[BC] What is "better?" HOW do we get there?

[Kent Winrich, K9EZ]

Steve wrote:

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Kent Winrich, K9EZ" <kwinrich at gmail.com>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 12:04 PM
>Subject: [BC] What is "better?" HOW do we get there?
>
>  
>
>>Also why you think that we would need to hold onto this for 30-40
>>years is beyond me.  Let me introduce you to something called
>>SOFTWARE UPGRADES.  The transmission method would have no real need
>>to change, but it is the CODEC that could change.  Correct me if I am
>>wrong.  Am I missing something?
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>Though I have not dug into the CODEC for HD, my understanding is that
>>it is upgradeable.  Even the new Radiososophy radio has the ability
>>to upgrade the CODEC.
>>    
>>
>
>
>More patching upon patching. Kind of reminds me of Windows. :) So will these
>new codecs come flying into the radio from the stations via the
>manufacturers? It better be invisible or the public won't have anything to
>do with it. Mention the word CODEC to the average guy on the street and
>he'll think you're from Mars. :) KISS principal. All of us in here can twist
>and turn and make things work. We kind of like it in a way but the public
>frustrates easily.
>
>Steve
>Steve Walker Productions
>
>
>  
>

Indeed Steve,  But you can consider patching to be upgrading.  If they 
find a way to make the CODEC better then that would be a good thing.  I 
completely agree that it needs to be invisible to the consumer. 

As I said before I have not dug into the receive CODEC and how (or even 
IF) it can be upgraded.  If someone has more information I would love to 
hear about it.