|
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
dxAce wrote: Mike wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Mike wrote: "dxAce" wrote in message ... Sacrificing CHOICE and creating QRM. Such a deal! "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - Spock, "Wrath of Kahn" "Damn, quoting some fictional character from a fictional movie lends real credence to your argument" - dxAce, "rec.radio.shortwave" Yes, it does, considering the truth of the quote. Then by all means continue living in your fictional, comic book like fantasy world like Edweenie does. Absolutely hilarious. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
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
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .com... In article , "Mike" wrote: "Guerite©" wrote in message ... In any case, HD sounds far better than any analog signal. HD radio stations will abandon analog and redirect the full station power of their amplifiers towards the HD digital stream. Indeed. I just checked at www.hdradio.com. I had no idea there were so many HD FM stations in my city (6). All have a 2nd channel also, so this makes 6 new stations in my city! I'll certainly be getting a HD radio this year, and I don't understand all the opposition to it in this group. Is it just a case of old farts/curmudgeons opposing something new? I *really* don't understand the idea of clinging to what is essentially 100 year old technology - analog radio. Are some of you lamenting the death of incandescent light bulbs also? HD radio will happen much like HD TV did. Prices will drop until Critical Mass is reached, then it will take over. Once you see HD TV, you realize how bad the old system was. It trashes my reception. Is that so hard to understand? Does it trash any station in your market area in its primary coverage area? Even the FCC understands that we are going to sacrifice fringe, non-protected non-primary reception for the opportunity to preserve free terrestrial radio. Well OK. I understand it, you understand it, the FCC understands it so why is this abortion going on? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article , "Mike"
wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... It trashes my reception. Is that so hard to understand? So upgrade to a digital receiver. That's what I'm gonna do. Besides, HD AM may never take off, for many reasons. Some are obvious and some are more subtle. But HD FM is a great idea. First off I do not consider buying an HD radio an "upgrade". I consider it paying more money for another radio that gets what I have now with analog. Second HD radio trashes my analog reception. Third is the reason you gave, which is it will fail and I will end up with a worthless HD radio. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"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... |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message ... 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. HD signals are 1% of the power of the licensed AM or FM analog signal. Period. |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
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. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... 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. HD signals are 1% of the power of the licensed AM or FM analog signal. Period. Ok, if you are the person that posted that "HD signals are 1% of the power of the licensed AM or FM analog signal" then why accuse me of posting it? -- 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 ... 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. |
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 ... 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? 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
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 |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"Brenda Ann" 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. -- Telamon Ventura, California Let's talk for just a moment about that OTHER DRM.. Digital Rights Management.. the one that is going to prevent you from recording digitally from digital sources such as HD radio and DTV. That alone will keep me from ever having either of those devices in my home. I'm sick and dog tired of the government, RIAA, MPAA and other critters of their ilk micromanaging what I do in my own home with devices I have paid for, and programming that is paid for by advertisement to the masses. Way back when, the courts held that there was such a thing as 'fair use'... now here in the 'digital age', fair use has gone down the chute. Someone kindly tell me when the courts are once again going to stand for the rights of the PEOPLE instead of the rights of big business. It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what the receiver can do with the decoded information. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message news:telamon_spamshield- 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? No, because the limiting factor on analog is, in most cases, noise. The digital system itself has better system specs, and the reception systems can make use of a much weaker digital signal than they can an analog one. |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message news:telamon_spamshield- It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what the receiver can do with the decoded information. I hear a black helicopter approaching. |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and TalkStations
David Eduardo wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message news:telamon_spamshield- It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what the receiver can do with the decoded information. I hear a black helicopter approaching. More than likely it's the 'Mother Ship' coming to pick your fake Hispanic ass up. |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and TalkStations
David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message news:telamon_spamshield- It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what the receiver can do with the decoded information. I hear a black helicopter approaching. You need to have a conversation with Brother Mel....Before he left for Sirius, Karmazin spoke specifically about the benefits of digital transmission/reception to the broadcaster. The two main points of which are 1) subscription radio/TV, and 2) Control of quality. When he spoke of control of quality, he explained that by limiting the audio/video quality to levels that are widely accepted by the viewer/listener, small amounts of bandwidth could be stolen from baseband and supplemental channels to provide additional subscription funded programming alternatives. When specifically pressed on the issue of HDTV, Karmazin insisted that digital transmission would be all that's necessary to dramatically improve perception of video quality and that resolution could be held to current NTSC standards. Absent noise and ghosting, the public wouldn't know the difference, and would marvel at the improvement. This single strategy would leave enough bandwidth to permit two more programming channels per HDTV channel of equivalent quality. He went on to say that all baseband and supplementary channels would be advertising supported, even those subscription funded, and that eventually, all broadcast TV would be subscription funded. This would be necessary to keep programming on the air, in the light of the continuing fragmentation of the advertising base. When asked, by a colleague at a breakfast at the 95th in Chicago, about HD radio, Karmazin said the same strategy would apply. Hot on the heels of Karmazin's announcements, both cable and broadcast networks released announcments echoing Karmazin's statement. So, what Telamon is saying is not Art Bell worthy, but comes from some of the top executives in Broadcast. |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and TalkSt...
Telamon on a roll today.I Respect Telamon though,the dude is cool.
cuhulin |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and TalkSt...
Don't never let nothing get you down.Woody Guthrie.Pampa,Texas,1936.
cuhulin |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message news:telamon_spamshield- It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what the receiver can do with the decoded information. I hear a black helicopter approaching. Excuse me? What did you do to attract the men in black? You may not want to hear it but that is a fact. HD can implement DRM, which here is digital rights management. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message news:telamon_spamshield- 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? No, because the limiting factor on analog is, in most cases, noise. The digital system itself has better system specs, and the reception systems can make use of a much weaker digital signal than they can an analog one. You can say no all you want. What I stated is the basic principles of information transmission. Go look it up. Too bad if you don't like it. Noise lowers the dynamic range available for digital and analog transmissions. Too bad if you don't want to hear that either because that is the way the ball bounces. People that do not know what they are talking about may think otherwise but that does not change reality for them or the rest of us. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message
... So upgrade to a digital receiver. That's what I'm gonna do. Besides, HD AM may never take off, for many reasons. Some are obvious and some are more subtle. But HD FM is a great idea. First off I do not consider buying an HD radio an "upgrade". I consider it paying more money for another radio that gets what I have now with analog. Except that it gets channels you can't get with analog only. Second HD radio trashes my analog reception. So upgrade to digital. Third is the reason you gave, which is it will fail and I will end up with a worthless HD radio. I said HD AM *may* fail. FM HD is a definite improvement, and will likely succeed. Hell, it's already succeeding. Look, I realize I am probably wasting my time here. Most of the "regulars" here seem like typical old farts who simply resist change. The fact is, no one cares if it "trashes YOUR analog reception". So few people are listening to analog radio these days that the losses are acceptable IF enough new gains are made by going digital. As with most things these days, you can either upgrade or be left behind, wondering where everyone went. Mike |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article , "Mike"
wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .com... So upgrade to a digital receiver. That's what I'm gonna do. Besides, HD AM may never take off, for many reasons. Some are obvious and some are more subtle. But HD FM is a great idea. First off I do not consider buying an HD radio an "upgrade". I consider it paying more money for another radio that gets what I have now with analog. Except that it gets channels you can't get with analog only. My understanding is the same programming is broadcast on analog so I'm not missing anything. Second HD radio trashes my analog reception. So upgrade to digital. No thanks. I do not consider HD an "upgrade." Third is the reason you gave, which is it will fail and I will end up with a worthless HD radio. I said HD AM *may* fail. FM HD is a definite improvement, and will likely succeed. Hell, it's already succeeding. I think HD will most likely fail. Look, I realize I am probably wasting my time here. Most of the "regulars" here seem like typical old farts who simply resist change. The fact is, no one cares if it "trashes YOUR analog reception". So few people are listening to analog radio these days that the losses are acceptable IF enough new gains are made by going digital. As with most things these days, you can either upgrade or be left behind, wondering where everyone went. Yeah sure, blame me for not wanting lousy technology badly implemented. You think I'm going to let you cram it down my throat you have another thing coming Mr. No-where-man. If you have a problem with old farts then take a bath. You will smell better for it. -- 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 news:telamon_spamshield- It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what the receiver can do with the decoded information. I hear a black helicopter approaching. Excuse me? What did you do to attract the men in black? You may not want to hear it but that is a fact. HD can implement DRM, which here is digital rights management. In this forum, you have to specify. Otherwise, it is that "other" AM digital system. Broadcasters have been paying rights of some form or another back to the 30's. DRM is the same thing with a different name. |
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 news:telamon_spamshield- 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? No, because the limiting factor on analog is, in most cases, noise. The digital system itself has better system specs, and the reception systems can make use of a much weaker digital signal than they can an analog one. You can say no all you want. What I stated is the basic principles of information transmission. Go look it up. Too bad if you don't like it. I had an interesting discussion with our engineering department in LA this morning... The general consensus as to why far less signal is about as effective has to do with noise. A digital signal can be correctly decoded even when there is noise just a few db below the signal itself. HD duplicates the same data on both sides of the carrier, so there is the ability to select the best data, much like diversity reception. And HD "dithers" in the case of small dropouts. Analog requires something over a -57 db noise floor to be useful to the average listener, and something in the -60's for really nice FM reception. All the engineers (and there are 8 of them for our 5 signals) believed, in conclusion, that the determining factor on usability on an analog signal is also noise, which is why in LA we get no listeing outside the 64 dbu on FM and about the 10 to 12 mv/m daytime and the 15 mv/m night on AM. Noise lowers the dynamic range available for digital and analog transmissions. Too bad if you don't want to hear that either because that is the way the ball bounces. People that do not know what they are talking about may think otherwise but that does not change reality for them or the rest of us. The reality is that the HD data can be extracted and DACed when the noise is only a few db below the signal itself. |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message ... Except that it gets channels you can't get with analog only. My understanding is the same programming is broadcast on analog so I'm not missing anything. 600 stations have second formats on the HD 2 channel. Second HD radio trashes my analog reception. So upgrade to digital. No thanks. I do not consider HD an "upgrade." It sounds better and is much more impervious to man made interference. Third is the reason you gave, which is it will fail and I will end up with a worthless HD radio. I said HD AM *may* fail. FM HD is a definite improvement, and will likely succeed. Hell, it's already succeeding. I think HD will most likely fail. It has already succeeded. It will continue to grow over the next number of years, but getting nearly 200 models of radios in the channels, independent chipset manufacturers (including the new high efficiency one announced htis week) is success as part of a many year plan. |
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 news:telamon_spamshield- It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what the receiver can do with the decoded information. I hear a black helicopter approaching. Excuse me? What did you do to attract the men in black? You may not want to hear it but that is a fact. HD can implement DRM, which here is digital rights management. In this forum, you have to specify. Otherwise, it is that "other" AM digital system. Broadcasters have been paying rights of some form or another back to the 30's. DRM is the same thing with a different name. Digital rights management can now be extended to the listener through HD radio. -- 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 news:telamon_spamshield- It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what the receiver can do with the decoded information. I hear a black helicopter approaching. Excuse me? What did you do to attract the men in black? You may not want to hear it but that is a fact. HD can implement DRM, which here is digital rights management. In this forum, you have to specify. Otherwise, it is that "other" AM digital system. Broadcasters have been paying rights of some form or another back to the 30's. DRM is the same thing with a different name. Digital rights management can now be extended to the listener through HD radio. Huh? |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .com... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message news:telamon_spamshield- 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? No, because the limiting factor on analog is, in most cases, noise. The digital system itself has better system specs, and the reception systems can make use of a much weaker digital signal than they can an analog one. You can say no all you want. What I stated is the basic principles of information transmission. Go look it up. Too bad if you don't like it. I had an interesting discussion with our engineering department in LA this morning... The general consensus as to why far less signal is about as effective has to do with noise. A digital signal can be correctly decoded even when there is noise just a few db below the signal itself. The claim here "can be correctly decoded even when there is noise just a few db below the signal itself" is no more possible than an analog signal can be heard a few dB over the noise floor. Now both these claims depend on the probability of the ratio of the instantaneous noise power over the instantaneous signal modulation power. HD duplicates the same data on both sides of the carrier, so there is the ability to select the best data, much like diversity reception. And HD "dithers" in the case of small dropouts. This is a rational explanation based on the argument that the total bandwidth utilized by the digital mode may be better utilized over the analog mode but this depends on wether an analog radio output employing an envelope detector suffers when one side band degrades. Ask your engineering buddies. Analog requires something over a -57 db noise floor to be useful to the average listener, and something in the -60's for really nice FM reception. Arbitrary numbers that do not account for individual reception situations. All the engineers (and there are 8 of them for our 5 signals) believed, in conclusion, that the determining factor on usability on an analog signal is also noise, which is why in LA we get no listeing outside the 64 dbu on FM and about the 10 to 12 mv/m daytime and the 15 mv/m night on AM. OK it is fine to set limits on what is considered good or bad signal to noise but that does not change the fact that when the signal to noise is small both HD and analog are not easy to listen too. Noise lowers the dynamic range available for digital and analog transmissions. Too bad if you don't want to hear that either because that is the way the ball bounces. People that do not know what they are talking about may think otherwise but that does not change reality for them or the rest of us. The reality is that the HD data can be extracted and DACed when the noise is only a few db below the signal itself. What do you mean by "DACed." If you mean digital to analog converter I hope you understand that every time an analog signal goes through the process of analog to digital conversion at the transmitter and then digital to analog in the receiver that a set of errors and distortion is added to the resulting analog signal but that is not the argument you are trying to make. Can you understand that as the signal level approaches the noise floor that the probability of the 1/0 data stream being correctly detected decreases? If the data stream becomes corrupted and then converted to analog it will not represent the original programing now will it. Can you see the similarity to analog in this regard? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .com... Except that it gets channels you can't get with analog only. My understanding is the same programming is broadcast on analog so I'm not missing anything. 600 stations have second formats on the HD 2 channel. Really, so if I turn on my current radio and get the programming I want this will benefit me how? Second HD radio trashes my analog reception. So upgrade to digital. No thanks. I do not consider HD an "upgrade." It sounds better and is much more impervious to man made interference. I firmly rebuke you for making the sounds better claim and as for more impervious to man made noise nope. Digital mode is not some magical way of avoiding the signal to noise issue. Third is the reason you gave, which is it will fail and I will end up with a worthless HD radio. I said HD AM *may* fail. FM HD is a definite improvement, and will likely succeed. Hell, it's already succeeding. I think HD will most likely fail. It has already succeeded. It will continue to grow over the next number of years, but getting nearly 200 models of radios in the channels, independent chipset manufacturers (including the new high efficiency one announced htis week) is success as part of a many year plan. You and I have different definitions of success then. -- 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 news:telamon_spamshield- It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what the receiver can do with the decoded information. I hear a black helicopter approaching. Excuse me? What did you do to attract the men in black? You may not want to hear it but that is a fact. HD can implement DRM, which here is digital rights management. In this forum, you have to specify. Otherwise, it is that "other" AM digital system. Broadcasters have been paying rights of some form or another back to the 30's. DRM is the same thing with a different name. Digital rights management can now be extended to the listener through HD radio. Huh? Do you understand that DRM is media independent? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Decision Has NO IMPACTon HD/Internet/XM/Sirius News and Talk Stations
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: The general consensus as to why far less signal is about as effective has to do with noise. A digital signal can be correctly decoded even when there is noise just a few db below the signal itself. The claim here "can be correctly decoded even when there is noise just a few db below the signal itself" is no more possible than an analog signal can be heard a few dB over the noise floor. Now both these claims depend on the probability of the ratio of the instantaneous noise power over the instantaneous signal modulation power. The HD signal is digital. The noise is not, it is analog. As long as there is enough digital data to extract, the analog noise is not the issue. HD duplicates the same data on both sides of the carrier, so there is the ability to select the best data, much like diversity reception. And HD "dithers" in the case of small dropouts. This is a rational explanation based on the argument that the total bandwidth utilized by the digital mode may be better utilized over the analog mode but this depends on wether an analog radio output employing an envelope detector suffers when one side band degrades. Ask your engineering buddies. We are talking about the ability to receive a substantially intact digital data stream in an analog noise filled environment. This can be done with the noise floor just a few db below the digital data. In analog, the noise and the information you wish to recover are both analog and mix. So the signal has to be significantly, on the order of around 60 db, above the noise floor. So, tihe a difference of perhaps 57 db between digital and analog usability, low power on the digital can produce excellent results. BTW, I have been lead engineer for a group of a dozen stations, including building the transmitters and studio gear from scratch. I talk to our engineers often because we use technology to our advantage to create better radio stations. Analog requires something over a -57 db noise floor to be useful to the average listener, and something in the -60's for really nice FM reception. Arbitrary numbers that do not account for individual reception situations. Wrong. Analong noise and signal combine. Digital can be plucked out of the analog noise. And for analog, the noise has to be around -57 db or the average listener finds it noise and unlistenable. This is why below the 64 dbu contour of the average radio station there is essentially no listening... it is too noisy. All the engineers (and there are 8 of them for our 5 signals) believed, in conclusion, that the determining factor on usability on an analog signal is also noise, which is why in LA we get no listeing outside the 64 dbu on FM and about the 10 to 12 mv/m daytime and the 15 mv/m night on AM. OK it is fine to set limits on what is considered good or bad signal to noise but that does not change the fact that when the signal to noise is small both HD and analog are not easy to listen too. The HD digital stream can be picked out of the analog noise. The analog signal becomes a part of it and is inseparabble. The reality is that the HD data can be extracted and DACed when the noise is only a few db below the signal itself. What do you mean by "DACed." If you mean digital to analog converter I hope you understand that every time an analog signal goes through the process of analog to digital conversion at the transmitter and then digital to analog in the receiver that a set of errors and distortion is added to the resulting analog signal but that is not the argument you are trying to make. Of course I understand that. The fact is, the last step of a digital transmission system is to do a digital to analog conversion, since the ear is not digital. Can you understand that as the signal level approaches the noise floor that the probability of the 1/0 data stream being correctly detected decreases? If the data stream becomes corrupted and then converted to analog it will not represent the original programing now will it. Can you see the similarity to analog in this regard? No, I understand that the noise is analog. And the HD stream is digital, and once detected is separable from the noise. Not so in analog. The data stream is redundant (to each side of the carrier center, and has dithering as well. If the digital signal fails, it falls back to analog. However, as stated, the analog signal gets essentially no listening beyond the 64 dbu curve due to... you asked for it... NOISE! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com