Dear Sir,

I tghink the problem is complicated and not easily addressed. The BBC
and some other international broadcasters evidently feel that shortwave
is "done" and they are moving onto "other" means of delivery. Yet the
"religious" broadcasters appear to be increasing their shortwave
presence and they depend upon listeners to send them financial support.
Would they increase their shortwave presence if they were not seeing
results?

In my opinion, the shortwave equipment quandary is the same as the
high-fidelity equipment one - the mass audience seems to be happy with
"lo-fi" sound from their CDs and iPods and they "ooh and ah" when they
hear good sound but then they do nothing about their own sad situation.
To be frank, most of today's music is trash anyway, in my opinion, and
the "multi-channel" "synthesized" sound (which could never be actually
performed live) is not high fidelity in the first place, so it just
doesn't matter how it's recorded or played back. The audience for
better music (classical, jazz, Broadway shows, etc.) is small and the
recording companies have little interest in other than a mass audience.
And it appears that good sound reproducing apparatus is low on the mass
audiences' list of priorities. (It is out there, of course, and
well-worth seeking out.)

The same applies to the big international broadcasters (as well as the
radio manufacturers) - they have NO IDEA (they have NEVER had any idea)
of the size of their shortwave audience so they assume that since
"everybody" has a computer, "nobody" listens to shortwave any more and
"everybody" listens on their computers (or on their local "educational"
FM outlets)!

Well, I for one, do NOT listen on my computer (and I can't stand NPR
for the most part - I can''t stand the idiotic "conservative"
talk-shows either) and those stations which have abandoned the
shortwaves are just not heard by me (one example is Switzerland).

I can presume that the manufacturing end "thoughts" are the same as the
high-end hi-fi one - "everybody" buys "only" portables so why bother to
manufacture a high quality tabletop unit, notwithstanding that, once
properly designed, the units can be marketed for many years without
change, thus amortizing the initial design costs. (The AOR AR7030, for
example, has been manufactured for over ten years now and, though the
factory does improve the design as problems and./or solutions become
apparent - they are VERY responsive that way - their design costs have
been minimal in recent years.) Part of the reason that radios may be
discontinued is that a needed part may itself have been discontinued
and therefore the set, as designed, can no longer be made. And the
manufacturers, knowing that the market for expensive radios is small
(and has ALWAYS been small), think that, rather than design a new
highe-end radio, they can make more money making HDTVs, DVD blanks, or
Condensed Soup.

Even though it's far from perfect, look at the ICOM IC-R75. It sells
for about $600.00 and, even with a few modifications bringing its
ultimate cost up to around $1000.00, it still sells and performs well.
It would be nice if ICOM itself would make a few (much-needed)
modifications, but, even without them, we have Kiwa to help improve
this receiver to somewhere in the vicinity of where it ought to be. If
ICOM can design and manufacture a radio to such high standards at such
a relatively low price, why can't others? I do believe that such radios
would indeed sell and would sell over many years.

The Chinese manufacturers evidently agree with me as they keep
introducing new models and their offerings are becoming more and more
sophisticated and, I hope, their quality of constructon is improving
also. Even India is getting into the game with the Eton E1. There have
been shortwave radios manufactured in India for many years but this is
the first model of which I am aware that has been marketed in the
United States.

Maybe the true fact is that some companies "get it" and others "do
not." AOR is hanging in there, so is ICOM, and, most definitely, so is
Eton. And CRI has been increasing its English-language schedule even
while others are decreasing theirs.

And who knows - maybe, as someone else has said here, Ten-tec is
planning to bring out a new, improved "mid-priced" tabletop shortwave
receiver.

We can hope.

Best,

Joe

Wun Hung Lo wrote:
Joe Analssandrini wrote:



In my opinion, should one wish to have a modern, well-designed,
shortwave communications receiver, of which there are fewer and fewer
choices,

Joe, you're right--there are fewer and fewer choices--and on that basis,
now might be the time to buy.

On the other hand, we have to ask the obvious question: WHY are there
fewer and fewer choices?

At least two obvious answers come to mind:

1)The manufacturers see fewer buyers for their products.

2) Maybe the -manufacturers- view short wave as, if not dying, at least
tapering off, with less to listen to and therefore fewer potential buyers.

If the market was there, one would think the manufacturers would be
there to satisfy the demand.

Is the hand writing on the wall?