In article ,
dxAce wrote:

David Frackelton Gleason, the 'tard boy who poses as 'Eduardo', wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-
Audio processing not the issue. The issue is the HD side bands screwing
up the analog reception. The noise for analog reception varies depending
on what radio you use to receive the signal.

Most consumer radios have no issue; when you use an RX340 for a purpose for
which it was not designed, of course it sounds bad. Most listeners do not
have $5000 radios... most DXers don't either.

For example I can't use the sync function on my Sony 7600G for KKGO and
KNX unless I want to hear a a low frequency buzzing in the background.
This was not an issue until they started the night time HD broadcasting
where I would want to use sync.

The FCC did not take your reception of either station into consideration,
as, unless you live right on the ocean, you are outside the contours that
are going to get any protection these days.

On the R8B and RX340 I can use sync but not side band selectable sync
unless I want to hear hiss in the background. Things will continue to
get worse the more digital mode is allowed to be used.

How much more can digital (HD) be allowed to use? It is authorized 24/7 for
AM and FM in the US, and I do not believe that there were more than 24
hours
in the day.

Yeah, that more than 24 hours in one day thing is something you've not tried
to
lie about... yet!

I'll just bet Eduardo could statistically find 25 listening hours a day
in the Arbitron books.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

What do you mean these radios were not meant for this purpose? Are you
turning into a complete nut case?

The radios were designed before HD became a standard. So they were not
designed to receive analog signals when HD was being broadcast
simultaneously, as the design predates HD. Duh.

The FCC did not take your reception of either station into consideration,
as, unless you live right on the ocean, you are outside the contours that
are going to get any protection these days.

Since I live close to the beach I get the best reception but inland
those stations do well on the car radio where I listen to AMBCB most the
time usually. FM reception is not that hot around here with all the
mountains just off the coast. AM usually offers better reception.

Such marginal reception areas outside the primary contours of AMs is exactly
what both the FCC and American broadcasters were willing to sacrifice to get
digital capability. Everything has tradeoffs.

How much more can digital (HD) be allowed to use? It is authorized 24/7
for
AM and FM in the US, and I do not believe that there were more than 24
hours
in the day.

More stations could be using it.

There are perhaps 250 stations in the top 100 markets that warrant use of
HD; the rest are not viable full market signals. And, in that fact, is the
problem with AM today... The better signals were licensed back from the 20's
into the 30's, moved a bit in '28 and after NARBA, but designed to cover
existing 70 to 80 year back population areas. Many growth areas have no good
AMs, many AMs have been outgrown by urban and suburban sprawl, and today's
noise levels all contribute to make most AMs poor HD candidates. The longer
term survival of AM is certainly in doubt when many major markets have less
than 10% of all listening to that band, and most of that in definitely
"senior" demographics.


The digital side bands could be
increased in power or bandwidth.

We can hope the power is eventually raised; on FM there have been studies of
raising the digital signal by as much as 10 db.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

What do you mean these radios were not meant for this purpose? Are you
turning into a complete nut case?

The radios were designed before HD became a standard. So they were not
designed to receive analog signals when HD was being broadcast
simultaneously, as the design predates HD. Duh.

HD is supposed to be compatible with existing radios Eduardo. Oh! I see
now that was just another lie. You got me good that time.

The FCC did not take your reception of either station into
consideration, as, unless you live right on the ocean, you are
outside the contours that are going to get any protection these
days.

Since I live close to the beach I get the best reception but inland
those stations do well on the car radio where I listen to AMBCB
most the time usually. FM reception is not that hot around here
with all the mountains just off the coast. AM usually offers better
reception.

Such marginal reception areas outside the primary contours of AMs is
exactly what both the FCC and American broadcasters were willing to
sacrifice to get digital capability. Everything has tradeoffs.

Ah yes the signal strength fallback position. You are about the only
person that thinks this is a good tradeoff.

How much more can digital (HD) be allowed to use? It is authorized
24/7 for AM and FM in the US, and I do not believe that there were
more than 24 hours in the day.

More stations could be using it.

There are perhaps 250 stations in the top 100 markets that warrant
use of HD; the rest are not viable full market signals. And, in that
fact, is the problem with AM today... The better signals were
licensed back from the 20's into the 30's, moved a bit in '28 and
after NARBA, but designed to cover existing 70 to 80 year back
population areas. Many growth areas have no good AMs, many AMs have
been outgrown by urban and suburban sprawl, and today's noise levels
all contribute to make most AMs poor HD candidates. The longer term
survival of AM is certainly in doubt when many major markets have
less than 10% of all listening to that band, and most of that in
definitely "senior" demographics.

What can I say about your reading comprehension that is already known to
readers of the news group. He did not ask why or if a station should
have HD he asked how HD could be used more than it is now.

The digital side bands could be
increased in power or bandwidth.

We can hope the power is eventually raised; on FM there have been
studies of raising the digital signal by as much as 10 db.

You can hope that. I don't and I think most people reading the news
group would not want that either.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The radios were designed before HD became a standard. So they were not
designed to receive analog signals when HD was being broadcast
simultaneously, as the design predates HD. Duh.

HD is supposed to be compatible with existing radios Eduardo. Oh! I see
now that was just another lie. You got me good that time.

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

Such marginal reception areas outside the primary contours of AMs is
exactly what both the FCC and American broadcasters were willing to
sacrifice to get digital capability. Everything has tradeoffs.

Ah yes the signal strength fallback position. You are about the only
person that thinks this is a good tradeoff.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving an
in band on channel system.

What can I say about your reading comprehension that is already known to
readers of the news group. He did not ask why or if a station should
have HD he asked how HD could be used more than it is now.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if AM
is even around that long.

The digital side bands could be
increased in power or bandwidth.

We can hope the power is eventually raised; on FM there have been
studies of raising the digital signal by as much as 10 db.

You can hope that. I don't and I think most people reading the news
group would not want that either.

and how many people would that be?

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:37:59 -0700, Telamon
wrote:



Since I live close to the beach I get the best reception but inland
those stations do well on the car radio where I listen to AMBCB most the
time usually. FM reception is not that hot around here with all the
mountains just off the coast. AM usually offers better reception.

Same here. We have one AM station that sucks, and 1 FM station (a
university station too poor to afford a satellite dish). I can get
Los Angeles AM in the daytime, but at night San Francisco works much
better.

Canyon Country, California.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

The radios were designed before HD became a standard. So they were not
designed to receive analog signals when HD was being broadcast
simultaneously, as the design predates HD. Duh.

HD is supposed to be compatible with existing radios Eduardo. Oh! I see
now that was just another lie. You got me good that time.

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

So how many Sony 7600G radios do you think were produced?

If HD is supposed to be compatible with existing radios I really don't
see how you logically segregate one brand from another. Duh.

Such marginal reception areas outside the primary contours of AMs is
exactly what both the FCC and American broadcasters were willing to
sacrifice to get digital capability. Everything has tradeoffs.

Ah yes the signal strength fallback position. You are about the only
person that thinks this is a good tradeoff.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving an
in band on channel system.

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

What can I say about your reading comprehension that is already known to
readers of the news group. He did not ask why or if a station should
have HD he asked how HD could be used more than it is now.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if AM
is even around that long.

That is your flawed theory and you don't care do you.

The digital side bands could be
increased in power or bandwidth.

We can hope the power is eventually raised; on FM there have been
studies of raising the digital signal by as much as 10 db.

You can hope that. I don't and I think most people reading the news
group would not want that either.

and how many people would that be?

The number is not as important as the fact that this is the interest of
the people that read this news group rec.radio.shortwave. I know that
you are incapable of understanding that. We all have our limitations and
that is just one of yours.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

So how many Sony 7600G radios do you think were produced?

I'd be surprised to know that they sold over 20 thousand in the US. There
are various estimates, but the range is 700 million to 1 billion for all
working radios in the US.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving
an
in band on channel system.

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

All 25 or 30 of them? Most of those stations, perhaps nearly all, do not
care about anything except the strongest groundwave coverage areas.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if
AM
is even around that long.

That is your flawed theory and you don't care do you.

Do a nice little straight line history and project into the future the total
AM listenership in the US and its age level. Within th enext decade, it will
be almost entirely over 55, and down to about 6% to 7% of all radio
listening.

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

I don't think radios that have production runs of a few hundred or a
thousand or so were taken into consideration. There are relatively few
radios that are incompatible by 100%... most have the "DX receivers" have
the ability to change mode.

So how many Sony 7600G radios do you think were produced?

I'd be surprised to know that they sold over 20 thousand in the US. There
are various estimates, but the range is 700 million to 1 billion for all
working radios in the US.

I would not know but that doesn't stop you does it.

Most broadcasters and the FCC think this; it was the basis for approving
an
in band on channel system.

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

All 25 or 30 of them? Most of those stations, perhaps nearly all, do not
care about anything except the strongest groundwave coverage areas.

One would be enough but the number is a lot more than 25 to 30.

It will expand to the remaining good signals and to smaller markets... if
AM
is even around that long.

That is your flawed theory and you don't care do you.

Do a nice little straight line history and project into the future the total
AM listenership in the US and its age level. Within th enext decade, it will
be almost entirely over 55, and down to about 6% to 7% of all radio
listening.

The only straight line I see is the HD driving listeners away evenings.
Using statistics to predict the future is foolhardy at best. You don't
know the future.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

They didn't ask the listeners and they did not listen to the stations
that have good regional coverage.

All 25 or 30 of them? Most of those stations, perhaps nearly all, do not
care about anything except the strongest groundwave coverage areas.

One would be enough but the number is a lot more than 25 to 30.

No, it is actually not. You are perhaps missing the point that radio markets
are not single cities or even counties. Chicago is an 11 county metro, for
example. Very few signals cover it all. Only a couple get any significant
listening outside the metro, either... despite pretty good coductivity
there.

So there are really only a handful of staitons by day, on AM, that cover
adequately outside their radio market. And at night, there are even fewer
due to interference, directionality, and the fact that AM is only listened
to lightly at night demonstrates this.

The number is basically the 25 former 1-As, plus a handful of the old 1-Bs.
No former regionals get any really useful skywave, as the channels are too
crowded. And some of the 1-As are chewed up at night by other stations, like
KFI and KNX do to the East of the LA market.

Do a nice little straight line history and project into the future the
total
AM listenership in the US and its age level. Within th enext decade, it
will
be almost entirely over 55, and down to about 6% to 7% of all radio
listening.

The only straight line I see is the HD driving listeners away evenings.
Using statistics to predict the future is foolhardy at best. You don't
know the future.

The decline of AM listening is mostly a function of age. The band "average
age" increases by 1 year every 18 months, nationally, and there are two
whole rated generations that for all practical purposes don't use AM at all
or only for some special occurrence. I steadfastly predict that Americans
will continue to age one year each 12 months, so there will be ongoing
ageing of AM listeners until the band is totally unprofitable. This will be
hastened by the current "we already read the tea leaves" move of many AM
news talk operators to transfer the format to FM and put the AM to some
other niche use until it no longer produces anything.

On Sep 29, 3:07 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"John Barnard" wrote in message

news:7CvLi.18458$x%6.12229@pd7urf2no...



I don't know if anyone has tried but is it possible to remove some of the
IBOC hash on analogue signals by using DSP audio processing?

Most stations are processing even the analog signal digitally, anyway. But
HD processing is generally done separately, to preserve more dynamic range
among other things.

Oh, did you research this while you held a postdoctoral fellowship or
something?