IBOC

[rickganley@juno.com]

it has been written... 

>As for whether E-147 really _is_ the best,  I think the jury is still
out. A
 >LOT of technology has been developed since E-147 was cast in concrete.
In
 >fact, 96 kbps from an IBOC signal may produce audio that only experts
can
>discern from 192 kbps from an E-147 signal. And there will always be
those
>people who claim that neither one approaches analog in quality.

I've yet to hear anyone say that ANY scheme running @ 96kbs is eqaul to
or better than true 16bit 44.1khz CD quality... fact is, when you
digitally compress data to that degree (and that is a major compression
scheme), it's never going to approach the quality of uncompressed data
(audio) or even well-done analog. Do these people understand that
everyone with a high-speed web connection already gets audio BETTER than
this? I routinley see sites streaming at 128 & 256 kbs... and yes, even
these aren't equal to a CD.  And let's not forget that satelite radio,
coming within the year, will offer audio quality higher than this.
IBOC is a crock... and it appears more foolish now that technology has
already made it obsolete before it even exists in the commercial realm.
I'd rather listen to a decent AM signal doing music than 96kbs audio.

just my $.96 worth...
-Rick Ganley





________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.