[BC] Shared STL frequencies can be humorous...

[RichardBJohnson at comcast.net]

Let us back off a second and observe what broadcasting was developed for. From my perspective, it was developed as an entertainment and communications media. Early on, if I wanted to bring music to the listeners as a broadcaster I had several choices. I could play records, I could play tapes or transcriptions, I could connect to a network feed, or I could open up some microphones for live performances.

In each case, the communications equipment used to conduct the information to the listener was designed for fidelity. Artists produced any coloration or special effects. Electronic equipment was specially designed and maintained to prevent any alteration of the artist's intentions. I know something about this because I have some artistic talent myself. http://www.abominablefirebug.com/Music.html

In this manner, the music played through a fuzz-box for artistic effect by an artist did not distort or otherwise harm the works of other artists. One did not run the entire program channel through a fuzz-box to give a radio station a particular "sound."

Eventually, station management aborted fidelity for "personality!" I remember the time, before electronic delay, that radio stations installed "spring echo" devices to give the stations a unique sound. Unfortunately, every station in the market eventually installed these things so no station was unique anymore. BTW, some South American stations still use these. You can hear them on shortwave.

Then there came phase-scrambling and audio compression. This was to make a particular station sound louder than the others did in the same market. Of course, all the stations in the market eventually did the same, removing any uniqueness.

Then there came frequency-selective compression and bass-boom effects. The cycle continued. The first in the market did sound different, and then the others followed.

Now we have audio coming out of the end of the communications sewer pipe that bears no resemblance to the original. 

If a famous guitarist or pianist were to perform at a local auditorium, there are no communications facilities available anymore that can bring that live performance into the living rooms of American listeners. We have "technology for technology's sake."

Even local live performances now use aggressive sound conditioning and multi-kilowatt sound reinforcement so that there are no natural sounds of instruments anymore. Of course, this is the artists' choice, not something that has been forced upon them by a defective audio transmission circuit.

Cheers,
Richard B. Johnson
Book: http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Mathis" <thebeaver32 at gmail.com>

Richard, I agree with you, but this horse has long been dead from all the
beatings given it over the years. The fact that you can't test these digital
signals with tones was well known and discussed when they came out. Many of
us at the time thought that these compressed digital formats would be
limited to things like Internet streaming and low-quality audio
applications. Then along came Ibiquity, and we found these (even more)
digitally compressed/ecoded formats promoted for (gasp) over-the-air
broadcasting.
[Snipped...]