[BC] Re: HD Receiver returns

[WFIFeng@aol.com]

In a message dated 02/16/2007 11:27:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
richwood at pobox.com writes:

> Not really. Processing separately is annoying when the mode keeps 
>  switching back to analog.

Sure, if the difference is really dramatic... but it can be subtle, with 
gentler processing on the digital to highlight the dynamic range... but not to 
extremes.

> I'm told one of my local stations is 
>  processing separately but they sound identical in both analog and 
>  digital.

I can't help but wonder, then, "Why bother"? Just use one processor, run the 
analog thru the necessary delay, and there you go.

> Right now a clean blend when you lose digital is more 
>  important than the alleged high quality of digital.

Then what *is* the point? IMHO, it would be better to use the entire digital 
bandwidth exclusively for auxiliary formats, like an SCA would be.

> My guess is that 
>  the GM or PD might have a receiver in his or her car and complains 
>  about the irritating blend if they're processed differently. It's a 
Catch-22.

Indeed.

>  Willie, Willie, Willie. Get with the program, however dull it might 
>  be. Read the press releases. 

You mean those puff pieces we occasionally see posted here? Written by the 
scriptwriters who make the toy commercials for children? ;)

>  It's Seedy Quality on FM and FM quality 
>  on AM. Just because I can't hear it on my IBUZ receiver doesn't mean 
>  it isn't there.

I LOL whenever I read that "Seedy Quality". That's a very good pun!

FM quality on AM... hmmm... ya know, come to think of it, it *does* remind me 
of FM when I tune across it... "blank" channels on FM make a similar hissing 
noise.

Willie...