Telamon wrote:
In article
,
D Peter Maus wrote:

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.

You are psychic.

I wish that was true Peter but even the narrow mode of DRM trashes the
adjacent SW channels and the wide mode even more. I find it shocking
that you would say DRM sounded "good". I think it sounds terrible. How
is low bit rate audio supposed to sound other than like crap? The
codexes employed generate artifacts that are hard to take no different
than IBOC.


I"ve heard DRM broadcasts that were largely artifact free. More like
listening to a decent MP3 than a low bit webfeed.


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.

Maybe the wide mode that takes up a bunch of channels.

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

The DRM modulation scheme does a very simplistic job at best of dealing
with fading and drop outs. You need a lot of bandwidth to keep the bit
rate up and you need more bandwidth for FEC overhead so that you could
claim any kind of improvement over analog.


Perhaps. I"m not of teh belief that DRM is the beginning and the
end, here. Only that what's being proposed is a decent start to a better
solution than what's been implemented for domestic broadcast.



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.

DRM is as bad an idea as IBOC.