High Definition Radios

Page 1 of 2  
I saw an article about High Definition Radios and the fact that supposedly the 2006 BMWs would have them in dash. Does anyone have any information
about this type of radio? Will the 2006 330 CI, which should come out next summer, be equipped with it?
TIA,
Skip
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just bought a new three a little over a month ago, no HD radio in mine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here is the link re: BMW and HD radios:
http://news.com.com/High-definition+radio+gears+up+for+reality/2100-1041_3-5722285.html
Hope to hear more info.
Skip

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://news.com.com/High-definition+radio+gears+up+for+reality/2100-1041_3-5722285.html
This looks like what is already available in the UK and known as DAB - digital audio broadcasting.
Although it has the possibility of providing decent quality - although not that of CD due to the data reduction employed - it's been implemented here to give more choice of stations but with rather poor audio quality due to the low data rate.
--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Skip wrote:

Sales spam. High definition radio is an oxymoron. The radio transmission is limited by the bandwidth alowed by the regulatory agencies. High definition indeed.
--
-Fred W

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 17:43:46 -0400, Malt_Hound <""Malt_Hound\"@*spam-me not*yahoo.com"> wrote:

Give it more than a moment of thought: digital transmission invariably consumes narrower bandwidth than analog, given the same information. This enables expanding the digital content to use up the same channel bandwidth as the analog version. Hence, "higher definition".
Clues: cable companies are moving analog stations to their digital realm, allowing the use of the bandwidth for even more digital channels...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your statement is completely false. The reason that digital signals use less bandwidth is not content-related. It's due to the fact that we've learned quite a lot about compression technology, have radio receivers/amps with far lower noise than tube technology, can use the time dimension now that we have cheap volatile memory, and other various and sundry items.
FloydR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Aside from the obvious lack of understanding you showed, everything you just claimed are more reasons supporting my statement.
Thanks! ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, no. *YOU* are the one with incomplete knowledge of digital and analog coding techniques. Do you even know that digital music encoding *NEVER* precisely reproduces the original analog music source? Do you know what an integral is and how it works? Obviously not.
FloydR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh dear. You seem to think that analogue recording is seamless. Magnetic tape has a series of tiny magnets which have to be aligned to do their job. Vinyl records are made out of particles too. So really rather similar to the sampling rate of digital.
--
*The closest I ever got to a 4.0 in school was my blood alcohol content*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not even remotely the same thing, Dave. There is no DAC in a phono cartridge or pre-amp input circuit, nor in the analog tape recorder in my closet.
Although the *result* is very close, the abstraction of digitally-encoded data is a very different animal than analog encoding.
FloydR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I want to apologize for the rather hasty reply. How about this thought experiment. Consider a substitute for a vinyl record: take a laser and modulate it to draw the analog waveform in a cd/dvd type medium. It's clear (to me, and I believe to you) that such a system could very precisely record the analog input. In fact, it would be much better than the stereo vinyl record, because the channels wouldn't have to be intermixed into the same groove/engraving via the encoding scheme (I can't even remember the name right off hand it's been so long).
It's clear that a scheme like this could easily exceed the current cd for accuracy and clarity, and would have no more noise than a current cd.
For some reason, the "daytripper" character seems to believe that "digital" automatically mean's it better than "analog". Also, he seems to believe that "digital radio" transmits by some magical means beyond the physical analog world. Neither belief is true, unless everything every physicist in the world is wrong.
Now, if you want to say that current digital and radio transmission technology allows us to design systems that exceed the performance of 50-75 year old analog systems, I won't argue that point. Notice, however, that the *DESIGN* of those systems embodies assumptions about the physical limitations of the human senses of sound and sight to "trick" those senses. One might also note that current technology (tv's and monitors) don't come close to the limits of what the eye/mind can perceive, *because* of the limitations of digital display technology.
FloydR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote: [snipped]

Hey, you want to mischaracterize what I said (digital transmission of the same source data occupies narrower bandwidth) with all your misconceptions on the topic, fine, knock yourself out.
You can stick your degrees where the sun don't shine, they mean nothing if you cannot think for yourself, and in any case, would easily be trumped by someone with the degrees from actual, reputable schools *and* 35 years of digital design, from IBM mainframes through Digital superminis to fault tolerant non-stop servers, with over two dozen US and international patents to his credit. That, plus an IQ that'd make you pee your pants.
Go nuts, man. But when your head is finally below ground, you really should consider putting the shovel down...
/that daytripper character ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You said: "Give it more than a moment of thought: digital transmission invariably consumes narrower bandwidth than analog, given the same information."
That's not what you're claiming now. And, it is true only if you make assumptions about the requirements when rendered for human senses. If you want PRECISE transmission of analog data, you cannot (in general) depend upon digital conversions.
FloydR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, it's quite amusing to read the whole conversation and see where both of our posts - all of which are fairly imprecise and subject to miss-interpretation by the other side - demonstrate the problem of conversation-at-a-distance. Which, of course, is analogous to the (necessarily) imprecise re-construction of an analog signal after A-D and D-A conversions.
We're both right, but on different points.
FloydR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And if you want a precise *recording* of analogue data, only digital can do this.
--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, but in the case of magnetic tape there's no acoustic way of playing it so some form of conversion is involved.

Of course it is, and according to the parameters you choose can give any results you wish.
--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 09:15:24 -0700, "Floyd Rogers"

How ironic. You're showing your ignorance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

After I previously replied, I thought of a much better comeback that I had to share.
If your statement is true, how do you explain the fact that the digital signals you claim carry more data than analog signals do, are themselves carried on analog signals?
FloydR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"analog signals"?
LMAO!
Keep digging yourself deeper in that hole you're standing in, it's getting more entertaining with each poast ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.