In article ,
"Brenda Ann" wrote:

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

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

"Telamon" wrote in message

om.
..

Finally, an answer that makes sense. DxAce broke the code.

Aren't you the guy who posted that HD carriers are _not_ only 1% of
the
analog signal strength?

Continue posting false data...

No I'm not the person that posted that. Continue to fabricate.


Nope... you said that was not true, and compared it again, irrelevantly,
to
DRM.

What I stated is true. You are propagating that same BS about HD that
was and is being propagated by the DRM consortium. It is the same
argument about a digital modulation scheme being better than analog. It
is complete BS.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Let's talk for just a moment about that OTHER DRM.. Digital Rights
Management.. the one that is going to prevent you from recording digitally
from digital sources such as HD radio and DTV. That alone will keep me from
ever having either of those devices in my home. I'm sick and dog tired of
the government, RIAA, MPAA and other critters of their ilk micromanaging
what I do in my own home with devices I have paid for, and programming that
is paid for by advertisement to the masses. Way back when, the courts held
that there was such a thing as 'fair use'... now here in the 'digital age',
fair use has gone down the chute. Someone kindly tell me when the courts are
once again going to stand for the rights of the PEOPLE instead of the rights
of big business.

It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more
control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what
the receiver can do with the decoded information.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
I don't need to get an HD radio and drive around LA. This is just plain
physics. Information transmitted is determined by the amount of power
and bandwidth applied to a signal. You can not have a more reliable
transmittal of a signal on less power and bandwidth. Do you get the
picture?

No, because the limiting factor on analog is, in most cases, noise. The
digital system itself has better system specs, and the reception systems can
make use of a much weaker digital signal than they can an analog one.

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more
control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what
the receiver can do with the decoded information.


I hear a black helicopter approaching.

David Eduardo wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more
control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what
the receiver can do with the decoded information.


I hear a black helicopter approaching.

More than likely it's the 'Mother Ship' coming to pick your fake Hispanic ass
up.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more
control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what
the receiver can do with the decoded information.


I hear a black helicopter approaching.




You need to have a conversation with Brother Mel....Before he left
for Sirius, Karmazin spoke specifically about the benefits of digital
transmission/reception to the broadcaster. The two main points of which
are 1) subscription radio/TV, and 2) Control of quality.

When he spoke of control of quality, he explained that by limiting
the audio/video quality to levels that are widely accepted by the
viewer/listener, small amounts of bandwidth could be stolen from
baseband and supplemental channels to provide additional subscription
funded programming alternatives. When specifically pressed on the issue
of HDTV, Karmazin insisted that digital transmission would be all that's
necessary to dramatically improve perception of video quality and that
resolution could be held to current NTSC standards. Absent noise and
ghosting, the public wouldn't know the difference, and would marvel at
the improvement. This single strategy would leave enough bandwidth to
permit two more programming channels per HDTV channel of equivalent
quality.

He went on to say that all baseband and supplementary channels would
be advertising supported, even those subscription funded, and that
eventually, all broadcast TV would be subscription funded.

This would be necessary to keep programming on the air, in the light
of the continuing fragmentation of the advertising base.

When asked, by a colleague at a breakfast at the 95th in Chicago,
about HD radio, Karmazin said the same strategy would apply.

Hot on the heels of Karmazin's announcements, both cable and
broadcast networks released announcments echoing Karmazin's statement.

So, what Telamon is saying is not Art Bell worthy, but comes from
some of the top executives in Broadcast.

Telamon on a roll today.I Respect Telamon though,the dude is cool.
cuhulin

Don't never let nothing get you down.Woody Guthrie.Pampa,Texas,1936.
cuhulin

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
It is well known that a digital mode affords the broadcaster more
control over who can decode/demodulate the transmission and also what
the receiver can do with the decoded information.


I hear a black helicopter approaching.

Excuse me? What did you do to attract the men in black?

You may not want to hear it but that is a fact. HD can implement DRM,
which here is digital rights management.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
I don't need to get an HD radio and drive around LA. This is just plain
physics. Information transmitted is determined by the amount of power
and bandwidth applied to a signal. You can not have a more reliable
transmittal of a signal on less power and bandwidth. Do you get the
picture?

No, because the limiting factor on analog is, in most cases, noise. The
digital system itself has better system specs, and the reception systems can
make use of a much weaker digital signal than they can an analog one.

You can say no all you want. What I stated is the basic principles of
information transmission. Go look it up. Too bad if you don't like it.

Noise lowers the dynamic range available for digital and analog
transmissions. Too bad if you don't want to hear that either because
that is the way the ball bounces. People that do not know what they are
talking about may think otherwise but that does not change reality for
them or the rest of us.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
So upgrade to a digital receiver. That's what I'm gonna do.

Besides, HD AM may never take off, for many reasons. Some are obvious
and
some are more subtle. But HD FM is a great idea.

First off I do not consider buying an HD radio an "upgrade". I consider
it paying more money for another radio that gets what I have now with
analog.

Except that it gets channels you can't get with analog only.

Second HD radio trashes my analog reception.

So upgrade to digital.

Third is the reason
you gave, which is it will fail and I will end up with a worthless HD
radio.

I said HD AM *may* fail. FM HD is a definite improvement, and will likely
succeed. Hell, it's already succeeding.

Look, I realize I am probably wasting my time here. Most of the "regulars"
here seem like typical old farts who simply resist change. The fact is, no
one cares if it "trashes YOUR analog reception". So few people are
listening to analog radio these days that the losses are acceptable IF
enough new gains are made by going digital. As with most things these
days, you can either upgrade or be left behind, wondering where everyone
went.

Mike