In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

gy.com.. .

They have taken their shot at marketing and blew it big time. They
came out and presented DRM as an open system, which it is not. They
state that it will sound better in the same bandwidth, which it can
not. They state that it can stay in the current channel assignments
but does not spreading out beyond + / - 5KHz.

DRM = Deception Radio Mondiale

It is just a different system with some pluses on one side and
drawbacks on the other side of "better than the current analog
system."

For digital to be unquestionably better it would take another
approach than DRM, which would use digital signals to better adapt
to the resultant distortions HF of propagation.

Such a system might be technically better, but would people buy it?
The synchronous detector reduces the problems with SW reception and a
radios with synchronous detectors have been around for years. But
radios with synch detectors haven't taken a large percentage of the
radio marketplace.

Technically oriented people see a problem and expect a technically
oriented solution. International broadcasting isn't what what it was
twenty years ago. Thinking that people are being driven away from SW
by SW radio's sound quality is an understandable reaction. But, if
sound quality is really the reason old line international
broadcasting is declining, shouldn't radios with sync detectors have
been much more successful?

As I see it, sound quality is irrelevent to the decline of old line
international broadcasting. Governments are less interested in
public diplomacy since the end of the Cold War. Also, people with
interent access have the world's news at their fingertips when they
want it, not when the broadcasts get through.

The problem with DRM, as I see it, isn't marketing, it's market
research. It seems this scheme got started without a firm answer to
the question, "Will people really want to buy this thing?"


Newer and different does not equate to better.

No doubt about that!

Your point about wether people will buy into one thing or radio
receiving system over another is the same as any other purchase, which
is finding a solution to a problem. The problem here is the desire to
receive world wide radio stations. In juggling all the parameters of
the individual radios a consumer will determine a cost to benefit ratio
or in other words bang for the buck. Technically it is not hard to find
the best radio or group of radios but the better designed radios with
more bells and whistles will cost more money so it comes down to how
much they are willing to spend to get a radio (solution to the
problem).

In order to get people to spend more money for an item the increase in
the benefit of that item must be greater then the resistance of
spending that extra money. There is no question that synchronous
detection provides a vast improvement in reception but it costs more
money for the modest increase in circuitry. You don't have to have it
in a radio so people still consider it an extra that they may or may
not want to pay for.

If I was Drake or some other radio manufacture that has sync detection
I would have a comparison audio steam on the web site with the same
received signal with and without sync detection (stereo) on, so people
could understand the difference it makes. Currently you have to have a
technical understanding of what that feature does. This requires a
consumer to spend his money first and then find out wether the feature
is worth the extra money. This is a poor way to improve sales.

I think it likely that most SW radio buyers don't understand the
benefit of sync detection unless they already have a radio with that
feature.

I think the DRM people have done a better job in the sales department
with DRM than radio manufactures have done with sync detection. They
have provided comparison audio streams on their web site so you can
hear the difference. They have created a lot of interest with
broadcasters with the promise of reduced electrical costs to broadcast.
They have plenty of hype in the press going with announcements of
various broadcasters currently testing or buying DRM ready
transmitters. You can't read about short wave radio without a mention
of DRM so what's the problem with the acceptance of it?

There are two problems as I see it. First is the cost. The current
system works so DRM is just an improvement of some magnitude. This
improvement must, in the consumers mind, be greater than the increased
cost to buy it or they are not going to buy it.

The second problem is technically DRM does not provide a significant
improvement in reception as this system is depicted. As far as I can
see the only delivered promise so far in this digital system is the
reduced electrical power to broadcast and that is the only thing
driving the change to DRM. The broadcasters not listeners are driving
this change to save on electrical costs.

Unfortunately the consumer of these broadcasts will have to spend more
money on a radio to receive them. Many decades of produced radios will
become obsolete. The reception will not be any better because the
received signal will be weaker. It will not sound any better because
encoding techniques can't make up for bandwidth, which is the same
occupied bandwidth as now. Despite the lower modulation rate multiple
carrier digital approach the signal still spreads out beyond its
specified confines and will interfere with adjacent signals. This is
guaranteed because it is technically very difficult to keep the
transmitter in proper alignment for DRM.

DRM provides no significant benefit to the radio listener only to the
broadcaster is the simple truth. DRM is a snow job on the listener.

DRM = Deception Radio Mondiale

--
Telamon
Ventura, California