On Sep 2, 10:20 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...



You have no credibility in the news group. A well known Troll is all
that you are. Your own posts O' crap have marginalized you and since you
have proven you are full of BS beyond a reasonable doubt, nobody cares
what you post.

Credibility is determined by stating the facts, whether these be popular or
not.

Umm...I think this was his point.


If DXers to some extent do not want to believe the current reality of MW
radio in the US and the world because it changes the expectations for DX
reception, that is not the fault of the messenger.

Don't accuse DXers of not having a grip on reality. You're the one
putting bandaids on headless corpses.


The simple facts are that HD is being widely deployed, and on AM will be on
most of the viable AMs in the top 100 markets... about 200 to 250 stations.
"Viable" is defined by industry authorities like BIA as having a day and
night signal that covers the entire metro with a usable signal. There are
very few of these stations.

This would be nice if it were relevant to anything.


The DXer considers a station based on being able to receive it. An average
listener only tunes in very good signals... ones that are pretty much
impervious to interference and other distractions. In metros, that means a
signal of about 10 mv/m is needed to get any audience, and in some metros,
over 12 mv/m and up to 15 mv/m are needed to get listenership... all this is
proven by extensive studies of the listening locations of US radio stations
for at-home and at-work listening in Arbitron. The conclusion is very
obvious: stations that sacrifice any potential out-of-metro listening to go
HD are really sacrificing nothing, as such listenership is close to
non-existent.

This isn't relevant to anything.


When we get to skywave reception, and look at the ratings in every county of
the US, there is not enough skywave listening for stations to show up in the
ratings on this night-signal skip anywhere. AM listening is less than 20% of
all radio listening, and AM listening is even a lower percentage at night
(because most signal areas contract). In general, night radio listening is
about 25% of daytime levels, so low-use AM and general listening at night
make the interest in reaching outside one's own market just about zero.

Not relevant.


DXing as a hobby depends on having stations to DX. If AM is dying to begin
with (75% of listeners are over 55, the rest are approaching that age where
no advertiser will tread), and few AMs actually can compete with FM and new
media (based on having a decent enough signal), objecting to a plan that
might just help AM... and is the only idea around that might do this...
seems absurd.


Not relevant.

As I have said before, I really wonder about the fact that nearly no poster
has reflected on the DX opportunities of HD signals... but many are busy
criticising HD... to the extent that one poster fabricated the "gag order"
(which does not exist) out of old development-era nondisclosure agreements.
Now that certainly enhances on the DX side of the argument the credibility
you so desparately seem to value; having failed to invalidate HD with the
truth, totally groundless claims are now being invented and the lie and the
out of context quote are the stock in trade of these posters.

If MW is indeed dying, HD will only hasten its demise. So, why should
anyone care about DXing HD signals?