In article ,
Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Gegroet,

Telamon schreef:
Oeps. I am a bit behind scedule replying to this one.
No problem.

OK. I'll take your message first this time.

Snip

You are not taking my message the first or last time. You just want to
argue non points.

Here is the message, DRM has no real advantage over analog as
implemented.

Saying that "if" this or that was changed then it would be better makes
no difference because it does not exist.

Saying that DRM can have all its benefits and advantages but that you
must compare it to an analog radio without features like sync detection
is just stacking the deck in favor of your non argument.

On air broadcast of time and frequency information on a really low bit
rate channel in poor conditions will not work at all so when you need it
the most it won't work.

If you don't want to, and it's clear that you don't, want to discuss
this factually then that's your problem to deal with.

Wait, are you telling me that a good DRM-signal in 10 Khz sounds (e.g.
in stereo) sounds worse then the same signal in AM?

Yeah, I'm telling you that DRM in 10 KHz the sound quality sucks.

Do you have audio-samples to support this claim?

Yes, on the DRM web site. They have example of strong and weak signal
DRM reception and compare it to analog. I've written this for the third
and last time. Here is another thing I'm writing for the last time and
that's low bit rate audio sound sucks whether the source is a DRM
broadcast, streamed from the Internet or a recording.

Digital signals don't belong in the analog AM broadcast band where they
occupy at least three channels. I don't want them there and most people
don't want those transmission there either.

Your desire to be a sucker for DRM is a personal problem as I see it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California