Steve writes:

On Oct 7, 2:11 am, (Alan) wrote:
In article Telamon writes:

I've been around a long time. Here's a link to a brief biography on me.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/telamon.html

I would say I'm much better known and braver than you and Bob put
together.

Nope. Randy and Bob are real people, not mythical. They have real credentials.

Alan

They must be very proud to be real. That's quite an accomplishment.
Very few people have real names, addresses, email addresses, etc. They
are extraordinary indeed.

Replace "extraordinary" with "verifiable and accountable" and you may
dimly begin to see the point.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

On Oct 7, 8:13 am, Randy Yates wrote:
Steve writes:
On Oct 7, 2:11 am, (Alan) wrote:
In article Telamon writes:

I've been around a long time. Here's a link to a brief biography on me.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/telamon.html

I would say I'm much better known and braver than you and Bob put
together.

Nope. Randy and Bob are real people, not mythical. They have real credentials.

Alan

They must be very proud to be real. That's quite an accomplishment.
Very few people have real names, addresses, email addresses, etc. They
are extraordinary indeed.

Replace "extraordinary" with "verifiable and accountable" and you may
dimly begin to see the point.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah yes, I see it now. Quite a pathetic and uninteresting point. Hmmm.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..

You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own
definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good
example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other
than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting
your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality
about anything you don't agree with.

Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!

No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen
to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal
data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the
general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing level
is not listening level, and people around you do not listen to the
stations you can hear.

I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain
wrong.

It's all about what you think, not about what the other hundreds of
thousands of people in your radio market do. You have done no
research on the rest of them, and they out number you. In otherwords,
your research method was looking in a mirror at yourself. BS.

Nope. It's all about you Eduardo and that's a fact jack.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Telamon wrote:

He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

Yes, we have seen that Telemons has no facts other than his own anecdotes,
is fake and hides behind an egocentric screen name.

Interesting you make the same mistakes as another individual.

I got your profile down buddy. It's to bad for you it is not
complementary.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article , Randy Yates
wrote:

Steve writes:

On Oct 7, 2:11 am, (Alan) wrote:
In article

Telamon writes:

I've been around a long time. Here's a link to a brief biography on me.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/telamon.html

I would say I'm much better known and braver than you and Bob put
together.

Nope. Randy and Bob are real people, not mythical. They have real
credentials.

Alan

They must be very proud to be real. That's quite an accomplishment.
Very few people have real names, addresses, email addresses, etc. They
are extraordinary indeed.

Replace "extraordinary" with "verifiable and accountable" and you may
dimly begin to see the point.

Oh yeah, we defer to you since you are apparently an expert on "dim."

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article
,
D Peter Maus wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dxAce wrote:

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message

t
...
You just don't like what you hear, so you make up your own
definition of listening, of markets (today's post was a good
example) and of the way radio is used. You have no data other
than what your megaradio can pick up, and you are projecting
your own misconceptions on all radio listeners and this
newsgroup. You have a classic "shoot the messenger" mentality
about anything you don't agree with.
Oh no Eduardo! I have the statistics to backup what I say!
No, you do not. You never have.

Taking one example, that of "I can hear it so people must listen
to it" you can see that you take one bit of personal, anecdotal
data, your ability to pick up a station, and apply it to the
general population. The facts betray you here, since hearing
level is not listening level, and people around you do not listen
to the stations you can hear.
I've done the research. I have the statistics. You are just plain
wrong.
He's just plain fake, and a pathological liar as well.

Proven fact!

I agree.



I got a thought, here.

During a recent discussion, you and Gleason got into things about
IBOC chip technology, and in requesting for support of a claim about a
manufacturer and low power chip production, you asked for a link to
verify his claim.

To my knowledge there hasn't been such a link presented. And in his
own defense, Gleason said that such a link couldn't be posted as it
would contain access to proprietary information. Seems reasonable.

But two questions have been bothering me since that exchange. 1) if
the information was proprietary and he was restricted from disseminating
it, why would he even discuss it on a world wide forum like USENet?

And 2) if the information is so proprietary, with industrial
espionage such a highly refined artform, why would any company put such
a thing on the Web in the first place? Or even send it out of house
without some intense confidentiality agreement? In which case, he'd be
forbidden to speak of the subject at all.


When Mercury Marine was preparing for the introduction of Verado, I
had to sign a confidentiality agreement before I was ever permitted to
sit behind a microphone. Before I was ever permitted to see even a
script in development. I had to read it in the presence of the agency
rep, sign it in the presence of witnesses, and I had to verbally agree
that nothing I was about to see, hear, read, or encounter would leave
the studio. Hell, I wasn't even allowed to receive a copy of the spots
and presentation for my own demo. And despite the fact that Verado has
been on the market, now, for some years, and I've been the voice of
Mercury for more than half a decade, I'm still not permitted to include
the spots on my demo.

I wasn't permitted even to tell my closest friends anything more
than to go to the Miami Boat Show. I couldn't even tell them to see the
Mercury display.

Why? Because no one wanted to see Yamaha, OMC, or even Honda upstage
the release of the all-new Verado with similar technology of their own.

This is true of a number of projects I've worked on, and a number of
sponsors I've worked with.

If, in fact, Gleason has access to sensitive, proprietary
information, why would they not sign him to a confidentiality agreement?
If they did, why is he talking about it in a world wide public space?
And if he's talking about it in a world wide public space, why is he not
able to post your link?

Definitely not the kind of behaviour one would expect of someone of
some authority in a large multinational media conglomerate, where
confidentiality is an essential tool of success.

Mr. Eduardo has all kinds of interesting anomalies in his posting style
that make me wonder just what it is I'm dealing with. He has made quite
a few mistakes that people Trolling Usenet usually make. He fits that
profile of one pretty well.

Eduardo claims technical expertise but does not understand the
difference between symbols that are multipliers and an electrical unit
that define the measurement of field strength at the epicenter of most
of his arguments. He seems to have no interest in the terminology other
than to use them as terms to beat people about head with. Once you
challenge him on an assertion he made he always retreats to information
that is only accessible to him.

He is wrong on semiconductor technology, wrong about the business of
semiconductors, wrong about the traffic and topology of southern
California that he supposedly lives in, wrong about radio reception, and
he has been wrong about the rollout of HD radios even though he has this
insider information we don't share in.

The arguments on radio station reception have been the most amusing for
me as he continued to retreat to less and less tenuous position. The
ignorance he has expressed seems to know no bounds.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Robert Orban wrote:
In article .com,
says...



Steven wrote:

HD/IBOC does not employ AAC, although an earlier
version may have IIRC. It uses something called PAC(?)


You have it backwards. It used to be PAC, derived from MP3.

Early testing showed it didn't work very well, so the codec was
switched to MPEG4 AAC+SBR.

No, it wasn't. The codec was changed to something iBiquity calls "HDC."
It is known to use the Coding Technologies' Spectral Band Replication
technology (as does MPEG HE-AAC) but its technical details are otherwise
held secret by iBiquity. This secrecy has caused considerable
controversy in the broadcast industry.



It shouldn't be too diifficult to determine - just use a little
reverse engineering. If it's using SBR, well that's all that really
matters. SBR extends the high-frequency components from ~8 to 16
kilohertz, so that even an MP3 + SBR sounds good.

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Robert Orban wrote:
In article .com,
says...



Steven wrote:

HD/IBOC does not employ AAC, although an earlier
version may have IIRC. It uses something called PAC(?)


You have it backwards. It used to be PAC, derived from MP3.

Early testing showed it didn't work very well, so the codec was
switched to MPEG4 AAC+SBR.

No, it wasn't. The codec was changed to something iBiquity calls "HDC."
It is known to use the Coding Technologies' Spectral Band Replication
technology (as does MPEG HE-AAC) but its technical details are otherwise
held secret by iBiquity. This secrecy has caused considerable
controversy in the broadcast industry.



It shouldn't be too diifficult to determine - just use a little
reverse engineering. If it's using SBR, well that's all that really
matters. SBR extends the high-frequency components from ~8 to 16
kilohertz, so that even an MP3 + SBR sounds good.

You never finnish your sentences. You mean sounds good to tin ears.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Sep 29, 1:09 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is
still the same:

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio

I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but
from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB
(poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality &
interference w/ existing AM stations).

Thoughts?

Opinions?

Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
kbps Surround).

Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio?

Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 station to 4
stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel)
(and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels). Or maybe a Jazz station
dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big
Band-era Jazz. FM could effectively triple its number of channels.

Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM)
transition has some growing pains to overcome.

A REMINDER TO ALL -WRT- "HD" RADIO

There Is a "HD Radio" NewsGroup
HD RADIO = http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/
Description: This is a Group for discussing HD Radio, it's
viability in the market place, HD Radios & Receivers and
Technology, Programming, Reception, and in general
anything concerning HD Radio that shouldn't be clogging
up other NewsGroups, like Rec.Radio.Shortwave.

For anyone who is looking for an "HD" Radio Group that
is Moderated -or- Simply NOT Rec.Radio.Shortwave

Here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "HD" Radio News and Information.
HD RADIO = http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=HD+Radio
* HDRadio
* HD-Radio
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Accurian HD Radio {RadioShack}
* High Defination Radio

Plus here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "IBOC" {HD Radio} News and Information.
http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=IBOC
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Sangean HDT1 "HD" Radio Tuner
* NO2IBOC = Just Say "NO" To IBOC !
* DRM IBOC HDRadio = DRM and HD Radio Forum
* AMStereoOnly = AM Stereo Only ! - Where Digital Is Dead !

FWIW - Here is another HD Radio Forum {NewsGroup}
AVS Forum Digital Video & Audio Devices HD Radio
HD RADIO = http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154
Some Good Info Here and It is Free for the Reading )

And Once Again The Aforementioned "HDRadio" NewsGroup
HDRADIO=http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/

hy dee ray dee oh ~ RHF

RHF writes:

A REMINDER TO ALL -WRT- "HD" RADIO

There Is a "HD Radio" NewsGroup
HD RADIO = http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/
Description: This is a Group for discussing HD Radio, it's
viability in the market place, HD Radios & Receivers and
Technology, Programming, Reception, and in general
anything concerning HD Radio that shouldn't be clogging
up other NewsGroups, like Rec.Radio.Shortwave.

For anyone who is looking for an "HD" Radio Group that
is Moderated -or- Simply NOT Rec.Radio.Shortwave

Here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "HD" Radio News and Information.
HD RADIO = http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=HD+Radio
* HDRadio
* HD-Radio
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Accurian HD Radio {RadioShack}
* High Defination Radio

Plus here is a List of Yahoo Groups that have something
to do with "IBOC" {HD Radio} News and Information.
http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=IBOC
* HD-Radio-Engineering
* Sangean HDT1 "HD" Radio Tuner
* NO2IBOC = Just Say "NO" To IBOC !
* DRM IBOC HDRadio = DRM and HD Radio Forum
* AMStereoOnly = AM Stereo Only ! - Where Digital Is Dead !

FWIW - Here is another HD Radio Forum {NewsGroup}
AVS Forum Digital Video & Audio Devices HD Radio
HD RADIO = http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=154
Some Good Info Here and It is Free for the Reading )

And Once Again The Aforementioned "HDRadio" NewsGroup
HDRADIO=http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/

hy dee ray dee oh ~ RHF

It may seem pedantic, but please don't refer to these as "newsgroups"
unless they are true usenet newsgroups. There are no "hd-*" newsgroups
on my supernews server (one of the largest in the world), so they
probably don't exist.

A custom-created group in Google or Yahoo does not a usenet newsgroup
make.
--
% Randy Yates % "Remember the good old 1980's, when
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % things were so uncomplicated?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Ticket To The Moon'
%%%% % *Time*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com