🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 30, 12:08 am, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2:02 pm, Tom <holden_fam...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 4:22 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:09:45 -0700, SFTV_troy <SFTV_t...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >Frankly I'm a bit surprised at the reaction. There's currently a
> > > >transition from analog to digital broadcasting (both in American and
> > > >the European Union), and there will be some growing pains, but it's
> > > >only temporary. In the LONG TERM, the digital radio will provide
> > > >better sound than the current analog (like upgrading FM Stereo to 300
> > > >kbps Surround).
>
> > > What is the reason for your optimism? Every other advance in radio has
> > > been better by design, and demonstrated its improvement from day 1.
> > > Digital radio hasn't done that - it has been poor from day one, and to
> > > be better than its predecessor it will need to get a whole heap better
> > > then it is now.
>
> > > What do you believe will be the basis of that improvement?
>
> > > d
>
> > > --
> > > Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
>
> > HDradio is worse than DAB insofar as the so-called IBOC implementation
> > guarantees interference to both the analog main channel and to
> > adjacent channel stations. DAB has been implemented on exclusive
> > spectrum, or, at least, spectrum that is not already used for consumer
> > applications. As to the quality, yes, a DAB multiplex can be exploited
> > to provide 1990's pioneer streaming audio quality for many program
> > streams channels or a few streams at 1980's near-CD quality. HDradio
> > benefits from a decade of codec and silicon development needed for it
> > to have marginally acceptable quality in a much more restrictive
> > bandwidth. So, too, does DRM benefit from said development, making it
> > possible to provide a digital carrier within LW,MW and SW channeling
> > plans. Thast said, I find it much less fatiguing to listen to a
> > program on an analog AM carrier than to the same program over DRM.
>
> > Adverse reaction to HDradio is stronger than what it probably was to
> > DAB because of the perceived negative effects on analog reception and
> > the lack of new program offerings. DAB takeup has succeeded as well as
> > it has in the UK because of new program services, not because of audio
> > quality, and because of a concerted government, broadcaster and
> > manufacturing industry push, the likes of which we have not seen in
> > other countries. A stronger parallel can be drawn to the sizable
> > takeup of XMRadio and Sirius satellite services in the US and Canada -
> > the quality stinks but the program choice and wide ranging coverage
> > are unique.
>
> > DRM is still an open question - my dabbling with it persuaded me that
> > it is not really viable where sky-wave propagation is involved, either
> > as the main path or as an interferer to the desired ground-wave path.
> > That said, it should do as well or better than HDradio for LW, MW,
> > 26MHz, and VHF but is as disruptive to existing analog stations.
>
> > I've been more impressed by synchronous AM demodulation of AM signals
> > than by a digital equivalent. It's a pity we could not get mass
> > manufacturing of synch AM radios and ultimately convert all AM
> > stations to USB with reduced carrier for power savings and reduced
> > interference.
>
> > Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Tom - Good Response ~ RHF
>  .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, I can agree with a lot of it. Critique without a bunch of URLs
also, which is astonishing when you realize that all came from HIM and
not a website. Much obliged!