David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Which raises questions about why, if HD is going to be the saviour of
the AM band, there hasn't been as much promotion of HD on the low band as
there has been on FM.

The problem is that, with or without HD, there are only a couple of viable
AMs per market, if you average the top 100 or so markets. Some have none,
like DC. To the non-viable stations, HD is probably of no interest...
brokerd shows, ethnic fringes and religion are the alternatives.




Here, about halfway between Milwaukee and Chicago, there are a
number of successful, if not thriving, AM's. Of them, most are using HD,
judging by the hash. And yet, I've only heard WGN mention it. WGN being
the latecomer.

If there is going to be a push for HD and a significant investment on
the part of each station, why isn't it being promoted as heavily on
those AM stations using it, as it is on the FMs?

That was a good deal of the problem with AM stereo. That, and the
lack of a standard for AM stereo implementation. If it's on the air
creating trash, why isn't it being promoted for it's advantages to
encourage listeners to migrate from the analogue side where the trash is
an issue, to the digital side where it's not, and the claimed benefits
of AM HD are demonstrable?

Spend that kind of money and take that kind of risk, it makes no
sense not to motivate listeners to take advantage of what you're doing.




Two additional questions: if 2.0 spec receivers are on their way to
retail, how will we know them from the 1.x spec receivers, since retailers
are going to be disinclined to identify obsoleted inventory themselves.

There are only a couple of 1.0 radios out there... the infamous "disco
lights" car radio and the BA and one or two others. They will probably be
retired... I understand the BA was redesigned, using the new spec.
What, specifically, are the differences, improvements, and advantages
of 2.0 over the previous generation of HD radios?

Lowered manufacturing cost is the main one, but there are some features
related to the HD 2 selection and the data screen and sensitivity to the
digital signal, as well as improvements to the basic algorithm on the
receiver side.

There is still not an efficient chipset that will allow portable devices
that run on batteries. That is a major concern, but being worked on.


One would think that if DELPHI and JVC can put together a portable
satellite receiver, with decent battery life, they could do the same
with IBOC equipped receivers in a similar sized package.


Make no mistake, portable satellite receivers get good and warm,
indicating some serious current draw, not unlike the first and second
generations of digital cameras, but they do work, and battery life is
pretty solid.