DRM for Alaska on SW?
David Eduardo
Proposed Alaska test of Digital Radio Mondiale on three shortwave
frequencies inFCC application from Digital Aurora Radio Technologies for
experimental authorization. The DoD-funded test would use Continental
transmitters designed for an Over-the-Horizon radar transmitting system and
a digital signal generator operating from the Delta Junction area.
“Compared to an ordinary analog shortwave signal, the DRM signal can
operate with the same coverage reliably … in a 10 kHz channel using a
transmitter power level approximately one-fifth of that needed for the
analog signal,” states Digital Aurora in the application, which remains
pending at the commission.
The company hopes to determine the “impact of high-latitude
ionospheric propagation in the shortwave bands on digital audio modulation
using the DRM system,” as well as determine what transmission power levels
will produce a reliable signal that can be received on DRM radios. Digital
Aurora also hopes to determine an antenna specification to deliver a signal
statewide.
Judging from the application, the two-year test proposal appears
notable because it would be the first time DRM has been tested in the U.S.
at such high latitudes, and because the company is proposing to broadcast
using digital shortwave technology to an entire state.
Digital Aurora believes it can contain most of the signal within
Alaska with little spillover into Canada. To avoid causing interference it
plans to stay at least two adjacent channels away from any channels used by
international broadcasters into western Canada.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
More QRM.
David Eduardo
"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
news:48233D26...@milestones.com...
>
>
>
> More QRM.
>
>
On the other hand, if this works, it could become a revitalizing force for
SW to cover sparsely populated and remote areas of the world and even
reverse the decline in SW station numbers.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
Like your stupid IBOC works?
Pay attention, 'Eduardo', it will only mean more QRM.
msg
I do not have the luxury of living in a radio quiet area; I battle
monumental QRN and RFI from hosts of consumer and industrial devices.
I for one, would welcome a reliable modulation method that punches
through that mess, and if a digital scheme on SW that respects
known adjacent channels will do this, I am interested.
Michael
dxAce
msg wrote:
Forget it. DRM = QRM.
David Eduardo
David Eduardo
Ace would rather have no stations than stations using digital modulation.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> news:48234E9F...@milestones.com...
> >
> >
> > msg wrote:
> >
> >> dxAce wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:48233D26...@milestones.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>More QRM.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>On the other hand, if this works, it could become a revitalizing force
> >> >>for
> >> >>SW to cover sparsely populated and remote areas of the world and even
> >> >>reverse the decline in SW station numbers.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Like your stupid IBOC works?
> >> >
> >> > Pay attention, 'Eduardo', it will only mean more QRM.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I do not have the luxury of living in a radio quiet area; I battle
> >> monumental QRN and RFI from hosts of consumer and industrial devices.
> >> I for one, would welcome a reliable modulation method that punches
> >> through that mess, and if a digital scheme on SW that respects
> >> known adjacent channels will do this, I am interested.
> >
> > Forget it. DRM = QRM.
> >
>
> Ace would rather have no stations than stations using digital modulation.
Pay attention, 'Eduardo' ... I'd rather not have any QRM.
D Peter Maus
I know I'm going to hell for this, but.....
If IBOC kept it's crap within the channel of the station's
allocation, it wouldn't be near the problem it is, today. That's where
it differs from DRM. DRM is contained within channel, and provides,
often-but not always, better audio clarity, with surprisingly less power.
Not to say I'm a big fan of DRM, because, right now, more often than
not, it's a pain in the ass, but if implemented as promised, DRM offers
more to the radio listening public than IBOC ever will.
What DRM has to deal with is the propagation characteristics of HF.
And that may be the razor by which we judge DRM.
But...and I say this with caution, and knowing that I stand a great
risk of agreeing with those with whom I've disagreed in the past...I'm
of the opinion that if DRM can be implemented in such a manner as it
respects the SW bandplan, and can keep it's splatter within it's own
channel, DRM may well be the solution that IBOC was meant to be.
dxAce
D Peter Maus wrote:
DRM needs to be moved to its own particular portion of the various SW bands.
Somewhere where the real stations are not operating. Then, the DRM'ers can QRM each
other.
I'm all in favour of that.
D Peter Maus
And that's a good solution. One, that, sadly, doesn't seem to be in
the cards with the allocation committees.
dxAce
D Peter Maus wrote:
So of course, the QRM continues...
David Eduardo
>
>
> David Eduardo wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Ace would rather have no stations than stations using digital modulation.
>
> Pay attention, 'Eduardo' ... I'd rather not have any QRM.
>
In a few years, you won't. There wlll be no SW stations at all. The DRM idea
proposed for Alaska could change that, making viable regional use of the SW
bands.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> news:48235445...@milestones.com...
> >
> >
> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ace would rather have no stations than stations using digital modulation.
> >
> > Pay attention, 'Eduardo' ... I'd rather not have any QRM.
> >
>
> In a few years, you won't. There wlll be no SW stations at all.
Aren't you one of those idiots that predicted that was going to happen at least
20 years ago?
You're dumber than Al Gore.
Mats Peterson
D Peter Maus
No, I think Jimmy Carter's about there.
Mats Peterson
;-)
David Eduardo
No, I did not predict there would be no stations on SW back in 1988.
However, even in 1967 when I bought an Ecuadorian station that had an
inactive SW permit, I realized the growth of local AM and shortwave would
preclude the need for domestic SW on the Tropical band and decided not to
build the permit. Over the years, we have seen a profusion of local stations
in areas previously only served by SW and, thus, a reduction of SW stations.
A friend who syndicates programming internationally noted after a trip to
about 14 sub-Saharan African nations that cities that previously had no
local radio and depended on reception from a larger city or the capital now
had as many as several dozen FM stations, some parts of networks, some
local. All have virtually replaced listening to distant stations of any
kind.
The Alaskan DRM concept, if it works and they can finance it, changes the
usage of SW, but makes the long distance coverage of SW a viable concept
again.
David Eduardo
"D Peter Maus" <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:WRIUj.307528$cQ1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> dxAce wrote:
>
>
> And that's a good solution. One, that, sadly, doesn't seem to be in the
> cards with the allocation committees.
>
>
Do you see that as caused by the traditionally dysfunctional committees, or
the perception of SW as not worth the effort (a dying medium in some minds)
or the fact that there is scant unity among the SW broadcasters themselves?
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> news:48235AD6...@milestones.com...
> >
> >
> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >
> >> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> >> news:48235445...@milestones.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Ace would rather have no stations than stations using digital
> >> >> modulation.
> >> >
> >> > Pay attention, 'Eduardo' ... I'd rather not have any QRM.
> >> >
> >>
> >> In a few years, you won't. There wlll be no SW stations at all.
> >
> > Aren't you one of those idiots that predicted that was going to happen at
> > least
> > 20 years ago?
> >
>
> No, I did not predict there would be no stations on SW back in 1988.
> However, even in 1967 when I bought an Ecuadorian station that had an
> inactive SW permit, I realized the growth of local AM and shortwave would
> preclude the need for domestic SW on the Tropical band and decided not to
> build the permit. Over the years, we have seen a profusion of local stations
> in areas previously only served by SW and, thus, a reduction of SW stations.
You bought nothing.
> A friend who syndicates programming internationally noted after a trip to
> about 14 sub-Saharan African nations that cities that previously had no
> local radio and depended on reception from a larger city or the capital now
> had as many as several dozen FM stations, some parts of networks, some
> local. All have virtually replaced listening to distant stations of any
> kind.
>
> The Alaskan DRM concept, if it works and they can finance it, changes the
> usage of SW, but makes the long distance coverage of SW a viable concept
> again.
But for now, and into the forseeable future, DRM = QRM. Pay attention,
'Eduardo'.
David Eduardo
>
>
>>
>> No, I did not predict there would be no stations on SW back in 1988.
>> However, even in 1967 when I bought an Ecuadorian station that had an
>> inactive SW permit, I realized the growth of local AM and shortwave would
>> preclude the need for domestic SW on the Tropical band and decided not to
>> build the permit. Over the years, we have seen a profusion of local
>> stations
>> in areas previously only served by SW and, thus, a reduction of SW
>> stations.
>
> You bought nothing.
OK, be nit-picky. My company bought from one Fausto Vallejo Silva the assets
of Radio Amaguaña, licencee of HCSP1 595 kHz in San Pedro de Amaguaña,
Provincia del Pichincha, Ecuador, and the permit for a tropical band SW
stations in the same canton of San Pedro de Amaguaña. The AM was bought on
the condition that the licence would be moved to Quito and reassigned; the
SW permit was left to expire or do whatever unbuilt permits did.
>
>> A friend who syndicates programming internationally noted after a trip to
>> about 14 sub-Saharan African nations that cities that previously had no
>> local radio and depended on reception from a larger city or the capital
>> now
>> had as many as several dozen FM stations, some parts of networks, some
>> local. All have virtually replaced listening to distant stations of any
>> kind.
>>
>> The Alaskan DRM concept, if it works and they can finance it, changes the
>> usage of SW, but makes the long distance coverage of SW a viable concept
>> again.
>
> But for now, and into the forseeable future, DRM = QRM. Pay attention,
> 'Eduardo'.
How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention, 'Eduardo', IBOC
= QRM.
David Eduardo
>
>
>>
>> How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?
>
> You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention, 'Eduardo',
> IBOC
> = QRM.
On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement of a
plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.
Glad to see that you recovered from your Cinco de Mayo bender.
David Eduardo
>
>
> David Eduardo wrote:
>
>> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
>> news:482363BB...@milestones.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?
>> >
>> > You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention,
>> > 'Eduardo',
>> > IBOC
>> > = QRM.
>>
>> On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement of
>> a
>> plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.
>
> No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.
>
I started the thread. Your memory is failing.
In any case, this is an idea (the Alaskan one, not the one of your memory
failing) that has some potential for reviving SW's usage for service to
rural areas with a 21st Century modulation scheme.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> news:482366C0...@milestones.com...
> >
> >
> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >
> >> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> >> news:482363BB...@milestones.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?
> >> >
> >> > You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention,
> >> > 'Eduardo',
> >> > IBOC
> >> > = QRM.
> >>
> >> On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement of
> >> a
> >> plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.
> >
> > No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.
> >
>
> I started the thread. Your memory is failing.
Really?
>
>
> In any case, this is an idea (the Alaskan one, not the one of your memory
> failing) that has some potential for reviving SW's usage for service to
> rural areas with a 21st Century modulation scheme.
It's a dumb idea. But that's so like you, oh faux one.
David Eduardo
>
>
> David Eduardo wrote:
>
>> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
>> news:482366C0...@milestones.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > David Eduardo wrote:
>> >
>> >> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:482363BB...@milestones.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?
>> >> >
>> >> > You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention,
>> >> > 'Eduardo',
>> >> > IBOC
>> >> > = QRM.
>> >>
>> >> On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement
>> >> of
>> >> a
>> >> plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.
>> >
>> > No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.
>> >
>>
>> I started the thread. Your memory is failing.
>
> Really?
Yes. I posted an extract from the RW article.
>
>>
>>
>> In any case, this is an idea (the Alaskan one, not the one of your memory
>> failing) that has some potential for reviving SW's usage for service to
>> rural areas with a 21st Century modulation scheme.
>
> It's a dumb idea. But that's so like you, oh faux one.
>
Serving areas of Alaska that do not have reliable... or any... radio service
is dumb? I think the idea is good.
Such a rural audience as exists across Alaska can not be served any other
way. There is not the economy of scale for satellite, and the high latitudes
may not offer good direct satellite broadcast opportunities. AM can not
serve such areas day and night, and even considering AM is silly due to the
vast difference in daylight hours around the year. FM is strictly local and
the terrain prohibits any viable network due to cost. Regular analog SW is
probably not practical as most people under 40 or so just will not listen to
fading and analog AM quality. The Internet is not mobile enough, and even
WiMax and emerging technologies will not have the rural coverage needed.
That leaves DRM, a conclusion I am sure the promoters came up with in the
same elimination of alternatives" process. It's a very bright idea if it can
be made financially self supporting.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> news:48236940...@milestones.com...
> >
> >
> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >
> >> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> >> news:482366C0...@milestones.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:482363BB...@milestones.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention,
> >> >> > 'Eduardo',
> >> >> > IBOC
> >> >> > = QRM.
> >> >>
> >> >> On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement
> >> >> of
> >> >> a
> >> >> plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.
> >> >
> >> > No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I started the thread. Your memory is failing.
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes. I posted an extract from the RW article.
I was referring to my memory failing, dumbass. Please, try to pay attention.
> >> In any case, this is an idea (the Alaskan one, not the one of your memory
> >> failing) that has some potential for reviving SW's usage for service to
> >> rural areas with a 21st Century modulation scheme.
> >
> > It's a dumb idea. But that's so like you, oh faux one.
> >
>
> Serving areas of Alaska that do not have reliable... or any... radio service
> is dumb? I think the idea is good.
Yeah, retards like you think that QRM is good. That's why you promote IBOC,
right?
David Eduardo
>
>
> David Eduardo wrote:
>
>>
>> Serving areas of Alaska that do not have reliable... or any... radio
>> service
>> is dumb? I think the idea is good.
>
> Yeah, retards like you think that QRM is good. That's why you promote
> IBOC,
> right?
>
This has nothing to do with IBOC. It's about Alaska, and an interesting plan
to bring SW to a high level of visibility.
dxAce
David Eduardo wrote:
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> news:48236D2B...@milestones.com...
> >
> >
> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Serving areas of Alaska that do not have reliable... or any... radio
> >> service
> >> is dumb? I think the idea is good.
> >
> > Yeah, retards like you think that QRM is good. That's why you promote
> > IBOC,
> > right?
> >
>
> This has nothing to do with IBOC.
Sure it does, oh faux one. IBOC = QRM just like DRM = QRM. Please, pull your
head out of your ass and pay attention.
> It's about Alaska, and an interesting plan
> to bring SW to a high level of visibility.
Yeah, right.
RHF
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
>
>
- - More QRM.
- On the other hand, if this works, it could become a
- revitalizing force for SW to cover sparsely populated
- and remote areas of the world and even reverse the
- decline in SW station numbers.
d'Eduardo,
So they would be using the Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM)
Signal as a intra-continental Domestic Broadcast System
with a Range out to 900~1200 Miles.
Much like the Tropical Bands {5 MHz and below} are used
for Domestic Shortwave Radio Broadcasting to serve Nations
like : Russia, China, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, India, etc.
Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) can work within {intra} Europe,
Russia, China, India, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Alaska,
Canada, Large Nations requiring a Nation-Wide Domestic
Broadcast System covering the Rual and Remote Areas;
where the Local AM and FM Radio Stations can not get.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/cbed7bc429af3132
Question - Is there a Place for Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM)
in the Scheme-of-Things for the USA . . . only time will tell.
Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Welcomes Go-Ahead for
“Tropical Band” DRM Broadcasts
http://blogs.rnw.nl/medianetwork/drm-welcomes-go-ahead-for-tropical-band-broadcasts
Again for Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) to be 'effective' the
Band Plan for any and all Tropical {Domestic} and Shortwave
{International} has to be Redefined from 5~10kHz Channel
Spacing to 20~25 kHz to Reduce the Potential for Adjacent
Channel Interference.
Since these would be 'fixed' {un-changing} Domestic Broadcast
Frequencies that should in the long term not represent a
problem for the In-Country National Broadcasters; provided
that approprite Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Power Levels
are used along with the properly 'configured' Antenna System
to cover their Nation within it's Borders.
The Tropical Bands and National {Domestic} Broadcastion
is about servive the Needs of the Radio Listeners within a
Country consistant with their National need for the Distribution
of Information -translation- DXer's Be Damned.
On-the-Plus-Side - The State of Alaska has enough Money
from Oil Revenues to Buy Every Citizen and Household a
new All Alaska AM/FM/DRM Radio to "Make-the-System"
HAPPEN !
.
.
the truth is out-there - riding on a radio-wave ~ RHF
.
- - - the digital divide : i draw the line @ iboc 'hd' radio - - -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-band_on-channel
.
The-Truth-About - Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Digital-Radio-Mondiale
.
Find-Out-for-Yourself - Google Search Results :
HD-Radio - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=HD-Radio
.
Read-the-News-for-Yourself Google News Results :
HD-Radio - http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=HD-Radio
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CopyRight © RHF {Radio High Frequency} All Rights Reserved.
.
Fair Use Notice : This Entire Message in Part or Entirety
may be Copied and Reposted on/in All Media : Provided
the Source the "Rec.Radio.Shortwave" Newsgroup and
the Author RHF {Radio High Frequency} are both identified.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
RHF
- The Alaskan DRM concept, if it works and they can
- finance it, changes the usage of SW, but makes the
- long distance coverage of SW a viable concept again.
d'Eduado,
Correction - No Not Long Distance -but- Intermediate Distance
for use as a Nation-Wide {Intra-Country} Domestic Broadcasting
Service a-la the Tropical Bands.
Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM) Covering the Nation Not the World.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/e8b553514d5c72d7
Telamon
<d76dd125-3133-407b...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
RHF <rhf-new...@pacbell.net> wrote:
< SNIP >
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> CopyRight © RHF {Radio High Frequency} All Rights Reserved.
> .
> Fair Use Notice : This Entire Message in Part or Entirety
> may be Copied and Reposted on/in All Media : Provided
> the Source the "Rec.Radio.Shortwave" Newsgroup and
> the Author RHF {Radio High Frequency} are both identified.
Yeah, any incorrect information should be attributed to you.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> wrote:
> dxAce wrote:
>
> >
> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> >>news:48233D26...@milestones.com...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>More QRM.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>On the other hand, if this works, it could become a revitalizing force for
> >>SW to cover sparsely populated and remote areas of the world and even
> >>reverse the decline in SW station numbers.
> >
> >
> > Like your stupid IBOC works?
> >
> > Pay attention, 'Eduardo', it will only mean more QRM.
> >
> >
>
> I do not have the luxury of living in a radio quiet area; I battle
> monumental QRN and RFI from hosts of consumer and industrial devices.
> I for one, would welcome a reliable modulation method that punches
> through that mess, and if a digital scheme on SW that respects
> known adjacent channels will do this, I am interested.
That would be nice but unfortunately DRM doesn't do that.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <da...@davideduardo.com> wrote:
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> news:48234E9F...@milestones.com...
> >
> >
> > msg wrote:
> >
> >> dxAce wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > David Eduardo wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>"dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:48233D26...@milestones.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>More QRM.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>On the other hand, if this works, it could become a revitalizing force
> >> >>for
> >> >>SW to cover sparsely populated and remote areas of the world and even
> >> >>reverse the decline in SW station numbers.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Like your stupid IBOC works?
> >> >
> >> > Pay attention, 'Eduardo', it will only mean more QRM.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I do not have the luxury of living in a radio quiet area; I battle
> >> monumental QRN and RFI from hosts of consumer and industrial devices.
> >> I for one, would welcome a reliable modulation method that punches
> >> through that mess, and if a digital scheme on SW that respects
> >> known adjacent channels will do this, I am interested.
> >
> > Forget it. DRM = QRM.
> >
>
> Ace would rather have no stations than stations using digital modulation.
IBOC and DRM are a waste of time. Old ideas misapplied to the medium of
radio.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <da...@davideduardo.com> wrote:
Well, I would think my current listening to RA as I write this would
prove that instead of some lame DRM piece o' crap idea.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
<gNIUj.307511$cQ1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
D Peter Maus <DPete...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> dxAce wrote:
> >
> > msg wrote:
> >
> >> dxAce wrote:
> >>
> >>> David Eduardo wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:48233D26...@milestones.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> More QRM.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> On the other hand, if this works, it could become a revitalizing force
> >>>> for
> >>>> SW to cover sparsely populated and remote areas of the world and even
> >>>> reverse the decline in SW station numbers.
> >>>
> >>> Like your stupid IBOC works?
> >>>
> >>> Pay attention, 'Eduardo', it will only mean more QRM.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I do not have the luxury of living in a radio quiet area; I battle
> >> monumental QRN and RFI from hosts of consumer and industrial devices.
> >> I for one, would welcome a reliable modulation method that punches
> >> through that mess, and if a digital scheme on SW that respects
> >> known adjacent channels will do this, I am interested.
> >
> > Forget it. DRM = QRM.
> >
> >
>
>
> I know I'm going to hell for this, but.....
>
>
> If IBOC kept it's crap within the channel of the station's
> allocation, it wouldn't be near the problem it is, today. That's where
> it differs from DRM. DRM is contained within channel, and provides,
> often-but not always, better audio clarity, with surprisingly less power.
You are psychic.
I wish that was true Peter but even the narrow mode of DRM trashes the
adjacent SW channels and the wide mode even more. I find it shocking
that you would say DRM sounded "good". I think it sounds terrible. How
is low bit rate audio supposed to sound other than like crap? The
codexes employed generate artifacts that are hard to take no different
than IBOC.
> Not to say I'm a big fan of DRM, because, right now, more often than
> not, it's a pain in the ass, but if implemented as promised, DRM offers
> more to the radio listening public than IBOC ever will.
Maybe the wide mode that takes up a bunch of channels.
> What DRM has to deal with is the propagation characteristics of HF.
> And that may be the razor by which we judge DRM.
The DRM modulation scheme does a very simplistic job at best of dealing
with fading and drop outs. You need a lot of bandwidth to keep the bit
rate up and you need more bandwidth for FEC overhead so that you could
claim any kind of improvement over analog.
> But...and I say this with caution, and knowing that I stand a great
> risk of agreeing with those with whom I've disagreed in the past...I'm
> of the opinion that if DRM can be implemented in such a manner as it
> respects the SW bandplan, and can keep it's splatter within it's own
> channel, DRM may well be the solution that IBOC was meant to be.
DRM is as bad an idea as IBOC.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
"David Eduardo" <da...@davideduardo.com> wrote:
I see it as being promoted by dysfunctional people.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
D Peter Maus
I"ve heard DRM broadcasts that were largely artifact free. More like
listening to a decent MP3 than a low bit webfeed.
>> Not to say I'm a big fan of DRM, because, right now, more often than
>> not, it's a pain in the ass, but if implemented as promised, DRM offers
>> more to the radio listening public than IBOC ever will.
>
> Maybe the wide mode that takes up a bunch of channels.
>
>> What DRM has to deal with is the propagation characteristics of HF.
>> And that may be the razor by which we judge DRM.
>
> The DRM modulation scheme does a very simplistic job at best of dealing
> with fading and drop outs. You need a lot of bandwidth to keep the bit
> rate up and you need more bandwidth for FEC overhead so that you could
> claim any kind of improvement over analog.
Perhaps. I"m not of teh belief that DRM is the beginning and the
end, here. Only that what's being proposed is a decent start to a better
solution than what's been implemented for domestic broadcast.
Pocke...@gmail.com
> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
>
> news:482366C0...@milestones.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Eduardo wrote:
>
> >> "dxAce" <dx...@milestones.com> wrote in message
> >>news:482363BB...@milestones.com...
>
> >> >> How can you interfere with an ever declining analog station base?
>
> >> > You and your pals should know. It's called IBOC. Pay attention,
> >> > 'Eduardo',
> >> > IBOC
> >> > = QRM.
>
> >> On SW it is called DRM, and this thread started with the announcement of
> >> a
> >> plan to build DRM statewide SW facilities in Alaska.
>
> > No kidding? Damn, you sure are one smart faux Hispanic.
>
> I started the thread. Your memory is failing.
>
> In any case, this is an idea (the Alaskan one, not the one of your memory
> failing) that has some potential for reviving SW's usage for service to
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Why don't you use DRM on Shortwave?"
"Some large companies are pushing DRM by convincing program producers
and broadcasters to start airing in DRM ahead of time, but unless
there is mass availability and penetration of receivers on the
listeners side, this will remain - unfortunately - a technological
experiment, and broadcasters using it to reach their listeners now,
are clearly throwing their money out of the window."
http://www.egradio.org/index.php?name=FAQ&id_cat=7
Same problem with HD/IBOC - no one cares about digital radio.
Pocke...@gmail.com
SW is dying.
RHF
- SW is dying.
This To Will Come To Pass . . .
-wrt- Dying - Some Day Some How We All Do ~ RHF
.
Telamon
<WtQUj.178401$D_3.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Must have been the wide mode that takes up three channels and trashes
the two adjacent channels for a grand total of 5 channels.
> >> Not to say I'm a big fan of DRM, because, right now, more often than
> >> not, it's a pain in the ass, but if implemented as promised, DRM offers
> >> more to the radio listening public than IBOC ever will.
> >
> > Maybe the wide mode that takes up a bunch of channels.
> >
> >> What DRM has to deal with is the propagation characteristics of HF.
> >> And that may be the razor by which we judge DRM.
> >
> > The DRM modulation scheme does a very simplistic job at best of dealing
> > with fading and drop outs. You need a lot of bandwidth to keep the bit
> > rate up and you need more bandwidth for FEC overhead so that you could
> > claim any kind of improvement over analog.
>
>
> Perhaps. I"m not of teh belief that DRM is the beginning and the
> end, here. Only that what's being proposed is a decent start to a better
> solution than what's been implemented for domestic broadcast.
Actually is the beginning of the end. First the consortium tried to pass
off the one channel that trashed the adjacent channels as sounding
"good" and when that didn't work they started (duh) increasing the
bandwidth used.
> >> But...and I say this with caution, and knowing that I stand a great
> >> risk of agreeing with those with whom I've disagreed in the past...I'm
> >> of the opinion that if DRM can be implemented in such a manner as it
> >> respects the SW bandplan, and can keep it's splatter within it's own
> >> channel, DRM may well be the solution that IBOC was meant to be.
> >
> > DRM is as bad an idea as IBOC.
> >
DRM and IBOC both suck big time.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
Telamon
<37c64443-8d02-4264...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Pocke...@gmail.com wrote:
If SW is dying then DRM is stillborn.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
RHF
wrote:
- - SW is dying.
- If SW is dying then DRM is stillborn.
-
- --
- Telamon
- Ventura, California
-
You are Born : And Then You Live : To Die.
* Shortwave Radio was Created by Man.
* Shortwave Radio Lives in the Hearts and Minds of Men.
* Shortwave Radio Will Live in some form or fashion as
long as One Man continues to to Love It as a Medium.
* When the Last Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) Dies
-then- Shortwave Radio Itself Will Die.
it is the nature {life cycle} of all things that live ~ RHF
.
FWIW - The Talking Pictures : The Movies : TV : Digital Media
all did not Kill Books - Books Are Still Alive -because- People
Still Love To Read Books.
.
Mats Peterson
Mats Peterson
Just testing something, don't bother this posting.