|
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. Yeah, have you saw the New Model One by Kloss that has Sirius or the other one? Looked pretty sharp. I can't picture me getting into it right now. Maybe three-five years down the road, if it's a household thing. ~*~*Monitoring The AirWaves~*~ *****GO BEARCATS***** Hammarlund HQ129X /Heathkit Q Multiplier Hammarlund HQ140X Multiple GE P-780's(GREAT BCB Radios) RCA Victor *Strato- World* RCA Victor RJC77W-K(Walnut Grain) 1942 Zenith Wane Magnet 6G 601M Cathedral/ Ross#2311/RhapsodyMultiBand DX100/394/398/399/402 OMGS Transistor Eight/Realistic 12-1451 Henry Kloss Model One/Bell+Howell ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* |
What, or where, does the term "Mundial" stand for ?
Is it an accronym for something ? B. -------------- "Brian Denley" wrote in message news:eps9c.20844$K91.64364@attbi_s02... No commercials! hehe -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels? Frank Dresser |
Robert11 wrote: What, or where, does the term "Mundial" stand for ? Is it an accronym for something ? The word is 'mondiale', it means 'universal'. Steve Holland, MI Drke R7, R8 and R8B http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm |
In article vus9c.18808$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 canıt sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and Iıve listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background noise is gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts. Itıs BS that it sounds ³better.² -- Telamon Ventura, California |
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote: "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. snip Maybe the best thing for you to do is go stick your head back in the sand where it will be more comfortable. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "Frank Dresser" wrote: "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. snip Maybe the best thing for you to do is go stick your head back in the sand where it will be more comfortable. -- Telamon OK, so tell me. Which broadcaster might require these special, additional codes? Would any SWL jump through the new proprietary DRM hoops? I wouldn't. Would you? Would anyone you know? You say DRM doesn't sound any better than standard SW broadcasting. If true, DRM wouldn't present any additional benefit to either the broadcaster or the listener. Why would a proprietary DRM system be better than the open system? Frank Dresser |
Telamon wrote:
In article vus9c.18808$gA5.269717@attbi_s03, It canıt sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and Iıve listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background noise is gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts. Itıs 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 |
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message ... In article , "Frank Dresser" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message t... 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. snip Maybe the best thing for you to do is go stick your head back in the sand where it will be more comfortable. -- Telamon OK, so tell me. Which broadcaster might require these special, additional codes? Would any SWL jump through the new proprietary DRM hoops? I wouldn't. Would you? Would anyone you know? I canıt tell you what everyone is likely to do but Iım sure that out of all the SW listeners some would jump through the hoops willingly. I canıt believe that some people would pay for XM radio either but they do. You say DRM doesn't sound any better than standard SW broadcasting. If true, DRM wouldn't present any additional benefit to either the broadcaster or the listener. Why would a proprietary DRM system be better than the open system? I donıt believe the argument that DRM can sound better than analog using the same bandwidth. I have listened to the recordings on the DRM site and they sure donıt sound better. No back ground noise sure but lots of audio artifacts generated by the compression and playback algorithms. Name any digital medium carrying popular content that is not controlled in some way by codes that must be paid for in advance. I fully expect SW radios will be controlled to hear at least some of the content as soon as those radios are around. The reasons for controlling who can hear SW broadcasts could be financial or propagandist. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:58:56 GMT, Telamon
wrote: It canıt sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and Iıve 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!" |
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:17:35 GMT, Telamon
wrote: 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. But if you have a software defined radio with the various codes available for a download, I'm sure there will be those who will make the effort to receive it. Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created what would lead you to believe it will not be used? Maybe it will be used. Is that a bad thing? XM radio does it. We've allowed it to happen for years as SCA channels of FM stereo broadcasts. You say this as if it were the worst thing in the world. Jake Brodsky, AB3A "Beware of the massive impossible!" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com