"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
news:47Mrc.55$yw5.22@newsfe5-win...
Frank Dresser wrote:

There's a cycle to the "better audio will save radio" arguement. FM
would replace AM in the fifties.


If all the AM stations could get on FM, AM would die in the UK.


Cool. Then you'd have a better chance of hearing foreign stations.




It didn't. FM stereo would save FM
in the sixties.


The vast majority of people in the UK listen via FM, the only ones that
listen to AM stations are, as I said above, those that listen to AM
stations that can't get on FM.

Oh. Life is full o' surprises.




It didn't. AM stereo would save AM in the eighties.
AM stereo is almost gone, now.


Who needs AM stereo when you've got high quality FM?

The real needs of human beings are few. Little more than water, food and
shelter. By that standard, high quality FM is quite a luxury.




I don't know if this is a
generational amnesia thing,


Nah, I'd say you're just summarising things incorrectly.

Summarizing things incorrectly? Sorry, but it's something I need to do.



or it's simply means nobody promotes this
stuff after the patents run out.


Err, nah.

Are you suggesting I've erred, but you take it back with the "nah"?


Speaking of "change," I think that's the primary motivation for the
hype.

Ibiquity's website is amusing. Their view of the future is quite
clear. Soon, although the exact dates are undisclosed, we will all be
listening to perfect "High Defination" radio. It will be
everywhere!! No doubt I'll be listening to IBOC radio as I drive my
turbine car or as I fly my jet pack or while I'm relaxing on my next
Pan Am flight to the moon.


You've got a jet pack and you're flying to the moon? I'm impressed. But
why do you want a turbine car when you could use an electric car?


Duh. It uses the same fuel as my Pan Am jet.



Oh, well, at least the B.S. marketing type$ (aka "Liars") will have
something to shill for.


Life ain't fair. Howcum the shills get all the job security?


cum?


Nuna yer beeswax.


Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
news:47Mrc.55$yw5.22@newsfe5-win...

The vast majority of people in the UK listen via FM, the only ones that
listen to AM stations are, as I said above, those that listen to AM
stations that can't get on FM.

Oh. Life is full o' surprises.

Remember that we have 5.5kHz audio bandwidth AM (if that) for domestic
transmissions -- not the wide bandwidth/stereo services you're used to in
North America.

--
Now Playing: 005. Eamon - [I Don`t Want You Back #05] **** It (I Don`t Want
You Back) [192kbps m4a]

"nsj" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:

Remember that we have 5.5kHz audio bandwidth AM (if that) for domestic
transmissions -- not the wide bandwidth/stereo services you're used to in
North America.


Currently, the FCC limits AM stations to a bandwidth of 20 kHz, or an audio
bandwidth of 10 kHz. Thirty years ago, there wasn't an explicit limit,
stations were required to limit their bandwidth to limit interference.
Given the normal channel spacing of at least 30 kHz in each market back
then, an AM station could go a full 30 kHz if they wanted to. I'm sure at
least a couple of the 50 kW stations here were doing just that, as I could
hear it when DXing stations 20 or 30 kHz away. These stations weren't
overmodulating, they were putting out an excellent signal.

I'm not so sure many stations even go to the maximum allowed bandwidth now.
They do seem to be pre-emphisizing the trebles, though. It sounds shrill on
a wide bandwidth radio, but it seems to be a good comprimise on a normal
radio with a typical IF roll off.

Many US AM MW stations are talkers now. Political talk, Sport talk or just
plain babble. Bandwidth isn't much of an issue. Big US cities will have
several ethnic stations which play music. In Chicago, there's a gospel
music station and a polka station which sound OK. But none of the current
stations sound as good as the stations did back in the musicradio days.

Actually, with the exception of a classical station here, FM radio falls
short of it's fidelity potential, as well. Most of it sounds over processed
and over compressed. It's OK for backround noise. CDs or records sound
better.

I suppose the broadcasters know what they're doing. I'm sure they could get
poor real fast if they took my advice on audio processing.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" schreef in bericht
...
snip
Many US AM MW stations are talkers now. Political talk, Sport talk or
just
plain babble. Bandwidth isn't much of an issue. Big US cities will have
several ethnic stations which play music. In Chicago, there's a gospel
music station and a polka station which sound OK. But none of the current
stations sound as good as the stations did back in the musicradio days.

yes, the processor guys have it their way now.

Actually, with the exception of a classical station here, FM radio falls
short of it's fidelity potential, as well. Most of it sounds over
processed
and over compressed. It's OK for backround noise. CDs or records sound
better.

yes, the processor guys have it their way now.

I suppose the broadcasters know what they're doing. I'm sure they could
get
poor real fast if they took my advice on audio processing.

Apart from limiters: none? And no. They would make the same amout of money,
if they all stopped "improving" their audio.

gr, hwh

In message
nsj wrote:

Remember that we have 5.5kHz audio bandwidth AM (if that) for domestic
transmissions -- not the wide bandwidth/stereo services you're used to in
North America.

Is it really as narrow as that now, Nick? The last large MF
transmitter I visited (a good many years ago, admittedly) had a
brick-wall filter at 6.3kHz, which was considered unusually low
at the time -- but the main objective was to be out by 9kHz, so
as to be clear of carriers on the adjacent channels. Perhaps some
of that still applies.

--
Richard L.

"hwh" wrote in message
...


yes, the processor guys have it their way now.

I suppose the broadcasters know what they're doing. I'm sure they could
get
poor real fast if they took my advice on audio processing.

Apart from limiters: none? And no. They would make the same amout of
money,
if they all stopped "improving" their audio.

gr, hwh



Well, they process the sound anyway. They must think people like it. It
wasn't processed as much years ago, and I think it sounded better, but I
don't represent the typical listener.

Wonder why the lightly processed stations went by the wayside, years ago?

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" schreef in bericht
...
Well, they process the sound anyway. They must think people like it. It
wasn't processed as much years ago, and I think it sounded better, but I
don't represent the typical listener.

Wonder why the lightly processed stations went by the wayside, years ago?

These days a station must be "the loudest". If only one station uses a
processor, nobody can stay behind.
Sad, but that's the way it is. And stations keep changing format, as they
allways have done.

gr, hwh

Frank Dresser schreef:

"Stephen M.H. Lawrence" wrote in message
link.net...



[snip]


So, what should be done with AM? Roll back NRSC. Give us
10 KHz - wide audio (at least), and get rid of the aerobeacons on
longwave, and turn the longwave band over to broadcasting. Just
a thought, anyway...that would certainly ield better coverage area.

I say -- allow wideband audio, and let the stations who can't compete go
dark. There's too many radio stations, anyway.


The comparison to AM Stereo is, at any rate, right on the mark, and the
NAB is making the same mistake in their enthusiasm for sound quality
that they made in the Eighties, namely, that sound quality is a secondary
or tertiary consideration, and sound quality does take a backseat to
program content every time. Until that issue is addressed, the change
that the digital vendors lust for will never happen.

There's a cycle to the "better audio will save radio" arguement. FM would
replace AM in the fifties. It didn't. FM stereo would save FM in the
sixties. It didn't. AM stereo would save AM in the eighties. AM stereo is
almost gone, now. I don't know if this is a generational amnesia thing, or
it's simply means nobody promotes this stuff after the patents run out.


Speaking of "change," I think that's the primary motivation for the
hype.

Ibiquity's website is amusing. Their view of the future is quite clear.
Soon, although the exact dates are undisclosed, we will all be listening to
perfect "High Defination" radio. It will be everywhere!! No doubt I'll be
listening to IBOC radio as I drive my turbine car or as I fly my jet pack or
while I'm relaxing on my next Pan Am flight to the moon.


Oh, well, at least the B.S. marketing type$ (aka "Liars") will have
something to shill for.

Life ain't fair. Howcum the shills get all the job security?

Frank Dresser

And that is the whole point.
At this end of the ocean the DRM consortium people really believe in a
replacement of analogue AM broadcasting to digital within "a couple of
years".
AM to FM took almost 40 years, and AM is still on, the advantages to FM
over AM are more spectacular than DRM over AM in a world where also FM
is available and the most popular band.
Actualy DRM is ruining the AM band and I dont like the idea of one
broadcasting band with 2 incompatable modulation systems.
DRM only causes a lot of noise on your receiver and is already
irritating the audience.

ruud

"hwh" wrote in message
...


These days a station must be "the loudest". If only one station uses a
processor, nobody can stay behind.
Sad, but that's the way it is. And stations keep changing format, as they
allways have done.

gr, hwh



Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Most radio listeners aren't
really listening, they are just using their radios for backround sound.
Much like the backround sound found in elevators and department stores.
Changes in the volume may be part of accurate musical reproduction, but they
are jarring when people are actually paying attention to something else.

Frank Dresser

"Frank Dresser" wrote:
| Life ain't fair. Howcum the shills get all the job security?
|
| Frank Dresser

I sure do wish I had my degree in Shillology 101.
I'll sell digital exciters and crossfield antennas, and
maybe find a way to replace radio altogether. How
does "laser" sound?

Nahh, come to think of it, wideband analog is the only
way to fly. Every time I hear REE on 11880 KHz (I
spelled kilohertz that way just to tick of the Limey),
I'm delighted with the quality of sound. Good old AM,
when propely executed, sounds better than that cellphone,
trashcan digital garbage.

Oh, yeah, the biggest "hoot" of all was Ibiquity's claim
that their codec was crap. I guess a looney public will
swallow anything the shills cough up, nowadays.

My idea of "High Definition Radio" is a 20-KHz-wide AM
signal, well - modulated.

(See, I spelled kilohertz incorrectly again. Limey Steve at
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk must be shaking with anger!)

73,

--
Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota

(NOTE: My email address has only one "dot."
You'll have to edit out the one between the "7"
and the "3" in my email address if you wish to
reply via email)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/04