On Mar 4, 7:58*pm, SMS wrote:
On 3/4/2011 7:20 PM, RHF wrote:

Your Many Multiple {Spamming} Screen IDs
All End-Up ~translating~to~ LAMFAO !

clearly time-and-time again
demonstrating you are a 'fao' ~ RHF

It's a natural reaction. He's bitter and disappointed about the success
digital radio has had in the marketplace. When Mexico adopted HD Radio
last week he must have been in tears.

I've seen a lot on Usenet over the years, and he and several of the
anti-digital-radio shills are right up there with the best of the best
in terms of trolls.

But there actually is something to the article in The Register. If
Europe wants to get serious about digital radio they need to adopt the
system used in the U.S. which has gained acceptance by broadcasters,
receiver manufacturers, automakers, and consumers. FM analog radio is
one of the few technologies that's relatively the same throughout the
world (the differences are small enough that receiver makers don't need
completely different receivers for each market). It would be nice if FM
digital followed the same path, and since HD is the furtherst ahead it
makes sense for the rest of the world to use the HD system.

SMS,

It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-

Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .

but,, But... BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .

That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC & HD-Radio One Generation . . .

time will tell . . . ~ RHF

On 3/6/2011 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

SMS,

It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-

Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .

but,, But... BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .

That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC& HD-Radio One Generation . . .

time will tell . . . ~ RHF

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition, it's how
bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
any money). Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.

I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
or on your iPod.

Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically. The
exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
as digital power levels are allowed to rise.

With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

If I see a HD-''radio'' at the Goodwill store, I will plug it into one
of the wall outlets there (just like I always do with plug em in the
wall thingys to try them out) and see what happens.If the sales clerk
says over a dollar, Forget It!
cuhulin

On Mar 6, 9:45*am, SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2011 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:

snip





SMS,

It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-

Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .

but,, But... *BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .

That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC& *HD-Radio One Generation . . .

time will tell . . . ~ RHF

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition, it's how
bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
any money). Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters..

I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
or on your iPod.

Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically. The
exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
as digital power levels are allowed to rise.

With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously."

So glad that I bother you so much. Posting in newsgroups, as you and
FarceWatch are forced to do, has zero affect with such a small
audience. One has to have a site that sits on Google's Homepage for
searches on "hd radio". Even then, there is very little interest in HD
Radio. But, what counts are searches from the FCC, US Courts, Keefe
Bartels, law firms, the FTC, the GAO, Congress, Congressonal Quartly,
GM, Ford, Sanyo (daily regular), iBiquity investors, many foreign
broadcasters, and on and on and on - LMFAO!

In article ,
SMS wrote:

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails.

It may not affect you financially, but you clearly have a dog in this
fight in terms of your ego, because you keep saying the same wrong
things over and over again, apparently in a desperate attempt to have
people agree that you're right.


But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

Forget the out-and-out trolls (and it's disingenous of you to neglect
to mention the pro-IBOC ones); there are plenty of neither-pro-nor-
anti-IBOC folks who are simply trying to discuss the topic. (And btw,
note my change to "pro-IBOC" and "anti-IBOC"; it was awfully arrogant
of you to apply the sweeping term "anti-digital" to people who have
concerns about a single digital radio format, namely IBOC. Especially
when several of them have explicitly said that they would be perfectly
happy to see a *good* digital standard. So please, drop the sweeping
generalization, okay?)

A number of people here have attempted to have reasonable discussions
with you using facts and logic, yet you either completely ignore them
(such as John Higdon's postings) or you just toss back the same wrong
information again and again (such as that multipath is a major annoyance
to analog FM radio listeners).


Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically.

There you go again, equating concerns about IBOC with some kind of
sweeping unwillingness to accept any kind of digital platform.


With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll.

Or our favorite HD troll? Surely you aren't going to lose further
credibility (not that you have much at this point) by neglecting
to admit that there are pro-IBOC trolls on these groups, too?


It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them.

Oh, you mean like actual working broadcasters who have hands-on
experience with digital radio that you don't want to hear about?

What sort of research have you done on digital radio besides reading
online articles? At how many stations have you implemented an IBOC
system and gotten firsthand knowledge of its benefits and challenges?
How have you dealt with its effects on the entire audio chain, or
with phone calls from CEs at other stations about interference within
their protected contours? Please, enlighten us about your real-world
research. As the old saying goes, it's time to put up or shut up.


Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

See that mirror over there? You might want to go look in it...


Patty

Patty Winter wrote:

Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

See that mirror over there? You might want to go look in it...

Well said. I agreed with everything in your post. I didn't quote the
rest as there's not much point in just repeating everything.

From my point of view, when I first heard about digital radio (many
many years ago when DAB was still an aspiration for the future), I
thought great. CD quality radio in the car.

But oh what a huge disappointment it is today. Rather than good sound
quality, we have the opposite. Audio that is so bad I find it too
annoying to listen to it. I ended up on alt.radio.digital, because of
the poor sound quality issue. All the other stuff about codecs and
transmission systems are, to me, just part of the many reasons why
digital radio today sounds so sh*t. And now to add insult to injury,
there is talk of switching off FM in favour of these dreadful digital
radio systems. It's got to the point where I would be content to 'put
up' with digital radio, if only it sounded as good as FM.

A good modern digital radio system might not fix all the problems, but
it would at least make good sound quality a feasible option.

Richard E.

Richard Evans wrote:

A good modern digital radio system might not fix all the problems, but
it would at least make good sound quality a feasible option.

Richard E.

Speaking of good digital radio systems, I just did a bit of searching
for information on a standard called DVB-NGH. This is a intended to be a
standard for broadcasting to hand held devices, most likely based upon
the DVB-T2 standard. It's actually being developed as a mobile TV
standard, but there is no reason why it couldn't carry digital radio.
That should be very good as a digital radio standard. It seems that they
plan to have it all standardised around about the year 2013.

DVB-T2 has a mode that with a bandwidth of 1.7 Mhz, which ought to make
it suitable for Band III channels designed for DAB/DAB+. Hopefully NGH
will also have this option. Whether or not it is actually used, and
whether it is actually used for digital radio is however another matter.
I'm not especially optimistic about it as broadcasters don't seem to
like introducing new standards.

Richard E.

On 3/6/2011 3:35 PM, Richard Evans wrote:
Richard Evans wrote:

A good modern digital radio system might not fix all the problems, but
it would at least make good sound quality a feasible option.

Richard E.

Speaking of good digital radio systems, I just did a bit of searching
for information on a standard called DVB-NGH. This is a intended to be a
standard for broadcasting to hand held devices, most likely based upon
the DVB-T2 standard. It's actually being developed as a mobile TV
standard, but there is no reason why it couldn't carry digital radio.
That should be very good as a digital radio standard. It seems that they
plan to have it all standardised around about the year 2013.

DVB-T2 has a mode that with a bandwidth of 1.7 Mhz, which ought to make
it suitable for Band III channels designed for DAB/DAB+. Hopefully NGH
will also have this option. Whether or not it is actually used, and
whether it is actually used for digital radio is however another matter.
I'm not especially optimistic about it as broadcasters don't seem to
like introducing new standards.

Richard E.
Americans don't like open source and defacto standards.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

On 3/6/2011 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

SMS,

It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-

Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .

but,, But... BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .

That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC& HD-Radio One Generation . . .

time will tell . . . ~ RHF

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition, it's how
bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
any money). Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.

I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
or on your iPod.

Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically. The
exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
as digital power levels are allowed to rise.

With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

I'm all for digital radio but Ibiquity will screw it up. According to
their specification, the removal of analog bandwidth does not increase
the bandwidth for audio. It goes to some other unspecified use that I
can only imagine isn't for free radio. The current encoding, which is
barely good enough for interim use, remains.
--
I will not see posts from Google or e-mails from Yahoo because I must
filter them as spam

On Mar 6, 12:47*pm, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
In article ,





*SMS wrote:
On 3/6/2011 12:55 AM, RHF wrote:

snip

SMS,

It's the Domino Theory All Over and Over Again
First the USA [FCC] Adopts IBOC HD-Radio...
and then country after Country after COUNTRY
Adopts HD-Radio . . .
-truly-it's-a-nightmare-for the-hd-radio--haters-

Not Truly A HD-Radio Hater . . .
-or- A HD-Radio Lover . . .

but,, But... *BUT ! ! ! Knowing . . .

That Generation Changes Take A Generation
Give IBOC& *HD-Radio One Generation . . .

time will tell . . . ~ RHF

I have no dog in this fight. It does not affect me financially whether
or not digital radio succeeds or fails. But it's disappointing to see so
many of the anti-digital radio folks rely on myths and lies rather than
on facts and logic.

If there's one good reason to hope for the survival of terrestrial
radio, which everyone agrees depends on a digital transition, it's how
bad the alternatives are for the public and for broadcasters. Satellite
radio is up to $20 per month, plus taxes, and in the U.S. XM-Sirius has
been under a price cap since the merger which they are now attempting to
get lifted; satellite radio will never be mass-market at those kind of
rates. Streaming 3G/4G into the car works if a) that data has little or
no extra cost, b) you have 3G/4G coverage, and c) listeners are willing
to pay monthly fees (since the free model is not making the providers
any money). Everyone carrying their own content around on an iPod, SD
card, or USB stick, in order to get the content and quality they desire
may work for the listener, but it does not work too well for broadcasters.

I like radio because it's local, and because it's free. The commercials
can be an annoyance of course, but that's the price you have to pay. You
don't get the local component with satellite radio or streaming services
or on your iPod.

Most of those so opposed to digital radio are not opposed to it for any
valid technical reason, they are opposed to it philosophically. The
exception in the U.S. is the stations presently operating at relatively
low power. They are a) left out during the transition because even 10%
of 200 watts isn't going to help them (though full-power digital-only
would work for them) and b) most likely to be affected by interference
as digital power levels are allowed to rise.

With any debate it's important not to lump those that have valid
concerns in with people like our favorite anti-HD troll. It would be
nice if those that do have valid concerns about digital radio a) did
research rather than demanding that others do it for them, and b)
verified their statements prior to posting them. Their consistent
reliance on suspect information undermines their credibility, causing
people not to take them seriously.

I'm all for digital radio but Ibiquity will screw it up. *According to
their specification, the removal of analog bandwidth does not increase
the bandwidth for audio. *It goes to some other unspecified use that I
can only imagine isn't for free radio. *The current encoding, which is
barely good enough for interim use, remains.
--
I will not see posts from Google or e-mails from Yahoo because I must
filter them as spam- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The all-digital mode has never been tested - it may not even work. The
only thing iBiquity is interested in is an IPO, which now will never
happen.