[BC] Re: [TZ] Microsoft v. iBiquity

[Robert Meuser]

 From what I have read, the initial NRSC report specifically stated synchronous 
mode was not tested "in the interest of time".  I also know from a manufacturer 
I trust implicitly that there are issues with the interleaver. This is backed by 
the recent NPR report on hybrid synchronous boosters where they had issues with 
the interleaver.  Please fill in your own blanks.

As for HW VS software, the trend seems to be importer exporter as a SW code at 
the studio and hardware to implement the lower level layers at the TX.

BTW: I think this list limits ideas to too small an audience. On BC it would hit 
a much wider audience.

R

Phil Alexander wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2005 at 14:59, Robert Meuser wrote:
> 
> 
>>Phil:
>>
>>You are missing a big point here. Ibiquity is flawed to a certain degree 
>>at the hardware level. The system is supposed to work syncronously. The 
>>NRSC never tested this mode "in the interest of time". In facto there 
>>are serious issue with the interleaver which is a hardware component. 
>>Fixing this makes existing hardware obsolete. Not fixing it holds a 
>>really creative deployment of digital back forever.
>>
> 
> 
> Robert:
> 
> I missed that. My impression was that could be firmware if 
> implemented in a demodulator such as the T-I that will handle
> multiple modes. You're saying the interleave is in a discreet
> chip or discreet area of VLSI? How did that get by the NRSC?
> I can understand the politics that led to omission of the 
> codec although I can't agree with them, but a faulty algorithm
> implemented in h/w - that baffles me. Very puzzling, some of
> those on the committee had to understand. IMHO that borders
> on unethical.
> 
> 
> Phil Alexander, CSRE, AMD
> Broadcast Engineering Services and Technology 
> (a Div. of Advanced Parts Corporation) 
> Ph. (317) 335-2065   FAX (317) 335-9037
> 
> 
> 
> 
>