[BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!

[cldube]

Hi Willie-

The one thing about SCA's is that a tunable SCA receiver is illegal (IIRC), 
therefore the "what's in it for me" aspect becomes very limited.
I think multicasting offers much better fidelity (our HD2, when it's been on 
[I have to admit it's been down now do to some hardware issues we hope to 
resolve in a day or so] sounds tremendous compared to SCA).

Chuck

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <WFIFeng at aol.com>
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!


> In a message dated 10/17/2005 08:00:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> cld at admin.umass.edu writes:
>
> has always existed, tho... SCA channels have been around for, what, 40 
> years?
> Reading/Info services for the Blind have used them successfully for a long
> time. Sure, the audio isn't fantastic, (it's not bad, either) but with 
> today's
> tech, a "simple" DSP chip in an analog receiver would make a dramatic
> improvement with a minimal increase in cost to consumers. Make the whole 
> subcarrier
> digital (like that DRM/DRE proposal) and then you'll have far superior 
> quality
> sub-program channels without all of the drawbacks of IBUZ. (Which we know 
> are
> many.)
>
> The consumers ask, "What's in it for me?" so the lower the cost to them, 
> the
> better.
>
> Willie...
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/
>