On 1/11/2012 9:26 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Oops. Well, that's been fixed, but the early history of the codec
selection is rather interesting.

You need to read a bit further in the article you quoted:

"Their concerns center mainly on digital AM broadcasts, where critics
point to questionable audio performance, sparse coverage and
interference with adjacent analog channels."

I don't think anyone here would argue that digital AM is a waste of time
and that there are valid concerns about it. Interference is a real
possibility on AM, though as we've seen even in ba.broadcast there's a
tendency for some people that are philosophically opposed to digital
radio to attribute _any_ AM interference to AM HD, even when the accused
AM station isn't even broadcasting in HD!

As I stated, there are valid reasons to be opposed to digital radio but
the quality of the audio on FM digital radio is not one of those reasons.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:35:18 -0800, sms88
wrote:

On 1/11/2012 9:26 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Oops. Well, that's been fixed, but the early history of the codec
selection is rather interesting.

You need to read a bit further in the article you quoted:

"Their concerns center mainly on digital AM broadcasts, where critics
point to questionable audio performance, sparse coverage and
interference with adjacent analog channels."

Note the word "mainly". There apparently were also concerns over FM
quality.

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

"Their concerns center mainly on digital AM broadcasts, where critics
point to questionable audio performance, sparse coverage and
interference with adjacent analog channels."

Note the word "mainly". There apparently were also concerns over FM
quality.

Only by the diehard HD Haterz.

On 1/11/2012 10:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:35:18 -0800,
wrote:

On 1/11/2012 9:26 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Oops. Well, that's been fixed, but the early history of the codec
selection is rather interesting.

You need to read a bit further in the article you quoted:

"Their concerns center mainly on digital AM broadcasts, where critics
point to questionable audio performance, sparse coverage and
interference with adjacent analog channels."

Note the word "mainly". There apparently were also concerns over FM
quality.

Unlikely. It's just a weasel word inserted by the author. If there were
concerns about FM quality then they would have raised them. You can see
by the independent tests of audio quality that FM digital consistently
ranks much higher in quality than FM analog. Perhaps the concern on FM
was that they thought "near CD quality" wasn't enough and they wanted
better than CD quality.

"sms88" wrote in message
...


AM interference to AM HD, even when the accused
AM station isn't even broadcasting in HD!


How many times are you going to spew that crap? It was the OTHER adjacent
channel polluting my A's game.

Mark

On 1/11/2012 12:35 PM, sms88 wrote:
[...]

As I stated, there are valid reasons to be opposed to digital radio
but the quality of the audio on FM digital radio is not one of those
reasons.



You write in an Orwellian Newspeak in which IBOC becomes "digital
radio."

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.

If we had real digital radio, and we don't, there would be no such
thing as "AM digital" or "FM digital." There would only be digital
radio -- in a dedicated band with all licensees having
full-quieting, and full-time, and full-fidelity signals with
bandwidth to spare.

That, of course, is exactly what the money men did _not_ want.

So they did everything in their power to prevent it.

They were selfish and criminal, to be sure. But worse, they were
stupid. Their IBOC system, designed to preserve the "superiority" of
the big stations owned by the money men by continuing and
accentuating the inferiority of the small stations' signals, is
pretty much a retarded turkey that few have heard of and that no one
wants. It rings a pathetic and hokey death knell for radio broadcasting.



With every good wish,



Kevin Alfred Strom.

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.

You have to look at the big picture and recognize the practical
considerations in moving from analog to digital, including the business
considerations. We've seen how well creating a new digital band
worked--it didn't.

We'll have to live with analog and digital co-existing, and the problems
that causes, for at least another decade.

"SMS" wrote in message ...

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).

* Quite a bit of supposed HDTV, isn't. Stations that have multiple channels
cannot use full bandwidth for their main channel. Most don't use 1080p,
opting for 720p with an additional channel or two. The ones with 5 side
channels can't even use 720p, and run mostly 480p, which is only marginally
"better" than good old NTSC analog (and you could still receive the analog
signal at a distance, which you cannot do with ATSC.)

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 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.