> > 100.7 is a frequency. But 120.7 is not. It's meaningless.
> That doesn't matter, apparently, to the listeners. You can
> be a purist all you want, but if "120.7" makes sense to the
> person trying to find your station, why would you want to
> keep a cumbersome system like "WXXX-2" instead?
> Also, note that under DTV there are going to be a lot of
> stations whose "channel number" is unrelated to their
> broadcast frequency.
> > And what if a station has three or five multicasts?
> Perhaps you are not in the category below ("people who know
> what multicasts are") ... HD radio only allows for two
OK. I didn't know that.
Lemme ask you this: are multicasts like sidebands? Like SSB.
Like the existing subcarriers used for special programming?
(I don't know a lot aboput any of these, so keep that in mind.)
> > Maybe they should have polled people who know what
> > multicasts are.
> No, I think it is far better to find out what the average
> radio listener thinks the easiest identification is than to
> poll a bunch of technogeek purists.
> > I'd say 100.7-A through 100.7-Z should be sufficient for a
> > long time.
> And I, who both know the technology and understand how
> listeners think, would say "120.7" is perfectly adequate and
So it would have to go through 147.9?
73s from 954
NEW YEAR'S EDITION JUST POSTED 12/30:
with highlights of New Year's Eve Programming!