In article ,
"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:

HD is just another option/choice.

Choices are a good thing.

Not when they cause interference on the band and harm reception on other
stations.

I suggest you get up to speed on some of the tests that have been done
and are currently in progress.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:

HD is just another option/choice.

Choices are a good thing.

Not when they cause interference on the band and harm reception on other
stations.

I suggest you get up to speed on some of the tests that have been done
and are currently in progress.

I am more up-to date than you could imagine.

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the public...and
virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

Reminds me of the engineers who didn't want to turn on the stereo
pilot...because they were afraid to give up any coverage area.

Jo Jo Gunn wrote:
"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:

HD is just another option/choice.

Choices are a good thing.
Not when they cause interference on the band and harm reception on other
stations.

I suggest you get up to speed on some of the tests that have been done
and are currently in progress.

I am more up-to date than you could imagine.

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the public...and
virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

Reminds me of the engineers who didn't want to turn on the stereo
pilot...because they were afraid to give up any coverage area.



Stereo destroys FM coverage. Those engineers were right.

People don't complain as much as they just find other things to listen
to. Digital sidebands increase analog channel noise. That is a fact.
Now if they were to quit trying to do stereo in the analog channel, that
might work.

"dave" wrote in message
...
Jo Jo Gunn wrote:
"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:

HD is just another option/choice.

Choices are a good thing.
Not when they cause interference on the band and harm reception on other
stations.

I suggest you get up to speed on some of the tests that have been done
and are currently in progress.

I am more up-to date than you could imagine.

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

Reminds me of the engineers who didn't want to turn on the stereo
pilot...because they were afraid to give up any coverage area.



Stereo destroys FM coverage. Those engineers were right.


Stereo multiplexing in and of itself does no damage to the coverage area.
Listening on a monaural receiver or in mono mode with a stereo receiver
gives the same coverage as a monaural transmitter would.

"dave" wrote in message
...
Jo Jo Gunn wrote:
"John Higdon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Watchin & Waitin'" wrote:

HD is just another option/choice.

Choices are a good thing.
Not when they cause interference on the band and harm reception on other
stations.

I suggest you get up to speed on some of the tests that have been done
and are currently in progress.

I am more up-to date than you could imagine.

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

Reminds me of the engineers who didn't want to turn on the stereo
pilot...because they were afraid to give up any coverage area.



Stereo destroys FM coverage. Those engineers were right.

And those that were purists and held to that belief....are all out of
business.

Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the public...and
virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

That doesn't mean there's no interference. It's amazing how the
proponents of HD Radio assume that receivers magically quit receiving a
signal once they leave a station's protected contour. Plus, to the
average listener an HD carrier sounds like white noise & they think it's
weak signal. Nobody thinks to complain about interference. They just
move on to something else.

I've heard on and on about how great the HD-2 formats are going to be,
but all I've observed is more lame cookie-cutter radio taking away the
reception that I once enjoyed. The audio quality is nothing to write
home about either. But HD radio has caused us to adapt. My wife & I
listen to web radio more than terrestrial radio now, since there are
fewer choices on the dial.

Dave B.

Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

That doesn't mean there's no interference. It's amazing how the
proponents of HD Radio assume that receivers magically quit receiving a
signal once they leave a station's protected contour.

No, the FCC has made a judgement on how far and how long a stations signal
would be protected.

That's the established standard. The days of clear-channels being protected
nationwide are over.

Plus, to the average listener an HD carrier sounds like white noise & they
think it's weak signal. Nobody thinks to complain about interference.
They just move on to something else.

The large broadcast companies do engineering research and audience research.
There has been no widespread complaints (if any at all), and there is no
indication that people "move onto something else".

I've heard on and on about how great the HD-2 formats are going to be, but
all I've observed is more lame cookie-cutter radio taking away the
reception that I once enjoyed.

THe formats on HD are quiite similar to what was on FM in the early to mid
60's. Music intensive, non-commercial, some simulcasting to improve
coverage, and mostly automated.

The audio quality is nothing to write home about either.

The public has had no complaints about HD audio quality. And like the
qualities of MP3's, which is "nothing to write home about" either, it's
"good enough" and the public isn't complaining.

But HD radio has caused us to adapt. My wife & I listen to web radio more
than terrestrial radio now, since there are fewer choices on the dial.

I'd be interested in knowing where you are, and what station(s) you can no
longer listen too due to HD radio.


"Dave Barnett" wrote in message
...
Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

There has been no widespread interference complaints from the
public...and virtually all stations are protected within their contours.

That doesn't mean there's no interference. It's amazing how the
proponents of HD Radio assume that receivers magically quit receiving a
signal once they leave a station's protected contour. Plus, to the
average listener an HD carrier sounds like white noise & they think it's
weak signal. Nobody thinks to complain about interference. They just
move on to something else.

I've heard on and on about how great the HD-2 formats are going to be, but
all I've observed is more lame cookie-cutter radio taking away the
reception that I once enjoyed. The audio quality is nothing to write home
about either. But HD radio has caused us to adapt. My wife & I listen to
web radio more than terrestrial radio now, since there are fewer choices
on the dial.

Dave B.

Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

No, the FCC has made a judgement on how far and how long a stations signal
would be protected.

That's the established standard. The days of clear-channels being protected
nationwide are over.

No argument there. I'm just saying that stations have listeners outside
their protected contours. I volunteer at a local non-comm and we have
many subscribers who listen well outside our protected contour. Not
only do they listen, but they donate money. That surely says something.

I'd be interested in knowing where you are, and what station(s) you can no
longer listen too due to HD radio.


I live sometimes in the San Francisco Bay Area and sometimes in Pioneer,
CA (in the Sierras) In my case the interference happened on these
frequencies:

107.5 KPIG - used to be receivable throughout the South Bay until 107.7
in San Francisco turned on HD
95.9 KRSH - we used to listen to them at home before 95.7 turned on HD,
generally too weak to hear in a car.
91.5 KKUP - used to be receivable way up the peninsula and into Oakland
before 91.7 turned on HD
89.5 KVMR - used to be receivable throughout Sacramento until 89.3
turned on HD

KKUP and KVMR actually receive interference inside their protected
contours, and inside their city of license, due to terrain shielding and
power/HAAT discrepancy issues. Another instance where the FCC is
completely blind to the real world.

Interestingly enough, a few years ago I had a fence built and some
extensive landscaping done. The guys doing the work were complaining
that they couldn't get KPIG anymore no matter where they were on a job.
They were using a better-than-average boom box, but nothing special.
One of them was fiddling with the antenna and got a hint of the
station's audio, buried in digital carriers. He said - "nope, it
doesn't work here either" and they switched to the local classic rock
station. I knew why, but of course they had no idea. That's only an
example of one. Maybe the only one. But I find it interesting.

I firmly believe that this will shake out one way or the other. Either
with an expanded radio band, better digital accesss, ipv6 multicast, UDP
with forward error correction, etc. There are a lot of ways looming on
the horizon for creative people to be heard. Meanwhile, we do what we can.

Dave B.

I'd be interested in knowing where you are, and what station(s) you can
no
longer listen too due to HD radio.


I live sometimes in the San Francisco Bay Area and sometimes in Pioneer,
CA (in the Sierras) In my case the interference happened on these
frequencies:

107.5 KPIG - used to be receivable throughout the South Bay until 107.7 in
San Francisco turned on HD

http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat...atus=L&hours=U

95.9 KRSH - we used to listen to them at home before 95.7 turned on HD,
generally too weak to hear in a car.

http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat...atus=L&hours=U

91.5 KKUP - used to be receivable way up the peninsula and into Oakland
before 91.7 turned on HD

http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat...atus=L&hours=U

89.5 KVMR - used to be receivable throughout Sacramento until 89.3 turned
on HD

http://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/pat...atus=L&hours=U


Most radio stations do not make any money from DX listeners. Stations are
not interested in servicing areas outside of their assigned license.

People listening in the metro area of a signals are going to be deprived so
a few people on the outskirts are able to pick up an out of town signal?

Jo Jo Gunn wrote:

(radiolocator links deleted to save a little bandwidth)

You actually proved my point. The blue area (while we all know that's
only predicted) is just about exactly where I used to receive the
signals on my stock 1996 Chevy pickup FM radio in the pre-HD days. KVMR
was a little better because their transmitter is so high off the valley
floor.

Most radio stations do not make any money from DX listeners. Stations are
not interested in servicing areas outside of their assigned license.

KPIG used to have ads for Streetlight Records in San Jose, as well as
some of the Stevens Creek car dealers. KVMR was very interested in
their ability to cover Sacramento. So much so that they had a
translator there for a while. While your statement is probably correct
for the conglomerates, there certainly are exceptions.

People listening in the metro area of a signals are going to be deprived so
a few people on the outskirts are able to pick up an out of town signal?

Given the penetration of HD receivers, you could also say "a few people
in the metro area of a signal are going to be deprived" so that other
people in the metro can pick up a weaker signal. I check the HD-2
broadcasts of our local channels probably twice a week just to see if
they decided to do anything interesting. Sometimes I hear silence,
sometimes the same song over & over, sometimes the PAD doesn't match the
program, and sometimes the errors go unnoticed for days. That probably
means nobody is listening.

There's no way of knowing for sure, but I suspect that the number of
listeners that KKUP lost in the Bay Area far exceeds the number of
people listening to KALW in HD. Likewise, the number of listeners that
KVMR lost in Sacramento probably exceeds the number of people listening
to KQEI in HD. Also - why is it that the interference area extends so
far beyond where an HD radio will lock? Is the system really that bad?

Dave B.