Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.



As one who has some interesting questions (I think to ask David) I hope that he'll stay here ! I also strongly feel an IBOC disussion forum is needed and said forum must be keep FLAME FREE  and strictly moderated.
 
I do wonder why when ever IBOC is discussed for more than a couple days a few of us on these boards end up insulting and pissing off others. Honestly, it can be important to take off one's rose colored glasses and consider what someone else may be telling you.
 
As for IBOC, here's my two questions.
 
"In it's current form IBOC certainly puts considerable hash on the adjacent channels. But what will happen if all stations go digital and become IBOC and there's no more analog ? Can that digital info be placed closer to the center of the channel so there will be no more slop ?  or will that slop not matter when all is digital?"
 
" How much signal will be needed above the QRM to lock into a signal from digital AM's ? With analog we can here stations' audio that comes through stronger audios on the channel. I presume (like DTV) that won't be possible and the digital AM will need to be somewhat stronger than the pests to lock and for a period of time as well"
 
73 KAZ
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.

Since my posts are appended to this resignation, the implication is I am responsible for the inhospitality.

Let me point out that a couple days ago I posted two messages; one on digital sidebands vs analog signal strength related to antenna gain (Subj: IBOC/analog reception comparisons.), and one about a station operating improperly (Subj: WWNN breaking the rules.).  Both are perfectly *legal* IRCA List topics. 

I even explicitly stated in the first of these posts that I did not want to restart a previous discussion that went astray, initiated by an earlier post of mine on spectrum scan comparisons.  Despite that, in both cases of my posts, the resignee jumped in and took issue with my postings not on their merit but because of their content.  A flurry of exchanges took place under the banner of these two subjects, very little of which had anything to do with those topics.  I even re-posted the first of these in an attempt to redirect the discussion back to the intended topic.

If there was a fight picked, I submit it was not by me, and resent my posts being used to imply that I did.

W. Curt Deegan
Boca Raton, (Southeast) Florida

David Gleason wrote:

This is my last message on this reflector, as I have unsubscribed and also asked my IRCA membership to be terminated. DXing is not the radio friendly hobby it once was, living a symbiotic and friendly relationship. Members of both clubs are antagonistic to radio, and qualify as grouchy old men in most cases. No wonder stations don?t verify any more!

In my discussions with Mr. Mangled English, I have been asked by Lynn to ?simmer down? when I was the one called a liar, cheat, thief of a billion radios, ad nauseum. Obviously, someone who is in radio who actually knows what is going on in the industry has no place in this club or on this group.

W:  I run a multi million dollar research department, and our job is to find out what listeners want. When we see research done by others (as in the iPod issue) we independently verify it, using the highest standards of polling with a national staff of over 60 people who only do radio research. Or job is to protect $3.5 billion in radio properties and we do that by giving the listeners what they want, and we do it well because our sector listens an average of 24 hours a week, 25% more than the general market. We are not out to prove an untruth, as that would totally violate or reason for existence. But there are a few people in here with absurdly and bizarrely wrong ideas about radio and radio listeners who have no interest in learning truth, and insult the character and values of any who disagree.

You all deserve each other.


From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of W. Curt Deegan
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:09 PM
To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America
Subject: Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.

Thanks?  Sure!

Thank you, for substantiating my point.



W. Curt Deegan
Boca Raton, (Southeast) Florida



David Gleason wrote:

Thanks. I did the poll myself with my in house call center.


From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of W. Curt Deegan
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 6:53 PM
To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America
Subject: Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.

Sounds like nonsense to me.  Just like most poll results, it reflects the results wanted by those who pay for the poll.

No ads, no fading from obstructions, play what you want when you want.  A play list is more than just content, it is the order and frequency played as well.  You collect all the songs you can, but you listen to what you like.

Curt

David Gleason wrote:

There is definitely an element of "it's my list" but the fact is, extensive
research showed the average number of songs on an iPod is 300 and they
closely mirror the playlist of the radio station the iPod user listens to. 
 
The key issue is that carrying an iPod is cool, while a (analog) radio is
not. iPod = cool. Digital = Cool. Make radio digital, it is cooler than it
was and moves up in image among entertainment choices. 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of W. Curt Deegan
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:47 PM
To: Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America
Subject: Re: [IRCA] IBOC/analog reception comparisons.
 
It doesn't have anything to do with digital, except as a means to an 
end.  It is their play list, not someone else's, that's why they like it.
 
W. Curt Deegan
Boca Raton, (Southeast) Florida
 
 
 
David Gleason wrote:
 
  
Put a frame around those comments! Very nicely stated, Russ. 
 
Perception is reality, or why would people prefer the ultra compressed
    
audio
  
on an iPod to CDs and FM?  It's because it's an iPod and it's digital! 
 


_______________________________________________
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