SAT 800 Being Replaced
 

"RHF" wrote in message
m...
FD,

The 'majority' of the radio sttions "Owned" by Clear Channel are FM.

About 13,500 Total Radio Stations:
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/bt031231.html
AM RADIO = 4794
FM RADIO = 6217
FM EDUCATIONAL = 2552 {NPR&PRI}


Right. But I think there's less than 100 IBOC AM stations broadcasting now.
When Clear Channel IBOCs their hoard of AM'ers, it will change the
proportion of AM IBOC stations dramatically.


"High Quality Sound" {Fidelity} is a PRIORITY for 'current' FM
Music Listeners. IBOC FM Broadcasting has a natual and real
market potential to meet the 'needs' of FM Music Listeners.

But FM radio already has "High Quality Sound". Rarely does any station come
close to the excellent signal to noise and dynamic range that FM offers.
There's only one station here which does, a classical station. I'm not a
big classical fan, but the station is fun to listen to from time to time.
The music actually sounds musical, and the difference can be heard on even a
mediocre FM radio. A decent radio and speakers can put you right in the
concert hall.

However, nearly all stations compress their audio and I think for good
reason. Most people who have the radio on aren't actually listening to it,
but have it on for background. Music in the car, music while reading the
paper, music to drink beer by. I know I've oversimplified current FM
programming practices as "Muzak for Babyboomers" but I don't think it's too
far off the mark.

No attempt to get better radio fidelity has been immediately successful
since Columbia introduced the LP and RCA quickly followed up with the 45. I
think people who are in a mood to actually listen to music prefer
recordings. Of course, recordings are also just fine for background music,
but it may take more active involvement than a person who just wants some
background music is willing to bother with.



IMHO: Just like AM Stereo, IBOC FM Broadcasting has no natural
market. For that majority of AM Band "News and Information"
{Talk Radio} Listeners 'voice quality' is simply Good Enough.

~ RHF
.
.

Clear Channel doesn't need IBOC to offer audiophile quality sound on it's
FMers, and very good sound on it's AMers. The technology has been around,
and ignored for years. It's got me wondering why Clear Channel has reversed
their sensible opposition to IBOC. It occurs to me that there's no need for
the IBOC channel to carry the same programming as the analog channel. Maybe
Clear Channel will try to use all those new, free FCC accepted digital
channels as a backdoor way to introduce a terrestrial subscription digital
service.

Frank Dresser

Joe Analssandrini wrote:
Dear Frank,

From what I have read, IBOC is "coming." Quite a number of US stations
have "signed on" with Ibiquity and are starting to broadcast now (or
will be very soon). I do not know if this mode of transmission will be
successful (it appears, again from my readings, more satisfactory on
FM than AM, but I read recently that at least most of the problems on
AM have been resolved. I believe WOR 710 kHz is running tests).
However, I feel Eton should have included it along with DRM. I believe
these radios will not be sold outside of the US except to special
order. I should have also mentioned that I believe the European and
Canadian digital radio (Eureka 147 in its various modes) should also
have been included. The Eton E1-XM should be a radio which would be
highly desired by the SW community as well as the general public. A
true world receiver would be something to which most of us would
aspire, in my opinion. As the design appears right now, it just evokes
yawns, again in my opinion.

Joe

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ...

Why should they include an IBOC decoder?

Ibiquity charges a license fee for each IBOC radio. Right now, the only
IBOC radio I'm aware of is the $1000 Kenwood car radio. While I doubt the
license fee is several hundred dollars per radio, I do think the license fee
is big enough to characterize it as "High Dollar" radio. And I really doubt
people outside the US will really enjoy paying the High Dollar license fee.

More than that, the IBOC bandwidth is something like 45kHz. This bandwidth
hog is a threat to AM DXing. So, not only will non-UnitedStatesians have no
use for an IBOC decoder, but the IBOC scheme is a thorn in the side of
domestic radio hobbyists.

Frank Dresser
IBOC transmissions are "bandwidth hogs". From my location in Chicago,
WTMJ 620 in Milwaukee wipes out both 610kHz and 630kHz with the digital
sidebands. Here in Chicago, WIND 560 wipes out both 550kHz and 570kHz.
When I phoned Ibiquity and asked to speak to one of their field
engineers, I was forwarded to his phone mail. I called later that
afternoon and explained that I hadn't heard from him. I was told that he
was in meetings all day. They were nice enough to give me his direct
e-mail address. He didn't respond, instead, turning the matter over to
one of his associates.
His associate explained to me that when I heard the superb transmission
capabilities of their system I would be impressed.
I asked him how they were going to deal with the multipath effects of
evening reception, with their selective fading. I also explained that
the sync detector on my soon to be released radio addressed these
problems and that users would be able to enjoy the benefits without
having to pay a licensing fee, and that 3 channels of spectrum wouldn't
have to be wasted on a system such as theirs. I also explained that
their approach defeated the whole purpose of extending the MW bandplan
in th USA.
He never responded to me.

Pete

Mitchell Regenbogen wrote in message ...
Yep, that's their guess. But it's only a guess. In fact it's a guess
that the E-1 is EVER going to appear. And from what I read even if it
does it will NOT be a replacement for the 800. So don't beleive
everything you read... :-)


My favorite part of the ad: "Two timer clocks keep track of time -
local and alternate. The clocks turn the radio on or off as you wish.
Yes, the Grundig Satellit 800 Millennium is a fabulous clock radio!"

While I love my S800, the clock loses time faster then a plastic watch
from a Happy Meal.

"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
...

[snip]

His associate explained to me that when I heard the superb transmission
capabilities of their system I would be impressed.
I asked him how they were going to deal with the multipath effects of
evening reception, with their selective fading. I also explained that
the sync detector on my soon to be released radio addressed these
problems and that users would be able to enjoy the benefits without
having to pay a licensing fee, and that 3 channels of spectrum wouldn't
have to be wasted on a system such as theirs. I also explained that
their approach defeated the whole purpose of extending the MW bandplan
in th USA.
He never responded to me.

Pete

Since the FCC is no longer worried about adjacent channel interference,
let's hope they drop the bandwidth restrictions on standard AM. I really
doubt the major networks have some new found interest in high fidelity
broadcasting, but some of the local independents might. There certainly is
a radio hobbyist interest in hi-fi AM.

And if hi-fi AM takes off with the general public, the non-IBOC broadcasters
could compete right now, using non-proprietary technology.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
...

[snip]

His associate explained to me that when I heard the superb transmission
capabilities of their system I would be impressed.
I asked him how they were going to deal with the multipath effects of
evening reception, with their selective fading. I also explained that
the sync detector on my soon to be released radio addressed these
problems and that users would be able to enjoy the benefits without
having to pay a licensing fee, and that 3 channels of spectrum wouldn't
have to be wasted on a system such as theirs. I also explained that
their approach defeated the whole purpose of extending the MW bandplan
in th USA.
He never responded to me.

Pete

Since the FCC is no longer worried about adjacent channel interference,
let's hope they drop the bandwidth restrictions on standard AM. I really
doubt the major networks have some new found interest in high fidelity
broadcasting, but some of the local independents might. There certainly is
a radio hobbyist interest in hi-fi AM.

Probably extremely limited. Increased bandwidth would mean less DX opportunities
for those who do DX the MW band.

And if hi-fi AM takes off with the general public, the non-IBOC broadcasters
could compete right now, using non-proprietary technology.

It's highly doubtful that HI-FI AM is of any great interest to the general
public.

dxAce

Frank Dresser wrote:
Since the FCC is no longer worried about adjacent channel interference,
let's hope they drop the bandwidth restrictions on standard AM.

Their owners would never permit it.

--
Both Kerry and Edwards announced their candidacy near the beginning of September,
2003, so let's only count votes before then. From January, 2003, to August, 2003,
Senator Edwards didn't vote 69 out of 320 opportunities (~22%) and Senator Kerry
didn't vote 182 out of 320 opportunities (~57%). http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/001349.php

Frank Dresser wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
Frank Dresser wrote:
Since the FCC is no longer worried about adjacent channel interference,
let's hope they drop the bandwidth restrictions on standard AM.

Their owners would never permit it.

Well, the Repbulicans like to say they want to eliminate unnecessary
regulations in order to foster competition. But I was careful to say "let's
hope" rather than "I expect".

Some government bureaucracies are just as bad under Dems as under Repubs.
EPA, FDA, FCC are the worst of those.

--
Both Kerry and Edwards announced their candidacy near the beginning of September,
2003, so let's only count votes before then. From January, 2003, to August, 2003,
Senator Edwards didn't vote 69 out of 320 opportunities (~22%) and Senator Kerry
didn't vote 182 out of 320 opportunities (~57%). http://www.mwilliams.info/archives/001349.php

"clifto" wrote in message
...

Some government bureaucracies are just as bad under Dems as under Repubs.
EPA, FDA, FCC are the worst of those.


True. But I rather like it when a bureaucratic decision can be explained in
terms of a party's principles, rather than just explaining it in terms of
the highest bidder.

The BPL decision is one such decision. The Republicans left it up to a
marketplace decision. I know it's widely claimed that the power companies
are throwing big bucks at the political campaign funds to push through BPL,
but I haven't seen any hard evidence of that. Aside from power line
monitoring functions, most power companies haven't really shown much
enthusisiam for BPL. The actual BPL developers look more like a bunch of
dot-com'ers, rather than lobbying powerhouses.

It's also worth mentioning that the domestic SW spectrum was largely opened
up under the Reagan and the first Bush administration.

Frank Dresser