On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 16:45:59 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"David Eduardo" wrote in message
.com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are anti-radio
and
luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one, I'll
be
sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet
connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in radio,
whether formatically or technically, and are very negative towards the way
stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX organisaions as they
almost all seem to be out to change radio to the detriment of those of us
who work in the field.

OK, but couldn't much the same be said of building preservationists? They
don't like the changes and want to keep some things the way they love,
despite the fact they have no ownership interest. I wouldn't call building
preservationists anti-architecture, however.



Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is skywave
night listening, the other poings are moot.

However, to an Alex Jones SWL-type distrustful paranoid, Ibiquity's IBOC
looks hidden adgenda-ish. It's not about "CD quality sound" it's about
multicasting.

It is about all of this. It is about giving radio the digital buzzword,
more
channels, and improved AM quality.

Well, it's only my opinion, but the digital buzzword will soon be worth
about as much as the shopworn "turbo" buzzword of a few years ago. Already,
digital is being associated with pixellated video and cellphone audio. By
the time affordable IBOC recievers become available, the term digital may be
a negative.

If there is really much demand for improved AM quality, there would be more
demand for improved AM radios. Better skirt selectivity, lower distortion
dectectors and real noise blankers would be installed in everyday radios.
Such things are available in hobbyist radios. Most people don't want to pay
even a little extra money for a radio.

I think the multichannel capability might attract the most consumer
interest, if such interest develops.



So, if I've got it wrong, please tell me. Is it impossible for the
IBOC-AM
scheme to be used for multicasting?

Pretty much so. Not enough bandwidth unless analog is dropped and all the
signal is devoted to digital.



Yes, but ibiquity anticipates digital radio will replace analog. Then what?
Will the former analog channel be replaced with digital channels?

And might some of these replacement digital channels be pay channels?

Paranoid minds want to know!

Frank Dresser



Dwardo's right. There are Luddites among us.

Analog has a place in the future, probably the MW band at night
included (at least from 640-1200 Kilohertz). The blowtorches don't
need HD, the local stations do.

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. com...

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
. net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
You realize if they ever turn on HD at night, DXing will be
history.

And the couple of hundred AM DXers left, most of whom are
anti-radio
and
luddites, will just be SOL.



I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one,
I'll
be
sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his internet
connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in
radio, whether formatically or technically, and are very negative
towards the way stations operate. I have disassociate myself form
DX organisaions as they almost all seem to be out to change radio
to the detriment of those of us who work in the field.

OK, but couldn't much the same be said of building preservationists?
They don't like the changes and want to keep some things the way they
love, despite the fact they have no ownership interest. I wouldn't
call building preservationists anti-architecture, however.



Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is
skywave night listening, the other poings are moot.

However, to an Alex Jones SWL-type distrustful paranoid,
Ibiquity's IBOC looks hidden adgenda-ish. It's not about "CD
quality sound" it's about multicasting.

It is about all of this. It is about giving radio the digital
buzzword,
more
channels, and improved AM quality.

Well, it's only my opinion, but the digital buzzword will soon be
worth about as much as the shopworn "turbo" buzzword of a few years
ago. Already, digital is being associated with pixellated video and
cellphone audio. By the time affordable IBOC recievers become
available, the term digital may be a negative.

If there is really much demand for improved AM quality, there would
be more demand for improved AM radios. Better skirt selectivity,
lower distortion dectectors and real noise blankers would be
installed in everyday radios. Such things are available in hobbyist
radios. Most people don't want to pay even a little extra money for
a radio.

I think the multichannel capability might attract the most consumer
interest, if such interest develops.



So, if I've got it wrong, please tell me. Is it impossible for
the IBOC-AM scheme to be used for multicasting?

Pretty much so. Not enough bandwidth unless analog is dropped and
all the signal is devoted to digital.



Yes, but ibiquity anticipates digital radio will replace analog.
Then what? Will the former analog channel be replaced with digital
channels?

And might some of these replacement digital channels be pay channels?

Paranoid minds want to know!

This is a simple concept that many people don't seem to get.
Information rate directly correlates to bandwidth in this way, higher
rate and more detail means larger bandwidth. Analog or digital is just
a method of encoding information. Narrow filtered analog is similar to
low rate digital. It does not matter what digital method you use you
can't get around the fact that a better picture or audio means you need
to use more bandwidth.

There is more then one way to encode the analog world into digital and
back and some methods are more efficient then others but there is no
magic digital encoding system comprised of one or a combination of
encoding methods that will magically stuff more information into the
same bandwidth.

The DRM controversy has gone on for a long time where the claim that
DRM sounds better then analog in the same bandwidth. This is a bunch of
BS. Not only does this violate the laws of physics it further makes
less sense from the standpoint of conversion of analog to digital at
the transmit end and then digital back to analog at the receive end.
Technically changing from analog to digital and back introduces
conversion errors so DRM in the same bandwidth has to sound worse than
analog. The only way DRM can sound better is to use more bandwidth than
analog.

So there are are two basic concepts for anyone reading the news group.
DRM and IBOC claims are a bunch of BS. Analog or any digital system
will sound better the more bandwidth you use.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

.com...
In article , dxAce
wrote:

I haven't checked on him in other news groups. He seems to be
reasonable in this news group in the past but lately he has gone
down hill a little in my opinion.

It is tough to have a high regard for AM DXers these days when they
complain about your management, programming and technical operation,
and then send one after another of false DX reports. As mentioned,
the last one (on Thursday) reported listening to KTNQ with a slogan
that has not been used for 13 or 14 years ("Radio Fiesta") and had a
log of musical selections (KTNQ is talk).

Well I for one would appreciate it if you did not use the news group to
bash some of the people that use it for the right reasons. This is a
public forum so you will just have to tolerate on topic dissimilar
opinion.

You indicate a fairly egregious example in your post but I would point
out that it is very unfair of you to paint the people using this news
group with the broad brush of that example.

This a news group and if someone appears disruptive or if the
information they post is suspect for any reason put them in the kill
file. The news group is an information resource on the hobby of short
wave listening and is only as good as the information that is posted.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one,
I'll be sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his
internet connection.

As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in
radio, whether formatically or technically, and are very negative
towards the way stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX
organisaions as they almost all seem to be out to change radio to the
detriment of those of us who work in the field.

Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is
skywave night listening, the other poings are moot.

Two things:

1. I question the wisdom of dismissing the hobby of dx'ing in this news
group. Sounds to me like you are trolling for trouble.

I sepcifically clarified that it was domestic (NRC and IRCA) MW DXers. For
some reason, they have chosen to attack broadcasting as an industry and
profession. Some even write letters to the FCC questioning the
qualifications of licensees who are doing exactly what the FCC wants:
improving local service.

2. Like I already posted there is plenty of regional and national
commercials on radio so the long distance reception of stations does pay
off. Now you can go ahead and ignore that to continue to support your
wrongheaded assumptions.

I know of less than a dozen stations today that make any money off skywave,
and out of 13,500 US AM and FM stations, less than 200 show up in ratings
outside their own market area (MSA and embedded metros).

My argument is as follows.

First you must acknowledge that there is a lot (a high percentage) of
regional and national commercials on AMBCB.

Second that many stations (a high percentage) carry network
programming.

Third that it makes no difference to advertisers whether I listen to a
networked program carrying regional and national commercials on AMBCB
on a station that is local or distant. I hear the commercial and can
respond to the 1-800-number or go to the web site and make a purchase
so the advertising does its job either way.

So when I respond to an advertisement who can know what station I heard
it on. Do they just make the assumption that it was a local station?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:23:00 GMT, Telamon
wrote:


This is a simple concept that many people don't seem to get.
Information rate directly correlates to bandwidth in this way, higher
rate and more detail means larger bandwidth. Analog or digital is just
a method of encoding information. Narrow filtered analog is similar to
low rate digital. It does not matter what digital method you use you
can't get around the fact that a better picture or audio means you need
to use more bandwidth.

There is more then one way to encode the analog world into digital and
back and some methods are more efficient then others but there is no
magic digital encoding system comprised of one or a combination of
encoding methods that will magically stuff more information into the
same bandwidth.

The DRM controversy has gone on for a long time where the claim that
DRM sounds better then analog in the same bandwidth. This is a bunch of
BS. Not only does this violate the laws of physics it further makes
less sense from the standpoint of conversion of analog to digital at
the transmit end and then digital back to analog at the receive end.
Technically changing from analog to digital and back introduces
conversion errors so DRM in the same bandwidth has to sound worse than
analog. The only way DRM can sound better is to use more bandwidth than
analog.

So there are are two basic concepts for anyone reading the news group.
DRM and IBOC claims are a bunch of BS. Analog or any digital system
will sound better the more bandwidth you use.

Ever hear of quadrature?

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I know of less than a dozen stations today that make any money off
skywave,
and out of 13,500 US AM and FM stations, less than 200 show up in ratings
outside their own market area (MSA and embedded metros).

My argument is as follows.

First you must acknowledge that there is a lot (a high percentage) of
regional and national commercials on AMBCB.

Yes, there are lots of companies that advertise in many if not all the rated
markets in the US. But when they do, they buy advertising that is priced
based on thelocal audience in the metro to which the station is licensed.
Very seldom are even adjacent markets where a station may have some
listening even taken into consideration. There is no interest in skywave
coverage, as most such buys are placed only for 6 AM to 7 PM, and not at
night. Most of what you hear at night on AM are bonus spots and PI deals.

Second that many stations (a high percentage) carry network
programming.

Actually, very few stations carry network programming. And most have the
ability to take it a la carte, and run the spots (which are the payment)
when4ever they want as long as it is in 6 AM to 7 PM.

Third that it makes no difference to advertisers whether I listen to a
networked program carrying regional and national commercials on AMBCB
on a station that is local or distant. I hear the commercial and can
respond to the 1-800-number or go to the web site and make a purchase
so the advertising does its job either way.

But that is not how advertising is bought. It is bot based on Cost Per Point
only in the local market. If there are fringe benefits the advertiser does
not pay for them... and, again, nearly all sales are in daylight hours.

So when I respond to an advertisement who can know what station I heard
it on. Do they just make the assumption that it was a local station?

Yes. Unless it is one of a handful of PI accounts (where a station is paid
per inquiry) that use night radio to peddle C. C. Crane Radios and such.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:


It is tough to have a high regard for AM DXers these days when they
complain about your management, programming and technical operation,
and then send one after another of false DX reports. As mentioned,
the last one (on Thursday) reported listening to KTNQ with a slogan
that has not been used for 13 or 14 years ("Radio Fiesta") and had a
log of musical selections (KTNQ is talk).

Well I for one would appreciate it if you did not use the news group to
bash some of the people that use it for the right reasons. This is a
public forum so you will just have to tolerate on topic dissimilar
opinion.

I am specifically talking aobut AM (MW) DXers, now SW listeners or DXers. As
I already stated....

You indicate a fairly egregious example in your post but I would point
out that it is very unfair of you to paint the people using this news
group with the broad brush of that example.

We get at least one of those examples a week... and it has been a long time
since we got a truthful AM DX report.

This a news group and if someone appears disruptive or if the
information they post is suspect for any reason put them in the kill
file. The news group is an information resource on the hobby of short
wave listening and is only as good as the information that is posted.

And knowing how there are DXers who are lying does not help those who don't
to understand why verie or QSL returns have declined?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"David" wrote in message
...

Analog has a place in the future, probably the MW band at night
included (at least from 640-1200 Kilohertz). The blowtorches don't
need HD, the local stations do.


Many blowtorches do, too, on AM/MW. Our KTNQ is only listenable within its
10 mv/m to 12 mv/m contour due to local noise levels in LA. The HD signal
actually covers better than the 10 mv/m analog one does... on a 50 kw AM.

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:
I'm not aware of any anti-radio luddites, but if I ever meet one,
I'll be sure to remind him to get rid of both his radios and his
internet connection.
As to DXers, I find that most today are very opposed to changes in
radio, whether formatically or technically, and are very negative
towards the way stations operate. I have disassociate myself form DX
organisaions as they almost all seem to be out to change radio to the
detriment of those of us who work in the field.

Since essentially no radio listening, in terms of percentage, is
skywave night listening, the other poings are moot.
Two things:

1. I question the wisdom of dismissing the hobby of dx'ing in this news
group. Sounds to me like you are trolling for trouble.
I sepcifically clarified that it was domestic (NRC and IRCA) MW DXers. For
some reason, they have chosen to attack broadcasting as an industry and
profession. Some even write letters to the FCC questioning the
qualifications of licensees who are doing exactly what the FCC wants:
improving local service.
2. Like I already posted there is plenty of regional and national
commercials on radio so the long distance reception of stations does pay
off. Now you can go ahead and ignore that to continue to support your
wrongheaded assumptions.
I know of less than a dozen stations today that make any money off skywave,
and out of 13,500 US AM and FM stations, less than 200 show up in ratings
outside their own market area (MSA and embedded metros).

My argument is as follows.

First you must acknowledge that there is a lot (a high percentage) of
regional and national commercials on AMBCB.

Second that many stations (a high percentage) carry network
programming.

Third that it makes no difference to advertisers whether I listen to a
networked program carrying regional and national commercials on AMBCB
on a station that is local or distant. I hear the commercial and can
respond to the 1-800-number or go to the web site and make a purchase
so the advertising does its job either way.

So when I respond to an advertisement who can know what station I heard
it on. Do they just make the assumption that it was a local station?


Actually, yes. There is no mechanism by which they can meaningfully
track skywave impressions to a message. The numbers are so low as to be
statistical zero. So, Arbitron diaries track locally relevant signals.
Out of market signals are not even considered unless listening levels
become statistically significant. And from my experience, when station
manglement has made the trip to actually see the survey diaries
personally, they disregarded out of market listening as 1) erroneous
reporting, or 2) anomalous reception...either of which gets the out of
market station report tossed.

Response to adverisements happens on multiple levels. Your perception
of response through sales is correct, but incomplete. Advertisers, and
advertising agencies use complex, and sometimes medium/source specific,
methods to track advertising. This may be as simple as: "Tell 'em Peter
sent you".....to as complex as logged IP addresses connecting to
referenced web pages, and tracking cookies. Encoded coupons with
tracking data that's correlated to credit card data at POP. Or multiple
toll free numbers...one used for each station on the buy. (I was even
involved in a campaign where we had a separate toll free number for each
daypart at each station...each number active in the local ADI. Out of
market responses could not connect to the toll free numbers.) In all
cases of my direct experience, less than 10 total out of market
reception reports came in. All of them were disregarded as either
anomalous and of no consequence, or erroneous and of no value.

There have been isolated cases, however, of non local advertisers
buying a station specifically for its reach. In the 60's a motorcycle
shop in Tennessee bought WLS, ran only between sunset and sunrise, and
did surprisingly well. This went on for years. In the 70's I remember
buying tape decks and other components from Playback, in Chicago, in
response to advertisements I heard on WLS. I was living in Iowa at the
time. First comment, each transaction: "You're in Radio, aren't you?"
Apparently, a lot of disc jockeys bought their stereo gear from Playback
in response to the spots on WLS. Radio people do NOT get listening
credit either in advertising tracking data, or Arbitron.

I remember in high school...WLS overtook KXOK at night among
highschoolers in North St Louis County. But advertising had little
effect on that listener base. National advertising that generated sales
did so locally. And it was assumed that KXOK, later KSLQ, and KSHE,
running the same spots, were responsible.

And we all at one time or another listened to Beaker street on KAAY.
Though I don't recall any out of market advertising.

KMOX, St Louis also ran spots for out of market advertisers, with
similar success to WLS about this time. But, again these were unusual
circumstances. And eventually, as skywave listening declined, the
practice stopped. In each case, though, these were local advertisers
making their own decisions. Today, no agency would make such a buy. Even
though the commissions could be considerably higher on a highly rated
major market station.

Network programming...yes many stations carry it. But usually, a
station can locally be found to carry the program of interest. And its
advertising. In cases where a local affiliate can't be found, out of
market listening is not a consideration. And again, there is no
effective way of tracking it. Nor any compelling motivation to make the
effort for a statistical zero. Not that it doesn't happen. But
statistically, it's below the noise floor.

So, there is no real motivation to consider the DX audience. Fringe,
yes, or maybe. Skywave, no. Because there is no significance to the
advertising effectiveness of skywave listening--there's no money in it.

If there were a dollar to be made....believe me Radio would claw each
other's eyes out to snap it up, and do whatever it takes to generate it.

But until there is...there's no reason for Radio to give it a first
thought, much less a second.

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:45:21 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

Third that it makes no difference to advertisers whether I listen to a
networked program carrying regional and national commercials on AMBCB
on a station that is local or distant. I hear the commercial and can
respond to the 1-800-number or go to the web site and make a purchase
so the advertising does its job either way.

So when I respond to an advertisement who can know what station I heard
it on. Do they just make the assumption that it was a local station?


They can tell because frequently each station gets a commercial with a
different 800 number on it.