In article ,
Tr wrote:

Sun, 24 Apr 2005 10:22:17 +0100, "Mike Terry"
kirjutas:

Anyone know where to buy a DRM receiver? Its becoming a regular
transmission mode e.g. The Bayerischer Rundfunk will broadcast from
2 May on 6085 khz in DRM.

You can find a list of equipment and receivers at the DRM homepage:

http://www.drm.org/receivers/globreceivers.htm

My personal favourite is Mayah DRM receiver 2100

I see that they are still lying about this on the web page.

"DRM is the world's only non-proprietary, universally standardized
on-air system for short-wave, medium-wave/AM and long-wave. The DRM
consortium does not endorse or certify products. Links to products are
listed on the DRM web site at the discretion of the DRM consortium. The
DRM Consortium is not responsible for the content of external internet
sites."

The decoding software was proprietary and as far as I know it still is
in part at least.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message

I see that they are still lying about this on the web page.

"DRM is the world's only non-proprietary, universally standardized
on-air system for short-wave, medium-wave/AM and long-wave. The DRM
consortium does not endorse or certify products. Links to products are
listed on the DRM web site at the discretion of the DRM consortium. The
DRM Consortium is not responsible for the content of external internet
sites."

The decoding software was proprietary and as far as I know it still is
in part at least.

It depends on the definition, when it comes to broadcast or telecoms hardware
non-proprietary means it's based on a published open standard (usually ISO/ITU
approved) that any company is free to implement, for instance many companies
produce their own AAC implementations with specific performance and quality
tweaks, but the bitstream that comes out of each implementation is exactly in
spec.

There is of course a combination of patent and royalties concerns, however
MPEG-LA have to licence each indiscriminately and on equal terms. Compare that
to MS where they control the standard, which may not even be (fully) published,
they produce the encoders and decoders with any input from competition
companies, and they licence the actual codec in final form rather than just
charge royalties on some of the patents behind that. (MS have tried to rectify
some of this by getting SMPTE to rubberstamp WM9)

MPEG2 for example isn't a "free" standard, royalties must be paid whilst the
underlying patents are in force, however there are thousands of companies who
have produced their own implementation, there are hundreds of vendors that
produce silicon so there is immense competition, and no one company can control
the standard.

AAC+ may not be free but that doesn't necessarily mean it's "proprietary" in the
above context.


Az.

In article ,
"Aztech" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message
I see that they are still lying about this on the web page.

"DRM is the world's only non-proprietary, universally standardized
on-air system for short-wave, medium-wave/AM and long-wave. The DRM
consortium does not endorse or certify products. Links to products
are listed on the DRM web site at the discretion of the DRM
consortium. The DRM Consortium is not responsible for the content
of external internet sites."

The decoding software was proprietary and as far as I know it still
is in part at least.

It depends on the definition, when it comes to broadcast or telecoms
hardware non-proprietary means it's based on a published open
standard (usually ISO/ITU approved) that any company is free to
implement, for instance many companies produce their own AAC
implementations with specific performance and quality tweaks, but the
bitstream that comes out of each implementation is exactly in spec.

There is of course a combination of patent and royalties concerns,
however MPEG-LA have to licence each indiscriminately and on equal
terms. Compare that to MS where they control the standard, which may
not even be (fully) published, they produce the encoders and decoders
with any input from competition companies, and they licence the
actual codec in final form rather than just charge royalties on some
of the patents behind that. (MS have tried to rectify some of this by
getting SMPTE to rubberstamp WM9)

MPEG2 for example isn't a "free" standard, royalties must be paid
whilst the underlying patents are in force, however there are
thousands of companies who have produced their own implementation,
there are hundreds of vendors that produce silicon so there is
immense competition, and no one company can control the standard.

AAC+ may not be free but that doesn't necessarily mean it's
"proprietary" in the above context.

OK, here is my simple definition of proprietary in and out of context.

It is the public domain or it is not.

Some of the software that is used in DRM requires a license.

If it requires a license that you must agree to in order to use it then
it is proprietary.

The license MEANS that they are reserving the rights to the use of that
software. Please tell me this point is not lost by you?

This license can be revoked at any time or they can start charging for
its use or they can limit the conditions of use or whom may use it and
any other circumstance you can think of.

You must obey the rights of the owner of the software or the courts will
fine you and the cops will put you in jail depending on the
circumstances.

No thank you DRM!

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

----- Original Message -----
From: "Telamon"
Newsgroups: alt.radio.digital,rec.radio.shortwave
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 7:35 PM
Subject: DRM


In article ,
"Aztech" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message
I see that they are still lying about this on the web page.

"DRM is the world's only non-proprietary, universally standardized
on-air system for short-wave, medium-wave/AM and long-wave. The DRM
consortium does not endorse or certify products. Links to products
are listed on the DRM web site at the discretion of the DRM
consortium. The DRM Consortium is not responsible for the content
of external internet sites."

The decoding software was proprietary and as far as I know it still
is in part at least.

It depends on the definition, when it comes to broadcast or telecoms
hardware non-proprietary means it's based on a published open
standard (usually ISO/ITU approved) that any company is free to
implement, for instance many companies produce their own AAC
implementations with specific performance and quality tweaks, but the
bitstream that comes out of each implementation is exactly in spec.

There is of course a combination of patent and royalties concerns,
however MPEG-LA have to licence each indiscriminately and on equal
terms. Compare that to MS where they control the standard, which may
not even be (fully) published, they produce the encoders and decoders
with any input from competition companies, and they licence the
actual codec in final form rather than just charge royalties on some
of the patents behind that. (MS have tried to rectify some of this by
getting SMPTE to rubberstamp WM9)

MPEG2 for example isn't a "free" standard, royalties must be paid
whilst the underlying patents are in force, however there are
thousands of companies who have produced their own implementation,
there are hundreds of vendors that produce silicon so there is
immense competition, and no one company can control the standard.

AAC+ may not be free but that doesn't necessarily mean it's
"proprietary" in the above context.

OK, here is my simple definition of proprietary in and out of context.

It is the public domain or it is not.

Some of the software that is used in DRM requires a license.

If it requires a license that you must agree to in order to use it then
it is proprietary.

The license MEANS that they are reserving the rights to the use of that
software. Please tell me this point is not lost by you?

This license can be revoked at any time or they can start charging for
its use or they can limit the conditions of use or whom may use it and
any other circumstance you can think of.

You must obey the rights of the owner of the software or the courts will
fine you and the cops will put you in jail depending on the
circumstances.

No thank you DRM!

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

The licensing fees for DRM consumer products are at
http://www.vialicensing.com/products...ense_fees.html, ranging from No
Charge (under 1000 units annually) to $1.70 per unit for 1001 to 500,000.
The DRM patent-pool licensors includes AT&T Corp., Coding Technologies,
Dolby Laboratories, France Telecom, Fraunhofer IIS, NEC Corporation, Philips
Electronics, Robert Bosch GmbH, Sony Corporation, TDF, T-Systems
International GmbH, Thales, and VoiceAge Corporation.

The license is not for software, as far as I can tell, rather for the USE of
the audio coding and modulation schemes which have been patented. There was
decoding software sold by the DRM consortium or one of its members that was
truly proprietary by all definitions - it was closed, no source code
provided, and a fee was charged. And there is decoding software that is
publicly and freely available in source code form from sourceforge.net under
the Gnu Public License - which, by all or most definitions, is
non-proprietary. However, there is a warning that its USE may infringe third
party IP and thus may not be legal in some countries.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
"Something proprietary is something exclusively owned by someone, often with
connotations that it is exclusive and cannot be used by other parties
without negotiations. It may specifically mean that something is covered by
one or more patents, as in proprietary technology. It can also mean that the
copyright is used in a way that restricts the users' freedoms."

It would seem that there are components of the DRM technology that are
proprietary, i.e., patented by someone, but that they have taken steps to
make the specifications freely available and the fee for use of the
technology nearly or absolutely free of charge for consumer applications.
That would make it far less proprietary than many other technologies. On the
proprietariness scale, DRM would be closer to the non-proprietary end than
the other.

Tom

In article ,
Tr wrote:

Sun, 24 Apr 2005 10:22:17 +0100, "Mike Terry"
kirjutas:

Anyone know where to buy a DRM receiver?
Its becoming a regular transmission mode e.g. The Bayerischer Rundfunk will
broadcast from 2 May on 6085 khz in DRM.

You can find a list of equipment and receivers at the DRM homepage:

http://www.drm.org/receivers/globreceivers.htm

My personal favourite is Mayah DRM receiver 2100

This needs a PC to work

- Coding Technologies
The world's first DRM-capable USB port receiver is Coding Technologies'
Digital World Traveller:
http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/digtrav.htm
---------------------------------
This needs a PC to work

- ELAD srl
http://www.eladit.net/DRMCon.htm
---------------------------------
This needs a PC to work

- Fraunhofer IIS
The FhG Software Radio and other equipment can be found at:
http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/dab/projects/drm/index.html
---------------------------------
This is a stand alone radio

- Mayah Communications
The DRM Receiver 2010:
http://www.mayah.com/index.php?id=8

---------------------------------
This needs a PC to work

- Sistel
CIAOradio H101 by Sistel
http://www.comsistel.com/drm.htm

---------------------------------
These all need a PC to work

- WiNRADiO Communications
WR-G303i (internal PC-card version)
http://www.winradio.com/home/g303i.htm
WR-G303e (external version with USB link)
http://www.winradio.com/home/g303e.htm
Both these products operate with this DRM software plug-in
http://www.winradio.com/home/g303-drm.htm

+++++++++++++++++++++

So there is one real radio out of all the listed units.
http://www.mayah.com/content/download/pdfs/drm/DRM2010_e.pdf

They don't tell you much about it, not even how much power it takes.

An observation here is that although is looks to be a portable in looks
and physical size they only tell you that it operates on AC power with
no mention of the batteries?

21 X 7 X 13 cm
8.25 X 2.75 X 5.1 inches with rounding

Hey, I found a operating guide on line.
http://www.mayah.com/content/download/pdfs/manuals/drm2010_e.pdf

You are not going to be toting this around as it takes a 1 amp power
supply and it weighs a little over 1.5 lb and the power adapter weighs
another + 1 lb. (Page 7)

Not to mention that you will need a very long power cord.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...
Anyone know where to buy a DRM receiver?

Its becoming a regular transmission mode e.g. The Bayerischer Rundfunk
will
broadcast from 2 May on 6085 khz in DRM.



Well,

the Ten Tec 320-D version can receive DRM but it uses software that must be
used on a computer. I listen to DRM frequencies on my 320D. They sell for
like $200 used on Ebay and $300 new.
I paid $200 for mine. For the money, it's a fun little receiver with lots of
filter choices.

Lucky

Mike Terry wrote:
Anyone know where to buy a DRM receiver?


Are the still making them? Better act fast, as DRM's disappointing
entry onto the world stage will have the manufacturers of DRM receivers
closing up shop.

Steve

wrote:
Mike Terry wrote:

Anyone know where to buy a DRM receiver?



Are the still making them? Better act fast, as DRM's disappointing
entry onto the world stage will have the manufacturers of DRM receivers
closing up shop.

Steve



http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/digtrav.htm

This looks a good buy at e199

"Steve Jonson" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Mike Terry wrote:

Anyone know where to buy a DRM receiver?



Are the still making them? Better act fast, as DRM's disappointing
entry onto the world stage will have the manufacturers of DRM receivers
closing up shop.

Steve



http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/digtrav.htm

This looks a good buy at e199

It's not... as I said, wait a bit longer and hopefully the new stand alone
DRM / DAB radio will be a marked improvement