[BC] The History of High Band Width Antennas
stanleybadams
stanleybadams
Thu Aug 31 00:06:49 CDT 2006
Was for an experimental form of radio in the early 60's. This was called
Color Radio. Since there were very few hours a week at that time given over
to color TV and since most people did not own a color TV but they did own
radios, they tried this experiment to improve the visual aspect of radio.
Now if you had a color antenna and tried to use it on TV it would not work
well because it could not produce enough gain in the RF section of the color
band. See back in those days you had radio, color and TV all on separate
bands. Channel master did make a mast amplifier to help out in the color
band some. But unless a Channel Master was added to those early TV
transmitters the amount of chroma in the color region of the spectrum would
still be too low for the receiving antenna to pick up enough gain. Those
early transmitters just could not produce enough energy of red, green and
blues up in the visual red and ultra blue regions of the RF Spectrum.
But now we need HD ready antennas, and this is an antenna that is especially
tuned to the Higher Digital bands so that not only are the 1's and 0's
picked up properly and in order, but also that they are in the proper matrix
with the P's and Q's.
If you find that your color radio or HD radio is not working properly, I
have an antenna that has recently passed Ibquity testing and copyrights have
been granted. They may be a bit pricey first, but I am looking for an
overseas supplier that build my new invention.
-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of
broadcast-request at radiolists.net
Sent: None
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Subject: Broadcast Digest, Vol 19, Issue 61
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: Yes, sir. The High Definition Stuff is in the TV
Department (Kent Winrich)
2. Legal ID... (Burt I. Weiner)
3. Ipana... (Burt I. Weiner)
4. Yet another HD ... XM HD (Bruce Potterton)
5. Transmitting and receiving antennas (Thomas G. Osenkowsky)
6. Yet another HD ... XM HD (Kevin Tekel)
7. Is iBiquity promoting DXing? (Kevin Tekel)
8. Red Book Radio (was: Transmitting and receiving antennas)
(Kevin Tekel)
9. AMAX redux? (was: Transmitting and receiving antennas)
(Kevin Tekel)
10. Re: Yet another HD ... XM HD (Rich Wood)
11. RE: Yet another HD ... XM HD (Stan Tacker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:24:08 -0400
From: "Kent Winrich" <kwinrich at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BC] Yes, sir. The High Definition Stuff is in the TV
Department
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID:
<615f119e0608281524o422d400eufe9ce3d45db667ce at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Yes I remember that. They needed to have the "bandwidth" for color. UH HUH
On 8/28/06, Larry Albert <larry.albert at murraystate.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Well, similar plans worked to sell antennas for color TV and stereo FM.
>
>
>
>
> At 01:22 PM 8/28/06 -0500, you wrote:
> >So we should market a new antenna for "HD Radio" too....if it takes off,
> >there is a fortune for some marketeer there.
> >
> >Gary Zocolo
> >Nashville
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
> Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More!
> www.SystemsStore.com Tel: 407-656-3719 Sales at SystemsStore.com
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:08:32 -0700
From: "Burt I. Weiner" <biwa at earthlink.net>
Subject: [BC] Legal ID...
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060828160709.032f2328 at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
That would be perfectly legal; Having the call and city of license
together then the rest. That's why we worded it that way.
Burt
At 03:25 PM 8/28/2006, you wrote:
>From: "Glen Kippel" <glen.kippel at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [BC] Legal ID...
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID:
> <c3588a560608272228q57031fcetb271392421d0fd4a at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>On 8/27/06, Burt I. Weiner <biwa at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > We used to say "This is KNYO, Independence - serving Mammoth Lake*
> > and the entire Owns Valley.
> >
> > *We'd often change the "serving..." part
> >
> > -------------------
>
>
>
>It's still legal, IMO.
Burt I. Weiner Associates
Broadcast Technical Services
Glendale, California U.S.A.
biwa at earthlink.net
K6OQK
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:10:47 -0700
From: "Burt I. Weiner" <biwa at earthlink.net>
Subject: [BC] Ipana...
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20060828161005.03338228 at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Blue toothpaste in blue tubes that oozed out everywhere. Feh!!!
Burt
At 03:25 PM 8/28/2006, you wrote:
>Remember Ipana?
>
>
>Powell
>
>w4opw at americanbroadcastdx.com
>NNNN!
Burt I. Weiner Associates
Broadcast Technical Services
Glendale, California U.S.A.
biwa at earthlink.net
K6OQK
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:39:55 -0700
From: "Bruce Potterton" <bpotterton at ksgn.com>
Subject: [BC] Yet another HD ... XM HD
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID:
<9FCD8CAFD6E91F448BF80523E1CCA6F821D021 at titan.KSGNNET.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I just got a new Crutchfield catalog and on p. 15 they have some Yamaha
Home Theater receivers that claim "XM HD" Capable that seem to be the
way they are marketing XM Radio's Surround Sound. So we have HD TV,
HD Radio and now XM HD; when do we get HD laundry soap?
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Jp2IC8m3Fs5/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?search=RX%
2Dn600&i=022RXN600
Bruce Potterton
KSGN Riverside, CA
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:49:34 -0700
From: "Thomas G. Osenkowsky" <tosenkowsky at prodigy.net>
Subject: [BC] Transmitting and receiving antennas
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060828174842.0a094208 at oldradio.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> Well, similar plans worked to sell antennas for color TV and stereo
FM.
Color TV and FM stereo transmission placed additional constraints
on both the transmission and reception ends of the signal. Their
requirements are more stringent. Now add SCA, RDS, SAP and
it becomes even more critical.
Transmitter:
We minimize synchronous and asynchronous AM noise. We strive
for a broadband antenna load. We pay attention to group delay,
linearity and phase response.
Receiver:
Location. Location. Location. Important to minimize multipath in
FM, ghosting in TV. We fool listeners with FM blend and high
end rolloff in automobile receivers. Color ghosts are more annoying
than black & white ghosts. No such thing as color fade, though.
The characteristics of the receive antenna are just as important as
they are in the transmitter antenna. VSWR across the bandwidth,
poor electrical contacts near the antenna aperture, influence of the
mounting structure, etc.
Color TV and FM stereo antenna designs borrowed technology
from transmitting antennas. The elements were constructed of a
larger diameter, resulting in improved bandwidth and VSWR
characteristics. The use of a balun enabled the mating of Monster@
Extremely Low Loss cable. Featuring 99.9999876% velocity factor,
.003141592653589793 dB per 100 meters loss at 700 MHz the system
allowed near perfect reception.
Since IBOC employs sidebands about the main carrier it is important
to maintain symmetry and group delay across the much wider bandpass.
A well designed transmission AND receiving system will ensure CD quality
audio at the receiver.
We cannot ignore details in receiving antennas. TV manufacturers took
away the vertical and horizontal hold controls from us. We cannot and
must not let TV and FM reception antenna manufacturers compromise
on quality or specifications. We MUST take a stand now! I urge the
industry to petition Congress to enact legislation specifying the minimum
specifications for IBOC receiver antennas.
Tom Osenkowsky, CPBE
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kevin Tekel <amstereoexp at yahoo.com>
Subject: [BC] Yet another HD ... XM HD
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <20060829015716.60650.qmail at web37901.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Bruce Potterton wrote:
> I just got a new Crutchfield catalog and on p. 15 they have some Yamaha
> Home Theater receivers that claim "XM HD" Capable that seem to be the
> way they are marketing XM Radio's Surround Sound. So we have HD TV,
> HD Radio and now XM HD; when do we get HD laundry soap?
Very soon... not too long ago, one of the companies making glass cleaner
spray was advertising their product by saying that using it on your
windows will turn them into "high definition windows".
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kevin Tekel <amstereoexp at yahoo.com>
Subject: [BC] Is iBiquity promoting DXing?
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <20060829021049.98414.qmail at web37912.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I noticed a lot of the promo ads for "HD Radio" are revolving around the
theme that "between your favorite radio stations on the dial are hidden
stations with music, talk, and news".... basically a rather strange way of
promoting the HD2 channels.
First of all, I find it odd that they would use wording which basically
encourages listeners to tune away from the station on which they are
hearing that commerical... especially since some of the stations running
these ads aren't even transmitting an IBOC signal with HD2 channel(s) yet,
and thus could never regain any lost revenue from listeners tuning away in
the middle of a stop-set in search of these "hidden stations". And isn't
that the whole point of IBOC... to *retain* listeners, and *prevent* them
from tuning away from your station in search of alternative programming?
And secondly, with all the listeners who will be tuning away in search of
these "hidden stations", how many are going to unwittingly discover a
different kind of "hidden stations" on a non-IBOC receiver: adjacent-
channel DX, if they happen to be using a good enough receiver in an area
between two markets? For example, large areas of New Jersey can receive
both NYC and Philadelphia FM signals on any decent car radio, as well as
signals from Allentown, Trenton, New Brunswick, Atlantic City, Wilmington,
etc... there are a lot of "hidden" stations waiting to be discovered, even
just 0.2 MHz away from someone's favorite local station.
Another side effect is that I bet listeners with "world-band" tuners will
be dialing in "illegal" frequencies, such as 97.6 or 104.25 MHz, to try to
find these "hidden", "in between" stations... leading to even more
confusion. If a station at 100.1 MHz promotes their HD2 channel, will
people be tuning to 100.2 to try to find it? Sometimes, "creative"
marketing just creates more confusion than good.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kevin Tekel <amstereoexp at yahoo.com>
Subject: [BC] Red Book Radio (was: Transmitting and receiving
antennas)
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <20060829022129.67045.qmail at web37908.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Tom Osenkowsky wrote:
> Since IBOC employs sidebands about the main carrier it is important
> to maintain symmetry and group delay across the much wider bandpass.
> A well designed transmission AND receiving system will ensure CD quality
> audio at the receiver.
You'll need some *mighty* wide sidebands to deliver a 1411 kbps Red Book
audio stream to the receiver!!
Even with lossless compression, which can deliver a mathematically correct
Red Book audio stream, you're only down to about 700 kbps. Maybe then you
can fit two "CD quality" HD signals on the entire FM band, instead of only
one!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kevin Tekel <amstereoexp at yahoo.com>
Subject: [BC] AMAX redux? (was: Transmitting and receiving antennas)
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Message-ID: <20060829023900.79529.qmail at web37910.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Tom Osenkowsky wrote:
> We cannot ignore details in receiving antennas. TV manufacturers took
> away the vertical and horizontal hold controls from us. We cannot and
> must not let TV and FM reception antenna manufacturers compromise
> on quality or specifications. We MUST take a stand now! I urge the
> industry to petition Congress to enact legislation specifying the
> minimum specifications for IBOC receiver antennas.
I have a Denon tuner with the NAB logo on it which proves that that
approach doesn't work. If IBOC receivers are required to meet some lofty
performance standards, then the electronics manufacturers simply won't
make them at all! Consumers have always determined the minimum
performance standards of a particular technology. That's why we have $29
DVD players on the same shelf as ones that sell for $299.
Blame it on "Mad Man" Muntz, who proved that if given a choice between low
cost or high performance, a heck of a lot of people will choose low cost.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:22:35 -0400
From: Rich Wood <richwood at pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [BC] Yet another HD ... XM HD
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060828231203.0899b170 at yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
------ At 07:39 PM 8/28/2006, Bruce Potterton wrote: -------
>I just got a new Crutchfield catalog and on p. 15 they have some Yamaha
>Home Theater receivers that claim "XM HD" Capable that seem to be the
>way they are marketing XM Radio's Surround Sound. So we have HD TV,
>HD Radio and now XM HD; when do we get HD laundry soap?
Actually, it's a very smart marketing move. XM has so much more
quality marketing clout than the HD Dominion that they'll usurp the
term HD as it applies to radio in no time. People with HDTV already
expect 5.1 surround. Add it to satellite radio and IBUZ will have to
find another name or settle for promoting the competition. Again, too
little, too late for IBUZ.
Rich
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:11:14 -0500
From: "Stan Tacker" <stacker at krvt.com>
Subject: RE: [BC] Yet another HD ... XM HD
To: "'Broadcasters' Mailing List'" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <000201c6cb21$2bda1670$6401a8c0 at office>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I agree with Rich. Using the term HD in connection with satellite radio has
a better chance of success than applying it to IBUZ. Satellite radio has
had more ramp-up time.
I ran the term HD radio past a friend of mine who is a local TV station GM.
I asked, "Do you know what it is?" No. He had seen the ads, but didn't get
the message. This guy is a pro, yet he is focused on TV, not radio and the
Dominion's message hasn't trickled down.
Now, this guy is a gadget freak. There is nothing that has appeared on the
shelves of Best Buy, or Circuit City, without his personal testing (and
eventual return). I put on my best HD Cheerleader face and described the
system. I asked if he would buy it. Answer, "no way." Reason: too much
content already available. Any interest in multicast? Nope...FM SCA
already exists. Harsh but honest assessment.
Stan
-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Rich Wood
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:23 PM
To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BC] Yet another HD ... XM HD
------ At 07:39 PM 8/28/2006, Bruce Potterton wrote: -------
>I just got a new Crutchfield catalog and on p. 15 they have some Yamaha
>Home Theater receivers that claim "XM HD" Capable that seem to be the
>way they are marketing XM Radio's Surround Sound. So we have HD TV,
>HD Radio and now XM HD; when do we get HD laundry soap?
Actually, it's a very smart marketing move. XM has so much more
quality marketing clout than the HD Dominion that they'll usurp the
term HD as it applies to radio in no time. People with HDTV already
expect 5.1 surround. Add it to satellite radio and IBUZ will have to
find another name or settle for promoting the competition. Again, too
little, too late for IBUZ.
Rich
_______________________________________________
The BROADCAST [BC] list is sponsored by SystemsStore On-Line Sales
Cable-Connectors-Blocks-Racks-Wire Management-Test Gear-Tools and More!
www.SystemsStore.com Tel: 407-656-3719 Sales at SystemsStore.com
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Broadcast mailing list
Broadcast at radiolists.net
To get individual messages, suitable for filtering into a [BC] emailbox,
please click on
http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/broadcast
End of Broadcast Digest, Vol 19, Issue 61
*****************************************
More information about the Broadcast
mailing list