David Frackelton Gleason, posing as 'Eduardo', Univision Radio's very own
disloyal American and paid shill for HD/IBOC wrote:

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

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

There are no laws of physics involved when I tell you that we do not have
any complaints on HD operation on a group of major market AMs (not on the
FMs either and there are more of those... reaching 10 million a week).
And there is no law of physics involved in saying that the reason why
there are no adjacent channel interference complaints because nobody in
our HD coverage areas was listening to adjacents and next adjacents.
There is, in a sense, no interference if there is no perception that
anything is being interfered with.

I'm not even talking about adjacents anymore.. since you don't give a
flying F*** whether people trying to listen to adjacents are no longer
able to. I'm talking about ON CHANNEL interference to radios manufactured
today that are basically broadband amplified crystal sets that you can get
the same station on (presuming 640 KHz) 610, 620, 630, 640, 650, 660,
670... and that's damn near every digital or analog clock radio and boom
box out there that sells for under $200. On such radios, there WILL BE on
channel hash received and heard. There is no way you can get around it.

I have a bunch of that kind of radio around the house. I do not have trouble
with KTNQ or any of the other HD signals in LA on any of them. And, as I
said, there is no hash on channel that we have detected (and the AM in LA
has 40 employees and the cluste has 6 engineers) nor has any been reported
to us ever.

Same at the other stations. In fact, several of them were the exclusive
World Cup stations and we would have had a lot of angry listeners were they
to have had trouble listening to the cup... perhaps the highest tune in of
any programming over th elast 4 years on these stations. If we got through
the major games with not a single complaint, then there must not be a
problem.

Perhaps those World Cup listeners were simply not some of the most discerning
folks when it comes to audio quality?

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Perhaps those World Cup listeners were simply not some of the most
discerning
folks when it comes to audio quality?


People tend to be the most demanding when it comes to the things that are
most important to them. I've broadcast cups in the past, when transmissions
were less easy to do, and there is nothing that gets more phone calls than a
glitch in a cup broadcast... not even an earthquake in CA.