Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.

["David Gleason" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I define "listenable signal" by the empirical evidence of where listeners
tune in radio stations. In both Arbitron studies and diary reviews I have
made, it is conclusively evident that nearly all AM listening in rated
markets is in the 10 mv/m contour or better, and in FM, the drop dead curve
is 64 dbu.

In other words, across the nearly 300 rated markets in the USA, listeners
tell us what signal level is necessary for them to make use of a station.
Fringe signals are not generally used. It's not my definition of
listenable... but, rather, the proof of where over a million diarykeepers a
year say and do. 


-----Original Message-----
From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Craig Healy
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:16 PM
To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America
Subject: Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.

> I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I see that Craig Healy
> is reporting results on AM with his HD receiver that imply somewhat
> less reception range. I don't think that operator skill is able to have
> any effect, positive or negative, so it seems likely that there is
> either a difference in the ability of different receivers to decode the
> AM HD signal, or there is some other environmental factor involved,
> and this in theory could relate to noise, interference from other
> signals, differences in receiver design/revision levels of the codec,
> what else could be a factor?

I think it's a difference in what we define a listenable signal.  David
feels 10mv/m is good, while my thought is more by signal to noise.  Probably
2-3mv/m or even less is good to me.

It's not just my receiver.  I've compared notes with another engineer who
has a Panasonic radio, and he reports even worse results in terms of
coverage radius.  I have not spoken with the other engineer who has the
Kenwood.

> Are these stations transmitting a
> different HD signal? What would happen if these reeivers were
> reversed geographically? What kind of comparison can be done
> in any market to try and run down these differences? Would David's
> receiver decode WOR in Providence during the LSS/1800 window?

I think the HD signal is equivalent.  I also don't think that swapping
radios would matter.  It's what we call a listenable signal that is where we
differ.  Unfortunately, were I to use the 10mv/m benchmark as the limit of
my target audience, I'd be eliminating a lot of the rated Providence ADI.
I'd lose a bunch of Bristol County, MA for example.  The sales staff would
have a fit.

> Right now the sample range for either receivers or stations is too
> small to be very useful.

Yes, but once I hear from the Clear Channel guy, we'll have a sample of
three different receivers.  That's not too bad.  Hardly the be all and end
all, but it's enough to get a sense.

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