[BC] The History of High Band Width Antennas
Larry Bloomfield
Larry
Thu Aug 31 00:17:50 CDT 2006
Would this be a paper clip. I've been giving them away at each of the venues
where I've done the Road Show this year, and yes, they work just fine. :)
--
Larry Bloomfield - KA6UTC
Bloomfield Enterprises, LLC
1980 25th St. - Florence, OR 97439
(541) 902-2424 (My Everything Phone #)
WWW.Tech-Notes.TV
See you on the Tech-Notes
Taste of NAB 2006 Road Show
----- Original Message -----
From: "stanleybadams" <stanleybadams at gmail.com>
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:12 PM
Subject: [BC] The History of High Band Width Antennas
> 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
> *****************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
More information about the Broadcast
mailing list