Still waiting SuperSound! <EOM>
> > > > Since most small stations are cought on channels
> between
> >
> > > > high powered broadcasters. The greater bandwidth
> > required
> > > > for HD radio, and the added digital signals will
> > probably
> > > > jam the smaller stations off the air. Reduced
> > competition
> > > is
> > > > what HD radio is really all about.
> > > > Don't believe me?
> > > > In Radio World's Engineering Extra, the masked
> engineer,
> >
> > > Guy
> > > > Wire (NRSC-5 mask?) disclosed the cartel's strategy by
>
> > > > referring to the new digital interference as "The
> > thinning
> > >
> > > > of the herd full of cripples". Clear channel's digital
>
> > > plan
> > > > is to become "All Channel", which they will have
> > > > accomplished when the HD radio cartel's buildup is
> > > complete.
> > > >
> > > > Here is a solution for small broadcasters that
> requires
> > a
> > > > small one time expendature, no new transmitter or
> > antenna,
> > >
> > > > no continuing fees, and creates no new interference to
>
> > the
> > >
> > > > main or adjacent channels as HD digital radio does.
> > > > HD radio is a dysfunctional digital disaster that jams
>
> > > other
> > > > stations and should be entirely scrapped on both AM
> and
> > > FM,
> > > > and this system adopted for FM.
> > > > FM eXtra -
www.dreinc.com
> > > >
> > > > AM should wait until a compatible proven system is
> > > available
> > > > that works at night, and dosn't jam adjacent stations.
>
> > > >
http://worldsupercaster.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > >
> > > You know what I find interesting?
> > >
> > > Several times you've been asked to prove any of this.
> So
> > > far, you have not replied.
> > >
> > > I assume that's because you know your "facts" are
> > > fundamentally flawed. I don't wish to be a cheerleader
> > for
> > > HD, but I really have a problem with people spreading
> what
> >
> > > could be bad information.
> > >
> > > In the interest of clearing up some things for everyone
> > > here, let me make you a deal:
> > >
> > > I invite you to provide actual hard data to back up what
>
> > you
> > > say. Since we provide our real names and occupations,
> you
> >
> > > should do the same for the sake of credibility.
> > >
> > > If you choose not to respond, I (and I assume most
> others)
> >
> > > will assume that you are simply a shill for some
> anti-IBOC
> >
> > > group, and really have no technical knowledge to back up
>
> > > anything you say.
> > >
> > > Again, all I ask is for you to provide sufficient proof.
>
> > > Not links to blogs. Proof. So far, several people have
>
> > > offered proof to the contrary, yet you have not provided
>
> > any
> > > rebuttals. If you are right, so be it. I'll take my
> > lumps
> > > and consider it a lesson learned. You need to prove it,
>
> > > however, with something other than opinion and
> conjecture.
> >
> > >
> > > Maybe I'm off base on all of this. I am pretty close to
>
> > > IBOC. Let's let the members decide. Readers of the
> > board,
> > > what say you?
> > >
> >
> >
> > You are not off base at all. I see Supersound come and
> make
> > these outragous statements and then not show up again.
> Many
> > have asked for his proof, but yet I see NONE.
> >
> > HD Radio is very new, and speaking for myself, there is a
> > lot to learn about the technology. It is not perfect. I
> > personally have done a lot of testing and listening to see
>
> > where the issues are. I have also installed a few
> systems.
> >
> > I view this board as a discussion of FACTS and not blog
> > comments. For some reason some people have a need to
> spread
> > MIS information abtou HD Radio. What good does that do
> > except make you look silly?
> >
> I also wish to jump on the bandwagon.....come on Rich....get
> your analyzer out and make some measurements to PROVE
> OBJECTIVELY that IBOC causes excessive bandwith occupation.
> I will go to the commission with you to complain if it can
> be proved.
>