|
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message . .. 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? In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .. . Nope, it is a fraction of the power. A 50 kw AM uses a 500 watt HD signal on the same frequency This is pure baloney. Same crapola the DRM crowd tried to pass off on the general public. Check the technical specs. We are installing a new Nautel RX 50, which does 50 kw analog and 500 watts digital on AM. In Band On Channel has 1/100th of the analog signal in the digital mode. I have checked the specs. It does not even pass the smell test. Like I stated previously the DRM consortium tried the same hyperbole, which failed. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message . .. 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). |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message . .. 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. Nope... you said that was not true, and compared it again, irrelevantly, to DRM. What I stated is true. You are propagating that same BS about HD that was and is being propagated by the DRM consortium. It is the same argument about a digital modulation scheme being better than analog. It is complete BS. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message . .. 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. Nope... you said that was not true, and compared it again, irrelevantly, to DRM. What I stated is true. You are propagating that same BS about HD that was and is being propagated by the DRM consortium. It is the same argument about a digital modulation scheme being better than analog. It is complete BS. All I said was that the digital carrier is 1% (or 1/100th) of the analog carrier power. You said such a statement did not pass the "smell test" even though it is part of the FCC authorization of HD. |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
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 |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
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. Nope... you said that was not true, and compared it again, irrelevantly, to DRM. What I stated is true. You are propagating that same BS about HD that was and is being propagated by the DRM consortium. It is the same argument about a digital modulation scheme being better than analog. It is complete BS. All I said was that the digital carrier is 1% (or 1/100th) of the analog carrier power. You said such a statement did not pass the "smell test" even though it is part of the FCC authorization of HD. That's right David, you posted that the HD carrier is 1% of analog not me. I'm glad you got that straight. Apology accepted. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message ... 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. Sez you. In real world testing, the HD signal is usable beyond the 64 dbu signal of an FM... the analog point beyond which very little listening happens. And it is usable on AM beyond the 10 mv/m contour of KTNQ, station for which we consider a 15 mv/m signal to be the minimum usable strength based on observation and ratings diary returns. |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... 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. Sez you. In real world testing, the HD signal is usable beyond the 64 dbu signal of an FM... the analog point beyond which very little listening happens. And it is usable on AM beyond the 10 mv/m contour of KTNQ, station for which we consider a 15 mv/m signal to be the minimum usable strength based on observation and ratings diary returns. Yes sez me. The real world does not stack a situation in favor of a persons argument. It all boils down to power and bandwidth controlling the amount of information transmitted from one place to another. The argument that a digital mode being better in this regard is pure BS, whether one is speaking of DRM or HD. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... 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. Sez you. In real world testing, the HD signal is usable beyond the 64 dbu signal of an FM... the analog point beyond which very little listening happens. And it is usable on AM beyond the 10 mv/m contour of KTNQ, station for which we consider a 15 mv/m signal to be the minimum usable strength based on observation and ratings diary returns. Yes sez me. The real world does not stack a situation in favor of a persons argument. It all boils down to power and bandwidth controlling the amount of information transmitted from one place to another. The argument that a digital mode being better in this regard is pure BS, whether one is speaking of DRM or HD. Get an HD radio and drive around LA. What you are saying is just not supposition, it is fact. Every engineer in LA has had similar experiences, which explains why nearly every LA station is on in HD. What is fact is that the European digital transmitters, and the Canadian ones, too, operate with a small fraction of the power of 100 kw FMs and 50 kw AMs in the same markets, and compete favorably on useful coverage... at levels between 1/50th and 1/100th of the power levels of the analog stations (Canada used 100 watts on a bout 1.5 GHz). |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message . .. 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. Sez you. In real world testing, the HD signal is usable beyond the 64 dbu signal of an FM... the analog point beyond which very little listening happens. And it is usable on AM beyond the 10 mv/m contour of KTNQ, station for which we consider a 15 mv/m signal to be the minimum usable strength based on observation and ratings diary returns. Yes sez me. The real world does not stack a situation in favor of a persons argument. It all boils down to power and bandwidth controlling the amount of information transmitted from one place to another. The argument that a digital mode being better in this regard is pure BS, whether one is speaking of DRM or HD. Get an HD radio and drive around LA. What you are saying is just not supposition, it is fact. Every engineer in LA has had similar experiences, which explains why nearly every LA station is on in HD. What is fact is that the European digital transmitters, and the Canadian ones, too, operate with a small fraction of the power of 100 kw FMs and 50 kw AMs in the same markets, and compete favorably on useful coverage... at levels between 1/50th and 1/100th of the power levels of the analog stations (Canada used 100 watts on a bout 1.5 GHz). I don't need to get an HD radio and drive around LA. This is just plain physics. Information transmitted is determined by the amount of power and bandwidth applied to a signal. You can not have a more reliable transmittal of a signal on less power and bandwidth. Do you get the picture? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com