DRM for Alaska on SW?
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...



How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?

You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention,
'Eduardo',
IBOC
= QRM.

On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement of
a
plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.

No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.


I started the thread. Your memory is failing.

Really?



In any case, this is an idea (the Alaskan one, not the one of your memory
failing) that has some potential for reviving SW's usage for service to
rural areas with a 21st Century modulation scheme.

It's a dumb idea. But that's so like you, oh faux one.

DRM for Alaska on SW?
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...



How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?

You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention,
'Eduardo',
IBOC
= QRM.

On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement
of
a
plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.

No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.


I started the thread. Your memory is failing.

Really?

Yes. I posted an extract from the RW article.



In any case, this is an idea (the Alaskan one, not the one of your memory
failing) that has some potential for reviving SW's usage for service to
rural areas with a 21st Century modulation scheme.

It's a dumb idea. But that's so like you, oh faux one.


Serving areas of Alaska that do not have reliable... or any... radio service
is dumb? I think the idea is good.

Such a rural audience as exists across Alaska can not be served any other
way. There is not the economy of scale for satellite, and the high latitudes
may not offer good direct satellite broadcast opportunities. AM can not
serve such areas day and night, and even considering AM is silly due to the
vast difference in daylight hours around the year. FM is strictly local and
the terrain prohibits any viable network due to cost. Regular analog SW is
probably not practical as most people under 40 or so just will not listen to
fading and analog AM quality. The Internet is not mobile enough, and even
WiMax and emerging technologies will not have the rural coverage needed.
That leaves DRM, a conclusion I am sure the promoters came up with in the
same elimination of alternatives" process. It's a very bright idea if it can
be made financially self supporting.

DRM for Alaska on SW?
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...



How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?

You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention,
'Eduardo',
IBOC
= QRM.

On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement
of
a
plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.

No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.


I started the thread. Your memory is failing.

Really?

Yes. I posted an extract from the RW article.

I was referring to my memory failing, dumbass. Please, try to pay attention.

In any case, this is an idea (the Alaskan one, not the one of your memory
failing) that has some potential for reviving SW's usage for service to
rural areas with a 21st Century modulation scheme.

It's a dumb idea. But that's so like you, oh faux one.


Serving areas of Alaska that do not have reliable... or any... radio service
is dumb? I think the idea is good.

Yeah, retards like you think that QRM is good. That's why you promote IBOC,
right?



Such a rural audience as exists across Alaska can not be served any other
way. There is not the economy of scale for satellite, and the high latitudes
may not offer good direct satellite broadcast opportunities. AM can not
serve such areas day and night, and even considering AM is silly due to the
vast difference in daylight hours around the year. FM is strictly local and
the terrain prohibits any viable network due to cost. Regular analog SW is
probably not practical as most people under 40 or so just will not listen to
fading and analog AM quality. The Internet is not mobile enough, and even
WiMax and emerging technologies will not have the rural coverage needed.
That leaves DRM, a conclusion I am sure the promoters came up with in the
same elimination of alternatives" process. It's a very bright idea if it can
be made financially self supporting.

DRM for Alaska on SW?
 

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:


Serving areas of Alaska that do not have reliable... or any... radio
service
is dumb? I think the idea is good.

Yeah, retards like you think that QRM is good. That's why you promote
IBOC,
right?


This has nothing to do with IBOC. It's about Alaska, and an interesting plan
to bring SW to a high level of visibility.

DRM for Alaska on SW?
 

David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David Eduardo wrote:


Serving areas of Alaska that do not have reliable... or any... radio
service
is dumb? I think the idea is good.

Yeah, retards like you think that QRM is good. That's why you promote
IBOC,
right?


This has nothing to do with IBOC.

Sure it does, oh faux one. IBOC = QRM just like DRM = QRM. Please, pull your
head out of your ass and pay attention.

It's about Alaska, and an interesting plan
to bring SW to a high level of visibility.

Yeah, right.

DRM for Alaska on SW?
 

On May 8, 11:25*am, "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.

d'Eduardo,

So they would be using the Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM)
Signal as a intra-continental Domestic Broadcast System
with a Range out to 900~1200 Miles.

Much like the Tropical Bands {5 MHz and below} are used
for Domestic Shortwave Radio Broadcasting to serve Nations
like : Russia, China, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, India, etc.

Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) can work within {intra} Europe,
Russia, China, India, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Alaska,
Canada, Large Nations requiring a Nation-Wide Domestic
Broadcast System covering the Rual and Remote Areas;
where the Local AM and FM Radio Stations can not get.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...ed7bc429af3132
Question - Is there a Place for Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM)
in the Scheme-of-Things for the USA . . . only time will tell.

Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Welcomes Go-Ahead for
“Tropical Band” DRM Broadcasts
http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/drm...and-broadcasts

Again for Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) to be 'effective' the
Band Plan for any and all Tropical {Domestic} and Shortwave
{International} has to be Redefined from 5~10kHz Channel
Spacing to 20~25 kHz to Reduce the Potential for Adjacent
Channel Interference.

Since these would be 'fixed' {un-changing} Domestic Broadcast
Frequencies that should in the long term not represent a
problem for the In-Country National Broadcasters; provided
that approprite Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Power Levels
are used along with the properly 'configured' Antenna System
to cover their Nation within it's Borders.

The Tropical Bands and National {Domestic} Broadcastion
is about servive the Needs of the Radio Listeners within a
Country consistant with their National need for the Distribution
of Information -translation- DXer's Be Damned.

On-the-Plus-Side - The State of Alaska has enough Money
from Oil Revenues to Buy Every Citizen and Household a
new All Alaska AM/FM/DRM Radio to "Make-the-System"
HAPPEN !

Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Covering the Nation Not the World
 

On May 8, 1:06*pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...







David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

David Eduardo wrote:

Ace would rather have no stations than stations using digital
modulation.

Pay attention, 'Eduardo' ... I'd rather not have any QRM.

In a few years, you won't. There wlll be no SW stations at all.

Aren't you one of those idiots that predicted that was going to happen at
least
20 years ago?

No, I did not predict there would be no stations on SW back in 1988.
However, even in 1967 when I bought an Ecuadorian station that had an
inactive SW permit, I realized the growth of local AM and shortwave would
preclude the need for domestic SW on the Tropical band and decided not to
build the permit. Over the years, we have seen a profusion of local stations
in areas previously only served by SW and, thus, a reduction of SW stations.

A friend who syndicates programming internationally noted after a trip to
about 14 sub-Saharan African nations that cities that previously had no
local radio and depended on reception from a larger city or the capital now
had as many as several dozen FM stations, some parts of networks, some
local. All have virtually replaced listening to distant stations of any
kind.

- The Alaskan DRM concept, if it works and they can
- finance it, changes the usage of SW, but makes the
- long distance coverage of SW a viable concept again.

d'Eduado,

Correction - No Not Long Distance -but- Intermediate Distance
for use as a Nation-Wide {Intra-Country} Domestic Broadcasting
Service a-la the Tropical Bands.

Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Covering the Nation Not the World.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...b553514d5c72d7

DRM for Alaska on SW?
 

In article ,
"David Eduardo" wrote:

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
dxAce wrote:


And that's a good solution. One, that, sadly, doesn't seem to be in the
cards with the allocation committees.



Do you see that as caused by the traditionally dysfunctional committees, or
the perception of SW as not worth the effort (a dying medium in some minds)
or the fact that there is scant unity among the SW broadcasters themselves?

I see it as being promoted by dysfunctional people.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

DRM for Alaska on SW?
 

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.

DRM for Alaska on SW?
 

On May 8, 4:50�pm, "David Eduardo" wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message

...







David Eduardo wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...

How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?

You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention,
'Eduardo',
IBOC
= QRM.

On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement of
a
plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.

No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.

I started the thread. Your memory is failing.

In any case, this is an idea (the Alaskan one, not the one of your memory
failing) that has some potential for reviving SW's usage for service to
rural areas with a 21st Century modulation scheme.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Why don't you use DRM on Shortwave?"

"Some large companies are pushing DRM by convincing program producers
and broadcasters to start airing in DRM ahead of time, but unless
there is mass availability and penetration of receivers on the
listeners side, this will remain - unfortunately - a technological
experiment, and broadcasters using it to reach their listeners now,
are clearly throwing their money out of the window."

http://www.egradio.org/index.php?name=FAQ&id_cat=7

Same problem with HD/IBOC - no one cares about digital radio.