Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car,ba.broadcast
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
RHF wrote: On Sep 30, 9:53 am, SFTV_troy wrote: Listen to the AM/MW Radio Band and the very Negative Effect that IBOC has had on It : I've heard it. I don't care, because it doesn't affect the local stations (OK city) I am listening to on my way to work, or on my way back home. I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia. Listening 'On-Line' is not Free Over-the-Air Radio Yes it is. Just as watching NBC or FOX on your cable is still Free over-the-air television. They are still sending out their waves to their local markets. There are still some people watching/listening to them via the antenna. |
#2
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 1, 6:07 am, wrote:
RHF wrote: On Sep 30, 9:53 am, SFTV_troy wrote: Listen to the AM/MW Radio Band and the very Negative Effect that IBOC has had on It : I've heard it. I don't care, because it doesn't affect the local stations (OK city) I am listening to on my way to work, or on my way back home. I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia. Listening 'On-Line' is not Free Over-the-Air Radio Yes it is. Just as watching NBC or FOX on your cable is still Free over-the-air television. They are still sending out their waves to their local markets. There are still some people watching/listening to them via the antenna. No one here is interested - HD Radio is DOA: http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/ |
#3
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
RHF wrote:
d'Eduardo, Thank You Once Again For Reminding Us That We Don't Count As Sellable Numbers. we are just plain old radio listeners Yes and the sooner you realize that, the happier you will be. You shouldn't expect the FCC or the National Association of Broadcasters to care about a hobby (distant AM listening) that only represents less than 0.01% of the audience. |
#4
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 1, 6:07 am, wrote:
RHF wrote: On Sep 30, 9:53 am, SFTV_troy wrote: Listen to the AM/MW Radio Band and the very Negative Effect that IBOC has had on It : I've heard it. I don't care, because it doesn't affect the local stations (OK city) I am listening to on my way to work, or on my way back home. I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia. Listening 'On-Line' is not Free Over-the-Air Radio Yes it is. Just as watching NBC or FOX on your cable is still Free over-the-air television. They are still sending out their waves to their local markets. There are still some people watching/listening to them via the antenna. No one here is interested - HD Radio is DOA: http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/ |
#5
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 1, 5:34 am, IBOCcrock wrote:
On Oct 1, 6:07 am, wrote: I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia. No one here is interested - HD Radio is DOA AM distant listening is even deader. The number of HD listeners outnumbers distant AM listeners by (approximately) 1 million to 10,000. Sorry to give you the bad news, but it's true. |
#6
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
Brenda Ann wrote: " Do you think that those kids listening to a ball game from a distant station when they should have been sleeping know or care about DX clubs? Or the trucker tuning across the dial to find something worth listening to .... Kids today use their computers to listen to distant stations, not radio. Truckers use XM or Sirius, not terrestrial broadcast. You are living in the past, but everybody else has moved into the future with Broadband internet, and Satellite. Time to wake-up and smell the truth. |
#7
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 1, 5:40 am, IBOCcrock wrote:
No one here is interested - HD Radio is DOA: AM distant listening is even deader. The number of HD listeners outnumbers distant AM listeners by (approximately) 1 million to 10,000. Sorry to give you the bad news, but it's true. |
#8
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 1, 7:21 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
On Oct 1, 5:40 am, IBOCcrock wrote: No one here is interested - HD Radio is DOA: AM distant listening is even deader. The number of HD listeners outnumbers distant AM listeners by (approximately) 1 million to 10,000. Sorry to give you the bad news, but it's true. Sorry, to give you the bad news, but HD Radio is DOA: http://hdradiofarce.blogspot.com/200...ains-flat.html |
#9
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 1, 6:07 am, wrote:
RHF wrote: On Sep 30, 9:53 am, SFTV_troy wrote: Listen to the AM/MW Radio Band and the very Negative Effect that IBOC has had on It : I've heard it. I don't care, because it doesn't affect the local stations (OK city) I am listening to on my way to work, or on my way back home. I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia. Most people listening to radio broadcasts do so because they are looking for content and don't really care all that much how the signal got to the speaker. Those are the people that broadcasters and advertisers focus their efforts on. DX liseners are focused not so much on content as on knowing when signal propogation conditions will change to allow non-local stations to be temporarily heard. They are interested more in documenting that momentary catch than content. As a consequence broadcast stations and advertisers really have no commercial interest in assuring their signal reaches DXers. Listening 'On-Line' is not Free Over-the-Air Radio Yes it is. Just as watching NBC or FOX on your cable is still Free over-the-air television. They are still sending out their waves to their local markets. There are still some people watching/listening to them via the antenna. |
#10
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 04:46:08 -0700, Roadie wrote:
DX liseners are focused not so much on content as on knowing when signal propogation conditions will change to allow non-local stations to be temporarily heard. They are interested more in documenting that momentary catch than content. As a consequence broadcast stations and advertisers really have no commercial interest in assuring their signal reaches DXers. DX listening is not necessarily done by DXers. DXers provided the engineering departments with valuable feedback (and the occasional ego boost). DX listeners are people who are forced to listen to out-of-market stations because nothing local suits them. 2 completely different animals most of the time. |
#11
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 1, 8:55 am, David wrote:
DX listening is not necessarily done by DXers. DXers provided the engineering departments with valuable feedback (and the occasional ego boost). DX listeners are people who are forced to listen to out-of-market stations because nothing local suits them. Hence the need for 3 or 4 channels/station on FM, to provide listeners with more variety locally. That's what digital radio enables. |
#12
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
|
#13
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:07:23 -0700, wrote: I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia. It's the difference between seeing a picture of some distant landmark and going there and seeing it firsthand. The fun is in receiving it on HF/SW. Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a barrel. -- That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread... my own posts included. It's about the challenge. |
#14
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 1, 3:07 am, wrote:
I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia. I wish you'd tell the hams in my neighborhood that the internet has made HF transmission an obsolete technology. |
#15
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
"Bob Campbell" wrote ...
"David Eduardo" wrote: That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread... my own posts included. It's about the challenge. But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a "challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever. They expect crystal clear digital video/audio. Internet streaming gives them that, not noise, static and fading. And people who *rely* on the internet are in for a rude awakening. I think it is foolish to rely on the internet for your primary telephone service, for example. The internet is fine as long as everything is running properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster (hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone. That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and Amateur Radio communications, etc. We're already seeing people give up VOIP as unreliable whenever the internet hiccups. |
#16
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
"Bob Campbell" wrote in message ... In article , "David Eduardo" wrote: That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread... my own posts included. It's about the challenge. But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a "challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever. They expect crystal clear digital video/audio. Internet streaming gives them that, not noise, static and fading. Internet streaming gives them buffer delays, choppy delivery, audio bit rate reduction, small, pixelated images, audio/video sync slippage. If millions tried to watch the same live internet video "broadcast" even at NTSC quality (forget HD), the system would collapse. Internet streaming is equivalent to radio broadcasting in the 1930s or television in the 1950s in terms of quality and reliability. Perhaps given another 10 or 20 years, Internet technology may arrive at the level of reliability and ease of use that traditional radio and television broadcasting has today. It will probably be wireless, too. |
#17
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
"Bob Campbell" wrote in message ... In article , Phil Kane wrote: On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:07:23 -0700, wrote: I don't care, because when I want to do distant listening, I am not stuck back in World War 2. I am in the 21st century and use the internet to listen as far away as London or Japan or Australia. It's the difference between seeing a picture of some distant landmark and going there and seeing it firsthand. The fun is in receiving it on HF/SW. Why? Because of the challenge/difficulty? Not everyone wants a challenge - some just want to listen to a program. The internet also adds crystal clarity with no fading 24 hours a day, not just when "conditions are right"! That isn't the point of DX-ing. If you never tried tuning in a distant radio station on an AM or short-wave radio, you're probably not going to understand what they're talking about. There was something exciting about receiving a radio station from another state, or another country, that is difficult to describe. Perhaps DX-ing is something from a bygone era. But whatever it is you're doing on the World Wide Web is not "DX-ing". It is simply the internet working properly. Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a barrel. Yeah, nothing like making something *easy* so more people can do it! How dare they!?! They can and they should. But calling it "DX-ing" is a misnomer. DX-ing is the hobby of tweaking your analog receiver and antenna to receive distant radio stations, patiently waiting for the right conditions, and collecting enough program information to write a reception report, and then receiving a card or letter from the station confirming your report. Typing in a URL and hearing the audio feed of a station over the internet is called "surfing". |
#18
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 1, 6:27 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
And people who *rely* on the internet are in for a rude awakening. I think it is foolish to rely on the internet for your primary telephone service, for example. The internet is fine as long as everything is running properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster (hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone. That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and Amateur Radio communications, etc. We're already seeing people give up VOIP as unreliable whenever the internet hiccups. Thank you Richard! Excellent to see that someone else gets it! I have an HF rig and a VHF rig to go along with my landline and cell phone. I also live in a hurricane prone area that has been hit several times during the course of my lifetime. My amateur radios will be there for me when the ultra-cool cell phone with camera, mp3 player and fm radio will not. These things...the internet and cell phones, are conveniences for some and tools for others. They are not to be relied on for such things. |
#19
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
Richard Crowley wrote: "Bob Campbell" wrote ... "David Eduardo" wrote: That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread... my own posts included. It's about the challenge. But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a "challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever. They expect crystal clear digital video/audio. The internet is fine as long as everything is running properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster (hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone. That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and Amateur Radio communications, etc. Which is why the upgrade to Digital radio is so crucial. It provides crystal-clear quality (HE-AAC sound) that people demand, while still providing the reliability of broadcasting during severe weather. |
#20
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Bob Campbell" wrote in message Phil Kane wrote: Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a barrel. Yeah, nothing like making something *easy* so more people can do it! How dare they!?! They can and they should. But calling it "DX-ing" is a misnomer. DX-ing is the hobby of tweaking your analog receiver and antenna to receive distant radio stations, patiently waiting for the right conditions, and collecting enough program information to write a reception report... Well then, your hobby is dead. Dead like horse-pulled carriages, steam engines, and riverboat-shipping of cotton. It's not the job of government to "freeze" progress...... things move on. Analog radio/tv dies, and it gets replaced by localized digital broadcasts of a higher quality than what existed previously. |
#21
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
wrote ...
Well then, your hobby is dead. Dead like horse-pulled carriages, steam engines, and riverboat-shipping of cotton. It's not the job of government to "freeze" progress...... things move on. Analog radio/tv dies, and it gets replaced by localized digital broadcasts of a higher quality than what existed previously. "Higher quality" is debatable on both technical and content basis. But maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy. I have yet to see anything digitally encoded and compressed for broadcast that looked as good as regular NTSC on the shading monitor. And every season the "entertainment value" of the schedule takes a quantum drop. Leaves more time for reading. And if the "progressives" win next year, they will likely return radio to the bad old days of government control of content. :-( |
#22
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 2, 5:45 am, SFTV_troy wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote: "Bob Campbell" wrote ... "David Eduardo" wrote: That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread... my own posts included. It's about the challenge. But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a "challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever. They expect crystal clear digital video/audio. The internet is fine as long as everything is running properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster (hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone. That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and Amateur Radio communications, etc. Which is why the upgrade to Digital radio is so crucial. It provides crystal-clear quality (HE-AAC sound) that people demand, while still providing the reliability of broadcasting during severe weather.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yeah, reliable until the system gets jammed with too many people trying to call into or out of the area. Then you're out of luck! |
#23
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
On Oct 2, 6:07 am, wrote:
Karl Uppiano wrote: "Bob Campbell" wrote in message Phil Kane wrote: Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a barrel. Yeah, nothing like making something *easy* so more people can do it! How dare they!?! They can and they should. But calling it "DX-ing" is a misnomer. DX-ing is the hobby of tweaking your analog receiver and antenna to receive distant radio stations, patiently waiting for the right conditions, and collecting enough program information to write a reception report... Well then, your hobby is dead. Dead like horse-pulled carriages, steam engines, and riverboat-shipping of cotton. It's not the job of government to "freeze" progress...... things move on. Exactly. This is why HD radio is a non-starter. |
#24
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
|
#25
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
In article om,
SFTV_troy wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: "Bob Campbell" wrote ... "David Eduardo" wrote: That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread... my own posts included. It's about the challenge. But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a "challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever. They expect crystal clear digital video/audio. The internet is fine as long as everything is running properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster (hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone. That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and Amateur Radio communications, etc. Which is why the upgrade to Digital radio is so crucial. It provides crystal-clear quality (HE-AAC sound) that people demand, while still providing the reliability of broadcasting during severe weather. For someone with tin ears. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#26
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
It's the difference between seeing a picture of some distant landmark
and going there and seeing it firsthand. The fun is in receiving it on HF/SW. Listening to it on the internet is like shooting fish in a barrel. -- Phil Kane Beaverton, OR Especially when I can receive it on one of my restored Transoceanics... much as I love the net, I don't use it for listening... takes away the fun part... real radio. Rich |
#27
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
Telamon wrote:
In article om, SFTV_troy wrote: Richard Crowley wrote: "Bob Campbell" wrote ... "David Eduardo" wrote: That's the first piece of clear logic I have seen in this whole thread... my own posts included. It's about the challenge. But that's also the problem. People today aren't expecting a "challenge" when they turn on the TV/radio/ipod/whatever. They expect crystal clear digital video/audio. The internet is fine as long as everything is running properly, just as cell phones are great in a personal emergency. But in the case of a large-scale disaster (hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc.), neither cell phone service nor the internet will be of much use to anyone. That's why there is still terrestrial broadcasting and Amateur Radio communications, etc. Which is why the upgrade to Digital radio is so crucial. It provides crystal-clear quality (HE-AAC sound) that people demand, while still providing the reliability of broadcasting during severe weather. Actually, if that demand were genuine, and HD Radio were providing the means to feed that demand, you wouldn't be able to swing a dead hooker without hitting an HD radio. Companies would be stepping over each other to provide HD receivers, because there would be huge money in it. This is not the case. And consumer demand for the product remains low. HD won't go away anytime soon. And it won't die easily. But the cases made for it, simply aren't working, today. |
#28
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
D Peter Maus wrote:
SFTV_troy wrote: Which is why the upgrade to Digital radio is so crucial. It provides crystal-clear quality (HE-AAC sound) that people demand, while still providing the reliability of broadcasting during severe weather. Actually, if that demand were genuine, and HD Radio were providing the means to feed that demand, you wouldn't be able to swing a dead hooker without hitting an HD radio..... If the price was dropped to $25, like DAB, the U.S. HD radios would sell like hotcakes. The problem right now is the price is just too high. |
#29
Posted to rec.radio.shortwave,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.car
|
|||
|
|||
DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM
THIS DISCUSSION IS OFF-TOPIC FOR REC.AUDIO.TECH
(AND REC.AUDIO.CAR, FOR THAT MATTER) PLEASE DROP REC.AUDIO.TECH FROM THIS DISCUSSION |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|