HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 30, 1:37 am, wrote:
On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, RHF wrote:

What Analog Shut Down ?

The plan is to kill the analog signals and go strictly digital.



wrote:
That will millions of radios obsolete. Don't think
that will happen. IBOC will die first...


There are millions of obsolete televisions which will stop working in
just over a year. Does it look like the advertisers care?

If they are on cable, it does not matter. 70-some percent of the US is on
cable, and another significant percent is on satellite.


They won't care about obsolete radios either.


Radio stations are not ready to go all digital, and probably will not be for
8 to 10 years.... if ever.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 30, 9:15 am, wrote:
Frank Dresser wrote:

In my market, Chicago, the top 2 stations account for about 10% of the
listeners. The bottom 15 on the Arbitron list draw 1% or less. And
there
are a number of stations which don't even make the list.

Actually, I just looked at the Chicago market. The ratings don't
support your claim. Even in Chicago, the listeners are fairly evenly
divided amongst the top 20 stations. (ranging from approximately 2 to
5% of the listeners, per station).

That seems to suggest listeners do what I do:
- jump from station to station
- looking for variety across multiple channels
- they would LOVE having 3-4 times more options on the FM dial.


SILENCE?

Guess I caught you in a lie. The Arbitron ratings don't support your
claim, but you're not willing to admit you got caught in alie.

Typical grandpa.


The average radio listener has three stations they regularly use, with very
few listening to only one (mostly evangelical stations) and many listening
to 4 or 5. In the People meter, the average listener has 5 to 7 stations
they sample at least once every two weeks. Having more local choices
increases use of terrestrial radio.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

"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.

Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically,
the extent of the normal human hearing range.

If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone
connection.

SoCal Tom

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:48:23 -0700, "SoCal Tom"
wrote:

If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone
connection.

100Hz to 6000Hz would be an unbelievably good telephone connection.
300 to 3000 is more like a normal one.

d

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

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

"SoCal Tom" wrote in message
...

"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.

AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall.

Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or
basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range.

If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor
telephone connection.

Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without
exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically
nothing over 5 kHz.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

SFTV_troy wrote:



Yes it does. AM-HD sounds like FM quality. FM-HD sounds near-CD
quality.


Let me say that I am thoroughly grateful that I don't have your ears.

HD RADIO is NO!, and your mother will back me up so don't bother asking
 

On Sep 30, 3:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"SoCal Tom" wrote in message

...



"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.

AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall.



Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or
basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range.

If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor
telephone connection.

Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without
exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically
nothing over 5 kHz.

Bob Orban is the alien from the late Weekly World News.

god darn it, we've had EVERY TROLL in the group except the K-Man, the
Scott Lifshine/Wereo entity, and the RRAP brigade in this thread!

Morein/McCarty/66.6% of the world's asshole postings has chimed in
even.

I predict the world will simply implode and then go back to whatever
it was doing beforehand.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Sep 29, 4:42?pm, Ken wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:09:45 -0700, SFTV_troy
wrote:

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).

No, they are going to increase quantity (more radio channels),
not sound quality. Se how they done in UK.

Consumer interest in DAB in the UK is slowing (only 3.5 million DAB
radios have been sold in ten years), DAB stalled in Canada, and there
is almost zero consumer interest in HD Radio in the US - consumers
must realize that digital radio is a farce:

http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

"Steve" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 30, 5:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost
without
exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed
practically
nothing over 5 kHz.

That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way,
that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head.


The document was linked from one of Mr. Orban's posts on this ng, and is
searchable by Google.

HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
 

On Sep 30, 6:53 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"Steve" wrote in message

ps.com...

On Sep 30, 5:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:

Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost
without
exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed
practically
nothing over 5 kHz.

That's funny, I just asked Bob if he 'found' this and he said no way,
that you're basically just making **** up off the top of your head.

The document was linked from one of Mr. Orban's posts on this ng, and is
searchable by Google.

You must have been posting under an alias.