Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I really have my doubts about this "world-wide renaissance of radio".
The average user of radio and especially SW isn't likely to go to the added hassle of DRM. I have played with DRM and I am very underwealmed. DRM radios consume much more energy, IE much shorter battery life, then analog. A lot of users have no access to "made" electricity and have to rely on batteries. The greater radio complexity also promises greater user headaches. Just my thoughts. Terry |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
dxAce wrote: craigm wrote: wrote: I really have my doubts about this "world-wide renaissance of radio". The average user of radio and especially SW isn't likely to go to the added hassle of DRM. I have played with DRM and I am very underwealmed. DRM radios consume much more energy, IE much shorter battery life, then analog. A lot of users have no access to "made" electricity and have to rely on batteries. The greater radio complexity also promises greater user headaches. Just my thoughts. Terry You are talking about the first generation of a technology. You could also say the same thing about digital displays on portable SW radios when they were first available. A portable CD player can run 50-80 hours on two AA batteries. Would you have expected that when CDs were first introduced? Think about where the technology could go. It can go to hell and take its QRM with it! Just my opinion. dxAce Michigan USA If it is anything like IBOC, they can keep it. While IBOC touts the benefits of their modulation scheme, they don't bother to tell anybody that their hybrid transmissions consume (yes consume) three channels of broadcasting space on the medium wave band. (I know I've said this before). All of this, and you get to pay a licensing fee! Pete |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I know, I have one of the first Diamond Rio MP3
players (PMP300?) and it did well to run for 4 or 5 hours on a "AA" cell. I treated myeself to a Rio Chiba, that has 8 times the built in memory, and will run on a "AAA" for at at least 20 hours. (I couldn't stand NPR or commercial AM/FM radio any more and I can't see trying to put a SW in a modern auto BTDT and still have the scrs!) But having said that, I just don''t see a market big enough to get the economies of scale to make it practical. By the time that happens, the "third" world will all have telephone and modest internet access. A lot of 3rd wrold places already have very deep cell phone penetration (I ownder why the market guys came up with that word?) Look at how many MP3 players have been sold. Then look at how many SW radio have been sold since radio began. I am willing to be a nice steak dinner that MP3 players have the lead, or will very soon. I know 30+ people who have MP3 players. Now some like my sister have a PDA that also is a MP3 player. I know, not counting the hams, maybe 4 poeple who have SWs. And one is my wife. The other 2 are people Ihave given my oldr rigs (RF2000) and Sony ICF?-7600 to. Everyone wnat a MP3 player. Only us nuts want a radio that requires a "long antenna wire". I still think it is a whizbang technical solution looking for a problem. Terry |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com... I really have my doubts about this "world-wide renaissance of radio". I tend to agree, however... The average user of radio and especially SW isn't likely to go to the added hassle of DRM. I think they will. Being able to punch in a frequency and get high quality audio without fading, static crashes, etc. will sell people -- who can afford it -- on the technology. I have played with DRM and I am very underwealmed. DRM radios consume much more energy, IE much shorter battery life, then analog. This is mainly a question of how well integrated the radio chipsets can be made; very quickly you get to the point where powering the speaker itself will dwarf the energy consumption of the radio itself. I expect the actual DRM decoding can be done with well under 100mW, probably more like 10mW in the near future. These are power levels that are easily obtained via solar power. The greater radio complexity also promises greater user headaches. I think it actually makes usage a lot simpler. What do you think's simpler to use.. a cell phone, or an amateur radio hand-talkie operating on 2m through a repeater autopatch? I think the biggest stumbling block by far is going to be (1) getting broadcasters to adopt the technology and (2) getting people in places that have the most to gain from the receipt of such broadcasts the radios at a price they can afford. ---Joel Kolstad |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... I really have my doubts about this "world-wide renaissance of radio". I tend to agree, however... The average user of radio and especially SW isn't likely to go to the added hassle of DRM. I think they will. Being able to punch in a frequency and get high quality audio without fading, static crashes, etc. will sell people -- who can afford it -- on the technology. People have been able to punch in frequencies for an affordable price for about twenty years now. It's doubtful there's more SWLs now than there was back then. Also, digital radio might not have the same fading and static crashes that analog radio has, but I can't imagine how digital radio can be free from dropouts and digital SW certainly can't fix the occasional dead propagation problem. I have played with DRM and I am very underwealmed. DRM radios consume much more energy, IE much shorter battery life, then analog. This is mainly a question of how well integrated the radio chipsets can be made; very quickly you get to the point where powering the speaker itself will dwarf the energy consumption of the radio itself. I expect the actual DRM decoding can be done with well under 100mW, probably more like 10mW in the near future. These are power levels that are easily obtained via solar power. The greater radio complexity also promises greater user headaches. I think it actually makes usage a lot simpler. What do you think's simpler to use.. a cell phone, or an amateur radio hand-talkie operating on 2m through a repeater autopatch? I think the biggest stumbling block by far is going to be (1) getting broadcasters to adopt the technology and (2) getting people in places that have the most to gain from the receipt of such broadcasts the radios at a price they can afford. ---Joel Kolstad The same could be said for direct broadcast satellites. Such satellites would provide highly reliable, clear sounding radio (or TV!}. Frank Dresser |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
... Also, digital radio might not have the same fading and static crashes that analog radio has, but I can't imagine how digital radio can be free from dropouts and digital SW certainly can't fix the occasional dead propagation problem. It can't, of course, but digital broadcasts can still sound perfect when the signal to noise ratio of the transmission is such that no human could make anything whatsoever out of a standard AM or FM transmission. The same could be said for direct broadcast satellites. Such satellites would provide highly reliable, clear sounding radio (or TV!}. Good point. I suppose some of the push for DRM is so that the terrestial broadcasters can actually compete with satellite radio, just as cable TV in the US has been forced to upgrade its services given the competition from the DBS services. ---Joel |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message ... "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... Also, digital radio might not have the same fading and static crashes that analog radio has, but I can't imagine how digital radio can be free from dropouts and digital SW certainly can't fix the occasional dead propagation problem. It can't, of course, but digital broadcasts can still sound perfect when the signal to noise ratio of the transmission is such that no human could make anything whatsoever out of a standard AM or FM transmission. Then, for SW digital broadcast radio to be successful, the listeners will still have to accept the unreliability of SW. Reliable communications have never been cheaper, and they will get much cheaper yet. I think the day will soon come when SW radio won't be the first choice for any business or government worldwide communication. The SW spectrum will only be useful for emergency communications and radio hobbyists. Ideally, SW would be administrated by an agency something like the National Park Service. Benign neglect would also be OK. The same could be said for direct broadcast satellites. Such satellites would provide highly reliable, clear sounding radio (or TV!}. Good point. I suppose some of the push for DRM is so that the terrestrial broadcasters can actually compete with satellite radio, just as cable TV in the US has been forced to upgrade its services given the competition from the DBS services. ---Joel I'm not convinced the average radio listener cares much about fidelity. Neither AM nor FM stations normally approach their fidelity limits, but those stations seem to be attracting listeners just fine. Satellite's appeal seems to be it's wide range of programming. Digital radio might support a larger number of channels for the terrestrial broadcasters. I think Clear Channel might be thinking that all those IBOC channels they plan to install can be used as a sort of super-SCA scheme, if IBOC radio falls flat. Frank Dresser |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
... Then, for SW digital broadcast radio to be successful, the listeners will still have to accept the unreliability of SW. I suppose so, although I think it's safe to do that, in many areas, the reliability is a very slowly changing function (i.e., dependent much more on something like the sunspot cycle rather than local atmospheric conditions). The bottom line is that digital broadcasting can make SW more reliable than it is now. True, it will never approach the 'realiability' of a local broadcaster, but presumably the typical use of SW (excluding hobbyists for a moment) is when the local broadcasts are either unavailable or considered to be too heavily influenced by the local government. Reliable communications have never been cheaper, and they will get much cheaper yet. I think the day will soon come when SW radio won't be the first choice for any business or government worldwide communication. Yes. The SW spectrum will only be useful for emergency communications and radio hobbyists. I'd wager that the users of the HF spectrum for free e-mail services such as Winlink 2000 won't go away any time soon either. :-) I'm not convinced the average radio listener cares much about fidelity. I think they care a lot about fidelity, but not how you'd typically measure it. To the average person, static or fading is far more annoying than heavy compression artifacts (that abount on XM and Sirius) or even short dropouts. Satellite's appeal seems to be it's wide range of programming. True. ---Joel |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
197 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (23-NOV-04) | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | Policy | |||
209 English-language HF Broadcasts audible in NE US (04-APR-04) | Shortwave | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Dx |