DRM Software Radio Forums  

Go Back   DRM Software Radio Forums > DRM Software Radio - User Forums > General Topics
User Name
Password
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-04-2013, 08:34   #1
tpreitzel
Registered User
 
tpreitzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,544
Why Shortwave Is "Hear" to Stay

The following article is an excellent overview of why shortwave is here to stay and the knee-jerk reaction of some established broadcasters to the realignment of media, e.g. RNW. Realignment doesn't mean disappearance. Confiscation of radios has been attempted by every tyrant since the advent of broadcasting. Technological advances will continue to make receivers so small that locating them will be a challenge indeed.

http://swling.com/blog/2013/04/rnw-l...ia-repression/

RNW, if you want me to listen, I'll be available on shortwave. My time on the InterNet is finite and I've been planning a minimal footprint on the InterNet for sometime, i.e. dropping personal access to the InterNet in the future in favor of public WIFI. My main access to information will be via radio, primarily digital radio.

Last edited by tpreitzel : 08-04-2013 at 08:43.
tpreitzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-04-2013, 10:35   #2
DRM-OM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW Germany
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpreitzel
RNW, if you want me to listen, I'll be available on shortwave.
Note: Transmitters are not switched off, they are torn down.
So, if they really would decide to go back on air, there will be no transmitting sites till then ...
DRM-OM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2013, 05:02   #3
tpreitzel
Registered User
 
tpreitzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,544
Understood. Now that CISPA has passed the House of Representatives and might likely pass the US Senate intact, I'm closer than ever to axing personal access to the InterNet. Due to DRM and low cost RTL devices, I'm even listening to analog shortwave, VHF, and UHF signals as time allows. My main source of information is still the InterNet, but not for long.

Hopefully, RNW will come to their senses and either lease shortwave transmitters on various continents (possible) or build more modern transmitters (unlikely) to replace those disassembled.
tpreitzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 07:24   #4
DRM-OM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW Germany
Posts: 310
Obviously Wertachtal is also about to close:
http://www.radioeins.de/programm/sen...ertachtal.html
(sorry, source only in German)
DRM-OM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2013, 17:27   #5
tpreitzel
Registered User
 
tpreitzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRM-OM
Obviously Wertachtal is also about to close:
http://www.radioeins.de/programm/sen...ertachtal.html
(sorry, source only in German)

Personally, I don't view these closures, realignments, and privatizations of transmitting stations as bad. I simply see shortwave undergoing a process of streamlining. Frankly, there is already TOO much interference on shortwave bands allocated to broadcasters. I'm reminded of my desire to see governments curb their broadcasts on shortwave every time I hear Radio Havana, Cuba splattered across the airwaves. Even MORE closures of transmitting stations are needed as there is TOO much capacity worldwide. For example, RCI, RNW, etc should be LEASING time from modern transmitting stations where appropriate, not necessarily retaining their own facilities. Furthermore, current transmitting stations need upgrading to use more modern equipment with an emphasis on broadcasting DRM remotely.

Last edited by tpreitzel : 04-05-2013 at 17:44.
tpreitzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2013, 06:08   #6
tpreitzel
Registered User
 
tpreitzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,544
Although most people might not want to hear the world's troubles, most people probably don't want to go to work everyday either. The key is demonstrating the need to go to work or listen to atypical sources of information ...

Thankfully, the massively unconstitutional snooping being conducted by the NSA and accommodated by the US Congress is showing an increasing number of people the need for a medium less prone to monitoring users or listeners. Now, the FBI's attempt to coerce ISPs to install port scanners is just adding more fuel to the fire of abandonment. Lastly, the exposure of the fourth estate, mass media, as basically a lapdog of governmental propaganda is providing impetus for people to seek information elsewhere on alternative mediums.

Terrestrially broadcasted digital radio is probably the best and most financially reasonable medium to mitigate the aforementioned problems as the primary intermediary is the atmosphere. Smartly configured broadcasts in DRM, whether licensed or not, have the potential to fulfill the void being created by people departing bankrupt Snoopville.

Just sit back and watch the controlling nature of governments do the heavy lifting required to promote digital radio. Due to governmental meddling, will the World Wide Web eventually become the virtual equivalent of Detroit, MI with a raft of squatters occupying worthless properties?

Last edited by tpreitzel : 05-08-2013 at 08:50.
tpreitzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2013, 10:10   #7
DRM-Belarus
Registered User
 
DRM-Belarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Minsk
Posts: 26
Terrestrially broadcasted digital radio is probably the best and most financially reasonable medium to mitigate the aforementioned problems as the primary intermediary is the atmosphere.
-------------------------------------


I think this is the main reason why the governments of strong states are not in a hurry to implement DRM. There are clever men who clearly understand that DRM is practically invulnerable and uncontrollable. None of those want to go back to the Cold War period and spend money on jamming.

I'm not a sympathizer of conspiracy theories, but it seems to me that I am not far from the truth.
DRM-Belarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2013, 11:35   #8
Mikey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 164
Well personally I think shortwave certainly does have a future. But I no longer think DRM is part of it. The solution to the question of how can you achieve lower power, easily accessible reliable broadcasting is single side band. It's available on virtually every good shortwave radio sold. So no need to rely on either over priced and nasty Chinese pieces of plastic. Or very expensive but good quality SDRs.
Just saying. ..

Last edited by Mikey : 13-10-2013 at 11:37.
Mikey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2013, 22:10   #9
tpreitzel
Registered User
 
tpreitzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,544
For clarification, despite the operational quirks and malfunctioning power supply, I like Newstar's DR111. A limited production receiver is bound to be priced higher than a receiver in full production. Regarding shortwave, I still think DRM or another digital format is the way forward. I appreciate your input, though. Only time will tell with certainty.
tpreitzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2013, 07:05   #10
DRM-Belarus
Registered User
 
DRM-Belarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Minsk
Posts: 26
Using an analog method of transmitting information in the 21st century on SW is to bury shortwave broadcasting. With SSB, or anything else, short waves will always be the lot of dedicated enthusiasts. The digital system for shortwave must exist and should be promoted, and at the moment the only system is DRM.

What I don't like in DRM is using proprietary source coder AAC. In my opinion this is not the best solution, although I understand that in the early 2000s, when the DRM specification developed, there were no better codecs than AAC. At this time it would be better to use OPUS. But... we have what we have.

Last edited by DRM-Belarus : 14-10-2013 at 07:15.
DRM-Belarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2013, 07:29   #11
tpreitzel
Registered User
 
tpreitzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRM-Belarus
Using an analog method of transmitting information in the 21st century on SW is to bury shortwave broadcasting. With SSB, or anything else, short waves will always be the lot of dedicated enthusiasts. The digital system for shortwave must exist and should be promoted, and at the moment the only system is DRM.

What I don't like in DRM is using proprietary source coder AAC. In my opinion this is not the best solution, although I understand that in the early 2000s, when the DRM specification developed, there were no better codecs than AAC. At this time it would be better to use OPUS. But... we have what we have.

I concur. The group controlling the codec needs to be separated from the group controlling the DRM standards. An unencumbered codec such as Opus would be good competition for Fraunhofer, et al. Fraunhofer would then have to produce codecs with consistently higher quality than the unencumbered codecs such as Opus to be widely accepted by the market. Personally, I don't mind paying a slightly higher price for a patented codec, but I don't like having to buy new equipment every few years. The DRM standards need to include unencumbered codecs as competition for patented codecs just like VP9's competition with h.265. IIRC, DReaM 2.1 implements the Opus codec ...

Last edited by tpreitzel : 14-10-2013 at 11:33.
tpreitzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2013, 17:39   #12
Mikey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRM-Belarus
Using an analog method of transmitting information in the 21st century on SW is to bury shortwave broadcasting. With SSB, or anything else, short waves will always be the lot of dedicated enthusiasts. The digital system for shortwave must exist and should be promoted, and at the moment the only system is DRM.

What I don't like in DRM is using proprietary source coder AAC. In my opinion this is not the best solution, although I understand that in the early 2000s, when the DRM specification developed, there were no better codecs than AAC. At this time it would be better to use OPUS. But... we have what we have.

My point is that my experience of DRM from a user point of view is that it is either excellent or abysmal. My problem with the Newstar is not the price but the incredibly poor quality. The reason I suggest ssb is the simple fact that it works and IS available as a standard feature on most sw radios anyway and so is a format that is MORE accessible to the ordinary listener not less.

Whilst I accept that given time the project in India may produce a template for the rest of us. But my contention is that time is not a luxury that short wave broadcasters and their dwindling audience have. Sadly too much time has been wasted by broadcasters and manufacturers to push the project forward. Whilst I am not a conspiracy theorist one cannot ignore the fact that govts are ultimately the people who have failed us. They are also the beneficiaries of allowing a failure that forces everyone to listen via an Internet that can be controlled and monitored.
On a more positive note has anyone had any experience using the much cheaper dongles that have come on the market more recently?
Mikey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2013, 08:02   #13
F1BJB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beauvais France JN19BL
Posts: 631
Hi
I don't agree that SSB is more accessible to the average listener than DRM
Especially for broadcast quality SSB
It is just that it existed for much longer
On the other hand adding SSB to a DRM receiver is much simpler than the opposite.
The same stands for transmitters and for example Vatican Radio is using AMSSB sometimes
As far as radio is concerned the war digital versus analog could last for decades.
Instead I think that switching between the various modes according to time ,propagation or
target audience is not used enough.
It would help to persuade the average listener to upgrade his equipment.
It could reduce interference.
Trying to sell digital receivers that are less efficient in analog modes than old ones is useless.
F1BJB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-10-2013, 10:16   #14
DRM-Belarus
Registered User
 
DRM-Belarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Minsk
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
My point is that my experience of DRM from a user point of view is that it is either excellent or abysmal. My problem with the Newstar is not the price but the incredibly poor quality.

I'm afraid I do not agree with you. Here you are a little behind the curve (перегибаете палку - in Russian). DR111 is not that incredibly awful, it is not bad actually. Yes, must be done a certain refinement of the controls, and improving the software. But that's it. This is a very worthy receiver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
The reason I suggest ssb is the simple fact that it works and IS available as a standard feature on most sw radios anyway and so is a format that is MORE accessible to the ordinary listener not less.

That's not a reason to consider SSB as the best approach for shortwave broadcasting. Arguing this way, we still be living in caves. Is DRM complex? Yes, but it gives a lot more than any other broadcasting technology. DRM gives us primary: FREEDOM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
Whilst I accept that given time the project in India may produce a template for the rest of us. But my contention is that time is not a luxury that short wave broadcasters and their dwindling audience have. Sadly too much time has been wasted by broadcasters and manufacturers to push the project forward.

A long and difficult path of to the introduction of DRM has objective reasons. DRM is a complex unique digital transmission technology for civil use, working there, where no one had tried to create something similar. (Except for highly specialized systems, as well as amateur systems)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
Whilst I am not a conspiracy theorist one cannot ignore the fact that govts are ultimately the people who have failed us. They are also the beneficiaries of allowing a failure that forces everyone to listen via an Internet that can be controlled and monitored.

Here I completely and totally agree with your point of view. Our post-industrial era is characterized by a keen desire of governments of many countries (free, and not free) to control every breath of its citizens. And DRM obviously is not in their plans.

Sorry for my English. But I tried :-)

Last edited by DRM-Belarus : 19-10-2013 at 10:18.
DRM-Belarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2013, 05:04   #15
DRM-OM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW Germany
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRM-Belarus
That's not a reason to consider SSB as the best approach for shortwave broadcasting. Arguing this way, we still be living in caves. Is DRM complex? Yes, but it gives a lot more than any other broadcasting technology. DRM gives us primary: FREEDOM.
For me Freedom looks different.
I posted the reason here
http://www.drmrx.org/forum/showpost....2&postcount=12
DRM-OM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:30.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.