[BC] IBOC "secrets" and my opinions.

[Dave Dunsmoor]

> Broadcasters' Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net> writes:
> > > > Right. But, Frank, you gotta have sugar to make lemonade, and so far
> > > > I don't see any in the kitchen.
>
> Dave,
>
> It's the process of making lemonade. I'm sure that whenever its was first
> 'developed', there were 'issues', like bitter, sour taste. Someone came up
> with an idea to add sugar...or...work was done to create the flavor that
> people like. Same holds true here. Before the slash-n-bash comments appear
> from the HD Radio 'haters' exclaiming that it creates bitter/sour sound,
> let's give consideration that there are plenty of folks out there working
> to optimize the performance of the system. Not a rocket science thought,
> as many have already done this with our existing broadcasting
technologies.

Absolutely, I agree (and nearly added this point to my oringinal reply).
However, read on....

> I've said this before, most tech when it appears, some will find issues
> with. As life plays out, 'others' will find ways/means to improve it. Same
> holds true here.

Yes, I do believe that this is the case, It always is.....

> I'm wondering if a lot of this is a reflection of our society? We now live
> in a world, where just about *everyone* expects perfection from step one.
> I see this quite a bit, and it's a pondering issue. I've lurked, and
> participated in this group of threads on HD Radio for quite awhile. There
> are definitely two camps, and they've become extremely polar. The lovers
> and haters of this tech. I have to wonder why this is? Is it due to the
> use of coded audio, or due to the iBiquity business model? Think about it
> as these are fair question.

The issues that I see are:

1)    The method of digital transmission makes a mess of the RF neighborhood
I don't see this going away.

2)    The method of digital transmission is not reliable unless you're
stationary, and close. This may be solved.

3)    The method of digital transmission isn't usable portable. I don't know
about this one, or if it's even important.

I don't much care about the business model, one way or the other. I think
it's a poor one (unless I owned some Ibiquity stock, and only wanted to hold
it for the short term). TI had a similar business model when they introduced
their TI-99 home computers. Short life they had, I think because no one was
allowed to have access to the internal workings of their code.


> Just about all, in this group, are around data reduced audio in some way.
> Thus, it's already a part of your life. But, the same tech keeps getting
> bashed on these lists. Yes, I know and understand that there's a religious
> war about the sideband hash.

That, seems to be the primary, "bad boy" characteristic. Hard to ignore
that. Everything else will
eventually be fixed to some degree, I suspect.

However, the whole point of digital AM seems moot, to me. Why bother now
(other than an
interesting exercise in technology)? Had this been done, (and done quickly)
back when I started
reading about it, we may have had a real resource. Too many other
interesting gadgets that
you can hold in your hand are out now, and are competing for the same ears.


> The HD Radio bashers are holding that as
> their candle in the wind.

 Gee, I hope it's not THAT bad.

> But, now, the FCC has made their comment, and it
> has strength.

Yeah, as seemingly uneducated as it appears. I work for the FEDs, and don't
often
put much stock in the decisions that come from the "ivory pillars of
knowledge" out
east of me. I do follow the rules, but don't often think that there is much
logic in them.

> Whether you like it or not, it is here. Now what? My take is
> that it comes down to the developers of the system and receivers to see to
> it that we make the most out of it. That's where the lemonade comes in. :)

I can hardly wait, and that is where my point was directed.

> Computer analogy. Mac vs PC. I cannot stand Windows, but most programs
> that enable me to do my job designing equipment requires me to use a
> Windows platform. So, I must make a choice...Use Windows and get my work
> done, or choose not to use Windoze, go out of business, and live in the
> local bus shelter.

I understand that one. I despise MAC, but who cares? I've learned to live
with
the idiosychronies of Windows, so it's "easy" for me.

> >No secrets, really. I was pondering the effects of digital noise vs
> >analog noise as seen by a receiver (on channel, off channel,
> >whatever), and wondered if someone might be able to design a method
> >to remove the digital hash from a receiver using some "magical algorithm.



> Again, it will come down to the creative/innovative types who will find a
> way to do this. Let's not sell innovation short.

I'm watching, as is everyone else, I'm sure. I really do hope someone can
make it happen.
I have some hope based upon Jeff Welton's recent comments regarding a
properly
adjusted transmision system, exhibiting NO hash. This is the first time I've
heard that
particular fact. However, I also know that there are FEW GM's who are
willing to spring
for the $$$ it must take to get a system tuned up that well. "If it works,
get it on the air now"
seems to be the general view. And, how long will it stay that way? I do not
know. I
have my suspicions.

>
> -Frank
>
> PS: Dave, if you make it to NAB, stop by and I'll spring for some
> lemonade!! :)

I would LOVE that. However, I'll not be there this year. Someday. And I'll
buy the second lemonade!

C ya,

Dave