Eddie Haskel wrote:
I whole-heartedly agree with you on your findings "Umarc". It really has
nothing to offer the local **FM** listener. HOWEVER....in the Southern
California market it would kick ass on the "AM" market with a vengence.A lot
of the local AM outlets have sold out to the hispanic market because AM
radio sounds so bad for music.Considering how much better AM IBOC sounds
than analog, and the fact that the mexican government thinks it's cool to
fire up 10Khz away from US stations..IBOC is just what the renagade
beaner-blasters deserve.

My limited experience with AM IBOC is that it seems to sound worse than
the better quality AM analogue signals, and of course it makes it impossible
to put out a wideband analogue signal. It's also going to be much more
subject to adjacent channel interference from Mexico.

I wish I could say IBOC would be the saviour of AM, because AM certainly
could use one. I could at least believe IBOC will result in better quality
sound for the average listener on a cheap car radio listening in the daytime,
and you can argue that this is where the profit is.

I would like to see such stations like KNX,KFWB,KFI,KABC-AM (and some of the
San Diego stations) push the IBOC music service, the data services and
re-claim the 535-1710Khz band for use in the US of A.......Eddie

I'd be interested to see them try. And I will say that stations that try
IBOC are forced to clean up their antenna system and deal with group delay
problems, which will certainly benefit them if they should decide to move
back to wideband analogue operation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 21 Mar 2004 06:01:55 GMT, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I wish I could say IBOC would be the saviour of AM, because AM certainly
could use one. I could at least believe IBOC will result in better quality
sound for the average listener on a cheap car radio listening in the daytime,
and you can argue that this is where the profit is.

Unfortunately, in my observation, IBOC degrades the analog signal
noticeably, even on a narrowband car radio.. The problem with AM IBOC
is not only the quality of the digital sound (yes, I know, there's
supposed to be a new codec that's better, but I've never heard AM IBOC
that sounded anything but terrible). It also degrades the listening
experience for everyone listening in analog, which for the foreseeable
future means everyone, period.

There is also a serious adjacent-channel interference problem which
does affect stations outside the coverage area of an AM station
transmitting IBOC. That is why it is not permitted at night, but the
problem also exists with daytime operation.


I would like to see such stations like KNX,KFWB,KFI,KABC-AM (and some of the
San Diego stations) push the IBOC music service, the data services and
re-claim the 535-1710Khz band for use in the US of A.......Eddie

IBOC may be a step to eliminating AM as an aural service, with the
allocations eventually used only for datacasting. Whether or not that
is the plan, it is the likely result. IMHO, IBOC will assure the end
of AM radio as we know it. Why anyone in the broadcasting industry
supports it as the "savior of AM" is utterly beyond my comprehension.
I find every argument advanced for it to be fallacious. If this is
what's supposed to save AM, then AM can't, and maybe shouldn't, be
saved.

Mark Howell

Mark Howell had written:
|
| IBOC may be a step to eliminating AM as an aural service, with the
| allocations eventually used only for datacasting. Whether or not that
| is the plan, it is the likely result. IMHO, IBOC will assure the end
| of AM radio as we know it. Why anyone in the broadcasting industry
| supports it as the "savior of AM" is utterly beyond my comprehension.
| I find every argument advanced for it to be fallacious. If this is
| what's supposed to save AM, then AM can't, and maybe shouldn't, be
| saved.
|
I would think that the "savior of AM" would be to provide
programming that people would want to listen to and that can be
received well in most of one's home market.

But aside from that, the FCC needs to do a little "birth control" --
or, more precisely, "euthanasia" -- by deleting operations who
facilities are clearly too marginal to provide aural service to a
majority of any given station's market area. The FCC, obviously,
would rather not crack this particular nut -- it's easier to focus
on boobies than it is on nuts-and-bolts infrastructure -- and has
backed off the few cases where it has tried to reduce interference
on the dial: for example, how many stations that "moved" to the
expanded band actually have given up their previous facilities? Not many.

--
"You're about to see a great sunset if you're in the right place."
-- KCBS morning traffic anchor, 6.58 am, February 9, 2004

"Mark Roberts" wrote in message
...
Mark Howell had written:
|
| IBOC may be a step to eliminating AM as an aural service, with the
| allocations eventually used only for datacasting. Whether or not that
| is the plan, it is the likely result. IMHO, IBOC will assure the end
| of AM radio as we know it. Why anyone in the broadcasting industry
| supports it as the "savior of AM" is utterly beyond my comprehension.
| I find every argument advanced for it to be fallacious. If this is
| what's supposed to save AM, then AM can't, and maybe shouldn't, be
| saved.

AM-Stereo, a previous savior, didn't kill AM, so now we have IBOC.

I would think that the "savior of AM" would be to provide
programming that people would want to listen to and that can be
received well in most of one's home market.

But aside from that, the FCC needs to do a little "birth control" --
or, more precisely, "euthanasia" -- by deleting operations who
facilities are clearly too marginal to provide aural service to a
majority of any given station's market area. The FCC, obviously,
would rather not crack this particular nut -- it's easier to focus
on boobies than it is on nuts-and-bolts infrastructure -- and has
backed off the few cases where it has tried to reduce interference
on the dial: for example, how many stations that "moved" to the
expanded band actually have given up their previous facilities? Not many.

No, the FCC has a better solution - the recently-closed window which
gathered over 1500 applications for new stations and major changes.

I recall years ago there was an effort to make it easier to buy and turn off
stations. The dreamers said that this would drive up the price of
stations - making them out of reach of new minority owners. The "big boys"
quickly figured that (already owning the big stations) they'd rather split
the ad pie with lots of struggling little stations that didn't have enough
ad income to compete, rather than a smaller number of stations each of which
got enough of the pie to be "dangerous". So the big station owners sided
with the dreamers and we have more and more uneconomic stations interfering
with each other.

I know of one x-band station that gave up its old channel. Since they also
have FM I wonder how long before they turn in the x-band license. Maybe the
PC in the closet which runs the AM doesn't cost enough to matter. Going
from 3 towers to one must save money.