"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...

"RHF" wrote in message
ups.com...

Phasing in and Increase of the Digital Signal over
Time would ease the Transition to HD Radio.
First Year 1% Digital
Second Year 2% Digital
Third Year 4% Digital
Fourth Year 8% Digital
Fifth Year 16% Digital
A 16% Digital Signal should give a HD Radio
Station a Signal Coverage Area far better then
their present Analog Signal Coverage Area.


Based on actually working with 40 or so HD stations, the current HD
signal, on AM, covers to at least the same usable and used coverage area
the analog signal reaches, sometimes more. On FM, it also reaches the
same area where nearly all actual listening happens.

There you go again saying that only those inside your precious city grade
contours count as listeners. Probably 40-50 million people in the US would
beg to differ.

First, we are talking about AM, which now has, nationally, only about 19% of
radio listening. Second, most of that percentage is in upper end demos, as
under age 45, listenership is very small.

What we have is a band that has serious issues about survival.

In big cities, small cities and rural areas, there is very little use of AM
outside the very strong signal contours.

In fact, the national coverage by FM is far more dense than the AM coverage.
If HD can help AM survive, it is a fair tradeoff.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 22, 12:04 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message

ups.com...



Phasing in and Increase of the Digital Signal over
Time would ease the Transition toHD Radio.
First Year 1% Digital
Second Year 2% Digital
Third Year 4% Digital
Fourth Year 8% Digital
Fifth Year 16% Digital
A 16% Digital Signal should give aHD Radio
Station a Signal Coverage Area far better then
their present Analog Signal Coverage Area.

Based on actually working with 40 or so HD stations, the current HD
signal,
on AM, covers to at least the same usable and used coverage area the
analog
signal reaches, sometimes more. On FM, it also reaches the same area
where
nearly all actual listening happens.

"HD Radio's Dirty Little Secret"

"Nope, the dirty little secret is that HD Radio's coverage is far less
than regular analog radio. About 60% of analog radio's reach even."

That is just not so... usable coverage is about the same for analog and
digital.

On Jun 22, 3:50 am, wrote:
On Jun 22, 2:55 am, RHF wrote:





On Jun 21, 9:04 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

"RHF" wrote in message

oups.com...

Phasing in and Increase of the Digital Signal over
Time would ease the Transition toHD Radio.
First Year 1% Digital
Second Year 2% Digital
Third Year 4% Digital
Fourth Year 8% Digital
Fifth Year 16% Digital
A 16% Digital Signal should give aHD Radio
Station a Signal Coverage Area far better then
their present Analog Signal Coverage Area.

Based on actually working with 40 or so HD stations, the current HD signal,
on AM, covers to at least the same usable and used coverage area the analog
signal reaches, sometimes more. On FM, it also reaches the same area where
nearly all actual listening happens.

DE - So your Answer to Rural Folks is let them
Listen to XM or Sirius Satellite Radio for High
Quality Digital Sound. ~ RHF

IMHO - A 1 KW Analog AM/MW Radio Station
which is only putting out a 10 Watt Digital (1%)
Signal is wasting the time going Digital.

That goes for a 5 KW Analog AM/MW Radio Station
which is only putting out a 50 Watt Digital (1%)
Signal is wasting the time going Digital.

That goes for a 15 KW Analog AM/MW Radio Station
which is only putting out a 150 Watt Digital (1%)
Signal is wasting the time going Digital.

That goes for a 50 KW Analog AM/MW Radio Station
which is only putting out a 500 Watt Digital (1%)
Signal is wasting the time going Digital.

TV with it's finite end to Analog Broadcasting
should be a clear example of what "HD" Radio
has to do to force the Transition from Analog
to Digital.
.
.
. .- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL ! If the FCC tried to force all-digital, there would be anti-
trust lawsuits against the FCC and iBiquity, plus consumers have zero
interest in HD Radio, so no one would be listening:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22hd...t+radio%22...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DOH - Sort of like an Anti-Trust Lawsuit against the IRS
for not letting anyone collect Income Taxes ~ RHF

On Jun 22, 1:53 am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"David Eduardo" wrote in message

t...







"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...

Phasing in and Increase of the Digital Signal over
Time would ease the Transition to HD Radio.
First Year 1% Digital
Second Year 2% Digital
Third Year 4% Digital
Fourth Year 8% Digital
Fifth Year 16% Digital
A 16% Digital Signal should give a HD Radio
Station a Signal Coverage Area far better then
their present Analog Signal Coverage Area.

Based on actually working with 40 or so HD stations, the current HD
signal, on AM, covers to at least the same usable and used coverage area
the analog signal reaches, sometimes more. On FM, it also reaches the same
area where nearly all actual listening happens.

There you go again saying that only those inside your precious city grade
contours count as listeners. Probably 40-50 million people in the US would
beg to differ.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

BAD,

Clearly this Thread is positive proof that the 'magical'
10mv/m Contour does not serve this Rural Area of the
State of California very well -and- a Blinking Blue Light
says that the Digital Signal is not strong enough to
effectively reach the same areas where an Analog
Signal seems to make it in fairly well - be it AM or FM.

Again a gradual increase in the Digital Signal Level
from one year to the next would have all areas served
and produce a steady transistion from Analog to Digital
as new HD Radio Listeners and Equipment replaces the
old Analog Radio Listeners and Equipment.

* Digital Output Power Level wrt Analog ERP
First Year 1% Digital
Second Year 2% Digital
Third Year 4% Digital
Fourth Year 8% Digital
Fifth Year 16% Digital

* Analog Output Power Level Reduction
Sixth Year -10% Analog
Seventh Year -20% Analog
Eighth Year -30% Analog
Ninth Year -40% Analog
Tenth Year -50% Analog

What HD Radio will do for AM/MW Radio is debatable.

What HD Radio will do for FM Radio can be clearly heard.

imho -de- hd radio needs more power output to serve
the whole country which includes rural areas
-or- will rural areas be forced to pay for XM or Sirius
Satellite Radio to get digital quality sound ? ? ? ~ RHF

On Jun 22, 10:18 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message

...







"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

"RHF" wrote in message
roups.com...

Phasing in and Increase of the Digital Signal over
Time would ease the Transition to HD Radio.
First Year 1% Digital
Second Year 2% Digital
Third Year 4% Digital
Fourth Year 8% Digital
Fifth Year 16% Digital
A 16% Digital Signal should give a HD Radio
Station a Signal Coverage Area far better then
their present Analog Signal Coverage Area.

Based on actually working with 40 or so HD stations, the current HD
signal, on AM, covers to at least the same usable and used coverage area
the analog signal reaches, sometimes more. On FM, it also reaches the
same area where nearly all actual listening happens.

There you go again saying that only those inside your precious city grade
contours count as listeners. Probably 40-50 million people in the US would
beg to differ.

First, we are talking about AM, which now has, nationally, only about 19% of
radio listening. Second, most of that percentage is in upper end demos, as
under age 45, listenership is very small.

What we have is a band that has serious issues about survival.

In big cities, small cities and rural areas, there is very little use of AM
outside the very strong signal contours.

In fact, the national coverage by FM is far more dense than the AM coverage.
If HD can help AM survive, it is a fair tradeoff.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DE,

Then start writting the Obituary for AM/MW Radio
in a good part of Rural America right now [.]

-cause- The Digital Noise Level {Background Hash}
from IBOC has made and impact on the Listenability
of several California Central Valley AM/MW Radio
Strations that I could pick-up and hear reasonably well
580 kHz - KMJ and 1530 kHz - KFBK come to mind.

The Digital Noise Level {Background Hash} from IBOC
seems to be increasing Week-by-Week :
Which Will Kill Analog AM/MW Radio for sure within
Three to Five Years.

The "Only Two Alternatives for AM/MW Radio Are :
1 - Stop All "HD" Radio Digital {IBOC} Broadcasts - Now !
2- Expedite the Transistion* to All "HD" Radio Digital
{IBOC} Broadcasts -ASAP-

* NOTE - Phase-Up Higher Powered AM/MW "HD"
Radio Digital {IBOC} Broadcasts -and- Phase-Down
Lower Powered AM/MW 'Analog' Radio Broadcasts.

that's the way i hear it - with my own two ears ~ RHF

In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
t...

"RHF" wrote in message
ups.com...

Phasing in and Increase of the Digital Signal over
Time would ease the Transition to HD Radio.
First Year 1% Digital
Second Year 2% Digital
Third Year 4% Digital
Fourth Year 8% Digital
Fifth Year 16% Digital
A 16% Digital Signal should give a HD Radio
Station a Signal Coverage Area far better then
their present Analog Signal Coverage Area.


Based on actually working with 40 or so HD stations, the current HD
signal, on AM, covers to at least the same usable and used coverage area
the analog signal reaches, sometimes more. On FM, it also reaches the same
area where nearly all actual listening happens.

There you go again saying that only those inside your precious city grade
contours count as listeners. Probably 40-50 million people in the US would
beg to differ.

Ignore the Troll.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Jun 22, 10:15 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"RHF" wrote in message

ups.com...



DE - So your Answer to Rural Folks is let them
Listen to XM or Sirius Satellite Radio for High
Quality Digital Sound. ~ RHF

Again, the HD signal is digital. There is no 1:1 power comparison. Much
lower powers are effective in digital.



That goes for a 50 KW Analog AM/MW Radio Station
which is only putting out a 500 Watt Digital (1%)
Signal is wasting the time going Digital.

Our experience with a number of 50 kw AMs in HD is that the HD is often
listenable beyond the listenable and usable analog range.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DE - OK so it is not 1:1 -but- 1:100 ? Get Real ! ~ RHF

The current 'fixed' Power Output Ratio of 1:100 {1%}
for Digital-to-Analog should be increased to at least
3%; with 9% being better.

=OR= Turn the "HD" Radio Signal Off [.]

-cause- Outside the 10 mv/m Contour the "HD" Radio
Broadcasting Scheme is BROKEN ! -Big Time-

On Jun 22, 10:18 am, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message

...







"David Eduardo" wrote in message
et...

"RHF" wrote in message
roups.com...

Phasing in and Increase of the Digital Signal over
Time would ease the Transition to HD Radio.
First Year 1% Digital
Second Year 2% Digital
Third Year 4% Digital
Fourth Year 8% Digital
Fifth Year 16% Digital
A 16% Digital Signal should give a HD Radio
Station a Signal Coverage Area far better then
their present Analog Signal Coverage Area.

Based on actually working with 40 or so HD stations, the current HD
signal, on AM, covers to at least the same usable and used coverage area
the analog signal reaches, sometimes more. On FM, it also reaches the
same area where nearly all actual listening happens.

There you go again saying that only those inside your precious city grade
contours count as listeners. Probably 40-50 million people in the US would
beg to differ.

First, we are talking about AM, which now has, nationally, only about 19% of
radio listening. Second, most of that percentage is in upper end demos, as
under age 45, listenership is very small.

What we have is a band that has serious issues about survival.

In big cities, small cities and rural areas, there is very little use of AM
outside the very strong signal contours.

In fact, the national coverage by FM is far more dense than the AM coverage.
If HD can help AM survive, it is a fair tradeoff.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DE - yes, Yes. YES - We Know - We Don't Count ~ RHF

- - - and the Art {Hobby} of AM/MW Radio DXing
is Obsolite due to Technological Advancement
-ie- IBOC Broadcasting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-band_on-channel

"RHF" wrote in message
ups.com...

Then start writting the Obituary for AM/MW Radio
in a good part of Rural America right now [.]

The owners of stations in metro areas don't care about listening outside the
metro. They can not make any money from those listeners. On the other hand,
if there is a chance to make AM more viable in the future and the only
sacrifice is a handful of listeners outside the metro, that mean no income,
then the trade is very one-sided. The FCC agrees.

-cause- The Digital Noise Level {Background Hash}
from IBOC has made and impact on the Listenability
of several California Central Valley AM/MW Radio
Strations that I could pick-up and hear reasonably well
580 kHz - KMJ and 1530 kHz - KFBK come to mind.

Where are you? If you are not in the metro area of the station, the station
really does not care. They do care about surviving, though.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Based on actually working with 40 or so HD stations, the current HD
signal, on AM, covers to at least the same usable and used coverage
area
the analog signal reaches, sometimes more. On FM, it also reaches the
same
area where nearly all actual listening happens.

There you go again saying that only those inside your precious city grade
contours count as listeners. Probably 40-50 million people in the US
would
beg to differ.

Ignore the Troll.

You again? Facts on real radio listening seem to confuse you. Your vision of
how broadcasting works, and has worked in the US for nearly a century is at
total odds with reality.