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 23-08-2017, 17:34   #61
tpreitzel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger
Tom,
I have two offers - not because of the money, but I really don't want to chuck it out either... it is not November yet...

Terje,

You've got to understand, though, that I can't use PayPal... We'll have to find some other funding mechanism if you want me to buy it. Money Order on US funds, etc?

I'll check my e-mail later so give me a couple of days.

If I were you, I'd just keep it as some museum will want it one day.
tpreitzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-08-2017, 21:38   #62
tpreitzel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,762
Now, as far as DRM broadcasts being nearly nil to North America, maybe the DRM Consortium should start leaning a bit more on current broadcasters to start aiming a portion of their digital SW broadcasts to North America. A weekly 30 minute DRM broadcast to NA would probably cost ~ $5000 per year. Maybe, Radio Romania International's absurd DRM configuration on SW is a candidate for pressure to revise. Why target Europe and not NA? ALL continents should have a few DRM broadcasts targeted at them and the Consortium should be applying pressure to ensure it occurs. Furthermore, the DRM Consortium should start insisting those broadcasters use a robust mode with the xHE-AAC codec and 16 QAM modulation for the MSC. If the goal is to promote DRM, then we need ROBUST DRM broadcasts as well as receivers as they complement one another.

Personally, I place some of the blame at least on the Consortium. We have manufacturers willing to risk significant investment on receivers, but we need the DRM broadcasts. So, Ruxandra, what's next?

Last edited by tpreitzel : 24-08-2017 at 15:33.
tpreitzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-08-2017, 08:52   #63
zfyoung
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BaiSe, P.R. China @E10636′ N2355′
Posts: 208
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpreitzel
Personally, I place some of the blame at least on the Consortium. We have manufacturers willing to risk significant investment on receivers, but we need the DRM broadcasts. So, Ruxandra, what's next?

Hear! hear! Why the DRM signals on the air is still so few and far between in the AM band after decades of 'testing'. If most DRM capable Tx site just send out their DRM signals at a quarter(or a 1/10) of their AM power in simulcast mode on a regular basis (instead of this shoot-and-run guerrilla style), that would greatly enrich the DRM program and attract potential listener with their superior broadcast service quality.

At the same time, on the receiver side, why can't they learn some lesson from HD IBOC consortium: how did they overcome the initial high receiver price? Given both systems are similar in so many respect, I don't think the challenge for the wide adoption DRM face is unique.

zfyoung
__________________
Any kind of audio drop-out is worse than any kind of low quality audio: No audio, No log report.

My Rx location: GuangXi Province @ E10636′ N2355′

Last edited by zfyoung : 27-08-2017 at 09:05.
zfyoung 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 11:48.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.