"Frank Dresser" wrote
| AM IBOC has been around for a year or two, and it's still something of a
| novelty. It doesn't seem to be taking off as quickly as AM Stereo, and
| there aren't many receivers available, yet.

I've read the "pro and con" editorials in Radio World and some of the
other trade rags, but every single editorialist misses the following point:

Sound quality is not the problem. PROGRAMMING is the problem.
We probably shouldn't rely on anecdotal evidence, but everyone I know
will put up with natural and manmade noise to hear their favorite shows.

Come to think of it, there's no evidence that DRM or IBOC have anything
close to a robust noise - fighting system. I imagine a good thunderstorm
will cause dropped packets and receiver muting.

Another problem is multiple layering of compression and expansion
codec schemes. Has anyone listened to a (usually) decent - quality
AM plant that is transmitting supercompressed talk show audio
at a bandwidth of 5 KHZ with a low, low, low bitrate? Something
along the lines of 8 to 16 KHz bitrate? That fact alone puts the lie
to the digital pushers' rants about "Audio quality."

To an extent, the mediumwave band's physical attributes will play
a role - groundwave and skywave mixing at night, phase shifting,
etc., and FWIW, I don't think the "Crossed-Field Antenna" will
fix a damned thing. I am good friends with a Kansas broadcast
engineer who thought up a crossed field antenna concept in college
back in the Fifties. In his own words, "I discarded the idea as
sophomoric, fantastic, and unworkable." The search for a high -
tech whizbang, bells-and-whistles cure will not yield the hoped-for
results.

So, what should be done with AM? Roll back NRSC. Give us
10 KHz - wide audio (at least), and get rid of the aerobeacons on
longwave, and turn the longwave band over to broadcasting. Just
a thought, anyway...that would certainly ield better coverage area.

The comparison to AM Stereo is, at any rate, right on the mark, and the
NAB is making the same mistake in their enthusiasm for sound quality
that they made in the Eighties, namely, that sound quality is a secondary
or tertiary consideration, and sound quality does take a backseat to
program content every time. Until that issue is addressed, the change
that the digital vendors lust for will never happen.

Speaking of "change," I think that's the primary motivation for the
hype.

Oh, well, at least the B.S. marketing type$ (aka "Liars") will have
something to shill for.

73,

Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota

(NOTE: My email address has only one "dot."
You'll have to edit out the one between the "7"
and the "3" in my email address if you wish to
reply via email)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/04