[BC] Fox HD

Thu Oct 20 07:38:44 CDT 2005

I think Jim meant to say 720P instead of 970P.

Earl 

-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of
broadcast-request at radiolists.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:16 AM
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Subject: Broadcast Digest, Vol 9, Issue 63

Send Broadcast mailing list submissions to
	broadcast at radiolists.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/broadcast
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	broadcast-request at radiolists.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	broadcast-owner at radiolists.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Broadcast digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: TV Standards (Bernie Courtney)
   2. Re: HD Radio multicasting bandwidth (Bernie Courtney)
   3. Re: TV Standards (Robert Orban)
   4. RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right! (Robert Orban)
   5. RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right! (Robert Orban)
   6. Re: RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right! (Robert Orban)
   7. RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right! (DANA PUOPOLO)
   8. Re: Saving History From The Dumpster (Alan Kline)
   9. RE: What is left for the industry to do? (JD Davis)
  10. RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right! (R J Carpenter)
  11. Re: "Family Hour" was Re: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to
      get it right! (Rich Wood)
  12. Re: HD Radio multicasting bandwidth (Rich Wood)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:01:31 -0400
From: Bernie Courtney <jerseyspikes at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BC] TV Standards
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID:
	<8175714e0510181901s12f0a7dbp9d5c727c915d072a at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Isn't post season MLB on Fox? why wouldn't it be in HD?

I know at least some of the Yankee home games were on YES which is HD, not
sure if YES is running 1080 or 720 though- I never really cared since my
remote never stops on it :)

bern

On 10/18/05, Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net> wrote:
>
> well I guess the problem is I never watch sports when I am not working.
> The
> possible exception is post season baseball. We all know how slow 
> baseball is and being it is on the low def network who would know 
> anyway.
>
>
> R
>
> Bernie Courtney wrote:
> > For the prime time shows I'll agree 100%.
> >
> > But when it comes to watching something fast paced with both rapid
> player
> > and camera movement, like hockey, (about the only sport I actually 
> > watch
> on
> > my own time) I'd much rather watch it in 720p since the picture 
> > produced
> is
> > much cleaner, and with higher resolution when the subject is in fast
> motion.
> >
> >
> > bern
> >
> > On 10/18/05, Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Bill gates was wrong
> >>
> >>unless you are viewing 1080P which is not transmittable, no 
> >>progressive format matches 1080 I which I am watching as I type. If 
> >>you have a true 1080 I compatible set, the difference between that 
> >>and lower formats is
> stunning.
> >>NBC
> >>PBS and CBS prime time HD shows nuke ABC and FOX, even their 
> >>employees admit the point. 720 P sucks.
> >>
> >>R
> >>
> >>DANA PUOPOLO wrote:
> >>
> >>>The higher resolutions are all interlaced. Bill Gates asked the FCC 
> >>>to
> >>
> >>wait
> >>
> >>>because he believed that a bit more time was needed to improve the
> >>
> >>synergy
> >>
> >>>between computers and HDTV. His pleas fell upon deaf ears.
> >>>
> >>>Are we seeing a pattern here?
> >>>
> >>>-D
> >>>
> >>>------ Original Message ------
> >>>Received: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:57:55 PM PDT
> >>>From: Jimsnell at aol.com
> >>>To: broadcast at radiolists.net
> >>>Subject: Re: [BC] TV Standards
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Because they couldn't wait, our HDTV system is INTERLACED, instead 
> >>>>of
> >>
> >>being
> >>
> >>>>progressive scanned (which would have made it compatible with 
> >>>>computer video).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>WHAT? We have been running 970P for 6 years!
> >>>All our local news shows are in true 16X9 970P HD!
> >>>We also just started using COFDM with one of our live trucks.
> >>>
> >>>Jim Snell
> >>>Maintenance Supervisor
> >>>WJW FOX8 Cleveland
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>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/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>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/
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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/
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:13:55 -0400
From: Bernie Courtney <jerseyspikes at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BC] HD Radio multicasting bandwidth
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID:
	<8175714e0510181913l3daf5e87w389236749c7038e9 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

XM is touted as having "hundred of channels of CD quality music" yet to me
it seems more like hundreds of channels of mp3 quality, but yet their
subscription base still continues to climb, and even I myself have had my
subscription ever since about a year after they went live. I knew this going
in though, I expected digital compression for the trade off of having 3
channels of a format that doesn't really exist in my market. Had I gone out
and dropped a wad of cash expecting to get better audio quality I would have
been pretty angry, but then again I know countless people who swear XM
sounds great.

I think this new young generation a few people area speaking of, those who
grew up with Napster and digital music players have just lowered their
standards for what is acceptable audio quality. Most MP3's that people
outside the professional or DJ arena trade are still encoded at 128K which
still is a far cry from CD quality, yet thousands, maybe tens of thousands
listen to these files daily on their ipods or other playback devices. Many
have just accepted this tradeoff of quality for the time and cost savings of
(illegal) downloading.

This may change some once legitimate music purchases from iTunes (which
encodes their files AAC at either 128 or 192 i believe) increases and people
begin to hear the difference on a regular basis going between file in their
playlists. But overall I know very few people my own age that give a dam
about the quality of the audio they have, just the fact that they HAVE the
song they want to hear, even if it sounds like it was recorded through a tin
can and length of string.

Bern
On 10/18/05, WLOYPROD WLOYPROD <WLOYPROD at loyola.edu> wrote:
>
> my question would be Who is running these tests, what are their 
> criteria for selection of listeners and what are the tracks being used 
> for comparison AND what do they stand to gain from the 'right'
conclusions?
> my 'real world' students often point out the differences in sampling 
> rates on MP3 files, wave files and CDs, and in their own collections 
> none of them uses less than 128kbps saying "the lower ones sound bad"...
> since these kids are the ones you want to get into HD Radio 
> (upper/middle class, educated, overloaded with disposable income), 
> folks better think LONG and hard about this steady destruction of 
> audio quality. Bad enough you want 5kHz on AM, but now 48kbps for an 
> on-air signal?! Might as well shut off the tower lights and go home.
>
> While I realize no one ever got rich overstimating the public... this 
> one is a dangerous underestimation of what people will tolerate.
>
> It's kind of like the idea of continuing to refer to iBiquity as "CD 
> Quality" - one bad idea too many...
>
> John
>
> >>> barry at oldradio.com 10/18/05 10:15 AM >>>
> At 05:37 AM 10/18/2005, Neil Glassman wrote
> > >From the synopsis of one study, "testing indicates that 48 kbps is
> perceived
> >by most listeners as providing equal sound quality to the maximum 
> >rate
> of 96
> >kbps. Just as importantly, the testing demonstrates that the optimal
> bit
> >rate allocation varies according to specific categories of
> programming,
> >including voice and different genres of music."
>
> So ... all the discussions and hand wringing over those who can hear 
> the artifacts are really moot, aren't they?
>
> 192, 128, 96, .... the listeners don't mind 48, for the most part.
>
> Are there any studies that contradict this?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:34:14 -0800
From: Robert Orban <rorban at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] TV Standards
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20051018182053.02d12948 at pop.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 05:49 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote:
>From: Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net>
>Subject: Re: ReRe: [BC] TV Standards
>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID: <435576A2.90801 at broadcast.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Is this a pure RF blockage problem (no analog UHF reception either) or 
>is it that you have an old DTV tuner?
>
>R
>
>Robert Orban wrote:
>
> > Since I am on the wrong side of a hill and cannot receive a single 
> > one of the San Francisco UHF DTV stations with a large, amplified 
> > outdoor antenna (even though the Sutro TX site is only about 25 
> > miles from my house),

I have an HDTiVo, which doesn't use 5th-generation tuner chips, but is not
the oldest design in the world either. I can get recognizable analog UHF
from Sutro, but the picture is VERY snowy, to the point where it is really
impossible to enjoy watching. So I'm guessing that this is an RF signal
strength problem. I don't have an RF spectrum analyzer readily available;
this is really the only way I could say for sure.

I _can_ get KNTV's DT signal, but that TX is on Mt. San Bruno (a bit closer
to me than Sutro), and, most importantly, it's on channel 12.

My antenna is a "deep fringe" VHF/UHF combo antenna (a Channel Master, I
believe) on a rotator with an amplifier mounted on the mast immediately
below the antenna.

There are a lot of east/west-going canyons on the SF peninsula, and people
in the valleys get major shadowing of the SF TX sites. Cable is a must in
those locations. Comcast in my area has an HD tier but doesn't carry UPN or
The WB, just ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. So, at the moment, I am waiting for
DirecTV to finally get its act together with HD locals, and hope that they
carry all of the networks, and also that their MPEG4 re-encoding doesn't
compromise picture quality too much. (No one at DirecTV seems to be willing
to talk about which flavor of MPEG4 they will be using; hopefully it will be
AVC.)

Bob Orban 

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:41:29 -0800
From: Robert Orban <rorban at earthlink.net>
Subject: [BC] RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20051018184051.02c7b9e0 at pop.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 05:49 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote:
>From: RRSounds at aol.com
>Subject: [BC] RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
>To: broadcast at radiolists.net
>Message-ID: <ff.1e8b9797.3086df2c at aol.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
>Please pardon me if I overly paraphrase...
>
>If I'm reading the NPR report correctly, about 16-17% of listeners 
>would "discontinue" (their wording) listening to audio coded at 96 kbps 
>with the iBiquity codec. The survey says this may, however, be a factor 
>of the audio samples used. Maybe a sixth of all listeners just don't 
>like Eric Clapton or The Cars (the two "Rock" selections), or think 
>Bizet's "Carmen" is bombastic, I dunno.

Footnote 3 from the report says:

17% of Phase 1 and 16% of Phase 2 participants claimed that they would
discontinue listening to samples coded at 96kbps. However, the mean opinion
scores for 96kbps were between 3.5 and 4.2, and thus we believe that this
inflated "discontinue" rate reflects participants' feelings about the source
material, not the quality of the sound through the coder. Further, during
this task we did not give participants explicit instructions to confine
their judgment to audio quality. Because of these factors, we use 96kbps as
our benchmark, set it to "0" and report on the difference between
participants' rating of 96kbps and other bit rates.

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:47:35 -0800
From: Robert Orban <rorban at earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20051018184249.02cc6fe0 at pop.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 05:49 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote:
>From: "Bill Sepmeier" <dcpowerandlight at hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
>To: broadcast at radiolists.net
>Message-ID: <BAY107-F269013FCBD92ED13796368A2700 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>
> >From: Robert Orban :: Dr. Sheffield's double-blind listening tests 
> >made for the NRSC clearly showed that in a study with enough 
> >participants to permit statistical significance, listeners from the 
> >consumer space preferred the sound of the HDC codec at 36 kbps to the 
> >sound of analog AM. They preferred the digital to the analog with all 
> >genres when compared to three different AM analog radios. The average 
> >mean opinion score when rating sound quality was, one the average, 
> >about 1 to 1.5 points higher for the digital on a scale of 1 to 5. On 
> >rock music, gap widened to approximately 2 points in favor of the digital
channel.
>
>Bob - Not being as familiar with this study as you are, can I ask you:
>
>Was the study done in real moving automobiles in real traffic with the 
>random BER muting/blending we can expect in real life, especially in 
>places like SF where the same multipath will cause these problems at 
>greater levels of incidence than say, west Texas? Or was it in a lab 
>environment, stationary, with no artifacts introduced to simulate BER
muting/blending?
>Just curious ... since if these studies don't emulate/simulate the real 
>world they're just PR flak....

These the results compared "unimpaired" analog AM reception to digital
reception at 36 kbps with no muting or blending. In this context,
"unimpaired" means that the analog radios were not receiving audible buzz,
crackles, static, interference etc., even though these are all significant
issues with real world analog AM reception, particularly indoors.

I believe that the results of this test were filed with the FCC, but I'm not
absolutely sure.

Bob Orban 

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:52:07 -0800
From: Robert Orban <rorban at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20051018184842.02d13938 at pop.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 05:49 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote:
>Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:41:08 -0700
>From: "WFIFeng at aol.com" <reader at oldradio.com>
>Subject: Re: [BC] RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
>To: broadcast at radiolists.net
>Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051018184053.0412e870 at mail.oldradio.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>In a message dated 10/18/2005 5:22:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
>rorban at earthlink.net writes:
>
>  > For a given bitrate, HDC is not quite as good as aacPlusV2. 
> However, I find  >  the 48 kbps HDC streams to be of "entertainment 
> quality." That is, the  >  artifacts, although certainly audible, do 
> not prevent me from enjoying the  >  content. From a business 
> perspective, I don't think that the quality of 48  >  kbps HDC is 
> going to drive away the mass audience.
>
>Coming from one of the men with the reknown "Golden Ears" that's a good 
>endorsement. I am curious if there is a WAV file sample of this, 
>anywhere? I'd like to give it a listen.
>
>I remember that Tom Ray had posted some files of the digital signal 
>coming from WOR a while ago, back when they were working out some codec
issues.
>Something like this for the FM digital streams would be great.

I don't know if there are any HDC streams, but there are plenty of aacPlus
48 kbps streams at

http://www.tuner2.com/

The "SomaFM" streams use both Optimod-PC processing and Opticodec-PC
encoding.

While the performance of aacPlusV2 is a bit better than HDC, these streams
can certainly give you a taste of what state of the art 48 bkps streaming
sounds like.

You will need the current RealPlayer or Winamp to listen to these. Both are
free downloads.

Bob Orban 

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:34:25 -0700
From: DANA PUOPOLO <dpuopolo at usa.net>
Subject: RE: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <906JJscIZ1744S03.1129689265 at uwdvg003.cms.usa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Was this music played on NRSC-5 AM where the Highs are tightly limited to 5
Khz?

If I recall, music sounded lousy on the old T carrier ABC network line too -
and NRSC-5 AM sounds just like that...

36 kB sampling with a full frequency response and low noise would sound
better them ABC network audio. Cassettes sounded better then old network
audio!

-D

------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:33:43 PM PDT
From: Robert Orban <rorban at earthlink.net>
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Subject: RE: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!

At 02:04 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote:
>From: "Bill Sepmeier" <dcpowerandlight at hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: [BC] RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
>To: broadcast at radiolists.net
>Message-ID: <BAY107-F223DAABA623ADB88F99C76A2710 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>
> >From: Robert Orban >
> >For a given bitrate, HDC is not quite as good as aacPlusV2. However, 
> >I
find
> >the 48 kbps HDC streams to be of "entertainment quality." That is, 
> >the artifacts, although certainly audible, do not prevent me from 
> >enjoying the content. From a business perspective, I don't think that 
> >the quality of 48 kbps HDC is going to drive away the mass audience.
>
>Given this evaluation, how can one say that because of a little 
>multipath or the occasional AM fading today's FM and AM need replacing 
>then?  Both sound better as-is than the low bit rate coding I've 
>heard...  :-)

In the Bay Area, FM many times is not of "entertainment quality" because of
multipath. And AM, through the typical 2 kHz (-3 dB) radio, does not meet
the expectations of most consumers when the programming is music, although
it seems fine for talk.

Also, your preference, or mine, or Dana's, when taken in isolation, is of
absolutely no relevance to the business model of radio broadcasting. Dr. 
Sheffield's double-blind listening tests made for the NRSC clearly showed
that in a study with enough participants to permit statistical significance,
listeners from the consumer space preferred the sound of the HDC codec at 36
kbps to the sound of analog AM. They preferred the digital to the analog
with all genres when compared to three different AM analog radios. The
average mean opinion score when rating sound quality was, one the average,
about 1 to 1.5 points higher for the digital on a scale of 1 to 5. On rock
music, gap widened to approximately 2 points in favor of the digital
channel.

Bob Orban 

_______________________________________________
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/

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:40:06 -0500
From: Alan Kline <akline at netins.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] Saving History From The Dumpster
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20051018214006.00ff75e0 at pop3.netins.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Harold--

It looks great!  Nice work!  But, when I tried to upload an RCA manual, it
told me "ACCESS DENIED--you must log in".

Was I doing something wrong?

ak

------ At 10:35 AM 10/18/2005 -0700, The Most Honourable Harold Hallikainen
wrote: -------
>I've redone the manual archive website so it's now a wiki. Users can 
>contribute scanned manuals, catalogs, etc, edit the text of existing 
>pages, and create new ones.
>
>Have a look at http://www.hallikainen.org/BroadcastHistory
>
>I look forward to comments!

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:44:18 -0700
From: "JD Davis" <jdavis at lvradio.com>
Subject: RE: [BC] What is left for the industry to do?
To: "'Broadcast Radio Mailing List'" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <20051019024345.PTEK11356.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net at jdpig>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Currently, with Wi-Fi, you can use range extenders, so the systems can talk
radio to radio, until finally reaching the central equipment, with
surprisingly low delay.

JD

-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Harold Hallikainen
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 4:52 PM
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BC] What is left for the industry to do?

> That's why I'm pretty sure they'll all migrate to an IP world...it's 
> already being designed into city-wide next-generation wireless plans.
>
> Mark Durenberger

Does that require centralized equipment, or can they talk directly radio to
radio?

Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com

_______________________________________________
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/

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:49:40 -0400
From: "R J Carpenter" <rcarpen at erols.com>
Subject: [BC] RE: HD Radio -- Folks we have to get it right!
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <000801c5d457$c06c8d70$2d01a8c0 at RJCLAPTOP>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Mr. Reeves,

At least in the Washington. DC, area, the main NPR stations (WETA &
WAMU)  are now essentially all talk.  Apparently talk brings in more bucks
than music does. IIRC, WETA also has talk on its HD2 channel.
The other major non-comms are WCSP - all talk - and WPFW - lots of
non-classical music.  So three of the four are essentially all-talk.

Another example:  In San Antonio, TX, the main NPR stations are co-owned.
Pne is talk, the other is classical music.  The third major non-comm is
religious - I don't know whether they play music.

I think you'll find that music is becoming more and more rare on
large-market NPR stations.

bob c.

------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:53:46 -0400
From: Rich Wood <richwood at pobox.com>
Subject: Re: "Family Hour" was Re: [BC] HD Radio -- Folks we have to
	get it right!
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051018224931.032c7878 at pop.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

------ At 06:02 PM 10/18/2005, Alan Kline wrote: -------

>That was PTAR, which as you say, was the rule intended to stimulate 
>local programming, but ended up making Merv Griffin a zillionaire.

Whatever you want to call it, I specifically mentioned that hour between the
local news and beginning of network programming. I don't care what it's
called. I made it clear it was local, not network time.

>Today, I wonder if there would be such a protest by syndicators--only 
>because there aren't as many as there used to be, and many of those 
>that are left are tied to the networks (King World/Viacom, 
>NBC-Universal, Buena Vista/ABC/Disney, to name a few)

It was also a time when the networks couldn't syndicate their own product.
Now the networks or their parent companies own nearly all of it. There's
nothing to protest.

Rich 

------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:15:41 -0400
From: Rich Wood <richwood at pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [BC] HD Radio multicasting bandwidth
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051018231358.032c8ae0 at pop.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

------ At 06:05 PM 10/18/2005, Goran Tomas wrote: -------

>Go to www.opticodec.net and click a few streams. MP3 at 48kbps sucks 
>big time, but this is not MP3...

Went there. Only one 48kbps was working and Winamp indicated it was 96.

Rich

Rich Wood
Rich Wood Multimedia
Phone: 413-303-9084
FAX: 413-480-0010

------------------------------

_______________________________________________

For changes in service, please click on

Broadcast mailing list
Broadcast at radiolists.net
http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/broadcast

End of Broadcast Digest, Vol 9, Issue 63
****************************************