wrote:

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/


Do you have a similar website for DAB?

"SFTV_troy" wrote in message
oups.com...

Earl Kiosterud wrote:

Synchronous AM demodulation uses a locally regenerated carrier, fed along with the AM
signal
(upper or lower set of sidebands) to a multiplier (modulator). The result is the audio.
It
replaces the envelope (diode) detector usually used. You can think of it as another
superhet
stage where the result, instead of another IF frequency, is the baseband audio. That's
because the local oscillator is the same frequency as the carrier of the (IF) signal, so
the
difference is zero. The sidebands wind up translated to baseband audio instead of to
another IF frequency.

There are advantages. Since one set of sidebands or the other can be used, if there's a
distant station 10KHz away, causing that AM whistle, you just switch to the other set of
sidebands, whichever comes in the cleanest. Also, it doesn't depend on proper amplitude
and
phase of both sets of sidebands to work properly, as does the regular envelope detector,
so
it works better with impaired signals.



I only understood about 75% of what your wrote, but if I understand
your meaning, this new receiving technique would not improve the sound
(it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce
interference.


Troy,

Well, the 6 KHz limit is due to the narrow bandwidth of the receivers, not the detector
used, or the stations. I think most AM radios actually do much worse than that. AM radios
are designed with a limited bandpass because it gets noisy as the bandwidth goes up. The AM
band is a soup of distant stations, particularly at night, and that's the source of much of
the noise. AM radio stations in the US are allowed up to 10 KHz audio. That's pretty
listenable -- there's only a little over a half octave to the 15 KHz limit of FM.

The synchronous detector, in addition to being able to use one set of sidebands or the
other, whichever is the best under the conditions, is not subject to distortion from
asymmetrical sidebands, such as when there is fading, multipath, etc. There may be a
non-flat audio bandpass from those conditions, but a conventional detector will also have
distortion.
--
Regards from Virginia Beach,

Earl Kiosterud
www.smokeylake.com

David Eduardo wrote:
wrote in message



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



Both the UK and Germany have "tentatively" set 2015 as the shut-down
for FM. (They expect DAB to fill that role.) I figure the U.S.
transition will require a similar time period of fifteen years, so
sometime around 2020 will be the end of analog.

Although, I'd like to see AM die as early as 2010 since so few people
listen to it. Just make it pure digital, 10 kHz per channel.

FM can continue until 2020 (it has no interference problems).

In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Telamon wrote:

You're the second person to say something like that. But that's not
problem a with HD Radio, because U.S. radio doesn't air infomercials
(half-hour ads).

Good heavens. I suggest you listen to more radio more often. Make it a
portable so you get out more often. Heck there are infomercials that go
on for hours on the radio.



Please list a couple stations that do "hours" of infomercials, and
then point me to some of the Station websites, so I can check it out
for myself. This is a whole new phenomenon to me, because I've never
heard anything like that locally (neither on FM Music, nor AM Talk).

A local talk news station to me KVEN 1450 Sunday mornings has these
stupid supplement programs selling the latest bottle of pills that will
make you healthier or Realtors, loan brokers, CPA's, lawyers trying to
get your business. Any of these professions usually are selling books
and tapes. I hear this sort of thing up and down the dial.

If you listen to radio you got to be hearing this stuff.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Telamon wrote:
SFTV_troy wrote:
Earl Kiosterud wrote:

I think the USB to which Tom refers is upper sideband. Converting
AM stations would mean they'd transmit only one set of sidebands,
the upper set, reducing the bandwidth to almost half. More
stations could be licensed in the same band. ...


But still have the same poor AM sound. Digital offers
an upgrade to near-FM quality.

I'll take the AM sound over low bit rate digital anytime.



Uh huh. Take a quick listen to these "low bit rate digital" AAC+
stations. They sound better than the AM Stereo radio in my car.

SKY FM New Age - http://160.79.128.40:7030
SKY- http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls
Q93 -
http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls

I have listened. Terrible sound similar to looking at pixilated pictures.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Soundhaspriority wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

Well FM-Hybrid Digital *already* sounds better than the old analog
FM. The AM also sounds better, albeit at the loss of hearing distant
stations (which can still be done via internet streaming).

No, it doesn't.

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

Oh god. Another idiot. Oh yeah you are an electrical engineer that
doesn't understand the difference between a CD and radio propagation.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article . com,
wrote:

Steve wrote:
On Sep 30, 5:20 am, SFTV_troy wrote:


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



I once road in horse drawn carriage whose ride was smooth as silk.
This didn't alter the fact that it was obsolete technology.

Change happens.
Progress is good.
Learn it.
Live it.
Love it.


Or buy yourself a coffin, and make room for the younger generation
that is not close-minded and afraid of change.

Some of you have grown into your grandpas.

Or take you for example as one that does not have the capacity to learn.
You won't know any better if you make it to old age.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"SFTV_troy" wrote in message

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

Neither AM nor FM are currently broadcast close to thier technical
fidelity
limits. Plenty of people are happy with the current mid-fi radio and
perfect audio reproduction, even if it were possible, would not bring in
more listeners.

I agree with that. What would attract people to HD Radio is seeing
their favorite stations (like mine: FM97) multiply into 3 or 4
channels..... thus giving more choices to the listener.

For every additional channel a station adds in IBOC, their main channel
bitrate MUST suffer, as bandwidth is taken away from it, so it of necessity
MUST cut back the bitrate. DAB in the UK suffers greatly from this. Back
when they first started broadcasting, reports are that the Eureka system
sounded quite good, but as more streams were added, and the bandwidth and
bitrate of all stations had to be throttled back, complaints of artifacting
and poor audio reproduction started coming in.

For God's sake the guy claims to be a digital engineer. Clearly he
should understand this elementary concept. You shouldn't have to explain
it to him.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article . com,
wrote:

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.

Oh boy, who does this sound like? Sounds like a fake hispanic to me.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

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.

Oh great! Now your talking to your sock puppet. Well, that should be
more enjoyable than conversing with other people.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California