[BC] ... content ... or control ....

[Robert Orban]

At 11:13 AM 5/17/2005, you wrote:
>rom: DANA PUOPOLO <dpuopolo at usa.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] ... content ... or control ....
>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID: <218JeqPnz7616S16.1116344391 at uwdvg016.cms.usa.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
>What's even crazier is that FM is capable of BETTER fidelity then 96K
>perceptual coded audio! Everyone knows that audio bit reduced this much has no
>high end over about 12 kHz or so. FM goes out to 15 kHz. The main advantages
>are an increase in S/N ratio in weak signal areas (out to the "cliff point"
>that is) and no multipath distortion . With diversity radios even these two
>problems were eliminated a long time ago (and for a lot less then a HD radio
>is going to cost).
>Why the automotive industry largely ignored diversity is puzzling to me. I've
>heard it used in cars and it really works well.

Not only does everyone _not_ know it, but the claim about 12 kHz is simply 
untrue. Put a spectrum analyzer on the output of an HD radio if you don't 
believe me.

Also forgotten in this post is FM's huge high frequency headroom limitation 
due to pre-emphasis. This makes it impossible for FM to reproduce today's 
music mixes without reducing average modulation about 10 dB compared to 
today's practices.

Bob Orban