On Mar 6, 12:21*am, Nick_G wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:58*am, 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.

If any post proves that SMS doesn't know what he's talking about, then
this is it. FM channel spacing in Europe is 100kHz. How on earth would
IBOC work with channels that close together? OK, the frequency
planning ensures that stations 100kHz apart are geographically
relatively distant but here there are many signals 200kHz apart that
are relatively close to each other, enough so that the boundaries
between them have usable signals.

Oh, and trying to convince the public to adopt a new digital radio
system that offers no advantages to DAB (which is struggling) would be
another bad idea!

Let Me Think . . .
HD-Radio is is the USA -and--not- 'Uber' Euro-Land
-we-think-therefore-we-are-euro-landers-

wow that is profound , , , ~ RHF