[BC] RE: Solving the problem

[DANA PUOPOLO]

EXACTLY!

There's an old saying: "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" (pun
intended). Post NRSC AM radio is a sow's ear.  Put it on it's own band with a
sufficently large data stream that it can sound good.
AM radio needs new legs - not the crutch that IBOC promises.

-D



 

------ Original Message ------
Received: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:15:14 PM PST
From: "Chuck Hutton" <charlesh3 at msn.com>
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: [BC] RE: Solving the problem


I see it exactly the opposite. Having spent a fair part of my "career"
working on wireless OFDM projects and speech coding for them, my vote is
that it is not at all possible in the near term to get enough bits per
second out of current OFDM + error coding techniques to support FM quality
audio with AM IBOC. Nor is it possible to reduce the audio coding rate to
squeeze FM quality audio into AM IBOC's 36 kb/s. (See anybody else getting
that kind of quality in that range of bit rates?) Result: middling audio and
interference.

Therefore, my fundamental problem with AM IBOC is that there is nothing that
the broadcast engineering crowd nor the iBiquity designers can do to make
this work in spite of all the "let's work together and solve this" posts. I
expect that it will be 5 - 10 years before the technology can solve this
dilemma and be pronounced ready for prime time.


Chuck


Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:13:40 -0700
From: Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net>
Subject: [BC] Solving the problem
To: "Broadcasters' Mailing List" <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20060121181234.040c7ea8 at oldradio.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

It could be done with little R&D



Dave Dunsmoor wrote:

>>It is possible that we are using a square peg into a round hole with
>>AM.  But can we at least bake this a while to see if there are ways to
>>make it more acceptable?
>>
>
>This is the part of the discussion(s) that really puzzles me. How does one
>propose to change the laws of physics so that the problem of adjacent
>channel interference disappears? The only way I see is to either kill off
>some of the current crop of licensees so there is more sifeband room for
the
>digital signals, or go 100% digital right away, kill off all analog
thereby,
>keeping all the digital sidebands WITHIN the assigned channel.

_______________________________________________
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/