[BC] IBOC "secrets" and my opinions.

[padrino]

Broadcasters' Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net> writes:
>Frank Foti wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>But where were you 20 years ago?  There was no such spirit of cooperation
>among engineers in trying to improve Motorola's C-Quam AM Stereo; instead,
>everyone just wanted to either dump it in favor of a better sytsem, or to
>dump it entirely and forget about AM Stereo altogether.

WRONG! There were many who fought hard to make AM-Stereo fly. 
>
>
>Basically, I have been amazed by the willingness of radio engineers today
>to accept the fatal flaws of IBOC, especially on AM, when in comparison,
>the trivial shortcomings of the various AM Stereo systems were considered
>great enough to warrant complete abandonment of the system.
>
Sadly, I'm disapponted in our fraternity of engineers who choose not to
rally around new tech. If it has warts, then let's band together and make
the lemonade. Color TV had issues when it rolled out, but those 'in the
know' made it work. Had the internet existed when Color TV debuted, it
would have been skinned-at-the-stake.
>
>
>For example, 20 years ago we complained about "platform motion" on skywave
>AM Stereo signals -- even though the problem was eliminated by blending
>the audio to mono, and thus didn't affect anyone with a conventional mono
>receiver.  Now, we have IBOC which kills skywave totally, and the dominant
>opinion is that skywave doesn't matter anymore, and that the few small
>benefits of IBOC are worth ruining skywave for *all* listeners, not just
>those with IBOC receivers.

I doubt you were part of the AM Stereo experience 20 years ago. Not sure
your reference is fair.
>
>
>Then there's the whole "loss of coverage area" argument.  AM Stereo was
>hated because of shady allegations that it could degrade reception for
>listeners far outside of a station's protected contour, or deep within the
>nulls of a directional pattern.  Now with IBOC, we seem willing to forget
>about anyone outside the NIF contour, and sideband nonlinearities caused
>by directional arrays are basically ignored as well, even though they
>often cause audible annoyances even for listeners with a strong local
>signal.

So, are your shady claims any different then those you claim were made
against AM Stereo?
>
>
-Frank Foti