SFTV_troy wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:56 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:50 am, Steve wrote:

You're making the most elementary of mistakes here. More
channels does not equal more...

Yes it does. Each station gets split into 3 or even 4 sub-channels.
For example one of my local stations has split into (1) Christian
talk/ education programs (as they've done for the last 50 years). (2)
An all-music channel. (3) Another all-music channel, but teen-
oriented. ----- Thus giving more choice to the listener, in the same
way XM Radio has more channels and more choices.

Yes, on channel 1 you can hear the informercial about colloidal
silver, on channel 2 you have some ginseng supplement, on channel
three the amazing hgh and on channel four investing in gold.

Uh, no. Perhaps you misunderstood, so let me repeat it: Channels:
(1) Christian talk. (2) All-music. (3) Teen-oriented music. -----
And the other station I like to tune-in has these channels: (1) Adult
rock. (2) Soft rock (instrumental).

These are ACTUAL programs, not made-up fiction.

Better to (a) upgrade to digital and hope for
more variety/ better programming, than to (b)
Do nothing and keep the current crapfest.

True, but better programming would improve a lot. And it
wouldn't require new technology. And it wouldn't destroy MW.

New technology might not improve the programming, but it will triple
or even quadruple the number of choices. (See above.) And once the
analog is phased out, and the HD Radio is restricted to the standard
10 kilohertz width (mode 3), everything will be good again. No more
overlapping stations. (That is only a *temporary* situation, not a
permanent one.)

No one's saying do nothing. A lot of folks are just saying "don't
do something that's only going to make the situation worse."

Sounds reasonable, but if you want to transition from AM-analog to AM-
digital, you're going to have to make some sacrifices. Even the
European Union's DRM methodology spills-over into adjacent channels
(10 kHz AM + 5 kHz DRM). Plus it's only limited to ~10 kilobits per
second.... barely adequate.

But that's the price you have to pay when you upgrade.... like when
color TV arrived. Or the necessity to get new Digital TV receivers.
You phase-out the old, and phase-in the new.

BTW:

I don't really understand why people are upset about the loss of
DX'ing over AM (only temporarily; it will be restored when AM goes
pure digital). You can still do DX'ing via using services like
shoutcast.com. Just yesterday at work I was listening to an
Australian station. Another favorite of mine is located in England.
DX'ing is still alive and well on the internet.

Uh... that's NOT DX'ing.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

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 . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:56 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
On Sep 29, 8:50 am, Steve wrote:

You're making the most elementary of mistakes here. More
channels does not equal more...

Yes it does. Each station gets split into 3 or even 4 sub-channels.
For example one of my local stations has split into (1) Christian
talk/ education programs (as they've done for the last 50 years). (2)
An all-music channel. (3) Another all-music channel, but teen-
oriented. ----- Thus giving more choice to the listener, in the same
way XM Radio has more channels and more choices.

Yes, on channel 1 you can hear the informercial about colloidal
silver, on channel 2 you have some ginseng supplement, on channel
three the amazing hgh and on channel four investing in gold.

Uh, no. Perhaps you misunderstood, so let me repeat it: Channels:
(1) Christian talk. (2) All-music. (3) Teen-oriented music. -----
And the other station I like to tune-in has these channels: (1) Adult
rock. (2) Soft rock (instrumental).

These are ACTUAL programs, not made-up fiction.

Steve quoted you actual programs or infomercials not fiction.

Better to (a) upgrade to digital and hope for
more variety/ better programming, than to (b)
Do nothing and keep the current crapfest.

True, but better programming would improve a lot. And it
wouldn't require new technology. And it wouldn't destroy MW.

New technology might not improve the programming, but it will triple
or even quadruple the number of choices. (See above.) And once the
analog is phased out, and the HD Radio is restricted to the standard
10 kilohertz width (mode 3), everything will be good again. No more
overlapping stations. (That is only a *temporary* situation, not a
permanent one.)

HD is not made of new technology.

No one's saying do nothing. A lot of folks are just saying "don't
do something that's only going to make the situation worse."

Sounds reasonable, but if you want to transition from AM-analog to AM-
digital, you're going to have to make some sacrifices. Even the
European Union's DRM methodology spills-over into adjacent channels
(10 kHz AM + 5 kHz DRM). Plus it's only limited to ~10 kilobits per
second.... barely adequate.

It is OK with me if you make some sacrifices but don't volunteer other
people, that tends to tick them off.

But that's the price you have to pay when you upgrade.... like when
color TV arrived. Or the necessity to get new Digital TV receivers.
You phase-out the old, and phase-in the new.

Color TV signals did not trash black and white reception. Nice try.

BTW:

I don't really understand why people are upset about the loss of
DX'ing over AM (only temporarily; it will be restored when AM goes
pure digital). You can still do DX'ing via using services like
shoutcast.com. Just yesterday at work I was listening to an
Australian station. Another favorite of mine is located in England.
DX'ing is still alive and well on the internet.

It won't be the same. If you don't understand then why post here? You
obviously do not understand what this news group is about.

No doubt that distant AM station you can no longer hear is still
available to you. Just visit their website & listen to their stream
(and you don't need to wait until night; you can do it during the day
too).

You don't get it at all do you. Pathetic.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
ups.com...

Sounds reasonable, but if you want to transition from AM-analog to AM-
digital, you're going to have to make some sacrifices. Even the
European Union's DRM methodology spills-over into adjacent channels
(10 kHz AM + 5 kHz DRM). Plus it's only limited to ~10 kilobits per
second.... barely adequate.

But that's the price you have to pay when you upgrade.... like when
color TV arrived. Or the necessity to get new Digital TV receivers.
You phase-out the old, and phase-in the new.

When they went to color TV, nobody lost the abililty to watch on their B/W
sets.

When they went to FM Stereo, nobody lost the ability to listen on their
monaural radios.

When they went to AM Stereo, nobody lost the ability to listen on their
monaural radios.

When they went to TV stereo, nobody lost the ability to listen on their
monaural TV's.

In the latter two cases, listening got BETTER on the old technology due to
accompanying changes in audio bandwidth, allowing for better fidelity.

Digital is NOT better. It may allow the cramming of more into the same
space, but more is not better. Digital TV (except the higher
bandwidth/bitrate HDTV signals) looks like crap. The pixelization is
terrible, the artifacting is hideous, and the fact that the signal just
drops out entirely below a certain level is unacceptable. I'd rather have a
bit of snow, and still be able to watch my television than have "clear"
picture and then NO picture. Same with radio. Digital signals are not robust
enough, and will drop out entirely in low signal areas, rather than just
getting a little less quiet.

This ain't "better", hoss, just different.. and mostly in a bad way..

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

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


SFTV_troy wrote:

I don't really understand why people are upset about the loss of
DX'ing over AM (only temporarily; it will be restored when AM goes
pure digital). You can still do DX'ing via using services like
shoutcast.com. Just yesterday at work I was listening to an
Australian station. Another favorite of mine is located in England.
DX'ing is still alive and well on the internet.

Uh... that's NOT DX'ing.


It may well become the DXing of the 21st Century.

"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.

"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.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


SFTV_troy wrote:

I don't really understand why people are upset about the loss of
DX'ing over AM (only temporarily; it will be restored when AM goes
pure digital). You can still do DX'ing via using services like
shoutcast.com. Just yesterday at work I was listening to an
Australian station. Another favorite of mine is located in England.
DX'ing is still alive and well on the internet.

Uh... that's NOT DX'ing.


It may well become the DXing of the 21st Century.

That may work out for you but most people do not have the self
delusional capacity you possess.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


SFTV_troy wrote:

I don't really understand why people are upset about the loss of
DX'ing over AM (only temporarily; it will be restored when AM goes
pure digital). You can still do DX'ing via using services like
shoutcast.com. Just yesterday at work I was listening to an
Australian station. Another favorite of mine is located in England.
DX'ing is still alive and well on the internet.

Uh... that's NOT DX'ing.


It may well become the DXing of the 21st Century.

That may work out for you but most people do not have the self
delusional capacity you possess.


The other way to see this is from the perspective that there are not many AM
(MW) DXers left. The combined IRCA and NRC membership is around or less than
a thousand in North America... compare that to when RaDex was sold at the
news rack at the corner drugstore and DXing was engaged in by millions.