DX'ing using the internet - No need for long-distance AM

[[email protected]]

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.

[IBOCcrock]

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/

[[email protected]]

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.

[IBOCcrock]

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/

[SFTV_troy]

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.

[SFTV_troy]

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.

[SFTV_troy]

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.

[IBOCcrock]

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/2007/09/interest-in-hd-radio-remains-flat.html

[Roadie]

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.

[David[_13_]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Phil Kane]

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.
--
Phil Kane
Beaverton, OR

[David Eduardo]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Richard Crowley]

"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.

[Karl Uppiano]

"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.

[Karl Uppiano]

"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".

[Allen[_5_]]

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.

[SFTV_troy]

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Richard Crowley]

> 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. :-(

[Steve[_12_]]

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!

[Steve[_12_]]

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.

[David[_13_]]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:07:53 -0700, wrote:

>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.
>
>
>
>
Very little FM where I live. AM works much better.

[Telamon]

In article m>,
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

[Dorpmuller]

> 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

[D Peter Maus]

Telamon wrote:
> In article m>,
> 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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[Richard Crowley]

THIS DISCUSSION IS OFF-TOPIC FOR REC.AUDIO.TECH
(AND REC.AUDIO.CAR, FOR THAT MATTER)
PLEASE DROP REC.AUDIO.TECH FROM THIS DISCUSSION