|
My thoughts on the E1
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. |
The most important thing about any radio,in my opinion,is
Antenna,Antenna,Antenna and if that radio only has a so so Antenna,at that price,new,,, I will wait and see if one shows up at the Goodwill store where I can buy it for about two or three dollars. cuhulin |
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. |
"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 |
Lucky wrote: If they only added DRM, it would have been a monster. DRM = QRM Die DRM, die. dxAce Michigan USA http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm |
Getting a bill every month for something I can have for free. What's so
hard to understand about that? Steve |
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. |
|
You can if you have a serviceable antenna...or an internet connection.
What you don't have to do is pay a fee every month for the privilege of letting Sirius decide what you can/cannot listen to. 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 |
I have Everything agains't BBC! Hey,I despise aol and earthlink and I
definetly am not pushing them and satellite radio,but for anybody whom might be interested,(I am not,only thought I would pass it on) somebody at another news group posted something about aol (Friends do not let Friends use aol and earthlink) (www.devilfinder.com aol Utah) (aol,d..n Gun grabbers!) is streaming xm satellite radio to computers if you want to listen to what xm sounds like,(no way in Hadees am I going to click on that crap) here is the website if you want to check it out, www.radio4usa.tripod.com/aol.html I dont advise clicking on it. cuhulin |
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 |
On 2005-08-03 00:03:16 -0400, "mike maghakian" said:
it sounds like the E1 is better than I thought it would be, this one could go down in history as a classic. We're lucky to have Lucky on RRS! Thanks to him we now have a good idea of what the Satellit 900 --err, E1-- is all about. And thanks also to him for the pointer to the manual. From what I can tell from the specs, this is a repackaged Satellit 800 sans the ugliness and empty air. The addition of PBS is useful for SSB. For AM one simply off-tunes while in SAM mode. I suspect the detector circuitry is essentially what's in my Drake SW2, so a shift of up to 50-60% of the width of the chosen filter would be possible. With my Satellit 700 developing a buzz after a few minutes operation, and with my having to do some repair work on my ancient 2010, the E1 is looking like the perfect bedside/rooftop radio. Can't wait 'til J&R gets their shipment! Like Lucky, I have a thing for radios. In addition to the above units, I also have the 525, R30 (each feeding a speaker through an SE3 and FL3), HF150, SPR-4, Sony 5900 & 7600, and Pete's MW receiver as soon as it's released. Clearly I desperately need another radio! Thanks again, Lucky. Ken |
|
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. |
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:05:19 -0400, "Lucky"
wrote: 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 You are indeed ''Lucky'' if you can get clean FM stereo where you live. I cannot. Like millions of people in the Western part of the USA, mountains and multipath destroy the FM stereo at my house. Is this the 11th Commandment, or what: ''Radio waves were meant to be free for listeners with commercials supporting the station'' The first commercial stations were signed on so stores could sell radios. Very similar to the satellite radio business model. Here's the deal: you pay for ****ty radio every time you buy a Coke. Quit buying Cokes and listen to better radio. |
David wrote: Rail against Corporate America? That doesn't exactly mesh with my beliefs. Corporations are required by law to maximize their bottom line for the benefit of their shareholders. I do not blame them for taking every advantage possible. Who I am mad at are the politicians who sell-out to the corporations and the citizens who let this happen. 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? Satellite radio wishes it was ''Corporate America's biggest, swaying tit'', but it ain't. Do you have free internet access? I just looked at my internet service agreement. There is absolutely no charge for listening to radio broadcasts via the internet. Steve |
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message ... 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. Is that for both main flavors of satellite radio? 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. Could also be that the guy doesn't want to lose his job or be reprimanded by something like answering this sort of question. 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. Considering some of the "Stereo" radios that are on the market (the clock radio varieties, namely), the radio itself isn't good enough to let people notice. 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. Using a Delco radio in a GM car in the 90's, you could hear the difference if you paid attention. In Cincy, given the hills and everything else, there are a lot of locations where the FM signal will fade, and you could hear the signal trend toward mono if you were listening, even though the Stereo pilot was lit. The aftermarket Kenwood in my current car doesn't have that to such an extreme; it'll simply kick to mono. Just like the old Sears that I had in the Volare I cut my driving teeth on in the 80s. 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. WHAS, by any chance?? 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. A nice way of finding the difference between FM, satellite radio (or in my case, the Music Choice channels from DirecTV) and regular CDs is to have them all run through the same receiver. Switching back and forth is very educational to how good the sound is on each format. 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. I suspect that the people for whom DRM was designed for would be more likely to go and use an internet stream or satellite radio solution than use DRM. YMMV, of course. --Mike L. |
|
|
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 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? |
|
|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com