On Jan 11, 7:29*pm, SMS wrote:

IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

That will never happen.

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

On Jan 11, 9:11*pm, "Brenda Ann"
wrote:
"SMS" *wrote in t...

On 1/11/2012 6:12 PM, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

The truth is that IBOC is a pathetically poor excuse for digital radio
in the same sense that a plastic ring from a Crackerjack box is a poor
excuse for a precious gem. And that is the real issue here.

IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, yes... yet another denial of service to rural users of the media, just
like HD(?*)TV has been. I guess if you don't live in a core city area, you
just don't count (sort of like if you're over 50).

Ah Yes Indeed ) !

But Then "All Advertising Is Local" {Protecting the
Revenue Stream} and Rural {Local} AM/MW Radio
Stations will then have a 'captive' audience of rural
AM Radio Listeners who will only hear the IBOC
"Buzz" from the Urban Metros {non-locals}
-fits-the-'local'-radio-advertising-business-model-

IBOC the Future of Profitable AM Radio - imho ~ RHF

On Jan 11, 9:32*pm, Kimmi wrote:
On Jan 11, 7:29*pm, SMS wrote:



IBOC is a temporary compromise. Eventually analog will be turned off and
HD Radio will be all digital.

- That will never happen.

Oops Yes It Can 'Happen'
-follow-the-nab-&-fcc-2-decade-iboc-plan-

- If broadcast radio ever goes all digital,
- it'll be a completely different digital system
- then ibiquity's crapola.

Not for the next 1+ decades... -so- For Now
until ~2020 IBOC is what you got in the USA.

First 1% : Then 10% and At 20% the IBOC 'Digital'
Signal will in most cases be superior to the former
100% 'Analog' Signal of most FM Radio Stations in
their 'Defined' Service Areas. -game-over-

Followed by a IBOC "Digital' Signal Boost to ~40%
with the Analog Signal turned 'OFF' ~2020.
-follow-the-nab-&-fcc-2-decade-iboc-plan-

OBTW : IBOC is all about FM Radio Broadcasting
and AM/MW Radio will be on life-support or die
for the future with or with-out IBOC
-actually-ibco-will-drive-more-am/mw-radio-listeners-to-
-fm-radio-and-the-nab-&-fcc-see-that-as-a-good-thing-
*The*Future*of*Terrestrial*Radio*is*FM*Radio*

On 1/12/12 8:10 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Incidentally, there's another nightmare pending, that oddly involves
yet another potential source of GPS interference. In EU, the official
future all digital broadcast band is 1452 to 1492 MHz. There's no
hardware, and several countries are just sitting on the spectrum, but
that's the official ITU dictated direction for S-DAB.

No, the official EU digital (radio +) band is 174-240 MHz. The 'L-band'
you mentioned has been used for digital radio, but it is not suitable
for terrestrial distribution because the frequencies are too high. There
now remain a few transmissions from satellite and just a few thousand
receivers scattered around the continent. I wonder what will happen to
the frequency allocation in 2012.

gr, hwh

On 1/11/2012 9:11 PM, Brenda Ann wrote:

Ah, yes... yet another denial of service to rural users of the media,
just like HD(?*)TV has been. I guess if you don't live in a core city
area, you just don't count (sort of like if you're over 50).

Rural residents willingly give up certain services because the cost of
providing the services is prohibitive. No piped natural gas, often no
cable TV, often no sewers. There are workarounds at higher cost. For
radio there is satellite radio versus terrestrial radio.

Rural radio stations can provide digital service if they desire.

What's lost with digital AM is the ability to receive distant stations,
but that was never guaranteed to either the stations or the listeners.

On 1/11/12 09:09 , sms88 wrote:
On 1/10/2012 9:29 PM, MotoFox wrote:
And it came to pass that Richard Evans delivered the following
message
unto the people, saying~

Actually I'm not sure, but in the past there have been broadcasts in
foreign countries, at up to 320k, and never at any bit rate
higher than
that. Also I thought the limit for mp2 was 320k, but I might be
wrong
about that.

MP3 tops out at 320k. MP2 tops out at 384; sample rates,
32000-48000 Hz. I
don't believe MP3 is used over the air, but it is widely used for
Internet
audio streams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_...specifications


(Oh yeah, and MP3 can't claim to have won an Emmy....)

LOL.

In the real world of radio what matters in terms of audio quality is
what radio listeners perceive. There have been extensive tests
comparing perceived audio quality of the different digital sources.


And here's what you're missing. This is a survey of a general
population. Of which many will be audiophiles. Many will be audio
neutral. Many will be tone deaf. And many will simply not understand
what they're hearing well enough to give a meaninful answer.

Many of audiophiles have spent tens of thousands of dollars in
hardware, and can tell the difference between a high bit mp3 and a
full bandwidth CD reject out of hand the forced acceptance of low
bit audio simply because those who don't know, don't hear, and don't
care, accept the performance of HD radio as high quality, based on
untrained perception.

Low bit mp3s do not, will not and cannot be made to sound as
detailed, as clean, or as ear pleasing to those who know the
difference as what's currently in place, even when processed to
death. And there is no perceptual market place study of those who
don't know, don't hear, or don't care which will change that.

These perceptions are not reality.

And those of use who can hear the difference, take offense at the
reduction in audio quality that's being rammed down our throats by a
company that takes the perceptions of those without discriminating
ears as defacto proof that their marketing claims are truth.

The fact is that HD radio does NOT perform as claimed. And
there's no mass marketing perception that will change that reality.

HD radio is a fraud perpetrated on the public by a company
looking to make a killing on a technical claim that the public
doesn't understand, and is largely unaware of.

On Thursday, January 12th, 2012, at 14:11:52h +0900, Brenda Ann wrote:

Most don't use 1080p, opting for 720p with an additional channel or two.

The "standard" for North American terrestrial transmissions is
1080i not 1080p, or as you say 720p@60.

The bandwidth of the UHF channels (6 MHz) is inadequate for 1080p@60.

A possible compromise is 1080p@30, or for movies 1080p@24
but not terrestrial TV transmissions in North America use
this mode.
See the list of official ATSC modes at

http://www.hdtvprimer.COM/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html

In Europe where the mains frequency is 50 Hz as opposed to the
North American 60 Hz, the TV norm is similarly 50 Hz, and the
equivalent resolutions are 1080p@25 and 1080p@50.

Again because there is not sufficient bandwidth for 1080p@50,
broadcasters use either 720p@50 or 1080i. The BBC on terrestrial
transmissions has started dynamically switching the transmission mode
on their BBC HD station from 1080i to 1080p@25 and back when it is
appropriate for picture content (material recorded on location
as opposed to studio content).

http://www.reghardware.COM/2011/05/23/bbc_hd_1080p/

This caused a problem for some SONY televisions.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/23/bbc-hd-quietly-begins-broadcasting-in-1080p-but-not-all-sony-hd/

A check on Wikipedia reveals that some North American stations
on satellite do broadcast 1080p@24 or 1080p@30 as appropriate.

Please note that the maximum resolution supported by BluRay
is 1080p@24, or 1080i@50 or 1080i@60, bit *not* 1080p@50 or 1080p@60.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:52:47 +0100, hwh
wrote:

On 1/12/12 8:10 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Incidentally, there's another nightmare pending, that oddly involves
yet another potential source of GPS interference. In EU, the official
future all digital broadcast band is 1452 to 1492 MHz. There's no
hardware, and several countries are just sitting on the spectrum, but
that's the official ITU dictated direction for S-DAB.

No, the official EU digital (radio +) band is 174-240 MHz. The 'L-band'
you mentioned has been used for digital radio, but it is not suitable
for terrestrial distribution because the frequencies are too high. There
now remain a few transmissions from satellite and just a few thousand
receivers scattered around the continent. I wonder what will happen to
the frequency allocation in 2012.

gr, hwh

I can't predict what will happen in Europe, but in the US, I think
1.5Ghz would be a likely place to move digital radio. How it will be
organized and structured is beyond the abilities of my crystal ball.

As for being unsuitable for terrestrial, please note that Sirius is
using 2320 to 2332.5MHz and XM at 2332.5 to 2345MHz. While allegedly
a satellite based DAB system, much of the urban coverage is via
terrestrial repeaters, primarily to deal with "urban jungle" building
blockage. If 2.3Ghz works, certainly 1.5Ghz will also work.

Sirius repeater map:
http://www.dogstarradio.com/sirius_map.php

"Indoor" repeater:
http://www.uniquesys.com/DVB/DVB_Transmitters/50WRPTR-Indoor-Repeater.php

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
over Internet streams ...

Big businesses also favor this because it means that instead of
people listening for free to the public airwaves because they
can charge for every kilobyte received regardless of the content.

Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
is one of the central features of capitalism.

On 1/12/12 10:40 , J G Miller wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:32:16h -0800, Kimmi wrote:

If broadcast radio ever goes all digital, it'll be a completely
different digital system then ibiquity's crapola.

Looking more and more like MP3 or AAC (or some future codec)
over Internet streams ...

Big businesses also favor this because it means that instead of
people listening for free to the public airwaves because they
can charge for every kilobyte received regardless of the content.

Remember, monetizing whatever was formerly available for free
is one of the central features of capitalism.

Ironically, broadcasters are the most frequently guilty of attempting
not to pay for the products they use to make their money.