On Sep 29, 2:46 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article om,

SFTV_troy wrote:
Rfburns wrote:
Despite the fact that both the AM and FM versions of HD radio are a
good example of out-of -control technology that nobody really wants,
the FCC has mandated that all broadcasting will be digital.
Therefore, I see no turning back regardless of what the consumer does
or doesn't want or understand.

Switching to digital just makes sense.

Really? And just how does that make sense?

Digital makes better use of the limited space available.

How does a digital mode do that?


Analog modes are inefficient, because they waste bandwidth sending
sounds you can not hear. Digital only removes that extraneous
information, and thus uses the space more efficiently. Which is why a
digital radio like HD can squeeze 5 channels into the same space as 2-
channel FM. ----- Or five FM-quality (64 kbps each) programs into
the space of 1 FM channel.

Digital psychoacoustic modeling is more efficient (sends only sounds
you can hear), than the older inefficient analog modulations (that
waste space sending sound you can't hear).

With digital the FM band would effectively triple or even quadruple
the number of channels on the dial. (Alternatively Classical FM
stations could boost the sound from 2 channel stereo to 5.1
surround.)

Do you understand the consequences of what you propose?
Apparently you do not.

No, because I can not read your mind. Please explain the
consequences.

How do you know that going to a digital mode of transmission would be
good for the consumer? You don't think there is a down side?

Was there a downside to upgrading from Cassettes to CDs? No. Was
there a downside to upgrading from analog VHS to digital DVDs? No.
Was there a downside to upgrading from analog radio to Digital
satellite radio? No. (I could go on-and-on with other examples like
digital MP3s and Ipods and Internet radio and.....)

To date, I've not seen a downside to abandoning Analog format and
adopting new Digital ones.

But I'm sure you have some.
What are the downsides?



I want to see FM upgraded with three to four times more programs to
choose from.

How wonderful. What a simply splendid idea. I just
have to ask why you think this is such a great idea?

Already answered in my previous post.

In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote:

On Sep 29, 2:46 pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article om,

SFTV_troy wrote:
Rfburns wrote:
Despite the fact that both the AM and FM versions of HD radio are a
good example of out-of -control technology that nobody really wants,
the FCC has mandated that all broadcasting will be digital.
Therefore, I see no turning back regardless of what the consumer does
or doesn't want or understand.

Switching to digital just makes sense.

Really? And just how does that make sense?

Digital makes better use of the limited space available.

How does a digital mode do that?


Analog modes are inefficient, because they waste bandwidth sending
sounds you can not hear. Digital only removes that extraneous
information, and thus uses the space more efficiently.

Utter rubbish.

Which is why a digital radio like HD can squeeze 5 channels into the
same space as 2- channel FM. ----- Or five FM-quality (64 kbps
each) programs into the space of 1 FM channel.

And have poor sound quality.

Digital psychoacoustic modeling is more efficient (sends only sounds
you can hear), than the older inefficient analog modulations (that
waste space sending sound you can't hear).

Compression algorithms generate poor quality sound voice or music.
Compression algorithms are no substitute for a higher bit rate.

With digital the FM band would effectively triple or even quadruple
the number of channels on the dial. (Alternatively Classical FM
stations could boost the sound from 2 channel stereo to 5.1
surround.)

Do you understand the consequences of what you propose?
Apparently you do not.

No, because I can not read your mind. Please explain the
consequences.

The answer is no because you don't understand what you are posting about.

The simple answer is you don't get something for nothing. Transmitting
intelligence has three basic parameters, distance, power, and bandwidth.
I suggest you read up on the theory of transmission of information and
then post back here after you are informed.

How do you know that going to a digital mode of transmission would be
good for the consumer? You don't think there is a down side?

Was there a downside to upgrading from Cassettes to CDs? No. Was
there a downside to upgrading from analog VHS to digital DVDs? No.
Was there a downside to upgrading from analog radio to Digital
satellite radio? No. (I could go on-and-on with other examples like
digital MP3s and Ipods and Internet radio and.....)

To date, I've not seen a downside to abandoning Analog format and
adopting new Digital ones.

But I'm sure you have some.
What are the downsides?

None of what you mentioned above bears on the subject at hand. CD, DVD,
and the like are the media digital data is recorded on. Radio is
information transmission over distance. Not at all the same thing.

I want to see FM upgraded with three to four times more programs to
choose from.

How wonderful. What a simply splendid idea. I just
have to ask why you think this is such a great idea?

Already answered in my previous post.

Why should more channels of the same content be something people would
want?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Why should more channels of the same content be something people would
want?

That's just it! The HD 2 channels in most markets are totally
non-duplicative of the Analog/HD1 channel content. NY has, for example,
things like traditional jazz, country, classic hip hop, 50's and early 60's
oldies, standards, etc. that are not available on main channels.

"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...

Was there a downside to upgrading from Cassettes to CDs? No. Was
there a downside to upgrading from analog VHS to digital DVDs? No.
Was there a downside to upgrading from analog radio to Digital
satellite radio? No. (I could go on-and-on with other examples like
digital MP3s and Ipods and Internet radio and.....)


No downside? Ever hear of replacement costs? Ever hear of unavailability of
product? Ever hear of CHOICE?

Those that think there is no downside to "upgrading" technology do not take
a myriad of factors into account, some small (like the DX hobby), some
larger (orphaning millions of listeners that don't live inside city grade
contours of broadcast stations, and lose their ability to receive stations
that they were previously easily able to receive) to larger still (the
obsoleting of literally hundred of millions (possibly even billions) of
currently useful devices (analog TV's (especially portables), analog radios,
turntables, cassette decks, ad inf.). And has anyone considered the long
term ecological repercussions of having to dispose of all these millions of
now useless devices? "Progress" don't come for free. Sometimes it costs more
than people are willing to pay.

Digital radio is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist, and is/will
create(ing) more problems than it solves.

You mention digital satellite radio. That's fine, and I wouldn't mind giving
it a try.. but hey, satellite radio doesn't affect my ability to listen to
any of hundreds or more terrestrial analog stations whenever I choose. IBOC
terrestrial radios DOES! If you want to listen to digital radio, then get
yourself an XM or Sirius radio and listen to your heart's content.... just
don't expect the millions of people in the US alone that IBOC is negatively
affecting to just roll over and play dead.

Brenda Ann wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ps.com...

Was there a downside to upgrading from Cassettes to CDs? No. Was
there a downside to upgrading from analog VHS to digital DVDs? No.
Was there a downside to upgrading from analog radio to Digital
satellite radio? No. (I could go on-and-on with other examples like
digital MP3s and Ipods and Internet radio and.....)


No downside? Ever hear of replacement costs? Ever hear of
unavailability of product? Ever hear of CHOICE?

Hi Brenda,

Yeah just 5 seconds ago when I read your post. ;-) Although it's
sometimes painful to have to abandon your old record player and
upgrade to CD, I think it's worthwhile. You get better sound. (Of
course, you don't have to abandon records; there are still turntables
out there.)

Me, I'm stuck in the middle of this HDTV transition. I'm recording
HDTV with a vcr, which is totally inadequate for the task, but I'm
still glad the transition was made, because HDTV looks much, much
better than analog. I have no desire to take a step backwards to
analog.


Those that think there is no downside to "upgrading" technology do not
take a myriad of factors into account, some small (like the DX hobby)

Yes true. By the way, DX isn't dead. It moved to the internet, where
you can hear stations as far away as London, Russia, Australia, et
cetera. I hear more distant stations now than I ever did as a
teenager.


some larger (orphaning millions of listeners that don't live inside city
grade contours of broadcast stations, and lose their ability to receive stations
that they were previously easily able to receive)

The analog FM is still there. So too are the websites, so rural
listeners can stream them off the internet. Heck, I listen to
stations in my hometown, and I'm currently 1000 miles away, just via
streaming.



to larger still (the obsoleting of
literally hundred of millions (possibly even billions) of
currently useful devices (analog TV's (especially portables),
analog radios, turntables, cassette decks, ad inf.).


Yes. Just like when we abandoned horse-drawn carriages, steam
engines, and riverboats. It's called progress... moving from old
technologies to new technologies. Movign from slow or inefficient
technologies to faster, economical technologies.

BTW analog TVs are not dead. I've got a digital tuner attached to
mine, which means the set will die a natural death of old age. It's
not been wasted.



And has anyone considered the long term
ecological repercussions of having to dispose
of all these millions of now useless devices?

Trivial compared to the amount of trash generated from food
packaging. By volume I'd estimate a thrown-away VCR or Cassette
player is less than 1% the volume generated by food boxes, plastic
wrap, and containers.



Digital radio is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist,
and is/will create(ing) more problems than it solves.

Actually there is a problem. Young adults and teens are demanding
more variety, and analog radio doesn't have room to grow to meet that
demand (no room to add stations).



You mention digital satellite radio. That's fine, and I wouldn't mind
giving it a try.. but hey, satellite radio doesn't affect my ability
to listen to any of hundreds or more terrestrial analog stations
whenever I choose. IBOC terrestrial radios DOES!

No it doesn't. Just type in your favorite radio station's call
letters.com, and you can hear them over the internet. (If you can't
find your station, I'd be happy to help you locate its dot-com
location.)

Oh and you can try free XM by going he radioaol.com - That's
what I listen to during work (sometimes).



If you want to listen to digital radio, then get yourself
an XM or Sirius radio and listen to your heart's content

I don't want to pay $150 a year for radio. I like the free over-the-
air kind, but I want more stations.

On Sep 29, 6:31 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:


To date, I've not seen a downside to abandoning Analog format and
adopting new Digital ones.


That's cool. Just read a few of the threads here.

On Sep 29, 3:31 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:46 pm, Telamon





wrote:
In article om,

SFTV_troy wrote:
Rfburns wrote:
Despite the fact that both the AM and FM versions of HD radio are a
good example of out-of -control technology that nobody really wants,
the FCC has mandated that all broadcasting will be digital.
Therefore, I see no turning back regardless of what the consumer does
or doesn't want or understand.

Switching to digital just makes sense.

Really? And just how does that make sense?

Digital makes better use of the limited space available.

How does a digital mode do that?

Analog modes are inefficient, because they waste bandwidth sending
sounds you can not hear. Digital only removes that extraneous
information, and thus uses the space more efficiently. Which is why a
digital radio like HD can squeeze 5 channels into the same space as 2-
channel FM. ----- Or five FM-quality (64 kbps each) programs into
the space of 1 FM channel.

Digital psychoacoustic modeling is more efficient (sends only sounds
you can hear), than the older inefficient analog modulations (that
waste space sending sound you can't hear).

Digital Psychoacoustic Modeling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustic_model



With digital the FM band would effectively triple or even quadruple
the number of channels on the dial. (Alternatively Classical FM
stations could boost the sound from 2 channel stereo to 5.1
surround.)

Do you understand the consequences of what you propose?
Apparently you do not.

- No, because I can not read your mind.
- Please explain the consequences.

That's An Evasive Answer - Please Answer The Question.


How do you know that going to a digital mode of transmission would be
good for the consumer? You don't think there is a down side?

Was there a downside to upgrading from Cassettes to CDs? No. Was
there a downside to upgrading from analog VHS to digital DVDs? No.
Was there a downside to upgrading from analog radio to Digital
satellite radio? No. (I could go on-and-on with other examples like
digital MP3s and Ipods and Internet radio and.....)

- To date, I've not seen a downside to abandoning Analog
- format and adopting new Digital ones.

Turn in an Analog AM/MW Radio and tune every 10 kHz
from 530 kHz to 1710 kHz and Listen to what you hear
on each and every 10 kHz Radio Station Channel :
That Buzz Noise Hash that was not there 1-2-3 Years
Ago is the IBOC Digital Signal either In-Channel -or-
from the Adjacent Channels.


But I'm sure you have some.
What are the downsides?

Listen to On-the-Air AM/MW Radio and Learn for Yourself.


I want to see FM upgraded with three to four times more programs to
choose from.

How wonderful. What a simply splendid idea. I just
have to ask why you think this is such a great idea?

Already answered in my previous post.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

RHF wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:31 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
wrote:
SFTV_troy wrote:

With digital the FM band would effectively triple or even quadruple
the number of channels on the dial. (Alternatively Classical FM
stations could boost the sound from 2 channel stereo to 5.1
surround.)

Do you understand the consequences of what
you propose? Apparently you do not.

- No, because I can not read your mind.
- Please explain the consequences.

That's An Evasive Answer - Please Answer The Question.


Ahhh, you're taking the "arrogant position" where you presume, "Troy
is a ****ing idiot" and "I'm smarter than Troy", therefore "I'll talk
down to him like he's a worthless worm."

How rude and unfriendly.


Turn in an Analog AM/MW Radio and tune every 10 kHz
from 530 kHz to 1710 kHz and Listen to what you hear
on each and every 10 kHz Radio Station Channel :
That Buzz Noise Hash that was not

Yes I am aware of that problem. (Although I'm still able to hear
Radio Disney just fine on the AM.) The solution is simple for someone
like yourself who has an internet connection:

call letters.com - listen online.

On Sep 29, 6:21 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Rfburns wrote:
Despite the fact that both the AM and FM versions of HD radio are a
good example of out-of -control technology that nobody really wants,
the FCC has mandated that all broadcasting will be digital.
Therefore, I see no turning back regardless of what the consumer does
or doesn't want or understand.

Switching to digital just makes sense. Digital makes better use of
the limited space available. With digital the FM band would
effectively triple or even quadruple the number of channels on the
dial. (Alternatively Classical FM stations could boost the sound from
2 channel stereo to 5.1 surround.)

That's good for the consumer, and something I'd like to see happen.

As for AM... well to be honest, I don't even care. AM is largely
ignored by myself, since there's little there worth hearing. (Rush
Limbaugh? Michael Medved? Some Liberal Nutjob? Pu-leeze. Not
thanks.) But as long as I'm upgrading my FM to digital, we might as
well bring AM along for the ride, too.

I want to see FM upgraded with three to four times more programs to
choose from.

SFTV_troy are you on d'Eduardo's Pay Roll ?
-or- Work for any of the Companies that Employ Him ?
-or- Work for a Radio Station using his Programming ?

RHF wrote:

I want to see FM upgraded with three to four times more programs to
choose from.

SFTV_troy are you on d'Eduardo's Pay Roll ?
-or- Work for any of the Companies that Employ Him ?
-or- Work for a Radio Station using his Programming ?


Nope. I'm an electrical engineer who designs computer boards and
circuits.