DAB = Digital Audio Broadcasting.

http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?q=DAB+Radio
cuhulin

On Mar 9, 6:20*pm, Dean wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 21:27:50 +0000, Richard Evans

wrote:
Patty Winter wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Haven't you ever experienced "Bubblin mud" at all?...

Is that the "underwater" sound that results from dropouts on
digital audio signals? I hate that!

It is when you are listening to DAB. I presume it's caused by some of
the sub bands failing randomly as the signal gets a bit too weak.

- I am new to this NG and SWL listening. *What is DAB?

Dean,

Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Broadcasting

-wrt- Digital Radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio

and now you know -cause- you just read it here ~ RHF

On Mar 9, 12:39*pm, Richard Evans
wrote:
SMS wrote:
You're right, my mistake.

I should not generalize what is the case in the U.S. in terms of
streaming radio station audio with what is actually possible, and what
apparently is being done in the U.K.. Just as those that have never
heard digital radio in the U.S. should not equate it with the U.K.'s DAB
digital radio.

Well if somebody tried to sell me a car with a tiny engine, and said it
was a high performance sports car, then I would be suspicious.

If somebody told me that a digital radio system, being used with a bit
rate of only 40k, was providing high sound quality, then I would also be
suspicious about that. Oh hang on..... I just describes what I think
about HD-Radio.

I'm also suspicious of claims of near CD quality at 96k, as even aac
need 128k to provide near CD quality.

As far as I'm aware the laws of physics work the same way in the US as
they work here in the UK.

Richard E.

Physics not used here : it is special interest groups . They can and
DO twist things around quite a bit .

wrote:


As far as I'm aware the laws of physics work the same way in the US as
they work here in the UK.

Richard E.

Physics not used here : it is special interest groups . They can and
DO twist things around quite a bit .

Over here we call that sort of thing "Spin". ;-)

On Mar 9, 1:28*pm, SMSbuster wrote:
On Mar 9, 1:17*pm, John Higdon wrote:





In article ,
*D Peter Maus wrote:

On 3/9/11 10:38 , SMS wrote:
On 3/9/2011 8:16 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Except audio quality IS an issue. And as much as you deny it, there IS
intereference within a protected contour. I've filed such complaints,
myself.

"Filing complaints" is one thing, but what was the outcome of the
investigation into your complaint? Did they find interference?

* * So far, there's been no action on any of them.

The FCC has apparently investigated no complaints. If I didn't know
better, I'd say the FCC has been bought off.

But you never know.

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

This totally explains the situation, via Bob Savage:

"Well, an anonymous source inside the FCC Mass Media Bureau has
reported that it is not true that "very few stations" have complained
about interference, but since I can't divulge the source I feel
certain you'll be skeptical about it. *He says there are scores of
cases, most of which are credible and not nuisance complaints. *I can,
however, document numerous others. *Of course there's WYSL vs. WBZ.
There is the Greater Media FM in Boston whose calls escape me vs. the
NPR station on Naragansett Pier in RI. *There are the three Clear
Channel 1130s in Detroit, Milwaukee and Minneapolis who turned off HD
at night to avoid interference with WRVA. *There's KFMB vs. KBRT.
There was WFIL vs. WHP (second adjacent.) *The chief engineer of WNTP
was complaining on the Philly board of radio-info about WMVP Chicago
within his protected contour. *On the Pittsburgh board here there are
many complaints of WBZ seriously impacting KDKA at night. *And of
course Citadel turned off HD at night on WABC, WSB and WJR after only
a week because of skywave problems. *I could go on, but that should
suffice. And if, as you state, there are "special cases," what do you
think should be done about them? *Thus far the Commission's approach
is to ignore all interference issues. *There hasn't been a single case
in the history of HD of the Enforcement Bureau ordering interfering
stations to reduce digital power or turn it off. *Do you think that's
right? What's the "extra functionality" of HD on AM? *Multicasting
isn't offered in HD-AM."

http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/ind....msg1372694#ms....

AND:

"Howard, you're right about viewing the prospect of the FCC actually
doing something about an IBOC adjacent-channel interference case as -
well, "dim." *But allow me to show you how this game is played:
iBiquity, the Alliance and the lawyer-packed (and engineer-lite) FCC
have conspired to create a little jurisdictional Catch-22 designed to
prevent precisely the action you propose. *If a station victimized by
IBOC interference tries to short-circuit the FCC complaint-and-
enforcement process and sue the interferor directly, you land
immediately into a legal conundrum. Yes: along with trashing the
decades-old allocation scheme, distorting the NRSC standards and
redefining what "interference" is, the IBOC cabal has thought of this
too. So: you've filed your interference complaint(s) with the
Enforcement Bureau - which the Commission staff, deeply in the tank
for iBiquity, has resolutely spiked. *They'll pretend like they never
received it. *If you press individual staff members, they will counsel
you to approach the interferor to "try to work something out." *The
interferors, knowing they hold all the cards, give you the finger.
What the FCC WON'T do: take any action one way or other other. Your
proposed case against the interfering station lands you in Federal
court, because radio waves don't respect state borders and are thus by
definition "interstate commerce." *Under Federal court rules, since
Congress has given the FCC exclusive jurisdiction over the EM
spectrum, you can't seek relief in Federal court until you have
"exhausted administrative remedies." * Your complaint is still pending
(recall, the FCC hasn't given you relief or dismissed it.) *Nor will
they: if they grant you relief and order the offending station to
reduce digital power or turn off the IBOC, they've just killed HD,
which they don't want to do. *If they dismiss your complaint, they've
greenlighted a Federal interference lawsuit which will also kill HD
(nobody is going to install an expensive system which could either get
them sued or which the FCC might order them to turn off.) *So -
voila! *The FCC sits on your complaint. *Neat, huh? Of course, with
the passage of time, the argument "you haven't exhausted
administrative remedies" gets thinner and thinner, so you could head
to court to point out that the FCC has spiked your complaint for a
year or two - and these days, you could also add the argument that the
FCC has NEVER taken action on ANY IBOC interference complaint (and
notwithstanding a recent post here by The Cuyahoga Tejano alleging
otherwise, there have been scores of them.) I believe that sooner or
later somebody is going to sue over IBOC interference, and that
becomes more likely with the pending HD-FM digital power increase.
This time around, we're not talking about disused AM facilities but
high-billing FMs worth tens of millions. *When the stakes get high
enough, it's gonna happen. *But it will have to be a major player with
resources, since litigating just the threshold jurisdictional issue
could cost tens of thousands - with no guarantee of success, of
course. *Then the ensuing lawsuit - promising as it does to be highly
technical and hard to get a judge to understand or care about - could
easily run to $250K in legal fees. But with a big major-market high-
billing FM it could easily be worth it. *And THAT, boys and girls,
will mark The End of IBOC. *The HD loons are sowing the seeds of their
own demise with this nitwit digital increase - so I say, bring it!
When -10 dBc doesn't improve coverage, let's go to -4! *-2! "

http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/ind....msg1362248#ms....

Enough said.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Too much information . I'm getting a headache .

On 3/10/11 24:20 , Richard Evans wrote:
wrote:


As far as I'm aware the laws of physics work the same way in the
US as
they work here in the UK.

Richard E.

Physics not used here : it is special interest groups . They can and
DO twist things around quite a bit .

Over here we call that sort of thing "Spin". ;-)

We're a bit more pragmatic. We simply call it "Lying."

On Thursday, March 10th, 2011 at 07:02:04h -0600, D. Peter Maus explained:

We're a bit more pragmatic. We simply call it "Lying."

Yes, but you have First Ammendment rights and need to remember
where the libel capital of the world is located.

http://blogs.findlaw.co.UK/solicitor/2009/09/london-libel-capital-of-the-world.html

http://www.independent.co.UK/news/uk/home-news/invasion-of-the-libel-tourists-904111.html

So Mandelson is officially known as a "spin-doctor" not a master of lies.

SMS wrote:
On 3/9/2011 10:12 PM, wrote:

Physics not used here : it is special interest groups . They can and
DO twist things around quite a bit .

Shh, don't tell Richard about Nyquist and Shannon!

Sorry but I already know a fair bit about Nyquist and Shannon. I know
that HD-Radio is a long way short of the Shannon Limit, unlike something
like DVB-T2 which is much closer to Shannon's Limit and far more
efficient than HD-Radio.

I also know enough about codecs to know that no known codec can make
music sound good when encoded at only 40kb/s. This is true over here in
the UK, so it must also be true over there in the US.

Richard E.

On 3/10/2011 10:48 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 3/10/11 09:28 , SMS wrote:
On 3/10/2011 7:20 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:

Actually, your denials to the contrary, it is.

Your first hint that it had no validity should have been "an
anonymous source..."

"An anonymous source..." is the beginning about half of all news
stories.

"Deep Throat," who brought down the Nixon administration, was an
'anonymous source.'

There's not a police department in the world that doesn't have an
'anonymous source' program for gathering active crime information
within their jurisdictions, including the FBI.

Anonymity doesn't preclude validity. It only means that the source
doesn't want to face censure, persecution or litigation as a result
of speaking out.

And if you ask engineers working with iBiquity products, off the
record, you'll get a LOT of information about iBiquity's threats
against those who speak out against their IBOC system.

You know, Brother, quality products neither need, nor benefit from,
enforced silence. And if what iBiquity was claiming for their system
were true, they would not have written gag clauses into their
contracts threatening dissenting engineers with litigation for
speaking out about interference, audio quality or coverage.

The very fact that these clauses were written into the contracts
underscores that fact that iBiquity knew that what they were
claiming was untrue. And that they knew it from the outset.

Struble sits atop a phenomenally lucrative scam. And the public
bears the burden of his hubris with inferiour performance, poorer
audio quality, and spotty coverage with frequent dropouts.

Which makes suspect your motives for so shamelessly shilling for
this fraud.





Well said.

Remember, the faster the IBOC scam goes broke, the faster we are
likely to get real digital radio in a dedicated band, which -- if
it's done right -- has great potential for superb quality, excellent
coverage, new content many times greater than what we now have, and
new avenues for freedom of expression.


With every good wish,


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/

On 3/6/2011 11:42 PM, SMS wrote:
[...]
The big advantage of all-digital [IBOC] is that raising power levels no
longer will interfere with analog, presuming all stations do a
complete digital switchover. This is many years in the future of
course.


That's hilarious.

The "big advantage" is that there will be no more interference to AM
and FM -- once AM and FM are forced off the air!

Anyone seen the Mad Hatter?


Kevin Alfred Strom.
--
http://nationalvanguard.org/
http://kevinalfredstrom.com/