DRM Survey
Luke
Mondiale (DRM). I would appreciate any responses. Feel free to write as
much or as little as you like.
1. Have you listened to the various samples on the internet of test
transmissions, especially the ones of long haul tests on the Radio
Netherlands website?
2. Do you believe they give a good overall picture of how well the
system works?
3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
explain your answer.
4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
explain your answer.
6. When DRM begins next year, will you be an early adopter, or will you
wait some time before embracing the technology?
7. Any other comments?
Thanks very much for your time.
Luke.
Jake Brodsky
>1. Have you listened to the various samples on the internet of test
>transmissions, especially the ones of long haul tests on the Radio
>Netherlands website?
No.
>2. Do you believe they give a good overall picture of how well the
>system works?
No. I have no idea what the signal strengths, and other conditions
were like. I have no idea what the interference levels were like.
One sample doesn't prove much.
>3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
>explain your answer.
I'm looking forward to DRM's introduction in the hope that it will
lead to better receivers, and interesting chip sets. I find the idea
of DRM reception an interesting technical challenge. I'm also eager
to compare such systems with a plain AM signal on a good synchronous
detector.
>4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
You mean besides the fact that it's a multi-state QAM system? None. I
have no idea what coding schemes it uses. I would be very interested
to see the DRM standards committee make the standard available to the
public on the Internet. Software issued under a public open source
license would also be a big benefit.
The first and probably key initial adopters of the DRM standard will
be those who are technically literate in the Arts and Sciences of
Radio. If the DRM folks want to succeed, opening up the standards
would be a very good way of making that happen.
>5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
>given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
>explain your answer.
At best I give the DRM standard a 50/50 chance at succeeding.
Following the release of the standard, there are several obstacles:
First, manufacturers need to build chips to do as much of the
detection as possible in silicon. Some of this may be feasible with a
few custom ASIC productions.
Second, the radios need to be built digital-ready and cheap. If a
consumer version of a DRM radio for MW can't be built for under $100
then it's doomed.
Third, over the longer term, someone will have to improve the
acquisition time of the DRM signal. People surf stations. Anything
more than a few hundred milliseconds delay is very annoying.
Fourth, broadcasters will have to provide the programming that will
attract listeners. I see this as being more interesting and easy to
do on shortwave than I do on MW. For SW applications, I think lots of
people are scared away by the complexity. DRM could reach lots of
people with programming they don't hear every day. On MW, however, I
think the effort will be a bit more difficult.
If DRM provided some sort of data side channel such as a ticker stream
for a business radio format, then it might be more attractive on MW.
The problem is that good audio is not why most listeners are on MW.
They're there because they're looking for either news of some kind,
whether it's business, sports, opinions, or headlines. DRM audio
doesn't improve this situation enough to change the current business
models, so there has to be some kind of add-on...
Another issue to watch out for is coverage. If DRM improves coverage
of weaker stations substantially, then we could see a real cat fight
as the big broadcast stations lose market share to smaller upstarts
whose coverage has suddenly improved many fold. This could cause big
industry associations to shoot the whole thing down. I know this
isn't as much an issue for European broadcasters as they're
predominantly government operations, but here in North America, it's a
serious political obstacle.
>6. When DRM begins next year, will you be an early adopter, or will you
>wait some time before embracing the technology?
It depends on who is broadcasting, how much DRM traffic there is, and
how much the detector setup costs. If the DRM reception will be
anything like the AOR receiver with a custom 30 kHz IF strip and a
special sound card, then you can pretty much count me out.
On the other hand, if a chip is available in DIP format for under $20
and is capable of operating at a 455 kHz IF, then I'm probably going
to build a DRM decoder for my radio.
>7. Any other comments?
Luke, the real issue I have with DRM isn't technical. It's political
and economic. The broadcasting standards we have today are the result
of NEW development on NEW frequencies, and NEW formats. They didn't
displace any paradigms or consumers. They made new markets. DRM
needs to do something similar.
I envision DRM being at least a partial success on SW, but I have a
hard time figuring out how it's supposed to take hold on MW
broadcasting.
73,
Jake Brodsky, AB3A mailto:fru...@erols.com
"Beware of the massive impossible!"
Ian Sachs
>transmissions, especially the ones of long haul tests on the Radio
>Netherlands website?
Not just that, I have witnessed a live test trial and demonstration of
DRM in Melbourne, Australia, broadcast from Europe by Radio
Netherlands.
>2. Do you believe they give a good overall picture of how well the
>system works?
Yes, definitely.
>3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
>explain your answer.
Why should one dread the introduction of a new broadcasting
technology? Of course I am looking forward to it.
>4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
I believe fairly good.
>5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
>given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
>explain your answer.
I was sceptical originally, but became convinced when I saw (and
heard) it working. The sound was crystal clear, no fading, no
drop-outs, FM broadcast quality.
>6. When DRM begins next year, will you be an early adopter, or will you
>wait some time before embracing the technology?
I will be an early adopter.
Ian
Dave
>I am doing a survey into people's understanding and views on Digital Radio
>Mondiale (DRM). I would appreciate any responses. Feel free to write as
>much or as little as you like.
>
>1. Have you listened to the various samples on the internet of test
>transmissions, especially the ones of long haul tests on the Radio
>Netherlands website?
No
>
>2. Do you believe they give a good overall picture of how well the
>system works?
n/a
>
>3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
>explain your answer.
>
I always have a "curiosity"
>4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
Enough
>
>5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
>given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
>explain your answer.
It should work OK, most of the time. I don't know what you mean by
"hit or miss". As long as there's no geomagnetic weirdness, HF seems
very solid and predictable.
>
>6. When DRM begins next year, will you be an early adopter, or will you
>wait some time before embracing the technology?
>
I have satellite radio. I have no use for shortwave digital.
>7. Any other comments?
Shortwave is for poor people and travelers. Neither of who will want
the burden of a digital receiver.
>
>Thanks very much for your time.
Don't mention it.
>
>Luke.
Frank Dresser
>
>
>
>I am doing a survey into people's understanding and views on Digital Radio
>Mondiale (DRM). I would appreciate any responses. Feel free to write as
>much or as little as you like.
>
>1. Have you listened to the various samples on the internet of test
>transmissions, especially the ones of long haul tests on the Radio
>Netherlands website?
>
I tried, but there was some problem and it didn't work. Didn't try again.
>2. Do you believe they give a good overall picture of how well the
>system works?
>
It might.
>3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
>explain your answer.
>
As long the current standards of broadcast modulation are being used, it's
nothing but a curiosity to me.
>4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
>
I lump it in with digital cellphones and internet broadcasting. Don't know if
that's really correct or even the details of how those things work.
>5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
>given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
>explain your answer.
>
If I had to guess, it will improve the broadcasts we already hear well. It
will make those weak, lost in the noise DX signals nearly impossible.
>6. When DRM begins next year, will you be an early adopter, or will you
>wait some time before embracing the technology?
I embrace new technology only when the old stuff breaks beyond repair, or I can
pick something interesting from a thrift store or something like that. I have
many radios which will outlive me, so if I am an early adaptor, DRM's in the
dumpster, literally.
>
>7. Any other comments?
>
I don't see this as much of an advantage for either the listeners or the
broadcasters. Even if perfect, fade free international broadcasting is
possible, it won't pull many new listeners away from existing entertainment
radio. The current SWL's are listening for content they don't get from
mainstream radio, and accept the fading and noise of SW broadcasting. The
broadcasters might save some electricity if they can get the same coverage at
lower power, but their biggest expense is in production. Now that the Cold War
is over, it's harder to justify any part of the expense to the taxpayers.
>Thanks very much for your time.
>
>Luke.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Frank Dresser
Dennis Ferguson
>On 24 Jul 2002 02:37:37 GMT, Luke <lb24...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>2. Do you believe they give a good overall picture of how well the
>>system works?
>
>No. I have no idea what the signal strengths, and other conditions
>were like. I have no idea what the interference levels were like.
>One sample doesn't prove much.
>
>>3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
>>explain your answer.
>
>I'm looking forward to DRM's introduction in the hope that it will
>lead to better receivers, and interesting chip sets. I find the idea
>of DRM reception an interesting technical challenge. I'm also eager
>to compare such systems with a plain AM signal on a good synchronous
>detector.
The source coding bit rate for standard 9 or 10 kHz channels seems to be
about 20 kb/s, if I understand it, so listening to audio codecs running
at about that rate for Internet streaming audio should give an indication
of the basic quality you might expect. Comparing it to AM will be
interesting, however. Despite their claims of "error robustness" in
the coders I suspect this will have the same basic characteristics as
any digital broadcast (e.g. digital TV), that you'll either be receiving
it perfectly or not at all, with very little in the way of a transition
from one state to the other. The comparison to AM will hence become,
does the point where digital reception goes from all to nothing occur
at a point where the AM station is still providing acceptable quality,
or would the AM station be so bad that you'd have given up on it already?
The one thing the all-or-nothing property may begin to encourage
for people who like to listen to non-local stuff is getting that last
3 dB of SNR from your receiving system to move the rare one's to the
"all" side of the all-or-nothing boundary, since just bearing the
static won't be an option. This might add some additional science to
the art of receiving this stuff.
>>4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
>
>You mean besides the fact that it's a multi-state QAM system? None. I
>have no idea what coding schemes it uses. I would be very interested
>to see the DRM standards committee make the standard available to the
>public on the Internet. Software issued under a public open source
>license would also be a big benefit.
Actually it is OFDM channels with multi-state QAM (at least 4QAM)
modulation on each channel. If I understand it correctly the
narrow-bandwidth channelization is necessary to avoid the effects
of selective fading and phase distortion.
The current standard is actually available for free from ETSI if
you have the patience to fill out their forms. Go to http://www.etsi.org
and search for "DRM".
>>5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
>>given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
>>explain your answer.
>
>At best I give the DRM standard a 50/50 chance at succeeding.
>Following the release of the standard, there are several obstacles:
>First, manufacturers need to build chips to do as much of the
>detection as possible in silicon. Some of this may be feasible with a
>few custom ASIC productions.
I really think the problem of receiving this stuff isn't so much
an ASIC problem (too complex for hard-wiring, and the bandwidths
are modest) as it is a DSP problem. Even cell phones, which sell
at high-enough volumes to be built entirely from custom silicon,
still use relatively generic DSP cores for (de)modulation and
(de)coding.
The fact that most existing IF-DSP receivers for <30 MHz don't seem
to live up to their potential (at their price) compared to plain old
analog stuff makes me uncomfortable, though one could always hope
that the introducation of a modulation which can't be received with
analog gear might help to fix this.
Dennis Ferguson.
Telamon
Luke <lb24...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> I am doing a survey into people's understanding and views on Digital Radio
> Mondiale (DRM). I would appreciate any responses. Feel free to write as
> much or as little as you like.
>
> 1. Have you listened to the various samples on the internet of test
> transmissions, especially the ones of long haul tests on the Radio
> Netherlands website?
No.
> 2. Do you believe they give a good overall picture of how well the
> system works?
No.
> 3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
> explain your answer.
Dreading.
> 4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
Enough to know it's not worth a hill of beans.
> 5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
> given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
> explain your answer.
No confidence. One set of pluses and minuses traded for another.
> 6. When DRM begins next year, will you be an early adopter, or will you
> wait some time before embracing the technology?
Wait.
> 7. Any other comments?
DRM's a waste of time and money. I know BS when I see it.
> Thanks very much for your time.
Thanks for wasting ours and trashing the spectrum wherever you decide to
operate.
> Luke.
--
Telamon
Luke
news:telamon_spamshield-2...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.c
om:
>> Thanks very much for your time.
>
> Thanks for wasting ours and trashing the spectrum wherever you decide
> to operate.
Well if it was a waste of your time you could have simply ignored my post.
And also, I have nothing to do with the DRM consortium, if that's what you
mean by me "trashing the spectrum".
Jake Brodsky
<telamon_s...@pacbell.net.is.invalid> wrote:
>> 3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
>> explain your answer.
>
>Dreading.
>
>> 4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
>
>Enough to know it's not worth a hill of beans.
>
>> 5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
>> given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
>> explain your answer.
>
>No confidence. One set of pluses and minuses traded for another.
>
>> 6. When DRM begins next year, will you be an early adopter, or will you
>> wait some time before embracing the technology?
>
>Wait.
>
>> 7. Any other comments?
>
>DRM's a waste of time and money. I know BS when I see it.
>
>> Thanks very much for your time.
>
>Thanks for wasting ours and trashing the spectrum wherever you decide to
>operate.
You're wasting bandwidth very nicely yourself by posting such baseless
and unfounded opinion. Please elaborate on why you think the DRM
effort is so much BS.
Mike
"Luke" <lb24...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:Xns9255806AACC4Al...@210.49.20.254...
> I am doing a survey into people's understanding and views on Digital Radio
> Mondiale (DRM). I would appreciate any responses. Feel free to write as
> much or as little as you like.
>
> 1. Have you listened to the various samples on the internet of test
> transmissions, especially the ones of long haul tests on the Radio
> Netherlands website?
>
> 2. Do you believe they give a good overall picture of how well the
> system works?
>
Yes
> 3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
> explain your answer.
>
Looking forward. Although I am into DX I also listen to SW for content. I
also find my self frequently listening over the internet due to SW quality
issues. Listening to broadcasts over the internet is inconvenient for many
reasons and I would prefer to listen to FM quality transmissions over
shortwave.
I also believe now that the broadcasts will be FM quality or a step above AM
that it will revolutinize shortwave. I think we may see a increased
broadcasts, funding for stations, return of stations to shortwave or target
areas and new DRM shortwave stations in the coming years. The problem is if
that happens the major issue will be is there enough spectrum to accomadate
all these DRM broadcasters especially since DRM takes up more bandwidth.
DRM may also be a less costly alternative to internet streaming and
satellite. Therefore broadcasters on limited budgets may drop these
services in favor of DRM in the future.
> 4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
>
Good
> 5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
> given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
> explain your answer.
>
I am confident that it will be an improvement for broadcasts with normally a
decent signal in my area.
I find unless I am looking for just an ID, a poor signal with noise, fading,
etc are unbearable for listening to content anyway. With DRM I will likely
not hear the broadcast at all which suits me fine as I do not listen for
content when it gets to that point anyway as you lose to much of the
broadcast anyway.
> 6. When DRM begins next year, will you be an early adopter, or will you
> wait some time before embracing the technology?
>
Early adopter.
> 7. Any other comments?
>
What is your role with DRM? Also when your survey is complete could you
please provide us your responses.
> Thanks very much for your time.
>
np.
> Luke.
Luke
news:ujvval7...@corp.supernews.com:
> What is your role with DRM? Also when your survey is complete could
> you please provide us your responses.
I have no role with DRM. I am like you, just a listener keen to hear
programmes with increased clarity. I have a fair amount of confidence that
it will work, based on audio samples and the fact that I read everything I
possibly can on the subject. Yes I will respond, probably in a few days.
Thanks
Luke.
SteveG
>I am doing a survey into people's understanding and views on Digital Radio
>Mondiale (DRM). I would appreciate any responses. Feel free to write as
>much or as little as you like.
>
>1. Have you listened to the various samples on the internet of test
>transmissions, especially the ones of long haul tests on the Radio
>Netherlands website?
No, but I've heard a couple of the recordings on DW and R. Australia.
>2. Do you believe they give a good overall picture of how well the
>system works?
No. What I've heard gives a sampling of what's possible, not will be.
The shortcomings of the presentations I've heard was they did not
indicate the time of day nor the quality settings. One sample was from
the R. Netherlands transmitter in South America received in Australia.
Pretty impressive on the surface, but was it during the eight or so
hours of the day when I can receive R. Australia in eNA almost like a
local station or during the daytime when I can't receive them at all?
They didn't say.
>3. Are you looking forward to or dreading its introduction? Please
>explain your answer.
I'm concerned it will destroy analog broadcasting and it's dx nature.
DRM has 6 quality settings which means 6 levels of error correction.
The setting amounts to a quality versus distance choice, so a
broadcaster in europe for example might choose the highest quality
setting which might limit reception only to it's local target area.
Dxing will suffer. Secondly if the transmitters are occupied with a
DRM signal it can't be broadcasting in analog, so we will be losing
more and more analog signals as time goes by if DRM is sucessful.
>4. What level of understanding of the system do you have?
Limited with the details, a bit more with older digital broadcasting
concepts that go back 25 years or so.
>5. How much confidence do you have that DRM will successfully work,
>given the hit and miss ways of shortwave and indeed medium wave? Please
>explain your answer.
Not enough information has been released to answer this under all
circumstances and it will have a lot to do with how the broadcasters
use it. Another example of concern. Consider the BBC dropping NA as a
target area of their broadcasts. Today we in NA don't have any trouble
picking up the Caribbean signals with very near the same quality we
once had. With DRM the BBC will have the ability to cut us off to
enhance the FM and satellite distribution modes if they choose to or
worse, charge a subscription fee which will be possible.
>6. When DRM begins next year, will you be an early adopter, or will you
>wait some time before embracing the technology?
I'll be waiting, though with some interest. It's possible it will be
great and if I can tune in the world with better quality and more
often than I currently can with analog broadcasts I'll see it as an
advance. More likely, if DRM reception is more limited in reception
time I'll hold out until analog broadcasting shrinks enough to no
longer hold interest and then reassess.
Telamon
Jake Brodsky <fru...@erols.com> wrote:
And you wasted some more. Do a google search of RRS Jake.
--
Telamon(TM)
Telamon
Luke <lb24...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
The last comment was directed at the DRM consortium not you Luke.
Your not trashing the SW spectrum are you?
³I am doing a survey into people's understanding and views on Digital
Radio Mondiale (DRM). I would appreciate any responses. Feel free to
write as much or as little as you like.²
**** Be careful what you ask for. ****
DRM is snake oil. It can work but not like they say it will.
You can search Google - rec.radio.shortwave for more comments.
You might try a search on other groups with ³radio² in them.
--
Telamon