RadioDiscussions.com

 
RadioDiscussions.com Discussion Boards
Login May 19, 2013, 09:40:54 PM *
Username Password Session Length
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? Did you forget your password?
:  
   Home   Help Search Contact Us Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Domestic shortwave  (Read 5297 times)
LibertyNT
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 2137

I Like AM


Re: Domestic shortwave
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2012, 08:25:00 PM »

Hopefully it doesn't require so many digital decoding/encoding chips that it doesn't make the radio large or heavy.  We would still end up with AM if that was the case.
I want to say DRM is computer based (at least for broadcasting I know it uses a computer, real CPU intensive)

as for the radios http://www.drm.org/products
Logged

Through The Static. Through The Noise. There's a station somewhere.
w9wi
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 4288


Re: Domestic shortwave
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2012, 10:19:47 PM »

**I think** the prohibition stems from the 1930s when shortwave first got started.  It more or less coincides with WLW being allowed to operate at 500kw and other major stations filing for a similar power increase.  Network affiliations were important to radio in a way they'd be important to TV in another 25 years.  Smaller local affiliates were afraid they'd lose their affiliations to a handful of monster stations. 

Domestic shortwave would make the problem worse, making it easier for a handful of stations to cover the entire country.
I would think that local MW stations would become independents while SW stations are exclusively network programming, which is pretty much what is in demand in the broadcast industry today.

That's exactly what would have happened in the 1930s -- but since the most popular programming was on the networks, quite a few local stations would have gone bust. 


Quote
Of course, today local stations have nothing to worry about, in terms of competition from shortwave.  Receivers are rare (in relative terms) and the poor quality (compared to universally available local FM) leaves nobody really interested.  (again in relative terms) 
Why are the receivers still poor quality with the advances in technology?
[/quote]

Sorry, I meant the poor quality of the shortwave audio, resulting from propagation variations.  The radios (and transmitters) are fine, but the ionosphere inserts distortion between the two.

Logged
RadioFan2J3
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 274


Re: Domestic shortwave
« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2012, 04:52:34 AM »

That noted, I'm looking forward to the day they fire up Delano again and start pumping out VOA in D.R.M. format. At least that'll be an excuse to make the statements I had made in this thread a reality. Hey, it might happen.* Sure be an improvement over the tinny, scratchy <5 kHz signal we used to somehow get by with in the 90s!

__________________________________________
* And monkeys might fly out of my butt...


The two ISB transmitters and the three Collins 821s, AM, are the only transmitters left at Delano.  None have operated in years, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to get the back on the.

Only takes money, money and more money.
Logged
DavidEduardo
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 24778

“Poetry is nearer to vital truth than history."


Re: Domestic shortwave
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2012, 05:45:36 PM »


I would think that local MW stations would become independents while SW stations are exclusively network programming, which is pretty much what is in demand in the broadcast industry today.


While syndicated talk shows are widely employed by radio stations, network radio is not very much used today. Although many shows, with a good example being Ryan Seacrest, are in dozens of markets, the program is not networked; it is delivered as work parts which each station assembles with its own music, promos, ads, weather, contests, etc. 

Shortwave would have the disadvantage of delivering the East Coast's mid-day show in the West Coast's morning drive.
Logged

"To remain ignorant of things that happened before you were born is to remain a child." - CICERO

www.americanradiohistory.com - Broadcasting Magazine and Yearbooks and RCA Broadcast News, Television Magazine, Radio News, Sponsor, Radio / Televsion Age...
1L6E6VHF
rimember

Offline Offline

Posts: 66


Re: Domestic shortwave
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2013, 02:51:59 PM »

I'm surprised that nobody here has pointed out the biggest barrier to domestic shortwave:  It is against international regulations, and has been for decades.

This is because it was obvious, even 80 years ago, that a country could keep international broadcasters out of their subjects' ears simply by building domestic stations on the same frequency, other countries would follow suit, and every channel in the shortwave broadcast bands would sound like what 1490 AM at night sounds like in the US - rendering shortwave useless.

Some countries did get special dispensation for domestic shortwave stations.  In the early 1950s, amateurs lost 14350-14450 in the 20m band so the Soviet Union could use it for domestic shortwave.  Later on, Australia was able to use specific channels on the international bands for daytime broadcasts to the "Outback" (night transmitters were done on the "tropical" bands, which actually have been domestic shortwave, and shortish mediumwave, all along).

Other SW broadcasters have bent the rules with legal fictions.  41m broadcasting from Eastern Europe to the USA that was supposedly directed to Anglophones in Scandinavia after midnight, "just happened" to carry into the shacks of amateurs in North America trying to use 40m in the evening.  USA shortwave stations "targeting" Europe or Africa from cities deep in the Southern US, where the highly populated Great Lakes and Eastern Seaboard regions happen to be in the major lobe at the distance of a single F layer hop.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP

Postings on Radiodiscussions.com are the opinions of the people who post them. Views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of Radiodiscussions.com or its owner or operator. In fact many of the views expressed here are just plain wrong. But they are opinions and this site allows us all to discuss those opinions. Any reliance on information posted is done so at the user's own risk. For a detailed look at the rules, regulations and uses of Radiodiscussions.com please see our TERMS OF SERVICE.

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.218 seconds with 20 queries.