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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
...

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.


Maybe, but it took thirty years for wideband FM to become competitive with
AM. And FM didn't replace AM. FM didn't start growing until there was a
market for additional stations.

Frank Dresser