[BC] RE:IBOC

[Phil Alexander]

On 15 Jul 2005 at 5:00, Bill Harms wrote:

> Really?  Even if IBOC has problems that might be unsurmontable?
> 
> On 15 Jul 2005 at 2:26, Jerry Mathis wrote:
> 
> > Like others here have pointed out, it's **TOO LATE**. The decisions, like
> > 'em or not, have been made. A separate band is NOT going to happen. It's
> > done. Now, a lot of us don't like it. But, as Phil and Mike have pointed
> > out, it's NO LONGER AN ISSUE. We have what we have.


IBOC has serious engineering challenges in the twin matters of nighttime
adjacency and directional phasing stability (phase bandwidth) at all times.

Neither of these problems will do much more than IMHO accelerate the day
when we transition to full digital operation.

There are some combining and measurement challenges in VHF implementations,
but nothing that someone who understands amplification and transmission
theory can't handle before breakfast. <g>

Some tight AM DA's will be the tough nut to crack, but many of those will
be converted as well. I think the bulk of these are going to be large
or medium market arrays built 1960-1990 where there is at least some
engineering talent on hand to deal with, or at least understand, the 
problems and work out the resolutions with people who really understand
DA's.

In short, many (several hundred) deployments have been done and no
insurmountable problems had been found. As always, the people who pay
the piper call the tune, and the owners are getting what they wanted,
not what many of us would like. That's the way it is, so IMHO it's well
past time to quit whining that nobody will listen to us, and get about
the business of doing the best we can with what we have been given.


Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
(a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037





-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.15/49 - Release Date: 7/14/05