> FM sucks for one major reason - COMPRESSION. or CMPRSN. Actually they
use
> compressors set to limit, not compress. So there is no dynamic range
> whatsoever. Uck.
I don't believe that the dynamic range of FM is compressed. Any compression
would introduce audible distortion. Compression want gain channel capacity
on transmission because it's an analog method which uses 100% of the
transmission time to get the sound out.
I can also not agree on Olivers statement that FM quality is bad. I found it
always very good, even with terrestric reception. Okay, here we get normally
everything thru the cable into our houses and its quality is superior. But I
agree on the comments regarding the content. But on the other hand who wants
to keep actual songs forever. Record them, listen to them and forget them,
repeat, that's the normal cycle. And the few really good titles you'll
surely get in the underground/Gnutella network.
> But what's all this satellite radio biz? Anyone heard the quality of that
yet?
It is advertised to have a very good 'digital' quality but there IS
compression involved. In our cable are two (2) carrier frequencies reserved
which transmit 2 x 16 different programs. The quality of those is to be
questioned and there is for shure a sort of MP3 or whatever compression
involved to get all the information thru.
-- With best Regards / Viele Gruesse!Marco Mailand
http://slsbd.psi.ch/timing http://slsbd.psi.ch/~mmailand/ https://www.paypal.com/refer/pal=YYD3VUXUVD2YG
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.guns-media.com/mirrors/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun May 05 2002 - 14:03:21 EDT