[BC] Digital Intgerference (was AM Interference)

[DANA PUOPOLO]

But Paul..

That 32K digital AM stereo stream sounds better then 1500K linear CD's!

You didn't know that? Just ask Ibiquity - they'll 'educate' you!

After all --- "Less is MORE"!

-D



------ Original Message ------
Received: 
From: VJB <wa3vjb at yahoo.com>
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Subject: [BC] Digital Intgerference (was AM Interference)

>I know I speak for a number of us that this thread
should more correctly be slugged "Digital
Interference."

Bob, to your point --
-------
I don't know what's wrong on the East
Coast...(comparing to western stations)There is simply
more punch.
Bob Orban
-------
Aren't all of the qualities you cited available on
analog AM if the station were to be set up properly? 
That's the bogus part of adding a digital overlay on
Standard Broadcast channels: The proposed technology
offer no technical or practical advantage to what's
already available.  I'd sure like to see permission
for a 30khz bandwidth (upper end at 15kHz) now
consumed by these overlays. THEN you could start
making apples to apples comparisons between
transmitted signals. To work on the receive
shortfalls, restoring this bandwidth would allow
pre-emphasis curves where they match the typically
poor quality of consumer radios. Type acceptance
standards could address models now coming to market
and specify improvements in fidelity. Nothing I'm
saying is new, but the more I see the interference
problems caused by digital, with no known advantage in
quality in the field, I'm convinced this is being
approached the wrong way.

Paul/WA3VJB
Annapolis

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
This is the BROADCAST mailing list
To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/