dxAce wrote:

msg wrote:

dxAce wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:


"dxAce" wrote in message
...


More QRM.


On the other hand, if this works, it could become a revitalizing force for
SW to cover sparsely populated and remote areas of the world and even
reverse the decline in SW station numbers.

Like your stupid IBOC works?

Pay attention, 'Eduardo', it will only mean more QRM.


I do not have the luxury of living in a radio quiet area; I battle
monumental QRN and RFI from hosts of consumer and industrial devices.
I for one, would welcome a reliable modulation method that punches
through that mess, and if a digital scheme on SW that respects
known adjacent channels will do this, I am interested.

Forget it. DRM = QRM.




I know I'm going to hell for this, but.....


If IBOC kept it's crap within the channel of the station's
allocation, it wouldn't be near the problem it is, today. That's where
it differs from DRM. DRM is contained within channel, and provides,
often-but not always, better audio clarity, with surprisingly less power.

Not to say I'm a big fan of DRM, because, right now, more often than
not, it's a pain in the ass, but if implemented as promised, DRM offers
more to the radio listening public than IBOC ever will.

What DRM has to deal with is the propagation characteristics of HF.
And that may be the razor by which we judge DRM.

But...and I say this with caution, and knowing that I stand a great
risk of agreeing with those with whom I've disagreed in the past...I'm
of the opinion that if DRM can be implemented in such a manner as it
respects the SW bandplan, and can keep it's splatter within it's own
channel, DRM may well be the solution that IBOC was meant to be.