In article ,
Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Gegroet,

Telamon schreef:
Oeps. I am a bit behind scedule replying to this one.
No problem.

OK. I'll take your message first this time.

Snip

You are not taking my message the first or last time. You just want to
argue non points.

Here is the message, DRM has no real advantage over analog as
implemented.

Saying that "if" this or that was changed then it would be better makes
no difference because it does not exist.

Saying that DRM can have all its benefits and advantages but that you
must compare it to an analog radio without features like sync detection
is just stacking the deck in favor of your non argument.

On air broadcast of time and frequency information on a really low bit
rate channel in poor conditions will not work at all so when you need it
the most it won't work.

If you don't want to, and it's clear that you don't, want to discuss
this factually then that's your problem to deal with.

Wait, are you telling me that a good DRM-signal in 10 Khz sounds (e.g.
in stereo) sounds worse then the same signal in AM?

Yeah, I'm telling you that DRM in 10 KHz the sound quality sucks.

Do you have audio-samples to support this claim?

Yes, on the DRM web site. They have example of strong and weak signal
DRM reception and compare it to analog. I've written this for the third
and last time. Here is another thing I'm writing for the last time and
that's low bit rate audio sound sucks whether the source is a DRM
broadcast, streamed from the Internet or a recording.

Digital signals don't belong in the analog AM broadcast band where they
occupy at least three channels. I don't want them there and most people
don't want those transmission there either.

Your desire to be a sucker for DRM is a personal problem as I see it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:

Wait, are you telling me that a good DRM-signal in 10 Khz sounds (e.g.
in stereo) sounds worse then the same signal in AM?


Yeah, I'm telling you that DRM in 10 KHz the sound quality sucks.


Do you have audio-samples to support this claim?


Yes, on the DRM web site. They have example of strong and weak signal
DRM reception and compare it to analog. I've written this for the third
and last time. Here is another thing I'm writing for the last time and
that's low bit rate audio sound sucks whether the source is a DRM
broadcast, streamed from the Internet or a recording.


I listened to the samples on the sites and all of the "High Quality" DRM
samples sounded better to my ears than the corresponding analog signal.

The "Robust Quality" sample had a lot of digitizing artifacts, but that
used a very low bit rate. However, it may be preferable to the analog
equivalent. That would be a personal judgement, some will prefer the
analog, some the digital.

From what I hear in the samples, any of the 64 QAM/"High Quality"
signals is better than the analog equivalent. To me, DRM has good potential.


craigm

In article .com,
"RHF" wrote:

Telamon,
.
Here is a possible "Market Indicator" about the Future and Fate
of both DRM on Shortwave and IBOC on AM and FM Broadcast Radio.
.
The proposed Mini-CCRadio that is scheduled for release this fall.
So do you see DRM or IBOC listed as a feature or an option ? - NO !
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-r...-cc-radio.aspx
.
The next big indicator will be the new Eton/Grundig/Tecsun, Sangean
and Degen Radios that will be released in the next few years.
Will DRM and IBOC be a feature or an option with these Radios :
Or simply something that is not there; and thereby going nowhere [.]
.
Will the replacement for the Grundig Satetellit 800 Millennium Radio
feature DRM on Shortwave and IBOC on AM and FM Broadcast Radio ?
If not... then the Manufactures are saying a Big "NO" to both DRM
for Shortwave and IBOC for AM and FM Broadcast Radio.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Eton-E...RM-IBOC-Radio/
Will it be named the Eton {Elite} E2 with "DRM & IBOC" Radio ?
.
IBOC may be saved by the Automobile Manufactures if they as a Group
start placing IBOC capable AM and FM Broadcast Radios in their new
Cars and Trucks. BUT ! - These same Auto Makers are behind both XM
and Sirius Satellite Radio Systems and Service : Which has a bigger
pay-off and pay-back for them then IBOC could have.
.
Again "The Market Makers" will decide the Future and Fate of
both DRM on Shortwave and IBOC on AM and FM Broadcast Radio.

Here is one I know about. Both links are actually for the same radio by
two of the companies that are working together on it.
http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/applic_broadcast.htm
http://www.mayah.com/newsletter/newsletter6-05.htm

Coding technologies owns some of the code and algorithms that operate in
the radio. Licensing the code is their way to make money on this venture.

Mayah is an electronics manufacturer.

This thing looks like a portable but it's not because it does not
operate on batteries. It uses a 100-240VAC, 1 Amp power supply so you
would not get very far on AA, C or D batteries.

I wrote years ago that DRM portables would have a power problem. You
have to run a lot of processing to get the audio. In order to get the
power down to reasonable levels will require CMOS custom IC's that take
big bucks to develop. That is not going to happen unless the entire
coding and all algorithms become public property.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On 24 Sep 2005 17:38:24 -0700, "RHF"
wrote:

Again "The Market Makers" will decide the Future and Fate of
both DRM on Shortwave and IBOC on AM and FM Broadcast Radio.

Definitely. Don't forget also about the new market makers like the
WinRadio. DRM is equisitely suited for software-defined radios:
http://www.winradio.com/drm

John

Telamon wrote:
In article .com,
"RHF" wrote:


Telamon,
.
Here is a possible "Market Indicator" about the Future and Fate
of both DRM on Shortwave and IBOC on AM and FM Broadcast Radio.
.
The proposed Mini-CCRadio that is scheduled for release this fall.
So do you see DRM or IBOC listed as a feature or an option ? - NO !
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-r...-cc-radio.aspx
.
The next big indicator will be the new Eton/Grundig/Tecsun, Sangean
and Degen Radios that will be released in the next few years.
Will DRM and IBOC be a feature or an option with these Radios :
Or simply something that is not there; and thereby going nowhere [.]
.
Will the replacement for the Grundig Satetellit 800 Millennium Radio
feature DRM on Shortwave and IBOC on AM and FM Broadcast Radio ?
If not... then the Manufactures are saying a Big "NO" to both DRM
for Shortwave and IBOC for AM and FM Broadcast Radio.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Eton-E...RM-IBOC-Radio/
Will it be named the Eton {Elite} E2 with "DRM & IBOC" Radio ?
.
IBOC may be saved by the Automobile Manufactures if they as a Group
start placing IBOC capable AM and FM Broadcast Radios in their new
Cars and Trucks. BUT ! - These same Auto Makers are behind both XM
and Sirius Satellite Radio Systems and Service : Which has a bigger
pay-off and pay-back for them then IBOC could have.
.
Again "The Market Makers" will decide the Future and Fate of
both DRM on Shortwave and IBOC on AM and FM Broadcast Radio.


Here is one I know about. Both links are actually for the same radio by
two of the companies that are working together on it.
http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/applic_broadcast.htm
http://www.mayah.com/newsletter/newsletter6-05.htm

Coding technologies owns some of the code and algorithms that operate in
the radio. Licensing the code is their way to make money on this venture.

Mayah is an electronics manufacturer.

This thing looks like a portable but it's not because it does not
operate on batteries. It uses a 100-240VAC, 1 Amp power supply so you
would not get very far on AA, C or D batteries.

I wrote years ago that DRM portables would have a power problem. You
have to run a lot of processing to get the audio. In order to get the
power down to reasonable levels will require CMOS custom IC's that take
big bucks to develop. That is not going to happen unless the entire
coding and all algorithms become public property.





I work with a couple of high end receiver manufacturers that are
right now dealing with the question of IBOC. The licensing costs extend
not only to receiver manufacturers, but to the broadcasters as well, and
right the costs of implementing IBOC are steep. Mid 5 figures in most
cases. And that's becoming a roadblock for the implementation of IBOC on
the transmission end for many broadcasters. DRM is little diffferent in
that regard. What movtivate broadcasters to move this way is two fold.
One is that Powell's FCC mandated that all new broadcast technologies
must be digital. Period. TV, Radio. Digital. The other has been the holy
grail of broadcasters since David Sarnoff bludgeoned his first
competitor: Subscription over-the-air broadcast. Make no mistake, that's
coming.

The technical advantages of Ibiquity on FM are minimal. In A-B tests
of FM IBOC, listeners have noted a difference, but not a clear
preference for HD on FM, but only when the analog signal was processed
in the traditional manner. And as many preferred analog as HD. When both
were unprocessed, listeners couldn't tell analog FM from IBOC HD Radio.
So, the value, at least for now, is in the buzzword.

There have been some minor, improvements in signal areas where
multipath is an issue. Instead of picket fencing, in severe areas,
there are drop outs, when the error correction fails. Dropouts, in the
tests I've been involved in, have been rare. Multipath resistance in
most cases is actually quite good.

On the AM side, HD radio is an enormous noise source. With at least
two broadcasters in Chicago turning off their HD signal to protect their
Milwaukee stations from the QRM. Audio performance, again, is of
questionable benefit, because of the digital artifacts and low bit
encoding. Some I've heard have been downright awful.

In AM modulated signals, DRM, in tests I've been involved in, has
been a clear improvement over Ibiquity in regard to audio quality. Where
bandwidth exists, the audio can be quite striking. But that depends on
the bitrate, and often, the stability of the signal. QRM, however, is an
enormous problem for DRM, like Ibiquity, and both have proven to take
more bandwidth than originally promised. Creating problems for the
analog listener. Many car radios extant, are unable to separate the
digital hash from the analog audio on the AM side. And especially the AM
hash from first, second, and often third adjacent stations, in and out
of market. Receivers are complex, and expensive, and they consume huge
amounts of power, rendering battery operation problematic for the casual
user. For hobbyist geeks like the members of this group, that's less of
a problem. But, as has been pointed out in so many tasteless ways,
dramatically and bluntly so in the case of Mark Byford, we're of no
consequence in the grand scheme of things broadcast.

Radio Nederland has stated time and again that they're committed to
Shortwave, and have embraced DRM. They're by far in the minority of SW
broadcasters in their commitment, and with political and economic forces
rising to curb production of, and make illegal receivers capable of non
domestic broadcast reception (Billy Tauzin has been pushing a bandplan
for US type accepted receivers that would not permit the public access
to non broadcast media for years, now) and BPL threatening much of non
broadcast spectra, the outlook for market and DRM driven expansion of SW
in the US is dim. With most national networks moving to FM in Europe,
and Worldspace elsewhere, the overall outlook for SW is not looking too
good. And politically, digital modulation, means local-only reception,
whether UKW or MW, and that means the ability to control the public's
access to information. Don't think for a minute that's not on the radar
for most governments.

Broadcasters endorse any moves that curtail domestic non broadcast
listening, because it puts them in a powerful and exclusive position in
control of vital information, without fear of contradiction from
alternate sources. It also puts subcription over-the-air broadcast
within grasp. And FCC has stated it's desires to move all broadcast away
from analog modulation schemes. But, as has been pointed out before,
licensing of the technology is expensive. So broadcasters' motivations
are mixed.

All of which means a more or less chaotic state of affairs for both
DRM and Ibiquity, both in the US and abroad. And if the market is to
decide the fate of these technologies, then we should take a lesson from
another market driven broadcast innovation: AM stereo.

Market drive in broadcast is a hit or miss affair. FM had been
languishing on the edges of extinction since Amstrong took his beating
from Sarnoff. It wasn't until FCC mandated in the 60's that all new
radios produced were to have both AM and FM stages, that FM listening
began to take off. Even though FM radios had been available and
affordable for years. Similarly, UHF TV had existed for decades, with
survivability hovering near zero for UHF broadcasters until FCC mandated
that all new TV sets would carry all UHF channels. Color TV took more
than two decades to catch fire. FM stereo didn't become universal until
the late 70's. AM stereo...well, it was a good idea at the time. And we
should all thank Leonard Kahn for his experiments in AM stereo 50 years
ago. It could have been fun. We can certainly point to the market drive
for THAT success.

So, without an immediate public embrace of the technology, it's not
likely that DRM or Ibiquity will take off. And the public isn't likely
to be spending $500 or more on a radio for debatable improvements in
performance, when 'just as good' technology is available for less than
$10 at any Wal-Mart. And if you think that high performance audio is an
issue with the public, then consider that people are getting their music
on their cell phones, for Heaven's sake. $500 radios for IBOC or DRM, in
that climate is, to borrow from Reverend Johnson in 'Blazing Saddles,'
"...just jerking off."

Now, a Federal mandate for digital modulation schemes is in place.
And a Federal type acceptance and conversion timetable isn't too far off.

But then, we were supposed to have all been switched over to HD TV by
the first of 2006, too. And Michael Powell is gone. And there is no
mandate for receiver manufacturers to include digital demodulation in
all new products.


Don't expect big things for DRM, or Ibiquity, anytime soon.

Everything digital,,, subscription radio.That means the crooked
politicians want us all to pay through the teeth for radio and tv.I am
already paying over $40.00 each month for my DirecTV subscription,over
140 tv channels and only a hand full of them are worth watching,in my
opinion.Will Analog Radio become obsolete someday? By the way,the Stupid
fcc needs to get that Stupid powell guy on out of there.Or did they
already?
cuhulin

michael powell is gone? GOOD.That other no good (they are both,no good)
powell refused to send some Helicopters to Somalia even though our
U.S.Troops over there had asked for them.The rest is History.
www.realchange.org (Skeleton Closet) I would never even buy a
hamburger if any of them powells were flipping them.
cuhulin

D Peter Maus wrote:
Market drive in broadcast is a hit or miss affair. FM had been
languishing on the edges of extinction since Amstrong took his beating
from Sarnoff. It wasn't until FCC mandated in the 60's that all new
radios produced were to have both AM and FM stages, that FM listening
began to take off.

I never heard of this. Further, from the sixties on, AM-only radios have
been available all over the USA. What made FM take off was underground
radio.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

clifto wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:

Market drive in broadcast is a hit or miss affair. FM had been
languishing on the edges of extinction since Amstrong took his beating
from Sarnoff. It wasn't until FCC mandated in the 60's that all new
radios produced were to have both AM and FM stages, that FM listening
began to take off.



I never heard of this. Further, from the sixties on, AM-only radios have
been available all over the USA.

Actually, for a while, they weren't.


What made FM take off was underground
radio.



What made FM take off was the popularity of mass appeal programming
found by listeners migrating to FM as FM radios became more widely
available. FM had been around for more than 20 years by the time the
general market discovered it, with programming limited to classical
music, because ASCAP royalties did not have to be paid, and beautiful
music formats because of it's cost effectiveness. Most FM stations had
short lifespans until the 60's, because there was just no one in any
numbers listening. Primarily because of the limited value of making the
investment in an FM capable radio for what little was actually on the
bands. Even as late as the 60's, FM capable radios were expensive.
Portables often running $50 or more. My first FM was a Raleigh 9
transistor, in the late 60's, after FM radios became manufactured in
numbers, and it still cost almost $30, a lot of money then, when AM
radios had been available for half that.

Underground radio went dark for the same reasons most FMs went dark
in the late 40's and 50's: there weren't enough listeners to support it.
At the same time, Top 40 and AOR radio were stealing listeners from AM
in droves, dwarfing the size of underground audiences.

D Peter Maus wrote:
clifto wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

Market drive in broadcast is a hit or miss affair. FM had been
languishing on the edges of extinction since Amstrong took his
beating from Sarnoff. It wasn't until FCC mandated in the 60's that
all new radios produced were to have both AM and FM stages, that FM
listening began to take off.




I never heard of this. Further, from the sixties on, AM-only radios have
been available all over the USA.


Actually, for a while, they weren't.


What made FM take off was underground

radio.



What made FM take off was the popularity of mass appeal programming
found by listeners migrating to FM as FM radios became more widely
available. FM had been around for more than 20 years by the time the
general market discovered it, with programming limited to classical
music, because ASCAP royalties did not have to be paid, and beautiful
music formats because of it's cost effectiveness. Most FM stations had
short lifespans until the 60's, because there was just no one in any
numbers listening. Primarily because of the limited value of making the
investment in an FM capable radio for what little was actually on the
bands. Even as late as the 60's, FM capable radios were expensive.
Portables often running $50 or more. My first FM was a Raleigh 9
transistor, in the late 60's, after FM radios became manufactured in
numbers, and it still cost almost $30, a lot of money then, when AM
radios had been available for half that.

Underground radio went dark for the same reasons most FMs went dark in
the late 40's and 50's: there weren't enough listeners to support it. At
the same time, Top 40 and AOR radio were stealing listeners from AM in
droves, dwarfing the size of underground audiences.



Let me make a clarification to that. I'm not suggesting that AOR and
Top 40 were around in the late 40's and 50's. But they, were, in fact,
latecomers to the FM band around the time that underground radio was in
it's final days. Stations like KDNA, ST Louis lost their asses to KSHE
(AOR), KADI (AOR) and KSLQ (Top 40.)

KDNA never pulled appreciable numbers out of a few high school and
college kids, and was replaced with Schulke Beautiful Music as KEZK. In
fact, KDNA's audience was dwarfed by KXOK (AM Top 40), and even among
the high school FM afficionados of the time, didn't make a strong
showing against KSLQ. College kids were listening more to KSHE than KDNA.

What KDNA did do well, was introduce non mainstream music to an
audience that was already hungering for something that was out of the
popular tide. John McLaughlin, Robbie Basho, Ravi Shankar, and Leo
Kottke were staples of KDNA programming. I heard my first Firesign
Theatre on KDNA. But the numbers tuning in, like most alternative
formats, were very small.

KACO, also licensed in St Louis attempted undeground radio, but the
guy who owned it couldn't affort the upkeep, eventually running only 12
hours a day, and spinning the tunes himself. Ask anyone how many times a
day he played the theme from "Mannix." By the time KACO went away, me
and the guy who owned it were the only ones who knew it was there.

Some underground stations made a bit of noise. Some actually did
reasonably well. But they are dark today for the same reasons as any of
the stations who ever went dark: Lack of interest.

Shame, really. Some of them, even KDNA, were actually quite good and
well executed.

Underground radio was an interesting historical moment in
broadcasting's colourful history, but it was hardly the impetus claimed
for it.

I used to listen to Jim White's radio talk show out of KMOX
St.Louis,Missouri all the time up untill he retired.
cuhulin

In article ,
Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Gegroet,



Telamon schreef:
Here is a possible "Market Indicator" about the Future and Fate
of both DRM on Shortwave and IBOC on AM and FM Broadcast Radio.

The proposed Mini-CCRadio that is scheduled for release this fall.
So do you see DRM or IBOC listed as a feature or an option ? - NO !
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-r...-cc-radio.aspx
(...)

Here is one I know about. Both links are actually for the same radio by
two of the companies that are working together on it.
http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/applic_broadcast.htm
http://www.mayah.com/newsletter/newsletter6-05.htm

(...)

I wrote years ago that DRM portables would have a power problem. You
have to run a lot of processing to get the audio. In order to get the
power down to reasonable levels will require CMOS custom IC's that take
big bucks to develop. That is not going to happen unless the entire
coding and all algorithms become public property.

One year is in etternaty in electronics. :-)


Here are some press releases concerning DRM/DAB of the IFA
(Internationale Funk Aufstellung) Berlin and IBC Amsterdam (both where
held earlier this month):

One in english:
http://www.infosat.lu/Meldungen/?srID=53&msgID=17027

Another one:
http://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews.asp?ID=43833

One in dutch buth with some pictures:
http://home.planet.nl/~rickvdw/digitaal/DRM-IBC2005/


If you run "drm dab receivers ifa ibc" throu your favourite
search-engine, you'll come up with more then sufficiant links.



These things are geared up for the European market: FM/RDS, AM (no SSB),
DAB, mp3 and wma-playback, SD/MMC interface, ...
Also note that the sangean radio builds on the design of their DAB-range
not on their range of SW-receivers.

So I guess these models will only have either MW and LW, and a limited
number of SW-bands (probably only the "local" bands), but it looks
logical they will work on this design in other variations, like
FM/AM/IBOC-FM/IBOC-AM for the US, or AM/FM/SSB/DRM for shortwave-receivers.


The receivers are expected by the end of the year, so we will know more
about features and prices.


Also note that the power-consumtion issue (as on the mayah) has been
solved as they have been working on DAB/DMB modules for inside
mobile-phones (DAB/DMB uses more power then DRM).

More information about the chipset can be found he
http://focus.ti.com/docs/apps/catalo...tml?templateId
=938&path=templatedata/cm/general/data/audio_digrad_drm


Finally notice that these radio's are market under the "DR" logo, which
combines DAB and DRM. So, this is not a "DRM" radio, but a "DR" radio!

The links I provided point to the only SW DRM concept radio that I know
of other than rack mount units.

The rest need a computer to process the audio.

The one SW concept radio I pointed to can not run on batteries.

The statements that I have seen before about DRM being an open standard
are as far as I see false because the software is not in the public
domain.

For this among other reasons the name "Deception Radio Mondiale" sticks.

Now you have heard the rest of the story... for now at least.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Gegroet,


Telamon schreef:
The proposed Mini-CCRadio that is scheduled for release this fall.
So do you see DRM or IBOC listed as a feature or an option ? - NO !
http://www.ccrane.com/radios/am-fm-r...-cc-radio.aspx

Here is one I know about. Both links are actually for the same radio by
two of the companies that are working together on it.
http://www.codingtechnologies.com/products/applic_broadcast.htm
http://www.mayah.com/newsletter/newsletter6-05.htm

Here are some press releases concerning DRM/DAB of the IFA
(Internationale Funk Aufstellung) Berlin and IBC Amsterdam (both where
held earlier this month):
One in english:
http://www.infosat.lu/Meldungen/?srID=53&msgID=17027
Another one:
http://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews.asp?ID=43833
One in dutch buth with some pictures:
http://home.planet.nl/~rickvdw/digitaal/DRM-IBC2005/

The links I provided point to the only SW DRM concept radio that I know
of other than rack mount units.

Well, there are a lot more of them. :-)
(see the links I provided).

No there isn't with the links you provided.

The statements that I have seen before about DRM being an open standard
are as far as I see false because the software is not in the public
domain.

Like this one?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/drm/

No I don't like it. This is another computer - radio. You do realize
that most of these units need a computer to operate? These are not stand
alone radios. The link I provided is the one stand alone SW radio that I
know about.

The other links are not SW radios or they need computers to operate or
they are rack mount units that are and will continue to be very
expensive. The rack mounts are not consumer units.

For this among other reasons the name "Deception Radio Mondiale" sticks.
Looks to me like the Deception is more in your mind then in reality. :-)

I don't find this humorous.
I keep to the facts and you just play around.
You don't pay attention to well either.
You ask about something I posted three times about and don't seem to
understand the difference between a stand alone radio and one that needs
a computer to process the audio.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Gegroet,


Not much time now. Just a quick reply:


Telamon schreef:
Here are some press releases concerning DRM/DAB of the IFA
(Internationale Funk Aufstellung) Berlin and IBC Amsterdam (both where
held earlier this month):
One in english:
http://www.infosat.lu/Meldungen/?srID=53&msgID=17027
Another one:
http://www.4rfv.co.uk/industrynews.asp?ID=43833
One in dutch buth with some pictures:
http://home.planet.nl/~rickvdw/digitaal/DRM-IBC2005/

The links I provided point to the only SW DRM concept radio that I know
of other than rack mount units.

Well, there are a lot more of them. :-)
(see the links I provided).

No there isn't with the links you provided.

Take a look at the pictures in the last link.

Anycase, here's another link from the BBC news website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4237010.stm


We will see by this year's end when these things are actually in the
shops what the actual specifications of these radios will be.
My guess is that the number of shortwave-bands on these radios will be
limited.



The statements that I have seen before about DRM being an open standard
are as far as I see false because the software is not in the public
domain.

Like this one?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/drm/

No I don't like it. This is another computer - radio. ...

Of course it is. This is a reply to your comment that the source-code
for the DRM SDRs is not available. It is and it is GPLed.

The best prove of it is HAMDRM, the version of DRM redesigned to operate
in 3 Khz. Their code is based on the code of DREAM that you can find in
the link I provided.



The other links are not SW radios or they need computers to operate or
they are rack mount units that are and will continue to be very
expensive. The rack mounts are not consumer units.

OK. I think there was some "communication-error" between us. A "rack
mountable" (to me) is a device you place inside a rack, which is usually
professional equipement to be placed inside a computer or telecom-room.

(In this case, I though you talked about the "professional"
DRM-receivers and DRM-monitors made by companies who also build
transmittors).


A "PC-decoder" (i.e. something used by hobbyists and HAMs) I would call
a "SDRs" (Software Defined Radio).


The Mayah was a halfway solution as it used a generic DSP-processor to
do DRM-decoding (which explains why it use that much power). These next
generation DAB/DRM radios are based on ASIC-designs.



For this among other reasons the name "Deception Radio Mondiale" sticks.
Looks to me like the Deception is more in your mind then in reality. :-)

I don't find this humorous.
I keep to the facts and you just play around.

No I don't.
I like to keep a discussion as "clean" as possible too, but I think
there simply was a miscommunication between us.


But, if you use a name like 'Deception', you'll need to make sure that
you can "prove" your statement. Fact is
- that "standalone" DRM-radios do exist.
- that the source-code of DRM is publically available.

I'm not playing any more of your yes it is and no it isn't crap. The
link above points to the same radio the other links you provided already
show that this is NOT A SW RADIO. It's AMBCB and FM like the rest. Now
I've lost count of how many times I have posted - the one I showed you
is the ONLY DEMONSTRATION SW DRM RADIO IN ANY OF THE LINKS.

The few other exceptions are very expensive professional rack mount OR
computer based processing. You have not made one point in regurgitating
the DRM consortiums press releases. I've already read them and I don't
need you to point me to them. It would be OK if the links proved your
assertions but they don't.

The computer software down load gives you TEMPORARY and not PERMANENT
use. The rights are NOT given away with this software. This is just one
of the deceptions about DRM is that the coding is free and anybody can
use it as see fit. If you can't see that then to bad for you.

You are full of crap and I'm not playing your Trolling game.

Plonk

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
craigm wrote:

Telamon wrote:

The statements that I have seen before about DRM being an open standard
are as far as I see false because the software is not in the public
domain.

Like this one?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/drm/


No I don't like it. This is another computer - radio. You do realize
that most of these units need a computer to operate? These are not stand
alone radios. The link I provided is the one stand alone SW radio that I
know about.


The reply was in response to your statement that the software was not in
public domain. Source code is available so your argument fails.

You do not have the rights to the software, those rights are reserved.
For the time being you can down load and compile it on a local machine
for your own use. If the rights holder tell you to stop using it then
that's it. If money is demanded then you will have to pay it. There are
many ways this can be enforced.

There is one stand alone demonstration radio. I provided the link to it.
The others are multi kilo buck professional rack mount units that
consumers are not going to buy. All the other links by the DRM Troll
point to AMBCB and FM NOT SW RADIOS or computer assisted radios.

So the argument that "DRM consumer penetration into SW" is false.

Just because the software runs on a computer today, doesn't mean it must
always run on a computer. Initially MP3 encosded music only ran on a
computer. Now you can easily find battery operated MP3 players.

So what.

There are some that run 70 hours on a single AAA battery. Battery life
does not need to be an issue either.

Again so what.

The other links are not SW radios or they need computers to operate or
they are rack mount units that are and will continue to be very
expensive. The rack mounts are not consumer units.



Once a semiconductor manufacturer produces an ASIC for DRM it will be
possible to produce battery operated radios with DRM. A receiver
manufacturer could also create a custom ASIC.

Yeah that's the no brainer requirement it will take to create a radio
that will operate on batteries. Make no mistake about this, battery life
will be shorter than the current generation radios.

So who do you think is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
to make ASIC's to do this?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I've lost count of how many times I have posted - the one I showed you
is the ONLY DEMONSTRATION SW DRM RADIO IN ANY OF THE LINKS.

1. http://www.mayah.com/products/products-drm.htm
2.
http://www.himalaya.com.hk/index.php... d=28&lang=en

Both above are short-wave. Of course, SW could mean software and that adds a
few more.

I thought the discussion on performance, technology, market, motivators,
politics was most interesting - thanks to Kristoff for initiating it. It
would be nice to continue the discussion, respectfully.

Regards,

Tom

craigm wrote:
Telamon wrote:

The statements that I have seen before about DRM being an open
standard are as far as I see false because the software is not in
the public domain.


Like this one?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/drm/



No I don't like it. This is another computer - radio. You do realize
that most of these units need a computer to operate? These are not
stand alone radios. The link I provided is the one stand alone SW
radio that I know about.


The reply was in response to your statement that the software was not in
public domain. Source code is available so your argument fails.


Availability for development and beta testing is not the same as
public domain. The source code is not available for unrestricted use.
Like iBiquity, use of DRM source code in distributed products,
commercial or otherwise, incurs license fees, which can be costly. On
both transmission and reception ends.


Just because the software runs on a computer today, doesn't mean it must
always run on a computer. Initially MP3 encosded music only ran on a
computer. Now you can easily find battery operated MP3 players.


Good case in point. You are aware that Thomson/Fraunhofer receives a
royalty on every MP3 player sold. MP3 is a licensed technology. And
early on, MP3 was not inexpensive. My first MP3 encoder cost more than
$300. "Professional" versions (feature sets for heavy users in
commercial environments) could cost twise that. Though not so costly
today, they're still not free.

But MP3 had wide application in general market audio file
transmission/reception at a time when such technology solved problems
faced by large numbers of users on street level that were not solvable
by other means at the time.

For DRM, also a licensed technology, like the wire recorder, which
also met street level users' needs, there are already technologies in
place and in use that meet the same user expectations or better for the
same money or less, while presenting greater convenience than current
DRM receivers allow.

Whether or not DRM, or iBiquity, take off remains to be seen, but the
outlook is questionable. The technical advantages against competing
technologies are, at best, minimal. The technical obstacles are many.
And the costs for both broadcasters and listeners are high.

And the public are uninterested.

As with AM Stereo, there is no public clamor for these technologies
to be widely implemented. If the public were to make such noise, there
would be nothing to stop the tidal wave of implementation. Because there
would be money in it. Large money.

Returning to the example of MP3, there was public and professional
demand for smaller audio files due to the high cost of storage and the
limited transmission rates available at the time. MP3 met this handily.
Today, with storage cheap and transmission rates high, MP3 is more of an
institution than a necessity. As evidenced by the number of portable
players that now embrace uncompressed files.

But for now, there is no public clamor for DRM. And absent a
regulatory mandate, without a public demand there is no motivation for
implementation.

The market driven future for DRM, and iBiquity, is dim.









There are some that run 70 hours on a single AAA battery. Battery life
does not need to be an issue either.


The other links are not SW radios or they need computers to operate or
they are rack mount units that are and will continue to be very
expensive. The rack mounts are not consumer units.



Once a semiconductor manufacturer produces an ASIC for DRM it will be
possible to produce battery operated radios with DRM. A receiver
manufacturer could also create a custom ASIC.





craigm

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
craigm wrote:


Telamon wrote:


The statements that I have seen before about DRM being an open standard
are as far as I see false because the software is not in the public
domain.

The software does not have to be in the public domain for the standard
to be open. The standard is one thing, the software is an implementation
of the standard. I can write software that complies with an open
standard and sell it without putting the source in the public domain.



Like this one?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/drm/


No I don't like it. This is another computer - radio. You do realize
that most of these units need a computer to operate? These are not stand
alone radios. The link I provided is the one stand alone SW radio that I
know about.


The reply was in response to your statement that the software was not in
public domain. Source code is available so your argument fails.


You do not have the rights to the software, those rights are reserved.
For the time being you can down load and compile it on a local machine
for your own use. If the rights holder tell you to stop using it then
that's it.

If you follow the requirements of the GPL, then the rights holder won't
tell you to stop using it.


If money is demanded then you will have to pay it.
Per the GPL, any money is for distribution costs. Since the links were
for a free download site, there is no cost, now or in the furute.


There are
many ways this can be enforced.

Yes, but you would have to violate the terms of the GPL.


There is one stand alone demonstration radio. I provided the link to it.
The others are multi kilo buck professional rack mount units that
consumers are not going to buy. All the other links by the DRM Troll
point to AMBCB and FM NOT SW RADIOS or computer assisted radios.

So the argument that "DRM consumer penetration into SW" is false.


Just because the software runs on a computer today, doesn't mean it must
always run on a computer. Initially MP3 encosded music only ran on a
computer. Now you can easily find battery operated MP3 players.


So what.

You argue that DRM is primarily limited to computers and that is an
issue for you. I provided an example of a technology that was initially
limited to computers and is now available in low cost devices that fit
in a pocket. The point being, the same can happen with DRM.



There are some that run 70 hours on a single AAA battery. Battery life
does not need to be an issue either.


Again so what.

You argue that the technology to turn a digital stream to audio is too
power hungry for portable devices. Again, MP3 players show that this
does not have to be so.



The other links are not SW radios or they need computers to operate or
they are rack mount units that are and will continue to be very
expensive. The rack mounts are not consumer units.



Once a semiconductor manufacturer produces an ASIC for DRM it will be
possible to produce battery operated radios with DRM. A receiver
manufacturer could also create a custom ASIC.


Yeah that's the no brainer requirement it will take to create a radio
that will operate on batteries. Make no mistake about this, battery life
will be shorter than the current generation radios.

So who do you think is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
to make ASIC's to do this?

Sony could. TI could. Philips could. Analog Devices could. If you could
sell tens of thousands of them, why not. Many companies are making ASICs.

DRM uses MPEG4 AAC audio coding as one of its choices. The Apple IPOD
supports MPEG4 AAC audio coding. Perhaps half the ASIC work is already done.

craigm

Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Well, as the British say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating",
the best way is to try it yourself.

But, for there are some indications about the possibility on the website
of Chris Mackerell in New Zealand. He has some interesting audio-samples
online: http://www.owdjim.gen.nz/chris/radio/DRM/

Including a repport of the number of audio-frames received and the audio
of it. (the only thing that I find a pitty is that these audio-samples
have been compress a second time using a lossy codec, creating a "codec
cascade" effect).


There are examples with a lot of packetloss and some with excellent
reception; some from as far as Europe (20000 km from New-Zealand).

Hi

Thanks for the mention.

I've been watching this thread with interest, but keeping out of the
"debate" :-). When I started putting my DRM recordings on my website
I was on a very expensive internet connection. It's much cheaper
now, and I still have the original .wav files of most of the recordings,
so I might re-encode some of the files at a higher quality.

DRM here has always been very unpredictable, because no-one beams
anything our way. Mind you, the same goes for most major international
broadcasters these days :-(

I understand that RNZI are currently awaiting delivery of a shipment
of Sangean DRM receivers - I'll be interested to see what they are
like.

73 Chris



But, the best it to try it out yourself. (but I don't have a DRM radio
neither, so who am I to say what you should do. :-)))



Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

ABOUT - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) = http://www.drm.org/
 

Kristoff Bonne wrote:

[Massive amount of DRM crap snipped]

DRM = QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA

ABOUT - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) = http://www.drm.org/
 

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Tom Holden" wrote in message
...

[snip]


Moreover, the DRM spectrum is rectangular - even energy distribution. If
we
take our 10 kHz channel and use SSBc to fill it (carrier at channel
edge),
we will get nearly 10 kHz audio bandwidth. If we also use pre-emphasis
(as
is done in FM), or one of the (ancient) Dolby or dBx type noise reduction
systems to lift the treble energy in the sideband, we will get a much
improved S/N. Still very listenable on a conventional DSBAM radio with
typical IF and AF passbands.

They do use premphasis with AM radio transmissions, at least in the US.
The
NRSC has come up with a suggested premphasis scheme:

http://www.nrscstandards.org/Standards/nrsc-1.pdf

This is NRSC 1. As I understand it, NRSC 2 is similiar, but with a a cut
off to the treble boost above some frequency to reduce adjacent channel
interference.

Frank Dresser

Seems like a good starting point - they obviously were seeking a
pre-/de-emphasis curve that would be a workable compromise between the ideal
for best S/N that could be achieved with new radios and listenability on
typical radios. Of course, with a new standard implemented in new radios,
one could use double-ended multi-band companding for greater benefit.

Tom

ABOUT - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) = http://www.drm.org/
 

"Kristoff Bonne" wrote in message
...
Tom Holden schreef:
Just interested. Does anybody know if the AM-decoding in a "normal price"
SW-receiver is done in hardware or in software (ASIC/DSP)?

I'm not aware of any radios at any price that do AM decoding by DSP. I
suspect they exist in some form - after all, that is what one would
expect from Software Defined Radio technology. What about these new DRM
radios - do they also do AM and FM demodulation via DSP?

Well, I was more thinking in term of ASICs then "generic" DSP-processors.

Whether general-purpose DSP or ASIC DSP or software DSP running on a general
purpose CPU, it's still DSP.


When I left school (in 1993), I saw the first ASIC-chips (a V21/V23
decoder) which where based on DSP-technology; so I guess these things must
be pretty commonplace now.
If that is the case, a AM-decoder which is also able to do "detect" a
AM-signal is infact SBBc and decode it correct (and not as a "normal"
DSB-AM signal).

It's called a synchronous AM detector. While not commonplace, it is included
in several 'better' receivers. AM Stereo receivers used sync AM detectors.
The Sony IC-2010 has a highly reputed sync AM IC - analog. The WinRadio line
looks to include both sync AM and conventional envelope detectors in the
software DSP that runs on the PC to demodulate the 12 kHz IF output fed into
the PC sound system. Any sync AM detector is capable of demodulating both
DSB-AM with carrier and SSBc AM. As it is a product detector with a
synchronised BFO, the same detector may also be used for SSB suppressed
carrier and other modes, especially by defeating the synchroniser.

Concerning the DRM-chips, if you look at the specification from TI (see
link below, they say that this one chipset can do DAB, DRM, FM, RDS and AM
(plus mp2, mp3 and wma-playback).

So this does look like a SDR but I don't know if it is actually possible
to "flash" the device and upload new DSP-code into it.

The Radioscape module based on this chipset can be programmed via USB. It
looks to incorporate AM envelope detection as standard.

Regards,

Tom

DRM vs SSBc
 

"Kristoff Bonne" wrote in message
...

It can image that a AM-decoder can decode this correctly for CHU, but I
don't know if this would apply for a broadcasting-signal.

Why not? CHU contains human voice announcements in USBc so why would a SSBc
broadcast signal be any different as far as an envelope detector is
concerned?

I wonder what would happen if you would have a situation like this:
- Say that you have a radio-station in 5 Khz USB SSBc at (say) 7200 Khz
(hence, taking up 7310 to 7315 Khz; just a random frequency)

(you mean the 5 kHz USBc carrier is at 7310, not 7200)

- and you have a second signal just below (either a SSBc from 7305 to
7310, or a DSB-AM from 7300 to 7310).

(i.e. a USBc or a DSBC at 7305)


How would a AM-decoder react if it was tuned to 7310Khz. Wouldn't he think
this is a DSB-AM station from 7305 to 7315 Khz and completely decode this
incorrectly?

If the IF shifts the 7310 to the centre of its 5 kHz passband, then both an
envelope detector or a sync AM detector centred in the passband are going to
see the upper 2.5k of the upper sideband of the lower adjacent freq. As you
tune the receiver higher in frequency, less of the undesired sideband and
more of the desired will be seen, thus improving the S/I. A correctly
designed selectable sideband synch AM receiver would correctly align the
passband on the selected sideband and with the synchronous BFO.

A DSP/ASIC based signal might be programmed to see that the signal at
7305-7310 Khz is completely different then 7310-7315 KHz and switch to
SSBc because of that, but how would an "analog" AM-decoder react to this?

Because sync AM has a lock-in time or latency, it might be desirable to use
envelope detection for rapid and coarse tuning with an optional automatic
switch to sync AM mode. Of course, a DXer would want to exercise manual
control. I have no idea whether such auto switching is realisable in any
practical way.

I'm replying in digestible chunks - more later!

73, Tom

The Future and Fate of DRM and IBOC - "The Market Makers" Will Decide !
 

In article ,
"Tom Holden" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I've lost count of how many times I have posted - the one I showed you
is the ONLY DEMONSTRATION SW DRM RADIO IN ANY OF THE LINKS.

1. http://www.mayah.com/products/products-drm.htm
2.
http://www.himalaya.com.hk/index.php...id=14&Itemi d
=28&lang=en

Both above are short-wave. Of course, SW could mean software and that adds a
few more.

I thought the discussion on performance, technology, market, motivators,
politics was most interesting - thanks to Kristoff for initiating it. It
would be nice to continue the discussion, respectfully.

Yeah Tom I post the links. Both links are the same radio. This is the
one DRM SW radio I have been able to find. This is the ONE concept radio
by two of the companies involved in the DRM consortium.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

The Future and Fate of DRM and IBOC - "The Market Makers" Will Decide !
 

In article ,
craigm wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
craigm wrote:


Telamon wrote:


The statements that I have seen before about DRM being an open standard
are as far as I see false because the software is not in the public
domain.

The software does not have to be in the public domain for the standard
to be open. The standard is one thing, the software is an implementation
of the standard. I can write software that complies with an open
standard and sell it without putting the source in the public domain.

The DRM standard in part uses proprietary code licensed by several
companies depend on the mode you operate in. That does not meet the open
requirement.

Like this one?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/drm/


No I don't like it. This is another computer - radio. You do realize
that most of these units need a computer to operate? These are not stand
alone radios. The link I provided is the one stand alone SW radio that I
know about.


The reply was in response to your statement that the software was not in
public domain. Source code is available so your argument fails.


You do not have the rights to the software, those rights are reserved.
For the time being you can down load and compile it on a local machine
for your own use. If the rights holder tell you to stop using it then
that's it.

If you follow the requirements of the GPL, then the rights holder won't
tell you to stop using it.


If money is demanded then you will have to pay it.
Per the GPL, any money is for distribution costs. Since the links were
for a free download site, there is no cost, now or in the furute.


There are
many ways this can be enforced.

Yes, but you would have to violate the terms of the GPL.

I don't know what you are talking about here. This software is being
sold and is not free. If there is a free DRM radio decoder I did not
know about it. I don't understand how this could be because some of the
encoding/decoding algorithms are not free. Please point to the free DRM
decoding software.

There is one stand alone demonstration radio. I provided the link to it.
The others are multi kilo buck professional rack mount units that
consumers are not going to buy. All the other links by the DRM Troll
point to AMBCB and FM NOT SW RADIOS or computer assisted radios.

So the argument that "DRM consumer penetration into SW" is false.


Just because the software runs on a computer today, doesn't mean it must
always run on a computer. Initially MP3 encosded music only ran on a
computer. Now you can easily find battery operated MP3 players.


So what.

You argue that DRM is primarily limited to computers and that is an
issue for you. I provided an example of a technology that was initially
limited to computers and is now available in low cost devices that fit
in a pocket. The point being, the same can happen with DRM.



There are some that run 70 hours on a single AAA battery. Battery life
does not need to be an issue either.


Again so what.

You argue that the technology to turn a digital stream to audio is too
power hungry for portable devices. Again, MP3 players show that this
does not have to be so.



The other links are not SW radios or they need computers to operate or
they are rack mount units that are and will continue to be very
expensive. The rack mounts are not consumer units.



Once a semiconductor manufacturer produces an ASIC for DRM it will be
possible to produce battery operated radios with DRM. A receiver
manufacturer could also create a custom ASIC.


Yeah that's the no brainer requirement it will take to create a radio
that will operate on batteries. Make no mistake about this, battery life
will be shorter than the current generation radios.

So who do you think is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
to make ASIC's to do this?

Sony could. TI could. Philips could. Analog Devices could. If you could
sell tens of thousands of them, why not. Many companies are making ASICs.

DRM uses MPEG4 AAC audio coding as one of its choices. The Apple IPOD
supports MPEG4 AAC audio coding. Perhaps half the ASIC work is already done.

You are missing about every point in the thread. The DRM Troll started
out saying that the DRM SW was imminent because consumer radios existed.
There is one that I can find no thanks to the Troll. I don't know if
this one radio is actually being sold since it is described as a
"concept radio." He kept posting links of the same radios that are not
SW radios but are AMBCB or FM. The radios that did receive SW need a
computer to operate or they were very expensive professional rack mount
units. Basically the radios that need a computer are science experiments
for early adopters. There is no analog equivalent DRM SW radio being
manufactured today as far as I can tell.

Of course there could be a DRM SW equivalent tomorrow. Of course any
company with the resources could spend the money to produce ASIC's to do
the job. It is just that they haven't done it yet contrary to what the
DRM Troll is espousing.

A DRM radio needs to perform many functions compared to what an MP3
player needs to do. Additional functions over what an analog radio
requires so even if a well financed company decided to build a high
order of integration with several ASIC's a DRM radio would still draw
much more power than a analog radio. Standard batteries many not be able
to handle the power requirements and when DRM SW portables show up they
will probably use lithium ion rechargeable batteries.

There is nothing magical about DRM technology. Everything used by the
DRM scheme is used someplace else. Nothing new here and that might be
part of the problem of a technology not well matched to the SW
propagation environment.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

The Future and Fate of DRM and IBOC - "The Market Makers" WillDecide !
 

Telamon wrote:

You are missing about every point in the thread. The DRM Troll started
out saying that the DRM SW was imminent because consumer radios existed.
There is one that I can find no thanks to the Troll. I don't know if
this one radio is actually being sold since it is described as a
"concept radio." He kept posting links of the same radios that are not
SW radios but are AMBCB or FM. The radios that did receive SW need a
computer to operate or they were very expensive professional rack mount
units. Basically the radios that need a computer are science experiments
for early adopters. There is no analog equivalent DRM SW radio being
manufactured today as far as I can tell.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California


A "Concept" unit is usually something that was built to take to trade
shows to see if there is a market for a product. With radios its not
uncommon for the "Concept" device to only have a computer board and
software to let you operate the controls. I saw one that cost a company
over $1,000,000 US dollars. It had a laptop inside, and a bunch of 50
Ohm 2 Watt carbon resistors across all of the BNC connectors, in case
someone actually tried to hook it up. The real prototype DSP based
telemetry receiver was still on the designers bench, not working.

--
?

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

The Future and Fate of DRM and IBOC - "The Market Makers" WillDecide !
 

Telamon wrote:

The software does not have to be in the public domain for the standard
to be open. The standard is one thing, the software is an implementation
of the standard. I can write software that complies with an open
standard and sell it without putting the source in the public domain.


The DRM standard in part uses proprietary code licensed by several
companies depend on the mode you operate in. That does not meet the open
requirement.



I think the difference in our opinion revolve around the definition of
an open standard. There is enough information on the net that someone
can develop the code to receive DRM.





There are

many ways this can be enforced.

Yes, but you would have to violate the terms of the GPL.


I don't know what you are talking about here. This software is being
sold and is not free. If there is a free DRM radio decoder I did not
know about it. I don't understand how this could be because some of the
encoding/decoding algorithms are not free. Please point to the free DRM
decoding software.


You haven't looked at http://sourceforge.net/projects/drm/

You download for free, compile and use. If you don't like something
about the code, change it, recompile and use.





You are missing about every point in the thread. The DRM Troll started
out saying that the DRM SW was imminent because consumer radios existed.
There is one that I can find no thanks to the Troll. I don't know if
this one radio is actually being sold since it is described as a
"concept radio." He kept posting links of the same radios that are not
SW radios but are AMBCB or FM. The radios that did receive SW need a
computer to operate or they were very expensive professional rack mount
units. Basically the radios that need a computer are science experiments
for early adopters. There is no analog equivalent DRM SW radio being
manufactured today as far as I can tell.

I see no DRM radios similar to a Sony 7600, yet. (If that is what you
mean.) That does not mean it can't happen.


Of course there could be a DRM SW equivalent tomorrow. Of course any
company with the resources could spend the money to produce ASIC's to do
the job. It is just that they haven't done it yet contrary to what the
DRM Troll is espousing.


The other links in the thread refer to a TI part.
http://focus.ti.com/docs/apps/catalo...dio_digrad_drm
Check this link where it is being used.
http://www.radioscape.com/downloads/...500_Doc_02.pdf
or,
http://www.radioscape.com/



A DRM radio needs to perform many functions compared to what an MP3
player needs to do. Additional functions over what an analog radio
requires so even if a well financed company decided to build a high
order of integration with several ASIC's a DRM radio would still draw
much more power than a analog radio. Standard batteries many not be able
to handle the power requirements and when DRM SW portables show up they
will probably use lithium ion rechargeable batteries.

You are missing my point about the advances in technology. What has
happened with MP3 players, PDAs, cell phones, and computers has lead to
portable devices that are battery operated. The same concepts applied to
DRM can yield similar results.

Yes, it will use more power than an analog radio. However, we are not
talking about the same performance as a radio with no digital circuitry.



There is nothing magical about DRM technology. Everything used by the
DRM scheme is used someplace else. Nothing new here and that might be
part of the problem of a technology not well matched to the SW
propagation environment.


Time will tell.

I think there is good potential.

craigm

DRM vs SSBc
 

"Kristoff Bonne" wrote in message
...
My question is what happens if you tune a normal DSB-AM decoder to a SSBc
signal (say in USB), where there happens to be another signal at the 5 Khz
below.

Actually, there is a good test for that. 7335 khz is in the middle of a
broadcasting-band.
Can you still hear CHU at that frequency (SSBc USB, carrier at 7335 Khz,
signal from 7335 to 7340 Khz) with a normal DSB-AM radio if there is a
station broadcasting at 7330 Khz in DSB-AM (i.e. signal from 7325 to 7335
Khz)?

Yes, answered before and below...

If the IF shifts the 7310 to the centre of its 5 kHz passband, then both
an envelope detector or a sync AM detector centred in the passband are
going to see the upper 2.5k of the upper sideband of the lower adjacent
freq. As you tune the receiver higher in frequency, less of the undesired
sideband and more of the desired will be seen, thus improving the S/I.

That is saying that you would tune the conventional envelope detector
receiver to the upper side of the USBc carrier in order to suppress
interference from the lower adjacent channel, just as you would if the
desired signal was DSB and there was interference from the lower adjacent
channel. The more difficult and potentially untenable situation for even the
most sophisticated receiver is if the interferer is DSB on the upper
adjacent channel of a USBc signal.


But I do think the situation in different parts of the world:
- here in Europe SW is used to beam news and information from "home" to
holidays-destinations
- in the US -as there are no "domestic" SW-broadcasts- (at least, that's
what I read somewhere) SW is probably more a "hobby" thing.
- in other parts of the world, SW is also used for "domestic"
broadcasting.

I think you are correct that the US FCC does not license SW broadcasters for
domestic coverage but many supposedly international US broadcasters have
their largest audiences within its borders. I am in Canada - we have a few
SW transmitters for domestic coverage.

But, as I already said, the question is to what degree this really
matters. The way I see it, we're asking ourself the wrong question here.
The first question would be "who are we aiming this service for and what
kind of equipement do they have now"?


I see two possibilities:
- either you direct this at a target-group which already owns a shortwave
radio, and -then- backwards compatibility with DSB-AM is important.

And that is my point - the already huge installed base, not only of SW but
also MW and LW radios....

- either you are looking at a group of people who currently do not have a
SW-radio, and they will have to buy a new one anyway, so -at that moment-
backwards compatibility of your service to existing DSB-AM receivers is
not important!

Nobody is being forced to buy a new method of reception, unless the
regulators shut down the current methods, as is intended for TV broadcast.
For radio, the US and Canadian regulators seem to be more inclined to let
market forces decide. Canada was an early adopter of Eureka 147 in a new
slice of spectrum for broadcast - the L-band. The number of receivers sold
over the course of nearly 6 years since its launch is probably numbered in
the high hundreds, certainly less than a few thousand, despite claiming
coverage of over 10 million people. The number being used is probably a tiny
fraction of that. They were not forced to buy and certainly not induced by
the supposed attractions of Program Associated Data, AF interchange with FM,
multiple services, and the claims of 'CD quality', etc. So all that
investment in DAB transmission has been wasted. Anybody mounting an
advertising-based service solely on DAB would have been foolish.

So, what is our goal?

- more robust reception?
- better audio quality.
- a better user-interface
- additional services
- reduced broadcasting-power

AND

- low transition cost, for both broadcasters and listeners
- rapid reach to a large potential audience
- economical receivers, in cost, weight and power consumption
- interference mitigation

I think the most usefull approach is to put the two techologies next to
each other and see how well they score for every element.

Of course. But it's not easy. Real-world A-B comparisons are the right way
to do some of these things, double-blind tests, controlled conditions,
etc...

We can then try to "map" these to what we think is important for the
listener, but that will also vary on the kind of listener you're aiming
this at.
And this will different for somebody who is interested to learn about
foreign countries and who also has access to the internet, then for
somebody whos SW-radio is the only way to get news, information and music
from the central island of the archipel.

Sure, the weight one puts on each criterion will be influenced by context.

73,

Tom

The Future and Fate of DRM and IBOC - "The Market Makers" Will Decide !
 

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tom Holden" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I've lost count of how many times I have posted - the one I showed you
is the ONLY DEMONSTRATION SW DRM RADIO IN ANY OF THE LINKS.

1. http://www.mayah.com/products/products-drm.htm
2.
http://www.himalaya.com.hk/index.php...id=14&Itemi d
=28&lang=en

Yeah Tom I post the links. Both links are the same radio. This is the
one DRM SW radio I have been able to find. This is the ONE concept radio
by two of the companies involved in the DRM consortium.

Check again if you think both links point to the same radio. #1 is the Mayah
DRM-2010, #2 is the Himalaya with twin speakers and a star of David pattern
set of controls and is unmistakeably different from #1. The Himalaya is
based on the Analog Devices Blackfin processor, the 2010 on some unnamed
module. Mayah has nothing to do with #2 but the Himalaya company is involved
in both.

Anyway, what's the point if there is or was only one at some point in time -
there will be more soon, if not already. Two hairs or split hairs - it's
only hair! ;-)

73, Tom

The Future and Fate of DRM and IBOC - "The Market Makers" Will Decide !
 

In article ,
"Tom Holden" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tom Holden" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
.
..
[snip]
I've lost count of how many times I have posted - the one I showed you
is the ONLY DEMONSTRATION SW DRM RADIO IN ANY OF THE LINKS.

1. http://www.mayah.com/products/products-drm.htm
2.
http://www.himalaya.com.hk/index.php...view&id=14&Ite
mid
=28&lang=en

Yeah Tom I post the links. Both links are the same radio. This is the
one DRM SW radio I have been able to find. This is the ONE concept radio
by two of the companies involved in the DRM consortium.

Check again if you think both links point to the same radio. #1 is the Mayah
DRM-2010, #2 is the Himalaya with twin speakers and a star of David pattern
set of controls and is unmistakeably different from #1. The Himalaya is
based on the Analog Devices Blackfin processor, the 2010 on some unnamed
module. Mayah has nothing to do with #2 but the Himalaya company is involved
in both.

Anyway, what's the point if there is or was only one at some point in time -
there will be more soon, if not already. Two hairs or split hairs - it's
only hair! ;-)

Sorry about that, I looked at the first one and not the second. The
second one (himalaya) in the past needed a computer for processing the
audio. Looks like it might be a stand alone radio now.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

The Future and Fate of DRM and IBOC - "The Market Makers" Will Decide !
 

In article ,
craigm wrote:

Telamon wrote:

The software does not have to be in the public domain for the standard
to be open. The standard is one thing, the software is an implementation
of the standard. I can write software that complies with an open
standard and sell it without putting the source in the public domain.


The DRM standard in part uses proprietary code licensed by several
companies depend on the mode you operate in. That does not meet the open
requirement.



I think the difference in our opinion revolve around the definition of
an open standard. There is enough information on the net that someone
can develop the code to receive DRM.


There are many ways this can be enforced.

Yes, but you would have to violate the terms of the GPL.


I don't know what you are talking about here. This software is being
sold and is not free. If there is a free DRM radio decoder I did not
know about it. I don't understand how this could be because some of the
encoding/decoding algorithms are not free. Please point to the free DRM
decoding software.


You haven't looked at http://sourceforge.net/projects/drm/

You download for free, compile and use. If you don't like something
about the code, change it, recompile and use.

Snip

Interesting that Coding technologies will allow an individual use of
un-compiled code. However, they are not giving up their rights to that
code in a commercial enterprise. They expect to get paid for that
software if it goes in somebody's radio.
http://www.codingtechnologies.com/licensing/DRM.htm

Also interesting is that compiled versions of the Dream software must be
paid for on the DRM website.
http://www.winradio.com/home/download-drm.htm

Maybe you can explain why a commercial company would provide un-compiled
versions of it's software for free while at the same time trying to
sell it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California