On 3/25/07, Scott Fybush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> My pleasure. I'm hoping some of the Europeans who lurk on the list might
> chime in with some more detailed observations about how DRM works in
> real-world conditions over there.
Pronto.
>From a purely (analog) DX oriented POV, Scott,
Scott,
Yes, I think I did mention the issue with KGO when it happened. Now with
IBOC hash, KEX's hash is an issue during the day on 1180 and 1200 but
near LSS, KOFI 1180 and CJRJ 1200 get strong enough to totally over
power the hash without phasing. So where there are strong signals, that
will pro
Patrick Martin wrote:
> You are so right. KGO 810 running 50 KW U3 had that issue. When they are
> using IBOC at night, it was impossible to get rid of that hash right on
> 810.00 KHZ. No matter what I do. It is horrible to listen to. I had it
> on the R8, SPR4, and even the Super Radio. I contac
Scott,
You are so right. KGO 810 running 50 KW U3 had that issue. When they are
using IBOC at night, it was impossible to get rid of that hash right on
810.00 KHZ. No matter what I do. It is horrible to listen to. I had it
on the R8, SPR4, and even the Super Radio. I contacted an engineer at
KGO
> But from a technical standpoint, DRM has many of the same
> "features" that are so often cited by DXers as failings in the Ibiquity
> IBOC system. It's still essentially a buzzsaw across the band when heard
> on an analog receiver, albeit on-channel instead of adjacent-channel. It
> still requir
On Saturday 24 March 2007 21:17, Scott Fybush wrote:
> Until and unless we get to an all-digital world on MW and SW - and I
> don't see that happening for a very long time - that sort of
> digital-into-analog interference is going to be a reality, and DRM isn't
> a complete solution. Imagine two sc
Russ Edmunds wrote:
> *** And it is because IBOC is a hyrid, where the digital signals occupy
> the sidebands of the channel and the analog the center that we
> encounter the hissing. In turn, we have a hybrid here because, as Scott
> indicated, broadcasters here obviously had some reservations ab
Nick Hall-Patch wrote:
> At 23:59 24/03/2007, Scott F. wrote:
>
>
>> Right now, it's something of an apples-to-oranges comparison,
>> particularly because there's no such thing as "the" DRM system, any more
>> than there's "the" Ibiquity system. Both organizations are developing a
>> variety of s
At 23:59 24/03/2007, Scott F. wrote:
>Right now, it's something of an apples-to-oranges comparison,
>particularly because there's no such thing as "the" DRM system, any more
>than there's "the" Ibiquity system. Both organizations are developing a
>variety of systems to meet different needs.
Than
--- Scott Fybush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> DRM's main offerings are non-hybrid systems for use on MW, SW and up
> in
> the 26 MHz region. For these systems to work, broadcasters have to
> either use separate spectrum from their analog transmissions (not an
> option for US MW broadcaster
Patrick Martin wrote:
> I have also heard that DRM is much better than IBOC, but the possible
> profits to be made with higher fees are better with IBOC. DRM also does
> not cause as much QRM as IBOC does. Plus the audio quality with DRM is
> better. Anyone ever compare the two?
Right now, it's so
I have also heard that DRM is much better than IBOC, but the possible
profits to be made with higher fees are better with IBOC. DRM also does
not cause as much QRM as IBOC does. Plus the audio quality with DRM is
better. Anyone ever compare the two?
73,
Patrick
Patrick Martin
KAVT Reception Mana
12 matches
Mail list logo
