[BC] stamping opinions

[Robert Meuser]

Phil:

It is good to see your positive change of heart.

R

Phil Alexander wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2006 at 11:59, Rich Wood wrote:
> 
>> I think I've asked questions people fear answering. As a matter of 
>> fact, I'm the person who has been pushing for 24/7 operation of AM 
>> IBUZ. 
> 
> I agree with you completely on that point, however there should be
> a mechanism for subcarrier reduction or discontinuance in the 
> event of primary interference clearly the fault of the IBOC emitter.
> This in in the nighttime proposals but lacks sufficient range to
> deal with a coincidence of problematic factors.
> 
>> I don't understand how an engineer who's responsible for good 
>> engineering practice can have a positive opinion of AM IBUZ. 
> 
> Once more, ORIGINALLY, it was intended as a transitional system.
> The transition will be years late when it begins. Then we have
> those half billion sets to sell .....
> 
>> Read the 
>> archives. I've even said that AM needs it more than FM and used the 
>> WBZ-HD signal as an example of what we should expect. That seems 
>> pretty positive.
>>
>> Was I stamping (sic) on IBUZ when I asked how many engineers 
>> currently operating AM IBUZ would run it 24/7 if the FCC had approved 
>> it on July 13? Not a single engineer responded. Was I "stamping" on 
>> the suggestion that we should be operating the system 24/7 to enable 
>> stations to discover and fix problems before it has to be done on a 
>> massive scale rather than a station at a time?
>>
>> I guess "stamping" means you ask uncomfortable questions. The 
>> cheerleaders here and elsewhere have, effectively, told me to shut up 
>> because I'm causing others to ask similar uncomfortable questions. 
> 
> Rich, the AM side was a done deal last September ('05) and doesn't
> appear to have changed. Then, and now, it appears FM is the hangup.
> 
>> If someone is being deceptive (hdradio.com) does that qualify as 
>> "stamping?" If I suggest that revolutions, historically, have been 
>> much larger than the HD Revolution, is that "stamping." Is reporting 
>> the sale of 3 receivers in my market in 4 months "stamping?"
>>
>> Have you heard IBUZ? Do you have a receiver in a vehicle so you can 
>> actually listen in the field? I'm discovering, by their own 
>> admission, that some of the cheerleaders have never heard an IBUZ 
>> signal. Thanks to a loaner from Kenwood I was one of the first people 
>> here to actually hear it. Is honestly reporting what I heard "stamping?"
>>
>> With absolutely no objective research behind it should I accept that 
>> either we go IBUZ or we die? How could we possibly know that?
>>
>> Is it "stamping" on IBUZ when I actually physically visit retailers 
>> to track consumer interest? When retailers tell me there's no 
>> interest, is that fact given me by those who sell the stuff 
>> "stamping" on IBUZ or is it accurately reporting how well the 
>> "revolution" is doing on the non-broadcaster side?
>>
>> When I ask if 600-800 million receivers can be delivered within the 5 
>> year projection is that "stamping" on IBUZ? Maybe I'd stop asking 
>> these questions if someone credible would answer at least a few of them.
>>
>> Are the people responding with existing interference reports 
>> "stamping" on IBUZ?  I guess so because there are no known problems with IBUZ.
>>
>> Think of me as the little kid who saw the Emperor as being butt 
>> nekkid while everyone else was admiring the stylish cut of his clothes.
> 
> It is digital we need because the FCC has made such a mess of part 15
> regulation by virtually abdicating all responsibility. There are other,
> more subtle manufacturing reasons for digital too. Sadly, the form of
> digital we got was IBOC a/k/a IBAC in the early days a/k/a HD now.
> 
> Better methods are available, but thanks to a particular eccentric
> gentleman and his pursuit of his brand of AM stereo, the FCC positioned
> themselves badly where they could not exercise leadership if they were
> able and wanted to.
> 
> As a true high fidelity medium, IBOC clearly doesn't cut it, but neither
> does FM stereo compared with what we had 40 or 50 years ago. However,
> that seems unimportant to the average listener because they want content
> regardless of quality. Same for phones. The "Network" is everywhere, but
> the quality is nowhere - nowhere to be heard. The important fact about
> AM IBOC is that every station converted will *for the average listener*
> be competitive in any format, not just news/talk/sports, provided new
> cars contain HD sets.
> 
> I will not disagree that IBOC hybrid has many downsides. Digital, OTOH,
> has none of those especially if the digital is not the property of
> Ibiquity. If their brand works too poorly, let's find out now before
> that trickle of receivers turns into millions. If we find the problems
> in the next two or three years, there is still time to change horses.
> At worst, a station hauls in a couple of new computers and begins 
> broadcasting a better form of digital.
> 
> So, Rich, I agree with you. Let's move out and move on to better things.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
> Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
> (a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
> Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037
> 
> 
> 
> 
>