Originally Posted by tpreitzel
Isn't it ironic that some members who complain about the quality of audio with 16 QAM modulation only know because 16 QAM modulation allowed them to judge in the first place by enabling decoding.
Other members feel compelled to use the SpyNet which allows them to circumvent poor configurations, e.g 64 QAM modulation, by using a receiver closer to the center of a broadcast's beam. Although 16 QAM modulation isn't a panacea for every eventuality on shortwave, it'll be the default eventually regardless of mine or Clint's insistence. Why? 16 QAM is somewhat reliable to decode on SW with most receivers while 64 QAM is not. No amount of words will change this fact.
BTW, Clint, since you did such an excellent job persuading Radiocom to switch to 16 QAM modulation, can you convince them to switch two digltal SW broadcasts of RRI, one to S. America and one to N. America, to the xHE-AAC codec from ancient AAC+ while maintaining 16 QAM modulation? Include SBR/PS if Radiocom agrees and ask Radiocom to avoid frequencies used by Cuba, e.g. 7335 kHz. If you do and RRI maintains such a configuration for awhile, at least 6 months, I'll pay you $100 which should cover shipping charges for a new GR-216 to Brazil. Just don't ask me to register with PayPal
Certainly 7330 from RRI at night has been greatly affected by Havana Cuba 7335. This week is testing on 11650 kHz, and as requested, I am sending feedback to the broadcaster, including the AAC + SBR codec issue.
It would be very nice to have the Gospell GR 216