Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.

["Chris Black" <n1cp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For me, not a technical person, it just boils down to the incredibly sad 
fact that a precious and finite resource, the electro-magnetic spectrum, is 
being raped and pillaged. And for what? So the snake-oil salesman's pitch is 
supposedly better heard? Maybe in a laboratory setting, the sound is better, 
but in the car, where most people listen to the radio, with all the other 
noises, I doubt that most 50 plus year old ears could notice any difference.

But no use beating the proverbial dead horse. Corporate greed has stupped us 
again, what else is new?. All I can say to those who were given ONE channel 
and decided to take THREE is, "shame on you".

I am probably spending as much time now on Aero NDB beacons as MW or FM. 
Lets hope they don't figure out a way to 'IBOC up' that band too.

Hope everybody has a great Thanksgiving. All the best to all in the club 
from Cape Cod.

Chris Black
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Healy" <bubba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America" 
<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.


>> 1.      Kahn is hardly "not of radio."  He invented the first analog AM
>> 2.      Kahn's rejection of the FCC AM stereo decision and his lengthy
> legal
>> 3.      Kahn was contentious long before IBOC / HD were even dreamed of.
> The
>
> No real argument there.  Had Kahn been better at people skills and
> promotion,  and better funded, it would have been very different.
>
>> 4.      AM HD sounds very, very good. In fact, it sounds "near FM"
> quality,
>
> There is no question it does sound better than existing AM radios. 
> However,
> open up the bandwidth to where it could be, and use technology such as the
> new Motorola analog chip, and the difference is much less.  I would love 
> to
> hear it compared to the WLW hifi transmitter of years past and a really 
> good
> analog radio such as built in the late 30's.  I would bet the difference
> would be much less.  Even the old Western Electric rig and a good Zenith
> floor console would likely give it a run for the money.
>
>> 5.      FM HD sounds better than analog FM, in part because it does not
> have
>> the pre-emphasis curve which was an answer that worked in old technology
>> that, unfortunately, is not one we could eliminate because of, precisely,
>> those billion radios.
>
> It would have been much better to eliminate the preemphasis and move the
> pilot up to 76kHz.  That, at least, would have left the old radios able to
> receive in mono with a tweak of the treble control which most have. 
> Partial
> compatibility is better than none.
>
> Again, the JVC will decode to about half the useable radius of a good 
> analog
> signal.  I think where we differ is our definition of "good analog 
> signal".
> My benchmark is where the audio is pretty much noise free.
>
> One of my clients is nearly top rated in Providence from a transmitter 
> site
> 30 miles east.  HD Radio would simply not decode there.  Were they to go 
> HD,
> the signal would miss most of their target market.  And that's without any
> other stations' signal intruding on top of their digital sidebands which
> would reduce it further.
>
> My experience is that external noise, be it ignition or power line, blocks
> the decode.  One great thing I can see out of all this is if the NAB makes 
> a
> concerted effort to lean on auto manufacturers and utilities to actually
> comply with Part 15.
>
> The proprietary nature of the codec and data stream trouble me, and
> apparently Bill Gates.  If this were released to public domain, it would
> accelerate things a lot.
>
> And we have yet to see if any lawsuits will be filed against the
> interference.  All it takes is one in federal court to bring the whole
> rollout to a screeching halt.
>
> I still see big problems, and from reading Radio World, others are 
> starting
> to grumble.
>
> 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