David wrote:

On 3 Aug 2005 06:53:07 -0700, wrote:

In that case, all they'd need to get rid of is the interface to the uP
and a mini-USB jack.

Steve

Not going to happen Fetish Boy. People want freedom of choice.

What do you have against a hi-fi feed of the BBC World Service 24
hours a day?

It's not shortwave, 'tard boy, and ostensibly that is what this group is about.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David wrote:
On 3 Aug 2005 06:53:07 -0700, wrote:


In that case, all they'd need to get rid of is the interface to the uP
and a mini-USB jack.

Steve


Not going to happen Fetish Boy. People want freedom of choice.

What do you have against a hi-fi feed of the BBC World Service 24
hours a day?



XM's feed of BBCWS is hardly Hi-Fi. In many cases it sounds more like a
low bit MP3 with shaped response to filter out the higher levelss of in
spectrum aliasing noise. More refined than 5975, lower noise for sure. And
more detailed, perhaps.

Talk channels are more bandwidth limited than the music channels on XM.
Most aren't stereo, either.

XM is a lot of things, but one thing it's never going to be is Hi-fi.

I once called up Siri's sales dept and asked them if they broadcast their
music in stereo. The first guy said yes, then when I said if he's sure and
can I have his name, he told me to hold on. He switched me to someone else.
This person said as far as he knows, it's in stereo but he can't be 100%
sure.

How can a company not know if their music signals are broadcast in stereo or
not? A poster in a group showed me pictures of Siri's receivers, and a few
said "stereo" on them so I guess it is in stereo. I don't know about XM. I
know at one time Siri had more sats in space then XM but they launched a new
sat like 4-6 months ago.

I won't pay for the service either. I can find all the music I want on FM or
on the net. Radio waves were meant to be free for listeners with commercials
supporting the station. To me, this sat radio business is a created
offspring of radio that has been hyped too much. But from many people who
have the service, they say they'll never go back to "old style FM" again.

I surely won't pay $13 or $15 a month for it. If it was like $3 a month, I'd
try it.

Lucky

wrote in message
oups.com...

You're pretty funny, actually. You get on here and rail against
corporate America, and yet, when it comes to getting information,
you're content to suckle at Corporate America's biggest, swaying tit.

Steve

Good one Steve!

Lucky wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

David wrote:

On 3 Aug 2005 06:53:07 -0700, wrote:



In that case, all they'd need to get rid of is the interface to the uP
and a mini-USB jack.

Steve


Not going to happen Fetish Boy. People want freedom of choice.

What do you have against a hi-fi feed of the BBC World Service 24
hours a day?



XM's feed of BBCWS is hardly Hi-Fi. In many cases it sounds more like a
low bit MP3 with shaped response to filter out the higher levelss of in
spectrum aliasing noise. More refined than 5975, lower noise for sure. And
more detailed, perhaps.

Talk channels are more bandwidth limited than the music channels on XM.
Most aren't stereo, either.

XM is a lot of things, but one thing it's never going to be is Hi-fi.


I once called up Siri's sales dept and asked them if they broadcast their
music in stereo. The first guy said yes, then when I said if he's sure and
can I have his name, he told me to hold on. He switched me to someone else.
This person said as far as he knows, it's in stereo but he can't be 100%
sure.

How can a company not know if their music signals are broadcast in stereo or
not? A poster in a group showed me pictures of Siri's receivers, and a few
said "stereo" on them so I guess it is in stereo. I don't know about XM. I
know at one time Siri had more sats in space then XM but they launched a new
sat like 4-6 months ago.

I won't pay for the service either. I can find all the music I want on FM or
on the net. Radio waves were meant to be free for listeners with commercials
supporting the station. To me, this sat radio business is a created
offspring of radio that has been hyped too much. But from many people who
have the service, they say they'll never go back to "old style FM" again.

I surely won't pay $13 or $15 a month for it. If it was like $3 a month, I'd
try it.

Lucky




The music channels are in stereo. The talk channels, most but not
all, are not.



As for whether the goof in the phone center actually knows what's
being broadcast...they know what the cards, or the monitor in front of
them says. Whether music is in stereo is not a question that comes up
very often. Many of the phone monkeys don't subscribe. Many for the
samee reasons you don't.


There was a discussion here a couple of years ago about stereo vs
mono broadcast and public perception. Most listeners don't really
understand stereo. Audiophiles obviously don't fall into this class, but
the rank and file don't really understand what differientiates a stereo
signal from monaural sound. For them, as long as the pilot is lit, its
stereo. For some, even, if there are two speakers, it's stereo. No
matter what's actually coming out of them.

And receiver manufacturers haven't really helped this. In order to
keep fringe signal noise down, most receivers have a blend circuit that
slowly combines the left and the right channels according to signal
strength, or in some cases, strenght of the difference subcarrier. In
many markets even the best stereo signals are heard by more than half of
listeners at any given moment in varying degrees of mono, due to the
blend circuit in their receivers. Listeners rarely notice and never
complain. Actual stereo audio is just not on their radar.

When AM stereo was new, a number of stations I was involved in
actually broadcast mono audio, but lit the pilot for it's cool factor.
No one ever noticed.

So don't be surprised if someone at the phone hole can't answer your
question. They've not been briefed, because the question almost never
comes up.

It's such a non priority, that my XM receiver, while being a stereo
receiver, doesn't have a stereo annunciator. When it is you can hear it.
When it isn't you don't.

Usually, unless there's something dramatically wide, you don't notice
it one way or the other.


This may be part of the reason that DRM doesn't generate more buzz
than it does. If stereo audio was such a priority, most SW broadcasters
would embrace it, promote it, shout it from the mountaintops, and DRM
would be standard on radios worldwide.

So far, like AM stereo, and IBOC here, there are more stations
transmitting DRM for no apparent reason than there are listeners
clamoring for radios to hear it.

Hi Lucky,

I am glad you are happy with the E1. I hope you don't feel bad if I
say
I am a little skeptical, so I will ask this question in the most
innocent way:
What other radios do you have/have you played with?

Many thanks for your informative reviews. They are helpful.

RK

Pete wrote:

A friend of mine did play his E1 over the phone and it did sound
good.......quite a bit of gain.

But that only tests the 4 KHz filter! :-)

RK

"rkhalona" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Lucky,

I am glad you are happy with the E1. I hope you don't feel bad if I
say
I am a little skeptical, so I will ask this question in the most
innocent way:
What other radios do you have/have you played with?

Many thanks for your informative reviews. They are helpful.

RK


Thanks RK.

I now own 11 radios.

1] Icom R75
2] Lowe HF-150
3] Kenwood R-5000
4] JRC NRD-525
5] FRG-7
6] Ten Tec 320-D
7] FRG-7700
8] Degen 1103
9] Nasa Target HF3 {Nav-Fax 100 in U.S.}
10] Great Cond Kenwood QR-666 that later became the R-300.
11] Eton E1 :)

So, I have a sense of quality and features etc. But, I'm not a super pro
like some of the other guys in here that have been doing this for years.

Lucky

Anytime Lucky!

It sounds like they might be using that AD607 for the Sync function. My Sync
detector has a very wide acquistion range. You would almost think that you
are tuning with an envelope detector, save for the fact that you don't hear
the effects of selective fading. I am glad that it is working out for you.
A fellow in the Chicago area picked up one of these radios.......he was
perturbed that it didn't have a loopstick, but he is a radio collector so it
isn't as much an issue as it could be.

Pete

"Lucky" wrote in message
...

"Pete KE9OA" wrote in message
...
Hi Mike,

It is not a matter of stupidity to use an internal loopstick antenna. It
is quite possible to design a portable radio with a loopstick antenna
that has MW performance that at least equals a good communications
receiver that has an external amplified loop antenna connected to it. I
have just finished up a prototype this evening that does just that. It is
an easy matter to have facilities to switch the antenna out of the
circuit the way that Grundig has done with their Satellit receivers for
several years. It is also very easy to bypass the switching altogether
and merely wind a small coupling loop around the ferrite for an external
antenna connection. 5 to 10 turns of Litz wire would do the trick.
The E1 is a very good radio, and I will probably pick one up in the next
year or so. Is it worth the money they are asking for it? Probably. Will
the price come down after the initial wave of sales. Hopefully.
The radio does have XM circuitry, and I know that XM radio was a big
purchaser of the Analog Devices AD607 demodulator chip that I based my
Sync detector on, so if this is the case, this could be a very good radio
indeed.
A friend of mine did play his E1 over the phone and it did sound
good.......quite a bit of gain. He told me that he didn't have any IMD
problems, so it sounds like a winner.

Pete

"mike maghakian" wrote in message
...
it sounds like the E1 is better than I thought it would be, this one
could go down in history as a classic. I wonder if the Degen 1108
will be even better since it will have the E1 to jump off of.

many of the complaints I have read seem to be of the "misunderstood"
nature and if the designer was present to answer them would actually
make sense.

I believe that even though the set has XM circuitry, it is a bonus
for american users and that the set was really designed for a global
market and that is the reason for the antenna connector that is a
pain for the US user. notice the choice for the FM range in the setup
options.

I have a feeling that they left out the ferrite antenna because the
set is too big to rotate and they wanted it to be more
omnidirectional for the average user and that anyone that cared to MW
DX would not be stupid enough to use a built in rod and would use at
least a hardwire connected select-a-tenna for max signal gathering.

with a set of this awesome performance, ECSS is a waste of time. ecss
is overrated because of the work involved in accurately tuning the
signal for proper audio fidelity reconstruction and PHASING ! with
the sync performance that is available ECSS sould be forgotten and
use that selectable sync.

even though I have no immediate plans to buy an E1, I will still
study the manual. when I can get one for around $300 used, I will
pick one up.





Good morning Pete

I agree. The more and more I use this radio the more I LOVE it. It's a
pleasure to use. Just a pleasure. The sync on it is fabulous. Couple that
with the superb PBT and it's just fantastic. The display is just great to
look at.

The sensitivity is right up there with the better rigs. The radio also has
a "DX" button for extra gain on weak signals. I think the DSB {double side
band} actually works as good as the Lowe HF-150 even though in the
beginning I thought the Lowe was much better. It still is a bit better,
but it seems to do more on this radio then the 150.

I can hear the difference using it. With the 150, it seems the lock range
is much tighter. You have to really hit the needed signal perfectly to get
it working and it's easily lost. With the E1, it's easier to use that
feature. As Mike pointed out, ECSS isn't really needed on this rig though
I still like to use it for fun and when it's neccessary.

Now, many people are saying they will wait for later production runs
before buying. I have a contrarian view on this.
That Eton knows the first batch out will spread the news on how good or
bad their radio is and tell the tale. That these first users and reviewers
will set the tone for future sales.

They know what happened with the 800 and they know people will be looking
for the same thing to happen again. So, I decided to go with the first
batch. I know they payed very, very close attention to QC on this one
imho. I would be more skeptical to buy later runs then the very first
batch out.

If they only added DRM, it would have been a monster. But, I have a
feeling XM had something to say about it. Why give people so many more
options then going with XM sat programming? But, they had to include AM/FM
and SW. I bet their is a easy mod for DRM once the radio gets dissected by
the pros like you! :)

Have a good one Pete!
Lucky

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I wonder about that. The I.F. bandwidth shouldn't be such a
factor with system gain unless filter losses for different bandwidths
haven't been compensated for in the design. The fellow that had the radio
likes wide bandwidths, so I would surmise that he was using the widest I.F.
bandwidth. I just don't know. Once these things hit the shelves in quantity,
I will give it a listen myself.

Pete

"rkhalona" wrote in message
ups.com...
Pete wrote:

A friend of mine did play his E1 over the phone and it did sound
good.......quite a bit of gain.

But that only tests the 4 KHz filter! :-)

RK

About a month or more ago,I read somewhere on the intenet (if it's on
the internet,it must be true,but I dont think so) that U.S.Military is
going to use (now I forget if it's Sitius or XM) one of those for hand
held communications units for our U.S.Troops.Of course (according to the
article I read) the units/radios will be specially designed ruggedized
versions to be distributed to our Troops.y'all know how to look it up if
y'all want to.
cuhulin