Colin wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Mike Terry wrote:

Monday, 25 October 2004

"Digital short-wave will revolutionise cross-border broadcasts and will
initiate a world-wide renaissance of radio". This was the opinion of the
Director General of Deutsche Welle, Mr Erik Bettermann, during a panel
discussion at Münchner Medientage.

Bettermann, the head of the German international broadcaster - and
instigator of the event - was not the only one to present an optimistic
prediction of a "Digital Global Radio" development: The other panel
specialists also emphasised the advantages of digitalisation in the
so-called AM range, i.e. short-, medium- and long-wave.

The discussion was chaired by Peter Senger, Director of Distribution at
Deutsche Welle and Chairman of the Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM)
Consortium;
and next to Erik Bettermann, BBC representative Mike Cronk, Dan D'Aversa
of
RTL Group and Phil Laven of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) were
also
participating in the debate.

Senger outlined the advantages of digital short-wave as follows: The
world-wide accepted DRM standard provided an excellent audio-quality
comparable to FM. In addition, the search for frequencies was obsolete,
as
the station identification tuned in to the designated frequency and
automatically switched to the best one. In parallel, it allows for the
sending of accompanying programme information such as text messages.

"On top of everything, digital transmission technology saves a lot of
energy
and costs compared to the analogue one", Senger said. This would open up
enormous opportunities, especially for international broadcasters.

For several years, DW - like many other broadcasters - has noted that
listeners migrated from short-wave to FM or other new distribution
channels
in digital quality, said Bettermann. Deutsche Welle had to stay abreast
of
these changes. "According to test transmissions being operated by
Deutsche
Welle, we anticipate large area coverage in almost FM quality without
interference such as jitters, induced power-noise or fading", the General
Director stated. At the same time, not only stationery indoor reception,
but
also mobile reception in cars and with small portable devices is
possible...(snip).....
Mike Cronk stated that the BBC had invested heavily in DRM and that they
were now developing "a detailed strategy for its initial deployment,
probably into Europe, in 2005". According to Cronk, DRM offered the
unique
combination of wide area short-wave coverage and FM usability and
quality.
As a consequence of using this digital medium, continuous direct delivery
to
the audience avoiding "political or other regulatory obstacles" will be
possible...(snip)....

(See more in a long article at
http://ukradio.com/news/articles/E69...A75DE7F8A5.asp )

Bull****... it's just QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA


Hmmm - just like IBOC is 'QRM' for FM reception?

SW broadcasting is funded so that listeners can hear programs, not for the
benefit of amateur DXers.

DRM lets the intended listeners actually hear those programs clearly, and
tune them in easily. It sounds like you don't like it cause it sounds like
noise on your (probably highly expensive) set-up, and you like the tuning
process to be as difficult as possible.

Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.

No two ways about it, DRM = QRM... there is no way around it.

If you want crystal clear fidelity I suggest you get yourself a nice FM set.

All I can say is die DRM, die.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

DRM is great IMO. I get very good stereo signals on SW from DW and RTL etc.
Currently listening to vatican Radio on MW - 1611khz in FM quality - 18kb/s
DRM mode


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 22/10/2004

"Colin" wrote in message
...
Hmmm - just like IBOC is 'QRM' for FM reception?

SW broadcasting is funded so that listeners can hear programs, not for the
benefit of amateur DXers.

DRM lets the intended listeners actually hear those programs clearly, and
tune them in easily. It sounds like you don't like it cause it sounds like
noise on your (probably highly expensive) set-up, and you like the tuning
process to be as difficult as possible.

Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.


Perhaps you will tell us how the intended audiences of most shortwave
programming will be able to obtain these DRM receivers? Since most of these
broadcasts are intended for audiences outside their own countries, and for
other than their own expatriots (e.g. third world or oppressed populations),
those audiences are not likely to be able to afford (even if they could
obtain) such radios. Ordinary AM shortwave could be received with nothing
more than a few meters of wire, a variable capacitor (and even a fixed one
will work, depending upon design), a diode and an earphone. Reception of DRM
requires technology that is not available to much of the world.

In article ,
"Colin" wrote:

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


Snip Mike Terry BS

(See more in a long article at
http://ukradio.com/news/articles/E69...A75DE7F8A5.asp )

Bull****... it's just QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA


Hmmm - just like IBOC is 'QRM' for FM reception?

SW broadcasting is funded so that listeners can hear programs, not for the
benefit of amateur DXers.

I'm a program listener and I don't want it.

DRM lets the intended listeners actually hear those programs clearly, and
tune them in easily. It sounds like you don't like it cause it sounds like
noise on your (probably highly expensive) set-up, and you like the tuning
process to be as difficult as possible.

This is DRM propaganda.

Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.

Baloney.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote:

| SW broadcasting is funded so that listeners can hear programs, not for
the
| benefit of amateur DXers.
|
| I'm a program listener and I don't want it.
|
| DRM lets the intended listeners actually hear those programs clearly,
and
| tune them in easily. It sounds like you don't like it cause it sounds
like
| noise on your (probably highly expensive) set-up, and you like the
tuning
| process to be as difficult as possible.
|
| This is DRM propaganda.
|
| Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during the
| transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
| international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.
|
| Baloney.

Precisely. The simple fact is, the slick salesmen haven't found a way to
get around
the laws of physics, quite yet. They have, however, found a great new
"income
channel," an income channel which allows the "account executives" to
"maximize
ROI," or some such. But, in one word (baloney), you managed to capture the
bottom line.

73,

Steve Lawrence
KAØPMD
Burnsville, Minnesota

"If a man wants his dreams to come true then he must wake up."
- Anonymous


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/04

"Colin" wrote in message
...


Hmmm - just like IBOC is 'QRM' for FM reception?

IBOC sure is QRM for AM reception!


SW broadcasting is funded so that listeners can hear programs, not for the
benefit of amateur DXers.

So why have so many countries been defunding international broadcasting?
Could it be they think international broadcasting is a waste of money? Why
would clearer signals make it less of a waste? If the programming is worth
hearing, the listener will put up with occasional distortion and fading.



DRM lets the intended listeners actually hear those programs clearly, and
tune them in easily. It sounds like you don't like it cause it sounds like
noise on your (probably highly expensive) set-up, and you like the tuning
process to be as difficult as possible.

International broadcating is boring, and bored listeners are tuning out.
DRM won't fix that. The internet is a much better source for news. End
time preachers and conspiranoics are much more fun to listen to.



Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.


Satellite radio does every thing DRM promises.

Frank Dresser

Frank Dresser wrote:

"Colin" wrote in message
...


Hmmm - just like IBOC is 'QRM' for FM reception?

IBOC sure is QRM for AM reception!


SW broadcasting is funded so that listeners can hear programs, not for the
benefit of amateur DXers.

So why have so many countries been defunding international broadcasting?
Could it be they think international broadcasting is a waste of money? Why
would clearer signals make it less of a waste? If the programming is worth
hearing, the listener will put up with occasional distortion and fading.


DRM lets the intended listeners actually hear those programs clearly, and
tune them in easily. It sounds like you don't like it cause it sounds like
noise on your (probably highly expensive) set-up, and you like the tuning
process to be as difficult as possible.

International broadcating is boring, and bored listeners are tuning out.
DRM won't fix that. The internet is a much better source for news. End
time preachers and conspiranoics are much more fun to listen to.


Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.


Satellite radio does every thing DRM promises.

Yes it does, and it doesn't make a mess of the shortwave spectrum.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message news:UEsfd.775299

Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.


Satellite radio does every thing DRM promises.

.... if you're in the US, which doesn't include 95% of the world.


Az.

"Aztech" wrote in message
...
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
news:UEsfd.775299

Yes, without co-ordination there may be interefernce problems during
the
transmition period, but the sooner the world goes DRM the better
international radio broadcastings prospects IMHO.


Satellite radio does every thing DRM promises.

... if you're in the US, which doesn't include 95% of the world.



The rest of the world has their own satellite radio service(s). The name
escapes me at the moment, but there is one service that covers most of the
(non-US) world in several regions.

I reiterate however, that people in third world and oppressive countries
will not have access/not be able to afford the receivers for either this or
DRM.

"Aztech" wrote in message
...

Satellite radio does every thing DRM promises.

... if you're in the US, which doesn't include 95% of the world.


Az.



I think there's direct broadcast satellites serving areas outside the US.
The cost of satellite receivers is a real concern, but it's also a concern
for DRM. Anyway, the international broadcasters could get together and put
up a few direct broadcast satellites, if they really wanted to make the
investment.

DRM doesn't really get around shortwave's reliability problems. The
shortwave utility bands used to be filled with digital signals 25 years ago.
These signals were highly reliable. If there was any propagation at all,
they would get the message through. Despite having high power shortwave
transmitters, selective and sensitive receivers, highly directional
antennas, sometimes the message didn't get through. There's now only maybe
10% the utility traffic there once was. The balance, plus the whatever
expansion there was, went to satellites.

The utility stations wanted 100% reliable communication. They ditched SW.

Frank Dresser