|
Here is "Why" I am 'skeptical' about DRM and IBOC
For One and All,
.. Here is "Why" I am 'skeptical' about Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) and In-Band On-Channel (IBOC); and will continue to buy a a few more radios in the next Ten Years (10 Yrs) that simply offer normal 'analog' AM/MW, FM and Shortwave Broadcasts. .. DRM - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) DRM = http://www.drm.org/ .. Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Broadcast Schedule {Links} WWDXC = http://www.wwdxc.de/drm.htm DRM = http://www.drm.org/livebroadcast/globlivebroadcast.htm .. Experimenting with DRM - {FineWare SWL} DRM SWL = http://www.fineware-swl.com/drm.html .. IBOC - In-Band On-Channel (IBOC) AM and FM Digital Audio Broadcasting is designed for use in the USofA (Only). IBOC = http://www.ibiquity.com/technology/iboc.htm IBOC = http://www.ibiquity.com/technology/hdradio_how.htm RW = http://www.rwonline.com/reference-room/iboc/index.shtml "iBiquity Digital designed its IBOC technology to bring the benefits of digital audio broadcasting to today's Radio while preventing interference to the "host" analog Station and stations on adjacent channels." .. For the most part TV is an Every Family (Household) and Every Family Member (Everybody) Broadcast Media Activity. [ Everyone Watchs TV 3-5 Hours a Day Every Day ] TV is "The" Mass Market Media in the USofA [.] .. Contrast that to Shortwave Radio; where One Household in Ten in the USofA and 'only' One Member of that Household (One-in-Three) may be a Shortwave Listener (SWL) and 'want' DRM and IBOC. This is a limited and specialized Consumer Market with small Profit potential. Likw AM-Stereo this may be a Product the the Consumers "Do Not Want" {Feel They Need}. .. .. IN-THE-NEWS : So here is the News Article that got me to start Thinking and Writing this post. It is about the the near term future (2-4 Years) of Digital High Definition TV (HDTV) and related Technologies and Products. .. READ - Waiting for a TV Technology to Inherit the Future http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...3Demail&sub=AR http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...005Jan8_2.html The good news from this year's Consumer Electronics Show is that companies manufacturing the latest television models have finally learned to make some of these sets fit into ordinary budgets. - by Rob Pegoraro, The Washington Post .. MY-POINTS - About High Definition {Digital} Television HDTV : .. * It's coming and will become the 'standard' for most American Households but not for the next few years. .. * The Commercial Forces behind it are Great because there is Big Money to be made selling the 'new' TVs. .. * The Consumer Demand is 'growing' and as TVs wear out more and more of the replacements will be HDTVs. .. * Since most 'analog' TVs still have a "Picture Tube"; I would expect that a TVs useful life would be 3-7 Years. .. * While our AM/FM Shortwave Radios being fully Solid State should have a useful life of 10-15 Years; barring a user caused 'accident'. (Or the Urge for a New Toy.) .. so - what say you ~ RHF |
This line of thinking is a little more on target. To follow the
"pipers" is to skip merrily over the cliff's edge. I'm not going to give anyone the bullets to shoot me with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Darren http://community-2.webtv.net/DEMEM/L...mes/page2.html |
"RHF" wrote
so - what say you ~ RHF What you have pointed out is one of the reasons IBOC is being pushed to begin with - they want to attract more listeners = more money. In regards to SW DRM, I can only surmise that the "digital" may attract more listeners but the advertising dollars are not interested in an international audience. Unless DRM is designed to create more local and regional listeners which the advertising industry may respond to. If the industry can't attract more listeners then the MW & SW will remain on track to become the dinosaurs of broadcast media. Whatever the final outcome may be - Long Live Analog! |
I don't know about MW, but SW has been a dinoaur in Western countries
for decades now...and I wouldn't have it any other way. That's precisely what's kept it interesting all these years. |
I don't know about MW, but SW has been a dinoaur in Western countries
for decades now...and I wouldn't have it any other way. That's precisely what's kept it interesting all these years. I agree! Less flame-thrower interference also. Maybe one day we will experience the bands as they were before the cold war and proliferation of high powered SW transmitters. |
Nope. As soon as the HF users reach a certain level of decline,
the FCC will auction-off the HF band for use in WI-FI local broadband networking, telling the hams to enjoy "2 meters and down." Count on it. tianli wrote: I don't know about MW, but SW has been a dinoaur in Western countries for decades now...and I wouldn't have it any other way. That's precisely what's kept it interesting all these years. I agree! Less flame-thrower interference also. Maybe one day we will experience the bands as they were before the cold war and proliferation of high powered SW transmitters. |
DS - The so called "Greater Good" ~ RHF
.. |
In article . com,
RHF wrote: so - what say you ~ RHF 1. DRM DRM is a European solution to a European problem. It's a system that a bunch of second tier broadcasters have come up with to use their existing frequencies to continue to be continent wide broadcasters in the face of the various national broadcasters conversions to local digital radio systems. 2. IBOC The US National Association of Broadcasters method to jam adjacent (out of area) signals and restrict the possible number of stations. On a local NPR station's program about their conversion to IBOC, one of the particpants admitted that the reason that IBOC is being pushed was that other systems could double the number of stations and that was unacceptable to the NAB. 3. Cost Both of these systems need a digital signal processor with a hundred million instructions per second or so of throughput. That sort of CPU power is going to cost in both money and electrical power consumption. That means about $100 more than an analog radio and a hard time to make a portable that doesn't suck batteries like no tomorrow. The IBOC promoters seem to think that people only listen to the radio in a car, too. Well, maybe that's the only market that will spend the $$$ for the equipment. I hear that the IBOC digital CODEC (compression scheme) is lousy for voice. Just what the talk radio people need. ;-) IBOC and HDTV have the same problem. I'm gonna be damned if I will spend several hundred bucks for a new radio or TV if it's the same crappy programming as I get now. Mark Zenier Washington State resident |
I believe this pessimistic and/or fatalistic prognosis is the most
likely case scenario. Darren http://community-2.webtv.net/DEMEM/L...mes/page2.html |
I believe this pessimistic and/or fatalistic prognosis is the most
likely case scenario. Darren It would have to be the U.N. that holds the auction as SW is not a "single country" phenomenon. In which case you can expect it to be riddled with FRAUD! |
"David Stinson" wrote in message news:C8gEd.965$SS6.207@trnddc07... Nope. As soon as the HF users reach a certain level of decline, the FCC will auction-off the HF band for use in WI-FI local broadband networking, telling the hams to enjoy "2 meters and down." Count on it. Parts of the HF spectrum will always be protected for military and emergency communications. The remainder isn't very much spectrum for broadband purposes, especially considering the high noise levels and possibility of interference from just about anywhere in the world. Building compact, efficent antennas is a real problem at HF, and using higher power with inefficent antennas hardly seems like a good solution for a battery powered portable.. Frank Dresser |
Frank Dresser wrote:
"David Stinson" wrote in message news:C8gEd.965$SS6.207@trnddc07... Nope. As soon as the HF users reach a certain level of decline, the FCC will auction-off the HF band for use in WI-FI local broadband networking, telling the hams to enjoy "2 meters and down." Count on it. Parts of the HF spectrum will always be protected for military and emergency communications. The remainder isn't very much spectrum for broadband purposes, especially considering the high noise levels and possibility of interference from just about anywhere in the world. Building compact, efficent antennas is a real problem at HF, and using higher power with inefficent antennas hardly seems like a good solution for a battery powered portable.. Indeed, Frank. I wonder if many of those people who would propose to use HF as if was the new frontier of digital communications know exactly what they are dealing with. HF is an unruly beast, where sections can be entirely shut down depending on solar activity, or a small signal can sometimes be propagated across the world. In addition, it has nowhere near the bandwidth capacity of the higher frequencies. And finally, the ham sections are such a small portion of the HF spectrum, that it would not make much difference if they went away or stayed. Most modern "wireless" apps *need* the characteristics of GHz + frequencies. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote:
Frank Dresser wrote: "David Stinson" wrote in message news:C8gEd.965$SS6.207@trnddc07... Nope. As soon as the HF users reach a certain level of decline, the FCC will auction-off the HF band for use in WI-FI local broadband networking, telling the hams to enjoy "2 meters and down." Count on it. Parts of the HF spectrum will always be protected for military and emergency communications. The remainder isn't very much spectrum for broadband purposes, especially considering the high noise levels and possibility of interference from just about anywhere in the world. Building compact, efficent antennas is a real problem at HF, and using higher power with inefficent antennas hardly seems like a good solution for a battery powered portable.. Indeed, Frank. I wonder if many of those people who would propose to use HF as if was the new frontier of digital communications know exactly what they are dealing with. About the only feature of HF vs UHF or microwave is that distant nodes or stations can directly talk to each other without supporting infrastructure (phone lines or Internet). Same thing that attracts ham radio operators. Though the fact that a pair of users will hog the same bandwidth world-wide is not such a hot feature.... Unless digital shortwave broadcasting is desired, forget it. And how well will digital handle QSB and QRM and QRN? Assuming the modulation method is designed to cope with such... HF is an unruly beast, where sections can be entirely shut down depending on solar activity, or a small signal can sometimes be propagated across the world. In addition, it has nowhere near the bandwidth capacity of the higher frequencies. And finally, the ham sections are such a small portion of the HF spectrum, that it would not make much difference if they went away or stayed. Most modern "wireless" apps *need* the characteristics of GHz + frequencies. - Mike KB3EIA - |
I am Skeptical of Art Ohhhhhh myyyyy Gawdddddd Bell and George Afraid
Of Ouija Boards Noory,,,,,, BUT,, Art Bell is a great guy,,, he once loned Roger Fredinburg,gratis,some radio equipment so Roger Fredinburg could get back on the air. www.regularguy.com cuhulin |
robert casey wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Frank Dresser wrote: "David Stinson" wrote in message news:C8gEd.965$SS6.207@trnddc07... Nope. As soon as the HF users reach a certain level of decline, the FCC will auction-off the HF band for use in WI-FI local broadband networking, telling the hams to enjoy "2 meters and down." Count on it. Parts of the HF spectrum will always be protected for military and emergency communications. The remainder isn't very much spectrum for broadband purposes, especially considering the high noise levels and possibility of interference from just about anywhere in the world. Building compact, efficent antennas is a real problem at HF, and using higher power with inefficent antennas hardly seems like a good solution for a battery powered portable.. Indeed, Frank. I wonder if many of those people who would propose to use HF as if was the new frontier of digital communications know exactly what they are dealing with. About the only feature of HF vs UHF or microwave is that distant nodes or stations can directly talk to each other without supporting infrastructure (phone lines or Internet). Same thing that attracts ham radio operators. Though the fact that a pair of users will hog the same bandwidth world-wide is not such a hot feature.... Unless digital shortwave broadcasting is desired, forget it. And how well will digital handle QSB and QRM and QRN? Assuming the modulation method is designed to cope with such... Well, digital error checking can take care of that..... again and again and again and again, until it works, or more likely, times out. Great, as long as you don't mind a slow connection. Of course, maybe that is why BPL is at DSL speeds instead of cable modem speeds. - Mike KB3EIA - |
MZ - Thank You for the Feed Back and Your View Points ~ RHF
|
Someone here mentioned Roger Fredinburg. I used to love listening to
Roger. What's the latest on him? Darren http://community-2.webtv.net/DEMEM/L...mes/page2.html |
For One and All,
.. WHY - The Eton E1 AM & FM Shortwave Receiver with XM Satellite Radio Does NOT have "DRM" Digital Radio Mondiale reception feature. E1 XM = http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ETON-E1-XM-Radio/ .. READ : DRM - Do the Right Marketing ! [ DRM - What Went Wrong in the USofA ] Why Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) needs a Brand Name - Commentary by Andy Sennitt, 13 January 2005 RNW = http://tinyurl.com/4cona http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/m...drm050113.html "Eton Corporation, the company that brought Grundig radios into the US, showed the Eton 'Elite' E1 XM portable Receiver. It combines AM, FM, Shortwave Receiver, and XM Satellite Radio into one ultra high-performance unit, which - although portable - is sized at 13.1 by 7.1 by 2.3 inches and weighs 4 pounds." .. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT - The 2005 International Consumer Electronics Show (CES), the world's largest consumer electronics event, ended a week ago in Las Vegas. .. Unfortunately, due to the decision of the US to adopt iBiquity Digital's HD Radio instead of DRM as the standard for digital AM, a major opportunity to promote Digital Shortwave Broadcasting in the US market has been lost. .. But the Shortwave receivers in these new devices are only for AM, because the digital system chosen for use in the US - iBiquity Digital's HD Radio - is aimed at the AM (Medium Wave) and FM bands. So even if a digital AM receiving capability is added to these sets in the future, it's not likely to benefit Shortwave Broadcasters. .. Also at the CES, 21 of the top radio broadcast groups in the US announced an historic agreement with iBiquity Digital to accelerate the conversion of 2,000 AM and FM stations to HD Radio Technology. .. So it looks as if the US domestic market is firmly shut to DRM, despite its status as a world standard endorsed by the International Telecommunication Union. .. Unless this marketing issue is addressed, only a subset of existing Shortwave listeners are likely to be interested in DRM. Consequently sales of DRM-capable receivers - when they eventually appear in significant numbers - will be low, and the momentum will be lost. .. The majority of consumers will not even be aware that there's a digital AM Broadcasting System out there, especially as they need to buy a new receiver before they can hear it. .. And since the total number of hours aired by the International Broadcasters continues to fall, the selling of the medium in terms of listener choice becomes harder and harder day by day. .. DRM needs a brand name, preferably one that works in a number of major languages, that will explain what the technology is for, and cannot be confused with something else. .. As we're less than a year away from the release of the first 'portable' DRM Receivers in significant quantities, I hope attention now turns to how the technology is going to be sold to the consumer, especially in the US. A lot of time and effort has been spent getting to this point, but it could all be rendered ineffectual by poor marketing. .. .. something to think about ~ RHF .. All are WELCOME and "Invited-to-Join" the ETON 'Elite' E1 XM Radio eGroup on YAHOO ! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ETON-E1-XM-Radio/ The Topic is the Eton 'Elite' E1 Radio with XM Satellite Receiver .. |
"RHF" wrote in message oups.com... And since the total number of hours aired by the International Broadcasters continues to fall, the selling of the medium in terms of listener choice becomes harder and harder day by day. Listeners can choose between a large number of very entertaining conspiranoics and end-timers. Nothing wrong with that. . DRM needs a brand name, preferably one that works in a number of major languages, that will explain what the technology is for, and cannot be confused with something else. Is Andy Sennitt serious? Does he really think a gimmicky name is the secret to DRM success? Let's not forget Sony's well named Beta format lost out to the other videotape format known by a dopey Three Letter Acronym. . As we're less than a year away from the release of the first 'portable' DRM Receivers in significant quantities, I hope attention now turns to how the technology is going to be sold to the consumer, especially in the US. A lot of time and effort has been spent getting to this point, but it could all be rendered ineffectual by poor marketing. . . Poor marketing might keep one good product from selling, as long as consumers can choose another good product. Poor marketing won't keep an important new technology on the shelf. If DRM really meets a need, it will be as easy to sell as ice water in a crowed desert town. However, poor market research might well lead a company into wasting alot of money developing a product few consumers want. Frank Dresser |
JD,
Sounds Like Som Goda BAR-B-Q ! HMmmmmm BAR-B-Q ! slurp, Slurp. SLURP ! TIWHA - Thomas Kemper "Big Fat Tuba" OktoberFest Lager - belch ump pah, - - Belch Ump Pah. - - - BELCH UMP PAH ! eat, drink and be merry - enjoy the week-end all ~ RHF |
That barbaque analogy, as it applies to me. I dislike barbaque. If you
knocked on my door, giving the stuff away, I wouldn't eat it. Darren http://community-2.webtv.net/DEMEM/L...mes/page2.html |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message ... Too true. Poor marketing can also doom an *excellent* product that may have been a big hit. Although my example isn't radio related, it serves as a fair example of the impact (or lack of impact) resulting from good marketing. Allow me to moan the blues for a bit... Bar-B-Que in this town is worse than "average", and for no good reason. "Average" BBQ isn't difficult at all. "Good" BBQ isn't really all that difficult. "OH-MY-GAWD!!!" BBQ may look easy, when done by those who know what they are doing, but is not as easy as it looks. A guy opened a small BBQ restaurant that was *behind* a local Italian restaurant. He had a couple of big problems - his establishment wasn't out front where you could see it, and he wasn't allowed to put a sign up on the street-side of the building. His BBQ was incredibly good. You could shake (just once) the big, meaty ribs he cooked and the meat would just fall off the bone onto your plate. He made his own sauces (three different styles) and all were outstanding. His prices were about 5% to 10% less than the other BBQ places in town. His restaurant was clean, neat and the service was great. He was in business for 6 months before he had to cut his losses and run. Why? Not that many people even knew he was open for business and he held the opinion that (quote) "paid advertising is over-rated"... Most everyone has a "benchmark" restaurant for whatever. The best steak you ever had; best breakfast; best dessert; etc. This guy was my benchmark for great ribs. And, for lack of a bit of marketing, he's out of business... There's one comparison which comes to mind. The BBQ joint generated interest among BBQ enthusiasts, but that interest didn't translate to a broader interest among the general restaurant consumers. Good marketing would certainly have helped. DRM doesn't seem to have much interest even among radio enthusiasts, if the responses on this forum are any indication. Expecting DRM to generate interest in shortwave radio among casual radio listeners looks like somebody's pipe dream. DRM may or may not be a (good, better, best) broadcasting service. But without a decent marketing plan, it would be pure luck for *any* product to succeed (IMHO). -=jd=- Monopolies in vital services don't need marketing. Marketing becomes increasingly important as the markets become more competitive. DRM has the monopoly on shortwave digital modulation for international broadcasting. If people want digital SW broadcasting, DRM is the only game in town. So, what's the best way to market digital SW radio? With a gimmicky name? If the DRM wizards asked me, I'd suggest they need to develop a low cost, easy to use, long battery life portable radio. I don't know if such a radio is possible. Or the old line international broadcasters could broadcast programs which the casual radio listener would want to listen to. But, since the Cold War and colonial era have both faded away, I don't know if that's possible, either. If Alex Jones and the Prophet of God go to DRM, I'll be right there with them. Frank Dresser |
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote: "-=jd=-" wrote in message ... Too true. Poor marketing can also doom an *excellent* product that may have been a big hit. Although my example isn't radio related, it serves as a fair example of the impact (or lack of impact) resulting from good marketing. Allow me to moan the blues for a bit... Bar-B-Que in this town is worse than "average", and for no good reason. "Average" BBQ isn't difficult at all. "Good" BBQ isn't really all that difficult. "OH-MY-GAWD!!!" BBQ may look easy, when done by those who know what they are doing, but is not as easy as it looks. A guy opened a small BBQ restaurant that was *behind* a local Italian restaurant. He had a couple of big problems - his establishment wasn't out front where you could see it, and he wasn't allowed to put a sign up on the street-side of the building. His BBQ was incredibly good. You could shake (just once) the big, meaty ribs he cooked and the meat would just fall off the bone onto your plate. He made his own sauces (three different styles) and all were outstanding. His prices were about 5% to 10% less than the other BBQ places in town. His restaurant was clean, neat and the service was great. He was in business for 6 months before he had to cut his losses and run. Why? Not that many people even knew he was open for business and he held the opinion that (quote) "paid advertising is over-rated"... Most everyone has a "benchmark" restaurant for whatever. The best steak you ever had; best breakfast; best dessert; etc. This guy was my benchmark for great ribs. And, for lack of a bit of marketing, he's out of business... There's one comparison which comes to mind. The BBQ joint generated interest among BBQ enthusiasts, but that interest didn't translate to a broader interest among the general restaurant consumers. Good marketing would certainly have helped. DRM doesn't seem to have much interest even among radio enthusiasts, if the responses on this forum are any indication. Expecting DRM to generate interest in shortwave radio among casual radio listeners looks like somebody's pipe dream. DRM may or may not be a (good, better, best) broadcasting service. But without a decent marketing plan, it would be pure luck for *any* product to succeed (IMHO). -=jd=- Monopolies in vital services don't need marketing. Marketing becomes increasingly important as the markets become more competitive. DRM has the monopoly on shortwave digital modulation for international broadcasting. If people want digital SW broadcasting, DRM is the only game in town. So, what's the best way to market digital SW radio? With a gimmicky name? If the DRM wizards asked me, I'd suggest they need to develop a low cost, easy to use, long battery life portable radio. I don't know if such a radio is possible. Or the old line international broadcasters could broadcast programs which the casual radio listener would want to listen to. But, since the Cold War and colonial era have both faded away, I don't know if that's possible, either. If Alex Jones and the Prophet of God go to DRM, I'll be right there with them. 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. Newer and different does not equate to better. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"Telamon" wrote in message ... 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! -- Telamon Ventura, California Frank Dresser |
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 |
FD,
.. You may have something here. .. IIRC - WWV runs a semi-suppressed Carrier with Dual Side Bands. .. I all of the International Broadcasters did the same and all new Shortwave Radios had AM-SYNC. Then that just may be the better 'improvement' for the Media of Shortwave Broadcasting. .. now why didn't i think of that ~ RHF |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com