Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Randy Yates wrote: Steve writes: [...] This might seem pedantic, but please avoid the term "newsgroups". Go play with your gee-haw whimmy diddle. Best you go whack off with 'David Eduardo', everyones favourite faux Hispanic. |
#202
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
dxAce writes:
Randy Yates wrote: Steve writes: [...] This might seem pedantic, but please avoid the term "newsgroups". Go play with your gee-haw whimmy diddle. Best you go whack off with 'David Eduardo', everyones favourite faux Hispanic. Why would I do that when I can have your vagina? -- % Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late, %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate %%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..." %%%% % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#203
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Telamon wrote: You never finnish your sentences. You mean sounds good to tin ears. Uh huh. On the day you learn manners...... well, that will never happen, so why waste time discussing it. A man of your advanced age has always acted like a childish ill-manned person, and probably always will act like a childish ill-manned person. |
#204
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Steve wrote: RHF writes: A custom-created group in Google or Yahoo does not a usenet newsgroup make. Umm...this may also seem pedantic, but please don't refer to true usenet groups as "newsgroups". Thanks. Why not? Usenet does: Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,b a.broadcast Subject: HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:55:01 -0400 Oh well. I'm not surprised. Assholes usually are wrong. Ho suck a cock you son of a bitch. |
#205
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Oct 9, 1:03 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
Steve wrote: RHF writes: A custom-created group in Google or Yahoo does not a usenet newsgroup make. Umm...this may also seem pedantic, but please don't refer to true usenet groups as "newsgroups". Thanks. Why not? Usenet does: Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,b a.broadcast Subject: HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:55:01 -0400 Oh well. I'm not surprised. Assholes usually are wrong. Ho suck a cock you son of a bitch. Why not just ask them, nicely, to stop? There's no need to berate them for their mistake. |
#206
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Oct 9, 10:00 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Telamon wrote: - - You never finnish your sentences. You mean sounds good to tin ears. - - Uh huh. On the day you learn manners...... well, that will never - happen, so why waste time discussing it. A man of your advanced age - has always acted like a childish ill-manned person, and probably - always will act like a childish ill-manned person. SFTV -aka- "Hybrid Digital" Man, At best it could be say that 'you' Parrot everyone else's behavior toward you : Which is a direct result of your actions to begin with. * You seem to have a personal 'issue' with those who are much older than you. * Your Posts and Replies often have a Mean Spirited 'Tone' to to them. hopefully you will reflect on these comments ~ RHF |
#207
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article . com,
SFTV_troy wrote: Telamon wrote: You never finnish your sentences. You mean sounds good to tin ears. Uh huh. On the day you learn manners...... well, that will never happen, so why waste time discussing it. A man of your advanced age has always acted like a childish ill-manned person, and probably always will act like a childish ill-manned person. Are you a gay digital engineer Miss manners? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#208
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Sep 29, 1:09 pm, SFTV_troy wrote:
I posted this at rec.audio. I'll crosspost it here, as my response is still the same: HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio I hear a LOT of people complaining about Hybrid Digital Radio, but from what I've heard from European listeners, HDR is no worse than DAB (poor quality audio;worse than FM), or DRB (both poor quality & interference w/ existing AM stations). Thoughts? Opinions? 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). Wouldn't it be cool to have 5.1 surround from your radio? Or have your FM station suddenly multiply from 1 station to 4 stations (offering, for example, 2000s-era music on the main channel) (and 90s, 80s, 70s on the 3 sub-channels). Or maybe a Jazz station dividing itself into Modern Jazz, Mid-Century Jazz, and Classic Big Band-era Jazz. FM could effectively triple its number of channels. Well the IDEA is sound, even if the analog-to-digital (HD, DAB, DRM) transition has some growing pains to overcome. Tech Survey III : "HD" Radio Findings - Jacobs Media http://www.jacobsmedia.com/articles/tech3_hdradio.asp -by- Fred Jacobs -Dated- 14 Mayo 2007 The Good News : Awareness and Knowledge are much Improved. The Bad News : Major Barriers to Purchase an HD Radio remain. "Jacobs Media's Third Annual Technology Web Poll, conducted among more than 25,000 Rock Radio Listeners around the U.S., paints a mixed picture for the future of HD Radio." Key Findings : Graphic - HD Radio Familiarity Graphic - Strength of Knowledge About HD Radio Graphic - Likelihood of Buying an HD Radio Graphic - HD Radio Most Important Feature Graphic - Barriers to Puchasing an HD Radio Graphic - Desirable Features - Next Car COPYRIGHT © 2007 JACOBS MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. hy dee ray dee oh ~ RHF Hello and Welcome to the "HD Radio" NewsGroup HD RADIO = http://groups.google.com/group/hd-radio/ . |
#210
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:59:17 GMT, "Earl Kiosterud"
wrote: Was AM radio ever allowed audio to 15 KHz? I read many years ago that it was, perhaps before the NRSC recommendation was adopted by the FCC. I presumed that the stations either were allowed to overlap 5 KHz (doubtful), or that stations in a given area were separated by at least 30 KHz. -- Regards from Virginia Beach, Earl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com Years ago, here in London an interesting thing happened. Audio was fed to our big AM transmitter by landline, which had a hopeless frequency response, losing a great deal of HF. This was equalised in the channel filter for the transmitter, resulting in flat AM out to about 5kHz. Anyway, at some point the land line was replaced with a much better one, but nobody thought to tweak the channel filter to suit the new frequency response, resulting in audio which was flattish out to at least 12 if not 15kHz. we had really good quality AM for quite a while. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#211
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Earl Kiosterud" wrote:
Robert, Was AM radio ever allowed audio to 15 KHz? I read many years ago that it was, perhaps before the NRSC recommendation was adopted by the FCC. I presumed that the stations either were allowed to overlap 5 KHz (doubtful), or that stations in a given area were separated by at least 30 KHz. I'm not Robert, but... Prior to FM multiplex stereo, there were some experimental stereo broadcasters who transmitted one channel on FM and the other on AM. A friend of mine has an old Lafayette tuner set up this way, along with a plug-in jack for a multiplex adapter when they became available. I think there was quite a large amount of effort to produce wideband AM. Amplitude modulation itself certainly has no such limitations; however it is possible that tuning the tower system to handle that wide a bandwitdth within MW would be a problem. Don't know. -- Eric F. Richards, "It's the Din of iBiquity." -- Frank Dresser |
#212
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
"Earl Kiosterud" wrote in message newst%Yi.403$CI1.60@trnddc03... "Robert Orban" wrote in message ... In article , says... "SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. There is no low frequency limit for either AM or FM; 50 Hz was the minimum performance standard that would meet the now long-deleted FCC Proof of Performance measurements. The effective HF limit on FM is about 18.5 kHz; this leaves a +/- 500 Hz guard band for the stereo pilot tone. Again, 15 kHz was the minimum spec that would pass a Proof of Performance, not a limit on bandwidth. Currently, the legal FCC-mandated HF limit on AM in the US is a hair less than 10 kHz, which almost completely protects second-adjacent stations from interference. This was changed around 1990 as a result of work done by the National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC). More recent work by the NRSC has indicated that 7 kHz is probably the optimum compromise between causing interference and loss of audio quality on typical AM radios (which are down 3 dB at about 2.6 kHz). However, limiting bandwidth to 7 kHz is voluntary. Robert, Was AM radio ever allowed audio to 15 KHz? I read many years ago that it was, perhaps before the NRSC recommendation was adopted by the FCC. I presumed that the stations either were allowed to overlap 5 KHz (doubtful), or that stations in a given area were separated by at least 30 KHz. -- Regards from Virginia Beach, Earl Kiosterud www.smokeylake.com I was a broadcast engineer in the late 1970s to the late 1980s. At that time (before NRSC) AM was required to transmit a minimum 5KHz bandwidth, but the maximum modulated bandwidth was not really defined. There were limits on "spurious" emissions, caused by audio distortion products and carrier harmonics. I don't recall the exact mask, but 15KHz was legal at that time. Our studio transmitter link was a Mosely PCL-505, which was flat to 15KHz, and we employed no artificial band limiting, so the station was flat to at least 12KHz. Our tower was the limiting factor for bandwidth. It sounded just like monophonic FM on the modulation monitor. During the day there was no overlap, because stations were allocated on second alternate channels in most markets. Local stations that did overlap usually worked out a solution amongst themselves if the interference was objectionable. At night it got quite a bit noisier as distant stations would skip into the area, but it wasn't generally sidebands that caused the problem, it was the carriers themselves, each whining away at 10KHz. That is still a problem, even today. The real problem was that in the late 1980s, AM stations began adding proprietary "pre-emphasis" -- high frequency boost to make their station sound brighter on typical pathetically band-limited AM receivers. This can and did cause severe interference in some congested markets. Partially to address this, and to standardize the pre-emphasis, NRSC limited AM sidebands to 10KHz in the early 1990s. Since most AM radios do not even come close to being flat to 5KHz, 10 KHz is still two or three times more bandwidth than most listeners can use. |
#213
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is NO!, and your mother will back me up so don't bother asking
On Sep 30, 3:48 pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"Steven" wrote in message ups.com... On Sep 30, 3:09 pm, "David Eduardo" wrote: "SoCal Tom" wrote in message ... "SFTV_troy" blabbed: ... this new receiving technique would not improve the sound (it would still be limited from 100-6000 hertz), but would only reduce interference. At least in the States, AM & FM broadcasting is limited to 50 Hz to 15KHz. AM is restricted by the NRSC standard to a 10 kHz brick wall. Digital broadcasting is limited to under 20 Hz to over 20KHz, or basically, the extent of the normal human hearing range. If you're listening to 100 to 6,000 Hz, you're listening to a poor telephone connection. Bob Orban, on the NRSC committee, found that consumer radios almost without exception, rolled off by at least 10 db by 4.2 kHz, and passed practically nothing over 5 kHz. Bob Orban is the alien from the late Weekly World News. god darn it, we've had EVERY TROLL in the group except the K-Man, the Scott Lifshine/Wereo entity, and the RRAP brigade in this thread! Morein/McCarty/66.6% of the world's asshole postings has chimed in even. Steven ?, I haven't seen McCarty in this thread yet, though I'm sure he's reading it. I sign my post with my phone number, and you can really reach me at it, so please don't put me down with the anonymous asshole brigade. Bob Morein (310) 237-6511- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Thought you could hide, asshole, but you're just an average asshole and not very good. |
#214
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
|
#215
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Jason wrote:
A ham buddy of mine who was a transmitter engineer at WLWO, the VOA station that shared the Mason site with WLW, built a high-tech crystal set (multiple tuned RF stages) to see how good AM could sound. It was remarkable. I once tried a simple single-tuned crystal AM radio connected directly to a guy wire of a 5 kW AM station, feeding a KEF 105 speaker. It sounded wonderful. Doug McDonald |
#216
Posted to rec.audio.tech, rec.audio.car, rec.radio.shortwave, ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
On Nov 21, 11:40 am, Doug McDonald
wrote: Jason wrote: A ham buddy of mine who was a transmitter engineer at WLWO, the VOA station that shared the Mason site with WLW, built a high-tech crystal set (multiple tuned RF stages) to see how good AM could sound. It was remarkable. I once tried a simple single-tuned crystal AM radio connected directly to a guy wire of a 5 kW AM station, feeding a KEF 105 speaker. It sounded wonderful. Doug McDonald I'm only half a mile away from the towers and I don't need a single tuned crystal nor does my TV or computer bug it. I'm not sure why IBOC means much to RRS but then again the IBOC whiners' cabal/snake reproductive schemers that post these retarded flaming marshmallows minus chocolate and graham crackers and their hairdressers do. |
#217
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
Doug McDonald wrote:
Jason wrote: A ham buddy of mine who was a transmitter engineer at WLWO, the VOA station that shared the Mason site with WLW, built a high-tech crystal set (multiple tuned RF stages) to see how good AM could sound. It was remarkable. I once tried a simple single-tuned crystal AM radio connected directly to a guy wire of a 5 kW AM station, feeding a KEF 105 speaker. It sounded wonderful. Doug McDonald When I was restoring a ca. 1915 loose-coupler crystal set, I was actually startled by how good it sounded. No pesky IF or AF stages to add distortion or pass band limiting! |
#218
Posted to rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,rec.radio.shortwave,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio
In article ,
Jason wrote: In article pt%Yi.403$CI1.60@trnddc03, says... Was AM radio ever allowed audio to 15 KHz? WLW AM in Cincinnati, in the 60's, used to plug itself as "The Nation's Highest Fidelety Radio Station" and ran an announcement a few times a day explaining that the audio response was flat to 20kc (kc in those days :-) ). A ham buddy of mine who was a transmitter engineer at WLWO, the VOA station that shared the Mason site with WLW, built a high-tech crystal set (multiple tuned RF stages) to see how good AM could sound. It was remarkable. Yes. I did the same thing. I built a crystal radio and connected it to a audio amplifier and hi fidelity speakers. Radio never sounded better. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
HD RADIO is no worse than DAB or DRM radio | Car Audio | |||
FA: New Delco GM Chevy OEM CD/Radio w/Nav TV Aux Connector (for IPod,DVD,Sat Radio etc.) | Marketplace | |||
FA 1953 Crosley radio D25CE "dashboard radio" | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Radio reception worse than factory radio, antenna adapter? | Car Audio | |||
HD Radio = mp3 radio, only worse. | Pro Audio |