[BC] Quick!! IBUZ Absolutely Honest Web Site is Up!

[Rich Wood]

------ At 09:27 PM 2/14/2006, WFIFeng at aol.com wrote: -------

>On my analog FM radios, it sounds much more like their "HD" than their "FM".
>I suspect that they deliberately distorted it to fool the gullible.

The site is so deceptive that I didn't waste my time listening to 
samples. Fortunately, I don't think many people will see it, so it 
won't kill off IBUZ completely. With the current processing of IBUZ 
signals, there's no audible difference in any but one station I've 
heard. In order to show a difference you have to do what the NAB did 
with the LPFM demo. Phony one up.

I look at it like those infomercials where the person using Brand X 
is badly dressed and clearly exaggeratedly annoyed with its poor 
performance. The person using the infomercial brand is wearing the 
pearls, smiling from ear to ear and is no worse for wear.

Unless Brand X were ripping my arm off I doubt I'd have that 
expression on my face.

If IBUZ is so terrific it should be able to stand on its own, 
honestly, and win. There should be no reason for deception. When most 
others have dropped the CD Quality claim it was tremendously 
disappointing to see it resurrected so many times on the site. Even 
the IBUZ manufacturer has dropped CD Quality and replaced it with the 
slightly less deceptive "CD-like" claim. Does IBUZ meet the 
requirements of the Red Book standard? How can you have CD Quality 
when you strip out much of its data? It's amazing that anyone would 
use CD Quality as a description when it's the audio format that has 
very specific requirements and all sorts of error correction to 
ensure all the data is captured. The requirements are so rigid that 
even the Sony/BMG rootkit discs couldn't use the CD Logo.

Since many contemporary CDs strictly meed the letter of the standard 
but sound like Hell, maybe that's what they mean by CD Quality.

Rich