Re: [IRCA] SE FL IBOC Status

["Chuck Hutton" <charlesh3@xxxxxxx>]

To quote directly from the document I referenced below:

"At night, digital coverage fell short of the predicted nighttime
interference-free (NIF) contours and the system had blended to analog before
reaching this contour."


In other words, the system totally gave up on trying to use the IBOC digital
signal and reverted to analog before reaching the NIF contour.

Any way you slice that, the digital signal was worse than poor and could not
be used at all. The analog (by virtue of being inside the NIF zone) would be
commercially - usable audio.


Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David Gleason
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:07 PM
To: 'Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America'
Subject: Re: [IRCA] SE FL IBOC Status

Again, it is about usable signal, not signal coverage. In the size markets
where we will first see HD, the usable analog signal has to be very strong
to be usable, generally over 10 mv/m. extensive analysis of Arbitron diaries
shows and proves this. The HD signal seems to be usable beyond the 10 mv/m
contour, as it is less subject to interference and the noise that ruins all
but the strongest AM signals.  

-----Original Message-----
From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Chuck Hutton
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:56 PM
To: 'Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America'
Subject: Re: [IRCA] SE FL IBOC Status

Dave:

Take a look at the iBiquity test data in
http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/NRSC%20eval%20iBiquityAM/amibocevaluationre
port04062002.pdf .

You'll see on page 43 a map that contradicts what you say below. On p. 45
they are very clear that at night, digital coverage is reduced relative to
the analog coverage.


CHuck


-----Original Message-----
From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David Gleason
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:29 AM
To: 'Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America'
Subject: Re: [IRCA] SE FL IBOC Status

<CLIP>

The HD goes beyond such contours with a listenable
signal per tests made on several stations. 



-----Original Message-----
From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of CHARLES HUTTON
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 9:02 AM
To: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IRCA] SE FL IBOC Status

And inconsistent with iBiquity's own test reports, where the IBOC contour 
was graphed  in detail. The IBOC contour never came close to the analog 
contour.

To see their results, go to the NRSC pages on the NAB site.


Chuck


>From: "David Gleason" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,        Mailing list for the International

>Radio Club of America<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "'Mailing list for the International Radio Club of 
>America'"<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [IRCA] SE FL IBOC Status
>Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:40:05 -0800
>
>Our tests are consistent with those of Tom Ray in NYC and others... in high
>noise environments, the HD signal will be usable to or beyond the 
>listenable
>contour of the analog signal. I'd love to know what you find on your end,
>whether it is a receiver issue or one at the transmission side. Are there
>other HD stations in the market, ones that you can compare with?
>
>David.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Craig Healy
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:39 AM
>To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America
>Subject: Re: [IRCA] SE FL IBOC Status
>
> >   Of course it's the radio's fault! Second set produces identical dreary
> > dissonant results, consistent with a this contrivance of avaricious
>dullards?
> > Simply blame that radio as well. And the third. And the fourth....u.s.w.
>
>To be honest, if David had better results at KTNQ, then it's logical to
>suggest the radio I have might be bad.  I have been amazed at the poor
>coverage of HD with the JVC.  I will be meeting with the WHJJ engineer
>sometime soon to try to compare notes, and to see who else in his
>organization has an IBOC radio.  I'll also call the WBSM engineer who has a
>Panasonic.  I want to get his thoughts on this.  Neither are DXers, BTW.
>
>Craig Healy
>Providence, RI
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IRCA mailing list
>IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>
>Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
>original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
>IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
>
>For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>
>To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IRCA mailing list
>IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca
>
>Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the 
>original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the 
>IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers
>
>For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org
>
>To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>


_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the
original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx