[BC] stamping opinions

[Phil Alexander]

On 21 Jul 2006 at 11:59, Rich Wood wrote:

> I think I've asked questions people fear answering. As a matter of 
> fact, I'm the person who has been pushing for 24/7 operation of AM 
> IBUZ. 

I agree with you completely on that point, however there should be
a mechanism for subcarrier reduction or discontinuance in the 
event of primary interference clearly the fault of the IBOC emitter.
This in in the nighttime proposals but lacks sufficient range to
deal with a coincidence of problematic factors.

> I don't understand how an engineer who's responsible for good 
> engineering practice can have a positive opinion of AM IBUZ. 

Once more, ORIGINALLY, it was intended as a transitional system.
The transition will be years late when it begins. Then we have
those half billion sets to sell .....

> Read the 
> archives. I've even said that AM needs it more than FM and used the 
> WBZ-HD signal as an example of what we should expect. That seems 
> pretty positive.
> 
> Was I stamping (sic) on IBUZ when I asked how many engineers 
> currently operating AM IBUZ would run it 24/7 if the FCC had approved 
> it on July 13? Not a single engineer responded. Was I "stamping" on 
> the suggestion that we should be operating the system 24/7 to enable 
> stations to discover and fix problems before it has to be done on a 
> massive scale rather than a station at a time?
> 
> I guess "stamping" means you ask uncomfortable questions. The 
> cheerleaders here and elsewhere have, effectively, told me to shut up 
> because I'm causing others to ask similar uncomfortable questions. 

Rich, the AM side was a done deal last September ('05) and doesn't
appear to have changed. Then, and now, it appears FM is the hangup.

> If someone is being deceptive (hdradio.com) does that qualify as 
> "stamping?" If I suggest that revolutions, historically, have been 
> much larger than the HD Revolution, is that "stamping." Is reporting 
> the sale of 3 receivers in my market in 4 months "stamping?"
> 
> Have you heard IBUZ? Do you have a receiver in a vehicle so you can 
> actually listen in the field? I'm discovering, by their own 
> admission, that some of the cheerleaders have never heard an IBUZ 
> signal. Thanks to a loaner from Kenwood I was one of the first people 
> here to actually hear it. Is honestly reporting what I heard "stamping?"
> 
> With absolutely no objective research behind it should I accept that 
> either we go IBUZ or we die? How could we possibly know that?
> 
> Is it "stamping" on IBUZ when I actually physically visit retailers 
> to track consumer interest? When retailers tell me there's no 
> interest, is that fact given me by those who sell the stuff 
> "stamping" on IBUZ or is it accurately reporting how well the 
> "revolution" is doing on the non-broadcaster side?
> 
> When I ask if 600-800 million receivers can be delivered within the 5 
> year projection is that "stamping" on IBUZ? Maybe I'd stop asking 
> these questions if someone credible would answer at least a few of them.
> 
> Are the people responding with existing interference reports 
> "stamping" on IBUZ?  I guess so because there are no known problems with IBUZ.
> 
> Think of me as the little kid who saw the Emperor as being butt 
> nekkid while everyone else was admiring the stylish cut of his clothes.

It is digital we need because the FCC has made such a mess of part 15
regulation by virtually abdicating all responsibility. There are other,
more subtle manufacturing reasons for digital too. Sadly, the form of
digital we got was IBOC a/k/a IBAC in the early days a/k/a HD now.

Better methods are available, but thanks to a particular eccentric
gentleman and his pursuit of his brand of AM stereo, the FCC positioned
themselves badly where they could not exercise leadership if they were
able and wanted to.

As a true high fidelity medium, IBOC clearly doesn't cut it, but neither
does FM stereo compared with what we had 40 or 50 years ago. However,
that seems unimportant to the average listener because they want content
regardless of quality. Same for phones. The "Network" is everywhere, but
the quality is nowhere - nowhere to be heard. The important fact about
AM IBOC is that every station converted will *for the average listener*
be competitive in any format, not just news/talk/sports, provided new
cars contain HD sets.

I will not disagree that IBOC hybrid has many downsides. Digital, OTOH,
has none of those especially if the digital is not the property of
Ibiquity. If their brand works too poorly, let's find out now before
that trickle of receivers turns into millions. If we find the problems
in the next two or three years, there is still time to change horses.
At worst, a station hauls in a couple of new computers and begins 
broadcasting a better form of digital.

So, Rich, I agree with you. Let's move out and move on to better things.


---------------------------------------------
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 Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/396 - Release Date: 7/24/06