"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