|
Renaissance of MW SW radio
Digitalisation will initiate a world-wide renaissance of radio
By Erik Bettermann (specialist panel with the Director General of Deutsche Welle in the context of Medientage München) "Digital short-wave will revolutionise cross-border broadcasts and will initiate a world-wide renaissance of radio". This was the opinion of the Director General of Deutsche Welle, Mr Erik Bettermann, during a panel discussion at Münchner Medientage. Mr Bettermann, the head of the German international broadcaster and instigator of the event was not the only one to present an optimistic prediction of a "Digital Global Radio" development: The other panel specialists also emphasised the advantages of digitalisation in the so-called AM range, i.e. short-, medium- and longwave. The discussion was chaired by Peter Senger, Director of Distribution at Deutsche Welle and Chairman of the Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Consortium; and next to Erik Bettermann, BBC representative Mike Cronk, Dan D'Aversa of RTL Group and Phil Laven of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) were also participating in the debate. Senger outlined the advantages of digital short-wave as follows: The world-wide accepted DRM standard provided an excellent audio-quality comparable to FM. In addition, the search for frequencies was obsolete, as the station identification tuned in to the designated frequency and automatically switched to the best one. In parallel, it allows for the sending of accompanying programme information such as text messages. "On top of everything, digital transmission technology saves a lot of energy and costs compared to the analogue one", Senger said. This would open up enormous opportunities, especially for international broadcasters. For several years, DW like many other broadcasters has noted that listeners migrated from short-wave to FM or other new distribution channels in digital quality, said Bettermann. Deutsche Welle had to stay abreast of these changes. "According to test transmissions being operated by Deutsche Welle, we anticipate large area coverage in almost FM quality without interference such as jitters, induced power-noise or fading", the General Director stated. At the same time, not only stationery indoor reception, but also mobile reception in cars and with small portable devices is possible. Admittedly listeners would need new receivers. As a consequence, the real challenge for the DRM consortium would be to achieve successful implementation, said Technical Director of the EBU, Mr. Philip Laven. The timetable for the introduction of digital services in the AM bands would in fact be set by broadcasters, "but the speed of the transition to digital will be set by consumers", stressed Laven. Dan D’Aversa of RTL Group sees the chance to develop pan-European coverage and that RTL Group would try to ensure "that low-cost DRM receivers will be on sale in time for Christmas 2005". Mike Cronk stated that the BBC had invested heavily in DRM and that they were now developing "a detailed strategy for its initial deployment, probably into Europe, in 2005". According to Cronk, DRM offered the unique combination of wide area short-wave coverage and FM usability and quality. As a consequence of using this digital medium, continuous direct delivery to the audience avoiding "political or other regulatory obstacles" will be possible. Bettermann, having also stressed the aspect of the impossibility to censor short-wave and, focussing on European implementation, announced that Deutsche Welle would gradually switch off its analogue short-wave transmissions. A pre-condition would be the world-wide availability of DRM receivers. 21 October 2004 |
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 |
I've read that speech a couple of different times in the past month,
and I think I finally know why I am bothered by it. The speaker focuses on the benefits of digitalized broadcasts to the broadcaster and largely (but not completely)ignores whether all of this will be of any interest to the listener. It reads as though they don't really understand who their listening audience is. A listner of limited means in a poor country will hardly be in the position to buy a potentially very expensive digital receiver. A listener who is more well of financially will have access to information and music through an increasing number of sources right now. How would a digital shortwave and mw receiver improve either the quality of selection available right now. Tr wrote: Digitalisation will initiate a world-wide renaissance of radio By Erik Bettermann (specialist panel with the Director General of Deutsche Welle in the context of Medientage M=FCnchen) "Digital short-wave will revolutionise cross-border broadcasts and will initiate a world-wide renaissance of radio". This was the opinion of the Director General of Deutsche Welle, Mr Erik Bettermann, during a panel discussion at M=FCnchner Medientage. Mr Bettermann, the head of the German international broadcaster and instigator of the event was not the only one to present an optimistic prediction of a "Digital Global Radio" development: The other panel specialists also emphasised the advantages of digitalisation in the so-called AM range, i.e. short-, medium- and longwave. The discussion was chaired by Peter Senger, Director of Distribution at Deutsche Welle and Chairman of the Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Consortium; and next to Erik Bettermann, BBC representative Mike Cronk, Dan D'Aversa of RTL Group and Phil Laven of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) were also participating in the debate. Senger outlined the advantages of digital short-wave as follows: The world-wide accepted DRM standard provided an excellent audio-quality comparable to FM. In addition, the search for frequencies was obsolete, as the station identification tuned in to the designated frequency and automatically switched to the best one. In parallel, it allows for the sending of accompanying programme information such as text messages. "On top of everything, digital transmission technology saves a lot of energy and costs compared to the analogue one", Senger said. This would open up enormous opportunities, especially for international broadcasters. For several years, DW like many other broadcasters has noted that listeners migrated from short-wave to FM or other new distribution channels in digital quality, said Bettermann. Deutsche Welle had to stay abreast of these changes. "According to test transmissions being operated by Deutsche Welle, we anticipate large area coverage in almost FM quality without interference such as jitters, induced power-noise or fading", the General Director stated. At the same time, not only stationery indoor reception, but also mobile reception in cars and with small portable devices is possible. Admittedly listeners would need new receivers. As a consequence, the real challenge for the DRM consortium would be to achieve successful implementation, said Technical Director of the EBU, Mr. Philip Laven. The timetable for the introduction of digital services in the AM bands would in fact be set by broadcasters, "but the speed of the transition to digital will be set by consumers", stressed Laven. Dan D'Aversa of RTL Group sees the chance to develop pan-European coverage and that RTL Group would try to ensure "that low-cost DRM receivers will be on sale in time for Christmas 2005". Mike Cronk stated that the BBC had invested heavily in DRM and that they were now developing "a detailed strategy for its initial deployment, probably into Europe, in 2005". According to Cronk, DRM offered the unique combination of wide area short-wave coverage and FM usability and quality. As a consequence of using this digital medium, continuous direct delivery to the audience avoiding "political or other regulatory obstacles" will be possible. Bettermann, having also stressed the aspect of the impossibility to censor short-wave and, focussing on European implementation, announced that Deutsche Welle would gradually switch off its analogue short-wave transmissions. A pre-condition would be the world-wide availability of DRM receivers. 21 October 2004 |
|
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 |
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 |
|
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 |
wrote in message
oups.com... "A listner of limited means in a poor country will hardly be in the position to buy a potentially very expensive digital receiver." I agree with you 100% -- hence the real challenge to make digital radios dirt cheap. Interestingly, though, at a certain quality level digital receivers actually become cheaper to build than analog receivers! |
"Telamon" wrote in message
... DRM benefits the broadcaster not the listener. I bet a lot of listeners to, e.g., satellite radio in the U.S. and Europe would disagree with the assessment that digital radio doesn't benefit the listener. But you do have to keep in mind that companies exist to make a profit. Unless you'd advocate that only governments should have broadcast rights, the market will insure that people 'get what they want' when it comes to broadcasts -- even if that does imply that the content is crap relative to what you or I might desire. |
"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 |
In article ,
"Joel Kolstad" wrote: "Telamon" wrote in message .. . DRM benefits the broadcaster not the listener. I bet a lot of listeners to, e.g., satellite radio in the U.S. and Europe would disagree with the assessment that digital radio doesn't benefit the listener. But you do have to keep in mind that companies exist to make a profit. Unless you'd advocate that only governments should have broadcast rights, the market will insure that people 'get what they want' when it comes to broadcasts -- even if that does imply that the content is crap relative to what you or I might desire. I have several problems with what you posted. I have not seen a poll of SW listeners who have compared DRM to analog. What poll are you referring too? The majority of the SW broadcasters are not for profit national arm of their respective governments so this has nothing to do with private companies or the profits they make. -------------------------------- If you take a careful look of the DRM system, you will understand that the first order benefit is a reduction in electrical costs to the broadcaster. Like any anything though there is a down side even to this main and as far as I can tell only real benefit to either broadcaster or listener and that is that the broadcaster must then transmit at lower power. This transmission mode is not supposed to require as much power as analog for good reception. The result will be lower signal levels at the listeners radio. This will make the transmission more difficult to decode with good quality. The big picture is even worse when you consider that the listeners radio must now be more complex and require more power to operate. New radio receivers will cost more and will cost more to operate. Almost all the existing radios from the beginning of SW broadcasting to now will be obsolete and the rest converted at no small cost. The listener will not benefit in any way over analog if the broadcast power is reduced so that the broadcaster will be able to derive the only real benefit of the DRM system. The signal that could have been clearer and free from interference will degrade and instead of being noisy on an analog receiver will cut in and out on a digital unit. Under any but the ideal conditions of very good signal to noise the DRM receiver will cut in and out. This behavior is much worse to most individuals than the analog fading on current receivers so this is just an example of different tradeoffs in the system design instead of DRM being a better system. I could go on and on about the pros and cons of DRM to analog but the end result is no better or actually worse for the listener. The listener will likely have to replace their current radio. The new radios will cost more money than the current radio. The current or new listener will have to spend more money for a radio and spend more money to operate it because it will consume more power. The listening situation will be different from analog where some aspects will be an improvement at the cost of different set of downsides. The net result will not be better then analog just different. The broadcaster still has to buy the same size transmitters because the DRM system requires tremendous overhead capacity so that cost does not change. The transmitter modulation subsystem is more complex and a little more costly than analog. The engineering costs are a little greater because keeping all the transmitter parameters within very tight limits so it does not splatter across the band is more difficult to maintain then analog. The broadcaster has to transmit a weaker signal to reap the one real benefit of the DRM system where the listeners antenna and radio will have to deal with that weaker signal. ------------------------ All that said the thing that ticks me off about the DRM consortium is that they lie about the system. The claim that the encoding, decoding system is open is as false as the real benefit will turn out to be if DRM is implemented as envisioned. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"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 |
Hi Telamon,
"Telamon" wrote in message ... I have not seen a poll of SW listeners who have compared DRM to analog. What poll are you referring too? I don't. I said, 'I bet...' but that doesn't imply I actually have any proof. :-) It's just my opinion. The majority of the SW broadcasters are not for profit national arm of their respective governments so this has nothing to do with private companies or the profits they make. Fair point. Still, in -- most -- countries the government respects the will of the people to some reasonable degree, and as such the broadcast content will change similarly. If you take a careful look of the DRM system, you will understand that the first order benefit is a reduction in electrical costs to the broadcaster. I'm thinking that the same effective range can be achieved for less power, OR one can keep the same (average) output power and increase their range a skosh. This transmission mode is not supposed to require as much power as analog for good reception. The result will be lower signal levels at the listeners radio. This will make the transmission more difficult to decode with good quality. It's a digital mode with plenty of error correct, so the quality of reception will fall off VERY rapidly with a dropping signal to noise ratio. Again, for the _same_ power, DRM will provide _better_ reception quality for the listener. The big picture is even worse when you consider that the listeners radio must now be more complex Yes, although it all gets boiled down into an IC or two these days anyway. require more power to operate. Not at all necessarily. As I mentioned last time, the processing requirements are not so great that it isn't reasonable to figure that -- after a couple of generations of receiver chipsets-- the decoding power requirements will be negligible compared to speaker amplifier requirements, so the power 'issue' then only becomes a potential problem for Walkman-style radios. (BTW, satellite radio in the US -- XM and Sirius -- are on about generation #3 of receiver chipsets now, and they've just started introducing would-be Walkman-style radios. They're not much to write home about yet, but give'em another year or two and I think they'll have it.) New radio receivers will cost more Not necessarily. Digital processing is a lot cheaper to implement than analog processing -- besides performance, there's a cost reason that good car stereos now digitize at IF and 'do the rest' digitally, and cell phones have always tried to push the digital processing as close to the antenna as possible. and will cost more to operate. Only if they use more power... Almost all the existing radios from the beginning of SW broadcasting to now will be obsolete and the rest converted at no small cost. Yes, although it's not like that's going to happen overnight. In the USA, HDTV is taking decades to surplant the old NTSC system, and the same is surely going to be true of digital radio broadcasts (although perhaps not _quite_ as long, as radios cost a lot less than TVs to replace). The listener will not benefit in any way over analog if the broadcast power is reduced so that the broadcaster will be able to derive the only real benefit of the DRM system. The signal that could have been clearer and free from interference will degrade and instead of being noisy on an analog receiver will cut in and out on a digital unit. If the broadcasters choose to cut their power, that's a possibility. But I don't see why the broadcasters would tend to do that? Under any but the ideal conditions of very good signal to noise the DRM receiver will cut in and out. This behavior is much worse to most individuals than the analog fading on current receivers so this is just an example of different tradeoffs in the system design instead of DRM being a better system. Digital transmissions finally cut out well after an analog transmission is completely undecipherable. I think most people prefer brief 'cut outs' to, e.g., fading and static crashes, but I suppose that's largely a matter of personal preference and I don't have a very large sample size. I could go on and on about the pros and cons of DRM to analog but the end result is no better or actually worse for the listener. OK. :-) I guess we'll see how it plays out... you tend to make certain assumptions about broadcasters' and listeners' behaviors that are different from mine. [a bunch of somewhat repetitious stuff deleted, not that I think it's invalid, but rather I don't have the time to address it right now] All that said the thing that ticks me off about the DRM consortium is that they lie about the system. The claim that the encoding, decoding system is open is as false as the real benefit will turn out to be if DRM is implemented as envisioned. I'd agree with you there. Unfortunately the same thing has happened on the amateur radio bands -- digital modes such as Pactor III just barely squeek by the FCC definition of being 'documented,' yet trying to implementing the decoding/encoding algorithms onesself is nigh impossible. ---Joel Kolstad |
In article ,
"Joel Kolstad" wrote: Hi Telamon, "Telamon" wrote in message .. . I have not seen a poll of SW listeners who have compared DRM to analog. What poll are you referring too? I don't. I said, 'I bet...' but that doesn't imply I actually have any proof. :-) It's just my opinion. The majority of the SW broadcasters are not for profit national arm of their respective governments so this has nothing to do with private companies or the profits they make. Fair point. Still, in -- most -- countries the government respects the will of the people to some reasonable degree, and as such the broadcast content will change similarly. If you take a careful look of the DRM system, you will understand that the first order benefit is a reduction in electrical costs to the broadcaster. I'm thinking that the same effective range can be achieved for less power, OR one can keep the same (average) output power and increase their range a skosh. This transmission mode is not supposed to require as much power as analog for good reception. The result will be lower signal levels at the listeners radio. This will make the transmission more difficult to decode with good quality. It's a digital mode with plenty of error correct, so the quality of reception will fall off VERY rapidly with a dropping signal to noise ratio. Again, for the _same_ power, DRM will provide _better_ reception quality for the listener. The big picture is even worse when you consider that the listeners radio must now be more complex Yes, although it all gets boiled down into an IC or two these days anyway. require more power to operate. Not at all necessarily. As I mentioned last time, the processing requirements are not so great that it isn't reasonable to figure that -- after a couple of generations of receiver chipsets-- the decoding power requirements will be negligible compared to speaker amplifier requirements, so the power 'issue' then only becomes a potential problem for Walkman-style radios. (BTW, satellite radio in the US -- XM and Sirius -- are on about generation #3 of receiver chipsets now, and they've just started introducing would-be Walkman-style radios. They're not much to write home about yet, but give'em another year or two and I think they'll have it.) New radio receivers will cost more Not necessarily. Digital processing is a lot cheaper to implement than analog processing -- besides performance, there's a cost reason that good car stereos now digitize at IF and 'do the rest' digitally, and cell phones have always tried to push the digital processing as close to the antenna as possible. and will cost more to operate. Only if they use more power... Almost all the existing radios from the beginning of SW broadcasting to now will be obsolete and the rest converted at no small cost. Yes, although it's not like that's going to happen overnight. In the USA, HDTV is taking decades to surplant the old NTSC system, and the same is surely going to be true of digital radio broadcasts (although perhaps not _quite_ as long, as radios cost a lot less than TVs to replace). The listener will not benefit in any way over analog if the broadcast power is reduced so that the broadcaster will be able to derive the only real benefit of the DRM system. The signal that could have been clearer and free from interference will degrade and instead of being noisy on an analog receiver will cut in and out on a digital unit. If the broadcasters choose to cut their power, that's a possibility. But I don't see why the broadcasters would tend to do that? Under any but the ideal conditions of very good signal to noise the DRM receiver will cut in and out. This behavior is much worse to most individuals than the analog fading on current receivers so this is just an example of different tradeoffs in the system design instead of DRM being a better system. Digital transmissions finally cut out well after an analog transmission is completely undecipherable. I think most people prefer brief 'cut outs' to, e.g., fading and static crashes, but I suppose that's largely a matter of personal preference and I don't have a very large sample size. I could go on and on about the pros and cons of DRM to analog but the end result is no better or actually worse for the listener. OK. :-) I guess we'll see how it plays out... you tend to make certain assumptions about broadcasters' and listeners' behaviors that are different from mine. [a bunch of somewhat repetitious stuff deleted, not that I think it's invalid, but rather I don't have the time to address it right now] All that said the thing that ticks me off about the DRM consortium is that they lie about the system. The claim that the encoding, decoding system is open is as false as the real benefit will turn out to be if DRM is implemented as envisioned. I'd agree with you there. Unfortunately the same thing has happened on the amateur radio bands -- digital modes such as Pactor III just barely squeek by the FCC definition of being 'documented,' yet trying to implementing the decoding/encoding algorithms onesself is nigh impossible. I did not want this thread to be overly long but it is getting there. I think that most of your replies are assumptions on the progress of silicon being generated specifically for DRM receivers and that is going to cost money. Even with the Asicss for the horse power to all the work in a DRM receiver it seems likely to me that it will require more power than an analog set. It is not reasonable to assume otherwise. The DRM consortium is not playing straight with the public and this makes any claims suspect in my eyes, certainly the ones that imply slight of hand techniques like the power reduction on the broadcaster side and at the same time maintain that reception will be better. I do not believe it. I will need proof and so far, it is not forth coming. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com