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.

Kristoff Bonne wrote:

[Massive amount of DRM crap snipped]

DRM = QRM

dxAce
Michigan
USA