[IRCA] WBT's Digital Test - "Is There Hope For A Digital > AM

[Bob Young <bobyoung53@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The descriptions I read below of AM IBOC describe exactly how WBZ IBOC sounds to me: horrible. AM radio sounded great years ago before the current NRSC audio mask was implemented.

Bob Young
Millbury, ma
KB1OKL

> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:01:50 -0500
> From: "Stewart, Joseph R" <RandyStewart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [IRCA] WBT's Digital Test - "Is There Hope For A Digital
> 	AM
> Message-ID:
> 	<96662F42B7FAC9489C72164DE62ED9881180BFEA0C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Re Steve Ponder's post about the Radio Insight article
> (http://radioinsight.com/blog/headlines/84743/is-there-hope-for-a-digital-am-band/)...
> Has anybody listened to the audio clip of the test?  The WBT signal goes to digital near the end of the clip, starting with the CBS top-of-hour "bong" and into the newscast.  Yes, the sudden drop to near-zero noise is impressive... but the actual SOUND quality is gawd-awful, like an especially bad webstream.  Sure, it's got more "high end" than the analog signal--but it's gargly, hashy, artifact-ridden, and nearly unlistenable.  The analog, while bandwidth-limited, is MUCH more pleasant to listen to!  "FM-quality" my foot (and various other extremities)!
> 
> Randy Stewart
> Arts Producer
> KSMU
> 901 S. National
> Springfield MO 65897
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:28:05 -0700
> From: "Rick Lewis" <ricklew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mailing list for the International Radio Club of America"
> 	<irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [IRCA] WBT's Digital Test - "Is There Hope For A Digital
> 	AM
> Message-ID: <C10DD5682CF7416F9C1E83E6DF4A43F0@ownerdb17c0644>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> Randy,
> That's what I thought, too.
> Swishy, very artificial-sounding. You know what I do with a web stream that 
> sounds like that? I ignore it and go somewhere else.
> And if that's what IBOC-only AM sounds like, that's exactly what I'd do.
> Although I've heard very few, so far I haven't heard, live or recorded, any 
> AM IBOC that's pleasing to my ears.
> I don't like the audio artifacts. I like hearing more high frequencies, but 
> if they come with artifacts, I'd rather not have the highs.
> --
> Rick 
> 
> 

 		 	   		  
_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://montreal.kotalampi.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