http://earthsignals.com/add_CGC/KMXE.PDF
Il Dolce Far Niente
Quote:> Thanks to Bob Gonsett
> http://earthsignals.com/add_CGC/KMXE.PDF
It certainly would be tough to receive adjacent channels. I don't thinkQuote:> HD=? Looks like if you got too many of these things splattering all
over
> there would be lousy reception for sure. Not everybody can afford a
$3000
> receiver that could knock out either.
> Il Dolce Far Niente
I suppose the best way to receive adjacent channels would be nulling the
sideband noise out with the antenna.
Frank Dresser
Thanks for the link.Quote:> Thanks to Bob Gonsett
> http://earthsignals.com/add_CGC/KMXE.PDF
That spectrum is consistant with what I heard a few evenings ago around
720 kHz. WGN's engineer said it wasn't them, and I haven't noticed the
noise since then.
Has anyone heard the sidebands produced by IBOC? The best description I
can come up with is something like "digital white noise".
Frank Dresser
> Has anyone heard the sidebands produced by IBOC? The best description I
> can come up with is something like "digital white noise".
So you need selectable sidebands to tell, or at least a BFO and notice whether
the noise pitch goes up as you tune up (in which case the IBOC station is higher)
or goes down (in which case the IBOC station is lower), starting from the
interfered-with station.
--
Ron Hardin
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
> > That spectrum is consistant with what I heard a few evenings ago around
> > 720 kHz. WGN's engineer said it wasn't them, and I haven't noticed the
> > noise since then.
> > Has anyone heard the sidebands produced by IBOC? The best description I
> > can come up with is something like "digital white noise".
> It's just a noise rush, but not white exactly. The giveaway is that it's on
> only one sideband of the station you're trying to hear. If you hear it on the
> LSB, the offending IBOC station is 10 kHz higher (not lower as you'd expect);
> and if on USB, then 10 kHz lower.
> So you need selectable sidebands to tell, or at least a BFO and notice whether
> the noise pitch goes up as you tune up (in which case the IBOC station is higher)
> or goes down (in which case the IBOC station is lower), starting from the
> interfered-with station.
All of this destruction of the radio listening hobby -- and
destruction of _anyone's_ ability to listen to many of the more
distant or weaker stations he can now receive -- is because the
money-men of the media monopolies saw a new digital band as a threat
to their ***. So they squelched it -- they hope -- with IBOC.
As I've said before, IBOC (In-Band On-Channel) digital -- AM or FM
-- is essentially a turkey, technically. It's inferior in almost
every way to a dedicated digital system in a dedicated digital band.
The main reason IBOC is promoted is because a new dedicated digital
band would level the playing field: the present 250-Watt AM
daytimer, once ensconced in the new band, would have just as clear
and clean a signal as the 50-Kw clear channel or the high-power FM
-- just as good fidelity, the same coverage, and 24-hour operation.
Just like your Web site is as clear and as easily accessible as
NBC's.
A dedicated digital band might also be scalable and allow many more
channels for the listener -- hundreds, thousands perhaps. Probably
enough to allow public access (in which anyone can be a broadcaster
for free or nearly free) on an even greater scale than does cable
television or Internet radio.
And that would mean more competition for the big-money men.
And it would mean that competition would now be purely on the basis
of programming, not the sheer signal superiority which the money-men
have paid for.
They want to preserve the _inferiority_ of their smaller
competitors. IBOC does that. They want to maintain the high economic
hurdle to becoming a broadcaster. IBOC does that.
With all good wishes,
--
Kevin Alfred Strom.
News: http://www.redwaveradio.com/
The Works of R. P. Oliver: http://www.redwaveradio.com/
Personal site: http://www.redwaveradio.com/
I'm not sure I understand. The spectrum plot shows two symmetricalQuote:> It's just a noise rush, but not white exactly. The giveaway is that
it's on
> only one sideband of the station you're trying to hear. If you hear
it on the
> LSB, the offending IBOC station is 10 kHz higher (not lower as you'd
expect);
> and if on USB, then 10 kHz lower.
> So you need selectable sidebands to tell, or at least a BFO and notice
whether
> the noise pitch goes up as you tune up (in which case the IBOC station
is higher)
> or goes down (in which case the IBOC station is lower), starting from
the
> interfered-with station.
> --
> Ron Hardin
Frank Dresser
As far as I know, the FCC has stopped all IBOC testing at night inQuote:> All of this destruction of the radio listening hobby -- and
> destruction of _anyone's_ ability to listen to many of the more
> distant or weaker stations he can now receive -- is because the
> money-men of the media monopolies saw a new digital band as a threat
> to their ***. So they squelched it -- they hope -- with IBOC.
Didn't the Canadians establish a new digital band? Is it being heardQuote:> As I've said before, IBOC (In-Band On-Channel) digital -- AM or FM
> -- is essentially a turkey, technically. It's inferior in almost
> every way to a dedicated digital system in a dedicated digital band.
> The main reason IBOC is promoted is because a new dedicated digital
> band would level the playing field: the present 250-Watt AM
> daytimer, once ensconced in the new band, would have just as clear
> and clean a signal as the 50-Kw clear channel or the high-power FM
> -- just as good fidelity, the same coverage, and 24-hour operation.
> Just like your Web site is as clear and as easily accessible as
> NBC's.
Well, maybe, but I don't see the entire broadcast industry rushing toQuote:> A dedicated digital band might also be scalable and allow many more
> channels for the listener -- hundreds, thousands perhaps. Probably
> enough to allow public access (in which anyone can be a broadcaster
> for free or nearly free) on an even greater scale than does cable
> television or Internet radio.
> And that would mean more competition for the big-money men.
> And it would mean that competition would now be purely on the basis
> of programming, not the sheer signal superiority which the money-men
> have paid for.
> They want to preserve the _inferiority_ of their smaller
> competitors. IBOC does that. They want to maintain the high economic
> hurdle to becoming a broadcaster. IBOC does that.
> With all good wishes,
> --
> Kevin Alfred Strom.
People who don't much care about fidelity, and I think that's the
majority of casual listeners, won't much care for IBOC, either.
Frank Dresser
> I'm not sure I understand. The spectrum plot shows two symmetrical
> peaks off the carrier frequency. The noise I observed was consistant
> with that.
If IBOC is on 700 and you're listening to 710, the the IBOC noise is at 713,
which is the upper sideband of 710. If you listen to 710 LSB, the noise
disappears.
--
Ron Hardin
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
interfered with.Quote:> It's not symmetric around the adjacent channel station being
OK. The noise was symmetrical around 720, and I was trying to catch
710.
> If IBOC is on 700 and you're listening to 710, the the IBOC noise is
at 713,
> which is the upper sideband of 710. If you listen to 710 LSB, the
noise
> disappears.
> --
> Ron Hardin
Frank Dresser
Oh, yeah, IBAC (In Band Adjacent Channel) is
going to save AM!
73,
Steve Lawrence
Burnsville, MN
| Thanks to Bob Gonsett
|
| http://earthsignals.com/add_CGC/KMXE.PDF
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.576 / Virus Database: 365 - Release Date: 1/30/04
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 22:38:00 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
>> All of this destruction of the radio listening hobby -- and
>> destruction of _anyone's_ ability to listen to many of the more
>> distant or weaker stations he can now receive -- is because the
>> money-men of the media monopolies saw a new digital band as a threat
>> to their ***. So they squelched it -- they hope -- with IBOC.
>As far as I know, the FCC has stopped all IBOC testing at night in
>order to reduce interference with other stations.
>> As I've said before, IBOC (In-Band On-Channel) digital -- AM or FM
>> -- is essentially a turkey, technically. It's inferior in almost
>> every way to a dedicated digital system in a dedicated digital band.
>> The main reason IBOC is promoted is because a new dedicated digital
>> band would level the playing field: the present 250-Watt AM
>> daytimer, once ensconced in the new band, would have just as clear
>> and clean a signal as the 50-Kw clear channel or the high-power FM
>> -- just as good fidelity, the same coverage, and 24-hour operation.
>> Just like your Web site is as clear and as easily accessible as
>> NBC's.
>Didn't the Canadians establish a new digital band? Is it being heard
>much?
>> A dedicated digital band might also be scalable and allow many more
>> channels for the listener -- hundreds, thousands perhaps. Probably
>> enough to allow public access (in which anyone can be a broadcaster
>> for free or nearly free) on an even greater scale than does cable
>> television or Internet radio.
>> And that would mean more competition for the big-money men.
>> And it would mean that competition would now be purely on the basis
>> of programming, not the sheer signal superiority which the money-men
>> have paid for.
>> They want to preserve the _inferiority_ of their smaller
>> competitors. IBOC does that. They want to maintain the high economic
>> hurdle to becoming a broadcaster. IBOC does that.
>> With all good wishes,
>> --
>> Kevin Alfred Strom.
>Well, maybe, but I don't see the entire broadcast industry rushing to
>IBOC. The night time ban puts a big crimp on IBOC. IBOC reduces the
>bandwidth and fidelity of the main channel. Also, putting all that
>power into sideband noise reduces the power and signal to noise ratio of
>the main channel. People who are annoyed by bad sounding AM radio and
>have yet to buy an IBOC radio are more likely to tune out.
>People who don't much care about fidelity, and I think that's the
>majority of casual listeners, won't much care for IBOC, either.
>Frank Dresser
I thought so. A seperate band makes sense. If some entrepeneur thinksQuote:> Canada uses Eureka 147 DAB. It is slowly gaining an audience.
Frank Dresser
All very true. But the owners of the media monopolies don't care aQuote:> Well, maybe, but I don't see the entire broadcast industry rushing to
> IBOC. The night time ban puts a big crimp on IBOC. IBOC reduces the
> bandwidth and fidelity of the main channel. Also, putting all that
> power into sideband noise reduces the power and signal to noise ratio of
> the main channel. People who are annoyed by bad sounding AM radio and
> have yet to buy an IBOC radio are more likely to tune out.
> People who don't much care about fidelity, and I think that's the
> majority of casual listeners, won't much care for IBOC, either.
> Frank Dresser
With every good wish,
Kevin.
--
Kevin Alfred Strom.
News: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/
The Works of R. P. Oliver: http://www.revilo-oliver.com
Personal site: http://www.kevin-strom.com
We don't have a seperate band for digital radio, but the time brokeredQuote:> All very true. But the owners of the media monopolies don't care a
> great deal about the success of IBOC or even its widespread
> implementation. Their main concern is to _prevent_ the creation of a
> new digital band wherein all existing broadcasters would have an
> even playing field. IBOC does that -- at least so far.
> With every good wish,
> Kevin.
I think the bigger reason there wasn't a seperate digital band
established is the government plans to auction off spectrum, and setting
aside a band in a prime VHF/UHF region puts a crimp in their budget
estimates.
Frank Dresser
1. ABC CITADEL AM STATIONS SUSPEND NIGHTTIME IBOC
2. With-Respect-To : IBOC AM Radio -vice- AM Radio DXing
3. spectrum analyzer plot of NYC's FM broadcast band in binary NG
4. Eye-On-IBOC - Looking for Information about IBOC and HD Radio
5. IBOC forces KSL-AM to drop decades-old tradition.
6. Nighttime AM broadcast band IBOC approved by FCC
9. IBOC - Redefining AM Radio Service As We Know It
10. AM IBOC: another solution in search of a problem