RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Shortwave (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/)
-   -   Digital Radio Mundial A04 (https://www.radiobanter.com/shortwave/41541-digital-radio-mundial-a04.html)

N8KDV March 26th 04 10:14 PM

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

2100-2159 SAC 9800 70 268 Northeast United States
MON-FRI: The World at Six / As It Happens
SAT: The Vinyl Café
SUN: Writers & Company

Transmitter Sites:
MSK: MOSCOW, RUSSIA VIE: VIENNA, AUSTRIA
RMC: RADIO MONTE CARLO VOL: VOICE OF LEBANON
RMP: RAMPISHAM, UNITED KINGDOM WOF: WOFFERTON, UNITED KINGDOM
SAC: SACKVILLE, CANADA WER: WERTACHTAL, GERMANY
SKN: SKELTON, UNITED KINGDOM XIA: XIAN, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
SNG: SINGAPORE YAM: YAMATA, JAPAN
(Schedule Issued on March 1st, 2004; via Andreas Volk - ADDX via WB;
2004 March 11, WWDXC via DXLD)
----------------------------------------------------

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B




dont know March 26th 04 11:32 PM

N8KDV wrote:

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

2100-2159 SAC 9800 70 268 Northeast United States
MON-FRI: The World at Six / As It Happens
SAT: The Vinyl Café
SUN: Writers & Company

Transmitter Sites:
MSK: MOSCOW, RUSSIA VIE: VIENNA, AUSTRIA
RMC: RADIO MONTE CARLO VOL: VOICE OF LEBANON
RMP: RAMPISHAM, UNITED KINGDOM WOF: WOFFERTON, UNITED KINGDOM
SAC: SACKVILLE, CANADA WER: WERTACHTAL, GERMANY
SKN: SKELTON, UNITED KINGDOM XIA: XIAN, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
SNG: SINGAPORE YAM: YAMATA, JAPAN
(Schedule Issued on March 1st, 2004; via Andreas Volk - ADDX via WB;
2004 March 11, WWDXC via DXLD)
----------------------------------------------------

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B


so you show me who is transmitting in DRM. but how popular is it here?
Is there a list of mfr's who make the receivers? how about mod kits
for receivers? Yes i like to hear BBC and DW direct in the night,
but where is the technical stuff for drm?
Rein Wiehler (canada)

N8KDV March 26th 04 11:44 PM



dont know 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):

2100-2159 SAC 9800 70 268 Northeast United States
MON-FRI: The World at Six / As It Happens
SAT: The Vinyl Café
SUN: Writers & Company

Transmitter Sites:
MSK: MOSCOW, RUSSIA VIE: VIENNA, AUSTRIA
RMC: RADIO MONTE CARLO VOL: VOICE OF LEBANON
RMP: RAMPISHAM, UNITED KINGDOM WOF: WOFFERTON, UNITED KINGDOM
SAC: SACKVILLE, CANADA WER: WERTACHTAL, GERMANY
SKN: SKELTON, UNITED KINGDOM XIA: XIAN, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
SNG: SINGAPORE YAM: YAMATA, JAPAN
(Schedule Issued on March 1st, 2004; via Andreas Volk - ADDX via WB;
2004 March 11, WWDXC via DXLD)
----------------------------------------------------

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B


so you show me who is transmitting in DRM. but how popular is it here?
Is there a list of mfr's who make the receivers? how about mod kits
for receivers? Yes i like to hear BBC and DW direct in the night,
but where is the technical stuff for drm?
Rein Wiehler (canada)


I'm sure it's all just a Google search away!

Any other technical research I charge $100 per hour. You might email me for
a quote.



Brian Denley March 27th 04 03:12 AM

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.

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



N8KDV March 27th 04 03:17 AM



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.



Brian Denley March 27th 04 03:36 AM

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.

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



Stephen M.H. Lawrence March 27th 04 04:15 AM


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

73,

SL



Frank Dresser March 27th 04 07:10 AM


"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?

Frank Dresser



N8KDV March 27th 04 12:17 PM



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.


I was referring to DRM on shortwave.



Telamon March 27th 04 07:52 PM

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

Telamon March 27th 04 07:53 PM

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

Telamon March 27th 04 07:54 PM

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

Frank Dresser March 27th 04 07:59 PM


"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



Telamon March 27th 04 09:17 PM

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

N8KDV March 27th 04 09:20 PM



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.



Frank Dresser March 27th 04 09:59 PM


"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





Brian Denley March 28th 04 05:21 AM

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





Brian Denley March 28th 04 05:23 AM

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.





Brian Denley March 28th 04 05:25 AM

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




Brian Denley March 28th 04 05:27 AM

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.




GO BEARCATS March 28th 04 12:19 PM

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
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*


Robert11 March 28th 04 05:15 PM

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






N8KDV March 28th 04 07:01 PM



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


Telamon March 29th 04 06:58 AM

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

Telamon March 29th 04 07:07 AM

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

Frank Dresser March 29th 04 10:51 AM


"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



Brian Denley March 30th 04 12:57 AM

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



Telamon March 30th 04 07:14 AM

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

Jake Brodsky March 30th 04 08:19 PM

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!"

Jake Brodsky March 30th 04 08:23 PM

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!"

Frank Dresser March 31st 04 12:48 AM


"Telamon" wrote in message
...

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.


I don't know if DRM's sound quality will reliably be better or not. I don't
think it's really much of an issue. The public didn't much care about the
HiFi AM experiments of around 1940, and it took about 25 years before FM
became popular. The standard AM broadcast sound seems good enough for most
people.

I suppose analog fade outs will be replaced by digital drop outs. I don't
think consumers will be happy paying for a service which drops out from time
to time.


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.


Any new technology has patents, and the patent holders usually charge
licence fees. Digital isn't unique in that respect. I don't know if the
patents on CD technology has run out or not, but CD players are really cheap
now.

Anyway, standards evolve. The first "standards war" might have been between
Edison's up and down groove modulation system vs. the later side to side
system. The side to side system was, in general, a little better and won
out. However, there were some phoney attempts to create a different
standard. A few record companies tried to produce non standard records
which would only be playable on only one brand of machine. They failed.
People didn't have much interest in the non standard systems.

I wonder if David Sarnoff ever though of making a special disk format for
Elvis. The "Elvis disks" would play the records of RCA's biggest star on
exclusive RCA players. He might have thought of such a thing. Sarnoff was
many things, but he wasn't stupid. Whatever, there were no exclusive RCA
Elvis disks. Elvis was out on 78s, 45s, and LPs. I belive this was still
in the time frame that CBS had patents on the LP.


The reasons for controlling who can hear SW broadcasts could be
financial or propagandist.

--
Telamon


I can imagine an advantage for the propagandists, but I can imagine far
greater disadvantages. Let's say China or Cuba or North Korea decided to
put in their own propriatary digital modulation scheme. First problem is
there's a large base of perfectly good existing anolog radios to be
replaced. I doubt that could be done quickly or completely and it would
certainly antagonize the people of these countries. Not a good propaganda
move with the internal population. And the VOA or Radio Marti would still
have a long time to broadcast in AM. AM would probably outlast Fidel
Castro. And when these countries finally went all digital, I'm sure we
would crack their modulation scheme quickly. We're good at those things.
If they tried to change the scheme at a regular basis, they'd have to
somehow distribute the new codes on a public basis without the rival
propagandists getting them. I don't see how that can be possible. And the
restrictive countries aren't pushing the digital scheme.

As far as a finacial or commerical development of a propriatary digital SW
broadcasting scheme, I don't see why any of the current broadcasters would
support it. Broadcasters like Alex Jones, Brother Stair and the VOA want to
be heard as widely as possible. And I don't think the current audience of
SWLs will have much interest, either. There's plenty of choices for
information and entertainment out there, and most of them are free. The
digital pay schemes in current use either rely on dozens or even hundreds of
choices for the consumer at a reasonably low cost, or a special broadcast.

It's a longshot, but I can imagine the shock jocks, such as Howard Stern,
might go to pay radio. I think they might be better suited by sattelite
radio if they go to a subscription plan, but I think it would be doable on
SW. This would be a great thing for the SWL hobby. The new listeners would
also get exposed to Alex Jones and The Prophet and all the other amusments
SW radio has to offer.

Frank Dresser




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com