Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
DigitalRadioScams
hype from Volvo:
http://www.pdfee.com/new-2010-volvo-xc60-hd-radio-technology.html
Seems Rolls, Volvo, Audi (not yet installed), Scion, etc are liable,
too. I'll have to email these attorneys with an updated list, but they
are probably already checking. I posted links to these attorneys in
most of the automaker forums that had complaints about HD Radio!
THIS IS GREAT!!! LMFAO!!!
DigitalRadioScams
wrote:
Done! Message sent to attorneys with list and hype from Volvo -
LMFAO!!!!!
D. Peter Maus
As much as I appreciate your glee, and the ultimate market
recognition that this noise isn't working, do keep in mind the
enormous investment represented here. Not only in hardware, and R&D,
but in pocketing FCC commissioners who signed on to this crap above
public objections.
A court case will likely be what it takes to finally begin
dismantling IBOC, but iBiquity will not go down easy. And HD will
not disappear overnight.
In other words, don't do a victory lap, yet. This is only a first
of many, many steps.
p
John Higdon
"D. Peter Maus" <dpete...@att.net> wrote:
> A court case will likely be what it takes to finally begin
> dismantling IBOC, but iBiquity will not go down easy. And HD will
> not disappear overnight.
This is absolutely true. The "slow death" has already begun. Equipment
manufacturers have noticed the precipitous drop in orders for IBOC gear
by radio stations. Retail stores never have (and still do not) sell
anything that remotely resembles an "HD Radio" selection of product for
consumers. The lobbying effort to have the FCC coerce the manufacturers
of unrelated equipment (e.g. cell phones) to include "HD Radio" in their
products will ultimately fail. It is, after all, a marketplace issue. If
there's no market, what's the point? You don't dictate to consumers what
they will buy and like, although that fine point seems to have been lost
on The Alliance.
Significantly, even the industry trades are getting bored with the
topic. Even if something is exciting and successful, after awhile there
is only so much that can be said. When it is a flat-out dud, only
constant lobbying by those with vested interests can keep the tongues
wagging, and that is pretty well running out at this point.
> In other words, don't do a victory lap, yet. This is only a first
> of many, many steps.
Indeed. Some time in the future however, someone will say, "Oh, by the
way, whatever became of 'HD Radio'?"
That's when you will see the IBOC gear over at Weirdstuff Warehouse
along with the Cartrivision and DiVX players.
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last
amdx
"DigitalRadioScams" <digitalr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8a7efff-a295-4206...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Why so happy to make lawyers rich by taking money from auto makers?
The last two times lawyers sued a large company on my behalf I got a
coupon
worth $75 for the next time I take an airplane flight and this time I got a
check,
for $18.42. You can be sure the legal fees were in 7 figures.
MikeK
DigitalRadioScams
> "DigitalRadioScams" <digitalradiosc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Because automakers, such as BMW, have been dupng the Public. No one
wil go near iBiquity, now, just to get caught up in a court case.
Drewdove
IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would
cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same
adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in
certain (many?) situations.
Richard Evans
> IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would
> cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same
> adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in
> certain (many?) situations.
As far as I'm concerned, allowing a signal to be broadcast, at a
frequency that is already allocated to something else, is always going
to be a bad idea (unless it is a system using very directional
antennas). From what I've read in this NG. HD-Radio does just that. It
ends up allowing digital signals to be transmitted on frequencies
already allocated to analogue signals. Whoever thought that would be OK,
obviously either doesn't understand radio, or simply doesn't give a sh*t
about the consequences.
Richard E.
DigitalRadioScams
wrote:
The whole IBOC system was puposely designed to jam the smaller
adjacent-cheenl stations of the dial.
SMS
Here's a book that you can read to understand how IBOC works (I mean if
you actually want to understand it).
none
Here's a site that called out the jamming affects of HD Radio, when it
was presented to Congress back in 2000:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040926102459/http://digitaldisaster.org/
RHF
wrote:
IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation . . .
-ROTFL-
This Lawsuit Is Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/ffb5d6149534c9ae
.
Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band
from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now !
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/116e98129d42d730
.
.
dave
3G/4G wireless broadband will make HD a faded memory (like SQ Quad,
Dolby B, SiriusXM, etc.) I can get 15,000 stations in my car.
dave
KFI interferes with itself.
Richard Evans
> The whole IBOC system was puposely designed to jam the smaller
> adjacent-cheenl stations of the dial.
So is that why it's so spectrally inefficient?
To use up more bandwidth, hence produce more jamming.
Richard Evans
>
> Here's a book that you can read to understand how IBOC works (I mean if
> you actually want to understand it).
>
> "http://www.radioworld.com/article/8410".
Not especially interested in the details. But I'll take a look if I can
find the time.
Richard Evans
>
> Here's a book that you can read to understand how IBOC works (I mean if
> you actually want to understand it).
>
> "http://www.radioworld.com/article/8410".
So I have to buy a book, and find time to read through it, to find out
about something I'm not especially interested in. Thanks for the link,
but I think I'll pass on this one.
Kevin Alfred Strom
The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they
could to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They
feared that such a new band would level the playing field so the
small broadcaster would have just as good coverage as they did. That
was an intolerable and frightening idea to them.
See
http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009/12/hd-radio-doomed-from-the-start/
for more information.
With all good wishes,
Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
John Higdon
Richard Evans <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Don't worry...it isn't a "book". It is one of Radio World's usual
half-assed articles that pretends to be technical. Believe me, real
radio engineers don't learn from Radio World.
John Higdon
Richard Evans <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
The idea was to ultimately retire analog FM entirely, thus enabling
iBiquity to capture a royalty on every bit of material on the FM band.
iBiquity understated the amount of IBOC signal necessary to achieve
"equivalent" coverage with the stations' FM signals so that it could get
its foot in the door.
When it became apparent that -20db was inadequate (even though there was
still major interference with analog signals), they lobbied for -10db.
That was an "oops" of an order of magnitude. They got -14db instead, but
the deleterious effects on analog FM at that level remains to be seen,
since most stations have yet to take advantage of it.
hwh
> iBiquity understated the amount of IBOC signal necessary to achieve
> "equivalent" coverage with the stations' FM signals so that it could get
> its foot in the door.
I think we have seem the same thing for DAB and DRM. The low powers are
just sales talk.
gr, hwh
Richard Evans
>
> Don't worry...it isn't a "book". It is one of Radio World's usual
> half-assed articles that pretends to be technical. Believe me, real
> radio engineers don't learn from Radio World.
>
And I don't need any book or article to know that 2 different radio
signals on the same frequency, is not a good idea.
Richard Evans
>
> I think we have seem the same thing for DAB and DRM. The low powers are
> just sales talk.
Lower power would be fine, if DAB had better error correction.
Although there is one situation where low power DAB works well, that is
in the middle of an SFN with signals coming in from several different
directions. This isn't much use however in the outer areas of a local
multiplex.
SMS
No, you don't have to do anything. If you were interested in
understanding the technology of IBOC rather than making uninformed
comments about it, it would be a wise thing to do. But apparently you're
content to talk about things you "know" that aren't actually true.
Whatever lights your board.
SMS
> The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could
> to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that
> such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster
> would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable
> and frightening idea to them.
That's part of it, but they also did not want to have to pay for the
additional spectrum on a new band.
For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the
fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few
complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were,
were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside
the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was
granted).
I'm sure our favorite troll is well aware of what this law firm is
doing. There is no lawsuit, and there is unlikely to be one. They are
trying to see if they can wrangle some kind of money from BMW and other
automakers.
Richard Evans
>
> No, you don't have to do anything. If you were interested in
> understanding the technology of IBOC rather than making uninformed
> comments about it, it would be a wise thing to do. But apparently you're
> content to talk about things you "know" that aren't actually true.
> Whatever lights your board.
I know as much as I need to know.
Spectrally in efficient.
Causes interference to other services.
Is used at bit rates so low that sound quality can't possibly be
anything better than horrible.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the
> fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few
> complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were,
> were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside
> the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was
> granted).
Do you feel that if you repeat this often enough it will become true? I
have repeatedly told you that KKDV, Walnut Creek, whose primary 60dbu
contour encompasses Berkeley and part of Oakland is unlistenable due to
interference from the IBOC signal from KSJO, San Jose. I have
documentation an inch thick on this issue. I have mentioned it here a
dozen times. Your response is to wait a few weeks saying nothing, and
then repeat your canned, unsupported nonsense above.
Trolls are one thing; broadcast engineers such as Dave Barnett, Patty
Winter, and others including myself are real people with real experience
with regard to IBOC. How glib of you to include all of us with the
trolls.
> I'm sure our favorite troll is well aware of what this law firm is
> doing. There is no lawsuit, and there is unlikely to be one. They are
> trying to see if they can wrangle some kind of money from BMW and other
> automakers.
I have most of the trolls killfiled, so I wouldn't know about whom you
are speaking. But to dismiss real, working radio engineers (who have
absolutely no vested interest in the failure of IBOC, and even have much
to gain by its success) claiming incompetence or devious intent is
intellectually dishonest and reflects more upon yourself than on us.
Please do let us know when you are ready to address the issues we have
repeatedly brought up regarding IBOC in some worthy manner rather than
waiting a few weeks and then dismissing it in general with your usual
unsupported generalization.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> No, you don't have to do anything. If you were interested in
> understanding the technology of IBOC rather than making uninformed
> comments about it, it would be a wise thing to do. But apparently you're
> content to talk about things you "know" that aren't actually true.
> Whatever lights your board.
I would suggest asking a real, working radio technician how IBOC works
rather than reading Radio World, well known INSIDE the industry as being
pretty much a rag.
John Higdon
Richard Evans <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Spectrally in efficient.
> Causes interference to other services.
> Is used at bit rates so low that sound quality can't possibly be
> anything better than horrible.
Pretty good summary. I created a long version several years ago with
numbers, graphs, and spectrum analyzer photos. I'll see if I can dig
that up.
Kevin Alfred Strom
> On 9/5/2010 9:50 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
>
>> The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could
>> to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that
>> such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster
>> would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable
>> and frightening idea to them.
>
> That's part of it, but they also did not want to have to pay for the
> additional spectrum on a new band.
>
> For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the
> fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few
> complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were,
> were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside
> the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was
> granted).
Just because the bought-and-paid-for FCC says the complaints have
"no merit" doesn't mean they don't have merit.
Many people, myself included, listened to stations far outside their
so-called "protected contours" for the vastly increased choice it
offered (and invested in superior equipment for doing so). Now that
possibility is trashed by multiple IBOC white noise generators
completely wiping out adjacent channels for scores of miles in every
direction, and all for "digital audio" that is largely inferior to
that of my $12.95 car mp3 player.
Radio is far more than just listening to local stations, even though
that is "where the money is." The attitude that "we can do anything
as long as you can still hear OK within the protected contour" is
that same attitude that tolerates four billion digital electronics
trash generators making the AM and HF bands a literal sea of buzzing
garbage 24 hours a day, as long as the station down the street can
still be heard. That shouldn't be allowed; our standards should be
much higher.
And _all kinds_ of radio listeners, from sophisticated distance
listeners to the old lady and her K-Mart clock radio would have
benefited from a dedicated digital band.
Just think. All the 250-Watt and 1-kW daytimers could have had
24-hour coverage equal to that of the big blowtorches. Full quieting
and excellent audio quality. And more room would have opened up on
the analogue AM and FM bands as stations moved. And improved
technology could have opened up a multitude of new channels for
public service and noncommercial niche broadcasters.
But no. We can't have that. It would erase the inferiority of our
competitor's signals.
So, enter the interference-causing inferior kludge called IBOC.
What a joke. Only in America.
Best wishes,
Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
John Higdon
Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin...@revilo-oliver.com> wrote:
> Just because the bought-and-paid-for FCC says the complaints have
> "no merit" doesn't mean they don't have merit.
We used to have an engineering-oriented FCC that took its responsibility
seriously. Now, it is more interested in revenue and Janet Jackson's
breasts than it is in having the public served. It is amazing how many
people do not understand that just because the FCC is ignoring the
complaints does not mean the interference doesn't exist.
> Many people, myself included, listened to stations far outside their
> so-called "protected contours" for the vastly increased choice it
> offered (and invested in superior equipment for doing so).
There is a significantly large number of cases of interference within
the contours as well. Used to be that when that happened, all hell broke
loose on the offender. Now it is ignored in the name of iBiquity profits.
Richard Evans
>
> So, enter the interference-causing inferior kludge called IBOC.
>
> What a joke. Only in America.
At least our DAB system over here in the UK doesn't mess up FM
transmissions. (We have dynamic range compression to do that :-( )
Richard E.
RHF
wrote:
Follow the Money . . .
Follow the Politicians Following The Money . . .
Watch the FCC : jump,,, Jump... J U M P ! ! !
.
.
RHF
wrote:
IBOC : A Broadcast System : Designed To Jam
the Fringe-Distant Competition
It is the IBOC Signal that effects the Broadcasting
Radio Station Itself.
It's the IBOC Signal Side-Bands that effectively JAMS
Both the Adjacent Channels for 10+ kHz at 1%
and 20+ kHz at 10%
The result is AM/MW Radio DX is 'o-u-t' with IBOC
and Local AM/MW Radio Stations have a Lock-on
the Local Broadcast Market by JAMMING all the
Fringe and Distant Adjacent Channels by using IBOC.
IBOC a System that Allows you to Jam the next
door neighboring Metro Area's Radio Competition
right out of Your Local Radio Market
IBOC : A Broadcast System : Designed To Jam
the Fringe-Distant Competition
iboc - it's about business ~ RHF
.
.
Richard Evans
> The result is AM/MW Radio DX is 'o-u-t' with IBOC
> and Local AM/MW Radio Stations have a Lock-on
> the Local Broadcast Market by JAMMING all the
> Fringe and Distant Adjacent Channels by using IBOC.
Well I was actually talking about the FM version.
However digital broadcasting on MW is a joke anyway, as in 9 or 10 Khz
they are never going to achieve the bit rates necessary for good sound
quality. It could work using DRM in double channel mode, but then
finding 2 free adjacent channels would be very difficult.
Richard E.
RHF
> On 9/5/2010 9:50 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
>
> > The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could
> > to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that
> > such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster
> > would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable
> > and frightening idea to them.
>
> That's part of it, but they also did not want to have to pay for the
> additional spectrum on a new band.
>
the
- fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very
few
- complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there
were,
- were found to have no merit because the interference occurred
outside
- the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was
- granted).
That is because FM Radio has a well defined and
'limited' Broadcast Service Area unlike AM Radio;
which can go far farther then authorized on a nightly
basis each and every night.
Plus FM Radio has NO large legacy culture of DXers
and DXing like the AM/MW Radio Band has/had for
many decades.
few search for distant voices . . .
on the fm radio band ~ RHF
.
- I'm sure our favorite troll is well aware of what this law firm is
- doing. There is no lawsuit, and there is unlikely to be one. They
are
- trying to see if they can wrangle some kind of money from BMW and
other
- automakers.
What Do They Call That
-heard-on-the-radio-
? SHAKE-DOWN-JUSTICE ?
-or- ! SHAKE-DOWN-INJUSTICE !
Phil Keller
" broadcast engineers such as Dave Barnett, Patty
Winter, and others including myself are real people with real
experience..."
"I actually don't know anyone who is condescending to those who don't
know."
John T
A very unworthy response on your part!
There is a difference between condescension toward the innocently
ignorant (or even mistaken) and refuting the kind of misinformation
knowingly passed along by Mr. Scharf. A world of difference.
The former are likely to receive correction while the latter reject
all attempts at correction.
JT
--
Mark Roberts
|
| And _all kinds_ of radio listeners, from sophisticated distance
| listeners to the old lady and her K-Mart clock radio would have
| benefited from a dedicated digital band.
|
| Just think. All the 250-Watt and 1-kW daytimers could have had
| 24-hour coverage equal to that of the big blowtorches. Full quieting
| and excellent audio quality. And more room would have opened up on
| the analogue AM and FM bands as stations moved. And improved
| technology could have opened up a multitude of new channels for
| public service and noncommercial niche broadcasters.
|
| But no. We can't have that. It would erase the inferiority of our
| competitor's signals.
Not only that, but broadcasters have become dependent upon
leveraging the various forms of arbitrage made possible by today's
patchwork system, as well as exploiting the obsolete adherence to
the concept of city-of-license (par contre, licensing based on market served
would be much more logical and reflective of how things actually work).
Making everyone more-or-less equal would have wiped all that out.
It would not do for KEST to have the same coverage as KNBR, just to
pick a comparative example at random.
--
Mark Roberts - E-Mail address is valid but I don't use Google Groups
If you quote, please quote only relevant passages and not the whole article.
RHF
> On Sep 5, 10:54 am, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > John Higdon wrote:
>
> > > Don't worry...it isn't a "book". It is one of Radio World's usual
> > > half-assed articles that pretends to be technical. Believe me, real
> > > radio engineers don't learn from Radio World.
>
> > And I don't need any book or article to know that 2 different radio
> > signals on the same frequency, is not a good idea.
>
> IBOC : A Broadcast System : Designed To Jam
> the Fringe-Distant Competition
- It isn't the IBOC Signal that effects the Broadcasting
- Radio Station Itself.
leansto...@democrat.com
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
> > On 9/4/10 11:58 , DigitalRadioScams wrote:
> > As much as I appreciate your glee, and the ultimate market recognition
> > that this noise isn't working, do keep in mind the enormous investment
> > represented here. Not only in hardware, and R&D, but in pocketing FCC
> > commissioners who signed on to this crap above public objections.
>
> > A court case will likely be what it takes to finally begin dismantling
> > IBOC, but iBiquity will not go down easy. And HD will not disappear
> > overnight.
>
> > In other words, don't do a victory lap, yet. This is only a first of
> > many, many steps.
>
> > p
>
> 3G/4G wireless broadband will make HD a faded memory (like SQ Quad,
> Dolby B, SiriusXM, etc.) I can get 15,000 stations in my car.
The trouble with streaming the existing terrestrial radio stations
is...well...you are listening to the existing terrestrial radio
stations. Forty minutes of programming if you don't count the news and
commercials. SiriusXM understands programming. They may not understand
much else, oh like how to make money, but the content is good. Other
than NPR, how much terrestrial radio do you want to hear?
Put it this way, I have to think when the last time I fired up
iheartradio. Probably for Tom Hartman. Don't get me wrong, I stream a
lot of radio, but mostly NPR, BBC, and a few internet stations with a
low or zero commercial load. OK, and John Rothman....
leansto...@democrat.com
Once these auto companies pay out to the lawyers, they sure as hell
are not going to install HD radios again since there is no chance in
hell to make this stinker of a system work.
leansto...@democrat.com
> .
> Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band
> from 76 MHz to 88 MHz - Do It Now !http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/116e98129d42d730
> .
> .
Also toss in the FM capture ratio. FM can reject the noise that is HD.
John Higdon
Phil Keller <p-ke...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Phil, thank you for demonstrating why I appear sometimes to get annoyed
with your commentary. At least, I don't re-edit your comments to say
something you never intended to say.
I think it's time for you to join my killfile.
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you don't have to do anything. If you were interested in
>> understanding the technology of IBOC rather than making uninformed
>> comments about it, it would be a wise thing to do. But apparently
>> you're content to talk about things you "know" that aren't actually
>> true. Whatever lights your board.
>
> I know as much as I need to know.
Yes, that's the crux of the problem.
SMS
> Many people, myself included, listened to stations far outside their
> so-called "protected contours" for the vastly increased choice it
> offered (and invested in superior equipment for doing so).
When were those stations and their out-of area listeners guaranteed that
they'd be able to be received far outside their protected contour
forever? The protected contours are there for a reason. Whatever changes
are made that don't affect a station's protected contour are fair game.
I liken it to a customer who calls me and complains that they've been
violating a chip's specs for years with no problem, but the latest
shipment they received only operates at 75% over the maximum ratings,
while the previous ones worked at 100% over the maximum ratings, and
wants to know if we can build him some more of the older design.
I find all the lies about IBOC fascinating, from the complaints about
audio quality from those that have never listened to an HD station, to
the ones that claim that the FCC was bribed to approve IBOC. Never any
evidence of course.
Our favorite troll is a fascinating study in cluelessness. Does he
actually believe that a law firm trolling for class action suits will
have even the slightest effect on the success or failure of digital radio?
Kevin Alfred Strom
> On 9/5/2010 1:44 PM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
>
>> Many people, myself included, listened to stations far outside their
>> so-called "protected contours" for the vastly increased choice it
>> offered (and invested in superior equipment for doing so).
>
> When were those stations and their out-of area listeners guaranteed that
> they'd be able to be received far outside their protected contour
> forever? The protected contours are there for a reason. Whatever changes
> are made that don't affect a station's protected contour are fair game.
Shoehorning in another station is one thing.
Allowing, and even encouraging, existing stations to make their
signals multiple times wider with gigantic white noise generators is
quite another.
It's the same mentality that says that requiring switching power
supplies to have sufficient filtering so that no audible noise is
produced on nearby sensitive AM receivers is "too expensive" -- and
that, to save the Chinese factories and importers a few cents, we're
just going to accept turning the AM and HF bands into a sea of
buzzing noises.
After all, the locals can still be heard inside their "protected
contours"! Anything else is "fair game." Right?
So just take the pristine bands -- where you used to be able to hear
galactic noise when signals weren't present, and even the weakest
signals were a joy to listen to if you had a good antenna and
receiver -- and fill them up with digital hash.
Fair game? I call it very bad engineering. I call it gross misuse of
a natural resource. And I call it sick.
>
> I find all the lies about IBOC fascinating
[...]
It isn't a lie that IBOC is an inferior system whose only rational
justification is that the money-men wanted to preserve their
superiority in the existing tiered power hierarchy.
With all good wishes,
Patty Winter
In article <4c85017f$0$1659$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>When were those stations and their out-of area listeners guaranteed that
>they'd be able to be received far outside their protected contour
>forever? The protected contours are there for a reason. Whatever changes
>are made that don't affect a station's protected contour are fair game.
So...so...you acknowledge that interference *within* protected contours
is *not* fair game??? Super! I eagerly await your comments on John's
repeated mention of IBOC interference to KKDV's protected signal. Over
to you, Steven....
>Our favorite troll is a fascinating study in cluelessness. Does he
>actually believe that a law firm trolling for class action suits will
>have even the slightest effect on the success or failure of digital radio?
I have no idea who "our favorite troll" is, having killfiled so many
of them (pro and con IBOC) months and months ago. If one of them annoys
you so much that he has become your "favorite," perhaps it's time for
you to filter him out.
Patty
hwh
You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound
properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or
less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in
practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced
by the same receiver and speakers.
gr, hwh
SMS
> So...so...you acknowledge that interference *within* protected contours
> is *not* fair game??? Super! I eagerly await your comments on John's
> repeated mention of IBOC interference to KKDV's protected signal. Over
> to you, Steven....
John "mentions" lots of things that are of questionable validity. If
there is IBOC interference to a protected signal then a complaint needs
to be filed with the FCC. I searched the FCC database of complaints and
couldn't find any complaint about this for KKDV. The procedure for
filing complaints can be found at
"http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/interference.html".
> I have no idea who "our favorite troll" is, having killfiled so many
> of them (pro and con IBOC) months and months ago. If one of them annoys
> you so much that he has become your "favorite," perhaps it's time for
> you to filter him out.
Did that a long time ago. Unfortunately people keep following-up to his
posts and I'm hesitant to kill-file them as well.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound
> properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or
> less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in
> practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced
> by the same receiver and speakers.
That's a codec problem. With currently available codecs, you can get FM radio
quality with 64k with AAC (aka MP4 audio). This is roughly equivalent to
128k MP3, which is good enough for a car radio or tiny earphones, but not
CD or even CRO2 Dolby cassete quality.
Since I don't know what codec they use, I can't say what they need to increase
their bit rates to, but assuming they do (or could) use AAC, they would have
to cut their number of channels by as much as one third to compensate for
the higher bit rate.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order
dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-)
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> John "mentions" lots of things that are of questionable validity.
Questionable by whom? You? Who are you? If you are going to accuse
someone with a generally good reputation of being incompetent or evil,
you really do need to provide specifics.
> If
> there is IBOC interference to a protected signal then a complaint needs
> to be filed with the FCC. I searched the FCC database of complaints and
> couldn't find any complaint about this for KKDV. The procedure for
> filing complaints can be found at
> "http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/interference.html".
I'm well aware of the street address for filing general interference
complaints.
Something you would know if you actually worked in broadcasting:
Station owners in a market do not casually file interference complaints
against their fellow broadcasters. It just isn't done except in rare
instances. It is a last resort which occurs only after the interfering
station has exhibited absolutely no willingness to cooperate or
participate in a solution, and even then the commission turns around and
tells the parties to make yet another attempt at reconciliation.
Clear Channel has bent over backwards to assist us and others in
tracking down and quantifying interference and other situations. We have
a magnificent relationship with the local people here. In any given
market, cooperation is the name of the game.
No useful purpose would be served at this time by putting this on record
with the FCC as a complaint against a fellow broadcaster who is
complying with current guidelines. There are other FCC portals which are
far more effective for registering procedural complaints, particularly
those involving the formal complaint process through counsel. You WILL
find those complaints on file, if you know where to look and what to
look for.
Your assertion has been that interference within protected contours was
not occurring. I have evidence that it does in at least three cases. As
has been pointed out, the FCC's inaction and lack of acknowledgement
that such interference exists does not mean that it isn't happening.
You're welcome to take calibrated receivers and spectrum analyzer out
into the field and prove me wrong. As I recall, I have offered to take
anyone out into the field and demonstrate the situation, live and in
person.
When do you want to go?
John Higdon
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:
> Since I don't know what codec they use, I can't say what they need to increase
> their bit rates to, but assuming they do (or could) use AAC, they would have
> to cut their number of channels by as much as one third to compensate for
> the higher bit rate.
They use a ten-year-old, AAC-derivative codec in non-updatable hardware.
Many of today's codecs are greatly superior to the codec installed in
every "HD Radio" ever made.
SMS
> hwh wrote:
>> You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound
>> properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or
>> less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in
>> practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced
>> by the same receiver and speakers.
>
> That's a codec problem. With currently available codecs, you can get FM radio
> quality with 64k with AAC (aka MP4 audio). This is roughly equivalent to
> 128k MP3, which is good enough for a car radio or tiny earphones, but not
> CD or even CRO2 Dolby cassete quality.
>
> Since I don't know what codec they use, I can't say what they need to increase
> their bit rates to, but assuming they do (or could) use AAC, they would have
> to cut their number of channels by as much as one third to compensate for
> the higher bit rate.
It's a trade-off to be sure. But even now, every independent test of HD
Radio has shown the claims of improved sound quality over FM to be true.
Too many people don't understand that the proper Codec can provide
excellent quality audio at bit rates that digital radio employs.
The issue is also the definition of "CD Quality." In a vehicle, where
most radio listening is done, you're not going to be able to tell much
of a difference between HD Radio and CD unless your vehicle has a very
high end sound system. Similarly, FM Radio is often of poor quality in a
vehicle due to multipath. Drive on 280 from Cupertino until about San
Bruno, and the multipath is horrendous (though until stations increase
their HD power you can't get HD for much of that stretch at all).
SMS
> No useful purpose would be served at this time by putting this on record
> with the FCC as a complaint against a fellow broadcaster who is
> complying with current guidelines.
So the FCC set up procedures for reporting interference, including from
HD Radio, and the stations being interfered with would rather complain
about it on Usenet rather than file a legitimate complaint. If you think
this tack will stop HD Radio then you're going to be very disappointed.
hwh
> It's a trade-off to be sure. But even now, every independent test of HD
> Radio has shown the claims of improved sound quality over FM to be true.
> Too many people don't understand that the proper Codec can provide
> excellent quality audio at bit rates that digital radio employs.
Come on! Have you ever listened to this digital system? There is no
codec in the world that provides FM like quality at the bitrates digital
radio employs. And the HD radio codec isn't even among the best.
> The issue is also the definition of "CD Quality."
No, FM radio is the norm for broadcasting. HD radio does not even
provide FM-like quality, so there is absolutely no issue with the
definition of CD quality.
gr, hwh
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> So the FCC set up procedures for reporting interference, including from
> HD Radio, and the stations being interfered with would rather complain
> about it on Usenet rather than file a legitimate complaint. If you think
> this tack will stop HD Radio then you're going to be very disappointed.
I'm not interested in stopping HD Radio. It will rise or fall on its
own. I'm just having fun here. "HD Radio" has already begun its very
slow death; what is said here makes no difference at all. Nothing said
here makes any difference, which is the point I've been trying to make.
Broadcasting occurs at radio stations not on Usenet. I deal with
broadcasting every single day.
You claimed that interference inside protected contours didn't exist,
but now you seem to be shifting to discussion of the interference
complaint procedure (which all broadcasters know is a total sham). You
even toss in the Washington street address for filing general complaints
to the FCC. None of that is relevant. IBOC interference exists, and I
can prove it to you. Apparently, you are not really interested in
defending your original assertion.
So be it.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> It's a trade-off to be sure. But even now, every independent test of HD
> Radio has shown the claims of improved sound quality over FM to be true.
> Too many people don't understand that the proper Codec can provide
> excellent quality audio at bit rates that digital radio employs.
Unfortunately, "HD Radio" uses an obsolete codec that is not
upgradeable. All I can say about "independent tests" is that the way to
evaluate sound quality is to listen for yourself, not read someone
else's subjective evaluation. Buy what you like, not what someone tells
you that you should like.
You tell people that they should read the "experts'" opinions. I tell
people they should listen for themselves. I can see your point, however.
> The issue is also the definition of "CD Quality." In a vehicle, where
> most radio listening is done, you're not going to be able to tell much
> of a difference between HD Radio and CD unless your vehicle has a very
> high end sound system. Similarly, FM Radio is often of poor quality in a
> vehicle due to multipath. Drive on 280 from Cupertino until about San
> Bruno, and the multipath is horrendous (though until stations increase
> their HD power you can't get HD for much of that stretch at all).
Sounds like you need a better radio. I am intrigued, however, at your
definition of "CD Quality". I essence, you are saying that *anything* is
CD Quality as long as it is being evaluated through crappy gear that
adds so much coloration that even trained ears can't hear the
improvement that CD quality provides.
As long as the car's environment, along with bad quality amplifiers and
speakers are the chief impediment to quality sound, any programming
source is "CD Quality".
Wow! Learn something every day.
Patty Winter
[shortwave group deleted because all of this discussion seems
to be about the standard AM/FM broadcast bands.]
In article <4c852409$0$1603$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 9/6/2010 10:16 AM, John Higdon wrote:
>
>> No useful purpose would be served at this time by putting this on record
>> with the FCC as a complaint against a fellow broadcaster who is
>> complying with current guidelines.
>
>So the FCC set up procedures for reporting interference, including from
>HD Radio, and the stations being interfered with would rather complain
>about it on Usenet rather than file a legitimate complaint.
You really are determined to distort or misunderstand everything John
says about IBOC interference, aren't you, Steven? He tells you flat out
that filing a formal complaint is the last resort after behind-the-scenes
efforts have failed, and you instantly come back saying that the only two
alternatives you can see are filing a complaint or complaining on Usenet.
(And btw, I don't recall John ever initiating a thread that said, "IBOC
is interfering with my station! HD Radio must die!!" He's only brought up
the topic after your repeated claims that such situations don't exist.)
It appears once again that you don't know how broadcasters work. If you
want your opinions to carry as much weight as John's, it would help
tremendously if you would summarize your experience in radio broadcasting.
Otherwise, your credibility cannot be gauged and there's no reason to
listen to your opinions about how interference problems should be resolved.
Patty
D. Peter Maus
> In a vehicle, where
> most radio listening is done...
Actually only about 30% of total radio listening is done in the
car. 95% of people listen in the car, but that's different than
saying most listening is done in the car.
Adding up the total minutes of time spent listening, only about
30% of listening is in-car.
Put another way, 70% of radio listening is done where sound
systems and lower noise environments can accentuate the shortcomings
of HD vs FM radio.
John Higdon
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> [shortwave group deleted because all of this discussion seems
> to be about the standard AM/FM broadcast bands.]
>
> In article <4c852409$0$1603$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >So the FCC set up procedures for reporting interference, including from
> >HD Radio, and the stations being interfered with would rather complain
> >about it on Usenet rather than file a legitimate complaint.
>
> You really are determined to distort or misunderstand everything John
> says about IBOC interference, aren't you, Steven? He tells you flat out
> that filing a formal complaint is the last resort after behind-the-scenes
> efforts have failed, and you instantly come back saying that the only two
> alternatives you can see are filing a complaint or complaining on Usenet.
Interference is a global topic, and each type of interference is dealt
with in a different way. The FCC's interference complaint black hole is
set up primarily to handle complaints arising out of intentional or
negligent operation of equipment that radiates RF energy outside of FCC
rules/standards. We joke internally that it is for members of the public
to make good on their threats to "complain to the FCC". As we have
discussed here in the past, the current FCC yawns even at reports of
egregious pirate operation. It is, as I pointed out previously, a sop
for people who need to complain to *someone*.
Broadcaster to broadcaster interference that results from operation in
compliance with the rules or "look the other way" experimental
guidelines is solved, as you might expect, broadcaster to broadcaster.
Every working broadcast engineer in the Bay Area has the contact
information in his virtual Rolodex for every other broadcast engineer.
Virtually none of the complaints that traverses this communications
channel will ever see the light of day on Usenet. We don't communicate
with each other through ba.broadcast OR the FCC. We communicate through
email and via telephone. The engineering grapevine is probably the most
active back-channel in this or any other industry. It is a very slow day
that does not include communication with at least one other station
engineer.
> (And btw, I don't recall John ever initiating a thread that said, "IBOC
> is interfering with my station! HD Radio must die!!" He's only brought up
> the topic after your repeated claims that such situations don't exist.)
In fact, I explained very plainly that my clients don't actually care
about the interference and why. My response to all of this was triggered
by the unequivocal assertion that protected contour interference did not
exist. It does and it is not rare. All the rest is dancing around.
> It appears once again that you don't know how broadcasters work.
I have no objection to people not knowing things. What I have objection
to are people who don't know things, but present themselves as
authorities on those things.
RHF
> On 9/6/2010 9:49 AM, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
>
>
>
> > hwh wrote:
> >> You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound
> >> properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or
> >> less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in
> >> practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced
> >> by the same receiver and speakers.
>
> > That's a codec problem. With currently available codecs, you can get FM radio
> > quality with 64k with AAC (aka MP4 audio). This is roughly equivalent to
> > 128k MP3, which is good enough for a car radio or tiny earphones, but not
> > CD or even CRO2 Dolby cassete quality.
>
> > Since I don't know what codec they use, I can't say what they need to increase
> > their bit rates to, but assuming they do (or could) use AAC, they would have
> > to cut their number of channels by as much as one third to compensate for
> > the higher bit rate.
- It's a trade-off to be sure. But even now, every independent test of
HD
- Radio has shown the claims of improved sound quality over FM to be
true.
- Too many people don't understand that the proper Codec can provide
- excellent quality audio at bit rates that digital radio employs.
Sounds like the 'Positive "Placebo" Effect' at work.
Have a 'Nice-&-Friendly' Person :
First tell someone that XYZ is New-and-Improved
and many/most of these People will then Respond
with Positive Comments about XYZ.
Note - 'Nice-&-Friendly' People make Other People
Want To Be 'Nice-&-Friendly' Too {Fit-In}
Presently "HD" and "Digital" Branding Anything
-translates-to- New-and-Improved in the Minds of
Consumers especially the Younger Demographics
it says "NOW" !
The Younger Consumers see themselves as 'being'
part of the "Digital" Age and the 'vanguard' of all things
"HD" {High Definition} : [It's About Them : "NOW" !]
Is there anyone Under the Age of 25 in this forum ?
-cause- HD Radio is for them and their future
relationship with radio.
For all of us Over the Age of 50 in this forum :
HD Radio does not consider you to be the
future of radio.
as the years go by . . . changes happen . . .
while many of us still remember the past ~ RHF©
.
RHF
> In article <4c852348$0$1648$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
>
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > It's a trade-off to be sure. But even now, every independent test of HD
> > Radio has shown the claims of improved sound quality over FM to be true.
> > Too many people don't understand that the proper Codec can provide
> > excellent quality audio at bit rates that digital radio employs.
>
> Unfortunately, "HD Radio" uses an obsolete codec that is not
> upgradeable. All I can say about "independent tests" is that the way to
> evaluate sound quality is to listen for yourself, not read someone
> else's subjective evaluation. Buy what you like, not what someone tells
> you that you should like.
>
"experts'" opinions. I tell people they should
listen for themselves.
Reminds me of an old Electrical Teacher
{Pre-Electronics} back in the 60s.
Who when asked about High Price HiFi and
Stereo Components and Sound Systems.
-generally-replied-
Why You Should Get Your Ears Tested by a
Doctor First : Before You Waste Your Money
On Something You Can Not Hear.
sounded like good advise ~ RHF
.
-ps- To a Generation who Grew-Up Listening
to MP3 Players with Earbuds : FM HD-Radio
must sound pretty good; and LOUD !
.
RHF
> In article<4c852348$0$1648$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
>
> > In a vehicle, where
> > most radio listening is done...
>
> Actually only about 30% of total radio listening is done in the
> car. 95% of people listen in the car, but that's different than
> saying most listening is done in the car.
>
> Adding up the total minutes of time spent listening, only about
> 30% of listening is in-car.
>
> Put another way, 70% of radio listening is done where sound
> systems and lower noise environments can accentuate the shortcomings
> of HD vs FM radio.
Today a Car/Truck Sound System is 'defined'
by the Number of Speakers and How LOUD
You Can Turn It Up To Blast The Street as
you drive down it. Sound Quality* Has Been
Re-Defined in the 21st Century.
* And It Has Nothing to do with the actual
Acoustic Quality {True Rendition} of the Sound.
.
dave
>
> You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound
> properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or
> less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in
> practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced
> by the same receiver and speakers.
>
> gr, hwh
I listen to a 32 Kb (22 kHz rate) mono webstream from KPFT and it sounds
great. Even music. Better than AM. Better than XM.
dave
CTaac+ no?
dave
There's a major case involving CBS in Los Angeles. I'm sure Roy will
fill in the blanks.
RHF
> hwh wrote:
>
> > You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound
> > properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or
> > less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in
> > practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced
> > by the same receiver and speakers.
>
> > gr, hwh
- I listen to a 32 Kb (22 kHz rate) mono webstream
- from KPFT and it sounds great.
- Even music.
- Better than AM.
- Better than XM.
Dave while I too Listen to Web-Streaming-Audio :
http://www.gcnlive.com/listen.php
As in right-now to 'The Power Hour"
-host- Joyce Riley
http://www.thepowerhour.com/
-via- GCN Live .Com
http://www.gcnlive.com/mediaPlayers/livePlayer.php
.
IT AIN'T RADIO ! [AM v FM & Analog v Digital]
-cause- there ain't no radio : snap, crackle and pop
http://www.artcompsci.org/kali/vol/vol-1b/.imgs/1_scp.jpg.jpeg
.
-ps- Dave - Enjoy your Audio Content
wherever it comes from - eafpal ~ RHF
.
'eafpal' = "Eternal and Fraternal Peace and Love"
.
.
dave
> .
> IT AIN'T RADIO ! [AM v FM& Analog v Digital]
> -cause- there ain't no radio : snap, crackle and pop
I have a standalone WiFi radio tuner (Myine IRA), which uses an RF link
from my router. It is connected to a Whole House Gold FM transmitter
with the antenna taped to a picture window. I get a good 500' to
1,000', depending. I have half a dozen FM radios all over the house
listening sometimes. None loud.
KPFT is a fully licensed full-power broadcasting station.
How is this NOT radio?
hwh
Yes but I was talking FM. Of course matching AM is not very demanding.
gr, hwh
dave
I was addressing "sound bad". Most FM sounds terrible.
RHF
> RHF wrote:
> > .
> > IT AIN'T RADIO ! [AM v FM& Analog v Digital]
> > -cause- there ain't no radio : snap, crackle and pop
>
link
- from my router. It is connected to a Whole House Gold FM
transmitter
- with the antenna taped to a picture window. I get a good 500' to
- 1,000', depending. I have half a dozen FM radios all over the house
- listening sometimes. None loud.
-
- KPFT is a fully licensed full-power broadcasting station.
It's All Good :o) -and- Great For You Dave :o)
- How is this NOT radio?
Dave - Let's see are you first receiving KPFT FM 90.1 MHz
Over-the-Air on an AM/FM Radio -or- via the Internet ?
Note - KPFT-FM @ 90.1 MHz is in Houston, TX
http://www.kpft.org/
-and- Dave you are in SoCal Land ;;-}}
-fyi- ~1500 Air Miles
Dave - I am currently [12Noon] listening to a real
Radio Broadcast Over-the-Air from KVLM-AM
1450 kHz in Sonora, CA : http://www.kvml.com/
-fyi- ~10 Air Miles
* The Huckabee Report {Radio}
http://radio.mikehuckabee.com/
* KCRA3 / KVML 'Mother Lode' Weather Report
with Eileen Javora
http://www.kcra.com/weather/grid.html
* Sean Hannity Radio Show
http://www.hannity.com/stations
.
Again Dave - IT AIN'T RADIO !
[AM v FM & Analog v Digital]
-cause- there ain't no radio : snap, crackle and pop
dave
>
> Dave - Let's see are you first receiving KPFT FM 90.1 MHz
> Over-the-Air on an AM/FM Radio -or- via the Internet ?
Yes
Patty Winter
{re Steven Scharf]
>If you
>want your opinions to carry as much weight as John's, it would help
>tremendously if you would summarize your experience in radio broadcasting.
>Otherwise, your credibility cannot be gauged and there's no reason to
>listen to your opinions about how interference problems should be resolved.
One week later...
Chirp...chirp....chirp...chirp...
All I've heard in the silence are the crickets...
spamtrap1888
A lot less demanding once HD mandated a 5K rolloff.
spamtrap1888
> In article <4c852e22$0$1666$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
The apparent lack of an amateur license further suggests SMS lacks
experience in resolving QRM.
John Higdon
<eca6e99f-27cb-4237...@g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
spamtrap1888 <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The apparent lack of an amateur license further suggests SMS lacks
> experience in resolving QRM.
His insistence that a local broadcaster file formal interference
complaints against fellow broadcasters indicates that he has no concept
of the cooperation that exists between broadcasters, the actual role of
the FCC when it comes to complaint handling, or much else that relates
to broadcasting. What we get is regurgitated iBiquity promotional
material...and that's it, because that's all he has.
Bougainville Nation
John Higdon wrote:
> His insistence that a local broadcaster file formal interference
> complaints against fellow broadcasters indicates that he has no concept
> of the cooperation that exists between broadcasters,
It is the gentleman thing to do, which is apparently beyond your
grasp
Mr. Higdon. I can speak from experience in dealing with you.
KALW 91.7 [f.m.] has been accused of interfering with KKUP's
signal for quite some time......at first I was upset that KALW was
bleeding (liberal) into our signal....however as time passes, I am
not so concerned at how effective the signal is anymore.
What is troubling, is the lack of production studio and equipment
necessary to do some production work. KKUP is a laughable
joke ------> where the joke "engineers" (Higdon) are seen as
totally lacking in initiative, except to run from one building to
another, looking for a suitable place to hide the station.
Cupertino was ideal, the rent was almost nothing.
It was the EVIL CABAL who decided to move out of Cupertino !
Higdon, your bluster of "intelligence" in broadcasting and
electrical engineering is laughable, looking at the state of
KKUP [f.m.] ------> AND FOR SOME TIME NOW !
DEFINATELY SINCE 1995 !
I'm not finished....
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/framed_at_kkup
__________________________________________________________________
Ras Mikael Enoch
http://www.exorcist.org.nz
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/music_mafias
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/framed_at_kkup
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/the_devils_radio
---> The Suppressed Truth
About The Assassination
Of Abraham Lincoln
Burke Mc Carty, Ex-Romanist
I.S.B.N. 0-879968-169-1
________
AOTEAROA
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/aotearoa
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/fire_pon_rome.wav
_____________
>< JAMAICA >< ---> N.A.A.C.P. *FRAMED* Marcus Garvey !
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/ras_mikael_enoch___kkkup_2010.wav
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-stein19
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/masonic_mormons.wav
http://www.mountainmeadowsmassacre.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
SMS
<snip>
> The trouble with streaming the existing terrestrial radio stations
> is...well...you are listening to the existing terrestrial radio
> stations. Forty minutes of programming if you don't count the news and
> commercials. SiriusXM understands programming. They may not understand
> much else, oh like how to make money, but the content is good. Other
> than NPR, how much terrestrial radio do you want to hear?
For now, one of the big attractions of the HD2 sub-channel is the almost
total lack of commercials. As HD receiver penetration continues to
increase there will be attempts to monetize it, which will reduce the
attraction of it. The far better audio quality of HD, and the better
content, are advantages to be sure, but the lack of commercials is one
of the biggest attractions.
One thing I'd like to see is higher bit rates on HD2 and lower bit rates
on HD1.
hwh
> For now, one of the big attractions of the HD2 sub-channel is the almost
> total lack of commercials. As HD receiver penetration continues to
> increase there will be attempts to monetize it, which will reduce the
> attraction of it. The far better audio quality of HD, and the better
> content, are advantages to be sure, but the lack of commercials is one
> of the biggest attractions.
HD radio audio quality is better than what? AM radio?
> One thing I'd like to see is higher bit rates on HD2 and lower bit rates
> on HD1.
It would be better to use the bandwidth for the second channel *only* to
give it enough bits to sound properly.
gr, hwh
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> For now, one of the big attractions of the HD2 sub-channel is the almost
> total lack of commercials. As HD receiver penetration continues to
> increase there will be attempts to monetize it, which will reduce the
> attraction of it. The far better audio quality of HD, and the better
> content, are advantages to be sure, but the lack of commercials is one
> of the biggest attractions.
>
> One thing I'd like to see is higher bit rates on HD2 and lower bit rates
> on HD1.
So you want to see the quality reduced on the channel that produces the
revenue? Not even the most brain-dead broadcasters are THAT stupid.
Reducing the bit rate on the HD-1 channel from 48K (already pretty
grungy-sounding) to 32K would actually produce a distinct audio quality
jump when fallback occurred...in favor of the analog signal, which
already serves a larger footprint than any of the IBOC channels.
I just love your brainless promotion-speak. "Far better audio quality"
to describe something that is distinctly inferior can't be beat.
Drewdove
"John Higdon" <hi...@kome.com> wrote in message
news:higgy-9CC8E5....@news.announcetech.com...
> In article <4c93956f$0$1655$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > For now, one of the big attractions of the HD2 sub-channel is the almost
> > total lack of commercials. As HD receiver penetration continues to
> > increase there will be attempts to monetize it, which will reduce the
> > attraction of it. The far better audio quality of HD, and the better
> > content, are advantages to be sure, but the lack of commercials is one
> > of the biggest attractions.
> >
> > One thing I'd like to see is higher bit rates on HD2 and lower bit rates
> > on HD1.
>
> So you want to see the quality reduced on the channel that produces the
> revenue? Not even the most brain-dead broadcasters are THAT stupid.
> Reducing the bit rate on the HD-1 channel from 48K (already pretty
> grungy-sounding) to 32K would actually produce a distinct audio quality
> jump when fallback occurred...in favor of the analog signal, which
> already serves a larger footprint than any of the IBOC channels.
>
only to be switched to dial-up internet radio quality. HD IMHO would means
Huge Disappointment.
SMS
Right now, the receiver switches from analog with unbearable multipath
to much higher quality HD on HD1, but it's still the same poor content
with all the commercials. The value of HD Radio is really in the content
on the HD2 sub-channel, which is at a lower bit rate; it still sounds
better than analog, but it could be even better.
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Right now, the receiver switches from analog with unbearable multipath
> to much higher quality HD on HD1, but it's still the same poor content
> with all the commercials. The value of HD Radio is really in the content
> on the HD2 sub-channel, which is at a lower bit rate; it still sounds
> better than analog, but it could be even better.
For no apparent reason (other than weak signal) car radios in the south
bay continually switch back and forth between analog and HD-1 when tuned
to San Francisco stations. Since no station has the delay perfectly
matched, this is not seamless and is in fact quite annoying. This
behavior is not preventable; there is no switch to lock it in one mode
or the other.
HD-2 has no fallback. It just pops in and out. If you consider the
content on HD-2 channels in the Bay Area to be "the value" (typically a
PC juke box playing someone's idea of "great selections" over and over),
having it pop in and out has got to be "value minus".
hwh
> Right now, the receiver switches from analog with unbearable multipath
> to much higher quality HD on HD1, but it's still the same poor content
> with all the commercials. The value of HD Radio is really in the content
> on the HD2 sub-channel, which is at a lower bit rate; it still sounds
> better than analog, but it could be even better.
You sound like a computer program that has been put on-line to
continuously spread the word that HD sounds better than FM. A human
would instantly know that this is not true.
The only real benefit of HD radio could be to double the amount of
stations available to users by bringing a second program on the HD part,
and only bringing a second program on the HD part so all the available
bits could be used to support it.
gr, hwh
hwh
> HD-2 has no fallback. It just pops in and out. If you consider the
> content on HD-2 channels in the Bay Area to be "the value" (typically a
> PC juke box playing someone's idea of "great selections" over and over),
> having it pop in and out has got to be "value minus".
So to sum it up:
- on content HD brings no value,
- on reception HD brings negative value,
- on sound quality HD brings negative value.
gr, hwh
SMS
Fortunately, everyone that knows anything about, or has ever listened
to, HD Radio, understands that all three of those statements are untrue,
no matter how many times you repeat them. You sound like a Tea Bagger.
hwh
You talk in circles and so you end up being wrong again. I have listened
to HD radio and found all three statements to be true.
Sound quality on Sirius/XM is also bad, but at least they provide more
choice of listening.
gr, hwh
DigitalRadioScams
When Keefe Bartels gets through with their class-action against
iBiquity and the automakers, all of this will be moot. This BMW
TroubleShooting Guide sums it all up:
http://www.1addicts.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=225468&d=1208129033
John Higdon
SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Fortunately, everyone that knows anything about, or has ever listened
> to, HD Radio, understands that all three of those statements are untrue,
> no matter how many times you repeat them. You sound like a Tea Bagger.
I am completely familiar with IBOC and HD Radio. I participated in the
tests (hands on) that were conducted in the nineties at stations around
the country. I have built and continue to maintain stations that utilize
IBOC. Stations for which I have been responsible for the past four
decades are well-known to be among the best sounding stations in the
region. In short, I deal with everything discussed on this issue seven
days a week on a continuing basis. Although many engineers have been
warned by their employers to keep silent regarding criticism of "HD
Radio", most of my views (if not all of them) are shared by many of
those engineers who have similar longevity and experience in this
industry; in other words, those who have truly informed opinions. Some
of them are finally speaking out publicly. (Dave Herschberger comes to
mind.)
Now, just for the record, what are your credentials?
John Higdon
hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> You talk in circles and so you end up being wrong again. I have listened
> to HD radio and found all three statements to be true.
> Sound quality on Sirius/XM is also bad, but at least they provide more
> choice of listening.
I have always urged people to judge for themselves. In particular, do
not get sucked into the glowing praise by self-appointed experts who use
talk about "CD-quality" and "better reception". THIS is the iBiquity
hype.
No one, whose opinion I have generally respected over the years and
clearly demonstrated his ability to judge audio quality, has ever had
praise for the audio quality on "HD Radio". And I know personally quite
a few "names" in this industry!
Listen for yourself.
Mark Elder
> In article <4c94f4e9$0$1597$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Now, just for the record, what are your credentials?
and how much do you get paid for each of these posts?
Mark
Patty Winter
In article <higgy-C2645D....@news.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon <hi...@kome.com> wrote:
>In article <4c94f4e9$0$1597$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, everyone that knows anything about, or has ever listened
>> to, HD Radio, understands that all three of those statements are untrue,
>> no matter how many times you repeat them.
>
Chirp...chirp...chirp...
hwh
AH, we have arrived at the old trick "the mirror".
gr, hwh
SMS
$7500.
James Duncan
>3G/4G wireless broadband will make HD a faded memory (like SQ Quad,
>Dolby B, SiriusXM, etc.) I can get 15,000 stations in my car.
Me too. Yesterday I drove from Fallon, NV to Santa Cruz, CA and
listened to KUAT in Tucson, AZ on my Droid X phone through my car
stereo for the whole 345 mile trip.
Works best if you use a lower audio stream rate at this time. The 3G
nominal data rate drops situationally, particularly where roadways
proceed through notches in mountainous terrain. The resulting
occasional dropouts are just a couple of seconds at a lower data rate.
Verizon's network really does work in the middle of nowhere just like
the map says.
Patty Winter
John Higdon
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
This may sound simplistic, but I have found that when no credentials are
offered, there are no credentials to offer.