In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...
In article , "Pete
KE9OA" wrote:

Snip

There is no excuse for the junk that IBOC puts out on the
sidebands. It is a poor excuse of a system. On my current job, we
are designing the next generation of VHF/UHF land mobile
equipment. One of the measurements I make are ACCP (adjacent
channel couple power). It has to be well below a level that could
interfere with adjacent channel users. Apparently, either the IBOC
folks never heard of a vector signal analyzer, don't know how to
use it, or they just didn't care when they launched their inferior
system.

It is a bad way to go to trash the existing broadcast system in
order to introduce another new system. They should have used
another band or segregated the existing band. I don't think much of
the IBOC in any event. If you are going to trash all the existing
radios out there in the world I would want a better payoff in new
technology than what IBOC represents.

Existing radios are 100% compatible, on both FM and AM.

The way AM and FM are listened to today, there is no loss by adding
HD as an alternative to analog.

Sorry David, IBOC is compatible, but not 100%, as the analog sidebands
are limited and adjacent channels have interference by the digital
sidebands. Some people including myself do not agree that the existing
level of compatibility is acceptable. If it was 100% nobody would be
complaining about it. You have well explained the radio
station/marketing perspective on this but that does not change the
listening experience, which has limitations placed on it by IBOC over
the existing long time analog transmission scheme.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California