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

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

In article ri69c.102901$_w.1322018@attbi_s53,
"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.

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

--
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.

In article vus9c.18808$gA5.269717@attbi_s03,
"Brian Denley" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

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

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

It can¹t sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and I¹ve
listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background noise is
gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts. It¹s BS that it
sounds ³better.²

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article vus9c.18808$gA5.269717@attbi_s03,

It can¹t sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and
I¹ve listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background
noise is gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts.
It¹s BS that it sounds ³better.²

I remember when CDs (digital) came out, some said they didn't sound as good
a vinyl (analog) records. Whatever happened to those record players that
used to be for sale?

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

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:58:56 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

It can¹t sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and I¹ve
listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background noise is
gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts.

You betray your ignorance of information theory with this statement.

Granted, the current audio codecs used by the DRM protocols may not
sound all that great. But before you go ranting about how good AM can
sound, remember the degree of audio preprocessing that these things
use just to get more punch on the air. It's distorted too. However,
I'm sure you'll explain that in your esteemed value judgement, that it
sounds better.

Most people will disagree with you.

In any case, just because the channel bandwidth and the signal to
noise ratio are the same does not imply that any digitized signal you
pass through it will be worse. In fact, it could be better. The
reason is because the actual signal itself is not efficiently encoded.
Given appropriate compression technology, and using turbo codes, which
make reception within less than a dB of the Shannon limit possible,
it's conceivable that the reception could be improved over what it
would have sounded like had you used AM at that power level.

I'm sure you'll continue to rant that your golden ears can detect the
difference. But that's all it is: a rant.

In an era when more and more of the big national SW broadcasters are
leaving the airwaves, the band could sure use a shot in the arm.

DRM, if it takes off, ought to increase the interest in SW listening.
Gosh, I call that a good thing. Or, would you rather see all the
major broadcasters leave, one by one, so that you elitist golden eared
fogies can wistfully listen to atmospheric noise and dream about
yesterday?

73,


Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"

"N8KDV" wrote
(A useful list for avoiding QRM!)

73,

SL