No **** guys. But XM IS digital and, like DRM, has all the same audio
advantages. I was using that as an example that digital radio is here to
stay. Geeeesh.


Yeah, have you saw the New Model One by Kloss that has Sirius or the other
one?

Looked pretty sharp. I can't picture me getting into it right now. Maybe
three-five years down the road, if it's a household thing.

~*~*Monitoring The AirWaves~*~
*****GO BEARCATS*****
Hammarlund HQ129X /Heathkit Q Multiplier
Hammarlund HQ140X
Multiple GE P-780's(GREAT BCB Radios)
RCA Victor *Strato- World*
RCA Victor RJC77W-K(Walnut Grain)
1942 Zenith Wane Magnet 6G 601M
Cathedral/ Ross#2311/RhapsodyMultiBand
DX100/394/398/399/402
OMGS Transistor Eight/Realistic 12-1451
Henry Kloss Model One/Bell+Howell
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

What, or where, does the term "Mundial" stand for ?
Is it an accronym for something ?
B.
--------------

"Brian Denley" wrote in message
news:eps9c.20844$K91.64364@attbi_s02...
No commercials! hehe

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

Which is the greater attraction? Better audio or more channels?

Frank Dresser

Robert11 wrote:

What, or where, does the term "Mundial" stand for ?
Is it an accronym for something ?

The word is 'mondiale', it means 'universal'.

Steve
Holland, MI
Drke R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

In article vus9c.18808$gA5.269717@attbi_s03,
"Brian Denley" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...

It cannot sound better than what the radios have already. DRM can only
sound worse.

Wrong. It sounds like FM. No noise or static at all. You either get
perfect reception or none at all.

It can¹t sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and I¹ve
listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background noise is
gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts. It¹s BS that it
sounds ³better.²

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...


Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that
don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built
into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar
to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes
built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some
broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio
similar to pay satellite TV.


Which SW broadcaster would try to limit their audience? Certainly not the
propaganda stations. Not the evangalists. Not the conspiratorialists.

snip

Maybe the best thing for you to do is go stick your head back in the
sand where it will be more comfortable.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in message
...


Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People
that
don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be
built
into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar
to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides
codes
built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some
broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio
similar to pay satellite TV.


Which SW broadcaster would try to limit their audience? Certainly not
the
propaganda stations. Not the evangalists. Not the conspiratorialists.

snip

Maybe the best thing for you to do is go stick your head back in the
sand where it will be more comfortable.

--
Telamon

OK, so tell me. Which broadcaster might require these special, additional
codes?

Would any SWL jump through the new proprietary DRM hoops? I wouldn't.
Would you? Would anyone you know?

You say DRM doesn't sound any better than standard SW broadcasting. If
true, DRM wouldn't present any additional benefit to either the broadcaster
or the listener. Why would a proprietary DRM system be better than the open
system?

Frank Dresser

Telamon wrote:
In article vus9c.18808$gA5.269717@attbi_s03,

It can¹t sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and
I¹ve listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background
noise is gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts.
It¹s BS that it sounds ³better.²

I remember when CDs (digital) came out, some said they didn't sound as good
a vinyl (analog) records. Whatever happened to those record players that
used to be for sale?

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

In article ,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message
...
In article
,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Telamon" wrote in
message

t...


Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding.
People that don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it.
Codes could be built into the radios so that they can only
decipher some broadcasts similar to DVD players today or pay
radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes built into the
radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some
broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to
radio similar to pay satellite TV.


Which SW broadcaster would try to limit their audience?
Certainly not the propaganda stations. Not the evangalists. Not
the conspiratorialists.

snip

Maybe the best thing for you to do is go stick your head back in
the sand where it will be more comfortable.

-- Telamon

OK, so tell me. Which broadcaster might require these special,
additional codes?

Would any SWL jump through the new proprietary DRM hoops? I
wouldn't. Would you? Would anyone you know?

I can¹t tell you what everyone is likely to do but I¹m sure that out of
all the SW listeners some would jump through the hoops willingly. I
can¹t believe that some people would pay for XM radio either but they
do.

You say DRM doesn't sound any better than standard SW broadcasting.
If true, DRM wouldn't present any additional benefit to either the
broadcaster or the listener. Why would a proprietary DRM system be
better than the open system?

I don¹t believe the argument that DRM can sound better than analog
using the same bandwidth.

I have listened to the recordings on the DRM site and they sure don¹t
sound better. No back ground noise sure but lots of audio artifacts
generated by the compression and playback algorithms.

Name any digital medium carrying popular content that is not controlled
in some way by codes that must be paid for in advance. I fully expect
SW radios will be controlled to hear at least some of the content as
soon as those radios are around.

The reasons for controlling who can hear SW broadcasts could be
financial or propagandist.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 05:58:56 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

It can¹t sound any better if it is taking up the same bandwidth and I¹ve
listened to the DRM recordings, which suck. Sure the background noise is
gone but the audio is poor with lots of audio artifacts.

You betray your ignorance of information theory with this statement.

Granted, the current audio codecs used by the DRM protocols may not
sound all that great. But before you go ranting about how good AM can
sound, remember the degree of audio preprocessing that these things
use just to get more punch on the air. It's distorted too. However,
I'm sure you'll explain that in your esteemed value judgement, that it
sounds better.

Most people will disagree with you.

In any case, just because the channel bandwidth and the signal to
noise ratio are the same does not imply that any digitized signal you
pass through it will be worse. In fact, it could be better. The
reason is because the actual signal itself is not efficiently encoded.
Given appropriate compression technology, and using turbo codes, which
make reception within less than a dB of the Shannon limit possible,
it's conceivable that the reception could be improved over what it
would have sounded like had you used AM at that power level.

I'm sure you'll continue to rant that your golden ears can detect the
difference. But that's all it is: a rant.

In an era when more and more of the big national SW broadcasters are
leaving the airwaves, the band could sure use a shot in the arm.

DRM, if it takes off, ought to increase the interest in SW listening.
Gosh, I call that a good thing. Or, would you rather see all the
major broadcasters leave, one by one, so that you elitist golden eared
fogies can wistfully listen to atmospheric noise and dream about
yesterday?

73,


Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:17:35 GMT, Telamon
wrote:

Who can hear the content can be determined by the encoding. People that
don't have the "code" will not be able to hear it. Codes could be built
into the radios so that they can only decipher some broadcasts similar
to DVD players today or pay radio streams on the Internet. Besides codes
built into the radios you might have to key in more codes to hear some
broadcasts or load in a deciphering program from computer to radio
similar to pay satellite TV.

But if you have a software defined radio with the various codes
available for a download, I'm sure there will be those who will make
the effort to receive it.

Once the ability to control who can hear worldwide broadcasts is created
what would lead you to believe it will not be used?

Maybe it will be used. Is that a bad thing? XM radio does it. We've
allowed it to happen for years as SCA channels of FM stereo
broadcasts. You say this as if it were the worst thing in the world.



Jake Brodsky, AB3A
"Beware of the massive impossible!"