Let's look at both sides

[R.F. Burns]

Here's an interesting artical that sounds all to familiar (and a bit paranoid but theta's another story);

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=65379&start=-1


On the other hand, here's an interesting opinion;

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=91175&start=0

Wonder if he retracked the story. After all he was wrong. Ibiquity is still in businesss and more financially sond that XM or Sirius;

http://www.hear2.com/2006/04/rumors_of_troub.html


And lets not let facts get in the way:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix A.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix B.pdf

 

[radiopilot]

Here's an interesting artical that sounds all to familiar (and a bit paranoid but theta's another story);

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=65379&start=-1


On the other hand, here's an interesting opinion;

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=91175&start=0

Wonder if he retracked the story. After all he was wrong. Ibiquity is still in businesss and more financially sond that XM or Sirius;

http://www.hear2.com/2006/04/rumors_of_troub.html


And lets not let facts get in the way:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix A.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix B.pdf

Of course you failed to post this one:

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=46832&start=0

He's a happy camper...

Radiopilot

 

[R.F. Burns]

Here's an interesting artical that sounds all to familiar (and a bit paranoid but theta's another story);

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=65379&start=-1


On the other hand, here's an interesting opinion;

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=91175&start=0

Wonder if he retracked the story. After all he was wrong. Ibiquity is still in businesss and more financially sond that XM or Sirius;

http://www.hear2.com/2006/04/rumors_of_troub.html


And lets not let facts get in the way:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix A.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix B.pdf

Of course you failed to post this one:

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=46832&start=0

He's a happy camper...

Radiopilot

But content isn't the issue for me. You see in NYC HD will offer 18 new and different formats which aren't available in the market otherwise. CONTENT. That's what they are offering. That sounds like an improvement to me.

 

[radiopilot]

Here's an interesting artical that sounds all to familiar (and a bit paranoid but theta's another story);

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=65379&start=-1


On the other hand, here's an interesting opinion;

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=91175&start=0

Wonder if he retracked the story. After all he was wrong. Ibiquity is still in businesss and more financially sond that XM or Sirius;

http://www.hear2.com/2006/04/rumors_of_troub.html


And lets not let facts get in the way:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix A.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix B.pdf

Of course you failed to post this one:

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=46832&start=0

He's a happy camper...

Radiopilot

But content isn't the issue for me. You see in NYC HD will offer 18 new and different formats which aren't available in the market otherwise. CONTENT. That's what they are offering. That sounds like an improvement to me.

You failed to post these articles that relate to the interference IBOC causes....

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/amnighttime.pdf


http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

Quote from page 2 at the bottom:

Based on these conclusions from field tests, Ibiquity has determined the introduction of IBOC, even if it DOES INCREASE SKYWAVE INTERFERENCE, will have an impact on very few listeners?

Who are these 'few listeners'?

Radiopilot

 

[R.F. Burns]

Here's an interesting artical that sounds all to familiar (and a bit paranoid but theta's another story);

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=65379&start=-1


On the other hand, here's an interesting opinion;

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=91175&start=0

Wonder if he retracked the story. After all he was wrong. Ibiquity is still in businesss and more financially sond that XM or Sirius;

http://www.hear2.com/2006/04/rumors_of_troub.html


And lets not let facts get in the way:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix A.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix B.pdf

Of course you failed to post this one:

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=46832&start=0

He's a happy camper...

Radiopilot

But content isn't the issue for me. You see in NYC HD will offer 18 new and different formats which aren't available in the market otherwise. CONTENT. That's what they are offering. That sounds like an improvement to me.

You failed to post these articles that relate to the interference IBOC causes....

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/amnighttime.pdf


http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

Quote from page 2 at the bottom:

Based on these conclusions from field tests, Ibiquity has determined the introduction of IBOC, even if it DOES INCREASE SKYWAVE INTERFERENCE, will have an impact on very few listeners?

Who are these 'few listeners'?

Radiopilot

You tell me. As another anti IBOC person has said, you should be able to do the research and come to your own conclusions.

 

[IBOCRocks]

Here's an interesting artical that sounds all to familiar (and a bit paranoid but theta's another story);

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=65379&start=-1


On the other hand, here's an interesting opinion;

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=91175&start=0

Wonder if he retracked the story. After all he was wrong. Ibiquity is still in businesss and more financially sond that XM or Sirius;

http://www.hear2.com/2006/04/rumors_of_troub.html


And lets not let facts get in the way:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix A.pdf

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iB...Nighttime Compatibility report_Appendix B.pdf

Of course you failed to post this one:

http://news.com.com/5208-1041_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=7009&messageID=46832&start=0

He's a happy camper...

Radiopilot

But content isn't the issue for me. You see in NYC HD will offer 18 new and different formats which aren't available in the market otherwise. CONTENT. That's what they are offering. That sounds like an improvement to me.

You failed to post these articles that relate to the interference IBOC causes....

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/amnighttime.pdf


http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

Quote from page 2 at the bottom:

Based on these conclusions from field tests, Ibiquity has determined the introduction of IBOC, even if it DOES INCREASE SKYWAVE INTERFERENCE, will have an impact on very few listeners?

Who are these 'few listeners'?

Radiopilot

I get it now!!!!

It's OK for you to make a generalization like "Nobody wants HD Radio", but when a pro-IBOC group says there may be interference for a "few listeners" you demand hard numbers.

Tell you what: You tell me who exactly "nobody" is, and I'll tell you who "a few" are.

After all, what's good for the goose...

 

[jim8230]

"I get it now!!!!"

Well I'm glad you get it. How is this any different from the demands of the "pro-IBOC" group? For months every statement made by anyone against IBOC has been met with a similar demand. One guy on this board, who seems to be ready to pounce on any negative comment within minutes of their post, has told others that dare disagree with his dogma "to get a life". (One could assume the same of him!) This same poster made recordings of IBOC in his own personal space and has held this up as the end-all to the benefits of "HD" to the masses. Anyone that heard noise or interference was told they or their receivers had a problem......because his recordings proved otherwise. Still others that dared to voice opinions about the flaws of the technology or fact that a handfull of big corporations are pushing upon us a solution to a problem that didn't exist in the first place, are simply subject to ad hominem attacks that don't address the issues at hand, but instead, stifle any real debate.

So where is your proof that people have to have this technology?.....
"After all, what's good for the goose..."

 

[awj223]

You failed to post these articles that relate to the interference IBOC causes....

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/amnighttime.pdf


http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/AM Nighttime Compatibility report.pdf

Quote from page 2 at the bottom:

Based on these conclusions from field tests, Ibiquity has determined the introduction of IBOC, even if it DOES INCREASE SKYWAVE INTERFERENCE, will have an impact on very few listeners?

Who are these 'few listeners'?

Radiopilot

In the first link, what is Ibiquity smoking with their MOS values? On page 19, KFI is shown to have a MOS below 0.13 north of SLO which should mean a pretty bad signal. However, it comes in loud and clear in the Bay Area. Statistics can always be manipulated to argue a biased point. The last group I'd trust to do a study on nighttime IBOC is Ibiquity. Criteria can be changed. Receivers can be hand picked. I know for a fact that 850 KOA is audible clearly all the way to the Pacific Ocean. That's down around 0.1-0.2 mV/m if I look at the skywave maps for typical 50kW stations in the report.

 

[Mike Walker]

I am the guy "ready to pounce within minutes" who posted the HD recordings to show it would "work for the masses". Ya' know, I live in one of the more difficult locations for FM HD reception...80 miles distant from stations, surrounded by mountains (lots of multipath), with an INDOOR antenna, connected to the least expensive radio on the market. If FM HD works under these circumstances, my conclusion is that it freakin' WORKS. Listen for yourself http://www.theproductionroom.net/hd.wma

I think that's a pretty reasonable argument. How DARE I ask people who claim interference post recordings PROVING IT.

As for AM HD, I have misgivings (based upon "gut", not personal experience) because I have actually heard recordings of interference. Again, I became concerned by evidence I trust, NOT by ANYTHING that ANYONE wrote, or linked to!

 

[radiopilot]

But content isn't the issue for me. You see in NYC HD will offer 18 new and different formats which aren't available in the market otherwise. CONTENT. That's what they are offering. That sounds like an improvement to me.

If this is the sort of content they want to put on HD-2, HD-3 channels, radio is sure in trouble!

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,66962.0.html

Radiopilot

 

[clouseau]

But content isn't the issue for me. You see in NYC HD will offer 18 new and different formats which aren't available in the market otherwise. CONTENT. That's what they are offering. That sounds like an improvement to me.

If this is the sort of content they want to put on HD-2, HD-3 channels, radio is sure in trouble!

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,66962.0.html

Radiopilot

SO let me see if I understand...

HD-2's are nothing but automated jukeboxes = BAD
HD-2's add people and features = BAD



Clouseau

 

[davideduardo]

In the first link, what is Ibiquity smoking with their MOS values? On page 19, KFI is shown to have a MOS below 0.13 north of SLO which should mean a pretty bad signal. However, it comes in loud and clear in the Bay Area. Statistics can always be manipulated to argue a biased point. The last group I'd trust to do a study on nighttime IBOC is Ibiquity. Criteria can be changed. Receivers can be hand picked. I know for a fact that 850 KOA is audible clearly all the way to the Pacific Ocean. That's down around 0.1-0.2 mV/m if I look at the skywave maps for typical 50kW stations in the report.

What is "MOS"?

 

[Chuck]

[In the first link, what is Ibiquity smoking with their MOS values? On page 19, KFI is shown to have a MOS below 0.13 north of SLO which should mean a pretty bad signal. However, it comes in loud and clear in the Bay Area. Statistics can always be manipulated to argue a biased point. The last group I'd trust to do a study on nighttime IBOC is Ibiquity. Criteria can be changed. Receivers can be hand picked. I know for a fact that 850 KOA is audible clearly all the way to the Pacific Ocean. That's down around 0.1-0.2 mV/m if I look at the skywave maps for typical 50kW stations in the report.

Winston Churchill said it best, "The only statistics you can trust are the ones you falsified yourself."

 

[awj223]

What is "MOS"?

http://www.nrscstandards.org/DRB/iBiquity AM nighttime studies/amnighttime.pdf

"Mean Opinion Score" explained on page 2. I am suspicious of the way they first map SNRs to MOS values, then produce a bunch of map pairs that show both MOS ("present analog MOS") and signal strength. This has to assume a certain noise floor, right? Well the maps show the MOS value falling to the 50% point (when most people would consider changing the channel) at 3.5 mV/m for casual listeners and 1.5 mV/m for dedicated listeners using KOAL as an example. They already say that they're using the absolute worst case noise levels - I'm guessing that means that all adjacent channels are running programming that produces the worst amount of splatter. Problem is, this is rarely the case in the real world. However, since the IBOC sidebands are at constant amplitude, it DOES produce the worst case interference all the time. Using their criteria, a lot of area that shows up as unlistenable on their MOS maps is in fact listenable. So they start off by assuming that stations don't have a usable signal in areas where they do, which prevents the delta MOS charts from showing a loss in coverage.

What if they used different background noise levels? Instead of "worst case analog interference" what if their MOS calculations were based on something like "You're listening to your favorite team play the last game of the World Series. Analog interference isn't worst case, but the real world average. You're on a rural freeway away from power lines." I'd bet the maps would show much more coverage being lots to IBOC (and the delta MOS maps would cover a large area). Of course, the entire report has to be taken with a grain of salt given who produced it. It's not like they're an impartial 3rd party. I'm sure that if the DXAS did a study it would show the exact opposite using its own set of statistics and assumptions to generate them (not that I'd believe such a study at face value either).

 

[board_manager]

Several posts have been relocated to Take It Outside

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,67846.msg484251.html#msg484251