In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

om.
..

Finally, an answer that makes sense. DxAce broke the code.

Aren't you the guy who posted that HD carriers are _not_ only 1% of
the
analog signal strength?

Continue posting false data...

No I'm not the person that posted that. Continue to fabricate.


Here is your post, in response to my quantification of HD power levels...
I
said it was 1% of analog power and you said that did not pass your test.
Care to retract?

No you posted that HD has a power level 1% of analog. Look at the
quoting those are not my words. So do you care to retract your
accusation?

HD _does_ have 1% of th epower level of analog. You said that statement did
not pass your "smell test" (whatever that means) and compared my statement
to the supposed hyperbole of DRM (which is not an IBOC system).

The smell test is the same arguments that DRM is better than analog is
being used by you for HD. Less power and yet better sound and coverage.
This is a load of crap. There is nothing magical about a digital
modulation scheme that can cause it to perform better than a analog
scheme.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California