[EAS] Should the RWT EAS Code be abolished?

[Barry Mishkind]

At 04:27 PM 11/25/2011, Darryl Parker wrote:
>Barry,
>
>You stated, "But that would be an RWT for the LPs." This applies only if the monitoring plan is only one tier. For multiple tiers, an LP-1, LP-2, LP-1S, SP-1, SP-2, etc. might not be in the assignment. Not all monitoring plans are the same.

        Fully agreed, Darryl.

        That is largely why I think there needs to 
        be more invested in the local SECC/LECC
        than there is in most places.

        It is, as I have put forward many times,
        including the BWWG filings, the
        "one size fits all" mentality that makes
        so many people see the failures of EAS
        so clearly.

        I would be the first person to cheer
        from the rooftops if the FCC releases
        new Rules that acknowledge that
        One size does not fit all, and by
        wiping out the RWT as a fine generator,
        but allowing local area stations to
        develop a way to encourage and
        verify solid transmission and reception
        of EAS events.

        And, here is a suggestion, perhaps
        10 years too late, but one that
        really would improve a lot of 
        events: Encourage the top level
        (and all down to the bottom level)
        stations to disable all compression
        and expansion during EAS events.

        Listening to the "silence" during
        the last test, "enhanced" by four
        levels of modern processing, it is
        stunning to hear 125/99% of
        the silence turned into a nasty
        glop of sound. 

        Factoid:
        Some audio processors *do* allow
        for a remote closure from an EAS
        machine to select a preset that
        merely protects overmod. By 
        pushing audio through cleaner,
        less processed channels, we might
        have a dynamic range of more than
        0.1 dB at the final stations in the chain.