[BC] Re: IBOC secrets and my opinion

[Xmitters@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/27/07 12:08:47 AM Central Daylight Time, 
broadcast-request at radiolists.net writes:

<< > 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.
 >>

So Kevin, what do you expect us engineers and consumers of electronics 
products for broadcasting to do? We are not equipped with research and developm
ent 
required to produce a digital transmission system on our own. Who's system do 
you think we should be using then? We appear "willing" because there is not a 
hell of a lot of choice in the matter. IBOC is something to get the technology 
out there and we have to start someplace. I don't know of anyone here willing 
to "accept" the interference of IBOC on AM. All of us are concerned about that 
and are looking for a solution. 

 > 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.

Kevin, sky wave does not pay the bills for most stations. Get over it. 


 >
 > 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
  >>

You have struck a very valid point. I was floored when I first started 
studying IBOC and found out that our "fluff" coverage beyond our 1 mv/m 50:50 
contour would be _GONE_ and who would ever tolerate that? We are a noncomm here
 and 
have many membership paying listeners that are well beyond our NIF contour. 
That's (coverage loss) a bit of marketing that I will never understand because 
I've never met a program director that was willing to lose coverage for ANY 
reason. Similarly, I do not understand how cellular phones survive, given their
 
crappy performance, lousy audio and lost calls. My two meter HT with autopatch 
works better than ANY cellular service! Can't make business calls, but that's 
for another thread :-)

It is challenging to remain positive about IBOC and I truly hope it takes 
off. Now that cellular phones can download and play MP3 files, I fear that IBOC
 
is too little, too late. Now if I have to maintain contact with a cell site to 
play my MP3 files, then that sucks and IBOC has a competitive chance. I only 
use my phone to make calls, and don't like the horns and whistles. Sorry for 
the thread drift :-)


Jeff Glass
Northern Illinois University
**************************************
 AOL now offers free email to everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.