Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Dresser" wrote | AM IBOC has been around for a year or two, and it's still something of a | novelty. It doesn't seem to be taking off as quickly as AM Stereo, and | there aren't many receivers available, yet. I've read the "pro and con" editorials in Radio World and some of the other trade rags, but every single editorialist misses the following point: Sound quality is not the problem. PROGRAMMING is the problem. We probably shouldn't rely on anecdotal evidence, but everyone I know will put up with natural and manmade noise to hear their favorite shows. Come to think of it, there's no evidence that DRM or IBOC have anything close to a robust noise - fighting system. I imagine a good thunderstorm will cause dropped packets and receiver muting. Another problem is multiple layering of compression and expansion codec schemes. Has anyone listened to a (usually) decent - quality AM plant that is transmitting supercompressed talk show audio at a bandwidth of 5 KHZ with a low, low, low bitrate? Something along the lines of 8 to 16 KHz bitrate? That fact alone puts the lie to the digital pushers' rants about "Audio quality." To an extent, the mediumwave band's physical attributes will play a role - groundwave and skywave mixing at night, phase shifting, etc., and FWIW, I don't think the "Crossed-Field Antenna" will fix a damned thing. I am good friends with a Kansas broadcast engineer who thought up a crossed field antenna concept in college back in the Fifties. In his own words, "I discarded the idea as sophomoric, fantastic, and unworkable." The search for a high - tech whizbang, bells-and-whistles cure will not yield the hoped-for results. 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. 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. Speaking of "change," I think that's the primary motivation for the hype. Oh, well, at least the B.S. marketing type$ (aka "Liars") will have something to shill for. 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 |