On 2005-08-03 00:03:16 -0400, "mike maghakian" said:

it sounds like the E1 is better than I thought it would be, this one
could go down in history as a classic.


We're lucky to have Lucky on RRS! Thanks to him we now have a good idea
of what the Satellit 900 --err, E1-- is all about. And thanks also to
him for the pointer to the manual.

From what I can tell from the specs, this is a repackaged Satellit 800
sans the ugliness and empty air. The addition of PBS is useful for SSB.
For AM one simply off-tunes while in SAM mode. I suspect the detector
circuitry is essentially what's in my Drake SW2, so a shift of up to
50-60% of the width of the chosen filter would be possible.

With my Satellit 700 developing a buzz after a few minutes operation,
and with my having to do some repair work on my ancient 2010, the E1 is
looking like the perfect bedside/rooftop radio. Can't wait 'til J&R
gets their shipment!

Like Lucky, I have a thing for radios. In addition to the above units,
I also have the 525, R30 (each feeding a speaker through an SE3 and
FL3), HF150, SPR-4, Sony 5900 & 7600, and Pete's MW receiver as soon as
it's released. Clearly I desperately need another radio!

Thanks again, Lucky.

Ken

On 3 Aug 2005 08:42:11 -0700, wrote:

You can if you have a serviceable antenna...or an internet connection.

What you don't have to do is pay a fee every month for the privilege of
letting Sirius decide what you can/cannot listen to.

You're pretty funny, actually. You get on here and rail against
corporate America, and yet, when it comes to getting information,
you're content to suckle at Corporate America's biggest, swaying tit.

Steve

Rail against Corporate America? That doesn't exactly mesh with my
beliefs. Corporations are required by law to maximize their bottom
line for the benefit of their shareholders. I do not blame them for
taking every advantage possible.

Who I am mad at are the politicians who sell-out to the corporations
and the citizens who let this happen.

Satellite radio wishes it was ''Corporate America's biggest, swaying
tit'', but it ain't. Do you have free internet access?

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:57:14 -0500, wrote:

I have Everything agains't BBC! Hey,I despise aol and earthlink and I
definetly am not pushing them and satellite radio,but for anybody whom
might be interested,(I am not,only thought I would pass it on) somebody
at another news group posted something about aol (Friends do not let
Friends use aol and earthlink) (www.devilfinder.com aol Utah)
(aol,d..n Gun grabbers!) is streaming xm satellite radio to computers if
you want to listen to what xm sounds like,(no way in Hadees am I going
to click on that crap) here is the website if you want to check it out,
www.radio4usa.tripod.com/aol.html I dont advise clicking on it.
cuhulin

Dude. You use MSN and bitch about AOL?

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:28:39 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

David wrote:
On 3 Aug 2005 06:53:07 -0700, wrote:


In that case, all they'd need to get rid of is the interface to the uP
and a mini-USB jack.

Steve


Not going to happen Fetish Boy. People want freedom of choice.

What do you have against a hi-fi feed of the BBC World Service 24
hours a day?



XM's feed of BBCWS is hardly Hi-Fi. In many cases it sounds more
like a low bit MP3 with shaped response to filter out the higher levelss
of in spectrum aliasing noise. More refined than 5975, lower noise for
sure. And more detailed, perhaps.

Talk channels are more bandwidth limited than the music channels on
XM. Most aren't stereo, either.

XM is a lot of things, but one thing it's never going to be is Hi-fi.
Hi-fi is relative. Truth is, I like Sirius sound better, but XM
sounds higher fi than the HF feed, especially if S:N is a
consideration.

XM uses MPEG4, which synthesises the upper octave in the receiver.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:05:19 -0400, "Lucky"
wrote:



I won't pay for the service either. I can find all the music I want on FM or
on the net. Radio waves were meant to be free for listeners with commercials
supporting the station. To me, this sat radio business is a created
offspring of radio that has been hyped too much. But from many people who
have the service, they say they'll never go back to "old style FM" again.

I surely won't pay $13 or $15 a month for it. If it was like $3 a month, I'd
try it.

Lucky

You are indeed ''Lucky'' if you can get clean FM stereo where you
live. I cannot. Like millions of people in the Western part of the
USA, mountains and multipath destroy the FM stereo at my house.

Is this the 11th Commandment, or what:

''Radio waves were meant to be free for listeners with commercials
supporting the station''

The first commercial stations were signed on so stores could sell
radios. Very similar to the satellite radio business model.

Here's the deal: you pay for ****ty radio every time you buy a Coke.
Quit buying Cokes and listen to better radio.

David wrote:


Rail against Corporate America? That doesn't exactly mesh with my
beliefs. Corporations are required by law to maximize their bottom
line for the benefit of their shareholders. I do not blame them for
taking every advantage possible.

Who I am mad at are the politicians who sell-out to the corporations
and the citizens who let this happen.


I just want to make sure I understand your position. You're not mad at
corporations for buying politicians, because corporations are required
by law to buy off politicians. You're only angry at the politicians
themselves? Is this right?


Satellite radio wishes it was ''Corporate America's biggest, swaying
tit'', but it ain't. Do you have free internet access?

I just looked at my internet service agreement. There is absolutely no
charge for listening to radio broadcasts via the internet.

Steve

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
Lucky wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...

David wrote:

On 3 Aug 2005 06:53:07 -0700, wrote:



In that case, all they'd need to get rid of is the interface to
the uP
and a mini-USB jack.

Steve


Not going to happen Fetish Boy. People want freedom of choice.

What do you have against a hi-fi feed of the BBC World Service 24
hours a day?



XM's feed of BBCWS is hardly Hi-Fi. In many cases it sounds
more like a
low bit MP3 with shaped response to filter out the higher levelss
of in
spectrum aliasing noise. More refined than 5975, lower noise for
sure. And
more detailed, perhaps.

Talk channels are more bandwidth limited than the music
channels on XM.
Most aren't stereo, either.

XM is a lot of things, but one thing it's never going to be is
Hi-fi.


I once called up Siri's sales dept and asked them if they
broadcast their
music in stereo. The first guy said yes, then when I said if he's
sure and
can I have his name, he told me to hold on. He switched me to
someone else.
This person said as far as he knows, it's in stereo but he can't
be 100%
sure.

How can a company not know if their music signals are broadcast in
stereo or
not? A poster in a group showed me pictures of Siri's receivers,
and a few
said "stereo" on them so I guess it is in stereo. I don't know
about XM. I
know at one time Siri had more sats in space then XM but they
launched a new
sat like 4-6 months ago.

I won't pay for the service either. I can find all the music I
want on FM or
on the net. Radio waves were meant to be free for listeners with
commercials
supporting the station. To me, this sat radio business is a
created
offspring of radio that has been hyped too much. But from many
people who
have the service, they say they'll never go back to "old style FM"
again.

I surely won't pay $13 or $15 a month for it. If it was like $3 a
month, I'd
try it.

Lucky




The music channels are in stereo. The talk channels, most but
not
all, are not.

Is that for both main flavors of satellite radio?

As for whether the goof in the phone center actually knows what's
being broadcast...they know what the cards, or the monitor in front
of
them says. Whether music is in stereo is not a question that comes
up
very often. Many of the phone monkeys don't subscribe. Many for the
samee reasons you don't.

Could also be that the guy doesn't want to lose
his job or be reprimanded by something like
answering this sort of question.

There was a discussion here a couple of years ago about stereo vs
mono broadcast and public perception. Most listeners don't really
understand stereo. Audiophiles obviously don't fall into this class,
but
the rank and file don't really understand what differientiates a
stereo
signal from monaural sound. For them, as long as the pilot is lit,
its
stereo. For some, even, if there are two speakers, it's stereo. No
matter what's actually coming out of them.

Considering some of the "Stereo" radios that are on
the market (the clock radio varieties, namely), the
radio itself isn't good enough to let people notice.

And receiver manufacturers haven't really helped this. In order
to
keep fringe signal noise down, most receivers have a blend circuit
that
slowly combines the left and the right channels according to signal
strength, or in some cases, strenght of the difference subcarrier.
In
many markets even the best stereo signals are heard by more than
half of
listeners at any given moment in varying degrees of mono, due to
the
blend circuit in their receivers. Listeners rarely notice and never
complain. Actual stereo audio is just not on their radar.

Using a Delco radio in a GM car in the 90's, you could
hear the difference if you paid attention. In Cincy, given
the hills and everything else, there are a lot of locations
where the FM signal will fade, and you could hear the
signal trend toward mono if you were listening, even
though the Stereo pilot was lit. The aftermarket Kenwood
in my current car doesn't have that to such an extreme;
it'll simply kick to mono. Just like the old Sears that I had
in the Volare I cut my driving teeth on in the 80s.

When AM stereo was new, a number of stations I was involved in
actually broadcast mono audio, but lit the pilot for it's cool
factor.
No one ever noticed.

WHAS, by any chance??

So don't be surprised if someone at the phone hole can't answer
your
question. They've not been briefed, because the question almost
never
comes up.

It's such a non priority, that my XM receiver, while being a
stereo
receiver, doesn't have a stereo annunciator. When it is you can hear
it.
When it isn't you don't.

Usually, unless there's something dramatically wide, you don't
notice
it one way or the other.

A nice way of finding the difference between FM,
satellite radio (or in my case, the Music Choice channels
from DirecTV) and regular CDs is to have them all run
through the same receiver. Switching back and
forth is very educational to how good the sound is
on each format.

This may be part of the reason that DRM doesn't generate more
buzz
than it does. If stereo audio was such a priority, most SW
broadcasters
would embrace it, promote it, shout it from the mountaintops, and
DRM
would be standard on radios worldwide.

So far, like AM stereo, and IBOC here, there are more stations
transmitting DRM for no apparent reason than there are listeners
clamoring for radios to hear it.

I suspect that the people for whom DRM was designed
for would be more likely to go and use an internet stream
or satellite radio solution than use DRM. YMMV, of
course.

--Mike L.

On 3 Aug 2005 12:27:40 -0700, wrote:



I just want to make sure I understand your position. You're not mad at
corporations for buying politicians, because corporations are required
by law to buy off politicians. You're only angry at the politicians
themselves? Is this right?
Prettymuch...

I just looked at my internet service agreement. There is absolutely no
charge for listening to radio broadcasts via the internet.
But you do pay for the connectivity. Therefore, you do pay for radio.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:58:10 -0500, wrote:

About a month or more ago,I read somewhere on the intenet (if it's on
the internet,it must be true,but I dont think so) that U.S.Military is
going to use (now I forget if it's Sitius or XM) one of those for hand
held communications units for our U.S.Troops.Of course (according to the
article I read) the units/radios will be specially designed ruggedized
versions to be distributed to our Troops.y'all know how to look it up if
y'all want to.
cuhulin

That was XM. I doubt it'll happen because XM receivers use huge
amounts of power. Plus, the single-hub topography makes it really
easy to ''take out''.

Webtv used to be it's own company untill microsoft bought webtv a few
years ago,so nowdays since they merged,webtv is called msntv,not to be
confused with msntv2.msntv2 is something that came on the market last
October.msntv2 service/subscription and the msntv2 set top boxes last
October.msntv2 service (formerly,webtv) has nothing whatsoever to do
with msntv (formerly,webtv.They are two completly seperate entity's.I
can listen to some online AM/FM radio stations and some online shortwave
stations and some online police scanner frequencies with my msntv
(formerly,webtv,but most of us still call it webtv) service,but not as
many as with my computer and my internet radio.Of course,I can listen to
any online radio stations that stream (bitcast) on the intenet with my
computer and with my Linksys Wireless B Music System internet physical
radio.There are quite a few choices available for people to listen to
many kinds of radio,whether it's with a little cheap two or three dollar
AM/FM radio or with a radio that cost many thousands of dollars.I am not
going to pay any monthly fees/extra fees to listen to any satellite
radio.
cuhulin