[BC] What is

Sat Jan 21 18:45:10 CST 2006

Dont bet on it.  Many of the CBers in that area run Kilowatts.  In fact they
hate it if you call them CBers

Paul Smith
Sarasota, FL

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Meuser" <Robertm at broadcast.net>
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [BC] What is

> 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/2006
>
>