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

[Robert Orban]

At 10:45 AM 10/20/2005, 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-F9021C7ECD2A96A7E32E99A2700 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>
>
>
> >From: Robert Orban
> >
> >These the results compared "unimpaired" analog AM reception to digital
> >reception at 36 kbps with no muting or blending.
>
>So, they were "lab" tests, not real world.  Great.  I don't know too many
>people living in labs ... and from my experience digital only really falls
>apart in the real world, where the consumers are.
>
>A Science Project In Search Of A Fair, that's IBUZ ... no wonder the NAB
>meets in Las Vegas ... since the industry's gambling with its future in
>exchange for only the enrichment of the "house monopoly" that's slowly
>pushing this thing up our collective ... well, you know.  :-)

If there is a point to be found in the above post, it certainly went over 
my head. The tests presented analog AM reception in the BEST POSSIBLE 
LIGHT: full NRSC bandwidth; enough signal level to make the noise floor of 
the radio insignificant; and absolutely no dimmer hash, static, co-channel 
beats, adjacent-channel monkey-chatter, envelope detector distortion caused 
by sideband asymmetry on a critical radial from a DA, etc. This was 
compared to 36 kbps HD AM. The only assumption on the digital side was that 
the BER was low enough to present the digital signal error-free to the 
receiver codec.

Bob Orban