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!"