In article gF69c.101307$1p.1485939@attbi_s54,
"Brian Denley" wrote:

N8KDV wrote:
Brian Denley wrote:

N8KDV wrote:
A04 Broadcast Schedule for Radio (Digital Radio Mondial - DRM),
effective April 4th (07:00 UTC) to October 30th, 2004 (07:00 UTC):
Writers & Company

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B

Steve:
Do have any DRM capable receivers? My RX-320 and 350 can be
modified for the 12 KHz IF (they come with that new now), but I
haven't yet taken the plunge. I hear the sound quality is terrific.

I don't believe in DRM... I myself hope it dies an unceremonious
death.

Steve:
Yeah well don't hold your breath. I now have XM radio in my car and you
couldn't pry it away from me: 100 channels, no commercials and great audio.
I think digital radio is here to stay. I'm just gonna have to figure out
how to get my R-388 to receive it.

DRM on short wave is not XM radio.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Brian Denley" wrote in message
news:gF69c.101307$1p.1485939@attbi_s54...
N8KDV wrote:

Steve:
Yeah well don't hold your breath. I now have XM radio in my car and you
couldn't pry it away from me: 100 channels, no commercials and great
audio.
I think digital radio is here to stay. I'm just gonna have to figure out
how to get my R-388 to receive it.

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html



Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels?

For DRM it is control of content and who can hear it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels?

For DRM it is control of content and who can hear it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

How would DRM control content any differently than standard SW broadcasting?

Frank Dresser

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels?

For DRM it is control of content and who can hear it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

How would DRM control content any differently than standard SW broadcasting?

Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that
don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built
into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar
to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes
built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some
broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio
similar to pay satellite TV.

Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created
what would lead you to believe it will not be used?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels?

For DRM it is control of content and who can hear it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

How would DRM control content any differently than standard SW broadcasting?

Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that
don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built
into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar
to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes
built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some
broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio
similar to pay satellite TV.

Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created
what would lead you to believe it will not be used?

Very good point Telamon.

"Telamon" wrote in message
...


Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that
don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built
into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar
to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes
built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some
broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio
similar to pay satellite TV.


Which SW broadcaster would try to limit their audience? Certainly not the
propaganda stations. Not the evangalists. Not the conspiratorialists.

If you're suggesting that DRM might somehow be part of a pay radio scheme --
well, maybe. But who would actually pay for SW radio programming? Most of
us listen for the entertainment or the technical challenge. SW radio is
also a secondary news source. Anybody who'd charge for SW radio programming
should realize that's there's plenty of free entertainment, free technical
challenges and free secondary news sources.

Anyway, I sure wouldn't invest one cent in any proposal to try to make money
off pay SW radio broadcasting. I'd rather go to one of those firing ranges
that lets you shoot bowling pins with a Tommy gun. Not only would that be
much more entertaining, it would probably be just as lucrative!



Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created
what would lead you to believe it will not be used?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Because I don't think that controlling the audience has anything with the
reason DRM is being developed. There isn't much of a SW audience as it is,
and I don't see how anyone would benefit by slicing it up into even smaller
parts.

I think DRM is attempt to broaden the appeal of SW radio. This presumed
miracle of digital modulation is supposed to bring high quality broadcast
sound right into the radios of people who wouldn't have the first clue on
what a sync detector or BFO is.

By the way, I don't want to give the impression that I'm pro-DRM. I think
the DRM scheme is foolish, but not evil.

Frank Dresser

No commercials! hehe

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels?

Frank Dresser

Hey that's a good reason to get rid of Morse Code. Right? (ducks)

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html
"N8KDV" wrote in message
...


Telamon wrote:

Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created
what would lead you to believe it will not be used?

Very good point Telamon.

No **** guys. But XM IS digital and, like DRM, has all the same audio
advantages. I was using that as an example that digital radio is here to
stay. Geeeesh.

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article gF69c.101307$1p.1485939@attbi_s54,
"Brian Denley" wrote:

Steve:
Yeah well don't hold your breath. I now have XM radio in my car and you
couldn't pry it away from me: 100 channels, no commercials and great
audio.
I think digital radio is here to stay. I'm just gonna have to figure
out
how to get my R-388 to receive it.

DRM on short wave is not XM radio.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Wrong. It sounds like FM. No noise or static at all. You either get
perfect reception or none at all.

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

It cannot sound better than what the radios have already. DRM can only
sound worse.