[BC] What is

[Robert Meuser]

A few kilowats of digital buzz will solve that :-)


Paul Smith W4KNX wrote:

>You cant go to the 26 mhz band, the CB'ers have long since claimed that
>piece of spectrum.....
>Paul Smith
>Sarasota, FL
>W4KNX
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "DANA PUOPOLO" <dpuopolo at usa.net>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:08 PM
>Subject: Re: [BC] What is
>
>
>Kent,
>
>Despite what you might believe, less is NOT more, and there's no way in HELL
>that 48 Kbit audio can even APPROACH 'cd' (or even analog LP) quality.
>
>I simply don't want to go BACKWARDS, which is where I believe we're going. A
>new radio system should sound BETTER then the one it replaces, not merely
>'as
>good' or 'slightly worse'. Otherwise, why bother replacing what you have?
>
>Plus, IBOC is unique in another way. Since the beginning of radio, any
>improvement (stereo, AM stereo, etc.) affected only YOUR station. IBOC does
>NOT (adversely) affect YOUR station at all! Instead, it trashes YOUR
>NEIGHBOR'S STATION!!
>
>This is not only immoral, but it actually runs COUNTER to the FCC's charter
>(In case you don't know, the FCC came into being to REDUCE interference
>between radio stations, not INCREASE it!).
>
>Is radio so desperate (or greedy, or both) that it has to run out and  adopt
>what most engineers know is an inferior system? And PLEASE DON'T use the
>mantra: "That's what they gave us". THEY (the FCC) also 'gave' us CBS color
>television, yet I don't see many TV sets with color wheels spinning in front
>of them. Do you?
>
>Digital radio should be going into ANOTHER BAND, especially since there's
>PLENTY of decent spectrum being made available NOW by the sunsetting of
>analog
>TV. There's simply NO REASON for IBOC at all!
>
>AM digital radio COULD go into the current vacant 1700 - 1800 kHz spectrum
>WITHOUT a single policy being changed. I mentioned this band last week and I
>don't think ONE person even picked up on it. Also, digital radio could also
>go
>below 530 kHz, the 26 mHz RPU band, and a bunch of other places.
>
>Why have none of these places even been considered? Why isn't the SBE (you
>know, the organization that's suppositely out there to INCREASE the stature
>of
>broadcast engineers) screaming bloody murder that engineers were almost 100%
>excluded from IBOC/digital radio discussions?
>
>I think we all know the answers to this: $$$$$$$!!!!
>
>But money isn't everything, thank God!
>
>-D
>
>PS: Why don't you read this weeks RadioWorld online - it has an enlightening
>interview with Ed De La Hunt.  Maybe the President of the SBE should read it
>too! After all, it IS in his magazine!
>
>-D
>
>
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:05:09 AM PST
>From: "Kent Winrich, K9EZ" <kwinrich at gmail.com>
>To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: [BC] What is "better?" HOW do we get there?
>
>DANA PUOPOLO wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Look, if you all believe that 48K digital stereo is 'progress' - and a
>>    
>>
>radio
>  
>
>>system you can happily live with for the next 30-40 years, then more power
>>    
>>
>to
>  
>
>>you!
>>
>>I simply believe that we deserve better - that's all!
>>
>>-D
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>You say that we deserve better.  OK let us know HOW we make it better.
>What do we need to do to make a bigger improvement.  And dont just
>say increase the bandwidth.  If we could we would.  Again arm chair
>quarterbacking is the EASY way.
>
>I have asked you once before without an answer (perhaps I missed the
>answer, that is possible with the hours I have been keeping).  Have
>you listened to HD Radio?  Have you done an implementation of HD Radio?
>
>You can spec me to death if you want Dana.  There is a difference
>between what I THINK I should hear with that 48k and what is truly
>coming out to me ears.  I am sure that Bob Orban can talk in more
>detail about Psycho acoustics than I can.
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
>http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
>http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
>  
>