[snip]

BUT it is just another system than the current analog with its mixed bag
of pluses and minuses, which make it no better than the current analog
system so why change to it?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California


Why change? Because:

"DRM can be used for a range of audio content, including multi-lingual
speech and music."

http://drm.org/system/technicalaspect.php

Just try that with some old-fashioned analog system.


"There is a global trend towards the adoption of digital technology in radio
and communications, especially for distribution and transmission. "

And:

"However, the limited fidelity of existing AM services is causinglisteners
to search for other alternatives."

http://drm.org/system/whydigital.php

Well, I'm confused on this point. Didn't AM became obselete in the forties
with the introduction of FM? If I remember my history correctly, didn't all
the limited fidelity AM stations go bankrupt as all their listeners were
drawn to high fidelity FM?

It seems limited fidelity AM is in for it again:

"DRM is the only universal, non-proprietary digital AM radio system with
near-FM quality sound available to markets worldwide."


There ya have it. DRM has both "near-FM quality sound" and digital
trendiness.

I can't think of any better reasons for the listener to care.

Frank Dresser

Kristoff Bonne wrote:

Gegroet,

Telamon schreef:
For One and All,
ABOUT - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM)
DRM = http://www.drm.org/.

ALL you need to know is that the implementation was screwed up and over
hyped.
OH YEAH and it was lied about a lot buy the DRM organization.
AND it takes up more bandwidth than it was supposed too.
BUT it is just another system than the current analog with its mixed bag
of pluses and minuses, which make it no better than the current analog
system so why change to it?
Aren't you mixing up DRM with IBOC-AM?

DRM might bring people back to LW/MW/SW and they might not even know it.

One of the things with DRM (and especially with the DAB/DRM chipset now
available) is that the user will just be presented with a list of
stations and he will just have to pick the one from the list. She will
not know if she is listening to a DAB broadcast at 1.4 Ghz or long-wave
at below 200 Khz.

DRM has two major advantages:
- it does away with fading, which is one of the things people find most
annoying about LW/MW/SW.
The "audio-quality" aspect is a bit mood as it all depends on what mode
you are using and I think for most people is not the most important
element. But if you produce a stable signal without fading, this would
make LW/MW/SW broadcasts quite acceptable by most people.

(The term "near-FM" is marketing talk, just ignore it).

- It allows broadcasters to break into certain markets by broadcasting
from abroad. BCE (RTL's broadcasting arm) plan to use it to broadcast
using DRM on LW, MW and SW towards different countries.

The new frequencies on LW and MW they have requested at the ITU are 279
Khz (Junglinster towards Germany), 567 Khz (Clervoux towards the
Netherlands), 783 Khz (Beidweiler towards France) and 1098 Khz (Clervoux
towards Belgium).

For SW, they have asked the HFCC for coordination for two frequencies:
5990 and 6095 Khz.

Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Cheerio my ass. DRM = QRM any which way you slice it or dice it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

"Kristoff Bonne" wrote in message
...



DRM has two major advantages:
- it does away with fading, which is one of the things people find most
annoying about LW/MW/SW.

DRM cannot do away with fading. I have no doubt that a DRM listener won't
notice minor fading, but major fading will cause drop-outs, rather than fade
outs. I think most listeners would find drop-outs more jarring than fade
outs. Either way, it will still be an annoyance.

Every once in a while, there just is no SW signal progagation at all. DRM
signals won't get through any better on those no signal times than analog
signals do.


The "audio-quality" aspect is a bit mood as it all depends on what mode
you are using and I think for most people is not the most important
element. But if you produce a stable signal without fading, this would
make LW/MW/SW broadcasts quite acceptable by most people.

LW and MW analog broadcasts are usually quite acceptable within their ground
wave coverage area. Skywave progagation is sometimes a problem. DRM may,
or may not, reduce those problems.

People will know a particular radio station is on SW whenever it drops out
or just never shows up. Or they will blame the radio station. Or their DRM
radio.

I really don't think SW radio will ever achieve mainstream popularity,
whatever modulation scheme is used.



(The term "near-FM" is marketing talk, just ignore it).

Why do the DRM proponents make such a big issue of "near-FM" audio? Is that
really one of thier best arguements for DRM?




- It allows broadcasters to break into certain markets by broadcasting
from abroad. BCE (RTL's broadcasting arm) plan to use it to broadcast
using DRM on LW, MW and SW towards different countries.

I suppose there might be signal to noise advantages in fringe ground wave
areas on LW and MW. There would be economic advantages if they can get the
same signal to noise ratio at reduced power. Reducing power on LW and MW
should reduce interference areas where the radio landscape is crowded. So,
DRM might have some advantages on LW and MW in such places as Europe.

I still don't see any strong advantages on SW, which will always have uneven
propagation.


The new frequencies on LW and MW they have requested at the ITU are 279
Khz (Junglinster towards Germany), 567 Khz (Clervoux towards the
Netherlands), 783 Khz (Beidweiler towards France) and 1098 Khz (Clervoux
towards Belgium).

For SW, they have asked the HFCC for coordination for two frequencies:
5990 and 6095 Khz.



Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Frank Dresser

From: dxAce
Organization: Wassamatta U.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:54:02 -0400
Subject: ABOUT - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) = http://www.drm.org/



Cheerio my ass.

Priceless!

Greg

AM Radio has been in existence for many,many years since before I was
born on November 5,1941 and I have been listening to AM Radio since
November 5,1941 and AM Radio has always been there.I don't believe AM
Radio and FM Radio and Shortwave Radio and Ham Radio will ever be
obsolete.
cuhulin

They can shove their DRM where the Sun doesn't shine for all I care.
cuhulin

You suck up to DRM,,, you Wimp!,,, NOT me,, I have too many smarts.
cuhulin

I been reading,, teddy bear,, that you are a /////.(Pu..y)
cuhulin

"Kristoff Bonne" wrote in message
...
Gegroet,



[snip]


Quite a lot of shortwave station broadcast at more then one frequency at
a time so it possible to have a radio tuned to two frequencies at the
same time and let the radio "interleave" the signals from two sources
when one of the has a drop-out.

(DRM includes "alternative frequency" information, so the receiver is
able to find out these additional signals by itself).

That's diversity reception. Diversity reception is almost as old as SW
radio, but it never has been popular with the public. I can imagine
diversity reception would be easier to do digitially, but diversity
reception doesn't always help. There will be moments in which propagation
will be bad on all frequencies, and longer times, such as during solar flare
events, in which SW will be useless.





The choice is upto the broadcaster if he wants to pay for the additional
cost of this. (It will probably be that this is only needed during
certain times of the day).



[snip]


We will see. If DRM works well for most of the time and additional
stations have interesting content, people will get one of these
"RTL-radios" (which will happen to be a DRM-radio and which happens to
work on shortwave-frequencies).

SW radio works well most of the time, at least in the target areas. Let's
say a target area gets good reception 95% of the time. How much more
reliable might the reception be with DRM? 98%? 99%? Will 99% reliable
reception be good enough for non-hobbyists? I really don't think so.



Why do the DRM proponents make such a big issue of "near-FM" audio? Is
that
really one of thier best arguements for DRM?

Beats me. Because it is the argument what most "normal" people
understand best. "It does away with fading" is something most people do
not understand as most of them do not listen to SW anymore anyway.

True. Normal people don't have a strong interest in high fidelity radio.
They consider thier radios to be appliances. And they want their radios to
work as easily and reliably as their refrigerators and stoves. They don't
want to hear anything about the ionosphere, interference from halfway around
the world, weird propagation and solar flares.

[snip]


For RTL, the reason is pretty simple. They see that people are moving
away from MW and LW to FM just because FM sounds that much better.
But getting a FM-licence for just a new radio-station is not that
simple. (you are dependent of the policy of every country involved).


In additonal, in some regions (like for their German market) it allows
them to cover a large part of the country with one single radio-station
from abroad which is impossible as the media is organised on the level
of the "Lander" and not on federal level in Germany.

DRM allows them to start up new stations without them being subject to
the legislation of all these individual countries and if DRM provides
them with "FM-like" quality (whatever that might be), that will probably
be good enough to keep people tuned to *their* stations and not move to
FM-stations.

Won't the European Union standardize some of these bureaucratic problems?

Is there really much advantage to having one transmitter covering a huge
area? In the US, stations are individualized to the extent that they
usually carry the news, traffic and weather for their local market.


We will see, but as DMR is a digital broadcasting-system, you can expect
additional improvements in the receivers too.

The performance of analog radios could have been improved, if people wanted
to pay for the improvements. The real improvements in analog radios over
the last few years has been in price.

Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Frank Dresser

"Kristoff Bonne" wrote in message
...



Come to think of it. Why use different frequencies? DRM is able to
handle SFNs (single frequency networks)!

If you would broadcast your signal from (say) two or three different
transmittor-sites, if fading causes one of the signals to drop away, the
signal from the other site(s) will continue to be received.

It would be interesting to see how much power you would need from these
three transmittors together compaired to how much is needed if you only
use a single transmittor.


In the VHF-range, single-frequency networks allow for lower
transmission-power.
(due to the fact that the radio-signal is broadcast from multiple
points, a receiver will receive radio-signals from different directions
so there is more change of a signal coming in with a good quality).

It would be interesting to know if the same thing applies for HF!



Cheerio! Kr. BBonne.

It's worth remembering all the commercial SW data and phone links which were
in use before the satellite era. They had diversity reception,
sophisticated (for the time) digital modes, high power transmitters, high
gain antennas, etc. Yet they abandoned their large investment in SW as
satellites became available. Even with all their technology, SW still
wasn't reliable enough.

I think the average person expects at least the same order of reliablity
from their radios.

Frank Dresser