| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
Haven't checked much, but other automakers seem liable, too. Here's
hype from Volvo: http://www.pdfee.com/new-2010-volvo-...echnology.html Seems Rolls, Volvo, Audi (not yet installed), Scion, etc are liable, too. I'll have to email these attorneys with an updated list, but they are probably already checking. I posted links to these attorneys in most of the automaker forums that had complaints about HD Radio! THIS IS GREAT!!! LMFAO!!! |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On Sep 4, 12:58*pm, DigitalRadioScams
wrote: Haven't checked much, but other automakers seem liable, too. Here's hype from Volvo: http://www.pdfee.com/new-2010-volvo-...echnology.html Seems Rolls, Volvo, Audi (not yet installed), Scion, etc are liable, too. I'll have to email these attorneys with an updated list, but they are probably already checking. I posted links to these attorneys in most of the automaker forums that had complaints about HD Radio! THIS IS GREAT!!! LMFAO!!! Done! Message sent to attorneys with list and hype from Volvo - LMFAO!!!!! |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On 9/4/10 11:58 , DigitalRadioScams wrote:
Haven't checked much, but other automakers seem liable, too. Here's hype from Volvo: http://www.pdfee.com/new-2010-volvo-...echnology.html Seems Rolls, Volvo, Audi (not yet installed), Scion, etc are liable, too. I'll have to email these attorneys with an updated list, but they are probably already checking. I posted links to these attorneys in most of the automaker forums that had complaints about HD Radio! THIS IS GREAT!!! LMFAO!!! As much as I appreciate your glee, and the ultimate market recognition that this noise isn't working, do keep in mind the enormous investment represented here. Not only in hardware, and R&D, but in pocketing FCC commissioners who signed on to this crap above public objections. A court case will likely be what it takes to finally begin dismantling IBOC, but iBiquity will not go down easy. And HD will not disappear overnight. In other words, don't do a victory lap, yet. This is only a first of many, many steps. p |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
Volvo, that Swedish name means, I Roll.
Ball bearings, and probally also tapered bearings.In World War Two, U.S.Army Air Force lost over four hundred and fifty American Soldiers bombing a ball bearings factory in Schweinfurt,Germany and another smaller ball bearings factory in Germany.Neutral Sweden took up the slack, supplying bearings to the Nazis. Volvo,,, Sweden,,, HUMPH! Neutral Switzerland was working both sides of the coin, building and repairing equipment for both, the Allies and the Axis powers. SCREW Volvo!!! Sue the HELL out of Volvo!!! cuhulin |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
In article ,
"D. Peter Maus" wrote: A court case will likely be what it takes to finally begin dismantling IBOC, but iBiquity will not go down easy. And HD will not disappear overnight. This is absolutely true. The "slow death" has already begun. Equipment manufacturers have noticed the precipitous drop in orders for IBOC gear by radio stations. Retail stores never have (and still do not) sell anything that remotely resembles an "HD Radio" selection of product for consumers. The lobbying effort to have the FCC coerce the manufacturers of unrelated equipment (e.g. cell phones) to include "HD Radio" in their products will ultimately fail. It is, after all, a marketplace issue. If there's no market, what's the point? You don't dictate to consumers what they will buy and like, although that fine point seems to have been lost on The Alliance. Significantly, even the industry trades are getting bored with the topic. Even if something is exciting and successful, after awhile there is only so much that can be said. When it is a flat-out dud, only constant lobbying by those with vested interests can keep the tongues wagging, and that is pretty well running out at this point. In other words, don't do a victory lap, yet. This is only a first of many, many steps. Indeed. Some time in the future however, someone will say, "Oh, by the way, whatever became of 'HD Radio'?" That's when you will see the IBOC gear over at Weirdstuff Warehouse along with the Cartrivision and DiVX players. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
"DigitalRadioScams" wrote in message ... On Sep 4, 12:58 pm, DigitalRadioScams wrote: Haven't checked much, but other automakers seem liable, too. Here's hype from Volvo: http://www.pdfee.com/new-2010-volvo-...echnology.html Seems Rolls, Volvo, Audi (not yet installed), Scion, etc are liable, too. I'll have to email these attorneys with an updated list, but they are probably already checking. I posted links to these attorneys in most of the automaker forums that had complaints about HD Radio! THIS IS GREAT!!! LMFAO!!! Done! Message sent to attorneys with list and hype from Volvo - LMFAO!!!!! Why so happy to make lawyers rich by taking money from auto makers? The last two times lawyers sued a large company on my behalf I got a coupon worth $75 for the next time I take an airplane flight and this time I got a check, for $18.42. You can be sure the legal fees were in 7 figures. MikeK |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On Sep 4, 3:20*pm, "amdx" wrote:
"DigitalRadioScams" wrote in message ... On Sep 4, 12:58 pm, DigitalRadioScams wrote: Haven't checked much, but other automakers seem liable, too. Here's hype from Volvo: http://www.pdfee.com/new-2010-volvo-...echnology.html Seems Rolls, Volvo, Audi (not yet installed), Scion, etc are liable, too. I'll have to email these attorneys with an updated list, but they are probably already checking. I posted links to these attorneys in most of the automaker forums that had complaints about HD Radio! THIS IS GREAT!!! LMFAO!!! Done! Message sent to attorneys with list and hype from Volvo - LMFAO!!!!! *Why so happy to make lawyers rich by taking money from auto makers? * The last two times lawyers sued a large company on my behalf I got a coupon worth $75 for the next time I take an airplane flight and this time I got a check, for $18.42. You can be sure the legal fees were in 7 figures. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MikeK Because automakers, such as BMW, have been dupng the Public. No one wil go near iBiquity, now, just to get caught up in a court case. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
"DigitalRadioScams" wrote in message ... Haven't checked much, but other automakers seem liable, too. Here's hype from Volvo: http://www.pdfee.com/new-2010-volvo-...echnology.html Seems Rolls, Volvo, Audi (not yet installed), Scion, etc are liable, too. I'll have to email these attorneys with an updated list, but they are probably already checking. I posted links to these attorneys in most of the automaker forums that had complaints about HD Radio! THIS IS GREAT!!! LMFAO!!! IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in certain (many?) situations. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
Drewdove wrote:
IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in certain (many?) situations. As far as I'm concerned, allowing a signal to be broadcast, at a frequency that is already allocated to something else, is always going to be a bad idea (unless it is a system using very directional antennas). From what I've read in this NG. HD-Radio does just that. It ends up allowing digital signals to be transmitted on frequencies already allocated to analogue signals. Whoever thought that would be OK, obviously either doesn't understand radio, or simply doesn't give a sh*t about the consequences. Richard E. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On Sep 4, 9:40*pm, Richard Evans
wrote: Drewdove wrote: IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in certain (many?) situations. As far as I'm concerned, allowing a signal to be broadcast, at a frequency that is already allocated to something else, is always going to be a bad idea (unless it is a system using very directional antennas). From what I've read in this NG. HD-Radio does just that. It ends up allowing digital signals to be transmitted on frequencies already allocated to analogue signals. Whoever thought that would be OK, obviously either doesn't understand radio, or simply doesn't give a sh*t about the consequences. Richard E. The whole IBOC system was puposely designed to jam the smaller adjacent-cheenl stations of the dial. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On 9/4/2010 6:40 PM, Richard Evans wrote:
Drewdove wrote: IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in certain (many?) situations. As far as I'm concerned, allowing a signal to be broadcast, at a frequency that is already allocated to something else, is always going to be a bad idea (unless it is a system using very directional antennas). From what I've read in this NG. HD-Radio does just that. It ends up allowing digital signals to be transmitted on frequencies already allocated to analogue signals. Whoever thought that would be OK, obviously either doesn't understand radio, or simply doesn't give a sh*t about the consequences. Here's a book that you can read to understand how IBOC works (I mean if you actually want to understand it). "http://www.radioworld.com/article/8410". |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On Sep 4, 9:40*pm, Richard Evans
wrote: Drewdove wrote: IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in certain (many?) situations. As far as I'm concerned, allowing a signal to be broadcast, at a frequency that is already allocated to something else, is always going to be a bad idea (unless it is a system using very directional antennas). From what I've read in this NG. HD-Radio does just that. It ends up allowing digital signals to be transmitted on frequencies already allocated to analogue signals. Whoever thought that would be OK, obviously either doesn't understand radio, or simply doesn't give a sh*t about the consequences. Richard E. Here's a site that called out the jamming affects of HD Radio, when it was presented to Congress back in 2000: http://web.archive.org/web/200409261...ldisaster.org/ |
War is good for business
|
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
Drewdove wrote:
m wrote in message ... Haven't checked much, but other automakers seem liable, too. Here's hype from Volvo: http://www.pdfee.com/new-2010-volvo-...echnology.html Seems Rolls, Volvo, Audi (not yet installed), Scion, etc are liable, too. I'll have to email these attorneys with an updated list, but they are probably already checking. I posted links to these attorneys in most of the automaker forums that had complaints about HD Radio! THIS IS GREAT!!! LMFAO!!! IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in certain (many?) situations. KFI interferes with itself. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
DigitalRadioScams wrote:
The whole IBOC system was puposely designed to jam the smaller adjacent-cheenl stations of the dial. So is that why it's so spectrally inefficient? To use up more bandwidth, hence produce more jamming. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
SMS wrote:
Here's a book that you can read to understand how IBOC works (I mean if you actually want to understand it). "http://www.radioworld.com/article/8410". Not especially interested in the details. But I'll take a look if I can find the time. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
SMS wrote:
Here's a book that you can read to understand how IBOC works (I mean if you actually want to understand it). "http://www.radioworld.com/article/8410". So I have to buy a book, and find time to read through it, to find out about something I'm not especially interested in. Thanks for the link, but I think I'll pass on this one. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
I know how Reddifusion works.About ten years ago, that married Irish
woman (married to that Irish guy.She is from Cathair Chinn Lis, [Caherconlish, to you] he is from Fethard. http://www.fethard.com ) wayyyyyy over yonder across the big pond explained it to me.First time I ever heard of Reddifusion was in 1964 on my Hong Kong hotel room radio, when I did my five days R&R in Hong Kong. Wired Radio. cuhulin |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
Richard Evans wrote:
Drewdove wrote: IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in certain (many?) situations. As far as I'm concerned, allowing a signal to be broadcast, at a frequency that is already allocated to something else, is always going to be a bad idea (unless it is a system using very directional antennas). From what I've read in this NG. HD-Radio does just that. It ends up allowing digital signals to be transmitted on frequencies already allocated to analogue signals. Whoever thought that would be OK, obviously either doesn't understand radio, or simply doesn't give a sh*t about the consequences. Richard E. The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable and frightening idea to them. See http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009...rom-the-start/ for more information. With all good wishes, Kevin, WB4AIO. -- http://kevinalfredstrom.com/ |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
In article ,
Richard Evans wrote: SMS wrote: Here's a book that you can read to understand how IBOC works (I mean if you actually want to understand it). "http://www.radioworld.com/article/8410". So I have to buy a book, and find time to read through it, to find out about something I'm not especially interested in. Thanks for the link, but I think I'll pass on this one. Don't worry...it isn't a "book". It is one of Radio World's usual half-assed articles that pretends to be technical. Believe me, real radio engineers don't learn from Radio World. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
In article ,
Richard Evans wrote: DigitalRadioScams wrote: The whole IBOC system was puposely designed to jam the smaller adjacent-cheenl stations of the dial. So is that why it's so spectrally inefficient? To use up more bandwidth, hence produce more jamming. The idea was to ultimately retire analog FM entirely, thus enabling iBiquity to capture a royalty on every bit of material on the FM band. iBiquity understated the amount of IBOC signal necessary to achieve "equivalent" coverage with the stations' FM signals so that it could get its foot in the door. When it became apparent that -20db was inadequate (even though there was still major interference with analog signals), they lobbied for -10db. That was an "oops" of an order of magnitude. They got -14db instead, but the deleterious effects on analog FM at that level remains to be seen, since most stations have yet to take advantage of it. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On 9/5/10 7:40 PM, John Higdon wrote:
iBiquity understated the amount of IBOC signal necessary to achieve "equivalent" coverage with the stations' FM signals so that it could get its foot in the door. I think we have seem the same thing for DAB and DRM. The low powers are just sales talk. gr, hwh |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
John Higdon wrote:
Don't worry...it isn't a "book". It is one of Radio World's usual half-assed articles that pretends to be technical. Believe me, real radio engineers don't learn from Radio World. And I don't need any book or article to know that 2 different radio signals on the same frequency, is not a good idea. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
hwh wrote:
I think we have seem the same thing for DAB and DRM. The low powers are just sales talk. Lower power would be fine, if DAB had better error correction. Although there is one situation where low power DAB works well, that is in the middle of an SFN with signals coming in from several different directions. This isn't much use however in the outer areas of a local multiplex. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On 9/5/2010 8:31 AM, Richard Evans wrote:
SMS wrote: Here's a book that you can read to understand how IBOC works (I mean if you actually want to understand it). "http://www.radioworld.com/article/8410". So I have to buy a book, and find time to read through it, to find out about something I'm not especially interested in. Thanks for the link, but I think I'll pass on this one. No, you don't have to do anything. If you were interested in understanding the technology of IBOC rather than making uninformed comments about it, it would be a wise thing to do. But apparently you're content to talk about things you "know" that aren't actually true. Whatever lights your board. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On 9/5/2010 9:50 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable and frightening idea to them. That's part of it, but they also did not want to have to pay for the additional spectrum on a new band. For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were, were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was granted). I'm sure our favorite troll is well aware of what this law firm is doing. There is no lawsuit, and there is unlikely to be one. They are trying to see if they can wrangle some kind of money from BMW and other automakers. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
SMS wrote:
No, you don't have to do anything. If you were interested in understanding the technology of IBOC rather than making uninformed comments about it, it would be a wise thing to do. But apparently you're content to talk about things you "know" that aren't actually true. Whatever lights your board. I know as much as I need to know. Spectrally in efficient. Causes interference to other services. Is used at bit rates so low that sound quality can't possibly be anything better than horrible. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
In article ,
SMS wrote: For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were, were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was granted). Do you feel that if you repeat this often enough it will become true? I have repeatedly told you that KKDV, Walnut Creek, whose primary 60dbu contour encompasses Berkeley and part of Oakland is unlistenable due to interference from the IBOC signal from KSJO, San Jose. I have documentation an inch thick on this issue. I have mentioned it here a dozen times. Your response is to wait a few weeks saying nothing, and then repeat your canned, unsupported nonsense above. Trolls are one thing; broadcast engineers such as Dave Barnett, Patty Winter, and others including myself are real people with real experience with regard to IBOC. How glib of you to include all of us with the trolls. I'm sure our favorite troll is well aware of what this law firm is doing. There is no lawsuit, and there is unlikely to be one. They are trying to see if they can wrangle some kind of money from BMW and other automakers. I have most of the trolls killfiled, so I wouldn't know about whom you are speaking. But to dismiss real, working radio engineers (who have absolutely no vested interest in the failure of IBOC, and even have much to gain by its success) claiming incompetence or devious intent is intellectually dishonest and reflects more upon yourself than on us. Please do let us know when you are ready to address the issues we have repeatedly brought up regarding IBOC in some worthy manner rather than waiting a few weeks and then dismissing it in general with your usual unsupported generalization. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
In article ,
SMS wrote: No, you don't have to do anything. If you were interested in understanding the technology of IBOC rather than making uninformed comments about it, it would be a wise thing to do. But apparently you're content to talk about things you "know" that aren't actually true. Whatever lights your board. I would suggest asking a real, working radio technician how IBOC works rather than reading Radio World, well known INSIDE the industry as being pretty much a rag. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
In article ,
Richard Evans wrote: Spectrally in efficient. Causes interference to other services. Is used at bit rates so low that sound quality can't possibly be anything better than horrible. Pretty good summary. I created a long version several years ago with numbers, graphs, and spectrum analyzer photos. I'll see if I can dig that up. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On Sep 5, 9:50*am, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote: Richard Evans wrote: Drewdove wrote: IMHO too many people laughed off complaints that the digital carriers would cause interference to first adjacent analogs without realizing these same adjacent would interfere with the digital carriers rendering HD useless in certain (many?) situations. As far as I'm concerned, allowing a signal to be broadcast, at a frequency that is already allocated to something else, is always going to be a bad idea (unless it is a system using very directional antennas). From what I've read in this NG. HD-Radio does just that. It ends up allowing digital signals to be transmitted on frequencies already allocated to analogue signals. Whoever thought that would be OK, obviously either doesn't understand radio, or simply doesn't give a sh*t about the consequences. Richard E. The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable and frightening idea to them. See http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009...rom-the-start/ for more information. With all good wishes, Kevin, WB4AIO. --http://kevinalfredstrom.com/ Follow the Money . . . Follow the Politicians Following The Money . . . Watch the FCC : jump,,, Jump... J U M P ! ! ! |
IBOC : A Broadcast System : Designed To Jam the Fringe-Distant Competition
On Sep 5, 10:54*am, Richard Evans
wrote: John Higdon wrote: Don't worry...it isn't a "book". It is one of Radio World's usual half-assed articles that pretends to be technical. Believe me, real radio engineers don't learn from Radio World. And I don't need any book or article to know that 2 different radio signals on the same frequency, is not a good idea. IBOC : A Broadcast System : Designed To Jam the Fringe-Distant Competition It is the IBOC Signal that effects the Broadcasting Radio Station Itself. It's the IBOC Signal Side-Bands that effectively JAMS Both the Adjacent Channels for 10+ kHz at 1% and 20+ kHz at 10% The result is AM/MW Radio DX is 'o-u-t' with IBOC and Local AM/MW Radio Stations have a Lock-on the Local Broadcast Market by JAMMING all the Fringe and Distant Adjacent Channels by using IBOC. IBOC a System that Allows you to Jam the next door neighboring Metro Area's Radio Competition right out of Your Local Radio Market IBOC : A Broadcast System : Designed To Jam the Fringe-Distant Competition iboc - it's about business ~ RHF |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On Sep 5, 11:56*am, SMS wrote:
On 9/5/2010 9:50 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote: The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable and frightening idea to them. That's part of it, but they also did not want to have to pay for the additional spectrum on a new band. - For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the - fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few - complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were, - were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside - the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was - granted). That is because FM Radio has a well defined and 'limited' Broadcast Service Area unlike AM Radio; which can go far farther then authorized on a nightly basis each and every night. Plus FM Radio has NO large legacy culture of DXers and DXing like the AM/MW Radio Band has/had for many decades. few search for distant voices . . . on the fm radio band ~ RHF |
IBOC : A Broadcast System : Designed To Jam the Fringe-Distant Competition
On Sep 5, 4:32*pm, RHF wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:54*am, Richard Evans wrote: John Higdon wrote: Don't worry...it isn't a "book". It is one of Radio World's usual half-assed articles that pretends to be technical. Believe me, real radio engineers don't learn from Radio World. And I don't need any book or article to know that 2 different radio signals on the same frequency, is not a good idea. IBOC : A Broadcast System : Designed To Jam the Fringe-Distant Competition - It isn't the IBOC Signal that effects the Broadcasting - Radio Station Itself. It's the IBOC Signal Side-Bands that effectively JAMS Both the Adjacent Channels for 10+ kHz at 1% and 20+ kHz at 10% The result is AM/MW Radio DX is 'o-u-t' with IBOC and Local AM/MW Radio Stations have a Lock-on the Local Broadcast Market by JAMMING all the Fringe and Distant Adjacent Channels by using IBOC. IBOC a System that Allows you to Jam the next door neighboring Metro Area's Radio Competition right out of Your Local Radio Market IBOC : A Broadcast System : Designed To Jam the Fringe-Distant Competition iboc - it's about business ~ RHF *. *. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On Sep 5, 11:56*am, SMS wrote:
On 9/5/2010 9:50 AM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote: The big boys pushed IBOC because they wanted to do whatever they could to _prevent_ the creation of a new all-digital band. They feared that such a new band would level the playing field so the small broadcaster would have just as good coverage as they did. That was an intolerable and frightening idea to them. That's part of it, but they also did not want to have to pay for the additional spectrum on a new band. For all the misinformation that our favorite troll promulgates here, the fact is that FM IBOC works very well indeed. There have been very few complaints about interference, and the few complaints that there were, were found to have no merit because the interference occurred outside the protected contour (though this was before the power increase was granted). I'm sure our favorite troll is well aware of what this law firm is doing. There is no lawsuit, and there is unlikely to be one. They are trying to see if they can wrangle some kind of money from BMW and other automakers. Once these auto companies pay out to the lawyers, they sure as hell are not going to install HD radios again since there is no chance in hell to make this stinker of a system work. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
SMS wrote:
On 9/5/2010 1:44 PM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote: Many people, myself included, listened to stations far outside their so-called "protected contours" for the vastly increased choice it offered (and invested in superior equipment for doing so). When were those stations and their out-of area listeners guaranteed that they'd be able to be received far outside their protected contour forever? The protected contours are there for a reason. Whatever changes are made that don't affect a station's protected contour are fair game. [...] Shoehorning in another station is one thing. Allowing, and even encouraging, existing stations to make their signals multiple times wider with gigantic white noise generators is quite another. It's the same mentality that says that requiring switching power supplies to have sufficient filtering so that no audible noise is produced on nearby sensitive AM receivers is "too expensive" -- and that, to save the Chinese factories and importers a few cents, we're just going to accept turning the AM and HF bands into a sea of buzzing noises. After all, the locals can still be heard inside their "protected contours"! Anything else is "fair game." Right? So just take the pristine bands -- where you used to be able to hear galactic noise when signals weren't present, and even the weakest signals were a joy to listen to if you had a good antenna and receiver -- and fill them up with digital hash. Fair game? I call it very bad engineering. I call it gross misuse of a natural resource. And I call it sick. I find all the lies about IBOC fascinating [...] It isn't a lie that IBOC is an inferior system whose only rational justification is that the money-men wanted to preserve their superiority in the existing tiered power hierarchy. With all good wishes, Kevin Alfred Strom. -- http://kevinalfredstrom.com/ |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
In article , SMS wrote: When were those stations and their out-of area listeners guaranteed that they'd be able to be received far outside their protected contour forever? The protected contours are there for a reason. Whatever changes are made that don't affect a station's protected contour are fair game. So...so...you acknowledge that interference *within* protected contours is *not* fair game??? Super! I eagerly await your comments on John's repeated mention of IBOC interference to KKDV's protected signal. Over to you, Steven.... Our favorite troll is a fascinating study in cluelessness. Does he actually believe that a law firm trolling for class action suits will have even the slightest effect on the success or failure of digital radio? I have no idea who "our favorite troll" is, having killfiled so many of them (pro and con IBOC) months and months ago. If one of them annoys you so much that he has become your "favorite," perhaps it's time for you to filter him out. Patty |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On 9/6/10 4:47 PM, SMS wrote:
On 9/5/2010 12:10 PM, Richard Evans wrote: SMS wrote: No, you don't have to do anything. If you were interested in understanding the technology of IBOC rather than making uninformed comments about it, it would be a wise thing to do. But apparently you're content to talk about things you "know" that aren't actually true. Whatever lights your board. I know as much as I need to know. Yes, that's the crux of the problem. You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced by the same receiver and speakers. gr, hwh |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
On 9/6/2010 8:30 AM, Patty Winter wrote:
So...so...you acknowledge that interference *within* protected contours is *not* fair game??? Super! I eagerly await your comments on John's repeated mention of IBOC interference to KKDV's protected signal. Over to you, Steven.... John "mentions" lots of things that are of questionable validity. If there is IBOC interference to a protected signal then a complaint needs to be filed with the FCC. I searched the FCC database of complaints and couldn't find any complaint about this for KKDV. The procedure for filing complaints can be found at "http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/interference.html". I have no idea who "our favorite troll" is, having killfiled so many of them (pro and con IBOC) months and months ago. If one of them annoys you so much that he has become your "favorite," perhaps it's time for you to filter him out. Did that a long time ago. Unfortunately people keep following-up to his posts and I'm hesitant to kill-file them as well. |
Other automakers with HD Radio liable, too?
hwh wrote:
You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced by the same receiver and speakers. That's a codec problem. With currently available codecs, you can get FM radio quality with 64k with AAC (aka MP4 audio). This is roughly equivalent to 128k MP3, which is good enough for a car radio or tiny earphones, but not CD or even CRO2 Dolby cassete quality. Since I don't know what codec they use, I can't say what they need to increase their bit rates to, but assuming they do (or could) use AAC, they would have to cut their number of channels by as much as one third to compensate for the higher bit rate. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com