In article .com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Steve wrote:

The audio quality is only improved if you're very close to the
broadcasting station. If you're not very close to the broadcasting
station, there is NO audio, period. ...


Yeah I've heard that, but can't that be fixed simply by boosting more
power to the digital stream?

Yes it could but that would defeat one of the reasons to go digital.
Digital mode is supposed to save on transmit power.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article .com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Telamon wrote:

There is plenty to read in this news group on the subject of digital
transmission. Most people in the news group don't want it. The reason
are several but paramount is the fact that the implementations are old
technology......

Old? Both HD Radio and DRM (and also DAB+) are using the latest MPEG4
HE-AAC+SRM codecs. That's the newest and most-advanced digital
compression standard currently available.

The modulation is COFDM - also one of the newest ideas available for
sending data via broadcast.

CODFM has been around for decades. It is not a new idea. The concept of
data compression has been around for decades. It is not a new idea.

The best match so far with the applied technology is FM because it most
closely emulates the conditions or transmission path for which those
outdated ideas were originally conceived. Daytime AMBCB comes in next
and nigh time AMBCB and short wave come in last.

Interesting. First, what is AMBCB?

The AM broadcast band.

Second, why do you rank AM lower than FM?

I don't rank it lower in preference. I rank it higher. HD on AMBCB is
worse than on FM.

And why do you rank skywave transmission as last?

I don't rank it last in preference. It is the worst path for HD or DRM.

Arguments that current digital broadcasts by proponents fall flat
because everyone has or now realizes that this type of transmission has
its own downfalls compared to analog.

Such as? You keep telling me "digital has downfalls" but so far
you've not told me what they are. Please share that information,
because I'm curious to know.

Well I'm not gonna do that. You are a proponent of HD so go read up on
it. You should know about what you promote beforehand.

Arguments of proposed improved digital broadcast by proponents are just
collections of insipid stupid ideas like using additional bandwidth or
more power or just reduce the coverage area of a transmitter. Just more
dumb-ass ideas on top of the current old and unsuitable concepts

Why are these idea "dumbass"? Please explain.

Basically any time you do not address the problem and try to band aid it
instead you make things worse instead of better. The solutions proposed
above are worse than the cure.

And just as bad as the poorly considered technology is the
implementation where the whole of the band is used instead of just a
part so a great deal of chaos ensues generally ****ing people off.

How would the FCC go about using "part" of the band in its transition
from AM to Digital, or FM to Digital?

Well, they could have allowed HD on just the expanded part of the band
for instance then the rest of the band would be OK.

But don't worry digital mode proponents; the hilarious HD troll Eduardo

I've not met him yet.

He posts here numerous times a day. You won't be meeting him just
reading his hubris.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article .com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Telamon wrote:

The reason are several but paramount is the fact that the
digital implementations are old technology......

Old? Both HD Radio and DRM (and also DAB+) are using the latest MPEG4
HE-AAC+SRM codecs. That's the newest and most-advanced digital
compression standard currently available.

The modulation is COFDM - also one of the newest
ideas available for sending data via broadcast.

CODFM has been around for decades



FALSE. It only dates back 1990 when it was standardized. NOT in any
way "old" and certainly not decades (more like just over 1 decade).


The concept of data compression has been
around for decades. It is not a new idea.

Yes data compression is old, but MPEG4 HE-AAC is NEW. It was only
standardized in 2003, and thus your categorization that it is "old"
technology is false.




Such as? You keep telling me "digital has downfalls" but
so far you've not told me what they are. Please share
that information, because I'm curious to know.

Well I'm not gonna do that. You are a proponent of HD so go read
up on it. You should know about what you promote beforehand.


Wow.
Gee.

You're silence has totally failed to convince me (or anybody who might
be "on the fence" and undecided) that HD is bad. Alright. Here's the
reasons I like HD:

- analog sucks like a scratchy record
- lack-of-variety sucks
-
- Once analog is dead, Digital AM will have the sound quality of FM
(10 kHz wide) or even CD (+5 khz wider), so AM radio can carry
something other than just talk. Like maybe some music that doesn't
sound like its coming out of a telephone (example: Radio Disney AM).
-
- Once analog is dead, Digital FM will be able to offer 3-4 times as
many channels across the band. And Classical Radio stations will be
able to present it the way it was meant to be heard (300 kbps
surround).

Hybrid Digital Radio is a *good* thing.
As good as the internet radio.
As good as the music coming out of my Ipod.
As good as the HDTV that is replacing blurry NTSC.

Mark Zenier wrote:

And sound like crap below 50-100 kBPS.


Clearly you know nothing. Take a listen to these 24 kbps stations
(using the same AAC+ codec as HD Radio and DRM and DAB+). They sound
near-FM quality:

http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls
http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls

wrote in message
ps.com...
Hybrid Digital Radio is a *good* thing.
As good as the internet radio.
As good as the music coming out of my Ipod.
As good as the HDTV that is replacing blurry NTSC.


1) Most internet radio is low bitrate and sounds like hell.
2) I don't know what bitrate you're using on your ipod, but a lot of people
are using 64 or 96 k/b mp3 bitrates that sound like hell warmed over.
3) "HDTV" is not replacing "blurry NTSC". DTV will do so. Most programming
on DTV is NOT HD, and may never be. It's 480i or 480p, which is supposed to
be the digital equivalent of NTSC, but in reality is loaded with artifacts
and pixelization. True HD does look pretty good, but to date the stations
have nowhere near the useful coverage of their analog counterparts (people
in the sticks can't watch them).

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ps.com...
Hybrid Digital Radio is a *good* thing.
As good as the internet radio.
As good as the music coming out of my Ipod.
As good as the HDTV that is replacing blurry NTSC.


1) Most internet radio is low bitrate and sounds like hell.
2) I don't know what bitrate you're using on your ipod, but a lot of
people are using 64 or 96 k/b mp3 bitrates that sound like hell warmed
over.
3) "HDTV" is not replacing "blurry NTSC". DTV will do so. Most programming
on DTV is NOT HD, and may never be. It's 480i or 480p, which is supposed
to be the digital equivalent of NTSC, but in reality is loaded with
artifacts and pixelization. True HD does look pretty good, but to date the
stations have nowhere near the useful coverage of their analog
counterparts (people in the sticks can't watch them).

Cable TV penetration is about 68% to 72%, depending how the source
calculates..... satellite TV was at 24% last December, so we have less than
5% to 6% of America that gets off air signals.

There is no pixilation of TV delivered by copper, and very limited breakups
from satellite, usually weather induced.

On Sep 30, 12:23 pm, wrote:
Telamon wrote:
In article .com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Telamon wrote:

The reason are several but paramount is the fact that the
digital implementations are old technology......

Old? Both HD Radio and DRM (and also DAB+) are using the latest MPEG4
HE-AAC+SRM codecs. That's the newest and most-advanced digital
compression standard currently available.

The modulation is COFDM - also one of the newest
ideas available for sending data via broadcast.

CODFM has been around for decades

FALSE. It only dates back 1990 when it was standardized. NOT in any
way "old" and certainly not decades (more like just over 1 decade).

The concept of data compression has been
around for decades. It is not a new idea.

Yes data compression is old, but MPEG4 HE-AAC is NEW. It was only
standardized in 2003, and thus your categorization that it is "old"
technology is false.

Such as? You keep telling me "digital has downfalls" but
so far you've not told me what they are. Please share
that information, because I'm curious to know.

Well I'm not gonna do that. You are a proponent of HD so go read
up on it. You should know about what you promote beforehand.

Wow.
Gee.

You're silence has totally failed to convince me (or anybody who might
be "on the fence" and undecided) that HD is bad. Alright. Here's the
reasons I like HD:

- analog sucks like a scratchy record
- lack-of-variety sucks
-
- Once analog is dead, Digital AM will have the sound quality of FM
(10 kHz wide) or even CD (+5 khz wider), so AM radio can carry
something other than just talk. Like maybe some music that doesn't
sound like its coming out of a telephone (example: Radio Disney AM).
-
- Once analog is dead, Digital FM will be able to offer 3-4 times as
many channels across the band. And Classical Radio stations will be
able to present it the way it was meant to be heard (300 kbps
surround).

Hybrid Digital Radio is a *good* thing.
As good as the internet radio.
As good as the music coming out of my Ipod.
As good as the HDTV that is replacing blurry NTSC.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

None of these Trash the AM/MW Band

Try Listeing to the AM/MW Radio Band with an Analog Radio.

Tune every 10 kHz and you will Hear Digital Hash.

On Sep 30, 12:30 pm, wrote:
Mark Zenier wrote:

And sound like crap below 50-100 kBPS.

Clearly you know nothing. Take a listen to these 24 kbps stations
(using the same AAC+ codec as HD Radio and DRM and DAB+). They sound
near-FM quality:

http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...&file=filename...

SF?TV? troy -or ratings_t,

Dang - You are a Bigger IBOC Cheerleader
then d'Eduardo and know even less about Radio.

are you sure that you are not 'radium' in a new dress ? ~ RHF

On Sep 30, 12:23 pm, wrote:
Telamon wrote:
In article .com,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Telamon wrote:

The reason are several but paramount is the fact that the
digital implementations are old technology......

Old? Both HD Radio and DRM (and also DAB+) are using the latest MPEG4
HE-AAC+SRM codecs. That's the newest and most-advanced digital
compression standard currently available.

The modulation is COFDM - also one of the newest
ideas available for sending data via broadcast.

CODFM has been around for decades

FALSE. It only dates back 1990 when it was standardized. NOT in any
way "old" and certainly not decades (more like just over 1 decade).

The concept of data compression has been
around for decades. It is not a new idea.

Yes data compression is old, but MPEG4 HE-AAC is NEW. It was only
standardized in 2003, and thus your categorization that it is "old"
technology is false.

Such as? You keep telling me "digital has downfalls" but
so far you've not told me what they are. Please share
that information, because I'm curious to know.

Well I'm not gonna do that. You are a proponent of HD so go read
up on it. You should know about what you promote beforehand.

Wow.
Gee.

You're silence has totally failed to convince me (or anybody who might
be "on the fence" and undecided) that HD is bad. Alright. Here's the
reasons I like HD:

- analog sucks like a scratchy record
- lack-of-variety sucks
-
- Once analog is dead, Digital AM will have the sound quality of FM
(10 kHz wide) or even CD (+5 khz wider), so AM radio can carry
something other than just talk. Like maybe some music that doesn't
sound like its coming out of a telephone (example: Radio Disney AM).
-
- Once analog is dead, Digital FM will be able to offer 3-4 times as
many channels across the band. And Classical Radio stations will be
able to present it the way it was meant to be heard (300 kbps
surround).


- Hybrid Digital Radio is a *good* thing.
- As good as the internet radio.
- As good as the music coming out of my Ipod.
- As good as the HDTV that is replacing blurry NTSC.


SFTV, { DOH ! - Hybrid Digital Radio Fanatic }

AM/MW "HD" Radio is 'by-design' Engineered to Interfer
with the two Adjacent AM/MW Radio Channels at 10 kHz.
http://electronicdesign.com/Files/29.../Figure_02.gif

1 - Sear This Graphic Into Your Minds Eye.

2 - Then Actually Listen To What AM/MW Radio Has Become
Due To IBOC {HD} Radio Broadcasting.

I Ask Myself : What IBOC ?
All I See Is The Blinking Blue Light ! ~ RHF
In That Distant Land* Where IBOC Fears To Go :
Life Exists and Radio Listeners Live Beyond the 10mv/m Contour.
* Twain Harte, CA -USA-

In article . com,
wrote:

Mark Zenier wrote:

And sound like crap below 50-100 kBPS.


Clearly you know nothing. Take a listen to these 24 kbps stations
(using the same AAC+ codec as HD Radio and DRM and DAB+). They sound
near-FM quality:

http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls
http://www.shoutcast.com/sbin/shoutc...e=filename.pls

You need a hearing check sonny.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California