On Sep 3, 3:55?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

oups.com...



The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage isn't
even 50% that of analogs !

Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen plenty of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.

"A Station Owner's View of HD Radio Industry"

"We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be
equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding
out this is not the case, that the HD coverage is considerably less,
something like 60% of the analog coverage. We've also found that even
in a strong HD signal area, a dipole antenna is required. We were also
told that the HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel
signals. That also appears not to be the case. This is really very
discouraging and is leading us to wonder why we should bother to
promote HD. To do so will only disappoint, and, perhaps, antagonize a
significant segment of the audience who finds that the system doesn't
deliver."

http://www.audiographics.com/agd/061206-1.htm