[BC] Fox HD
Robert Meuser
Robertm
Thu Oct 20 12:45:32 CDT 2005
It really looks soft on a native true 1080i set. My upconverted line
doubled SD, if produced in a digital plant, looks only slightly softer
than the 720P I see on ABC and FOX.
R
Earl F. Arbuckle, III P.E. wrote:
>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
>****************************************
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>
>
>
More information about the Broadcast
mailing list