HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

Steve wrote:
RHF writes:

A custom-created group in Google or Yahoo does not
a usenet newsgroup make.

Umm...this may also seem pedantic, but please don't refer
to true usenet groups as "newsgroups". Thanks.

Why not? Usenet does:
Newsgroups:
rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,b a.broadcast
Subject: HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:55:01 -0400




Oh well. I'm not surprised. Assholes usually are wrong. Ho suck a
cock you son of a bitch.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Oct 9, 1:03 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
Steve wrote:
RHF writes:

A custom-created group in Google or Yahoo does not
a usenet newsgroup make.

Umm...this may also seem pedantic, but please don't refer
to true usenet groups as "newsgroups". Thanks.

Why not? Usenet does:
Newsgroups:
rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,b a.broadcast
Subject: HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:55:01 -0400

Oh well. I'm not surprised. Assholes usually are wrong. Ho suck a
cock you son of a bitch.

Why not just ask them, nicely, to stop? There's no need to berate them
for their mistake.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Oct 9, 10:00 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Telamon wrote:

- - You never finnish your sentences. You mean sounds good to tin
ears.
-
- Uh huh. On the day you learn manners...... well, that will never
- happen, so why waste time discussing it. A man of your advanced age
- has always acted like a childish ill-manned person, and probably
- always will act like a childish ill-manned person.

SFTV -aka- "Hybrid Digital" Man,

At best it could be say that 'you' Parrot everyone else's behavior
toward you : Which is a direct result of your actions to begin with.

* You seem to have a personal 'issue'
with those who are much older than you.

* Your Posts and Replies often have a
Mean Spirited 'Tone' to to them.

hopefully you will reflect on these comments ~ RHF

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Telamon wrote:

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



Uh huh. On the day you learn manners...... well, that will never
happen, so why waste time discussing it. A man of your advanced age
has always acted like a childish ill-manned person, and probably
always will act like a childish ill-manned person.

Are you a gay digital engineer Miss manners?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

"Robert Orban" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...



"SFTV_troy" blabbed:
... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound
(it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce
interference.

At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz.

There is no low frequency limit for either AM or FM; 50 Hz was the minimum
performance standard that would meet the now long-deleted FCC Proof of
Performance measurements.

The effective HF limit on FM is about 18.5 kHz; this leaves a +/- 500 Hz guard
band for the stereo pilot tone. Again, 15 kHz was the minimum spec that would
pass a Proof of Performance, not a limit on bandwidth.

Currently, the legal FCC-mandated HF limit on AM in the US is a hair less than
10 kHz, which almost completely protects second-adjacent stations from
interference. This was changed around 1990 as a result of work done by the
National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC). More recent work by the NRSC has
indicated that 7 kHz is probably the optimum compromise between causing
interference and loss of audio quality on typical AM radios (which are down 3
dB at about 2.6 kHz). However, limiting bandwidth to 7 kHz is voluntary.


Robert,

Was AM radio ever allowed audio to 15 KHz? I read many years ago that it was, perhaps
before the NRSC recommendation was adopted by the FCC. I presumed that the stations either
were allowed to overlap 5 KHz (doubtful), or that stations in a given area were separated by
at least 30 KHz.
--
Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud
www.smokeylake.com

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:59:17 GMT, "Earl Kiosterud"
wrote:

Was AM radio ever allowed audio to 15 KHz? I read many years ago that it was, perhaps
before the NRSC recommendation was adopted by the FCC. I presumed that the stations either
were allowed to overlap 5 KHz (doubtful), or that stations in a given area were separated by
at least 30 KHz.
--
Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud
www.smokeylake.com



Years ago, here in London an interesting thing happened. Audio was fed
to our big AM transmitter by landline, which had a hopeless frequency
response, losing a great deal of HF. This was equalised in the channel
filter for the transmitter, resulting in flat AM out to about 5kHz.

Anyway, at some point the land line was replaced with a much better
one, but nobody thought to tweak the channel filter to suit the new
frequency response, resulting in audio which was flattish out to at
least 12 if not 15kHz. we had really good quality AM for quite a
while.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

"Earl Kiosterud" wrote:



Robert,

Was AM radio ever allowed audio to 15 KHz? I read many years ago that it was, perhaps
before the NRSC recommendation was adopted by the FCC. I presumed that the stations either
were allowed to overlap 5 KHz (doubtful), or that stations in a given area were separated by
at least 30 KHz.


I'm not Robert, but...

Prior to FM multiplex stereo, there were some experimental stereo
broadcasters who transmitted one channel on FM and the other on AM. A
friend of mine has an old Lafayette tuner set up this way, along with
a plug-in jack for a multiplex adapter when they became available.

I think there was quite a large amount of effort to produce wideband
AM. Amplitude modulation itself certainly has no such limitations;
however it is possible that tuning the tower system to handle that
wide a bandwitdth within MW would be a problem. Don't know.


--
Eric F. Richards,
"It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

"Earl Kiosterud" wrote in message
news:pt%Yi.403$CI1.60@trnddc03...


"Robert Orban" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...



"SFTV_troy" blabbed:
... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound
(it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce
interference.

At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to
15KHz.

There is no low frequency limit for either AM or FM; 50 Hz was the
minimum
performance standard that would meet the now long-deleted FCC Proof of
Performance measurements.

The effective HF limit on FM is about 18.5 kHz; this leaves a +/- 500 Hz
guard
band for the stereo pilot tone. Again, 15 kHz was the minimum spec that
would
pass a Proof of Performance, not a limit on bandwidth.

Currently, the legal FCC-mandated HF limit on AM in the US is a hair less
than
10 kHz, which almost completely protects second-adjacent stations from
interference. This was changed around 1990 as a result of work done by
the
National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC). More recent work by the NRSC has
indicated that 7 kHz is probably the optimum compromise between causing
interference and loss of audio quality on typical AM radios (which are
down 3
dB at about 2.6 kHz). However, limiting bandwidth to 7 kHz is voluntary.


Robert,

Was AM radio ever allowed audio to 15 KHz? I read many years ago that it
was, perhaps before the NRSC recommendation was adopted by the FCC. I
presumed that the stations either were allowed to overlap 5 KHz
(doubtful), or that stations in a given area were separated by at least 30
KHz.
--
Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud
www.smokeylake.com

I was a broadcast engineer in the late 1970s to the late 1980s. At that time
(before NRSC) AM was required to transmit a minimum 5KHz bandwidth, but the
maximum modulated bandwidth was not really defined. There were limits on
"spurious" emissions, caused by audio distortion products and carrier
harmonics. I don't recall the exact mask, but 15KHz was legal at that time.
Our studio transmitter link was a Mosely PCL-505, which was flat to 15KHz,
and we employed no artificial band limiting, so the station was flat to at
least 12KHz. Our tower was the limiting factor for bandwidth. It sounded
just like monophonic FM on the modulation monitor.

During the day there was no overlap, because stations were allocated on
second alternate channels in most markets. Local stations that did overlap
usually worked out a solution amongst themselves if the interference was
objectionable. At night it got quite a bit noisier as distant stations would
skip into the area, but it wasn't generally sidebands that caused the
problem, it was the carriers themselves, each whining away at 10KHz. That is
still a problem, even today.

The real problem was that in the late 1980s, AM stations began adding
proprietary "pre-emphasis" -- high frequency boost to make their station
sound brighter on typical pathetically band-limited AM receivers. This can
and did cause severe interference in some congested markets. Partially to
address this, and to standardize the pre-emphasis, NRSC limited AM sidebands
to 10KHz in the early 1990s. Since most AM radios do not even come close to
being flat to 5KHz, 10 KHz is still two or three times more bandwidth than
most listeners can use.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

In article pt%Yi.403$CI1.60@trnddc03, says...

Was AM radio ever allowed audio to 15 KHz?

WLW AM in Cincinnati, in the 60's, used to plug itself as "The Nation's
Highest Fidelety Radio Station" and ran an announcement a few times a
day explaining that the audio response was flat to 20kc (kc in those
days :-)
).

A ham buddy of mine who was a transmitter engineer at WLWO, the VOA
station that shared the Mason site with WLW, built a high-tech crystal
set (multiple tuned RF stages) to see how good AM could sound. It was
remarkable.

--
reverse my name in email address

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

Jason wrote:


A ham buddy of mine who was a transmitter engineer at WLWO, the VOA
station that shared the Mason site with WLW, built a high-tech crystal
set (multiple tuned RF stages) to see how good AM could sound. It was
remarkable.


I once tried a simple single-tuned crystal AM radio connected directly
to a guy wire of a 5 kW AM station, feeding a KEF 105 speaker. It sounded
wonderful.

Doug McDonald

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Nov 21, 11:40 am, Doug McDonald
wrote:
Jason wrote:

A ham buddy of mine who was a transmitter engineer at WLWO, the VOA
station that shared the Mason site with WLW, built a high-tech crystal
set (multiple tuned RF stages) to see how good AM could sound. It was
remarkable.

I once tried a simple single-tuned crystal AM radio connected directly
to a guy wire of a 5 kW AM station, feeding a KEF 105 speaker. It sounded
wonderful.

Doug McDonald

I'm only half a mile away from the towers and I don't need a single
tuned crystal nor does my TV or computer bug it.

I'm not sure why IBOC means much to RRS but then again the IBOC
whiners' cabal/snake reproductive schemers that post these retarded
flaming marshmallows minus chocolate and graham crackers and their
hairdressers do.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

Doug McDonald wrote:
Jason wrote:


A ham buddy of mine who was a transmitter engineer at WLWO, the VOA
station that shared the Mason site with WLW, built a high-tech crystal
set (multiple tuned RF stages) to see how good AM could sound. It was
remarkable.


I once tried a simple single-tuned crystal AM radio connected directly
to a guy wire of a 5 kW AM station, feeding a KEF 105 speaker. It sounded
wonderful.

Doug McDonald

When I was restoring a ca. 1915 loose-coupler crystal set, I was
actually startled by how good it sounded. No pesky IF or AF stages to
add distortion or pass band limiting!