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?
Sales spam. High definition radio is an oxymoron. The radio transmission is limited by the bandwidth alowed by the regulatory agencies. High definition indeed.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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?
You seem to be un-aware that all EMF signals - including light and radio waves governed by Maxwell's equations, are analog. That means that all signals in fiber optic cables, cable tv wires, radio signals for 802.11b, etc., are analog (they happen to have digital information encoded in them). If your statement is true, you couldn't receive any information transmitted by digital means.
Since you don't seem to want to believe me, why don't you start with WikiPedia. They have some great articles that explain much of this stuff:
formatting link
and
formatting link
a good place to start. BTW, I have degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science - where these subjects are taught. Just yesterday, I was talking about this general subject with Dr. Bob Olson of WSU (whose research interests are in software radio and data transmission), and Mikal Thomson, the president of Western Wireless (well, WW got sold but he's got a new company whose name I forget).
Digital isn't better than analog, it's just different. Until we are able to encode digital information in quantum states (which would be a transmission technique based upon a true digital medium), we are limited to analog transmission of data, no matter what the encoding.
It's at least a public place that has articles that are reasonably accesable to a layman.
It's quite amusing when someone doesn't notice that a person posts an addendum to a previous post. It's not "Floyd" that's in trouble, it's the "daytripper" persona. You're only showing that you're almost as ignorant as it, and definitely poorly equipped to speak, read and write the English language.
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.
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.
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:57:29 -0700, "Floyd Rogers" 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...
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.