On Apr 1, 2:18?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...

In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
the transmitter!

The crap keeps flowing - how sad.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 1, 2:18?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

...

In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the
added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money,
as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is
relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings
in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the
power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams
and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power
than
the transmitter!

The crap keeps flowing - how sad.

Showing, of course, how little you know.

In article .com,
wrote:

On Apr 1, 2:18?am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message

..
.

In article .com,

The crock is that you can receive HD signal as well as you can receive
the analog signal when the broadcast power is much lower. This is part
of the HD sales pitch to broadcasters that they can save on the power
bill. It is BS of course.

Yes, it is BS. Because there is no intention of ceasing analog broadcasts
anytime soon... as in "the next decade."

And HD actually adds a tiny bit to the power bill, in the form of the added
HD power.

I have never heard anyone pitch that full pure digital will save money, as
in the size market (top 100 markets) the issue of power cost is relatively
minor as an expense.

Not only will the broadcasters not save on
transmitter power but they will have to buy a transmitter with the same
capacity to handle the peak power levels so they will not be able to
save money on buying a smaller transmitter either.

Were 100% digital to be done on AM, there would be considerable savings in
terms of percentage... the digital power will not likely be even half the
analog power, and digital is vastly more efficient than AM transmitters,
especially when you add in things like cooling, size of transmitter
building, etc. Interestingly, in many stations of 5 kw and less, the power
consumption of the tower lights, A/C, the equipment rack, security cams and
system, security lighting, etc., ends up being more than the transmitter
itself. In fact, just the beacons on a 1 kw directional use more power than
the transmitter!

The crap keeps flowing - how sad.

He has his pitch notwithstanding any fact or common sense. The grass is
blue and the sky green and he has the statistics from Arbitron to prove
that most people 55 and under agree with Edweene brand crapola.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article .com,

He has his pitch notwithstanding any fact or common sense. The grass is
blue and the sky green and he has the statistics from Arbitron to prove
that most people 55 and under agree with Edweene brand crapola.


The problem is that you have no stats at all, just a blind, angry pit-bull
attitude towards anyone who disagrees with reality. You want radio to be a
nice place filled with distant signals supported by many listeners. The
facts just don't agree.