[BC] Digital Intgerference (was AM Interference)

[DANA PUOPOLO]

EXACTLY!

With (all the) blending going on all the time how come we're not calling this
junk system what it really IS - a digital/ANALOG system! 

Why continue with this Mickey Mouse "digital" system. It sucks. Why not just
admit that and move on to a REAL digital system in it's own band?

It's fatally broken on AM and practically as broken on FM. Why not admit our
mstakes and move on?

-D


------ Original Message ------
Received: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:11:53 AM PST
From: Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net>
To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Subject: Re: [BC] Digital Intgerference (was AM Interference)

Rich Wood wrote:

> On a specrum analyzer, WPLJ has no energy above 10KHz and the audio 
> was/is so dense that there's no dynamic range. I can only image what 
> the WPLJ-HD (when it comes) processing will be. You ain't heard loud, 
> yet.
>
WPLJ is on and it is (was) equally as cruched as the analog.    Funny 
thing, I am hearing a lot of tweaking lately, HD processing changes, 
playing with diversity delay and other stuff. This morning WPLJ HD was 
slightly less painfull than the main channel. 

The problem is either you make things blend well and HD sounds like 
analog OR you make it different and the blending becomes a distraction.

R

_______________________________________________
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/