"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage isn't
even 50% that of analogs !


Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen plenty of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage isn't
even 50% that of analogs !


Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen plenty of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.

Gee, to bad you don't understand what that means.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage isn't
even 50% that of analogs !


Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen plenty
of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust
beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM
curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.

Gee, to bad you don't understand what that means.

I understand perfectly. I did one of the first studies of listenership vs.
signal strength over a decade ago.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage isn't
even 50% that of analogs !


Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen plenty
of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust
beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM
curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.

Gee, to bad you don't understand what that means.

I understand perfectly. I did one of the first studies of listenership vs.
signal strength over a decade ago.

I'm pretty sure reading your posts you have no understanding volts per
meter means. I don't think you know what dBu is either.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage
isn't
even 50% that of analogs !


Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen
plenty
of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust
beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM
curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.

Gee, to bad you don't understand what that means.

I understand perfectly. I did one of the first studies of listenership
vs.
signal strength over a decade ago.

I'm pretty sure reading your posts you have no understanding volts per
meter means. I don't think you know what dBu is either.


As stated previously, I actually built the first FM station in Ecuador from
scratch, including transmitter, studio gear and antenna. I certainly know
what the terms of field strength mean. I think anyone who can build an FM
exciter from scratch probably can understand voltages pretty well.

I have also lugged field strength meters around various FCC jurisdictions
while working on directional antenna patterns ranging from WEEL to WQII to
KTNQ.

The minimum contour for FM stations to get significant listening is the 64
dbu, roughly 1.5 mv/m. For AM in metros, it is about 10 mv/m. Both AM and FM
are measurements of the strength of the EMF from a transmitter at some point
of distance from it dBu used to be called dBv but got confused with dBV,
and was changed. It's a decibel measurement of voltage.... as my equivalency
shows.

The whole point here is that the average listener... about 96% to 97% of
them, in fact, will not listen to a signal below a certain level and all but
three to four percent of stationary AM and FM listening in rated metros
comes from areas within the 10 vv/m and 64 dbu contours of AM and FM
stations.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's
coverage isn't even 50% that of analogs !


Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have
seen plenty of data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation
receiver, is robust beyond the "usable" signal range of analog
AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM curve and the 64 dbu FM
contour.

Gee, to bad you don't understand what that means.

I understand perfectly. I did one of the first studies of
listenership vs. signal strength over a decade ago.

I'm pretty sure reading your posts you have no understanding volts
per meter means. I don't think you know what dBu is either.


As stated previously, I actually built the first FM station in
Ecuador from scratch, including transmitter, studio gear and antenna.
I certainly know what the terms of field strength mean. I think
anyone who can build an FM exciter from scratch probably can
understand voltages pretty well.

I have also lugged field strength meters around various FCC
jurisdictions while working on directional antenna patterns ranging
from WEEL to WQII to KTNQ.

I didn't ask you about your fake imagined history that you shoe horn in
at every opportunity.

The minimum contour for FM stations to get significant listening is
the 64 dbu, roughly 1.5 mv/m. For AM in metros, it is about 10 mv/m.
Both AM and FM are measurements of the strength of the EMF from a
transmitter at some point of distance from it dBu used to be called
dBv but got confused with dBV, and was changed. It's a decibel
measurement of voltage.... as my equivalency shows.

dBuV is not the same thing as dBV. Care to try again.

While you are at it explain how 1.5 mV/m equates to either 64dBuV or
64dBV.

You mentioned these voltage numbers are in decibels so does that
mean a change from 32 to 64 is twice as much?

And just what does 1.5mV/m mean anyway to a person reading this post?

The whole point here is that the average listener... about 96% to 97%
of them, in fact, will not listen to a signal below a certain level
and all but three to four percent of stationary AM and FM listening
in rated metros comes from areas within the 10 vv/m and 64 dbu
contours of AM and FM stations.

My radio needs 10V/m to receive a station decently? My God no wonder you
didn't believe my posts on the signal strength of local stations. I'm
glad we finally figured that out.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article
,
Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

t.
..
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
oups.com...

The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's
coverage isn't even 50% that of analogs !


Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have
seen plenty of data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation
receiver, is robust beyond the "usable" signal range of analog
AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM curve and the 64 dbu FM
contour.

Gee, to bad you don't understand what that means.

I understand perfectly. I did one of the first studies of
listenership vs. signal strength over a decade ago.

I'm pretty sure reading your posts you have no understanding volts
per meter means. I don't think you know what dBu is either.


As stated previously, I actually built the first FM station in
Ecuador from scratch, including transmitter, studio gear and antenna.
I certainly know what the terms of field strength mean. I think
anyone who can build an FM exciter from scratch probably can
understand voltages pretty well.

I have also lugged field strength meters around various FCC
jurisdictions while working on directional antenna patterns ranging
from WEEL to WQII to KTNQ.

I didn't ask you about your fake imagined history that you shoe horn in
at every opportunity.

The minimum contour for FM stations to get significant listening is
the 64 dbu, roughly 1.5 mv/m. For AM in metros, it is about 10 mv/m.
Both AM and FM are measurements of the strength of the EMF from a
transmitter at some point of distance from it dBu used to be called
dBv but got confused with dBV, and was changed. It's a decibel
measurement of voltage.... as my equivalency shows.

dBuV is not the same thing as dBV. Care to try again.

While you are at it explain how 1.5 mV/m equates to either 64dBuV or
64dBV.

You mentioned these voltage numbers are in decibels so does that
mean a change from 32 to 64 is twice as much?

And just what does 1.5mV/m mean anyway to a person reading this post?

The whole point here is that the average listener... about 96% to 97%
of them, in fact, will not listen to a signal below a certain level
and all but three to four percent of stationary AM and FM listening
in rated metros comes from areas within the 10 vv/m and 64 dbu
contours of AM and FM stations.

My radio needs 10V/m to receive a station decently? My God no wonder you
didn't believe my posts on the signal strength of local stations. I'm
glad we finally figured that out.

The master of BS must have stopped to eat dinner after 56 posts today.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I didn't ask you about your fake imagined history that you shoe horn in
at every opportunity.

Call Bob DuTriel, the associate of Ron Rackley (the formost authority on
directional AM antennas in the US) in Florida and ask about me. I assisted
Bob while he rebuilt the WQII directional when I decided to reengineer the
station.

The minimum contour for FM stations to get significant listening is
the 64 dbu, roughly 1.5 mv/m. For AM in metros, it is about 10 mv/m.
Both AM and FM are measurements of the strength of the EMF from a
transmitter at some point of distance from it dBu used to be called
dBv but got confused with dBV, and was changed. It's a decibel
measurement of voltage.... as my equivalency shows.

dBuV is not the same thing as dBV. Care to try again.

I said that, historically, the tem was changed from dBv to dBu because folks
were confusing dBv and dBV... that was the origin of the "u" in dBu... which
bagan with a lower case "v."

While you are at it explain how 1.5 mV/m equates to either 64dBuV or
64dBV.

Equivalent field strength expressed in with a different scale. Even my
speedometer has two different scales, and they have equivalents all the way
along, just as a metric tape and a yardstick do.

My radio needs 10V/m to receive a station decently? My God no wonder you
didn't believe my posts on the signal strength of local stations. I'm
glad we finally figured that out.

I don't care what your $5 thousand dollar radio needs.

The fact is that after examining thousands and thousands of diary mentions
for at home and at work by ZIP code, it has been found in several different
studies that 80% of all FM listening takes place in the 70 dBu contour and
15% to 17% more takes place between the 70 and the 64 dBu contours. There is
nearly no listening outside the 64 dBu contour. So, most of us actually
running radio stations or involved in programming know that there is pretty
much no potential for listener growth outside the 64 dBu contour as it is
apparent from empirical evidence across a variety of markets and ratings
periods that listeners do not listen to relatively weak signals.

The same studies, on AM, showed that in and in the environs of the Top 100
metros, there is pretty much no listening outside the 10 mv/m contour. This
corresponds with more anecdotal evidence that shows that below 10 mv/m the
signals are so subject to man-made interference from everything from
computers to traffic light controllers that they are annoying to listen to.
In some metros the minimum level seems to match neatly the 15 mv/m contour
or points in between, probably indicating greater noise levels in the market
in general.

Again, it is not about whether a station can be received. It is about
whether listeners, in any significant quantity, are able to enjoyably listen
to a station. And it has been proven that a pretty intense signal is
necessary for a station to get audience in the rated metro areas (where
about 75% of the US population lives)

On Sep 3, 3:55?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

oups.com...



The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage isn't
even 50% that of analogs !

Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen plenty of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.

"A Station Owner's View of HD Radio Industry"

"We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be
equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding
out this is not the case, that the HD coverage is considerably less,
something like 60% of the analog coverage. We've also found that even
in a strong HD signal area, a dipole antenna is required. We were also
told that the HD would lessen interference with adjacent channel
signals. That also appears not to be the case. This is really very
discouraging and is leading us to wonder why we should bother to
promote HD. To do so will only disappoint, and, perhaps, antagonize a
significant segment of the audience who finds that the system doesn't
deliver."

http://www.audiographics.com/agd/061206-1.htm

"IBOCcrock" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 3, 3:55?pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"IBOCcrock" wrote in message

oups.com...



The digital signals are only 1% of the analog - IBOC's coverage isn't
even 50% that of analogs !

Digital has totally different properties than analog. I have seen plenty
of
data showing the HD signal, on a 3rd generation receiver, is robust
beyond
the "usable" signal range of analog AM or FM, which is the 10 mv/m AM
curve
and the 64 dbu FM contour.

"A Station Owner's View of HD Radio Industry"

"We were told back in the beginning that the HD coverage would be
equal to the analog signal. Unfortunately, the industry is now finding
out this is not the case, that the HD coverage is considerably less,
something like 60% of the analog coverage.

The HD signal is good in the same contours where about 96% to 97% of all AM
and FM listening occur... in fact, it is good beyond those contours.