|
Eric: First – remember that the IBOC power
is only 6.4% of the analog power in the current IBOC system. Second – if you look at the
measurements made to date, IBOC coverage is a bit less than analog coverage.
Let’s just say it’s half, although it is a bit more. Put those together: you need nowhere near
today’s analog power to get identical IBOC coverage. Furthermore, in the pure digital form of
IBOC, there will be no need to transmit redundant information in the secondary
and tertiary subcarriers. That means IBOC will be even more efficient when
compared to analog. The basis for all of this is the
underlying reason the world went to digital: you can have degradation of a
signal and still detect bits (zeroes and ones) properly in cases where the
analog is damaged beyond repair. What it means in reality is that analog
signals require 40 – 60 dB of signal to noise ratio to be acceptable
while a digital signal with good error correction can easily get by with less
than 20 dB of signal to noise ratio. Chuck From:
irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:irca-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of N0UIHEric@xxxxxxx ALL DIGITAL SYSTEMS decrease coverage.
You don't need any proof...it's right there on your radio dial! Increasing modulation will produce
distorted sound quality; keeping the modulation down to a point where it
doesn't interfere with adjacent channel stations is best for superior AM sound
quality. You're thinking of Digital TV for the "digital only" scheme;
if AM and FM went digital only, then they would have to broadcast with ten
times the power of analog mode. For instance, a digital-only AM station would
need 500 kW to equal the coverage of 50 kW, while a digital-only FM station
would need up to 1000 kW to equal the coverage of 100 kW. <CLIP> Again, I'm right and you're wrong. 73, Eric (N0UIH) |
_______________________________________________ IRCA mailing list IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://dallas.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