"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