"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.

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

"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).

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

"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.

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

"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.

In article ,
Telamon wrote:

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?

As much as I dislike giving Mr. Gleason arguement points, you have to
consider that the psycho-acoustic compression schemes used in IBOC-AM
reduce the equivalent analog bandwidth down to a telcom grade signal,
(32-36 kBps = 3 kHz at [mumble 40 dB?] signal to noise ratio). Compared
to the 16-18 kHz of a high-fi AM broadcast signal. (Not than anybody
seems to bother anymore...).

On the other hand, there's going to be a quality loss with all the
gargling kazoo sound effects and other crap from de/compression.
Somebody need to come up with a formula that equates that distortion
to a Signal to Noise ratio.

Mark Zenier
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)