DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

On Oct 1, 9:14 am, wrote:
Allen wrote:
On Oct 1, 5:07 am, wrote:

Yes it is. Just as watching NBC or FOX on your cable is still
Free over-the-air television. They are still sending out their
waves to their local markets. There are still some people
watching/listening to them via the antenna.

If you watch TV on cable or listen to radio stations online, you PAY a monthly FEE

True you do pay $5 or $6 to get local channels. But that doesn't
change the fact that these are still Over-The-Air stations. You can
unplug the cable & still watch them via antenna.

As for online: I don't pay anything to access radio stations. I'm
listening to Radio Disney right now... that didn't cost me a dime.
The website radiodisney.com doesn't charge money to listen.

Neither does radioaol.com
Or shoutcast.com
It's free.


True, the websites (most of them) do not charge to listen to the
stream...BUT you still PAY
for your internet connection, therefore you pay for listening online.
Do you agree?
You turn on the radio and voila'...a signal off the air for no charge.

In my experience, Shoutcast streams are alot of individuals own music
collections...and some
so-called "internet radio stations" so that doesn't qualify as real
radio as they are not broadcasting,
they are streaming. It's just not real radio.

Also, where do you get local channels for five or six dollars? Last I
knew, cable was much more than
that and included more than just local channels. Unless of course,
you're confused and thinking of
a PAY satellite dish service where you can add a few more dollars and
get your local broadcast stations.

I would also like to address the person who commented about ham
radio's HF being obsolete technology.
As a ham operator, the internet has not made HF obsolete. Tell that
to the people who live on islands when tropical storms hit...or others
in areas where natural disasters have occurred. They can't just log
on and send a
message....no power, no phone, no internet. Sorry pally, but AIM, AOL
IM and Yahoo don't work
without it. They use HF radio to get the information out. Ham radio
will always be around, even if some
people don't realize it's value.

DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Bob Campbell" wrote in message
Phil Kane wrote:

Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a
barrel.

Yeah, nothing like making something *easy* so more people can do it!
How dare they!?!

They can and they should. But calling it "DX-ing" is a misnomer. DX-ing is
the hobby of tweaking your analog receiver and antenna to receive distant
radio stations, patiently waiting for the right conditions, and collecting
enough program information to write a reception report...


Well then, your hobby is dead. Dead like horse-pulled carriages,
steam engines, and riverboat-shipping of cotton. It's not the job of
government to "freeze" progress...... things move on. Analog radio/tv
dies, and it gets replaced by localized digital broadcasts of a higher
quality than what existed previously.

DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

wrote ...
Well then, your hobby is dead. Dead like horse-pulled carriages,
steam engines, and riverboat-shipping of cotton. It's not the job of
government to "freeze" progress...... things move on. Analog radio/tv
dies, and it gets replaced by localized digital broadcasts of a higher
quality than what existed previously.

"Higher quality" is debatable on both technical and
content basis. But maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy.
I have yet to see anything digitally encoded and compressed
for broadcast that looked as good as regular NTSC on
the shading monitor.

And every season the "entertainment value" of the schedule
takes a quantum drop. Leaves more time for reading. And
if the "progressives" win next year, they will likely return radio
to the bad old days of government control of content. :-(

DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

On Oct 2, 5:45 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Bob Campbell" wrote ...
"David Eduardo" wrote:

That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread...
my own posts included. It's about the challenge.

But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a
"challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever.
They expect crystal clear digital video/audio.

The internet is fine as long as everything is running
properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal
emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster
(hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone
service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone.
That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and
Amateur Radio communications, etc.

Which is why the upgrade to Digital radio is so crucial. It provides
crystal-clear quality (HE-AAC sound) that people demand, while still
providing the reliability of broadcasting during severe weather.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, reliable until the system gets jammed with too many people
trying to call into or out of the area. Then you're out of luck!

DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

On Oct 2, 6:07 am, wrote:
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Bob Campbell" wrote in message
Phil Kane wrote:

Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a
barrel.

Yeah, nothing like making something *easy* so more people can do it!
How dare they!?!

They can and they should. But calling it "DX-ing" is a misnomer. DX-ing is
the hobby of tweaking your analog receiver and antenna to receive distant
radio stations, patiently waiting for the right conditions, and collecting
enough program information to write a reception report...

Well then, your hobby is dead. Dead like horse-pulled carriages,
steam engines, and riverboat-shipping of cotton. It's not the job of
government to "freeze" progress...... things move on.

Exactly. This is why HD radio is a non-starter.

DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:07:53 -0700, wrote:

On Oct 1, 8:55 am, David wrote:

DX listening is not necessarily done by DXers. DXers provided the
engineering departments with valuable feedback (and the occasional ego
boost). DX listeners are people who are forced to listen to
out-of-market stations because nothing local suits them.


Hence the need for 3 or 4 channels/station on FM, to provide listeners
with more variety locally. That's what digital radio enables.




Very little FM where I live. AM works much better.

DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Bob Campbell" wrote ...
"David Eduardo" wrote:

That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread...
my own posts included. It's about the challenge.

But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a
"challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever.
They expect crystal clear digital video/audio.

The internet is fine as long as everything is running
properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal
emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster
(hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone
service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone.
That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and
Amateur Radio communications, etc.


Which is why the upgrade to Digital radio is so crucial. It provides
crystal-clear quality (HE-AAC sound) that people demand, while still
providing the reliability of broadcasting during severe weather.

For someone with tin ears.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

It's the difference between seeing a picture of some distant landmark
and going there and seeing it firsthand. The fun is in receiving it
on HF/SW. Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a
barrel.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

Especially when I can receive it on one of my restored Transoceanics... much
as I love the net, I don't use it for listening... takes away the fun
part... real radio.

Rich

DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

Telamon wrote:
In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Bob Campbell" wrote ...
"David Eduardo" wrote:
That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread...
my own posts included. It's about the challenge.
But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a
"challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever.
They expect crystal clear digital video/audio.
The internet is fine as long as everything is running
properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal
emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster
(hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone
service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone.
That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and
Amateur Radio communications, etc.

Which is why the upgrade to Digital radio is so crucial. It provides
crystal-clear quality (HE-AAC sound) that people demand, while still
providing the reliability of broadcasting during severe weather.



Actually, if that demand were genuine, and HD Radio were providing
the means to feed that demand, you wouldn't be able to swing a dead
hooker without hitting an HD radio. Companies would be stepping over
each other to provide HD receivers, because there would be huge money in
it.

This is not the case. And consumer demand for the product remains low.

HD won't go away anytime soon. And it won't die easily. But the
cases made for it, simply aren't working, today.

DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
 

D Peter Maus wrote:
SFTV_troy wrote:

Which is why the upgrade to Digital radio is so crucial. It provides
crystal-clear quality (HE-AAC sound) that people demand, while still
providing the reliability of broadcasting during severe weather.


Actually, if that demand were genuine, and HD Radio were providing
the means to feed that demand, you wouldn't be able to swing a dead
hooker without hitting an HD radio.....



If the price was dropped to $25, like DAB, the U.S. HD radios would
sell like hotcakes. The problem right now is the price is just too
high.