Text of editorial analysis by BBC Monitoring's Martin Peters

Heralded as the saviour of shortwave broadcasting, Digital Radio Mondiale
(DRM) was supposed to breathe new life into shortwave and AM broadcasting.

DRM offers high fidelity, even stereo, reception of broadcasts using similar
bandwidth to that occupied by conventional analogue broadcasts. Simple data,
such as scrolling text, is another benefit for the user. For the
broadcaster, robust signal reception is possible using comparatively low
transmission power, meaning a cost saving in energy.

The success of DRM and the renaissance of shortwave hinges on a number of
fundamental assumptions: broadcasters' willingness to continue to produce
material for an overseas market and their readiness to upgrade transmission
facilities, and the public's interest in listening to foreign radio and
their inclination to buy the receivers necessary to decode the signals.

Far from maintaining multilingual output for overseas and expatriate
listeners, recent years have seen an increasing number of broadcasters
downsize their external service, and in some cases, terminate it completely.

Swiss Radio International closed its foreign language shortwave outlets in
October, while Belgium's Radio Vlaanderen International will close its
English, French and German services next year. Ireland's shortwave service
ceased operation at the end of 2003, RTE electing to provide satellite
receivers, free of charge, to those listeners who could demonstrate a
pressing requirement.

Other recent casualties include a raft of Radio Free Europe's eastern-bloc
language streams, the BBC's programming directed toward North America and a
scaling back of Iran's external service. Radio Slovakia International's
future hangs in the balance and it has recently been reported that Israel's
foreign-language Network B is to be axed. With annual budget cuts an ever
present threat, this statistic is undoubtedly destined to rise.

Major players committed to new technology

Contrary to this downward trend, some major broadcasters are demonstrating
their faith in DRM and the future of shortwave. Bonn-based Deutsche Welle
already broadcast over DRM 24 hours a day on shortwave and are investing in
analogue-to-digital migration over the next few years. BBC World Service
offers a DRM service for several hours a day. Others include China Radio
International, Voice of Russia, Radio Nederlands and Vatican Radio.
Meanwhile Radio New Zealand has recently placed an order for a DRM-enabled
transmitter to cover their Pacific-region service area.

One major European broadcaster committed to DRM is Radio Television
Luxembourg (RTL). The RTL group has interests in 24 television channels and
23 radio stations across eight countries.

Despite already operating a brace of regional radio outlets in Germany, RTL
has ambitions to provide a nationwide service; something denied to them
under the current analogue infrastructure. The group's network of FM
transmitters serving France provides only patchy reception, even in some
densely populated areas. RTL views early adoption of DRM as a solution to
both these challenges by using the technology to reinforce its existing
channels.

Plans for opening up new markets, made feasible with DRM, include a possible
fourth network for France and a relaunch of Radio Luxembourg, targeting the
UK. RTL is in talks with equipment manufacturers to encourage the
introduction of suitable receivers in the shops by the second quarter of
2005.

The incentive for consumers to buy into DRM would seem to rest on increased
choice, effortless station acquisition and improved audio quality.
Unfortunately, there may be little overlap between the type of listener
interested in accessing foreign news and the desire for more stations or
improved fidelity. Present shortwave programming may not be enticing enough
to attract listeners. The successful new radio systems are satellite radio
in the USA and Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) in the UK.

In addition, audiences who rely heavily on shortwave broadcasts for their
news would include large numbers living outside of major population centres
in Africa and therefore unlikely to afford to buy the relatively expensive
receivers when they become available. Prices will fall if and when DRM
becomes mainstream. However, so far, only one stand-alone portable radio is
available; the Mayah DRM-2010, costing over 800 dollars. All other available
options rely on connection to a computer.

Alternative programming would draw in a new generation of listeners. To
date, programming mirrors completely that which is already available over
conventional analogue on shortwave. A Germany-based, bilingual music
station, unique to DRM, is planned but is not yet in operation.

Another obstacle DRM must overcome is the competition from established
technologies already providing a satisfactory service. Besides shortwave AM,
there is an increasing number of international broadcasters available via
satellite, over the internet and, in major population centres throughout the
world, through part or full time FM rebroadcasts. It is now possible to
listen to the BBC, Voice of America, Radio France Internationale and many
others - some in stereo - on portable radios or whilst driving in many
towns, even in the Third World.

Finally, and perhaps of most concern, is the threat from the distribution of
broadband Internet over power lines. Power Line Telecommunication (PLT) uses
the same segment of spectrum as currently used by shortwave broadcasters.

An unfavourable side-effect of the system is to pollute the airwaves,
blanketing them in noise and rendering much of the spectrum unusable. The
consortium is on record as saying that the adoption of PLT is incompatible
with the success of DRM. In the United States, despite vociferous opposition
from users of the spectrum, PLT has been given a cautious go-ahead by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Europe may follow suit, unless a
viable alternative to providing broadband to otherwise unserved areas can be
found.

Additional spectrum sought

The DRM consortium recently announced that it intends to seek a frequency
extension to the system which currently does not permit its use above 30
MHz, generally recognised as the upper limit of shortwave. The proposal
suggests that this be raised to 120 MHz, thereby embracing a significant
portion of the VHF spectrum.

DRM's precise intentions are unknown, but a 1-MHz slice of spectrum at VHF
could accommodate up to around 100 radio stations for consumers within line
of sight of the transmitter and largely resilient to PLT-borne interference
and the vagaries of variable radio propagation: an attractive proposition to
broadcasters and listeners alike.

The other contender for the future of digital radio, in Europe and
elsewhere, and hitherto seen as the sole replacement for FM analogue is
Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB). In the United Kingdom, operators have
elected to convey up to 10 radio stations within each multiplex with a
resulting trade-off in audio quality.

In addition to bandwidth considerations, another advantage of DRM over DAB
is that broadcasters need not be bundled into a multiplex, dependent on
whether the national or local provider wishes to carry them. Instead, each
station can be a stand-alone service, completely independent of such
gatekeepers, thus providing lesser broadcasters a mechanism with which to
reach their audience via a digital medium.

With DRM's ability to provide an outlet to niche stations at similar quality
to that offered by DAB in the UK, it's possible that there will be a
struggle for supremacy between the two systems. DRM employs modern,
efficient coding techniques but DAB is already dated and has only made a
major impact in the UK.

In the United States, neither DRM or DAB are used for domestic broadcasting,
as their own home-grown systems take root.

Similar to DRM, the In-Band On-Channel (IBOC) technology has no need for
additional spectrum. However, IBOC permits stations to broadcast digital
versions of their analogue counterparts simultaneously on the same channel,
meaning the system is spectrally efficient. The system also offers seamless
transition between the digital and analogue, should one or other suffer from
poor reception. Satellite radio, with extensive, ground-based fill-in
relays, also provides a multichannel radio service.

Uncertain future for shortwave

If DRM is to be the success its backers are hoping for, a content, not
industry-driven agenda is a prerequisite, as is the easy availability of
affordable receivers.

The future may not lie with international broadcasting on shortwave.
Declining numbers of stations and listeners; little in the way of
alternative programming; threats from interference; and a target audience,
many of whom earn less than a dollar a day, all add up to a considerable
challenge for the proponents of DRM.

Instead, domestic use of DRM on longwave, mediumwave and the proposed VHF
allocation, where armchair listeners will value increased choice and audio
quality, is where this technology may more comfortably sit.

Crucially, DRM's profile is low in the consciousness of the public. Far from
appreciating what the system has to offer, most are unaware of its very
existence.

Source: BBC Monitoring research 26 Nov 04

Now, who was it testing something like this on Medium Wave in London? Eh?
Anyone?

;-)

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

Instead, domestic use of DRM on longwave, mediumwave and the proposed VHF
allocation, where armchair listeners will value increased choice and audio
quality, is where this technology may more comfortably sit.

Hello,

What happens when the signal fades out? With a normal AM transmission it is
still possible to hear the station into the noise and back again. With
digital it will be on and then completely off - so will be difficult to
listen to.
I certainly wouldn't associate digital radio with audio quality. When DAB
first come out it was great, but not now as so many stations are crammed
into each multiplex to make money. Audio quality suffers because of low
bitrates and a lot of stations are in mono.
Digital radio has a long way to go.

"freddie kreuger" wrote in message
...
Now, who was it testing something like this on Medium Wave in London? Eh?
Anyone?

;-)

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

Instead, domestic use of DRM on longwave, mediumwave and the proposed VHF
allocation, where armchair listeners will value increased choice and
audio
quality, is where this technology may more comfortably sit.

DRM uses Coded Orthogonal FDM which is resilient to specific types of
fading. You can find out more about it he

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/papers/...paper_15.shtml

There's plenty of scope within the scheme for tinkering by broadcasters, so
that it's more resilient to observed conditions within the particular band.

But, whether or not you think the results are any good is of course
subjective. When the signal's weak I would liken the results to how GSM
sounds; it drops out and echos. There were some mp3's knocking about on the
web of actual received results at different SNR's. I listened to some of
these, which were of classical music, and I thought the results were pretty
good.

By the way, I agree with you about DAB - the more crap they cram into the
same bandwidth, the worse it's going to sound. I know BBC engineers who've
been involved with it and who also agree with you! But, it's all about money
and getting people to sign up. Anyway back to DRM:

This from http://www.hard-core-dx.com/index.php?topic=drm&page=4

BBC Monitoring has listened to the latest broadcasts using a Franhofer DRM
software enabled PC receiver coupled to an AOR shortwave receiver with an
active whip antenna. The low bit-rate digital audio from DRM does exhibit
slight evidence of the process of audio compression. Occasional drop-outs
have been observed and the audio quality can degrade to an echo and then
either recover or cut to silence for a short period. The audio quality on
speech and music is good and all the signals heard so far have sounded less
distorted than the lowest bit rates of 48 and 64 kb/s via DAB (Eureka 147
digital audio broadcasting).



"GT" wrote in message
...
Hello,

What happens when the signal fades out? With a normal AM transmission it
is still possible to hear the station into the noise and back again. With
digital it will be on and then completely off - so will be difficult to
listen to.
I certainly wouldn't associate digital radio with audio quality. When DAB
first come out it was great, but not now as so many stations are crammed
into each multiplex to make money. Audio quality suffers because of low
bitrates and a lot of stations are in mono.
Digital radio has a long way to go.

Mike Terry schreef:

Text of editorial analysis by BBC Monitoring's Martin Peters

Heralded as the saviour of shortwave broadcasting, Digital Radio Mondiale
(DRM) was supposed to breathe new life into shortwave and AM broadcasting.



X


Instead, domestic use of DRM on longwave, mediumwave and the proposed VHF
allocation, where armchair listeners will value increased choice and audio
quality, is where this technology may more comfortably sit.

Crucially, DRM's profile is low in the consciousness of the public. Far from
appreciating what the system has to offer, most are unaware of its very
existence.

Source: BBC Monitoring research 26 Nov 04

As usual no acoount has been taken to the transition from analogue to
digital.
Since simulcasting (analogue and digital) has not been properly
developed yet, broadcasters loose all analogue listeners by switching to
digital. Since there are no DRM recivers, and in the coming years limted
numbers of DRM receivers, you have NO audience.

I wonder what this new Radio Luxembourg wil have to offer to the UK: all
real money making formats has been taken.
And will people listen to DRM which just meets FM audio quality on a
good day when they have access to so many FM - and by that time DAB
output?

ruud

Dan schreef:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:41:23 +0100, Ruud Poeze
wrote:

Mike Terry schreef:

Text of editorial analysis by BBC Monitoring's Martin Peters

Heralded as the saviour of shortwave broadcasting, Digital Radio Mondiale
(DRM) was supposed to breathe new life into shortwave and AM broadcasting.



X


Instead, domestic use of DRM on longwave, mediumwave and the proposed VHF
allocation, where armchair listeners will value increased choice and audio
quality, is where this technology may more comfortably sit.

Crucially, DRM's profile is low in the consciousness of the public. Far from
appreciating what the system has to offer, most are unaware of its very
existence.

Source: BBC Monitoring research 26 Nov 04

As usual no acoount has been taken to the transition from analogue to
digital.
Since simulcasting (analogue and digital) has not been properly
developed yet, broadcasters loose all analogue listeners by switching to
digital. Since there are no DRM recivers, and in the coming years limted
numbers of DRM receivers, you have NO audience.

People just aren't interested in radio any longer. It's ancient
technology. People are busy downloading the music they want
(legally or not), and storing it on portable MP3 players, where they
play it commercial free in the order they want, and with CD quality.

How can radio compete with that?

The only radio I listen to these days is AM talk radio - mostly
sports, but also sometimes news and politics. Music on FM is
hopeless these days. Whatever format you listen to - Top 40/Pop,
"Classic Rock", Oldies, whatever - they all have a playlist of a few
dozen songs at best.

Dan

You might be right on the music-radio thing.

MP3 players could open the eyes of the broadcasters and force them to
introduce longer playlists before they loose all the audience.

BTW I feel that 40+ people are not likely to walk around with MP3
players, so there will be a second chance for music-radio to address
this group - and drop the (crap) music for a younger audience.
ruud

"Dan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:16:54 +0100, Ruud Poeze
wrote:

You might be right on the music-radio thing.

Pretty sure I am. The most common music consumer - 15 to 25 year
olds or thereabouts - is not listening to much radio these days. I
have a 17 year old daughter, so I have valid data here! :-)

MP3 players could open the eyes of the broadcasters and force them to
introduce longer playlists before they loose all the audience.

We can only hope.


Most kids with mp3 players also have only about 64 to 128MB of storage.. on
which they keep their 20 or so favorite tunes (if they want them to sound as
good as FM). If they shrink them to fit more on, then the sound starts
getting pretty nasty. So, either they're limited even worse than the radio
stations (other than choice of when they can hear them), or they sound even
worse (I hate the sound of modern radio.. they should all shut the damn
processors off and let people hear the music as it was intended... not all
at the same volume..)

Dan wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:16:54 +0100, Ruud Poeze
wrote:

You might be right on the music-radio thing.

Pretty sure I am. The most common music consumer - 15 to 25 year
olds or thereabouts - is not listening to much radio these days. I
have a 17 year old daughter, so I have valid data here! :-)

MP3 players could open the eyes of the broadcasters and force them to
introduce longer playlists before they loose all the audience.

We can only hope.

BTW I feel that 40+ people are not likely to walk around with MP3
players, so there will be a second chance for music-radio to address
this group - and drop the (crap) music for a younger audience.

Probably true as a rule, but I'm way over 40 and I have several MP3
players. Like I said, for music, radio is completely hopeless these
days.

Dan


And then you have the idiots at Voice of America, who think that the way
to spice up their format is to switch to music, and that broadcasting
rap music to Muslims who are inclined to view everything American as
satanic will keep said Muslims from flying planes into our skyscrapers.
I would think that if Muslim extremists want to convince the rest of
their people that America is evil, all they have to do is tell them to
listen to Radio Sawa playing Eminem. OTOH, VOA's old format (before News
Now) was widely listened to in the Soviet Bloc even with all the
jamming, and some people insist that it helped win the Cold War. I think
that having the world's major power have essentially no voice on SW is a
big mistake.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Dan wrote:

Whatever format you listen to - Top 40/Pop,
"Classic Rock", Oldies, whatever - they all have a playlist of a few
dozen songs at best.

That might be true in the USA (the home of the short attention span), but in
the rest of the world, it's possible to have a diverse and intelligent
radio station. If the Americans were stupid enough to re-elect a moron as
President, they deserve the rubbish fed to them by Clear Channel!

Bob @ BIAS COMMS

--
Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!

tommyknocker schreef:

Dan wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:16:54 +0100, Ruud Poeze
wrote:

You might be right on the music-radio thing.

Pretty sure I am. The most common music consumer - 15 to 25 year
olds or thereabouts - is not listening to much radio these days. I
have a 17 year old daughter, so I have valid data here! :-)

MP3 players could open the eyes of the broadcasters and force them to
introduce longer playlists before they loose all the audience.

We can only hope.

BTW I feel that 40+ people are not likely to walk around with MP3
players, so there will be a second chance for music-radio to address
this group - and drop the (crap) music for a younger audience.

Probably true as a rule, but I'm way over 40 and I have several MP3
players. Like I said, for music, radio is completely hopeless these
days.

Dan


And then you have the idiots at Voice of America, who think that the way
to spice up their format is to switch to music, and that broadcasting
rap music to Muslims who are inclined to view everything American as
satanic will keep said Muslims from flying planes into our skyscrapers.
I would think that if Muslim extremists want to convince the rest of
their people that America is evil, all they have to do is tell them to
listen to Radio Sawa playing Eminem. OTOH, VOA's old format (before News
Now) was widely listened to in the Soviet Bloc even with all the
jamming, and some people insist that it helped win the Cold War. I think
that having the world's major power have essentially no voice on SW is a
big mistake.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Agree.
I was also wondering about VOA's format to the ME.
I feel that any music format from Classical Music till (Classic) Rock,
including Oldies, Big Band, Standards and you name it, fits better than
this Urban crap.

BTW: More music for the typical SW listener (Male 35-60) could enhance
audience figures for SW. The Beatles still sounds fine in AM-quality did
not we grow up with it?
ruud