but I don't think I even have "golden ears", I think anyone can reasonably hear the difference, they just need to quit bothering with low end gear. I mean, people just on HN buy Tesla Model Ses for $100k+ without even thinking twice, I find it hard to believe they won't also drop $1k on headphones and headphone gear at the very minimum if they care about audio.
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      I have never spent over $100 on headphones. $50 is usually enough. I have plenty of things to geek out on in life, audio quality is not one of them. Seems like many many many tech people are like me.
      - feld 10y ago
        Audiophile products are always a scam. People who talk about owning them are not to be trusted.
        melq 10y ago
        Well, I wouldn't say always. But there is no need to spend a thousand dollars on headphone 'gear'. There is also no need for a dedicated DAC unless your source is audibly noisy. MacBook pros for instance have perfectly good audio circuitry capable of driving normal impedance headphones to ear damaging volume w/o distortion. If you want to buy a DAC and amp for your 32ohm headphones that's cool, but you're just buying an exceptionally expensive volume control.
- gozur88 10y ago
  That's the way I feel about broadcast television. At some point there are just better uses for the spectrum.

by frik 10y ago

DiabloD3 10y ago

The biggest issue is, even when you have clear signal conditions, even if you're dialed into a channel that is broadcasting HE-AACv2 (aka HE-ACC+ or eACC+) and your radio decodes it natively as HE-ACCv2... it's still a goddamned 128kbit or less stream. Arguably, this is worse quality than ye olde FM on average. I mean, I could get behind a transition if they were using Opus instead of a nearly decade old hack of an even older codec... but they're not. Thank God we're not making this mistake in the US, and digital radio in this form has been rejected: people instead are either adopting SiriusXM or phones+BT playing mixed online/offline content. TBH I'd rather knock down all the US radio towers, reclaim all of the AM and FM radio space, and deploy 802.16? 802.11ah? something and provide low bandwidth but freeish Internet.

CharlesW 10y ago
> ... it's still a goddamned 128kbit or less stream. Arguably, this is worse quality than ye olde FM on average. I don't claim to be a "golden ears" or anything, but I find 64 kbps HE-AAC to offer better-than-FM quality. (HE-AACv2 benefits really only make sense at 48 kbps or lower.) Hydrogenaudio tests showed that a good HE-AAC encoder does just slightly (imperceptibly) worse than Opus at 64 kbps[1]. [1] http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm http://listening-test.coresv.net/results.htm
- DiabloD3 10y ago
  The problem with those listening tests is the playback medium is not controlled: ie, what were they using (what headphones, what headphone amp, what DAC, etc; or what speakers, what speaker amp, what DAC, was the room properly treated, etc); and what is their level of hearing damage (ie, their age)? If everyone is taking their test on their phone with low grade earbuds plugged in, or exceptionally bad car audio systems, everything sounds bad, ergo, the same. I own a pair of Stax, among other higher end headphones, with the proper gear to drive them. I can tell the difference between modern-LAME-encoded 320kbps MP3 and lossless, albeit just barely, in an ABX test. Everything 64kbps sounds bad unless it's something like Opus doing conventional speech. I know I'm setting the bar high, but I don't think I even have "golden ears", I think anyone can reasonably hear the difference, they just need to quit bothering with low end gear. I mean, people just on HN buy Tesla Model Ses for $100k+ without even thinking twice, I find it hard to believe they won't also drop $1k on headphones and headphone gear at the very minimum if they care about audio.
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    I have never spent over $100 on headphones. $50 is usually enough. I have plenty of things to geek out on in life, audio quality is not one of them. Seems like many many many tech people are like me.
    - feld 10y ago
      Audiophile products are always a scam. People who talk about owning them are not to be trusted.
      - melq 10y ago
        Well, I wouldn't say always. But there is no need to spend a thousand dollars on headphone 'gear'. There is also no need for a dedicated DAC unless your source is audibly noisy. MacBook pros for instance have perfectly good audio circuitry capable of driving normal impedance headphones to ear damaging volume w/o distortion. If you want to buy a DAC and amp for your 32ohm headphones that's cool, but you're just buying an exceptionally expensive volume control.
gozur88 10y ago
That's the way I feel about broadcast television. At some point there are just better uses for the spectrum.