----- Original Message -----

From: Jochen Siegenthaler

To: LPFM_Radio@...

Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:15 AM

Subject: Re: [LPFM] The dilemma of UP FM

Now there is a novel idea - except it means a change in management
rights for Government spectrum - and thus it needs to happen at probably
Ministerial level

Jochen

>>> alnairgrus@... 15/06/04 >>>
They should allow Auckland to use 87.8 to 88.4 due to the restrictions
and 88.4 is fairly useless anyway.
 
Michael

Matt Camp <matt@...> wrote:

He told me the same thing.

We had UPFM's own tech (well, the guy they contract) to come tune our
gear and in reality it didn't make any difference at

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential to our
organisation and may be subject to legal privilege. If you have received
this email in error, please advise the sender immediately by return email
and destroy the message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, distribution, amendment, copying
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of this message or
attachments is prohibited. Views expressed in this email may not be those
of the originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<< GWAVASIG >>>>


---------------------------------------------------------
LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     LPFM_Radio-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://au.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

And of course you'd ask for 87.5 to 88.4 as most radios tune down to
87.5

J

>>> Jochen.Siegenthaler@... 15/06/04 >>>
Now there is a novel idea - except it means a change in management
rights for Government spectrum - and thus it needs to happen at
probably
Ministerial level

Jochen

>>> alnairgrus@... 15/06/04 >>>
They should allow Auckland to use 87.8 to 88.4 due to the restrictions
and 88.4 is fairly useless anyway.

Michael

Matt Camp <matt@...> wrote:

He told me the same thing.

We had UPFM's own tech (well, the guy they contract) to come tune our
gear and in reality it didn't make any difference at

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential to our
organisation and may be subject to legal privilege. If you have
received
this email in error, please advise the sender immediately by return
email
and destroy the message and any attachments. If you are not the
intended
recipient you are notified that any use, distribution, amendment,
copying
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of this message
or
attachments is prohibited. Views expressed in this email may not be
those
of the originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<< GWAVASIG >>>>


---------------------------------------------------------
LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
Yahoo! Groups Links

Andrew,

I'm interested in attending - as an independent technical type, without
any affiliation to any station.

Would there be room for me?
Do I have to bring a plate?

Jochen

>>> dubber@... 15/06/04 >>>
> You can start to see why licenced frequencies are licenced - the
> licences give them protection against interference and prevent these
> sort of situations developing.

...and the reason unlicenced operators need to meet together to
discuss problems such as these in an attempt to find a mutually
beneficial agreement. Perhaps even a case for a centralised body to
maintain a register of frequencies - but that will come up on the
agenda (to be posted this afternoon).

To date, I have the following broadcasters confirmed as having
representation at the meeting of Auckland LPFM-ers next week:

Static
Twisted
Up FM
TLC Radio
Radio Chomsky
The Flea
KFM
Radio Southern Cross
Base FM
Spider FM
Bay Classics
Hope City


So far, no word from Julia, Fleet, or CBFM - but I've sent them all
invitation emails. Nothing from Wairau either (not sure how to get in
touch with them directly yet) - and I'm not altogether sure who is
responsible for the Tourist FM signal.

Come to think of it, I should probably get in touch with the NZ
Foundation for the Blind - don't they operate a transmitter in the
Newmarket/Parnell area?

Apna have declined with thanks (understandably), but Shyam has asked
to have a meeting with me privately. Might be another thing
altogether, but are there any pressing issues you'd like me to raise
with respect to operation of the low power FM band when I go for a
chat with him? Email me off the list for that one please...

There are also a couple of independent technical types, one or two
potential new broadcasters and one of my students, who has been
charged with the duty of relaying the content of the meeting to the
other members of his class.

I have deliberately left MED representation out of it for now - partly
because they're busy people (who isn't?), but mostly because it would
make sense for the LPFM broadcasters to decide what their position on
including them in such meetings might be...

Anyone else I'm missing?

Cheers,

Dubber


---------------------------------------------------------
LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
Yahoo! Groups Links





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential to our
organisation and may be subject to legal privilege. If you have received
this email in error, please advise the sender immediately by return email
and destroy the message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, distribution, amendment, copying
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of this message or
attachments is prohibited. Views expressed in this email may not be those
of the originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<< GWAVASIG >>>>

Now there is a novel idea - except it means a change in management
rights for Government spectrum - and thus it needs to happen at probably
Ministerial level

Jochen

>>> alnairgrus@... 15/06/04 >>>
They should allow Auckland to use 87.8 to 88.4 due to the restrictions
and 88.4 is fairly useless anyway.

Michael

Matt Camp <matt@...> wrote:

He told me the same thing.

We had UPFM's own tech (well, the guy they contract) to come tune our
gear and in reality it didn't make any difference at

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential to our
organisation and may be subject to legal privilege. If you have received
this email in error, please advise the sender immediately by return email
and destroy the message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, distribution, amendment, copying
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of this message or
attachments is prohibited. Views expressed in this email may not be those
of the originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<< GWAVASIG >>>>

Totally agree that cooperation is the best way to go.

But even with cooperation how do you address the issue of trying to fit
a baker's dozen into a 12-egg carton?

And how do you manage the situation in 6 months time when 2 more eggs
want to get in the carton?

I don't know the answer...... except that full is full

And what if you cannot reach a 'mutually' beneficial agreement?

J


>>> dubber@... 15/06/04 >>>
> You can start to see why licenced frequencies are licenced - the
> licences give them protection against interference and prevent these
> sort of situations developing.

...and the reason unlicenced operators need to meet together to
discuss problems such as these in an attempt to find a mutually
beneficial agreement. Perhaps even a case for a centralised body to
maintain a register of frequencies - but that will come up on the
agenda (to be posted this afternoon).

To date, I have the following broadcasters confirmed as having
representation at the meeting of Auckland LPFM-ers next week:

Static
Twisted
Up FM
TLC Radio
Radio Chomsky
The Flea
KFM
Radio Southern Cross
Base FM
Spider FM
Bay Classics
Hope City


So far, no word from Julia, Fleet, or CBFM - but I've sent them all
invitation emails. Nothing from Wairau either (not sure how to get in
touch with them directly yet) - and I'm not altogether sure who is
responsible for the Tourist FM signal.

Come to think of it, I should probably get in touch with the NZ
Foundation for the Blind - don't they operate a transmitter in the
Newmarket/Parnell area?

Apna have declined with thanks (understandably), but Shyam has asked
to have a meeting with me privately. Might be another thing
altogether, but are there any pressing issues you'd like me to raise
with respect to operation of the low power FM band when I go for a
chat with him? Email me off the list for that one please...

There are also a couple of independent technical types, one or two
potential new broadcasters and one of my students, who has been
charged with the duty of relaying the content of the meeting to the
other members of his class.

I have deliberately left MED representation out of it for now - partly
because they're busy people (who isn't?), but mostly because it would
make sense for the LPFM broadcasters to decide what their position on
including them in such meetings might be...

Anyone else I'm missing?

Cheers,

Dubber


---------------------------------------------------------
LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
Yahoo! Groups Links





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential to our
organisation and may be subject to legal privilege. If you have received
this email in error, please advise the sender immediately by return email
and destroy the message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, distribution, amendment, copying
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of this message or
attachments is prohibited. Views expressed in this email may not be those
of the originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<< GWAVASIG >>>>

> You can start to see why licenced frequencies are licenced - the
> licences give them protection against interference and prevent these
> sort of situations developing.

...and the reason unlicenced operators need to meet together to
discuss problems such as these in an attempt to find a mutually
beneficial agreement. Perhaps even a case for a centralised body to
maintain a register of frequencies - but that will come up on the
agenda (to be posted this afternoon).

To date, I have the following broadcasters confirmed as having
representation at the meeting of Auckland LPFM-ers next week:

Static
Twisted
Up FM
TLC Radio
Radio Chomsky
The Flea
KFM
Radio Southern Cross
Base FM
Spider FM
Bay Classics
Hope City


So far, no word from Julia, Fleet, or CBFM - but I've sent them all
invitation emails. Nothing from Wairau either (not sure how to get in
touch with them directly yet) - and I'm not altogether sure who is
responsible for the Tourist FM signal.

Come to think of it, I should probably get in touch with the NZ
Foundation for the Blind - don't they operate a transmitter in the
Newmarket/Parnell area?

Apna have declined with thanks (understandably), but Shyam has asked
to have a meeting with me privately. Might be another thing
altogether, but are there any pressing issues you'd like me to raise
with respect to operation of the low power FM band when I go for a
chat with him? Email me off the list for that one please...

There are also a couple of independent technical types, one or two
potential new broadcasters and one of my students, who has been
charged with the duty of relaying the content of the meeting to the
other members of his class.

I have deliberately left MED representation out of it for now - partly
because they're busy people (who isn't?), but mostly because it would
make sense for the LPFM broadcasters to decide what their position on
including them in such meetings might be...

Anyone else I'm missing?

Cheers,

Dubber

Hi Bob,

Don't confuse the 75kHz deviation with meaning that you occupy 75kHz of
spectrum bandwidth

You need to consider Carsons Rule

The maximum deviation allowed in NZ is 75kHz - set by the MED.
With wideband FM the maximum modulating frequency is 15kHz

Carsons Rule states occupied bandwidth = 2 x (MaxDeviation +
modulationFreq)
Therefore with 75kHz deviation and 15kHz audio you occupy 180kHz of FM
spectrum
Pretty much true for stereo or mono

This means your signal occupies from your carrier frequency -90kHz, to
+90kHz

So if you are transmitting on 107.5, you occupy the space between
107.41 to 107.59
Another station on 107.6 occupies 107.51 to 107.69

So you see that if the stations are spaced 0.1MHz apart, and are in the
same coverage area, then the signals overlap with the result being bad
audible interference.

You CANNOT prevent this unless you either
a) change frequency to give yourself more separation from the other
transmitter
b) change your location so the transmission don't have overlapping
coverage areas
c) reduce BOTH stations deviation to 35kHz max. You do this by turning
your volume way down. But then the station sounds much quieter than
everyone elses, and the signal-to-noise deteriorates.

No easy answer.
You can start to see why licenced frequencies are licenced - the
licences give them protection against interference and prevent these
sort of situations developing.

Regards, Jochen


>>> bob@... 15/06/04 >>>
Basically I don't want to spend the money to run the Tx remotely,
besides it
cost several thousand to get the crane in to install the 15 M mast that
I have.

What you all are telling is is exactly what I expected to hear, but was

starting to doubt myself.

Robert

On 15 Jun 2004 at 1:35, DaveD wrote:

> Robert S Dew wrote:
> >
> > Jarra is trying to tell me that if I reduce my deviation I wouldn't
have the
> > cross channel interference that I'm getting from him.
> >
> > Can anybody tell me if this is correct.
> >
> > They (UP FM) are only 0.1 from us with a physical separation of 8
Kms
> >
> > I realise that being higher than us they will get a better
distance, which I
> > believe is also part of the problem.
> >
> > I estimate that they are 120 m above sea level while ours is 30 m
> >
> > Robert
> > TLC Radio
> >
>
> Sounds like B/S to me
>
> If you reduce your deviation, your modulation peaks will be less
> noticeable to his listeners, and your listeners will notice an
apparent
> lowering of volume on their receivers, (Less recovered audio) and
> probably more "interference" from him.
>
> If on the other hand he reduces his, your listeners will notice less
of
> his mod peaks.
>
> You and I know that 200 kHz spacing works reasonably well 8-). Who is
on
> 107.5 apart from me out west, that up might upset. I don't get to
the
> inner city very often.
>
> Are there any other sites you might be able to use, Robert, to get
> better height.
>
> Dave
> SpiderFM 107.5



---------------------------------------------------------
LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
Yahoo! Groups Links





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential to our
organisation and may be subject to legal privilege. If you have received
this email in error, please advise the sender immediately by return email
and destroy the message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, distribution, amendment, copying
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of this message or
attachments is prohibited. Views expressed in this email may not be those
of the originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<< GWAVASIG >>>>

He told me the same thing.

We had UPFM's own tech (well, the guy they contract) to come tune our
gear and in reality it didn't make any difference at

I'm hopeful of being there, just depends on my work schedule, and that I don't
know for sure until 9pm the night before.

Robert

On 14 Jun 2004 at 12:26, akwccr wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> My understanding is that the deviation is not related to range to any
> extent. Here is an extract from my TX manual:
>
> 6. Connect an audio source to both channels and apply a 400hz tone
> with a level of +6 dbu. Make sure the gain controls are set to
> maximum (Fully clockwise). These are multiturn so make sure you
> hear / feel the pots click indicating end of travel.
>
> 7. Work out the the pilot level you intend to use. It is usually
> between 8 and 10 percent of the modulation with 9 percent being
> standard in most countries. 9 percent corresponds to 6.75 KHz
> deviation so for a total peak deviation of 75 KHz (the industry
> standard for 100 percent modulation) we need to adjust the multiplex
> level for a peak deviation of 68.25 KHz (91 percent modulation). This
> corresponds to the total minus the intended pilot level that we will
> re-introduce in a moment. We recommend further backing off the
> deviation by 4 % which equates to 3 KHz deviation. This 4 % acts as a
> guard-band for any small overshoots that may occur in the limiter and
> the stereo encoder filters. You should at this point with your tones
> applied have a peak deviation of 75 KHz - 6.75KHz (or intended pilot
> level) - 3 KHz = 65.25KHz. If you have not already done so, adjust
> the multiplex input level on the back panel to this level. If you are
> using the LCD display metering then 65 KHz would be an acceptable set-
> ting.
>
> 8. Reinstate the pilot by setting jumper J11 to stereo. Now adjust
> the pilot level control VR6 for a peak deviation of. The previous
> setting plus the intended pilot level. In our example this would mean
> setting the deviation at 72KHz.
> This equates to our modulation and pilot leaving 3 KHz for our guard-
> band.
>
> 9. Set the limiter to ON with jumper J8. Decide on Clarity or loud
> mode for the limiter and set jumpers J4 and J5 accordingly.
> =================================================================
>
> I think that any deviation above 75 Khz interferes with adjacent
> channels, and this is really the problem 'cos 0.1 MHz spacing is
> pretty hard for receivers to handle if there are two strongish
> signals on adjacent channels.
>
> The height difference between you and UP is HUGE!
>
> BTW, are you going to the meeting organised by Andrew Dubber next
> week? I have copped an evening shift so will most likely be unable to
> attend.
>
> -P.

Basically I don't want to spend the money to run the Tx remotely, besides it
cost several thousand to get the crane in to install the 15 M mast that I have.

What you all are telling is is exactly what I expected to hear, but was
starting to doubt myself.

Robert

On 15 Jun 2004 at 1:35, DaveD wrote:

> Robert S Dew wrote:
> >
> > Jarra is trying to tell me that if I reduce my deviation I wouldn't have the
> > cross channel interference that I'm getting from him.
> >
> > Can anybody tell me if this is correct.
> >
> > They (UP FM) are only 0.1 from us with a physical separation of 8 Kms
> >
> > I realise that being higher than us they will get a better distance, which I
> > believe is also part of the problem.
> >
> > I estimate that they are 120 m above sea level while ours is 30 m
> >
> > Robert
> > TLC Radio
> >
>
> Sounds like B/S to me
>
> If you reduce your deviation, your modulation peaks will be less
> noticeable to his listeners, and your listeners will notice an apparent
> lowering of volume on their receivers, (Less recovered audio) and
> probably more "interference" from him.
>
> If on the other hand he reduces his, your listeners will notice less of
> his mod peaks.
>
> You and I know that 200 kHz spacing works reasonably well 8-). Who is on
> 107.5 apart from me out west, that up might upset. I don't get to the
> inner city very often.
>
> Are there any other sites you might be able to use, Robert, to get
> better height.
>
> Dave
> SpiderFM 107.5

Robert S Dew wrote:
>
> Jarra is trying to tell me that if I reduce my deviation I wouldn't have the
> cross channel interference that I'm getting from him.
>
> Can anybody tell me if this is correct.
>
> They (UP FM) are only 0.1 from us with a physical separation of 8 Kms
>
> I realise that being higher than us they will get a better distance, which I
> believe is also part of the problem.
>
> I estimate that they are 120 m above sea level while ours is 30 m
>
> Robert
> TLC Radio
>

Sounds like B/S to me

If you reduce your deviation, your modulation peaks will be less
noticeable to his listeners, and your listeners will notice an apparent
lowering of volume on their receivers, (Less recovered audio) and
probably more "interference" from him.

If on the other hand he reduces his, your listeners will notice less of
his mod peaks.

You and I know that 200 kHz spacing works reasonably well 8-). Who is on
107.5 apart from me out west, that up might upset. I don't get to the
inner city very often.

Are there any other sites you might be able to use, Robert, to get
better height.

Dave
SpiderFM 107.5

Hi Robert,

My understanding is that the deviation is not related to range to any
extent. Here is an extract from my TX manual:

6. Connect an audio source to both channels and apply a 400hz tone
with a level of +6 dbu. Make sure the gain controls are set to
maximum (Fully clockwise). These are multiturn so make sure you
hear / feel the pots click indicating end of travel.

7. Work out the the pilot level you intend to use. It is usually
between 8 and 10 percent of the modulation with 9 percent being
standard in most countries. 9 percent corresponds to 6.75 KHz
deviation so for a total peak deviation of 75 KHz (the industry
standard for 100 percent modulation) we need to adjust the multiplex
level for a peak deviation of 68.25 KHz (91 percent modulation). This
corresponds to the total minus the intended pilot level that we will
re-introduce in a moment. We recommend further backing off the
deviation by 4 % which equates to 3 KHz deviation. This 4 % acts as a
guard-band for any small overshoots that may occur in the limiter and
the stereo encoder filters. You should at this point with your tones
applied have a peak deviation of 75 KHz - 6.75KHz (or intended pilot
level) - 3 KHz = 65.25KHz. If you have not already done so, adjust
the multiplex input level on the back panel to this level. If you are
using the LCD display metering then 65 KHz would be an acceptable set-
ting.

8. Reinstate the pilot by setting jumper J11 to stereo. Now adjust
the pilot level control VR6 for a peak deviation of. The previous
setting plus the intended pilot level. In our example this would mean
setting the deviation at 72KHz.
This equates to our modulation and pilot leaving 3 KHz for our guard-
band.

9. Set the limiter to ON with jumper J8. Decide on Clarity or loud
mode for the limiter and set jumpers J4 and J5 accordingly.
=================================================================

I think that any deviation above 75 Khz interferes with adjacent
channels, and this is really the problem 'cos 0.1 MHz spacing is
pretty hard for receivers to handle if there are two strongish
signals on adjacent channels.

The height difference between you and UP is HUGE!

BTW, are you going to the meeting organised by Andrew Dubber next
week? I have copped an evening shift so will most likely be unable to
attend.

-P.


--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Robert S Dew" <bob@d...> wrote:
> Jarra is trying to tell me that if I reduce my deviation I wouldn't
have the
> cross channel interference that I'm getting from him.
>
> Can anybody tell me if this is correct.
>
> They (UP FM) are only 0.1 from us with a physical separation of 8
Kms
>
> I realise that being higher than us they will get a better
distance, which I
> believe is also part of the problem.
>
> I estimate that they are 120 m above sea level while ours is 30 m
>
> Robert
> TLC Radio
>
> On 11 Jun 2004 at 10:43, akwccr wrote:
>
> > I have uploaded to the Files section here a PDF file from
> > http://www.internews.ru/books/radiohandbook/index.html which
covers a
> > lot of theory in layman-speak (quite old but still relevant). In
the
> > chapter on "POWER. HEIGHT & SIGNAL RANGE", there is a good
> > explanation of how these are inter-related. In short, one can
gain
> > far more with an increase in height than an increase in power.
Worth
> > a look IMHO. -P.

He told me the same thing.

We had UPFM's own tech (well, the guy they contract) to come tune our
gear and in reality it didn't make any difference at all....

In THEORY if your deviation is incorrect then it harms your range and
signal stability, but even having perfectly tuned gear will not mitigate
the interference from a station .1 away from you.

Myself and JuliaFM went through this exact same situation and it didn't
end happily for anyone...

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Robert S Dew wrote:

> Jarra is trying to tell me that if I reduce my deviation I wouldn't have the
> cross channel interference that I'm getting from him.
>
> Can anybody tell me if this is correct.
>
> They (UP FM) are only 0.1 from us with a physical separation of 8 Kms
>
> I realise that being higher than us they will get a better distance, which I
> believe is also part of the problem.
>
> I estimate that they are 120 m above sea level while ours is 30 m
>
> Robert
> TLC Radio
>
> On 11 Jun 2004 at 10:43, akwccr wrote:
>
> > I have uploaded to the Files section here a PDF file from
> > http://www.internews.ru/books/radiohandbook/index.html which covers a
> > lot of theory in layman-speak (quite old but still relevant). In the
> > chapter on "POWER. HEIGHT & SIGNAL RANGE", there is a good
> > explanation of how these are inter-related. In short, one can gain
> > far more with an increase in height than an increase in power. Worth
> > a look IMHO. -P.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

---
Matt Camp
Station Manager
Twisted Radio 107.7FM

Jarra is trying to tell me that if I reduce my deviation I wouldn't have the
cross channel interference that I'm getting from him.

Can anybody tell me if this is correct.

They (UP FM) are only 0.1 from us with a physical separation of 8 Kms

I realise that being higher than us they will get a better distance, which I
believe is also part of the problem.

I estimate that they are 120 m above sea level while ours is 30 m

Robert
TLC Radio

On 11 Jun 2004 at 10:43, akwccr wrote:

> I have uploaded to the Files section here a PDF file from
> http://www.internews.ru/books/radiohandbook/index.html which covers a
> lot of theory in layman-speak (quite old but still relevant). In the
> chapter on "POWER. HEIGHT & SIGNAL RANGE", there is a good
> explanation of how these are inter-related. In short, one can gain
> far more with an increase in height than an increase in power. Worth
> a look IMHO. -P.

I have uploaded to the Files section here a PDF file from
http://www.internews.ru/books/radiohandbook/index.html which covers a
lot of theory in layman-speak (quite old but still relevant). In the
chapter on "POWER. HEIGHT & SIGNAL RANGE", there is a good
explanation of how these are inter-related. In short, one can gain
far more with an increase in height than an increase in power. Worth
a look IMHO. -P.


--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Jochen Siegenthaler"
<Jochen.Siegenthaler@b...> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Time for some theory:
>
> A LPFM station radiating -3dBW (0.5W EIRP), on a good site, with no
> obstructions, has the following reach:
>
> Urban grade stereo reception: 2.5 km (for 66dBuV/m)
>
> Rural grade stereo reception: 10 km (for 54dBuV/m)
>
> Mono grade reception: 14km (for 48dBuV/m)
>
> These are the specs set back in the 60s or 70s. Modern day receivers
> with good antennas work quite a bit better.
> So if a modern day receive could happliy work with, say, 42dBuV/m,
then
> the reach would be 27km.
>
> Given that Manukau City is approx 15km from Mt Hobson, it is
entirely
> possible that a modern receiver can receive a 0.5W LPFM service
provided
> the path is good and no obstructions exist.
>
> Cheers, Jochen
>
>
>
> >>> alnairgrus@y... 11/06/04 >>>
> They could be on a hill? As 88.2 when Tourist used to broadcast it
got
> over a large part of the city with its West Auckland translator.
>
> Michael
>
> Robert S Dew <bob@d...> wrote:
> UP FM is still causing me great problems.
>
> I have had listeners tell me that it comes in clearly in Manukau
City,
> which
> has got to mean that they are way over power.
>
> He claims that he isn't but I suspect that he's got to be.
>
> Any suggestions on how I go about establishing what power is is
> radiating, and
> if as suspected I find he is over power, how do I do something
about it
> without
> feeling guilty about potting him.
>
> Robert
> TLC Radio - 107.7 Otahuhu
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential to our
> organisation and may be subject to legal privilege. If you have
received
> this email in error, please advise the sender immediately by return
email
> and destroy the message and any attachments. If you are not the
intended
> recipient you are notified that any use, distribution, amendment,
copying
> or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of this
message or
> attachments is prohibited. Views expressed in this email may not be
those
> of the originating organisation.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> <<<< GWAVASIG >>>>

Hi,

On Tuesday 22nd of June at 5.30pm, there is to be a meeting of
representatives of Low Power FM users in the Auckland region. There
have been disputes recently over use of spectrum and although these
have largely been resolved, all involved parties have agreed that it
would be sensible to establish some sort of user's group to prevent
such matters arising again - and, perhaps, to act as a more powerful
lobby group for issues relating to guard band broadcasting.

As something of an independent observer (though my students run Static
on 88.1FM in the CBD), it has fallen to me to organise the meeting.
For the sake of manageability, I would appreciate it if just one
representative from each station be nominated to attend the first
meeting.

If you wish to be there, could you please get in touch with me
directly (contact details below) and I will give you the details and
supply you with an agenda, so that you can discuss it with your
colleagues and have a representative opinion from your station
prepared before you arrive.

If you know of someone who should receive an invitation to this
meeting (and there are quite a few I do not have contact details for),
could you please either put them in touch with me, or give me their
contact details so that I can invite them too.

There are, of course, many issues to discuss. The first, and most
important issue will be the structure of the group. You may wish to
think about how this should work. Do you want it to be an incorporated
society or a casual users group? Do we need somebody appointed to run
it - and what characteristics should that person have (should it, for
instance, be somebody who doesn't have a station)?

Chris Hocquard has kindly agreed to chair the first meeting. He is
someone with a thorough knowledge of the law, experience in radio, an
interest in broadcasting policy, an understanding of alternative
media, experience conducting board meetings - and has no stake
whatsoever in a Low Power FM station in the Auckland market.

My contact details are as follows:

Andrew Dubber
Curriculum Leader, Radio
School of Communication Studies
Auckland University of Technology
ph: 917-9999 ext 8489 (wk)
ph: 379-5116 (hm)
email: dubber@...
_____________________________________________
The Wireless Weblog:
http://thewireless.blogspot.com

Hi all,

Time for some theory:

A LPFM station radiating -3dBW (0.5W EIRP), on a good site, with no
obstructions, has the following reach:

Urban grade stereo reception: 2.5 km (for 66dBuV/m)

Rural grade stereo reception: 10 km (for 54dBuV/m)

Mono grade reception: 14km (for 48dBuV/m)

These are the specs set back in the 60s or 70s. Modern day receivers
with good antennas work quite a bit better.
So if a modern day receive could happliy work with, say, 42dBuV/m, then
the reach would be 27km.

Given that Manukau City is approx 15km from Mt Hobson, it is entirely
possible that a modern receiver can receive a 0.5W LPFM service provided
the path is good and no obstructions exist.

Cheers, Jochen



>>> alnairgrus@... 11/06/04 >>>
They could be on a hill? As 88.2 when Tourist used to broadcast it got
over a large part of the city with its West Auckland translator.

Michael

Robert S Dew <bob@...> wrote:
UP FM is still causing me great problems.

I have had listeners tell me that it comes in clearly in Manukau City,
which
has got to mean that they are way over power.

He claims that he isn't but I suspect that he's got to be.

Any suggestions on how I go about establishing what power is is
radiating, and
if as suspected I find he is over power, how do I do something about it
without
feeling guilty about potting him.

Robert
TLC Radio - 107.7 Otahuhu



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAUTION : This email message and attachments are confidential to our
organisation and may be subject to legal privilege. If you have received
this email in error, please advise the sender immediately by return email
and destroy the message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
recipient you are notified that any use, distribution, amendment, copying
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance of this message or
attachments is prohibited. Views expressed in this email may not be those
of the originating organisation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<<<< GWAVASIG >>>>

They are on the side of Mt Hobson, but to drown me out in all directions seems
a little more than a high location given that I'm 7.5 Km from them

On 10 Jun 2004 at 15:37, Michael and Ross wrote:

> They could be on a hill? As 88.2 when Tourist used to broadcast it got over a
> large part of the city with its West Auckland translator.
>
> Michael

UP FM is still causing me great problems.

I have had listeners tell me that it comes in clearly in Manukau City, which
has got to mean that they are way over power.

He claims that he isn't but I suspect that he's got to be.

Any suggestions on how I go about establishing what power is is radiating, and
if as suspected I find he is over power, how do I do something about it without
feeling guilty about potting him.

Robert
TLC Radio - 107.7 Otahuhu

UP FM is still causing me great problems.

I have had listeners tell me that it comes in clearly in Manukau City, which
has got to mean that they are way over power.

He claims that he isn't but I suspect that he's got to be.

Any suggestions on how I go about establishing what power is is radiating, and
if as suspected I find he is over power, how do I do something about it without
feeling guilty about potting him.

Robert
TLC Radio - 107.7 Otahuhu

Hi
I'm in Blenheim at the moment and have noticed a fantastic LPFM station on
88.1 - I think it is called Shed FM, does anybody know who is behind this
little beauty??
cheers

_________________________________________________________________
Watch movie trailers online with the Xtra Broadband Channel
http://xtra.co.nz/broadband

Many thanks..

So far its working

Dave 

>From: "akwccr" <akwccr@...>

>Reply-To: LPFM_Radio@...

>To: LPFM_Radio@...

>Subject: [LPFM] Re: WIN AMP PLUG IN

>Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 06:30:19 -0000

>

>--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Dave Smith"

><radiopegasus@h...> wrote:

> >

>You may also wish to check out this link:

>

>http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?

>cmd=show&ixPost=59310

>

>which contains:

>

>"Kind of off topic, but if you want a better "random" song chooser,

>try this plugin for winamp2 & 3: www.robodj.org

>

>I promise I'm not the guy who wrote it...I just use it. :)

>

>R343L

>Saturday, July 26, 2003"

>

>-P.

>

>

---

Need more speed? Get Xtra JetStream!

---------------------------------------------------------
LPFM Website: http://au.groups.yahoo.com/group/LPFM_Radio

I was in Botany the other day and got a bunch of LPFM stations...

107.6 - UpFM
107.3 - something
107.1 - Radio Fardoh? or something?
106.9 - something
106.7 - something

Shows you how easy it could be to put on a station ID (pref. in
english) right? Should there be a Top Of Hour rule?

Also, has that Unforgettable Music format that I once recieved moved
to 107.4 in Otahuhu - cos theres something calming there now.

cheers all,

I hope they mean bandwidth.

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Dave Smith" <radiopegasus@h...>
wrote:
> Need more speed? Get Xtra JetStream!

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Dave Smith"
<radiopegasus@h...> wrote:
>
You may also wish to check out this link:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?
cmd=show&ixPost=59310

which contains:

"Kind of off topic, but if you want a better "random" song chooser,
try this plugin for winamp2 & 3: www.robodj.org

I promise I'm not the guy who wrote it...I just use it. :)

R343L
Saturday, July 26, 2003"

-P.

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Dave Smith"
<radiopegasus@h...> wrote:

Found the following at
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WinAmp

Looks like others have the same issue.....

> Has anyone else noticed shuffle mode playing the same few hundred
songs and ignoring the rest? -- KyleJerviss

I had the same problem. Just get it to randomize your playlist and
then sequentially play all the tracks. You get all the benefits of
randomness plus the ability to go back or skip tracks.

Sounds to me like the random number resolution phenomenon. Some
random number generators have really poor resolution, resulting in
only a subset of a large pool being selected over and over again.
This is my personal explanation for why the same people get selected
for jury duty over and over again when the process is handled by the
lowest-bidder MicrosoftWindows software that it is (at least in my
county). (Yes, yes, I know, AmericanCulturalAssumption. Well,
SodOff?.) -- MattBehrens

which is why I dont work at BCL. I stand corrected.

Cheers

--- In LPFM_Radio@..., "Jochen Siegenthaler"
<Jochen.Siegenthaler@b...> wrote:
> Yeah but...
>
> Translators are not synchronous.
>
> Running transmitters on the same frequency for the same service, but
> without any synchronisation, is also not synchronous.
>
> What George did was not by any step of the imagination synchronous.
>
> Jamie specifically asked for synchronous.... he mentioned "waves in
> sync"
>
> Of course, you can run as many transmitters as you are allowed to
> (within the Radio Regs) and run them all on the same frequency if you
> wish, and don't bother with any synchronisation if you wish.
>
> If you don't synchronise them, then you have to put up with the
> resultant, uncontrollable, mush zone.
>
> If you DO synchronise them (and thats were the $60k box comes in) then
> the mush zone is much much much much smaller, and can be tightly
> controlled
>
> So please don't confuse translators, what George did using Sky, or
> multiple non-synced transmitters as a synchronous FM solution. Because
> they are not.
>
> Regards, Jochen