Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street
Journal, Page B1, Column 5... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
"Carter, K8VT" wrote: There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5... There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all. IBOC, like DRM = QRM And by the way, it's 2 March. dxAce Michigan USA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
dxAce wrote:
"Carter, K8VT" wrote: There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5... There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all. IBOC, like DRM = QRM And by the way, it's 2 March. dxAce Michigan USA You're not the only one taking that position. There is growing distaste for IBOC among listeners who find the AM system objectionable precisely for it's noise. Secondarily, some hearing the AM system in all of its digital glory, liken it to internet streaming...full of audible artifacts, most of them objectionable. Occasionally, it sounds pretty good. But that's not always the case. Depending on reception conditions and the general state of station's engineering. This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are starting to speak out about it. Salem, at least here, is listening, and has turned off their IBOC generators not only to curb local QRM, but to protect listeners of their own signal in Milwaukee, who were having more than a little difficulty receiving the local due to the QRM from Chicago's signal. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
dxAce wrote: "Carter, K8VT" wrote: There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5... There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all. IBOC, like DRM = QRM D Peter Maus wrote: You're not the only one taking that position. There is growing distaste for IBOC among listeners who find the AM system objectionable precisely for it's noise. and This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are starting to speak out about it. Well, had anyone bothered to actually read the WSJ article I referenced, they would have discovered that "listener distaste", listeners "speaking out" and a discussion of "objectionable noise" were the main points of the article. However, in true "ace-wipe" fashion, he yet again fell into the trap that Mr.Jensen pointed out just today: bpnjensen wrote: [addressing the self-appointed "ace"] You might want to read it before pronouncing the messenger incompetent. Heckuva job, Stevie...same trap, twice in one day |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
U.S.fed govt doesn't want us listening to our choices of radio and our
choices of news via radio.U.S.fed govt is leading up to spoon feeding us their U.S.Minstry of Propaganda Lies and BullS..T!!! cuhulin |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
David Eduardo wrote:
Salem, at least here, is listening, and has turned off their IBOC generators not only to curb local QRM, but to protect listeners of their own signal in Milwaukee, who were having more than a little difficulty receiving the local due to the QRM from Chicago's signal. Actually, WIND had HD on when Salem traded it to Univsion Radio, and took it off after the sale. Univision was very happy with the HD system. Univision doesn't own a 540 station about 100 miles from the 560 transmitter. Salem does. (I'm not sure exactly where the 560 transmitter is, but when I lived in Milwaukee it sure had a great signal up there!) -- Doug Smith W9WI Pleasant View (Nashville), TN EM66 http://www.w9wi.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are starting to speak out about it. Salem, at least here, is listening, and has turned off their IBOC generators not only to curb local QRM, but to protect listeners of their own signal in Milwaukee, who were having more than a little difficulty receiving the local due to the QRM from Chicago's signal. Actually, WIND had HD on when Salem traded it to Univsion Radio, and took it off after the sale. Univision was very happy with the HD system. Hello, David. Good to see you again. But to refine the point....WIND had turned off the IBOC signal some considerable time after the acquisition. And while Univision Radio was very happy with the HD system, listeners of several stations, especially up here in Lake County, were not. It was when the IBOC splatter objectionably intefered with a co-owned signal in Milwaukee that they pulled the IBOC system. IBOC doesn't just create objectionable interference for out of market, or deep fringe listeners. Not every signal in this area has uniform coverage in its ADI, and where signal levels flag, IBOC creates quite the obstacle to quality listening. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
Gegroet, Carter, K8VT wrote: There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5... I guess you mean this article? http://online.wsj.com/public/article...438087021.html Cheerio! Kr. Bonne. Yes, that's the article (and sorry for my date typo). I just read the actual paper so I didn't know this particular article was available as an electronic version. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
Carter, K8VT wrote:
dxAce wrote: "Carter, K8VT" wrote: There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5... There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all. IBOC, like DRM = QRM D Peter Maus wrote: You're not the only one taking that position. There is growing distaste for IBOC among listeners who find the AM system objectionable precisely for it's noise. and This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are starting to speak out about it. Well, had anyone bothered to actually read the WSJ article I referenced, they would have discovered that "listener distaste", listeners "speaking out" and a discussion of "objectionable noise" were the main points of the article. Actually, I did read the article, Carter. I was in the act of posting something about it, myself, when I read your comments. My point was not just that there's now obvious and ongoing objection to IBOC's noise, but that listener objection has begun to have an impact, and at least one not insignificant company has changed it's IBOC strategy as a result. WSJ hasn't addressed that point. This underscores the fact that despite the enormous investment, and the closed nature of the IBOC ownership through iBiquity by companies widely believed to be intractable, change can be, and has been effected by looking at local interference. It can be done. It has been done. At least on a small scale. Perhaps if more listeners voiced their objections....More likely they'd be ****ing in the wind. The ongoing thinking is that radio is essentially local, and that beyond a city-grade contour there is no need for concern about either interference, or listener interest. From a pure business model, this is pretty rational thinking. So, IBOC's limited reach and widespread noise are not really practical issues for broadcasters, because surveyable, revenue influencing listeners, it is believed for most practical purposes, do not exist outside of the city grade contour. And in many cases, that's true. But in huge megalopolitan areas like Chicago/Milwaukee, there are a significant number of local signals that do not blanket the market with uniform city grade strength, leaving some blocks of listeners in less desireable, and already noisy listening conditions. And out of luck. Here in Chicago, there are several major signals that don't have the kind of blanket coverage that WGN enjoys. From my location in Lake County, as well as my apartment downtown, there are times I even have trouble receiving even WLS clearly, due to low signal strength and just local electrical noise, and I have quite the reception infrastructure. Real Oldies at 1690, is a tough catch north of Cook County, day or night, even without IBOC interference, as well. WIND is also a tough catch sometimes. But most signals could at least be listenable, and relatively quiet, before IBOC. Caught here halfway between Milwaukee and Chicago (but still within Chicago's ADI), much of what I get is fringe listening on AM from either city, as with the rest of the people living between Libertyville and South Milwaukee. IBOC has made AM difficult at times for a substantial, and measurable, audience in both ADI's. And other, larger areas of population will display this interference problem for many otherwise listenable, and local, signals, as pointed out in the WSJ article. Especially smaller, but profitable, niche format radio stations, are getting chewed up with IBOC noise. Even on their home, revenue producing turf. So, while IBOC does create problems for listeners trying to hear Imus from an out of market signal, and complaints are made, they're largely ignored, due to the limited sales area/limited range IBOC, and, for that matter, broadcast mentality. However, there are local ADI regions where IBOC interference is of concern to in-market listeners. And as more IBOC systems are deployed, this will only get worse. Finally, these listeners are making complaints, as the WSJ article points out. My point is that they're finally being heard, and may have impact on some IBOC deployment. The underlying point would then be, for those experiencing IBOC interference with a local signal, to make some noise of one's own. Because, if a complaint is going to be heard, it will be on the grounds of local interference. I'm sure David Eduardo will disagree. But that's ok. He and I have disagreed on a number of points. But that's his job. He's a consultant. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
IBOC Article
"Carter, K8VT" wrote: dxAce wrote: "Carter, K8VT" wrote: There is an interesting IBOC article in today's (2 Feb) Wall Street Journal, Page B1, Column 5... There's nothing 'interesting' about IBOC at all. IBOC, like DRM = QRM D Peter Maus wrote: You're not the only one taking that position. There is growing distaste for IBOC among listeners who find the AM system objectionable precisely for it's noise. and This is nothing new, of course. What is, is that listeners are starting to speak out about it. Well, had anyone bothered to actually read the WSJ article I referenced, they would have discovered that "listener distaste", listeners "speaking out" and a discussion of "objectionable noise" were the main points of the article. However, in true "ace-wipe" fashion, he yet again fell into the trap that Mr.Jensen pointed out just today: bpnjensen wrote: [addressing the self-appointed "ace"] You might want to read it before pronouncing the messenger incompetent. Heckuva job, Stevie...same trap, twice in one day And you know somehow that I didn't read it? Did you read some 'expert' opinion? Hilarious dxAce Michigan USA |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Help finding QST 1995 article please | Equipment | |||
Help finding QST 1995 article please | Equipment | |||
IBOC interference complaint - advice? | Broadcasting | |||
Why I Like The ARRL | Policy | |||
LQQKing for Construction Article | Antenna |