In article ,
SMS wrote:

John "mentions" lots of things that are of questionable validity.

Questionable by whom? You? Who are you? If you are going to accuse
someone with a generally good reputation of being incompetent or evil,
you really do need to provide specifics.

If
there is IBOC interference to a protected signal then a complaint needs
to be filed with the FCC. I searched the FCC database of complaints and
couldn't find any complaint about this for KKDV. The procedure for
filing complaints can be found at
"http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/interference.html".

I'm well aware of the street address for filing general interference
complaints.

Something you would know if you actually worked in broadcasting:

Station owners in a market do not casually file interference complaints
against their fellow broadcasters. It just isn't done except in rare
instances. It is a last resort which occurs only after the interfering
station has exhibited absolutely no willingness to cooperate or
participate in a solution, and even then the commission turns around and
tells the parties to make yet another attempt at reconciliation.

Clear Channel has bent over backwards to assist us and others in
tracking down and quantifying interference and other situations. We have
a magnificent relationship with the local people here. In any given
market, cooperation is the name of the game.

No useful purpose would be served at this time by putting this on record
with the FCC as a complaint against a fellow broadcaster who is
complying with current guidelines. There are other FCC portals which are
far more effective for registering procedural complaints, particularly
those involving the formal complaint process through counsel. You WILL
find those complaints on file, if you know where to look and what to
look for.

Your assertion has been that interference within protected contours was
not occurring. I have evidence that it does in at least three cases. As
has been pointed out, the FCC's inaction and lack of acknowledgement
that such interference exists does not mean that it isn't happening.
You're welcome to take calibrated receivers and spectrum analyzer out
into the field and prove me wrong. As I recall, I have offered to take
anyone out into the field and demonstrate the situation, live and in
person.

When do you want to go?

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article ,
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

Since I don't know what codec they use, I can't say what they need to increase
their bit rates to, but assuming they do (or could) use AAC, they would have
to cut their number of channels by as much as one third to compensate for
the higher bit rate.

They use a ten-year-old, AAC-derivative codec in non-updatable hardware.
Many of today's codecs are greatly superior to the codec installed in
every "HD Radio" ever made.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 9/6/2010 9:49 AM, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
hwh wrote:
You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound
properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or
less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in
practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced
by the same receiver and speakers.

That's a codec problem. With currently available codecs, you can get FM radio
quality with 64k with AAC (aka MP4 audio). This is roughly equivalent to
128k MP3, which is good enough for a car radio or tiny earphones, but not
CD or even CRO2 Dolby cassete quality.

Since I don't know what codec they use, I can't say what they need to increase
their bit rates to, but assuming they do (or could) use AAC, they would have
to cut their number of channels by as much as one third to compensate for
the higher bit rate.

It's a trade-off to be sure. But even now, every independent test of HD
Radio has shown the claims of improved sound quality over FM to be true.
Too many people don't understand that the proper Codec can provide
excellent quality audio at bit rates that digital radio employs.

The issue is also the definition of "CD Quality." In a vehicle, where
most radio listening is done, you're not going to be able to tell much
of a difference between HD Radio and CD unless your vehicle has a very
high end sound system. Similarly, FM Radio is often of poor quality in a
vehicle due to multipath. Drive on 280 from Cupertino until about San
Bruno, and the multipath is horrendous (though until stations increase
their HD power you can't get HD for much of that stretch at all).

On 9/6/2010 10:16 AM, John Higdon wrote:

No useful purpose would be served at this time by putting this on record
with the FCC as a complaint against a fellow broadcaster who is
complying with current guidelines.

So the FCC set up procedures for reporting interference, including from
HD Radio, and the stations being interfered with would rather complain
about it on Usenet rather than file a legitimate complaint. If you think
this tack will stop HD Radio then you're going to be very disappointed.

On 9/6/10 7:22 PM, SMS wrote:
It's a trade-off to be sure. But even now, every independent test of HD
Radio has shown the claims of improved sound quality over FM to be true.
Too many people don't understand that the proper Codec can provide
excellent quality audio at bit rates that digital radio employs.

Come on! Have you ever listened to this digital system? There is no
codec in the world that provides FM like quality at the bitrates digital
radio employs. And the HD radio codec isn't even among the best.

The issue is also the definition of "CD Quality."

No, FM radio is the norm for broadcasting. HD radio does not even
provide FM-like quality, so there is absolutely no issue with the
definition of CD quality.

gr, hwh

In article ,
SMS wrote:

So the FCC set up procedures for reporting interference, including from
HD Radio, and the stations being interfered with would rather complain
about it on Usenet rather than file a legitimate complaint. If you think
this tack will stop HD Radio then you're going to be very disappointed.

I'm not interested in stopping HD Radio. It will rise or fall on its
own. I'm just having fun here. "HD Radio" has already begun its very
slow death; what is said here makes no difference at all. Nothing said
here makes any difference, which is the point I've been trying to make.
Broadcasting occurs at radio stations not on Usenet. I deal with
broadcasting every single day.

You claimed that interference inside protected contours didn't exist,
but now you seem to be shifting to discussion of the interference
complaint procedure (which all broadcasters know is a total sham). You
even toss in the Washington street address for filing general complaints
to the FCC. None of that is relevant. IBOC interference exists, and I
can prove it to you. Apparently, you are not really interested in
defending your original assertion.

So be it.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article ,
SMS wrote:

It's a trade-off to be sure. But even now, every independent test of HD
Radio has shown the claims of improved sound quality over FM to be true.
Too many people don't understand that the proper Codec can provide
excellent quality audio at bit rates that digital radio employs.

Unfortunately, "HD Radio" uses an obsolete codec that is not
upgradeable. All I can say about "independent tests" is that the way to
evaluate sound quality is to listen for yourself, not read someone
else's subjective evaluation. Buy what you like, not what someone tells
you that you should like.

You tell people that they should read the "experts'" opinions. I tell
people they should listen for themselves. I can see your point, however.

The issue is also the definition of "CD Quality." In a vehicle, where
most radio listening is done, you're not going to be able to tell much
of a difference between HD Radio and CD unless your vehicle has a very
high end sound system. Similarly, FM Radio is often of poor quality in a
vehicle due to multipath. Drive on 280 from Cupertino until about San
Bruno, and the multipath is horrendous (though until stations increase
their HD power you can't get HD for much of that stretch at all).

Sounds like you need a better radio. I am intrigued, however, at your
definition of "CD Quality". I essence, you are saying that *anything* is
CD Quality as long as it is being evaluated through crappy gear that
adds so much coloration that even trained ears can't hear the
improvement that CD quality provides.

As long as the car's environment, along with bad quality amplifiers and
speakers are the chief impediment to quality sound, any programming
source is "CD Quality".

Wow! Learn something every day.

--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

hwh wrote:


You don't want to hear the simple truth: no broadcast system can sound
properly at 40 or 48 kbps. Both Sirius and HD use rates like that, or
less. And therefore they sound bad. I've heard them both and yes: in
practice even on a rental car stereo they do not match the FM produced
by the same receiver and speakers.

gr, hwh

I listen to a 32 Kb (22 kHz rate) mono webstream from KPFT and it sounds
great. Even music. Better than AM. Better than XM.

John Higdon wrote:
In ,
"Geoffrey S. wrote:

Since I don't know what codec they use, I can't say what they need to increase
their bit rates to, but assuming they do (or could) use AAC, they would have
to cut their number of channels by as much as one third to compensate for
the higher bit rate.

They use a ten-year-old, AAC-derivative codec in non-updatable hardware.
Many of today's codecs are greatly superior to the codec installed in
every "HD Radio" ever made.


CTaac+ no?

SMS wrote:
On 9/6/2010 10:16 AM, John Higdon wrote:

No useful purpose would be served at this time by putting this on record
with the FCC as a complaint against a fellow broadcaster who is
complying with current guidelines.

So the FCC set up procedures for reporting interference, including from
HD Radio, and the stations being interfered with would rather complain
about it on Usenet rather than file a legitimate complaint. If you think
this tack will stop HD Radio then you're going to be very disappointed.

There's a major case involving CBS in Los Angeles. I'm sure Roy will
fill in the blanks.