In article ,
Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Gegroet,


Telamon schreef:
For One and All, ABOUT - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) DRM =
http://www.drm.org/.

ALL you need to know is that the implementation was screwed up and
over hyped. OH YEAH and it was lied about a lot buy the DRM
organization. AND it takes up more bandwidth than it was supposed
too. BUT it is just another system than the current analog with its
mixed bag of pluses and minuses, which make it no better than the
current analog system so why change to it?

Aren't you mixing up DRM with IBOC-AM?

Nope. I'm talking about Deception Radio Mondiale.

DRM might bring people back to LW/MW/SW and they might not even know
it.

LW and MW are around 24/7 but SW stations change frequencies all
the time. It takes a little more effort to find a SW station.

One of the things with DRM (and especially with the DAB/DRM chipset
now available) is that the user will just be presented with a list of
stations and he will just have to pick the one from the list. She
will not know if she is listening to a DAB broadcast at 1.4 Ghz or
long-wave at below 200 Khz.

Most women are clueless about technology but what about us guys?

But seriously what station is going to broadcast the whole SW station
schedule in the background data stream. Do you have any idea how big
that is? You would need to do this because schedules (times and
frequencies) change all the time.

DRM has two major advantages: - it does away with fading, which is
one of the things people find most annoying about LW/MW/SW. The
"audio-quality" aspect is a bit mood as it all depends on what mode
you are using and I think for most people is not the most important
element. But if you produce a stable signal without fading, this
would make LW/MW/SW broadcasts quite acceptable by most people.

1. Fading
a. Fading is replaced with dropouts. I fail to understand how that can
even be considered an improvement.

b. I don't find it the most annoying thing.

c. Analog has sync detection, which eliminates most of the fading most
of the time. This is much better than drop outs.

2. Audio quality.
a. I have several analog radios that during real SW reception sound much
better than the audio demonstration files on the DRM website.

b. An analog radio with sync detection would sound better than a DRM
radio using the same radio spectrum bandwidth.

c. No LW broadcast in NA but I find that MW and SW are quite acceptable.

(The term "near-FM" is marketing talk, just ignore it).

No I won't ignore it. The better sound quality hype is just another
example of the sales deception that surrounds the DRM technology.

It allows broadcasters to break into certain markets by broadcasting
from abroad. BCE (RTL's broadcasting arm) plan to use it to broadcast
using DRM on LW, MW and SW towards different countries.

I don't know about this. What exactly does the DRM technology have to do
with enabling markets?

The new frequencies on LW and MW they have requested at the ITU are
279 Khz (Junglinster towards Germany), 567 Khz (Clervoux towards the
Netherlands), 783 Khz (Beidweiler towards France) and 1098 Khz
(Clervoux towards Belgium).

I'm happy this is not in my part of the world.

For SW, they have asked the HFCC for coordination for two
frequencies: 5990 and 6095 Khz.

I would prefer that the DRM transmissions stay out of the international
broadcast bands and stick to the digital utility frequencies.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California