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