New Portable Radio for Digital Satellite

All radio waves are directional, yes, I agree.

But a Ku dish antenna has to be pointed accurately (you may have
noticed), 3GHz ones like xm don't. that's the point of it (although,
you certainly could use a fixed aerial for better reception).

Whether you can decode a digital signal depends directly on received
SNR, which depends on antenna aperture. A dish is much better in that
respect.

Weakly dependent on snr??? Not from the actual formula, which you've
given!

Yes, ok, a higher field strength will give better reception.

Anything else? How about my punctuation? Phraseology? There must be
something!

"spiney" wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
[ pirate radio stations ]

It's quite remarkable that you can be sent to prison for not having
a
tv license, yet these pirate stations seem immune to any official
sanctions!


There are sanctions but the problem is tracing the pirate radio
station, and then possibly tracing the people behind it (I suspect
many such pirate stations have a broader agenda than just playing
music IYSWIM...), all the TVLA people have to do is turn up at any
address without a licence.

spiney wrote:
All radio waves are directional, yes, I agree.


That is not what I meant. Directional wrt antennas means that signals
are more concentrated in some directions rather than others. All dishes
transmit directional signals.


But a Ku dish antenna has to be pointed accurately (you may have
noticed), 3GHz ones like xm don't. that's the point of it (although,
you certainly could use a fixed aerial for better reception).


No, that's not the point at all, because the XM satellite uses higher
transmission powers to offset the lower antenna gain due to not having a
directional dish antenna at the receiver.


Whether you can decode a digital signal depends directly on received
SNR, which depends on antenna aperture. A dish is much better in that
respect.


A dish isn't very good for reception in your car, though.


Weakly dependent on snr??? Not from the actual formula, which you've
given!


Wrong. I will demonstrate:

C = B log2 (1 + SNR)

C is directly proportional to B

Changing SNR by a factor of 1 million (60 dB) changes C by (ignoring the
1 in the equation):

log2 (1,000,000) = 19.9

Therefore, C is weakly dependent on SNR.

QED.


Yes, ok, a higher field strength will give better reception.


Not necessariily. If the field strength is adequate to give a BER (bit
error rate) of effectively zero, then higher field strength will not
give better reception, because it is already effectively perfect.


Anything else? How about my punctuation? Phraseology? There must be
something!


No, that is all.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM writes
spiney wrote:
----------Cut----------

I think the Sky description of "digital radio" is extremely
misleading,


The Sky Gnome allows you to receive digital radio, so what's the
problem?

It's wireless speakers or headphones, I can plug my 863MHz base in to a
DVB-T box but it does not make it a digital radio.

seeing as it's only a wireless loudspeaker link to an
existing digibox, and the wording is deliberately phrased so as to
disguise this (eg, "compatible with"!).


I bet you're one of these people that object to radio being delivered
via the internet being called radio, and TV delivered via broadband
being called TV?

TV delivered by broadband is still television, as is CCTV, CATV, SSTV
over POTS.

I also find fm pirate radio highly annoying, eg when trying to listen
to R4 on Walkman, particularly since they often come up right next to
it, with much too big power/deviation, sometimes making the legit
stations unreceivable.

One reason for using DAB in a metropolis.

That's unfortunate. But that doesn't justify them degrading the audio
quality on DAB to sub-FM levels.

Nothing does

--
Ian G8ILZ

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

I bet you're one of these people that object to radio being delivered via
the internet being called radio, and TV delivered via broadband being
called TV?

Or a radio controlled clock a 'clock'.

--
Max Demian

"Kristoff Bonne" schreef in bericht
...
Gegroet,


Max Demian schreef:
I bet you're one of these people that object to radio being delivered via
the internet being called radio, and TV delivered via broadband being
called TV?

Or a radio controlled clock a 'clock'.

Well, some of them are marketed as an "atomic clock". Is this correct?

It has atoms if it exists :-)

gr, hwh

In article , Kristoff Bonne
writes
Gegroet,


Max Demian schreef:
I bet you're one of these people that object to radio being delivered
via the internet being called radio, and TV delivered via broadband
being called TV?

Or a radio controlled clock a 'clock'.

Well, some of them are marketed as an "atomic clock". Is this correct?

Arguably they all depend on properties of atoms.

--
Ian G8ILZ

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:37:56 +0200, hwh wrote:


"Kristoff Bonne" schreef in bericht
...
Gegroet,


Max Demian schreef:
I bet you're one of these people that object to radio being delivered via
the internet being called radio, and TV delivered via broadband being
called TV?

Or a radio controlled clock a 'clock'.

Well, some of them are marketed as an "atomic clock". Is this correct?

It has atoms if it exists :-)

gr, hwh

What a load of old photons.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:04:01 +0100, Phil Cook
wrote:

FM wipes the floor of them both.

In theory. Come to the rougher bits of London or Birmingham and you
will get fzzz tzzz kssskz from pirates ruining your reception.

Yes but on FM you get the pirates, many of which have better sound
quality and more interesting programming than the so called
professionals.

One of the great tragedies of DAB is that there hasn't been provision
for public access or small scale local broadcasting. I wonder if some
of my favorite local stations such as Delta or Radio Jackie will ever
be available on DAB.

I also wonder why the broadcasters feel the need to simulcast the
large scale FM stations on DAB. Radios 1-4, Capital, Kiss etc are all
duplicated on DAB in London when they're available in better quality
and over a larger area on FM. We abandoned AM/FM simulcasting in the
80's, why start again?

Rgds
Jonathan

In article , JC
writes
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:04:01 +0100, Phil Cook
wrote:

FM wipes the floor of them both.

In theory. Come to the rougher bits of London or Birmingham and you
will get fzzz tzzz kssskz from pirates ruining your reception.

Yes but on FM you get the pirates, many of which have better sound
quality and more interesting programming than the so called
professionals.

Funny that, but didn't commercial radio in the UK get started due to
some pirate broadcasters?.

Trouble is that once they go light like Kiss FM and choice et al they
soon loose their roots very rapidly;(.....

One of the great tragedies of DAB is that there hasn't been provision
for public access or small scale local broadcasting. I wonder if some
of my favorite local stations such as Delta or Radio Jackie will ever
be available on DAB.

Very much doubt it. I know the lads at radio Jackie and how much it
costs to go on a DAB MUX and I can't see just how they could afford it
even at 64 K mono...


I also wonder why the broadcasters feel the need to simulcast the
large scale FM stations on DAB. Radios 1-4, Capital, Kiss etc are all
duplicated on DAB in London when they're available in better quality
and over a larger area on FM. We abandoned AM/FM simulcasting in the
80's, why start again?

Ask OFCOM who will do a consultation for you!.

--
Tony Sayer