That's irrelevant because I'd have to pay for that even if I never
listened to the radio. So, no, I don't pay at all. Not one cent. Nada.
But you do.

David wrote:
On 3 Aug 2005 12:27:40 -0700, wrote:



I just want to make sure I understand your position. You're not mad at
corporations for buying politicians, because corporations are required
by law to buy off politicians. You're only angry at the politicians
themselves? Is this right?
Prettymuch...


That's an interesting perspective you have there. Oh, by the way, which
law is it that requires corporations to buy off politicians? If they
don't buy off politicians, are they vulnerable to prosecution?

On 3 Aug 2005 13:40:09 -0700, wrote:

That's irrelevant because I'd have to pay for that even if I never
listened to the radio. So, no, I don't pay at all. Not one cent. Nada.
But you do.

Every time you buy a product from a radio advertiser, you pay for
radio.

Plus, advertising is tax deductible. Guess who makes up the
difference when businesses write-off expenses.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:16:52 -0500, wrote:

Webtv used to be it's own company untill microsoft bought webtv a few
years ago,so nowdays since they merged,webtv is called msntv,not to be
confused with msntv2.msntv2 is something that came on the market last
October.msntv2 service/subscription and the msntv2 set top boxes last
October.msntv2 service (formerly,webtv) has nothing whatsoever to do
with msntv (formerly,webtv.They are two completly seperate entity's.I
can listen to some online AM/FM radio stations and some online shortwave
stations and some online police scanner frequencies with my msntv
(formerly,webtv,but most of us still call it webtv) service,but not as
many as with my computer and my internet radio.Of course,I can listen to
any online radio stations that stream (bitcast) on the intenet with my
computer and with my Linksys Wireless B Music System internet physical
radio.There are quite a few choices available for people to listen to
many kinds of radio,whether it's with a little cheap two or three dollar
AM/FM radio or with a radio that cost many thousands of dollars.I am not
going to pay any monthly fees/extra fees to listen to any satellite
radio.
cuhulin

That's my outlook. If it's radio, I got at least one receiver for it.

Hi Lucky...

Thanks for your input on the E1. I'm curious to know how this radio is
on battery consumption, so if you run it off of cells, let us know how
it is with regard to battery drain. Is the display always illuminated,
even on battery power?

I've had my eye on the E1 for quite some time and anticipate eventually
buying one. It's good to see Eton reviving this class of radio. If
it's all it purports to be, then it seems that its performance could
well be a notch or two above the '2010, SW77, and Sat 700. The $500
price tag might seem a bit much to foot, but let's face it, it's not a
matter of whether or not its performance is superior to a similarly
priced R-75 but rather whether one is in need of a high quality and
truly-portable portable, laden with numerous features not to be found
in the under $200 class that dominates the portable scene. Let's face
it, the SW77 retailed at $469.96 in its day (and it only had two
bandwidth filters and certainly had no passband offset). For folks
like me, where indoor conditions are a nightmare due to local noise
conditions, something like the E1 is a godsend: a nice, state of the
art, fully featured, self-contained portable, sized such that it can
easily be carried along on outdoor listening excursions.
I guess that with the XM option available for this receiver, it's
inevitable that this radio will take the heat of the sat-radio
opponents of this group. Personally, I would have preferred Sirius
over XM with this radio... I'm a Sirius subscriber myself, but it's
not as though this in any way diminishes my enthusiasm for shortwave.

All the best, folks.

Thanks again, Lucky.

j.a.mulc.

jamulc wrote:

Hi Lucky...

Thanks for your input on the E1. I'm curious to know how this radio is
on battery consumption, so if you run it off of cells, let us know how
it is with regard to battery drain. Is the display always illuminated,
even on battery power?

I've had my eye on the E1 for quite some time and anticipate eventually
buying one. It's good to see Eton reviving this class of radio. If
it's all it purports to be, then it seems that its performance could
well be a notch or two above the '2010, SW77, and Sat 700. The $500
price tag might seem a bit much to foot, but let's face it, it's not a
matter of whether or not its performance is superior to a similarly
priced R-75 but rather whether one is in need of a high quality and
truly-portable portable, laden with numerous features not to be found
in the under $200 class that dominates the portable scene. Let's face
it, the SW77 retailed at $469.96 in its day (and it only had two
bandwidth filters and certainly had no passband offset). For folks
like me, where indoor conditions are a nightmare due to local noise
conditions, something like the E1 is a godsend: a nice, state of the
art, fully featured, self-contained portable, sized such that it can
easily be carried along on outdoor listening excursions.
I guess that with the XM option available for this receiver, it's
inevitable that this radio will take the heat of the sat-radio
opponents of this group.

I don't think anyone is really an opponent of satellite 'radio'... it's just
that it's not shortwave...

Get it?

dxAce
Michigan
USA

David wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:28:39 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:


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.

Hi-fi is relative. Truth is, I like Sirius sound better, but XM
sounds higher fi than the HF feed, especially if S:N is a
consideration.

XM uses MPEG4, which synthesises the upper octave in the receiver.




Sometimes with hilarious results. On the ABC Talk channel last
weekend, the top end synthesized material lagged the baseband by enough
to sound like a cheap slap. Rebooted to clear it up. MP4 or not, a lot
of the talk channels, BBCWS included sound pretty ratty.

I"ve only heard a couple of Sirius receivers. And those in pretty
high noise environs, so an evaluation was pretty meaningless. I'm
getting one later this week, though for evaluation. I'm interested to
hear the differences.

Truthfully, I'd rather hear HF on a well tuned Hammarlund.

David wrote:
On 3 Aug 2005 13:40:09 -0700, wrote:

That's irrelevant because I'd have to pay for that even if I never
listened to the radio. So, no, I don't pay at all. Not one cent. Nada.
But you do.

Every time you buy a product from a radio advertiser, you pay for
radio.

Plus, advertising is tax deductible. Guess who makes up the
difference when businesses write-off expenses.

So? This is all trivial. The bottom line is, I don't have to pay a fee
to Sirius every month. You do.

I have to pay many fees every month, but not that one. You do.

I have to pay for cable tv. I pay for my groceries. I pay highway
tolls. But I don't pay for Sirius.

You do.

David wrote:


Plus, advertising is tax deductible. Guess who makes up the
difference when businesses write-off expenses.



When you tax a business, you're really using the business to collect a
tax from their customers. Raise the tax, they'll raise their prices.

Without customers, they have no money to pay the tax.

It's popular with folks who like big government, as it helps prevent
people from realizing how much of their income actually goes to taxes.

An old saying goes,We have the best govt money can buy.And that old
saying is absolutely the TRUTH.politicians are bought.Is souter bought
too? I believe so,his house wont be bought and sold,but yours and mine
might be.I guess "some people" are 'better" than other people,eh?
cuhulin