On Jan 18, 9:10*pm, Telamon
wrote:
What's wrong with these "the future is digital" guys? When the editorial
staff of a SW magazine advocates all things digital with advice like
listening to SW stations over the web makes it apparent that my dollars
should buy someone else's magazine that actually follows the hobby.

In the Jan 09 issue I was greeted with we are going to "greatly increase
our digital content" so I guess I'll have to go someplace else for real
SW news instead of this digital is wonderful BS. If I want to read about
computers there are several I can think of that do a much better job
then the amateurs that write in MT.

There is no excuse for being a cheerleader for DRM either. We all know
DRM sucks. Why anyone would want old digital technology to replace old
analog technology and think it progress needs to take another look at it.

Even HAM's don't want DRM polluting bands they use but the dunderheads
at MT think DRM is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Pathetic.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I agree Telamon. FWIW I haven't look at a MT in yearssss. I just don't
like the writers as much as I do with Pop.Comm.

BCBlazysusan wrote:

On Jan 18, 9:10 pm, Telamon
wrote:
What's wrong with these "the future is digital" guys? When the editorial
staff of a SW magazine advocates all things digital with advice like
listening to SW stations over the web makes it apparent that my dollars
should buy someone else's magazine that actually follows the hobby.

In the Jan 09 issue I was greeted with we are going to "greatly increase
our digital content" so I guess I'll have to go someplace else for real
SW news instead of this digital is wonderful BS. If I want to read about
computers there are several I can think of that do a much better job
then the amateurs that write in MT.

There is no excuse for being a cheerleader for DRM either. We all know
DRM sucks. Why anyone would want old digital technology to replace old
analog technology and think it progress needs to take another look at it.

Even HAM's don't want DRM polluting bands they use but the dunderheads
at MT think DRM is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Pathetic.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

I agree Telamon. FWIW I haven't look at a MT in yearssss. I just don't
like the writers as much as I do with Pop.Comm.

I haven't seen an issue of either in eons as better, faster info is available on
the net.

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?

dxAce wrote:

BCBlazysusan wrote:

On Jan 18, 9:10 pm, Telamon
wrote:
What's wrong with these "the future is digital" guys? When the editorial
staff of a SW magazine advocates all things digital with advice like
listening to SW stations over the web makes it apparent that my dollars
should buy someone else's magazine that actually follows the hobby.

In the Jan 09 issue I was greeted with we are going to "greatly increase
our digital content" so I guess I'll have to go someplace else for real
SW news instead of this digital is wonderful BS. If I want to read about
computers there are several I can think of that do a much better job
then the amateurs that write in MT.

There is no excuse for being a cheerleader for DRM either. We all know
DRM sucks. Why anyone would want old digital technology to replace old
analog technology and think it progress needs to take another look at it.

Even HAM's don't want DRM polluting bands they use but the dunderheads
at MT think DRM is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Pathetic.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California
I agree Telamon. FWIW I haven't look at a MT in yearssss. I just don't
like the writers as much as I do with Pop.Comm.

I haven't seen an issue of either in eons as better, faster info is available on
the net.

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?



I always thought they favored HF Utes, but the shortwave broadcast
schedules were the ****, 15 years ago.

Dave wrote:
dxAce wrote:

BCBlazysusan wrote:

On Jan 18, 9:10 pm, Telamon
wrote:
What's wrong with these "the future is digital" guys? When the
editorial
staff of a SW magazine advocates all things digital with advice like
listening to SW stations over the web makes it apparent that my dollars
should buy someone else's magazine that actually follows the hobby.

In the Jan 09 issue I was greeted with we are going to "greatly
increase
our digital content" so I guess I'll have to go someplace else for real
SW news instead of this digital is wonderful BS. If I want to read
about
computers there are several I can think of that do a much better job
then the amateurs that write in MT.

There is no excuse for being a cheerleader for DRM either. We all know
DRM sucks. Why anyone would want old digital technology to replace old
analog technology and think it progress needs to take another look
at it.

Even HAM's don't want DRM polluting bands they use but the dunderheads
at MT think DRM is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Pathetic.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California
I agree Telamon. FWIW I haven't look at a MT in yearssss. I just don't
like the writers as much as I do with Pop.Comm.

I haven't seen an issue of either in eons as better, faster info is
available on
the net.

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?



I always thought they favored HF Utes, but the shortwave broadcast
schedules were the ****, 15 years ago.

I have a brown covered copy of the Confidential Frequency List, Second
Edition, First Printing
__ 1972 by R. B. Grove, West Pam Beach, FL. It's mostly all Ute freq's.
Jim

Bob Dobbs wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?

I seem to remember it oriented more that way, back in the day.
I even had one of their scanner filters that was almost unnoticeable
whether inserted or not.
Of course they had their own version of an SWL pre-selector (TUN-3)
that I used after a Sony AN-1 with my 2010. It actually worked!

I have a copy here of "Satellite Times" published by Grove. (Volume 1, Number 1)
a short-lived venture.

On the cover it mentions "Shortwave Broadcasts from SPACE"!

Issue is for September/October 1994. Not sure how many other issues were
published.

I think I received it as a "complimentary" copy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

dxAce wrote:

Bob Dobbs wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?

I seem to remember it oriented more that way, back in the day.
I even had one of their scanner filters that was almost unnoticeable
whether inserted or not.
Of course they had their own version of an SWL pre-selector (TUN-3)
that I used after a Sony AN-1 with my 2010. It actually worked!

I have a copy here of "Satellite Times" published by Grove. (Volume 1, Number 1)
a short-lived venture.

On the cover it mentions "Shortwave Broadcasts from SPACE"!

Issue is for September/October 1994. Not sure how many other issues were
published.

Apparently folded in September of 1998.



I think I received it as a "complimentary" copy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Jan 19, 7:26*am, dxAce wrote:
dxAce wrote:
Bob Dobbs wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?

I seem to remember it oriented more that way, back in the day.
I even had one of their scanner filters that was almost unnoticeable
whether inserted or not.
Of course they had their own version of an SWL pre-selector (TUN-3)
that I used after a Sony AN-1 with my 2010. It actually worked!

I have a copy here of "Satellite Times" published by Grove. (Volume 1, Number 1)
a short-lived venture.

On the cover it mentions "Shortwave Broadcasts from SPACE"!

Issue is for September/October 1994. Not sure how many other issues were
published.

Apparently folded in September of 1998.





I think I received it as a "complimentary" copy.

dxAce
Michigan
USA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have quite a few stacks of the magazine called simply "Shortwave" if
I remember right. Came from the UK. Is that magazine still in print? I
haven't seen it at Borders for a while. They always had a nice cover
but much of their info. was stuff I just wasn't interested in. I used
to like MT, but they seemed to "walk off the path" of what they used
to feature. The only one with purchasing in my opinion is PC. I
remember for "maybe" a year there was that magazine simply called "CB
Radio." I still have every edition from that magazine (maybe only
seven to nine) then they went out of business. I really enjoyed the
articles and pictures, very good read. Not much competition out there
IMO.

In article
,
BCBlazysusan wrote:

On Jan 19, 7:26*am, dxAce wrote:
dxAce wrote:
Bob Dobbs wrote:

dxAce wrote:

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?

I seem to remember it oriented more that way, back in the day.
I even had one of their scanner filters that was almost
unnoticeable whether inserted or not. Of course they had their
own version of an SWL pre-selector (TUN-3) that I used after a
Sony AN-1 with my 2010. It actually worked!

I have a copy here of "Satellite Times" published by Grove.
(Volume 1, Number 1) a short-lived venture.

On the cover it mentions "Shortwave Broadcasts from SPACE"!

Issue is for September/October 1994. Not sure how many other issues were
published.

Apparently folded in September of 1998.


I think I received it as a "complimentary" copy.


I have quite a few stacks of the magazine called simply "Shortwave" if
I remember right. Came from the UK. Is that magazine still in print? I
haven't seen it at Borders for a while. They always had a nice cover
but much of their info. was stuff I just wasn't interested in. I used
to like MT, but they seemed to "walk off the path" of what they used
to feature. The only one with purchasing in my opinion is PC. I
remember for "maybe" a year there was that magazine simply called "CB
Radio." I still have every edition from that magazine (maybe only
seven to nine) then they went out of business. I really enjoyed the
articles and pictures, very good read. Not much competition out there
IMO.

Well MT editorialized that digital was the way they were going to
continue and that it was going to be their focus and that really ****ed
me off. I don't like that attitude shoved down my throat so the hell
with those pathetic jerks that can't figure out if they are a computer
or amateur magazine. All I know is they have forgotten the SWL.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Jan 19, 12:20*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
dxAce wrote:

Didn't MT cater more to scanning when they started out?

Ditto That

I seem to remember it oriented more that way, back in the day.
I even had one of their scanner filters that was almost unnoticeable
whether inserted or not.

Of course they had their own version of an SWL pre-selector (TUN-3)
that I used after a Sony AN-1 with my 2010. It actually worked!

Yeah the Grove TUN3 was a nice little unit.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...be941f85445c16


--

Operator Bob
Echo Charlie 42