On Jul 27, 7:36?pm, RHF wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:31 pm, Telamon





wrote:
In article ,
Ron Hardin wrote:

I liked the AM-on-FM-subchannel feature, which allowed me to hear
a so-called local Imus affiliate finally. I see no point in
additional FM channels for music though. It's the same junk as
the regular FM.

And of course Imus is gone now, so that edge is gone.

AMHD radiois annoying even when it works ; like vinyl records,
AM has a pleasing sound on its own, and this just destroys that
slight advantage. In addition, it drops in and out of HD when
a thunderstorm goes through, which is beyond annoying and you have
to search for a station carrying the same program without HD.

Then there's the HD hash, but that's been discussed to death. I'm
just talking now about HD when you're listening to the HD station.

Keep the FM subchannels, throw out the rest.

HD and DRM may be different technically but share commonalities in how
they degrade in less than perfect conditions. Both systems do not have
enough margin built in to make them an actual improvement over analog.
The almost endless BS by some posters and economic interests has been
hard to take. These systems do not use enough bandwidth to actually have
improved sound. These systems do not have enough redundancy to have
adequate weak signal or interference protection. HD and DRM sound
quality and reliability just plain suck.

I posted this years ago that these systems do not fit the medium in that
they do not transfer information in a more reliable manner that analog.
There is no improvement using HD or DRM over analog as a result.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Telamon,

Are you comments directed specifically at the
AM/MW Band and the Shortwave Bands ? ?

It would seem that FM "HD" Radiousing IBOC
does work better than Analog and offer some
improvements in sound quality plus the 2nd
Subchannel can be used effectively.

~ RHF
.
.
. .- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"HD Radio Marketing: Change is Coming"

"The date is no surprise. It was a 2-year deal. It ends in January.I
agree it's time to re-assess. The problem with the licensing plan is
two very different groups with different agendas pay the fee. Which is
why neither is happy. Broadcasters pay for the encoder, and they're
not happy with the radios, and electronics manufacturers pay for the
decoder, and they're not happy with anything. They see no demand, and
therefore, no return on their investment.I think the best bet is for
everyone to walk away at the end of this deal, and leave iBiquity to
think about what went wrong."

"Maybe the date is no surprise to you, George. But the lack of renewal
of that deal for a later date might be a surprise to some."

http://www.hear2.com/2007/07/hd-radi....html#comments

"HD Radio - what's the holdup?"

"The way I see it, there are at least two very large barriers standing
in the way... The lack of subsidies, however, has really made it
difficult for iBiquity to move things along. Moreover, the slow
adoption rate has kept the company's operating expense burn rate high,
which has in turn delayed investors' payoff. If the burn rate is high
enough and the rate of adoption is slow enough, well, let's just say
that's not a good thing."

http://www.news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9750405-7.html

"Finally, A Good Use for HD Radio"

"That's why I was happy to hear that even the folks at iBiquity are
looking at other options. They have to."

http://www.insidemusicmedia.blogspot...-hd-radio.html

Oh well - Ha! Ha!