iBiquity finally under investigation - LMFAO!!!!!!
none
"Despite iBiquity’s claims of improved sound quality and transmission,
there have been numerous complaints about HD Radio from not only the
radio industry but also consumers... Automakers are aware of the
complaints associated with HD Radio. For example, in 2007, BMW
released a Service Information Bulletin describing the problems
associated with HD Radio, but noted that there was no retrofit kit or
procedure available. The attorneys at Keefe Bartels are continuing
their investigation into HD Radio and whether consumers are being
forced to purchase technology that does not work as claimed. If you
have experienced problems with your factory-installed HD radio
receiver, we are interested in speaking to you."
http://www.keefebartels.com/CM/HotTopicsandAlerts/HotTopicsandAlerts168.asp
"HD Car Radio Investigation"
"Consumer statutes and laws protect the purchasers of various products
such as HD car radios. A party may be legally liable for statements,
omissions or misrepresentations of material facts that should have
been know to be false or misleading and promoted the sale of the
product. Such laws protect innocent consumers from unlawful and
deceptive practices. The victims of questionable business practices by
parties such automobile manufacturers are the consumers who purchase
or lease cars with HD car radios at significantly increased costs when
these devices fail to function as they are represented to work. As
news develops and the investigation proceeds, Keefe Bartels, LLC will
carefully monitor events and research all relevant laws."
http://www.keefebartels.com/CM/Custom/HD-Car-Radio-Investigation.asp
YOU ARE FUCKED, STRUBLE!!!!!!!
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Drewdove
"none" <sidwell...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:25da96f2-528d-49de...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
"HD Radio Not High Definition"
HD radio parallels HDTV in that if you transmit more than one program stream
on an RF channel the quality of each sub-channel lowers.
HDTV advancements in MPEG2 encoding and a healthy 19MBits make multicasting
bearable.
FM-HD radio at best has 96kBits which is slightly better than average FM and
much worse when you carve that pie up. And the fun part starts when your
favorite stations multicasts and clean analog blends to cheap internet
quality and you can't change back.
AM-HD is a joke that reminds people how bad things were when the internet
was only available via dial-up. Believe me, there is audio that sounds worse
than analog AM.
Not to mention your digital carriers can be jammed by first-adjacent
stations (93.7 by 93.9 & 93.5 and 640 by 650 & 630) and DRM becomes a much
better idea.
There, I feel much better. The above is as was always IMHO so YMMV.
Richard Evans
Much more spectrally efficient.
Likely to provide better sound quality.
The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
avoiding interference to FM services.
DigitalRadioScams
wrote:
No one is interested in buing digital radios.
Richard Evans
Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
could at least have tried selling then a descent system.
D. Peter Maus
A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
Two advantages to doing it this way. One is that sales begin earlier
than otherwise if a 'perfected' system be released on schedule. The
other is that the beta test is real world, with warranty costs
getting written off as R&D. Earliers sales, tax credits, earlier
finished release product.
Chrysler has been doing things this way for a decade and a half.
Lotus has done it this way throughout most of its history.
ATT (Bell Labs) did a very great deal of research into this
thinking, and found that the public will not, en masse, respond to
new technology anyway. So the complaints about failure to live up to
expectations will not hurt long term sales. Immediate release
purchases will be then left up to innovators and early adoptors,
whose priorities are "newness", and "purchase as soon as released".
They expect, and will work around, failures to perform as promised.
It doesn't always work. And failures tend to be spectacular.
But, the strategy works far more often than it doesn't. And even
Apple uses it.
In the meantime, the mass will not be making a purchase until the
product is perfected, and matured. So, an unidentified beta release
for sale makes good business sense.
That said, the iBiquity system by design was fraught with
liabilities. And while early adoptors and innovators did buy up
early release receivers, the reasons for mass purchase by those
interested in a mature product never did develop: ie, content.
If the content were there that would sell, these radios would fly
off the shelves.
So, the current malaise of the Hybrid Digital system is two fold.
One is that the system itself, technically speaking, fails to live
up to its hype. The other is, that even when it does work there is
no compelling reason fostering desire to use it.
By contrast--and I know I'm going to Hell for saying this,--DRM
had fewer liabilities (huge QRM being one,) and offered positive and
specific technical advantages over the analogue SW transmit-receive
complex. Even in that, its offerings were not sufficient to drive
uptake of the technology, and again, the content wasn't there.
What broadcasters and technology manufacturers fail to keep in
mind, is that radio is about LISTENING. That means there has to be
compelling CONTENT to drive a change in behaviour.
Too often, they simply rely on a change of technology alone.
DigitalRadioScams
>
> - Show quoted text -
RIP, iBiquity. These lawyers are going to tear Struble and the
automakers new assholes. Broadcasters are already contacting the law
firm, so this could potentially blow up into something much larger. No
automaker will come near iBiquity, now. iBiquity has had no comment
for once - LOL!
Phil Kane
<dpete...@att.net> wrote:
> A lot of the thinking in manufacturing, today, is to release what
>are effectively 'betas' and let the warranty program cover problems.
A well-known story in the microwave field is that in the mid-1980s a
major manufacturer (name withheld to protect the guilty) could not
produce bandpass filters in time to meet the deadline of a military
contract so they shipped identical cans filled with sand. Of course
the system did not work and the filters were sent back (from Saudi
Arabia, the story went) and exchanged for real filters which by that
time had been manufactured. The warranty exchange cost, eaten by the
manufacturer, was far less than the penalty payment would have been
for missing the deadline.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR
Drewdove
"Richard Evans" <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i5p48b$8lk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I couldn't agree more especially since 76-88MHz may be opening up in the US
for radio broadcasting due to these frequencies proving poor for HDTV.
RHF
Beat the Competition to the Market Place and
Define the Market : Becoming the Identified
Market Leader ! - That's "APPLE !" ~ RHF
.
RHF
> "HD Radio Not High Definition"
>
> "Despite iBiquity’s claims of improved sound quality and transmission,
> there have been numerous complaints about HD Radio from not only the
> radio industry but also consumers... Automakers are aware of the
> complaints associated with HD Radio. For example, in 2007, BMW
> released a Service Information Bulletin describing the problems
> associated with HD Radio, but noted that there was no retrofit kit or
> procedure available. The attorneys at Keefe Bartels are continuing
> their investigation into HD Radio and whether consumers are being
> forced to purchase technology that does not work as claimed. If you
> have experienced problems with your factory-installed HD radio
> receiver, we are interested in speaking to you."
>
>
> "HD Car Radio Investigation"
>
> "Consumer statutes and laws protect the purchasers of various products
> such as HD car radios. A party may be legally liable for statements,
> omissions or misrepresentations of material facts that should have
> been know to be false or misleading and promoted the sale of the
> product. Such laws protect innocent consumers from unlawful and
> deceptive practices. The victims of questionable business practices by
> parties such automobile manufacturers are the consumers who purchase
> or lease cars with HD car radios at significantly increased costs when
> these devices fail to function as they are represented to work. As
> news develops and the investigation proceeds, Keefe Bartels, LLC will
> carefully monitor events and research all relevant laws."
>
> http://www.keefebartels.com/CM/Custom/HD-Car-Radio-Investigation.asp
>
> YOU ARE FUCKED, STRUBLE!!!!!!!
> LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation
-ROTFL- ~ RHF
Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/ffb5d6149534c9ae
.
.
RHF
wrote:
IBOC is about 'morphing'* the existing FM Radio Band
not replacing all at once with a new Technology or
an new FM/UHF Band.
* Creating a natural Analog to Digital transition over
a Decade or two as both Radio Listeners and Radio's
in-service migrate from the old mode to the new mode.
RHF
wrote:
> On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.
>
> > Much more spectrally efficient.
> > Likely to provide better sound quality.
> > The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
> > Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
> > avoiding interference to FM services.
- No one is interested in buing digital radios.
DigitalRadioScams are you 'buing' yourself too much ?
RHF
wrote:
> DigitalRadioScams wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos...@tiscali.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using DRM+.
>
> >> Much more spectrally efficient.
> >> Likely to provide better sound quality.
> >> The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
> >> Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
> >> avoiding interference to FM services.
>
> > No one is interested in buing digital radios.
>
- and sell them to people, they could at least
- have tried selling then a descent system.
A $300~$450 Option on a Car is NOT a
Decent HD Radio System !?!
Yes better HD-Radios are needed . . .
=BUT= FM HD-Radio has done this with 1%
of the Analog's 100% Power; and Analog
still has 99% EFP.
What Happens : When FM HD-Radio has 10%
of the Analog's 100% Power; and Analog is
then down to 90% ?
-by- 2015~2020 most FM HD-Radio Stations
will be at 15%~20% of the former Analog 100%
and will be considering treminating the remaining
80% of the Analog Output because the Radio
Listeners will no-longer be there . . .
RHF
wrote:
- automakers new assholes. Broadcasters are already contacting the law
- firm, so this could potentially blow up into something much larger.
No
- automaker will come near iBiquity, now. iBiquity has had no comment
- for once - LOL!
DigitalRadioScams - more wishful thinking on your part
IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation
-ROTFL- by RHF
RHF
> "Richard Evans" <rp.evans.nos...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:i5p48b$8lk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
>
> > DigitalRadioScams wrote:
> > > On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos...@tiscali.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > >> If they wanted to use the FM band, they may have been better off using
> DRM+.
>
> > >> Much more spectrally efficient.
> > >> Likely to provide better sound quality.
> > >> The only licensing requirement is for decoding of aac+.
> > >> Better control of which frequencies to use, hence more chance of
> > >> avoiding interference to FM services.
>
> > > No one is interested in buing digital radios.
>
> > Perhaps not. But if they are going to try and sell them to people, they
> > could at least have tried selling then a descent system.
- I couldn't agree more especially since 76-88MHz
- may be opening up in the US for radio broadcasting
- due to these frequencies proving poor for HDTV.
yes, Yes. YES ! - Expand the FM Radio Band
-by- Moving AM's to Old TV Channels 5 & 6 !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/8b403d27fe07c27f
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/92eec9db49629a49
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/de56e4adae3ab587
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/ebba020aff11f5f0
"Expanded" FM Radio Band to cover 76 MHz to
88 MHz to create and additional 60 FM Channels.
.
Expanding the FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/93586e2bf667afb2
.
Hello ! - Wake-Up FCC Expand The FM Radio Band
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/deb423d8c51f486c
! Do It Now !
.
IBOC : FM HD-Radio -The Answer Is - The 4% Solution
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/b77c3a7efd380a6d
More Digital FM HD-Radio Power
.
IBOC : The Killer-App for FM "HD" Radio's HD-2 Channels
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/08e05095a43bec7b
.
The Future of Terrestrial Radio Broadcasting
is FM Radio and the Future of FM Radio is
IBOC Multi-Channel "HD" Radio
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7acdb337d9029df4
.
Expanding the FM Radio Band from 76 MHz to 88 MHz
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/93586e2bf667afb2
.
HDTV : Selling-Off UHF Channels 52~69
and Expanding The FM Radio Band . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/04301a3d44747762
.
IBOC : FM HD-Radio Needs More HD-2 Power !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/1313262fe9ed3c1d
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/30342d02f81fddf4
.
"HD" Radios ! - The Un-Qualified Comments
by a Simple Consumer of 'Free' Over-the-Air
AM & FM Radio
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/2185aed02732ce3e
.
The Future of All Talk-Radio Formats is on
the FM Radio Band and HD-2 Channels . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/38187e60546e2f35
.
It's Only a Matter of Time : "Conditional Access"
-wrt- AM & FM "HD" Radio Technology
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4a98bc15e374b08b
.
The Future of New Radio Technologies . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/9c16e8c3266f13fa
.
Reality-Check : To Make AM/MW "HD" {IBOC} Radio
'Work' the AM/MW Band Needs A New Band Plan
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7361662c8fd12e9f
.
The Alternative View Point
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT !
Leave the good old AM/MW Radio Band Alone
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/f64c4f482b701d06
.
.
SMS
> Lawsuit Most Likely Going Nowhere
LOL, talk about a clueless law firm trying to extort a settlement out of
someone. Who's the braniac that came up with this idea? Are they suing
the semiconductor manufacturer who made the decoder chip, the radio
manufacturer, the auto manufacturer, the radio stations that failed to
add HD service, the radio stations that have HD but that didn't increase
their power to the legal limit, the FCC for approving the HD system, or
the company that licenses the technology to both the stations and the
equipment manufacturers? Maybe add in the transmitter and antenna
manufacturers for good measure. This just too funny.
There is one _big_ problem that HD Radio has been causing all over the
country, but no one can sue anyone about it. Hardly a week goes by where
you don't read of a format change where a station moves its classical or
jazz or other niche format over to HD2, and changes their main format to
something that they believe will increase their market share and let
them charge more for advertising. Of course there's nothing to say that
in the absence of HD that they would not simply abandon the niche format
entirely.
On the surface, this sounds like a bad thing, but for those listeners
willing to make the small one time investment in an HD Radio, it's
actually a big positive for several reasons. First, they'll have a lot
fewer commercials. Second, they'll have far better audio quality. Third,
they'll experience no multipath interference. But for those unwilling to
upgrade to HD Radio, they lose their favorite station and usually there
is no competing analog station with which they can replace it. They
either switch to CDs, an iPod or other portable music player, or listen
to some other format.
HD Radio is not the perfect digital radio technology. It is a compromise
solution for digital radio that required no additional spectrum or
licenses. Adoption was fast by urban radio stations, but slow by
consumers, mainly because of the free-fall in new car sales, caused by
the recession. As Neil Glassman wrote at RBR.com, "...the introduction
of HD Radio in the US met the perfect storm of roadblocks — the decline
of radio advertising, the recession and the failure of consumers to
consider broadcast radio as an element to be included in their digital
entertainment toy box." The recession will eventually end, advertising
will pick up, and the "digital entertainment toy box" was dealt a major
blow by AT&T with the elimination of unlimited data on the iPhone.
hwh
> On the surface, this sounds like a bad thing, but for those listeners
> willing to make the small one time investment in an HD Radio, it's
> actually a big positive for several reasons. First, they'll have a lot
> fewer commercials. Second, they'll have far better audio quality.
Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense. HD second channels all
sound terrible, except for some of the speech channels. Stop repeating
these commercials.
gr, hwh
SMS
Clearly you've never listened to HD.
DigitalRadioScams
Broadcasters that got duped by false promises from iBiquity and that
have lost revenue from IBLOCK interference are already getting
involved. Sprint/Nextel had a direct link to my blog, yesterday. I
have posted links to the law firm in most of the auto forums that had
complaints about HD Radio. No more automakers will go near iBiquity,
now, and I bet some drop their HD Radio offerings. Consumers are now
becoming aware of this huge scam, and will not order HD Radio in
automobiles. If you check these auto forums, delearships are getting
bring-backs for "defective" HD radios. I see this potentially blowing
up into a huge investigation and class-action suit from broadcasters
and consumers. This will be the death of iBiquity. Here is what
iBiquity promised the broadcasters:
"A Station Owner's View of HD Radio Industry"
"We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be
equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding
out this is not the case... We've also found that even in a strong HD
signal area, a dipole antenna is required... We were also told that
the HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel signals. That
also appears not to be the case. This is really very discouraging and
is leading us to wonder why we should bother to promote HD. To do so
will only disappoint, and, perhaps, antagonize a significant segment
of the audience who finds that the system doesn't deliver."
D. Peter Maus
Actually, I have. And I agree with him.
It's not what's been claimed for it.
hwh
I have. And didn't like it. Trouble is you keep referring to sound
quality while you're talking about reception issues like multipath.
Reception can be better, while sound quality will not be better as long
as second channels are being broadcast on HD.
gr, hwh
Richard Evans
>
> I have. And didn't like it. Trouble is you keep referring to sound
> quality while you're talking about reception issues like multipath.
>
> Reception can be better, while sound quality will not be better as long
> as second channels are being broadcast on HD.
FM can *sometimes* sound bad.
Low bit rate digital *Always* sounds bad.
I haven't actually heard HD-Radio for myself. But come on, 40k!!!
SMS
Since you can't listen to it, you might want to actually read what some
of the experts have said about HD sound quality, rather than believe the
rantings of our favorite troll, or the opinions of those that have a
vested interest in its failure.
_Every_ review, by those without any vested interest in HD, has
confirmed that the HD sound quality is far better than that of analog
FM. It could be that they did not find that perfect FM station and that
they did not listen to it with the perfect analog receiver hooked up to
the perfect antenna. A lot has to do with the quality of the broadcast,
both for digital and analog, but it's a lot easier to do a high quality
digital broadcast.
It's similar to analog LPs versus digital CDs. With a high end
turntable, and an LP that is in perfect condition with no warpage or
scratches, the LP could conceivably sound better. But that's not
representative of most people's equipment.
As Consumer Reports stated:
"Digital HD Radio has the potential to deliver better sound quality than
the usual analog FM and AM radio, with deeper bass, more extended
treble, more stereo separation, and greater dynamic range (the
difference between the loudest and quietest sounds). The actual quality
depends on what the radio station transmits and how good a job the tuner
does with it.
In our tests of the HDT-1 tuner in the New York metropolitan region, the
HD FM and AM broadcasts generally sounded clearer and fuller than analog
content from the same station. All of the HD FM broadcasts, whether the
main channel or the "side" channels multicast on the same frequency,
were free of background noise--the hiss or crackle you occasionally hear
with standard radio. The better-quality broadcasts had frequency
response, detail, separation, and dynamic range that approached audio CD
quality. HD AM programs were received in stereo with audio quality
comparable to standard analog FM radio, minus the background noise."
hwh
> _Every_ review, by those without any vested interest in HD, has
> confirmed that the HD sound quality is far better than that of analog
> FM. It could be that they did not find that perfect FM station and that
> they did not listen to it with the perfect analog receiver hooked up to
> the perfect antenna.
The last sentense says it exactly. And did hey use just one digital
channel on the HD part of the system? At 96k it will sound better than
FM. At half that rate it will not.
gr, hwh
DigitalRadioScams
Struble has many of these media groups in his back-pocket, just like
the FCC. You can rant-and-rave all you want, but HD Radio works even
less reliably in moving vehicles. It's over, especially with
broadcasters getting involved.
Richard Evans
>>
>> I haven't actually heard HD-Radio for myself. But come on, 40k!!!
>
> Since you can't listen to it, you might want to actually read what some
> of the experts have said about HD sound quality, rather than believe the
> rantings of our favorite troll, or the opinions of those that have a
> vested interest in its failure.
Oh the same old story.
I don't need to read reviews to tell me that 40k is not going to sound good.
Perhaps if you want to let us know what HD-Radio sounds like, perhaps
you could upload a few samples. Connect a radio to a computer, record
the sound, encode it into FLAC format, and upload it.
Although if 40k can produce good sound quality, I'd be about as
surprised as I would be if somebody made a good cup of tea in a
Chocolate Tea Pot.
Richard E.
Richard Evans
Also, it's possible that they may be using excessive levels of dynamic
compression on some of the FM broadcasts. If so, that doesn't mean that
HD-Radio OK, it just means that FM is sometimes used very badly.
Richard E.
dave
> On 9/3/2010 9:35 AM, Richard Evans wrote:
>
> Since you can't listen to it, you might want to actually read what some
> of the experts have said about HD sound quality, rather than believe the
> rantings of our favorite troll, or the opinions of those that have a
> vested interest in its failure.
>
>
> As Consumer Reports stated:
>
>
Consumer Reports has tin ears. They've never gotten an audio review right.
Radio is dead.
harddisque
Maybe we will eventually have DRM for AM here in the US.
IBOC on AM is a disaster.
Drewdove;717155 Wrote:
> "none" sidwell...@aol.com wrote in message
> news:25da96f2-528d-49de...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> "HD Radio Not High Definition"
>
> HD radio parallels HDTV in that if you transmit more than one program
> stream
> on an RF channel the quality of each sub-channel lowers.
>
> HDTV advancements in MPEG2 encoding and a healthy 19MBits make
> multicasting
> bearable.
>
> FM-HD radio at best has 96kBits which is slightly better than average FM
> and
> much worse when you carve that pie up. And the fun part starts when
> your
> favorite stations multicasts and clean analog blends to cheap internet
> quality and you can't change back.
>
> AM-HD is a joke that reminds people how bad things were when the
> internet
> was only available via dial-up. Believe me, there is audio that sounds
> worse
> than analog AM.
>
> Not to mention your digital carriers can be jammed by first-adjacent
> stations (93.7 by 93.9 & 93.5 and 640 by 650 & 630) and DRM becomes a
> much
> better idea.
>
> There, I feel much better. The above is as was always IMHO so YMMV.
--
harddisque
RHF
> SMS wrote:
> > On 9/3/2010 9:35 AM, Richard Evans wrote:
>
> > Since you can't listen to it, you might want to actually read what some
> > of the experts have said about HD sound quality, rather than believe the
> > rantings of our favorite troll, or the opinions of those that have a
> > vested interest in its failure.
>
> > As Consumer Reports stated:
- Consumer Reports has tin ears.
- They've never gotten an audio review right.
- Radio is dead.
Dave You Are So "Radio" Between The Ears - pal ~ RHF
.
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
.
.
RHF
> On 9/3/10 5:18 PM, SMS wrote:
>
> > On the surface, this sounds like a bad thing, but for those listeners
> > willing to make the small one time investment in an HD Radio, it's
> > actually a big positive for several reasons. First, they'll have a lot
> > fewer commercials. Second, they'll have far better audio quality.
>
> Oh come on, who believes this old, erm, nonsense.
- HD second channels all sound terrible,
- except for some of the speech channels.
1 - That is why transitioning some of the AM/MW
'Talk-Radio' Sports-Radio and Religious-Radio
Stations to the FM HD-Radio HD-2 Channels
makes sense. The HD-2 Technology works for
that Audio format.
.
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
.
2 - Put TV Audio Sound on the HD-2 Channels.
So that TV Watchers can Drive to and from Work
and Listen to the Local TV Sound.
3 - Put TV Audio Sound on the HD-2 Channels.
So that TV Watchers can Listen to the Local TV
Audio at Work.
.
The Killer-App* for FM "HD" Radio's HD-2 Channels
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/08e05095a43bec7b
* Local TV Audio 'Simulcast'
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/116e98129d42d730
.
> Stop repeating these commercials.
> gr, hwh
.
IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation . . .
-ROTFL-
This Lawsuit Is Most Likely Going Nowhere
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/ffb5d6149534c9ae
.
.
RHF
When I have been able to get a good quality
FM HD-Radio Signal : To Me the FM Stereo
Sound did sound better than the old Analog.
But most of the time all I can get is a Blinking
Blue Light {No HD Lock} and all I can hear is the
old Analog FM Stereo Signal and sometimes
not even that; just mono.
living in a fringe area where the 1% fm hd-radio
signal just does not quite make it ~ RHF
.
.
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
.
.
RHF
wrote:
- the FCC. You can rant-and-rave all you want, but HD Radio works even
- less reliably in moving vehicles. It's over, especially with
- broadcasters getting involved.
.
.
IBOC - iBiquity Finally Under Investigation . . .
-ROTFL-
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.broadcast/msg/ffb5d6149534c9ae
.
dave
> Maybe we will eventually have DRM for AM here in the US.
>
> IBOC on AM is a disaster.
>
>
AM radio sounds great if you know what you're doing. The NRSC mask
needs to go away, along with every station (or night-time operation)
authorized since the late '70s.
cuh...@webtv.net
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=295206
WOOF WOOF.
cuhulin
Kevin Alfred Strom
You're pretty much right on.
Standard AM does have more background noise at low and moderate
signal strengths. And the extreme high end, above, say, 10 kHz, is
hard to get perfectly flat at some (but not all) directional facilities.
But with analogue AM you can transmit high-fidelity audio with no
data compression whatever (and none of its attendant artifacts) in
30 kHz of RF bandwidth. You can't do that with IBOC of either the AM
or FM varieties.
And with standard analogue AM, no de-emphasis need be used on the
receiving end, so high frequencies that are 100 per cent. modulated
come through at full level on the receiving end. You can't do that
with pre-emphasized FM.
When WEAM 1390 in Arlington ran its progressive format in the 1970s,
they used very modest amounts of optical compression and peak
limiting, and subtle equalization -- and they sounded absolutely
stunning on my McKay Dymek AM5 tuner.
With all good wishes,
Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
DEFCON 88
wrote:
----------------------------------------
[...]
>
> When WEAM 1390 in Arlington ran its progressive format in the 1970s,
> they used very modest amounts of optical compression and peak
> limiting, and subtle equalization -- and they sounded absolutely
> stunning on my McKay Dymek AM5 tuner.
>
------------------------------------
Was the AM5's main emphasis on good audio or was it good for DX too?
Did it have a choice of wide/narrow filters?
By the way, your ham radio signal always had superb audio. Did you use
EQ or just a good mic?
D. Peter Maus
> On Sep 5, 12:46 pm, Kevin Alfred Strom<kevin.st...@revilo-oliver.com>
> wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> [...]
>
>
>>
>> When WEAM 1390 in Arlington ran its progressive format in the 1970s,
>> they used very modest amounts of optical compression and peak
>> limiting, and subtle equalization -- and they sounded absolutely
>> stunning on my McKay Dymek AM5 tuner.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Was the AM5's main emphasis on good audio or was it good for DX too?
AM5, (still have and use one daily) is more about good audio than
it was about DX. That said, with a very good external antenna, DX
was certainly possible. But the IF was too wide in both modes.
> Did it have a choice of wide/narrow filters?
Yes.
RHF
-wrt- AM radio should stay analog
On this I would agree using the old US AM/MW
Radio Band Plan of 10 kHz separation. ~ RHF
Why AM/MW Radio Should Stay Analog -or- Not ! :
IBOC Alternatives for AM/MW Radio
{ A New USA AM/MW Radio Band Plan :
Redefining AM/MW Radio Service in the USA}
why not, Why Not. WHY NOT ! :
Leave AM Radio Band Alone !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/f64c4f482b701d06
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/51d8b98fad0eb322
.
However IBOC {DRM} would work on the USA's
AM/MW Radio Band with a new Band Plan of
25 khz separation.
1 - By having the FCC License Fewer AM/MW
Radio Stations each with Higher Power.
2 - Moving Many/Most AM/MW Radio Stations
to an Expanded FM Radio Band.
* * * a better idea ~ RHF
.
Yes this would entail moving many/most of the
present US AM/MW Radio Stations to an
Expanded FM Radio Band -read-
.
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
.
The Future of All Terrestrial Radio Formats
is on an Expanded FM Radio Band
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/38187e60546e2f35
.
The AM/MW Band Needs a New "Band Plan"
for a Limited Number of High Powered 100~250
KW Nation-Wide and Regional Broadcasters
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7361662c8fd12e9f
New AM/MW Radio Band Plan :
540 kHz to 1700 kHz = 1160 kHz
1160 kHz / 25 kHz Spacing
= 46 AM/MW Radio Channels
http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/bluenote/706/namrp/amradio.htm
.
The Future of All Talk-Radio Formats
is on an Expanded FM Radio Band
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/38187e60546e2f35
.
Expand the FM Radio Band -by-
Moving AM's to Old TV Channels 5 & 6 !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/8b403d27fe07c27f
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/92eec9db49629a49
.
RHF's Plan For The "HD" AM/MW Radio Band :
Going All Digital And Beyond !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/e0c90cb1dfb18bc5
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/6f1485c13c483a5f
.
FCC Data :
AM and FM Broadcast Radio Station Totals
?Q? Is Moving Many/Most AM Radio Stations
Do-Able with an Expanded FM Radio Band ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/7b7b5fb395ebac94
=A= YES !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/93586e2bf667afb2
.
.
Kevin Alfred Strom
> On Sep 5, 12:46 pm, Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin.st...@revilo-oliver.com>
> wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> [...]
>
>
>> When WEAM 1390 in Arlington ran its progressive format in the 1970s,
>> they used very modest amounts of optical compression and peak
>> limiting, and subtle equalization -- and they sounded absolutely
>> stunning on my McKay Dymek AM5 tuner.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Was the AM5's main emphasis on good audio or was it good for DX too?
> Did it have a choice of wide/narrow filters?
>
Mainly on good audio. It had a 20+ kHz filter in the wide position
and, if I recall correctly, about an 8 kHz in the narrow position. I
also used the tabletop tiltable and rotatable companion loop
antenna, and it was fun to do some hi-fi "DXing" on occasion.
> By the way, your ham radio signal always had superb audio. Did you use
> EQ or just a good mic?
>
Thanks! Here's what I used in the 90s:
Kenwood TS440S transceiver with modified audio and second IF filter
bypassed
Peavey 1200 mic preamp/mixer
Electro-Voice 664 dynamic microphone (or AKG CE451 condenser)
Pacific Recorders Multimax 3-band optical agc/compressor, modified
for HF by lowering the upper crossover frequency and speeding up release
RCA BA-146 peak limiter, modified for fast release and adjusted to
just barely trigger on peaks
Alpha 77D RF power amplifier (single 8877)
Monitor Electronics (military surplus) antenna coupler, at base of
150' total length Marconi antenna (60' vertical, 90' horizontal),
held up by trees and with 8 rather irregular radials
With my best,
D. Peter Maus
> DEFCON 88 wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 12:46 pm, Kevin Alfred Strom <kevin.st...@revilo-oliver.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>> When WEAM 1390 in Arlington ran its progressive format in the 1970s,
>>> they used very modest amounts of optical compression and peak
>>> limiting, and subtle equalization -- and they sounded absolutely
>>> stunning on my McKay Dymek AM5 tuner.
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Was the AM5's main emphasis on good audio or was it good for DX too?
>> Did it have a choice of wide/narrow filters?
>>
>
>
>
> Mainly on good audio. It had a 20+ kHz filter in the wide position and,
> if I recall correctly, about an 8 kHz in the narrow position.
Actually, McKay claimed 6khz narrow filter. My experience is that
the skirts are sufficiently gentle that effective bandwidth is
considerably greater than 6khz if the receiver is aligned correctly.
(Not a task for the technically hamhanded. It takes a good ear, a
light touch and some considerable patience to align the receiver. If
you have the right equipment.)
> I also
> used the tabletop tiltable and rotatable companion loop antenna, and it
> was fun to do some hi-fi "DXing" on occasion.
I put my DA-5 in a very quiet part of the building, and make sure
the A/C is heavily filtered of spikes, noise and other anomalies.
Being a shielded loop, it's astonishingly good at isolating the
desired signal from noise. You can put it in a room full of RCA
round tube color TV sets, and listen to AM radio.
It's good at nulling out undesired signals. Sadly, it's not so
good at removing IBOC hash.
>
>
>
>> By the way, your ham radio signal always had superb audio. Did you use
>> EQ or just a good mic?
>>
>
>
> Thanks! Here's what I used in the 90s:
>
> Kenwood TS440S transceiver with modified audio and second IF filter
> bypassed
>
> Peavey 1200 mic preamp/mixer
>
> Electro-Voice 664 dynamic microphone (or AKG CE451 condenser)
>
> Pacific Recorders Multimax 3-band optical agc/compressor, modified for
> HF by lowering the upper crossover frequency and speeding up release
>
> RCA BA-146 peak limiter, modified for fast release and adjusted to just
> barely trigger on peaks
If you're going to follow a compressor, even a multiband, with a
limiter, you don't want the compressor to be too fast on release.
They'll tend to fight with each other. Expecially a PR&E Multimax is
plenty fast from the factory, but not so fast it will compete with
the following limiter producing some very unpleasant audio artifacts.
Run 10db of max compression with the PR&E, into a broadcast
limiter of fast attack and release and a max of 5db of peak gain
reduction, you'll never hear it working, but you'll have very
tightly controlled peaks, and very smooth, but punchy audio.
If you get back on the air again, I might suggest that you find
an Aphex Compellor, as your compressor, followed by a mulitband
limiter like a Studio Dominator for your peak limiting stage. A 305
Compellor is fairly transparent, on the air, but controls dynamics
well, so a limiter can be used with some discretion. A 320 Compellor
can allow you to dial in parameters more to your taste than a 305.
The Studio Dominator is a brick wall limiter, with three bands of
EQ before the limiter. Allowing some pretty crunchy audio, if you
wish, or very clean but very tightly controlled dynamics, more to
your tastes. And some trimming of spectral curves for some, pardon
the pun, compelling listening.
Both can be had on the used market for a few hundred. And both
can be easily modified (the Compellor, with internal jumpers) to
your choice of operating level environments.
You REALLY used an AKG 451 on the ham bands?
Damn, Kevin. That's something I though only I would do.
Try a beyerdynamic 834 some time. You'll need a good blast
filter, but you'll be amazed at your audio on the air.
dave
I had an HH Scott AM/FM "stereo" tuner. It had AM on the Right and FM
on the left. The AM had a switchable 10 megacycles notch filter. It
sounded better than the FM.
dave
> .
> RHF's Plan For The "HD" AM/MW Radio Band :
> Going All Digital And Beyond !
> .
You can't decode digital with a diode and a capacitor. We need some kind
of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.
RHF
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
> > On 9/5/10 14:17 , DEFCON 88 wrote:
> >> On Sep 5, 12:46 pm, Kevin Alfred Strom<kevin.st...@revilo-oliver.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> ----------------------------------------
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> When WEAM 1390 in Arlington ran its progressive format in the 1970s,
> >>> they used very modest amounts of optical compression and peak
> >>> limiting, and subtle equalization -- and they sounded absolutely
> >>> stunning on my McKay Dymek AM5 tuner.
>
> >> ------------------------------------
>
> >> Was the AM5's main emphasis on good audio or was it good for DX too?
>
> > AM5, (still have and use one daily) is more about good audio than it was
> > about DX. That said, with a very good external antenna, DX was certainly
> > possible. But the IF was too wide in both modes.
>
> >> Did it have a choice of wide/narrow filters?
>
> > Yes.
>
> >> By the way, your ham radio signal always had superb audio. Did you use
> >> EQ or just a good mic?
- I had an HH Scott AM/FM "stereo" tuner.
- It had AM on the Right and FM on the left.
- The AM had a switchable 10 megacycles notch filter.
?Q? - 10 MHz Notch Filter ? -or- 10 kHz Notch Filter !
- It sounded better than the FM.
RHF
> RHF wrote:
> > .
> > RHF's Plan For The "HD" AM/MW Radio Band :
> > Going All Digital And Beyond !
> > .
- You can't decode digital with a diode
- and a capacitor. We need some kind
- of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.
Dave -if- there is a 'Great Collapse'
no one will be working and
no radio stations will be on the air . . .
no electrical power, natural gas and heating oil . . .
no gasoline for the cars and trucks . . .
Dave - just you, your axe and the
all american wood pile . . .
dave - hope you do have an axe ! - pal ~ RHF
.
m II
> You can't decode digital with a diode and a capacitor. We need some kind
> of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.
I found a site with an FM crystal set. Neat.
http://www.freewebs.com/acselectronics/crystal1.html
mike
Brenda Ann
"Bob Dobbs" <chupa...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:4c861aa4.11844859@chupacabra...
> dave wrote:
>> We need some kind
>>of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.
>
> to tune in all those stations (radios themselves) that won't be working?
> Sort of a paradox, eh?
> ...or is it only receivers that will mysteriously stop working?
>
> If enough of me survives any 'great collapse'
> to be able to listen to something, I bet my radios will too.
Anyone transmitting at a time such as that would be running very limited
power, likely no more than a couple hundred watts (the max power output of a
common ham mobile rig that can be run from 12V battery power), since it
would be likely that no commercial power would be available.
RHF
> dave wrote:
> > We need some kind
> >of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.
>
> to tune in all those stations (radios themselves) that won't be working?
> Sort of a paradox, eh?
> ...or is it only receivers that will mysteriously stop working?
>
> If enough of me survives any 'great collapse'
> to be able to listen to something, I bet my radios will too.
>
>
> Operator Bob
> Echo Charlie 42
Sort of like a Farmer in the 1920s who bought a
"Farm Radio"; and when his Son asked him 'why'
the Farmer replied 'why' Son some day we will
have elect-tric-city just like your Uncle in the City.
http://everything2.com/title/Farm+radio
Actually so-called "Farm Radios" were usually
powered by Batteries and some/many Farms
had their own Electrical Generating Systems.
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe20s/life_18.htm
Note - Back then you could not go off-the-grid . . .
-cause- There Was No Grid [.]
.
dave
some kind. AM radio is the only kind you can receive without batteries.
dave
You have to have a resonant circuit tuned slightly off the FM carrier
frequency. The detector then converts (complex math here) some of the
FM to a voltage. This is called "slope detection".
RHF
Dave - Not many AM & FM Radio Stations
out there that are presently Solar Powered.
Here is a DIY Solar Radio
http://www.makeitsolar.com/science-fair-ideas/12-solar-radio.htm
.
dave
I recall in Texas, every freeway underpass has one. We had a 400KVA
Caterpillar at the last full-power TV station I worked at.
dave
>
> Wonder if cycle 24 will be up and running in time?
> Of course I don't need ionospheric conditions for KNX 1070.
> Your prediction of a loss of commercial power suggests that the QRP broadcasters
> will be a difficult catch for those survivalists fumbling around with a galena
> XTAL and a safety pin.
> Seems like the whole doomsday scenario, while quite entertaining like that
> Jericho TV series, depends a lot on dire speculation, otherwise it's about as
> boring as running out of money before running out of month.
>
Nobody said anything about "Doomsday". The house of cards is coming
down. The infrastructure is failing as it is being privatized. Our
awakening star will spew and cripple the grids, and they will be slow to
recover (if ever). Crop failures are starting civil unrest globally;
there are strikes in Europe as the corporations tighten their grip. The
last thing you want is a government with an off-on switch on your
electronic media.
Doomsday? We should be so lucky.
DEFCON 88
------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
>
> The last thing you want is a government with an off-on switch on your
> electronic media.
>
Better to have a government on-off switch. That way you could turn it
off when it goes stupid.
dave
The government has no power that we don't give it.
RHF
- Doomsday? We should be so lucky.
So Dave you are Off-the-Grid . . .
plus your own DIY Wood Pile . . .
Have your own Water Well . . .
and Septic System . . .
Have an Acre Vegetable Garden . . .
A Dozen Chickens and a Dozen Rabbits too . . .
plus a goat/sheep or two . . .
A several pairs of good Walking Shoes and
Work Boots; along with some sturdy Work
Clothes; and all the hand tools to get the job
done without regular electricity from the grid.
A Good Big Dog that Watches the Road . . .
Dave - Are You So Lucky {Ready & Prepared}
-ps- Plus the Will and Ability to Keep It All :
When Those Without Come To Take It Away . . .
dave - 'be prepared' - just an old boy-scout ~ RHF
.
.
RHF
> Brenda Ann wrote:
> >news:4c861aa4.11844859@chupacabra...
> >> dave wrote:
> >>> We need some kind
> >>> of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.
>
> >> Why would anyone need some kind of working radio
> >> to tune in all those stations (radios themselves) that won't be working?
> >> Sort of a paradox, eh?
> >> ...or is it only receivers that will mysteriously stop working?
>
> >> If enough of me survives any 'great collapse'
> >> to be able to listen to something, I bet my radios will too.
>
> > Anyone transmitting at a time such as that would be running very limited
> > power, likely no more than a couple hundred watts (the max power output of a
> > common ham mobile rig that can be run from 12V battery power), since it
> > would be likely that no commercial power would be available.
- There are 100s of thousands of diesel power plants all over the USA.
As
- I recall in Texas, every freeway underpass has one. We had a 400KVA
- Caterpillar at the last full-power TV station I worked at.
and . . . when there is NO more Diesel Fuel for them . . .
then what . . .
It's not the first 30 Days after "The Great Collapse"
that you have to worry about . . .
It's the last 30 Days of your Life long after "The
Great Collapse" that you should be Thinking and
Worrying About . . .
and will those last 30 Days happen in weeks,
months, or years . . .
things can go from : no-problem; to it ain't so bad;
to pretty bad; to being hell : in several months to
a few years - ready or not ~ RHF
.
.
RHF
> On Sep 7, 12:21 pm, dave <d...@dave.dave> wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [...]
>
>
>
- - an off-on switch on your electronic media.
- Better to have a government on-off switch.
- That way you could turn it off when it goes stupid.
The American 'On-Off' Switch is Voting & Elections.
Yes - It's Called Elections and It Is The Reason :
You Should Vote In Each and Every Election.
-hint- Throw The Bums {Crooks} Out !
elections - be there & just vote ~ RHF
.
.
Kevin Alfred Strom
[...]
>
>
> If you're going to follow a compressor, even a multiband, with a
> limiter, you don't want the compressor to be too fast on release.
> They'll tend to fight with each other. Expecially a PR&E Multimax is
> plenty fast from the factory, but not so fast it will compete with the
> following limiter producing some very unpleasant audio artifacts.
Well, the high band in the Multimax (which I modified for HF to be
about 2000 Hz to 5500 Hz) would heavily compress if I hit a strong
sibilant, as I tend to do sometimes. And it would release so slowly
that for a second or two all the presence would be gone from the
audio. Clearly too slow for my application.
So I sped up the release time of the high band to about a third of
stock. It sounded much better and was still a slower release than a
typical multiband processor.
I liked the Multimax. Smooth, super-clean, and "larger than life" at
the same time.
>
> Run 10db of max compression with the PR&E, into a broadcast limiter of
> fast attack and release and a max of 5db of peak gain reduction, you'll
> never hear it working, but you'll have very tightly controlled peaks,
> and very smooth, but punchy audio.
>
> If you get back on the air again, I might suggest that you find an
> Aphex Compellor, as your compressor, followed by a mulitband limiter
> like a Studio Dominator for your peak limiting stage. A 305 Compellor is
> fairly transparent, on the air, but controls dynamics well, so a limiter
> can be used with some discretion. A 320 Compellor can allow you to dial
> in parameters more to your taste than a 305.
>
> The Studio Dominator is a brick wall limiter, with three bands of EQ
> before the limiter. Allowing some pretty crunchy audio, if you wish, or
> very clean but very tightly controlled dynamics, more to your tastes.
> And some trimming of spectral curves for some, pardon the pun,
> compelling listening.
>
> Both can be had on the used market for a few hundred. And both can be
> easily modified (the Compellor, with internal jumpers) to your choice of
> operating level environments.
>
[...]
Thank you. The Aphex processors are very nice; a friend of mine used
them at an FM in Arlington and they did very well indeed.
I've been thinking about building my own 4-band optical compressor
for HF transmit purposes. Even bought a few Vactrols for control
elements. I like the idea of the gain reduction being simply the
result of a light-coupled variable resistive attenuator -- very
clean. I'd use Linkwitz-Riley crossover filters to separate the
bands, as they have no summing peaks, unlike most bandsplitters.
Might be fun.
With my best,
Kevin, WB4AIO.
--
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/
D. Peter Maus
> D. Peter Maus wrote:
> [...]
>>
>>
>> If you're going to follow a compressor, even a multiband, with a
>> limiter, you don't want the compressor to be too fast on release.
>> They'll tend to fight with each other. Expecially a PR&E Multimax is
>> plenty fast from the factory, but not so fast it will compete with the
>> following limiter producing some very unpleasant audio artifacts.
>
>
>
> Well, the high band in the Multimax (which I modified for HF to be about
> 2000 Hz to 5500 Hz) would heavily compress if I hit a strong sibilant,
> as I tend to do sometimes. And it would release so slowly that for a
> second or two all the presence would be gone from the audio. Clearly too
> slow for my application.
>
> So I sped up the release time of the high band to about a third of
> stock. It sounded much better and was still a slower release than a
> typical multiband processor.
>
> I liked the Multimax. Smooth, super-clean, and "larger than life" at the
> same time.
>
I worked one at a radio station some years ago. Nice. But, then, to
control sibilants, we ran a de-esser. Orban, actually. That allowed for
that larger than life sound, without being so fast that it created
conflicts with the brickwall limiter.
The optical compressor is used in Urei LA-4's. Very nice RMS gain
reduction, which eliminated pumping. But not as tightly controlled by a
peak-riding control loop. And not free of artifacts. But, that can be
controlled by applying a light touch. And a de-esser after.
Our engineer built his own multiband, as you suggest, by splitting
the audio into three bands, and controlling each with an LA-4. Sounded
REALLY big.
Use a gentle slope at the crossover points to minimize phase errors,
and to prevent holes at the crossover which can be substantially audible
at gain reductions exceeding 10db. Minor errors will be more or less
inaudible if no further spectal separation follows your multiband. A
gentler crossover allows a more natural sound by eliminating the hard
crossover which causes sharp difference in the way each band of spectra
are processed.
But, over all, your thinking is sound.
RHF
wrote:
> "Bob Dobbs" <chupaca...@operamail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4c861aa4.11844859@chupacabra...
>
> > dave wrote:
> >> We need some kind
> >>of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.
>
> > Why would anyone need some kind of working radio
> > to tune in all those stations (radios themselves) that won't be working?
> > Sort of a paradox, eh?
> > ...or is it only receivers that will mysteriously stop working?
>
> > If enough of me survives any 'great collapse'
> > to be able to listen to something, I bet my radios will too.
>
limited
- power, likely no more than a couple hundred watts (the max power
output of a
- common ham mobile rig that can be run from 12V battery power),
- since it would be likely that no
- commercial power would be available.
BAD yes very likely . . .
I such times with nothing on the Air-Waves
a few Watts could go a long way . . .
A One to Ten Watt Community Radio Station
getting it's Electrical Power from a Waterwheel
Driven [Stream Power] based Electrical Generator
in an all-year-long flowing Creek may be the Voice
of 'Community Hope' in a Dark World of Despair.
(OT) : After 'The Great Collapse' ?
What Will You Listen To . . . On the Radio ?
Will good old AM & FM Radio Stations :
Still Be On-the-Air ?
Better get me one of these Solar Panels to Charge
my 12V 7AH Battery for the Grundig Satellit 800-M
Radio : 12 Volts 750 mA Solar Panel
http://www.global-merchants.com/home/tgm750.htm
The there is the "AA" Batteries in the other Radios.
Solar Powered Battery Charger AAA~D
http://www.ccrane.com/more-categories/batteries-chargers/solar-powered-battery-charger.aspx
Maybe the CCRadio Plus Solar {Power} Kit can
be 'adapted' to power the CCRadio-SW Radio
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-radios/ccradio-plus/ccradio-plus-solar-kit.aspx
CCRadio-SW Radio -aka- Redsun RP-2100
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/shortwave-radios/ccradio-sw.aspx
Etón 'Solar-Link' FR500 AM/FM Shortwave Radio
49m, 41m, 31m 25m looks like it could be useful.
http://www.etoncorp.com/product_card/?p_ProductDbId=517804
NOTE - Saw one of these today when I was
down the grade at the Sonora, CA RadioShack
Store to buy some Radio Parts
-also- Kaito KA500 Voyager AM/FM Shortwave Radio
covers : SW1: 3.2~9 MHz & SW2: 9~22 MHz
http://www.kaitousa.com/KA500.htm
Now for Powering a small Low-Power Community
AM -or- FM Radio Station one of these would be
a step in the right direction. "My Solar Back-Up"
could easily be 'Your Back-Bone' for 6AM~10PM
http://www.mysolarbackup.com/1800specs.html
Daily Broadcasting at 100 Watts and 10 Watts
http://www.mysolarbackup.com/playvideo.html
from 10PM~6AM.
. . . Yes when the 'Great Collapse' happens;
you just may hear . . .
This is "Radio RHF" from the Free & Independent
Republic of California . . .
CAN YOU HEAR ME OUT THERE !?! ;;-}} ~ RHF
.
.
RHF
> RHFwrote:
> >On Sep 7, 4:06 am, Bob Dobbs <chupaca...@operamail.com> wrote:
> >> dave wrote:
> >> > We need some kind
> >> >of radio that'll work after the Great Collapse.
>
> >> Why would anyone need some kind of working radio
> >> to tune in all those stations (radios themselves) that won't be working?
> >> Sort of a paradox, eh?
> >> ...or is it only receivers that will mysteriously stop working?
>
> >> If enough of me survives any 'great collapse'
> >> to be able to listen to something, I bet my radios will too.
>
> >> --
>
> >> Operator Bob
> >> Echo Charlie 42
>
> >Sort of like a Farmer in the 1920s who bought a
> >"Farm Radio"; and when his Son asked him 'why'
> >the Farmer replied 'why' Son some day we will
> >have elect-tric-city just like your Uncle in the City.
> >http://everything2.com/title/Farm+radio
>
> yet I seem to remember a 67v one too
> like my uncles used to menace me with.
- We had a long wire antenna running out the window to a walnut tree,
- always got disconnected during lightning storms
- and the end placed in a mason jar for insulation.
Was it 'filled' with "White Lightning" after the storm :oP
>
> >Actually so-called "Farm Radios" were usually
> >powered by Batteries and some/many Farms
> >had their own Electrical Generating Systems.
> >http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe20s/life_18.htm
>
- They also talked about kerosene lanterns,
- which we called 'coal oil'.
-wrt- 'Coal Oil Johnny'
> >Note - Back then you could not go off-the-grid . . .
> >-cause- There WasNoGrid [.]
>
> I didn't come on the scene until the early forties
> and in town there was a grid of sorts.
> Even a telephone system (number please)
RHF
.
DigitalRadioScams,
{Reply to another 'Free' Over-the-Air Radio SLAM}
.
IBOC : iBiquity and FCC Lawsuits :
A Conspiracy to Commit Legal Laughter !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/830c0212c62b1cb7
.
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
.
.
.
On Sep 1, 2:07 pm, none <sidwellfrie...@aol.com> wrote:
> "HD Radio Not High Definition"
>
> "Despite iBiquity’s claims of improved sound quality and transmission,
> there have been numerous complaints about HD Radio from not only the
> radio industry but also consumers... Automakers are aware of the
> complaints associated with HD Radio. For example, in 2007, BMW
> released a Service Information Bulletin describing the problems
> associated with HD Radio, but noted that there was no retrofit kit or
> procedure available. The attorneys at Keefe Bartels are continuing
> their investigation into HD Radio and whether consumers are being
> forced to purchase technology that does not work as claimed. If you
> have experienced problems with your factory-installed HD radio
> receiver, we are interested in speaking to you."
>
> http://www.keefebartels.com/CM/HotTopicsandAlerts/HotTopicsandAlerts1...
>
> "HD Car Radio Investigation"
>
> "Consumer statutes and laws protect the purchasers of various products
> such as HD car radios. A party may be legally liable for statements,
> omissions or misrepresentations of material facts that should have
> been know to be false or misleading and promoted the sale of the
> product. Such laws protect innocent consumers from unlawful and
> deceptive practices. The victims of questionable business practices by
> parties such automobile manufacturers are the consumers who purchase
> or lease cars with HD car radios at significantly increased costs when
> these devices fail to function as they are represented to work. As
> news develops and the investigation proceeds, Keefe Bartels, LLC will
> carefully monitor events and research all relevant laws."
>
> http://www.keefebartels.com/CM/Custom/HD-Car-Radio-Investigation.asp
>
> YOU ARE FUCKED, STRUBLE!!!!!!!
> LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!