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

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.

craigm

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

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

"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