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.