"Hall Monitor2" wrote in message
...
The bandwidth that it might "screw up" isn't being used for anything
anyway. Like most digitization, is is finding ways to use resources more
efficiently.

It is being "used" by a few hundred old-timers who still like to scan the AM
band, looking for that rare and elusive "catch" from 1000 miles away. They
think their outdated hobby transcends any attempt to make real use of the
bandwidth.

Mind you, their intent is not to actually *listen* to any programs on said
station. It's merely an ego thing - they just want to say "I heard such
and such station". People who actually *listen* to the radio are derisively
called "program listeners" by the "elite" DXers.

Yeah, spinning the dial to see what you could find was cool 40 years ago
when I was a kid, using an old tube radio. But these days it is just
silly. You can "catch" nearly any station in the world these days on the
net. You might as well put up a TV antenna on your roof and go up and
manually spin it around every time you change channels. Or would you
rather have cable/HD/satellite?

There is simply no reason for AM radio to still be noisy/static
filled/fading/generally sounding like crap. If it can't be fixed, then it
should just go away. If it can be fixed, then let's fix it. The current
technology is 100 years old, virtually unchanged. Frankly, its
embarrassing. No wonder kids today have no interest in it.

On Nov 23, 5:29 pm, "Bob Campbell" wrote:
"Hall Monitor2" wrote in message

...

The bandwidth that it might "screw up" isn't being used for anything
anyway. Like most digitization, is is finding ways to use resources more
efficiently.

It is being "used" by a few hundred old-timers who still like to scan the AM
band, looking for that rare and elusive "catch" from 1000 miles away. They
think their outdated hobby transcends any attempt to make real use of the
bandwidth.

Mind you, their intent is not to actually *listen* to any programs on said
station. It's merely an ego thing - they just want to say "I heard such
and such station". People who actually *listen* to the radio are derisively
called "program listeners" by the "elite" DXers.

Yeah, spinning the dial to see what you could find was cool 40 years ago
when I was a kid, using an old tube radio. But these days it is just
silly. You can "catch" nearly any station in the world these days on the
net. You might as well put up a TV antenna on your roof and go up and
manually spin it around every time you change channels. Or would you
rather have cable/HD/satellite?

There is simply no reason for AM radio to still be noisy/static
filled/fading/generally sounding like crap. If it can't be fixed, then it
should just go away. If it can be fixed, then let's fix it. The current
technology is 100 years old, virtually unchanged. Frankly, its
embarrassing. No wonder kids today have no interest in it.

Bob, Bob, Bob. You're pathetic! Digital doesn't mean better. I'm
embarrased at you!

"Rfburns" wrote in message
...
Bob, Bob, Bob. You're pathetic! Digital doesn't mean better. I'm
embarrased at you!


For audio/video, it does. Do you think that 100 year old AM technology
can't be improved? Or are you one of those "tubes 4ever" people?

Look, I have loads of tube radios here. More than you can imagine.
Philcos, Zeniths, an E. H. Scott. I listen to them every day, mainly
things that I broadcast myself. Yes, they sound (mostly) very nice. But
if you think digital is not better then you are simply a luddite.

I'm not claiming that the current AM HD system is the best we can do.
Clearly it is not. But at least someone is *trying* to bring AM into the
21st century. We should not be cheering at its failure.

Bob Campbell wrote:
"Rfburns" wrote in message
...
Bob, Bob, Bob. You're pathetic! Digital doesn't mean better. I'm
embarrased at you!


For audio/video, it does. Do you think that 100 year old AM technology
can't be improved? Or are you one of those "tubes 4ever" people?

Look, I have loads of tube radios here. More than you can imagine.
Philcos, Zeniths, an E. H. Scott. I listen to them every day, mainly
things that I broadcast myself. Yes, they sound (mostly) very nice.
But if you think digital is not better then you are simply a luddite.

I'm not claiming that the current AM HD system is the best we can do.
Clearly it is not. But at least someone is *trying* to bring AM into
the 21st century. We should not be cheering at its failure.

You can easily build survival radios that transmit and receive AM or CW.
Therefore, we should therefore maintain a vital analog presence, at
least below 30 MHz.

Dave wrote:
Bob Campbell wrote:
"Rfburns" wrote in message
...
Bob, Bob, Bob. You're pathetic! Digital doesn't mean better. I'm
embarrased at you!


For audio/video, it does. Do you think that 100 year old AM
technology can't be improved? Or are you one of those "tubes 4ever"
people?

Look, I have loads of tube radios here. More than you can imagine.
Philcos, Zeniths, an E. H. Scott. I listen to them every day, mainly
things that I broadcast myself. Yes, they sound (mostly) very
nice. But if you think digital is not better then you are simply a
luddite.

I'm not claiming that the current AM HD system is the best we can do.
Clearly it is not. But at least someone is *trying* to bring AM into
the 21st century. We should not be cheering at its failure.

You can easily build survival radios that transmit and receive AM or CW.
Therefore, we should therefore maintain a vital analog presence, at
least below 30 MHz.
Therefore...

On Nov 23, 10:21 pm, Dave wrote:
Dave wrote:
Bob Campbell wrote:
"Rfburns" wrote in message
...
Bob, Bob, Bob. You're pathetic! Digital doesn't mean better. I'm
embarrased at you!

For audio/video, it does. Do you think that 100 year old AM
technology can't be improved? Or are you one of those "tubes 4ever"
people?

Look, I have loads of tube radios here. More than you can imagine.
Philcos, Zeniths, an E. H. Scott. I listen to them every day, mainly
things that I broadcast myself. Yes, they sound (mostly) very
nice. But if you think digital is not better then you are simply a
luddite.

I'm not claiming that the current AM HD system is the best we can do.
Clearly it is not. But at least someone is *trying* to bring AM into
the 21st century. We should not be cheering at its failure.

You can easily build survival radios that transmit and receive AM or CW.
Therefore, we should therefore maintain a vital analog presence, at
least below 30 MHz.

Therefore...

Dave - You're exactly right. AM radio should stay as it is. It's
simple, works extremely well through marginal conditions and receivers
are easy to make are cheap to build. Too bad the FCC is too stupid to
understand this or too compromised by influences from big business.
(Probably the latter)

I'm so tired of people ignorantly flapping their gums about digital
this and digital that. Not every service should become digital.
Someday Bob will understand this. Shame on you Bob.