Hi, Folks! [Archive] - Satellite Radio Canada

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
news:cmo8d3$e3k$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bGJjd.27380$Qv5.15787@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> >I just subbed today, and it looks interesting.
> >
> > As you will see by my sig, I'm also a ham (greetings to the OM in
> > Australia
> > and the DK6 station, too), but not into amateur satellite yet...so don't
> > worry about me getting freaky with that stuff. :-)
>
> Hello DE VO1ONE :-) The only satellite I've ever worked was PCSAT for
APRS
> when that was still on the go. I've worked MIR before they plunged into
the
> atmosphere and I've heard the ISS but never tried working them.

Hello backatcha, OM! :-) That's quite a call you've got there. I'll bet
you had to wait a long time for that one, or were you able to get it right
away? We've had vanity calls here for a few years now, but usually, we have
to list several preferences, and maybe wait for one to become available. I
have a couple of friends, he's K8MEG, and she's W8MEG. She was KC8ECG, I
believe, then got WA8MEG, then just got to drop the "A" a couple years ago,
when the previous holder of that call became a silent key. Anyway...Haven't
actually worked anything in orbit, but did hear Dr. Owen Garrett(sp?) when
ham radio first went up on the shuttle. I knew there was no sense in me
trying to get back to him, because he most likely had a thousand turnstile
and other types of directional antennas tracking him, but he was strong
enough that I actually did hear him over top of the very leaky cable TV
signal that was blanketing that portion of the 2m band at that time.

> > I'm not sure if I'll be able to get into satellite radio any time soon.
I
> > don't drive (also visually impaired), and where I live (a little north
of
> > 42, and a little west of 83), my apartment faces east, and I have no
> > exposure directly to the south. About due southeast is as good as I can
> > do.
> > I've seen mention of terrestrial repeaters. Are these also in the
> > microwave
> > bands, or are they at a longer wavelength than the celestial stuf??
>
> I'm approximately at 47N and 52W lat/lon here. The terrestrial repeaters
> are in the same band as the satellites themselves. The FCC authorized
both
> XM and Sirius 12.5 MHz worth of bandwidth, and both divide this up roughly
> into 3 segments of 4 MHz, two for the two satellites and one for the
> repeaters. Sirius is from 2320 MHz to 2332.5 MHz and XM is 2332.5 MHz to
> 2345 MHz both well in the microwave realm of frequencies. The repeaters
> don't have much better range than line of sight and are usually on top of
> tall buildings in downtown cores. They'll go maybe 5 or 10 miles
depending
> on the surrounding terrain; it's hard to predict without doing some
> radiotopography maps. You may have some luck having the signal
penetrating
> your structure. Besides this, microwaves tend to bounce around a lot so
> even though you don't have a window to the south or south west you still
may
> get a signal. Also, Sirius will tend to be to your North or Northwest so
> maybe this is another option. I'd say run down to best buy and buy a
setup
> but don't get it activated. Just listen using the preview channels and
see
> if you can get a signal somewhere in your house. If you can't you have 30
> days to bring it back to best buy and you get your money back. Also I see
> that you mentioned being visually impared, perhaps you would enjoy XM's
> Sonic Theatre channel 163. They read a lot of books there, like books on
> tape, bestsellers and the classics, as well as live radio dramas. My
Dad's
> a books on tape fanatic and he really enjoys the channel as he's often too
> busy to read books and he can just listen in the car instead.

Thanks for the info and the suggestions. I may actually wander out to Best
Buy when I've got a couple of Ben Franklins I don't know what to do with.
And, even though, as I've read, the RF modulator solution isn't all that
great, so I might go with the type of receiver with the line-level outputs.

As for having books read to me on the radio, that is too restricting, unless
I can tape them and play them back later. :-) I've been into the Library
of Congress' Talking Books program since the mid '60s, back when Talking
Books were on 10" and 12" vinyl discs, playing at 33 1/3 and 16 2/3 rpm.
There was also some open reel tape, too, but I didn't get into that until
the late '60s, early '70s, and was into that for a short while. Since about
'72 or '73, things have been moving over to cassette, and now, about all the
Talking Books that aren't on computer discs are on cassette. That's in the
special Library of Congress format, which is 4-track, 15/16ips, so a
90-minute cassette can have up to 6 hours on it. They're working on some
media cards and readers that will be durable enough and cheap enough for
free lending like the cassettes and players we have now. BTW, WKAR in East
Lansing, on the Michigan State University campus, has had for many years
something they call the Radio Talking Book. I guess it's a national thing,
but I got the receiver that picks up the WKAR signal. It's actually on SCA
(subsidiary carrier authorization), which is a sideband off the main
frequency. It's not as strong a signal as the main carrier, of course, and
I live on the wrong side of the building for it, but I never did get into it
all that heavily when I was in a position to hear it well. I need to figure
out how to send their receiver back to them, I guess.

> 73 de Mark VO1ONE
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"bw" <justme@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:4eydnfu059z9lg3cRVn-gQ@giganews.com...
> Hello Tom,

Hi, Bruce.

> I am a ham as well. Don't let not having a view to the south stop you
from
> trying satellite radio. I have XM and I live in an apartment that has
> windows only to the north. I found that placing the antenna on the top
shelf
> of a bookcase aimed to the southwest works perfectly. The signal has to go
> through the roof, attic insulation, the ceiling, and then a wall to get to
> the antenna. I never have dropouts even during storms or when there is
snow
> on the roof.

I'll have to check it out, though this building is a pretty effective
Faraday cage. The walls and ceilings between apartments are
steel-reinforced concrete, so I'm basically not expecting that I'll be able
to do it. But, I will have to try. After all, the building staff do run
around here with radios that work in the region of 70cm, and they're usually
full quieting on my scanner, no matter where they are. I do have a discone
sitting out on the balcony, which probably doesn't hurt. :-) But, still,
they've gotta get through all of the stuff to get out to it. And, I don't
think they're running more than 5W or so.

> About the only thing you can do is try several locations for the antenna
and
> see if you can get a signal. I've found that very little change in
location
> makes a big difference in signal when using the antenna inside. You just
> have to find the "sweet" spot. You do not have to have a south window.

Even with 2m and 70cm, that's true, and we're talking about considerably
shorter wavelengths, here.

> 73,
> Bruce, N0XL
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Mark S.

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:L0okd.18146$Rf1.13336@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
> news:cmo8d3$e3k$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
>> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:bGJjd.27380$Qv5.15787@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> >I just subbed today, and it looks interesting.
>> >
>> > As you will see by my sig, I'm also a ham (greetings to the OM in
>> > Australia
>> > and the DK6 station, too), but not into amateur satellite yet...so
>> > don't
>> > worry about me getting freaky with that stuff. :-)
>>
>> Hello DE VO1ONE :-) The only satellite I've ever worked was PCSAT for
> APRS
>> when that was still on the go. I've worked MIR before they plunged into
> the
>> atmosphere and I've heard the ISS but never tried working them.
>
> Hello backatcha, OM! :-) That's quite a call you've got there. I'll bet
> you had to wait a long time for that one, or were you able to get it right
> away?

I got it right away. All calls in Canada are vanity for free :-) Actually,
it wasn't my first choice. They give you three choices, and they go in the
order of your preferance and the first that's available is what you get.
However, I wasn't aware that they just switched VO1 over at the time to
different regulations for 2x2 calls. 2x2 calls are reserved for those who
have had their licences for 5 years in most callsign prefix areas. Labrador
(VO2), since they have so few licencees does not have this restriction.
They called me since I hadn't picked any 2x3 callsigns, and I couldn't think
of one so I asked my girlfriend and that's what she picked for me. It's a
fun call to have and I really like it. A lot of ops get a kick out of it.

> We've had vanity calls here for a few years now, but usually, we have
> to list several preferences, and maybe wait for one to become available.
> I
> have a couple of friends, he's K8MEG, and she's W8MEG. She was KC8ECG, I
> believe, then got WA8MEG, then just got to drop the "A" a couple years
> ago,
> when the previous holder of that call became a silent key.

Which reminds me you can get a 2x2 call here right off the bat if it
belonged to a relative that has gone sk.

> Anyway...Haven't
> actually worked anything in orbit, but did hear Dr. Owen Garrett(sp?) when
> ham radio first went up on the shuttle. I knew there was no sense in me
> trying to get back to him, because he most likely had a thousand turnstile
> and other types of directional antennas tracking him, but he was strong
> enough that I actually did hear him over top of the very leaky cable TV
> signal that was blanketing that portion of the 2m band at that time.

Yeah, that's my problem with space ops. I don't have any fancy antennas and
most of my operations are mobile anyways so I'm quite limited. I've been
considering getting one of those handheld 2m/70cm yagi arrays for satellite
if I run across one at a good price. I don't have any fancy satellite
transceivers either. Those things cost as much as an HF radio, and I'd
think personally I'd get more enjoyment out of an HF rig.

>> > I'm not sure if I'll be able to get into satellite radio any time soon.
> I
>> > don't drive (also visually impaired), and where I live (a little north
> of
>> > 42, and a little west of 83), my apartment faces east, and I have no
>> > exposure directly to the south. About due southeast is as good as I
>> > can
>> > do.
>> > I've seen mention of terrestrial repeaters. Are these also in the
>> > microwave
>> > bands, or are they at a longer wavelength than the celestial stuf??
>>
>> I'm approximately at 47N and 52W lat/lon here. The terrestrial repeaters
>> are in the same band as the satellites themselves. The FCC authorized
> both
>> XM and Sirius 12.5 MHz worth of bandwidth, and both divide this up
>> roughly
>> into 3 segments of 4 MHz, two for the two satellites and one for the
>> repeaters. Sirius is from 2320 MHz to 2332.5 MHz and XM is 2332.5 MHz to
>> 2345 MHz both well in the microwave realm of frequencies. The repeaters
>> don't have much better range than line of sight and are usually on top of
>> tall buildings in downtown cores. They'll go maybe 5 or 10 miles
> depending
>> on the surrounding terrain; it's hard to predict without doing some
>> radiotopography maps. You may have some luck having the signal
> penetrating
>> your structure. Besides this, microwaves tend to bounce around a lot so
>> even though you don't have a window to the south or south west you still
> may
>> get a signal. Also, Sirius will tend to be to your North or Northwest so
>> maybe this is another option. I'd say run down to best buy and buy a
> setup
>> but don't get it activated. Just listen using the preview channels and
> see
>> if you can get a signal somewhere in your house. If you can't you have
>> 30
>> days to bring it back to best buy and you get your money back. Also I
>> see
>> that you mentioned being visually impared, perhaps you would enjoy XM's
>> Sonic Theatre channel 163. They read a lot of books there, like books on
>> tape, bestsellers and the classics, as well as live radio dramas. My
> Dad's
>> a books on tape fanatic and he really enjoys the channel as he's often
>> too
>> busy to read books and he can just listen in the car instead.
>
> Thanks for the info and the suggestions. I may actually wander out to
> Best
> Buy when I've got a couple of Ben Franklins I don't know what to do with.
> And, even though, as I've read, the RF modulator solution isn't all that
> great, so I might go with the type of receiver with the line-level
> outputs.

Yes, this is certainly the best way to go. Also if you decide on Sirius,
you can get a complete setup for $50, which is a car or home
cradle/antenna/power supplies/etc and receiver, and you just got to prepay 3
months worth of service upfront which is $39. Not a bad deal, and it's the
same equipment they carry at best buy, but for cheaper, but I'd still try
out the best buy setup for 30 days just to make sure it's going to work out
for you.

> As for having books read to me on the radio, that is too restricting,
> unless
> I can tape them and play them back later. :-)

Yeah, it's better for a long road trip, although I do know of people who
hook their sat radio up to their computer and record off of it that way.
There was this special on XM called "IT" the History of Pop Music, where
they played everything that hit the top 100 charts since the great
depression. I think it lasted around 2 weeks continuously to get through
all the songs and people taped the whole thing on their computers. I'm sure
it makes for an excellent collection of tunes!

> I've been into the Library
> of Congress' Talking Books program since the mid '60s, back when Talking
> Books were on 10" and 12" vinyl discs, playing at 33 1/3 and 16 2/3 rpm.
> There was also some open reel tape, too, but I didn't get into that until
> the late '60s, early '70s, and was into that for a short while. Since
> about
> '72 or '73, things have been moving over to cassette, and now, about all
> the
> Talking Books that aren't on computer discs are on cassette. That's in
> the
> special Library of Congress format, which is 4-track, 15/16ips, so a
> 90-minute cassette can have up to 6 hours on it. They're working on some
> media cards and readers that will be durable enough and cheap enough for
> free lending like the cassettes and players we have now. BTW, WKAR in
> East
> Lansing, on the Michigan State University campus, has had for many years
> something they call the Radio Talking Book. I guess it's a national
> thing,
> but I got the receiver that picks up the WKAR signal. It's actually on
> SCA
> (subsidiary carrier authorization), which is a sideband off the main
> frequency. It's not as strong a signal as the main carrier, of course,
> and
> I live on the wrong side of the building for it, but I never did get into
> it
> all that heavily when I was in a position to hear it well. I need to
> figure
> out how to send their receiver back to them, I guess.

I've used my HF rig as an SCA receiver before. There's a lot of interesting
things on SCA like elevator music, Muzak (that commercial free music service
that plays adult contemporary music in McDonalds), and radio reading service
for the blind which reads books and the day's newspaper. There's also data
services I've never tried to decode but I guess they're stock tickers and
stuff like that, plus RDS data. My Icom IC-706 goes down to 30kHz but any
receiver that goes down to between 50 and 100kHz will work fine. You just
hook up the antenna input on your shortwave receiver to a decent FM radio at
the detector output. I just opened up one of my FM radios until I found the
tuner IC and I looked up the pinouts online to find out which one was the
detector. I also connected the ground of the 706 to the ground of the FM
radio and it works great.

73 de Mark VO1ONE

Fritz Wue

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

Hello hams, just one question to Mark:

Do you think it is possible for me in germany to receive the Sirius
satellites?

I checked the footprints and to the antlantic ocean they look very wide.
Do you know if they switch off the satellites when they are over europe?

I just started listening to the wideband 3-day xm trial,
obviously no blocking for non us addresses.
Unfortunately their satellites are totally out of my range.

I did not yet test worldspace with the dish, bad wx.

73 to everybody

Fritz
DK6QI

Mark S.

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Fritz Wue" <Friedrich.Wue@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:cmu8mf$7eb$04$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hello hams, just one question to Mark:
>
> Do you think it is possible for me in germany to receive the Sirius
> satellites?
>
> I checked the footprints and to the antlantic ocean they look very wide.
> Do you know if they switch off the satellites when they are over europe?
>
> I just started listening to the wideband 3-day xm trial,
> obviously no blocking for non us addresses.
> Unfortunately their satellites are totally out of my range.
>
> I did not yet test worldspace with the dish, bad wx.
>
> 73 to everybody
>
> Fritz
> DK6QI

The Sirius satellites while over North America do come above the horizon in
Europe, however the satellites use a continuously moving beam directed
towards the continental US so it would be difficult to receive in Europe.
There is a chance that there may be sidelobes at times which could
illuminate your area but for it to work with the standard Sirius antenna, it
would have to be one heck of a sidelobe. I'd say if you used one of your
large dishes with a RHCP S band helix feed and an az-el rotor you might have
some luck. You'd certainly be pioneering something that no one to my
knowledge has ever tried before!

How do you like the XM online trial? Keep me updated on the WorldSpace
dish, too :)

73,
Mark VO1ONE

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
news:cmu2th$bu7$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:L0okd.18146$Rf1.13336@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cmo8d3$e3k$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> >> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:bGJjd.27380$Qv5.15787@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> >> >I just subbed today, and it looks interesting.
> >> >
> >> > As you will see by my sig, I'm also a ham (greetings to the OM in
> >> > Australia
> >> > and the DK6 station, too), but not into amateur satellite yet...so
> >> > don't
> >> > worry about me getting freaky with that stuff. :-)
> >>
> >> Hello DE VO1ONE :-) The only satellite I've ever worked was PCSAT for
> > APRS
> >> when that was still on the go. I've worked MIR before they plunged
into
> > the
> >> atmosphere and I've heard the ISS but never tried working them.
> >
> > Hello backatcha, OM! :-) That's quite a call you've got there. I'll
bet
> > you had to wait a long time for that one, or were you able to get it
right
> > away?
>
> I got it right away. All calls in Canada are vanity for free :-)
Actually,
> it wasn't my first choice. They give you three choices, and they go in
the
> order of your preferance and the first that's available is what you get.
> However, I wasn't aware that they just switched VO1 over at the time to
> different regulations for 2x2 calls. 2x2 calls are reserved for those who
> have had their licences for 5 years in most callsign prefix areas.
Labrador
> (VO2), since they have so few licencees does not have this restriction.
> They called me since I hadn't picked any 2x3 callsigns, and I couldn't
think
> of one so I asked my girlfriend and that's what she picked for me. It's a
> fun call to have and I really like it. A lot of ops get a kick out of it.

Cool. I wonder who's got VO2TWO. :-)

> > We've had vanity calls here for a few years now, but usually, we have
> > to list several preferences, and maybe wait for one to become available.
> > I
> > have a couple of friends, he's K8MEG, and she's W8MEG. She was KC8ECG,
I
> > believe, then got WA8MEG, then just got to drop the "A" a couple years
> > ago,
> > when the previous holder of that call became a silent key.
>
> Which reminds me you can get a 2x2 call here right off the bat if it
> belonged to a relative that has gone sk.

That's neat. I'm not sure what the rules are on retired calls here in
configurations that aren't normally issued anymore. I think with my class
(General), I can only have a 1x3 or 2x3. I've had this call for 21 years,
though, and I'm sorta attached to it. If I ever get off my butt and go
Extra, I'll still probably keep it. The N and K calls of the 1x3 persuasion
are going to be as "good" as having a W call, one day soon.

> > Anyway...Haven't
> > actually worked anything in orbit, but did hear Dr. Owen Garrett(sp?)
when
> > ham radio first went up on the shuttle. I knew there was no sense in me
> > trying to get back to him, because he most likely had a thousand
turnstile
> > and other types of directional antennas tracking him, but he was strong
> > enough that I actually did hear him over top of the very leaky cable TV
> > signal that was blanketing that portion of the 2m band at that time.
>
> Yeah, that's my problem with space ops. I don't have any fancy antennas
and
> most of my operations are mobile anyways so I'm quite limited. I've been
> considering getting one of those handheld 2m/70cm yagi arrays for
satellite
> if I run across one at a good price. I don't have any fancy satellite
> transceivers either. Those things cost as much as an HF radio, and I'd
> think personally I'd get more enjoyment out of an HF rig.

Well, calculating the Kepplerian elements, etc., and pointing the antenna at
just the right spot for a 5-minute flyover sounds like more work than the
enjoyment I'd get out of it, so I doubt I'd spend that kind of money on a
sat transceiver. But, as for the Yagi, have you thought about building one
yourself? Make it a parasitic array with one driven element, and it should
work. There's a relationship between 2m and 70cm, too, that you might be
able to have fun with where lengths and impedences are concerned.

> >> > I'm not sure if I'll be able to get into satellite radio any time
soon.
> > I
> >> > don't drive (also visually impaired), and where I live (a little
north
> > of
> >> > 42, and a little west of 83), my apartment faces east, and I have no
> >> > exposure directly to the south. About due southeast is as good as I
> >> > can
> >> > do.
> >> > I've seen mention of terrestrial repeaters. Are these also in the
> >> > microwave
> >> > bands, or are they at a longer wavelength than the celestial stuf??
> >>
> >> I'm approximately at 47N and 52W lat/lon here. The terrestrial
repeaters
> >> are in the same band as the satellites themselves. The FCC authorized
> > both
> >> XM and Sirius 12.5 MHz worth of bandwidth, and both divide this up
> >> roughly
> >> into 3 segments of 4 MHz, two for the two satellites and one for the
> >> repeaters. Sirius is from 2320 MHz to 2332.5 MHz and XM is 2332.5 MHz
to
> >> 2345 MHz both well in the microwave realm of frequencies. The
repeaters
> >> don't have much better range than line of sight and are usually on top
of
> >> tall buildings in downtown cores. They'll go maybe 5 or 10 miles
> > depending
> >> on the surrounding terrain; it's hard to predict without doing some
> >> radiotopography maps. You may have some luck having the signal
> > penetrating
> >> your structure. Besides this, microwaves tend to bounce around a lot
so
> >> even though you don't have a window to the south or south west you
still
> > may
> >> get a signal. Also, Sirius will tend to be to your North or Northwest
so
> >> maybe this is another option. I'd say run down to best buy and buy a
> > setup
> >> but don't get it activated. Just listen using the preview channels and
> > see
> >> if you can get a signal somewhere in your house. If you can't you have
> >> 30
> >> days to bring it back to best buy and you get your money back. Also I
> >> see
> >> that you mentioned being visually impared, perhaps you would enjoy XM's
> >> Sonic Theatre channel 163. They read a lot of books there, like books
on
> >> tape, bestsellers and the classics, as well as live radio dramas. My
> > Dad's
> >> a books on tape fanatic and he really enjoys the channel as he's often
> >> too
> >> busy to read books and he can just listen in the car instead.
> >
> > Thanks for the info and the suggestions. I may actually wander out to
> > Best
> > Buy when I've got a couple of Ben Franklins I don't know what to do
with.
> > And, even though, as I've read, the RF modulator solution isn't all that
> > great, so I might go with the type of receiver with the line-level
> > outputs.
>
> Yes, this is certainly the best way to go. Also if you decide on Sirius,
> you can get a complete setup for $50, which is a car or home
> cradle/antenna/power supplies/etc and receiver, and you just got to prepay
3
> months worth of service upfront which is $39. Not a bad deal, and it's
the
> same equipment they carry at best buy, but for cheaper, but I'd still try
> out the best buy setup for 30 days just to make sure it's going to work
out
> for you.

Oh, of course, I'd try it before committing. Unfortunately, it sounds like
XM has the programming I want and won't make me pay for the programming I
don't want.

> > As for having books read to me on the radio, that is too restricting,
> > unless
> > I can tape them and play them back later. :-)
>
> Yeah, it's better for a long road trip, although I do know of people who
> hook their sat radio up to their computer and record off of it that way.
> There was this special on XM called "IT" the History of Pop Music, where
> they played everything that hit the top 100 charts since the great
> depression. I think it lasted around 2 weeks continuously to get through
> all the songs and people taped the whole thing on their computers. I'm
sure
> it makes for an excellent collection of tunes!

That would take some serious storage, and you'd have to buy stock in a CD-R
company to record it all. :-) Or, maybe convert it all to MP3 and compress
it 'til it squeaks, then hope your CD player can play it.

> > I've been into the Library
> > of Congress' Talking Books program since the mid '60s, back when Talking
> > Books were on 10" and 12" vinyl discs, playing at 33 1/3 and 16 2/3 rpm.
> > There was also some open reel tape, too, but I didn't get into that
until
> > the late '60s, early '70s, and was into that for a short while. Since
> > about
> > '72 or '73, things have been moving over to cassette, and now, about all
> > the
> > Talking Books that aren't on computer discs are on cassette. That's in
> > the
> > special Library of Congress format, which is 4-track, 15/16ips, so a
> > 90-minute cassette can have up to 6 hours on it. They're working on
some
> > media cards and readers that will be durable enough and cheap enough for
> > free lending like the cassettes and players we have now. BTW, WKAR in
> > East
> > Lansing, on the Michigan State University campus, has had for many years
> > something they call the Radio Talking Book. I guess it's a national
> > thing,
> > but I got the receiver that picks up the WKAR signal. It's actually on
> > SCA
> > (subsidiary carrier authorization), which is a sideband off the main
> > frequency. It's not as strong a signal as the main carrier, of course,
> > and
> > I live on the wrong side of the building for it, but I never did get
into
> > it
> > all that heavily when I was in a position to hear it well. I need to
> > figure
> > out how to send their receiver back to them, I guess.
>
> I've used my HF rig as an SCA receiver before. There's a lot of
interesting
> things on SCA like elevator music, Muzak (that commercial free music
service
> that plays adult contemporary music in McDonalds), and radio reading
service
> for the blind which reads books and the day's newspaper. There's also
data
> services I've never tried to decode but I guess they're stock tickers and
> stuff like that, plus RDS data. My Icom IC-706 goes down to 30kHz but any
> receiver that goes down to between 50 and 100kHz will work fine. You just
> hook up the antenna input on your shortwave receiver to a decent FM radio
at
> the detector output. I just opened up one of my FM radios until I found
the
> tuner IC and I looked up the pinouts online to find out which one was the
> detector. I also connected the ground of the 706 to the ground of the FM
> radio and it works great.

Now, that sounds like fun. Assuming it's SSB, similar to to the way FM
stereo is modulated onto the carrier. Also assuming you pick it up off the
detector before it goes through the de-emphasis filter.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Mark S.

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:7m2ld.18786$Rf1.9186@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
> news:cmu2th$bu7$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> > "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:L0okd.18146$Rf1.13336@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:cmo8d3$e3k$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> > >> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > >> news:bGJjd.27380$Qv5.15787@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > >> >I just subbed today, and it looks interesting.
> > >> >
> > >> > As you will see by my sig, I'm also a ham (greetings to the OM in
> > >> > Australia
> > >> > and the DK6 station, too), but not into amateur satellite yet...so
> > >> > don't
> > >> > worry about me getting freaky with that stuff. :-)
> > >>
> > >> Hello DE VO1ONE :-) The only satellite I've ever worked was PCSAT
for
> > > APRS
> > >> when that was still on the go. I've worked MIR before they plunged
> into
> > > the
> > >> atmosphere and I've heard the ISS but never tried working them.
> > >
> > > Hello backatcha, OM! :-) That's quite a call you've got there. I'll
> bet
> > > you had to wait a long time for that one, or were you able to get it
> right
> > > away?
> >
> > I got it right away. All calls in Canada are vanity for free :-)
> Actually,
> > it wasn't my first choice. They give you three choices, and they go in
> the
> > order of your preferance and the first that's available is what you get.
> > However, I wasn't aware that they just switched VO1 over at the time to
> > different regulations for 2x2 calls. 2x2 calls are reserved for those
who
> > have had their licences for 5 years in most callsign prefix areas.
> Labrador
> > (VO2), since they have so few licencees does not have this restriction.
> > They called me since I hadn't picked any 2x3 callsigns, and I couldn't
> think
> > of one so I asked my girlfriend and that's what she picked for me. It's
a
> > fun call to have and I really like it. A lot of ops get a kick out of
it.
>
> Cool. I wonder who's got VO2TWO. :-)

No one yet! I imagine it will be someone else with a similar sense of
humour. Most flock to the 2x2 calls, and being that there have only been
173 VO2 calls issued out of 18,252 possible calls (676 2x2 calls + 17576 2x3
calls) well, almost that many, I forgot you can't get calls that could
represent Q signals, anyways the point is it will probably be a long time
before that one gets issued!

> > > We've had vanity calls here for a few years now, but usually, we have
> > > to list several preferences, and maybe wait for one to become
available.
> > > I
> > > have a couple of friends, he's K8MEG, and she's W8MEG. She was
KC8ECG,
> I
> > > believe, then got WA8MEG, then just got to drop the "A" a couple years
> > > ago,
> > > when the previous holder of that call became a silent key.
> >
> > Which reminds me you can get a 2x2 call here right off the bat if it
> > belonged to a relative that has gone sk.
>
> That's neat. I'm not sure what the rules are on retired calls here in
> configurations that aren't normally issued anymore. I think with my class
> (General), I can only have a 1x3 or 2x3. I've had this call for 21 years,
> though, and I'm sorta attached to it. If I ever get off my butt and go
> Extra, I'll still probably keep it. The N and K calls of the 1x3
persuasion
> are going to be as "good" as having a W call, one day soon.

Yeah, even though I originally wanted a 2x2, I've grown attached to my call
and I don't think I'll ever give it up.

> > > Anyway...Haven't
> > > actually worked anything in orbit, but did hear Dr. Owen Garrett(sp?)
> when
> > > ham radio first went up on the shuttle. I knew there was no sense in
me
> > > trying to get back to him, because he most likely had a thousand
> turnstile
> > > and other types of directional antennas tracking him, but he was
strong
> > > enough that I actually did hear him over top of the very leaky cable
TV
> > > signal that was blanketing that portion of the 2m band at that time.
> >
> > Yeah, that's my problem with space ops. I don't have any fancy antennas
> and
> > most of my operations are mobile anyways so I'm quite limited. I've
been
> > considering getting one of those handheld 2m/70cm yagi arrays for
> satellite
> > if I run across one at a good price. I don't have any fancy satellite
> > transceivers either. Those things cost as much as an HF radio, and I'd
> > think personally I'd get more enjoyment out of an HF rig.
>
> Well, calculating the Kepplerian elements, etc., and pointing the antenna
at
> just the right spot for a 5-minute flyover sounds like more work than the
> enjoyment I'd get out of it, so I doubt I'd spend that kind of money on a
> sat transceiver. But, as for the Yagi, have you thought about building
one
> yourself? Make it a parasitic array with one driven element, and it
should
> work. There's a relationship between 2m and 70cm, too, that you might be
> able to have fun with where lengths and impedences are concerned.

Free satellite tracking software makes the calculations easy, but equipment
costs money. I've made directional antennas for fox hunting before, I guess
it wouldn't be too difficult to make a dual band cross polarized hand held
yagi array. Another project for the "want to do" list that might be years
before I get around to it! ;-) So many things to experiment with, so
little time and money...

> > >> > I'm not sure if I'll be able to get into satellite radio any time
> soon.
> > > I
> > >> > don't drive (also visually impaired), and where I live (a little
> north
> > > of
> > >> > 42, and a little west of 83), my apartment faces east, and I have
no
> > >> > exposure directly to the south. About due southeast is as good as
I
> > >> > can
> > >> > do.
> > >> > I've seen mention of terrestrial repeaters. Are these also in the
> > >> > microwave
> > >> > bands, or are they at a longer wavelength than the celestial stuf??
> > >>
> > >> I'm approximately at 47N and 52W lat/lon here. The terrestrial
> repeaters
> > >> are in the same band as the satellites themselves. The FCC
authorized
> > > both
> > >> XM and Sirius 12.5 MHz worth of bandwidth, and both divide this up
> > >> roughly
> > >> into 3 segments of 4 MHz, two for the two satellites and one for the
> > >> repeaters. Sirius is from 2320 MHz to 2332.5 MHz and XM is 2332.5
MHz
> to
> > >> 2345 MHz both well in the microwave realm of frequencies. The
> repeaters
> > >> don't have much better range than line of sight and are usually on
top
> of
> > >> tall buildings in downtown cores. They'll go maybe 5 or 10 miles
> > > depending
> > >> on the surrounding terrain; it's hard to predict without doing some
> > >> radiotopography maps. You may have some luck having the signal
> > > penetrating
> > >> your structure. Besides this, microwaves tend to bounce around a lot
> so
> > >> even though you don't have a window to the south or south west you
> still
> > > may
> > >> get a signal. Also, Sirius will tend to be to your North or
Northwest
> so
> > >> maybe this is another option. I'd say run down to best buy and buy a
> > > setup
> > >> but don't get it activated. Just listen using the preview channels
and
> > > see
> > >> if you can get a signal somewhere in your house. If you can't you
have
> > >> 30
> > >> days to bring it back to best buy and you get your money back. Also
I
> > >> see
> > >> that you mentioned being visually impared, perhaps you would enjoy
XM's
> > >> Sonic Theatre channel 163. They read a lot of books there, like
books
> on
> > >> tape, bestsellers and the classics, as well as live radio dramas. My
> > > Dad's
> > >> a books on tape fanatic and he really enjoys the channel as he's
often
> > >> too
> > >> busy to read books and he can just listen in the car instead.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info and the suggestions. I may actually wander out to
> > > Best
> > > Buy when I've got a couple of Ben Franklins I don't know what to do
> with.
> > > And, even though, as I've read, the RF modulator solution isn't all
that
> > > great, so I might go with the type of receiver with the line-level
> > > outputs.
> >
> > Yes, this is certainly the best way to go. Also if you decide on
Sirius,
> > you can get a complete setup for $50, which is a car or home
> > cradle/antenna/power supplies/etc and receiver, and you just got to
prepay
> 3
> > months worth of service upfront which is $39. Not a bad deal, and it's
> the
> > same equipment they carry at best buy, but for cheaper, but I'd still
try
> > out the best buy setup for 30 days just to make sure it's going to work
> out
> > for you.
>
> Oh, of course, I'd try it before committing. Unfortunately, it sounds
like
> XM has the programming I want and won't make me pay for the programming I
> don't want.

The XM equipment isn't that much more. I guess if you planned on paying
month to month and didn't get any of the premium packages on XM, the $3/mo
savings would make up the difference in equipment cost after a couple years
;-) Anyways for sure choose the provider which suits you best. A cheap
radio won't do you any good if it can't get you the channels you want.

> > > As for having books read to me on the radio, that is too restricting,
> > > unless
> > > I can tape them and play them back later. :-)
> >
> > Yeah, it's better for a long road trip, although I do know of people who
> > hook their sat radio up to their computer and record off of it that way.
> > There was this special on XM called "IT" the History of Pop Music, where
> > they played everything that hit the top 100 charts since the great
> > depression. I think it lasted around 2 weeks continuously to get
through
> > all the songs and people taped the whole thing on their computers. I'm
> sure
> > it makes for an excellent collection of tunes!
>
> That would take some serious storage, and you'd have to buy stock in a
CD-R
> company to record it all. :-) Or, maybe convert it all to MP3 and
compress
> it 'til it squeaks, then hope your CD player can play it.

There are freeware audio recording programs which encode into MP3 on the fly
so you never have to record it as a wav first then encode it all into an
mp3. It just saves it as an mp3 as it's going so that allows. A 2 week
long mp3 at 128k/sec would take up just under 20GB worth of space, not too
shabby!

> > > I've been into the Library
> > > of Congress' Talking Books program since the mid '60s, back when
Talking
> > > Books were on 10" and 12" vinyl discs, playing at 33 1/3 and 16 2/3
rpm.
> > > There was also some open reel tape, too, but I didn't get into that
> until
> > > the late '60s, early '70s, and was into that for a short while. Since
> > > about
> > > '72 or '73, things have been moving over to cassette, and now, about
all
> > > the
> > > Talking Books that aren't on computer discs are on cassette. That's
in
> > > the
> > > special Library of Congress format, which is 4-track, 15/16ips, so a
> > > 90-minute cassette can have up to 6 hours on it. They're working on
> some
> > > media cards and readers that will be durable enough and cheap enough
for
> > > free lending like the cassettes and players we have now. BTW, WKAR in
> > > East
> > > Lansing, on the Michigan State University campus, has had for many
years
> > > something they call the Radio Talking Book. I guess it's a national
> > > thing,
> > > but I got the receiver that picks up the WKAR signal. It's actually
on
> > > SCA
> > > (subsidiary carrier authorization), which is a sideband off the main
> > > frequency. It's not as strong a signal as the main carrier, of
course,
> > > and
> > > I live on the wrong side of the building for it, but I never did get
> into
> > > it
> > > all that heavily when I was in a position to hear it well. I need to
> > > figure
> > > out how to send their receiver back to them, I guess.
> >
> > I've used my HF rig as an SCA receiver before. There's a lot of
> interesting
> > things on SCA like elevator music, Muzak (that commercial free music
> service
> > that plays adult contemporary music in McDonalds), and radio reading
> service
> > for the blind which reads books and the day's newspaper. There's also
> data
> > services I've never tried to decode but I guess they're stock tickers
and
> > stuff like that, plus RDS data. My Icom IC-706 goes down to 30kHz but
any
> > receiver that goes down to between 50 and 100kHz will work fine. You
just
> > hook up the antenna input on your shortwave receiver to a decent FM
radio
> at
> > the detector output. I just opened up one of my FM radios until I found
> the
> > tuner IC and I looked up the pinouts online to find out which one was
the
> > detector. I also connected the ground of the 706 to the ground of the
FM
> > radio and it works great.
>
> Now, that sounds like fun. Assuming it's SSB, similar to to the way FM
> stereo is modulated onto the carrier. Also assuming you pick it up off
the
> detector before it goes through the de-emphasis filter.

Actually they are AM subcarriers, so you'd set your radio to AM mode, not
ssb. It is very similar to the way FM stereo is modulated onto the carrier.
The R-L part of the stereo signal is in the 20 to 40 kHz range
approximately, so right above where the monaural audio is (0-20kHz). Yes
you would pick it up off of the detector before it goes to anything :)

73,
Mark VO1ONE

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
news:cn2qim$29n$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:7m2ld.18786$Rf1.9186@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:cmu2th$bu7$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> > > "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:L0okd.18146$Rf1.13336@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Mark S." <vo1one@gee-mail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:cmo8d3$e3k$1@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> > > >> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> > > >> news:bGJjd.27380$Qv5.15787@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >> >I just subbed today, and it looks interesting.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > As you will see by my sig, I'm also a ham (greetings to the OM in
> > > >> > Australia
> > > >> > and the DK6 station, too), but not into amateur satellite
yet...so
> > > >> > don't
> > > >> > worry about me getting freaky with that stuff. :-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Hello DE VO1ONE :-) The only satellite I've ever worked was PCSAT
> for
> > > > APRS
> > > >> when that was still on the go. I've worked MIR before they plunged
> > into
> > > > the
> > > >> atmosphere and I've heard the ISS but never tried working them.
> > > >
> > > > Hello backatcha, OM! :-) That's quite a call you've got there.
I'll
> > bet
> > > > you had to wait a long time for that one, or were you able to get it
> > right
> > > > away?
> > >
> > > I got it right away. All calls in Canada are vanity for free :-)
> > Actually,
> > > it wasn't my first choice. They give you three choices, and they go
in
> > the
> > > order of your preferance and the first that's available is what you
get.
> > > However, I wasn't aware that they just switched VO1 over at the time
to
> > > different regulations for 2x2 calls. 2x2 calls are reserved for those
> who
> > > have had their licences for 5 years in most callsign prefix areas.
> > Labrador
> > > (VO2), since they have so few licencees does not have this
restriction.
> > > They called me since I hadn't picked any 2x3 callsigns, and I couldn't
> > think
> > > of one so I asked my girlfriend and that's what she picked for me.
It's
> a
> > > fun call to have and I really like it. A lot of ops get a kick out of
> it.
> >
> > Cool. I wonder who's got VO2TWO. :-)
>
> No one yet! I imagine it will be someone else with a similar sense of
> humour. Most flock to the 2x2 calls, and being that there have only been
> 173 VO2 calls issued out of 18,252 possible calls (676 2x2 calls + 17576
2x3
> calls) well, almost that many, I forgot you can't get calls that could
> represent Q signals, anyways the point is it will probably be a long time
> before that one gets issued!

True. As for Q signals, that is a point. Also things that would sound
obscene or indecent if vocalized. :-) I do know a N8QNA and an N8QLN, and
a N8QMY just went sk a few weeks ago, but none of those were Q signals.
Also heard a N8QFT that somebody said stood for "Quit Talking", which
would've been a good idea in his case. :-) But, there are a lot of
combinations if you remove the obviously bad ones.

> > > > We've had vanity calls here for a few years now, but usually, we
have
> > > > to list several preferences, and maybe wait for one to become
> available.
> > > > I
> > > > have a couple of friends, he's K8MEG, and she's W8MEG. She was
> KC8ECG,
> > I
> > > > believe, then got WA8MEG, then just got to drop the "A" a couple
years
> > > > ago,
> > > > when the previous holder of that call became a silent key.
> > >
> > > Which reminds me you can get a 2x2 call here right off the bat if it
> > > belonged to a relative that has gone sk.
> >
> > That's neat. I'm not sure what the rules are on retired calls here in
> > configurations that aren't normally issued anymore. I think with my
class
> > (General), I can only have a 1x3 or 2x3. I've had this call for 21
years,
> > though, and I'm sorta attached to it. If I ever get off my butt and go
> > Extra, I'll still probably keep it. The N and K calls of the 1x3
> persuasion
> > are going to be as "good" as having a W call, one day soon.
>
> Yeah, even though I originally wanted a 2x2, I've grown attached to my
call
> and I don't think I'll ever give it up.

I've got a couple of E-mail addresses with my call, and it just suits me. I
think I'd just about as soon change my legal name.

> > > > Anyway...Haven't
> > > > actually worked anything in orbit, but did hear Dr. Owen
Garrett(sp?)
> > when
> > > > ham radio first went up on the shuttle. I knew there was no sense
in
> me
> > > > trying to get back to him, because he most likely had a thousand
> > turnstile
> > > > and other types of directional antennas tracking him, but he was
> strong
> > > > enough that I actually did hear him over top of the very leaky cable
> TV
> > > > signal that was blanketing that portion of the 2m band at that time.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's my problem with space ops. I don't have any fancy
antennas
> > and
> > > most of my operations are mobile anyways so I'm quite limited. I've
> been
> > > considering getting one of those handheld 2m/70cm yagi arrays for
> > satellite
> > > if I run across one at a good price. I don't have any fancy satellite
> > > transceivers either. Those things cost as much as an HF radio, and
I'd
> > > think personally I'd get more enjoyment out of an HF rig.
> >
> > Well, calculating the Kepplerian elements, etc., and pointing the
antenna
> at
> > just the right spot for a 5-minute flyover sounds like more work than
the
> > enjoyment I'd get out of it, so I doubt I'd spend that kind of money on
a
> > sat transceiver. But, as for the Yagi, have you thought about building
> one
> > yourself? Make it a parasitic array with one driven element, and it
> should
> > work. There's a relationship between 2m and 70cm, too, that you might
be
> > able to have fun with where lengths and impedences are concerned.
>
> Free satellite tracking software makes the calculations easy, but
equipment
> costs money. I've made directional antennas for fox hunting before, I
guess
> it wouldn't be too difficult to make a dual band cross polarized hand held
> yagi array. Another project for the "want to do" list that might be years
> before I get around to it! ;-) So many things to experiment with, so
> little time and money...

I'd forgotten about the free software, but you are right. But, yeah, there
are lots of things to play with in ham radio, given enough time and
money...and energy. I've got lots of time, but my ambition needs a jump
start. I think youth is wasted on the young. :-)

> > > >> > I'm not sure if I'll be able to get into satellite radio any time
> > soon.
> > > > I
> > > >> > don't drive (also visually impaired), and where I live (a little
> > north
> > > > of
> > > >> > 42, and a little west of 83), my apartment faces east, and I have
> no
> > > >> > exposure directly to the south. About due southeast is as good
as
> I
> > > >> > can
> > > >> > do.
> > > >> > I've seen mention of terrestrial repeaters. Are these also in
the
> > > >> > microwave
> > > >> > bands, or are they at a longer wavelength than the celestial
stuf??
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm approximately at 47N and 52W lat/lon here. The terrestrial
> > repeaters
> > > >> are in the same band as the satellites themselves. The FCC
> authorized
> > > > both
> > > >> XM and Sirius 12.5 MHz worth of bandwidth, and both divide this up
> > > >> roughly
> > > >> into 3 segments of 4 MHz, two for the two satellites and one for
the
> > > >> repeaters. Sirius is from 2320 MHz to 2332.5 MHz and XM is 2332.5
> MHz
> > to
> > > >> 2345 MHz both well in the microwave realm of frequencies. The
> > repeaters
> > > >> don't have much better range than line of sight and are usually on
> top
> > of
> > > >> tall buildings in downtown cores. They'll go maybe 5 or 10 miles
> > > > depending
> > > >> on the surrounding terrain; it's hard to predict without doing some
> > > >> radiotopography maps. You may have some luck having the signal
> > > > penetrating
> > > >> your structure. Besides this, microwaves tend to bounce around a
lot
> > so
> > > >> even though you don't have a window to the south or south west you
> > still
> > > > may
> > > >> get a signal. Also, Sirius will tend to be to your North or
> Northwest
> > so
> > > >> maybe this is another option. I'd say run down to best buy and buy
a
> > > > setup
> > > >> but don't get it activated. Just listen using the preview channels
> and
> > > > see
> > > >> if you can get a signal somewhere in your house. If you can't you
> have
> > > >> 30
> > > >> days to bring it back to best buy and you get your money back.
Also
> I
> > > >> see
> > > >> that you mentioned being visually impared, perhaps you would enjoy
> XM's
> > > >> Sonic Theatre channel 163. They read a lot of books there, like
> books
> > on
> > > >> tape, bestsellers and the classics, as well as live radio dramas.
My
> > > > Dad's
> > > >> a books on tape fanatic and he really enjoys the channel as he's
> often
> > > >> too
> > > >> busy to read books and he can just listen in the car instead.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the info and the suggestions. I may actually wander out
to
> > > > Best
> > > > Buy when I've got a couple of Ben Franklins I don't know what to do
> > with.
> > > > And, even though, as I've read, the RF modulator solution isn't all
> that
> > > > great, so I might go with the type of receiver with the line-level
> > > > outputs.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is certainly the best way to go. Also if you decide on
> Sirius,
> > > you can get a complete setup for $50, which is a car or home
> > > cradle/antenna/power supplies/etc and receiver, and you just got to
> prepay
> > 3
> > > months worth of service upfront which is $39. Not a bad deal, and
it's
> > the
> > > same equipment they carry at best buy, but for cheaper, but I'd still
> try
> > > out the best buy setup for 30 days just to make sure it's going to
work
> > out
> > > for you.
> >
> > Oh, of course, I'd try it before committing. Unfortunately, it sounds
> like
> > XM has the programming I want and won't make me pay for the programming
I
> > don't want.
>
> The XM equipment isn't that much more. I guess if you planned on paying
> month to month and didn't get any of the premium packages on XM, the $3/mo
> savings would make up the difference in equipment cost after a couple
years
> ;-) Anyways for sure choose the provider which suits you best. A cheap
> radio won't do you any good if it can't get you the channels you want.

I doubt I'd go for too many premiums. Assuming most of those would be
sports, and I'd just as soon lie out on the lawn and listen to the grass
grow. Around here, I'd probably get rudely awakened by a weed whacker,
though. But, anyway...I'll figure something out if I really want to. I'm
still thinking that satellite would have a tough time getting in here,
because FM stations with their transmitters less than 2 miles away have a
tough time getting in here full quieting from room to room. Wish I knew
somebody with a portable satellite receiver.

> > > > As for having books read to me on the radio, that is too
restricting,
> > > > unless
> > > > I can tape them and play them back later. :-)
> > >
> > > Yeah, it's better for a long road trip, although I do know of people
who
> > > hook their sat radio up to their computer and record off of it that
way.
> > > There was this special on XM called "IT" the History of Pop Music,
where
> > > they played everything that hit the top 100 charts since the great
> > > depression. I think it lasted around 2 weeks continuously to get
> through
> > > all the songs and people taped the whole thing on their computers.
I'm
> > sure
> > > it makes for an excellent collection of tunes!
> >
> > That would take some serious storage, and you'd have to buy stock in a
> CD-R
> > company to record it all. :-) Or, maybe convert it all to MP3 and
> compress
> > it 'til it squeaks, then hope your CD player can play it.
>
> There are freeware audio recording programs which encode into MP3 on the
fly
> so you never have to record it as a wav first then encode it all into an
> mp3. It just saves it as an mp3 as it's going so that allows. A 2 week
> long mp3 at 128k/sec would take up just under 20GB worth of space, not too
> shabby!

20GB isn't too bad. That's less than 30 700MB CD-Rs. :-) And, 128k/sec
isn't a bad rate.

> > > > I've been into the Library
> > > > of Congress' Talking Books program since the mid '60s, back when
> Talking
> > > > Books were on 10" and 12" vinyl discs, playing at 33 1/3 and 16 2/3
> rpm.
> > > > There was also some open reel tape, too, but I didn't get into that
> > until
> > > > the late '60s, early '70s, and was into that for a short while.
Since
> > > > about
> > > > '72 or '73, things have been moving over to cassette, and now, about
> all
> > > > the
> > > > Talking Books that aren't on computer discs are on cassette. That's
> in
> > > > the
> > > > special Library of Congress format, which is 4-track, 15/16ips, so a
> > > > 90-minute cassette can have up to 6 hours on it. They're working on
> > some
> > > > media cards and readers that will be durable enough and cheap enough
> for
> > > > free lending like the cassettes and players we have now. BTW, WKAR
in
> > > > East
> > > > Lansing, on the Michigan State University campus, has had for many
> years
> > > > something they call the Radio Talking Book. I guess it's a national
> > > > thing,
> > > > but I got the receiver that picks up the WKAR signal. It's actually
> on
> > > > SCA
> > > > (subsidiary carrier authorization), which is a sideband off the main
> > > > frequency. It's not as strong a signal as the main carrier, of
> course,
> > > > and
> > > > I live on the wrong side of the building for it, but I never did get
> > into
> > > > it
> > > > all that heavily when I was in a position to hear it well. I need
to
> > > > figure
> > > > out how to send their receiver back to them, I guess.
> > >
> > > I've used my HF rig as an SCA receiver before. There's a lot of
> > interesting
> > > things on SCA like elevator music, Muzak (that commercial free music
> > service
> > > that plays adult contemporary music in McDonalds), and radio reading
> > service
> > > for the blind which reads books and the day's newspaper. There's also
> > data
> > > services I've never tried to decode but I guess they're stock tickers
> and
> > > stuff like that, plus RDS data. My Icom IC-706 goes down to 30kHz but
> any
> > > receiver that goes down to between 50 and 100kHz will work fine. You
> just
> > > hook up the antenna input on your shortwave receiver to a decent FM
> radio
> > at
> > > the detector output. I just opened up one of my FM radios until I
found
> > the
> > > tuner IC and I looked up the pinouts online to find out which one was
> the
> > > detector. I also connected the ground of the 706 to the ground of the
> FM
> > > radio and it works great.
> >
> > Now, that sounds like fun. Assuming it's SSB, similar to to the way FM
> > stereo is modulated onto the carrier. Also assuming you pick it up off
> the
> > detector before it goes through the de-emphasis filter.
>
> Actually they are AM subcarriers, so you'd set your radio to AM mode, not
> ssb. It is very similar to the way FM stereo is modulated onto the
carrier.
> The R-L part of the stereo signal is in the 20 to 40 kHz range
> approximately, so right above where the monaural audio is (0-20kHz). Yes
> you would pick it up off of the detector before it goes to anything :)

It's been a little over 25 years since I went for my commercial radio
license, but I thought the FM stereo business used SSB and needed a 19kHz
carrier injected into the signal at the receiver. There's a 38kHz pilot
frequency involved in there someplace, too. But, I guess the detector would
take care of all of that, so it would be AM coming off the detector.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Bob Haberkost

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:X8Ild.20430$Rf1.16714@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> Actually they are AM subcarriers, so you'd set your radio to AM mode, not
>> ssb. It is very similar to the way FM stereo is modulated onto the
> carrier.
>> The R-L part of the stereo signal is in the 20 to 40 kHz range
>> approximately, so right above where the monaural audio is (0-20kHz). Yes
>> you would pick it up off of the detector before it goes to anything :)
>
> It's been a little over 25 years since I went for my commercial radio
> license, but I thought the FM stereo business used SSB and needed a 19kHz
> carrier injected into the signal at the receiver. There's a 38kHz pilot
> frequency involved in there someplace, too. But, I guess the detector would
> take care of all of that, so it would be AM coming off the detector.

Actually, the mutliplexed FM Stereo L-R channel is centered around 38kHz (twice the
19kHz pilot tone), and is DSB carrier-suppressed AM. In an FM Stereo demodulator,
the 19kHz pilot is the reference which informs the demodulator to regenerate the
38Khz carrier, restoring the DSB L-R channel back to full DSB. Assuming that the FM
passband is 15kHz, the L-R energy will be found from 23 to 53 kHz. FM stereo
demodulators these days (and FM stereo modulators at the front-end) actually use
digital techniques now to direct the left and right channels to their appointed
places, the net result, so far as modulation theory is concerned, is unchanged.

Television multiplexed stereo uses a similar strategy, except that here the "pilot"
is the horizontal sweep frequency - 15,734 kHz. Therefore TV stereo has some
limitations in the L-R channel, as the center frequency for the difference channel
isn't high enough (or is just barely so) to allow a full 15kHz passband in the L-R
channel
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

Mark S.

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
news:FuKld.2460$b73.1536@trndny04...
>
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:X8Ild.20430$Rf1.16714@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >> Actually they are AM subcarriers, so you'd set your radio to AM mode,
not
> >> ssb. It is very similar to the way FM stereo is modulated onto the
> > carrier.
> >> The R-L part of the stereo signal is in the 20 to 40 kHz range
> >> approximately, so right above where the monaural audio is (0-20kHz).
Yes
> >> you would pick it up off of the detector before it goes to anything :)
> >
> > It's been a little over 25 years since I went for my commercial radio
> > license, but I thought the FM stereo business used SSB and needed a
19kHz
> > carrier injected into the signal at the receiver. There's a 38kHz pilot
> > frequency involved in there someplace, too. But, I guess the detector
would
> > take care of all of that, so it would be AM coming off the detector.
>
> Actually, the mutliplexed FM Stereo L-R channel is centered around 38kHz
(twice the
> 19kHz pilot tone), and is DSB carrier-suppressed AM. In an FM Stereo
demodulator,
> the 19kHz pilot is the reference which informs the demodulator to
regenerate the
> 38Khz carrier, restoring the DSB L-R channel back to full DSB. Assuming
that the FM
> passband is 15kHz, the L-R energy will be found from 23 to 53 kHz. FM
stereo
> demodulators these days (and FM stereo modulators at the front-end)
actually use
> digital techniques now to direct the left and right channels to their
appointed
> places, the net result, so far as modulation theory is concerned, is
unchanged.
>
> Television multiplexed stereo uses a similar strategy, except that here
the "pilot"
> is the horizontal sweep frequency - 15,734 kHz. Therefore TV stereo has
some
> limitations in the L-R channel, as the center frequency for the difference
channel
> isn't high enough (or is just barely so) to allow a full 15kHz passband in
the L-R
> channel

Aha! The reason why channel 6's audio does not come in in stereo on the car
radios that go down to 87.7(5)MHz. I was wondering about that but never got
around to looking it up. Thanks!

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> > It's been a little over 25 years since I went for my commercial radio
> > license, but I thought the FM stereo business used SSB and needed a 19kHz
> > carrier injected into the signal at the receiver.

a 19 Khz audio tone is broadcast from the transmitter. In fact, once at a mono FM
station, I saw someone put an audio signal generator to the board and mixed it in with
the programming, and it turned on the STEREO light on FM receivers tuned to the
station. Usually there will be filters that would not allow anything above 15 Khz
to get through to the transmitter from the board, but not at this station. It
actually worked.

In fact, one automated station I worked at once used 25 hz tones at the end of each song
to trigger the next song. When deciding between a Yamaha and Denon stereo in a
store, I turned up the Yamaha tuned to that station between two songs and heard
nothing. With the Denon, I could hear the low rumble and see the speaker
vibrating. That sold me on my first Denon. Had a class A amplifier too. You
can have a CD player connected and paused, turn the volume control all the way up, put
your ear to the speakers and hear nothing. With the Yamaha, you would hear tons of
hiss.

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Bob Haberkost" <cbclistener-really!-@canada.com> wrote in message
news:FuKld.2460$b73.1536@trndny04...
>
> "Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:X8Ild.20430$Rf1.16714@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >> Actually they are AM subcarriers, so you'd set your radio to AM mode,
not
> >> ssb. It is very similar to the way FM stereo is modulated onto the
> > carrier.
> >> The R-L part of the stereo signal is in the 20 to 40 kHz range
> >> approximately, so right above where the monaural audio is (0-20kHz).
Yes
> >> you would pick it up off of the detector before it goes to anything :)
> >
> > It's been a little over 25 years since I went for my commercial radio
> > license, but I thought the FM stereo business used SSB and needed a
19kHz
> > carrier injected into the signal at the receiver. There's a 38kHz pilot
> > frequency involved in there someplace, too. But, I guess the detector
would
> > take care of all of that, so it would be AM coming off the detector.
>
> Actually, the mutliplexed FM Stereo L-R channel is centered around 38kHz
(twice the
> 19kHz pilot tone), and is DSB carrier-suppressed AM. In an FM Stereo
demodulator,
> the 19kHz pilot is the reference which informs the demodulator to
regenerate the
> 38Khz carrier, restoring the DSB L-R channel back to full DSB. Assuming
that the FM
> passband is 15kHz, the L-R energy will be found from 23 to 53 kHz. FM
stereo
> demodulators these days (and FM stereo modulators at the front-end)
actually use
> digital techniques now to direct the left and right channels to their
appointed
> places, the net result, so far as modulation theory is concerned, is
unchanged.
>
> Television multiplexed stereo uses a similar strategy, except that here
the "pilot"
> is the horizontal sweep frequency - 15,734 kHz. Therefore TV stereo has
some
> limitations in the L-R channel, as the center frequency for the difference
channel
> isn't high enough (or is just barely so) to allow a full 15kHz passband in
the L-R
> channel

Ah! Now, it all comes back to me. Thanks for the review. :-) That was
something I wasn't tested on, either in the Second or First 'Phone tests.
(I got my license before the two classes were consolidated into the General
'Phone.)

Of course, we didn't have digital in '79, anyway. It is good that the
digital techniques they're using now are compatible with the old equipment.
Probably similar to the cheaper ham radio transceivers they have these days,
which use phase modulation for transmit because it's cheaper to do than true
FM.

I may have to take a refresher course on TV when everything switches over to
high-definition. :-( Hey, NTSC was fine. Why'd they have to change it?
God knows, the technology is going to far outclass the content!
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41981BCD.95579A84@sucks.com...
> > > It's been a little over 25 years since I went for my commercial radio
> > > license, but I thought the FM stereo business used SSB and needed a
19kHz
> > > carrier injected into the signal at the receiver.
>
> a 19 Khz audio tone is broadcast from the transmitter. In fact, once at
a mono FM
> station, I saw someone put an audio signal generator to the board and
mixed it in with
> the programming, and it turned on the STEREO light on FM receivers tuned
to the
> station. Usually there will be filters that would not allow anything
above 15 Khz
> to get through to the transmitter from the board, but not at this station.
It
> actually worked.

Cute. I wonder how many people took their receivers in to the shop to get
serviced. :-)

> In fact, one automated station I worked at once used 25 hz tones at the
end of each song
> to trigger the next song. When deciding between a Yamaha and Denon
stereo in a
> store, I turned up the Yamaha tuned to that station between two songs and
heard
> nothing. With the Denon, I could hear the low rumble and see the
speaker
> vibrating. That sold me on my first Denon. Had a class A amplifier
too. You
> can have a CD player connected and paused, turn the volume control all the
way up, put
> your ear to the speakers and hear nothing. With the Yamaha, you would
hear tons of
> hiss.

Interesting. I can't afford real audiophile-grade equipment here. One of
these days...
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> > In fact, one automated station I worked at once used 25 hz tones at the
> end of each song
> > to trigger the next song. When deciding between a Yamaha and Denon
> stereo in a
> > store, I turned up the Yamaha tuned to that station between two songs and
> heard
> > nothing. With the Denon, I could hear the low rumble and see the
> speaker
> > vibrating. That sold me on my first Denon. Had a class A amplifier
> too. You
> > can have a CD player connected and paused, turn the volume control all the
> way up, put
> > your ear to the speakers and hear nothing. With the Yamaha, you would
> hear tons of
> > hiss.
>
> Interesting. I can't afford real audiophile-grade equipment here. One of
> these days...

Actually, you can. It is considered old now, and you occasionally find this
model on Ebay for real cheap, it is the Denon DRA-350. It came in black and
silver, and I actually got a second one a few years ago from Ebay for around $25
so I could have one in both colors and a second unit for another room.

This has a class A amplifier, but today, you would have to pay thousands of
dollars to get a Denon with a class A amp in it.

Since everyone is into getting a stereo with surround sound and 5.1, you can get
this plain two channel stereo for real cheap on the used market, and it is much
better than anything you can afford new in the store today under thousands of
dollars. It only cost around $200 - $400 new, but today, you will not find a
Class A amp in any unit for that price either.

There was also another model number near it that was also the same but with a
little more power out that you can probably find to.

One of the sweetest things about this unit is the phono preamp section. When
you play a turntable through the built in phono preamp, the sound will amaze
you. This unit was known for it's sweet phono amp. In fact, I would like
to get another one of these units just to use as an oversized phono preamp since
nothing else sounds as sweet.

The output of this unit is clean, so it can be played at ear deafening volumes,
even though many would never believe it until they actually come over and hear
it for themselves.

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> > Actually, the mutliplexed FM Stereo L-R channel is centered around 38kHz
> (twice the
> > 19kHz pilot tone), and is DSB carrier-suppressed AM. In an FM Stereo
> demodulator,
> > the 19kHz pilot is the reference which informs the demodulator to
> regenerate the
> > 38Khz carrier, restoring the DSB L-R channel back to full DSB. Assuming
> that the FM
> > passband is 15kHz, the L-R energy will be found from 23 to 53 kHz. FM
> stereo
> > demodulators these days (and FM stereo modulators at the front-end)
> actually use
> > digital techniques now to direct the left and right channels to their
> appointed
> > places, the net result, so far as modulation theory is concerned, is
> unchanged.
> >
> > Television multiplexed stereo uses a similar strategy, except that here
> the "pilot"
> > is the horizontal sweep frequency - 15,734 kHz. Therefore TV stereo has
> some
> > limitations in the L-R channel, as the center frequency for the difference
> channel
> > isn't high enough (or is just barely so) to allow a full 15kHz passband in
> the L-R
> > channel
>
> Ah! Now, it all comes back to me. Thanks for the review. :-) That was
> something I wasn't tested on, either in the Second or First 'Phone tests.

You should have been. (except for the stereo TV part that was not around yet
during those tests)

> (I got my license before the two classes were consolidated into the General
> 'Phone.)

Which is pretty much the exact same test given for the Ham radio Extra Class
license. One borrowed the same questions from the other, I just forget which
stole them from who. But if you pass one exam, might as well take the same
test for the other service and get both licenses.

The General Class Radiotelephone License is really simple now. Nothing like
it was when the First Class was around. You don't even need to drive tons of
miles to go to an FCC office, you can take it from independent testing companies
that send the results in to the FCC which sends you your license.

And no more certificates! Just a crummy laser printed wallet card like you
get for your ham license. Although there is a company that prints
certificates on authentic paper and style of the old licenses, and even asks you
license number and verifies you have the license before sending you one for a
fee that is suitable for framing. The only thing missing from it is the FCC
seal, which they can not obviously recreate for you.

> Of course, we didn't have digital in '79, anyway. It is good that the
> digital techniques they're using now are compatible with the old equipment.

And that is why when FM went to FM stereo, or black and white television went to
color, that it was successful, because old mono radios and black and white sets
still can be used today with it, they are backwards compatible.

But HDTV can not be successful, since it requires everyone throw away all their
sets and vcrs and buy a new set or vcr for every room of their home at thousands
of dollars each set.

Never going to happen.

> Probably similar to the cheaper ham radio transceivers they have these days,
> which use phase modulation for transmit because it's cheaper to do than true
> FM.

Really the only ones doing that were some Yaesu HTs from around 10 years ago,
like the FT-470. Now, the Yaesu HTs use real FM too.

> I may have to take a refresher course on TV when everything switches over to
> high-definition. :-( Hey, NTSC was fine. Why'd they have to change it?

To stimulate the economy, forcing everyone to go out and buy new sets, and to
make pirate stations more difficult, thus why they are also trying to change AM
and FM to digital too.

John A. Weeks III

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

In article <419A1FB6.63A0140D@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> But HDTV can not be successful, since it requires everyone throw away all
> their
> sets and vcrs and buy a new set or vcr for every room of their home at
> thousands
> of dollars each set.
>
> Never going to happen.

Bull. All you need to do is add on a digital TV decoder, and you
are ready to roll. You can use all your old equipment, but just
have a much cleaner input signal. You can also upgrade over time,
and get the benefits of the new widescreen format and 5.1 sound.
HDTV is already successful, and there is no going back for those
who have already gotten a taste of it.

-john-

--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> > But HDTV can not be successful, since it requires everyone throw away all
> > their
> > sets and vcrs and buy a new set or vcr for every room of their home at
> > thousands
> > of dollars each set.
> >
> > Never going to happen.
>
> Bull. All you need to do is add on a digital TV decoder, and you
> are ready to roll.

They don't come cheap, and you never needed a decoder to use your mono radios
and black and white TV sets!

Think of it more like VHF and UHF. You needed a CONVERTER box to get UHF,
but it didn't help UHF! Not until the FCC mandated that all sets be
manufactured to receive BOTH was UHF able to be successful.

Perhaps if the FCC mandates all sets be required to receive both analog and
digital TV signals, THEN over time, when everyone has a set that gets both,
like everyone has a set that gets VHF and UHF, THEN you can have some success
with HDTV, but not before that time!

How long have people still today have the idea that UHF stations are not as
good as VHF and the programming was always different because no major network
would touch a UHF station. Now FINALLY the networks are using some UHF
stations. And mostly because they are carried by cable anyway, so cable
helped equal them too.

> You can use all your old equipment, but just
> have a much cleaner input signal.

Wrong. None of the cable ready features will work with this box! I can not
set the VCR to record one channel and then another the next hour with these
boxes.

> You can also upgrade over time,
> and get the benefits of the new widescreen format and 5.1 sound.

But people never HAD to upgrade and many STILL use their black and white TV
sets and mono FM radios today! If they didn't make THAT transition yet,
why would they make this one?

> HDTV is already successful

PLEASE! Don't insult our intelligence with such a statement.

John A. Weeks III

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

In article <419A4F2F.24A0B443@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> > > But HDTV can not be successful, since it requires everyone throw away all
> > > their
> > > sets and vcrs and buy a new set or vcr for every room of their home at
> > > thousands
> > > of dollars each set.
> > >
> > > Never going to happen.
> >
> > Bull. All you need to do is add on a digital TV decoder, and you
> > are ready to roll.
>
> They don't come cheap, and you never needed a decoder to use your mono radios
> and black and white TV sets!

DTV decoders are available for $100 to $200 on E-bay, and you can get
them for free from both Direct TV and Dish Network if you subscribe
to the satellite HD group. And what could this possibly have to do
with mono audio and B&W TV? If you want to stay in the stone age,
you are perfectly welcome to do that, but if so, then don't knock
those of us who are moving forward.

> How long have people still today have the idea that UHF stations are not as
> good as VHF and the programming was always different because no major network
> would touch a UHF station. Now FINALLY the networks are using some UHF
> stations.

That isn't the case in most major markets. Consider Madison, Wisconsin.
ABC is 27, NBC is 15, PBS is 21, and UPN is 47. Due to their close
distance to Milwaukee and Chicago, and the flat terrain, the Mad City
has only one VHF station, CBS on 3. It has been that way for decades.

> > You can use all your old equipment, but just
> > have a much cleaner input signal.
>
> Wrong. None of the cable ready features will work with this box! I can
> not
> set the VCR to record one channel and then another the next hour with these
> boxes.

When you can get HD off the air, who gives a rip about cable. All
cable does is make the picture snowy and fuzzy. Why would anyone with
nice HD-capable equipment want to do that???

> > You can also upgrade over time,
> > and get the benefits of the new widescreen format and 5.1 sound.
>
> But people never HAD to upgrade and many STILL use their black and white TV
> sets and mono FM radios today! If they didn't make THAT transition yet,
> why would they make this one?

Yeah, and there are still people driving horses and buggies in this neck
of the woods. That doesn't mean that it is (a) smart, or (b) common.
The fact is that all technology eventually wears out and needs to be
replaced. But in the mean time, my 1983 vintage Sony trinatron works
just fine on HDTV using a off-the-air decoder box.

> > HDTV is already successful
>
> PLEASE! Don't insult our intelligence with such a statement.

It seems hard not to insult you since you have such odd points of view.
If HDTV is up and running, and it works, and people are using it, and
companies are making money selling it, then how could anyone say that
it is not successful?

-john-

--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> > > > But HDTV can not be successful, since it requires everyone throw away all
> > > > their
> > > > sets and vcrs and buy a new set or vcr for every room of their home at
> > > > thousands
> > > > of dollars each set.
> > > >
> > > > Never going to happen.
> > >
> > > Bull. All you need to do is add on a digital TV decoder, and you
> > > are ready to roll.
> >
> > They don't come cheap, and you never needed a decoder to use your mono radios
> > and black and white TV sets!
>
> DTV decoders are available for $100 to $200 on E-bay

AGAIN. I will need about a dozen or more for every set in the house, PLUS for all
the VCRs.

Ebay doesn't have enough to supply just my block, let alone the whole country, PLUS
the fact that they are not cable ready compatible.

Note that NO converter of ANY kind is needed to still use black and white TV sets
to view programs broadcast in color.

LEARN from that.

> to the satellite HD group. And what could this possibly have to do
> with mono audio and B&W TV?

Because when NEW color television technology came out, it still WORKED on
everyone's old sets, they did not have to buy new tvs, OR get converter boxes!
Same when STEREO broadcasting came, the old FM mono radios STILL WORK...

Now,,,, get ready.....

With HDTV, all of the existing TV sets do NOT WORK!

Thus the problem.

Never in history did everyone, and I mean EVERYONE have to go out and buy all new
sets or get converter boxes, or not be able to watch TV or listen to radio anymore.

Yet this is what the FCC expects everyone to do this time.

HA HA HA!

> If you want to stay in the stone age,
> you are perfectly welcome to do that, but if so, then don't knock
> those of us who are moving forward.

Not EVERYONE can afford thousands of dollars to replace all their existing sets and
vcrs!

In fact MOST will NOT do this, considering how many still have black and white sets
and that they are still being manufactured and sold.

YOU will be stuck with the AM stereo radio that no stations broadcast to anymore.

> > How long have people still today have the idea that UHF stations are not as
> > good as VHF and the programming was always different because no major network
> > would touch a UHF station. Now FINALLY the networks are using some UHF
> > stations.
>

> > > You can use all your old equipment, but just
> > > have a much cleaner input signal.
> >
> > Wrong. None of the cable ready features will work with this box! I can
> > not
> > set the VCR to record one channel and then another the next hour with these
> > boxes.
>
> When you can get HD off the air, who gives a rip about cable.

How will you watch CNN, Discovery, or any of the cable networks? Local
television SUCKS!

> All
> cable does is make the picture snowy and fuzzy.

Now you are just being an ass.

John A. Weeks III

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

In article <419A7F76.A0217625@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:

> With HDTV, all of the existing TV sets do NOT WORK!
> Thus the problem.

That simply is not true. I have a 1983 Sony 25" color set that
I use for HDTV. It works just fine. I do have a DTV decoder,
a Samsung SIR-150T. That was all that I needed to add to that
system. I can still watch existing TV. I can watch TV off of
the bird. I can watch HDTV. I can also record and play HDTV
on my VCR. Granted, it will be in NTSC format, but since HDTV
is crystal clear, the NTSC picture is better than anything I
have ever gotten off the air or from our snowy cable system.

You don't have to spend thousands on HDTV. You can buy a $12,000
plasma screen if you want, but nearly any old TV will work just
fine. You don't even have to buy the decoder like I did, Dish
Network and DirectTV are willing to give you one for free.
Some cable systems will also give you HD boxes, but I don't
know much about cable since I never saw a cable system that
didn't have ghosts and fuzzy pictures, so I don't do cable.

-john-

--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> > With HDTV, all of the existing TV sets do NOT WORK!
> > Thus the problem.
>
> That simply is not true.

It really IS true.

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:161120041153062769%john@johnweeks.com...
> In article <419A1FB6.63A0140D@sucks.com>, Truth <yenc@sucks.com> wrote:
>
> > But HDTV can not be successful, since it requires everyone throw away
all
> > their
> > sets and vcrs and buy a new set or vcr for every room of their home at
> > thousands
> > of dollars each set.
> >
> > Never going to happen.
>
> Bull. All you need to do is add on a digital TV decoder, and you
> are ready to roll. You can use all your old equipment, but just
> have a much cleaner input signal. You can also upgrade over time,
> and get the benefits of the new widescreen format and 5.1 sound.

You're making a lot of assumptions, here. First, you're assuming that
everybody's got a nice, HDTV-ready antenna outside on a nice, tall tower.
Most people can do that, I'll grant you. Some of us can't. Some of is live
in concrete and steel boxes, not by choice, but by necessity.

> HDTV is already successful, and there is no going back for those
> who have already gotten a taste of it.

HDTV won't be a success until a poor person can walk into a Starvation Army
store on the east side of Flint and pick up a used HD set for $100. I don't
see that happening any time soon.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419A1CF0.7A055B3B@sucks.com...
> > > In fact, one automated station I worked at once used 25 hz tones at
the
> > end of each song
> > > to trigger the next song. When deciding between a Yamaha and Denon
> > stereo in a
> > > store, I turned up the Yamaha tuned to that station between two songs
and
> > heard
> > > nothing. With the Denon, I could hear the low rumble and see the
> > speaker
> > > vibrating. That sold me on my first Denon. Had a class A
amplifier
> > too. You
> > > can have a CD player connected and paused, turn the volume control all
the
> > way up, put
> > > your ear to the speakers and hear nothing. With the Yamaha, you
would
> > hear tons of
> > > hiss.
> >
> > Interesting. I can't afford real audiophile-grade equipment here. One
of
> > these days...
>
> Actually, you can. It is considered old now, and you occasionally find
this
> model on Ebay for real cheap, it is the Denon DRA-350. It came in black
and
> silver, and I actually got a second one a few years ago from Ebay for
around $25
> so I could have one in both colors and a second unit for another room.

Man, you do a lot of eBaying, don't you? :-)

> This has a class A amplifier, but today, you would have to pay thousands
of
> dollars to get a Denon with a class A amp in it.

Of course, I could *build* a pair of class-A amps, as far as that goes; I
could even go with 6L6 tubes if I wanted to go that far back. :-) But, I'd
still need some decent speakers, and they're not cheap.

> Since everyone is into getting a stereo with surround sound and 5.1, you
can get
> this plain two channel stereo for real cheap on the used market, and it is
much
> better than anything you can afford new in the store today under thousands
of
> dollars. It only cost around $200 - $400 new, but today, you will not
find a
> Class A amp in any unit for that price either.

Again, I'd need speakers. Klipsch ain't in my budget.

> There was also another model number near it that was also the same but
with a
> little more power out that you can probably find to.

Power is necessary if you want bass at low volume that doesn't sound forced.

> One of the sweetest things about this unit is the phono preamp section.
When
> you play a turntable through the built in phono preamp, the sound will
amaze
> you. This unit was known for it's sweet phono amp. In fact, I would
like
> to get another one of these units just to use as an oversized phono preamp
since
> nothing else sounds as sweet.

But then, if you don't have a decent turntable -- or even any vinyl for that
matter -- that's kind of lost. It's probably set up for a magnetic
cartridge, anyway.

> The output of this unit is clean, so it can be played at ear deafening
volumes,
> even though many would never believe it until they actually come over and
hear
> it for themselves.

That's nice, but again, without speakers...
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419A1FB6.63A0140D@sucks.com...
> > > Actually, the mutliplexed FM Stereo L-R channel is centered around
38kHz
> > (twice the
> > > 19kHz pilot tone), and is DSB carrier-suppressed AM. In an FM Stereo
> > demodulator,
> > > the 19kHz pilot is the reference which informs the demodulator to
> > regenerate the
> > > 38Khz carrier, restoring the DSB L-R channel back to full DSB.
Assuming
> > that the FM
> > > passband is 15kHz, the L-R energy will be found from 23 to 53 kHz. FM
> > stereo
> > > demodulators these days (and FM stereo modulators at the front-end)
> > actually use
> > > digital techniques now to direct the left and right channels to their
> > appointed
> > > places, the net result, so far as modulation theory is concerned, is
> > unchanged.
> > >
> > > Television multiplexed stereo uses a similar strategy, except that
here
> > the "pilot"
> > > is the horizontal sweep frequency - 15,734 kHz. Therefore TV stereo
has
> > some
> > > limitations in the L-R channel, as the center frequency for the
difference
> > channel
> > > isn't high enough (or is just barely so) to allow a full 15kHz
passband in
> > the L-R
> > > channel
> >
> > Ah! Now, it all comes back to me. Thanks for the review. :-) That
was
> > something I wasn't tested on, either in the Second or First 'Phone
tests.
>
> You should have been. (except for the stereo TV part that was not
around yet
> during those tests)

Shoot, I got tested for everything else. I might have been. I don't
remember. I sure remember the ambiguous way they worded the question on
deviation, though. I didn't know if they *meant* deviation, or if they
meant swing. I still don't. I'd have to look at the question again, seeing
how many commas were used and how they were placed, although I think that
was about the time folks started being afraid of the comma. :-)

> > (I got my license before the two classes were consolidated into the
General
> > 'Phone.)
>
> Which is pretty much the exact same test given for the Ham radio Extra
Class
> license. One borrowed the same questions from the other, I just forget
which
> stole them from who. But if you pass one exam, might as well take the
same
> test for the other service and get both licenses.

The Amateur Extra Class test is heavier into digital than it used to be, I'm
hearing. At the time I took my First 'Phone, I was still messing around
with 11m. I didn't get my Novice until '81, and just did a "paper upgrade"
to General a couple years ago.

> The General Class Radiotelephone License is really simple now. Nothing
like
> it was when the First Class was around. You don't even need to drive
tons of
> miles to go to an FCC office, you can take it from independent testing
companies
> that send the results in to the FCC which sends you your license.

Does the FCC even administer tests anymore? I mean, if I had waited until
now to do it, could I have done it the way I did before, going to Detroit
and taking it there, or would I *have* to go with one of the independents?
I know with the ham stuff, there are volunteer examiners, and there's always
a VE session on the weekend or one or two evenings in the middle of the week
somewhere, and the FCC *does not* administer ham tests anymore.

> And no more certificates! Just a crummy laser printed wallet card like
you
> get for your ham license. Although there is a company that prints
> certificates on authentic paper and style of the old licenses, and even
asks you
> license number and verifies you have the license before sending you one
for a
> fee that is suitable for framing. The only thing missing from it is the
FCC
> seal, which they can not obviously recreate for you.

I'm told that the license really doesn't mean as much as it did before,
anyway, and that the accepted documentation is a certificate from the
Society of Broadcast Engineers after taking one of their tests. Well, I do
have the purty piece of paper and the verification card, and they're good
for life, whatever good they are. :-) PG-19-5757, IIRC. Liked it better
when it was P1. I worked my butt off for that P1, durn it! :-( Thank you,
Ronald Reagan.

> > Of course, we didn't have digital in '79, anyway. It is good that the
> > digital techniques they're using now are compatible with the old
equipment.
>
> And that is why when FM went to FM stereo, or black and white television
went to
> color, that it was successful, because old mono radios and black and white
sets
> still can be used today with it, they are backwards compatible.

Right.

> But HDTV can not be successful, since it requires everyone throw away all
their
> sets and vcrs and buy a new set or vcr for every room of their home at
thousands
> of dollars each set.
>
> Never going to happen.

I don't think I'd say "never", but it's certainly not going to happen
universally by aught-six, like the 1991 plan set forth. What I'm hoping
for, if it gets right down to "convert or do without", is an inexpensive
set-top box that will act as a block converter and display a 16:9 aspect
ratio on a 4:3 set. So, it'll be letterbox, but I'm getting used to that
with the NBC and UPN stuff, anyway. I'm not sure how doable that'll be
though, picking up a block of digital frequencies, remodulating them to
NTSC, then converting them to regular cable frequencies. Sure, the digital
quality picture and sound won't be there, but that'll be okay for a few
years until the price of the HDTV equipment comes down.

> > Probably similar to the cheaper ham radio transceivers they have these
days,
> > which use phase modulation for transmit because it's cheaper to do than
true
> > FM.
>
> Really the only ones doing that were some Yaesu HTs from around 10 years
ago,
> like the FT-470. Now, the Yaesu HTs use real FM too.

That's cool. So happens I have an FT-470. Maybe I'll buy me another HT and
put this one on 1200-baud packet. :-) I had an Icom IC-2AT that I'm told
was true FM. It was a nice radio for packet, with a 40W Ramsey amplifier
between it and the antenna.

> > I may have to take a refresher course on TV when everything switches
over to
> > high-definition. :-( Hey, NTSC was fine. Why'd they have to change
it?
>
> To stimulate the economy, forcing everyone to go out and buy new sets, and
to
> make pirate stations more difficult, thus why they are also trying to
change AM
> and FM to digital too.

If that's their aim, they need to make some serious adjustments for windage
and drop, 'cause they're not even hitting the backstop.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> Man, you do a lot of eBaying, don't you? :-)

Not really. In fact, MOST things that I find on Ebay, I can get brand new, in
a box, with warranty and instruction manual, for HALF what things sell for on
Ebay. After all, Ebay is an auction site, and an auction is a contest in
which people compete to see who can pay the MOST for an item.

But with something like an old 80s CLASS A amplifier Denon stereo, the consumer
is too stupid to know it is better than anything on the market today, plus it
doesn't have digital inputs and 5.1 and surround, so the consumer doesn't want
this and doesn't bid on it, and I end up the winner. If you go look at any
Denons today that are under $1000, they don't have class A amplifiers
anymore. Don't know how much you have to pay to get one if they make any at
all anymore.

> Again, I'd need speakers. Klipsch ain't in my budget.

You don't want those. Dynaudio is the best, and you can find them on the used
market so you don't have to pay thousands of dollars for them.

> > There was also another model number near it that was also the same but
> with a
> > little more power out that you can probably find to.
>
> Power is necessary if you want bass at low volume that doesn't sound forced.

This unit is clean. I don't remember what it was rated at, but under 75
watts I think, and I can turn it up so loud people have to cover their ears with
their hands and still no distortion. When I ask people how many watts they
think it is, they always guess 200 or more watts.

But for normal actual listening, I never have the volume control over 1/4 way
up, so why anyone needs anything more powerful is just because they think they
need to have it, or because other stereos need 200 watts so that they are clean
at 20 watts. This one is clean at 20 watts because it is well designed.

> > One of the sweetest things about this unit is the phono preamp section.
> When
> > you play a turntable through the built in phono preamp, the sound will
> amaze
> > you. This unit was known for it's sweet phono amp. In fact, I would
> like
> > to get another one of these units just to use as an oversized phono preamp
> since
> > nothing else sounds as sweet.
>
> But then, if you don't have a decent turntable -- or even any vinyl for that
> matter -- that's kind of lost. It's probably set up for a magnetic
> cartridge, anyway.

That's all I am talking about. And it is absolutely amazing. I remember
making a cassette tape of some records through this unit, and brought the
cassette with in a friend's car. He wanted to know what the hell I did because
he never heard anything sound so good before. And this was after it was
recorded to a cassette first.

In fact, I have taken things from these cassettes, digitally removed any tape
hiss, and remastered them to CD, and those CDs sound better than a lot of modern
CD recordings sold in stores today.

> That's nice, but again, without speakers...

Yes the speakers are the most important part of the system. Better to have
better speakers and a lesser quality stereo, than the best stereo in the world
and a poor pair of speakers.

Always budget for the speakers first. Then find the stereo.

But it is amazing what you can find of both on the used market, because a lot of
people judge the sound by magazine articles instead of their own ears, and they
will get rid of the best stuff and think they are "upgrading" to better stuff
just because it costs a lot more money.

I helped a friend pick up some speakers some guy was selling, and he was all
impressed with his home set up and invited us into his "listening room" to
impress us with his system. He had the wires from the amps going to the
speakers elevated from the floor on upside down wine glasses. I didn't want
to ask. But when I got home, I looked it up on the internet, and it turns
out these people actually think it helps the sound! Yes, you heard right.
Elevating the speaker wire off the floor is supposed to make it SOUND better.
Everything in his HI-FI cabinet was on bouncy moving shelves and on special
expensive rubber mats, and his place was a museum of every quack device made.

The ironic part was that when he played us something, it sounded just awful.
The system in my car sounds 100 times better.

I actually found a company that makes special glass or ceramic "speaker wire
elevator" things (so you don't have to use wine glasses) and they wanted
hundreds of dollars a piece for them or something really ridiculous.

Amazing what people will fall for. Like those stickers you put on your cell
phone that are supposed to improve your signal reception. I have one that I
framed and put on my wall in it's original package only because it is so funny
and gets so many laughs when my engineer friends come over and see it.
MOBILE POWER Antenna Booster "Boosts your phone signal!" It's just a
worthless sticker that does absolutely nothing, yet they charge $20 for it.

Lucky for me a store was throwing them away and I was able to take one as a
souvenir, even for a gag I wouldn't pay $20 for this. But for free, it makes
a hilarious flammable souvenir of a quack device from this century.

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> > Bull. All you need to do is add on a digital TV decoder, and you
> > are ready to roll. You can use all your old equipment, but just
> > have a much cleaner input signal. You can also upgrade over time,
> > and get the benefits of the new widescreen format and 5.1 sound.

> You're making a lot of assumptions, here. First, you're assuming that
> everybody's got a nice, HDTV-ready antenna outside on a nice, tall tower.
> Most people can do that, I'll grant you. Some of us can't. Some of is live
> in concrete and steel boxes, not by choice, but by necessity.

Not only that. I know someone that bought an HDTV set, and is not able to pick
up anything even with an outside antenna, signal not strong enough to pick up,
yet their simulcasted analog TV channels come in just fine. Digital doesn't
go as far as analog, and it is either a good solid picture, or absolutely
nothing. You can't pull in a weak station like you can with analog.

By the time people figure this out, it is too late, they shelled out the money
and lost big time. At least he can still use the big set to watch DVDs, but he
is very disappointed. Another of my friends that forgot to ask me advice
before going out and buying something.

> > HDTV is already successful, and there is no going back for those
> > who have already gotten a taste of it.
>
> HDTV won't be a success until a poor person can walk into a Starvation Army
> store on the east side of Flint and pick up a used HD set for $100. I don't
> see that happening any time soon.

Right. People forget it is not just replacing the one set in the living or
family room for $3000, but EVERY set in the house. The kitchen, bedrooms,
dens, etc. And then don't forget that all of your VCRs in every room won't
work with digital television either.

It will cost as much as buying a new car to get a house switched over to HDTV.

Yet the FCC figured everyone would be able to do this by 2006.

DVD players are cheaper and I still know lots of people that don't have their
first DVD player yet.

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> > > (I got my license before the two classes were consolidated into the
> General
> > > 'Phone.)
> >
> > Which is pretty much the exact same test given for the Ham radio Extra
> Class
> > license. One borrowed the same questions from the other, I just forget
> which
> > stole them from who. But if you pass one exam, might as well take the
> same
> > test for the other service and get both licenses.
>
> The Amateur Extra Class test is heavier into digital than it used to be, I'm
> hearing.

Well it does change every so often. It was around 1995, where you could check
the question pool of both the Extra and the GROL and see MANY questions and
answers that were word for word the same on both. Very disappointing that
the GROL no longer carries the broadcast endorsement and is completely worthless
in regards to broadcasting. There is no license for broadcasting anymore at
all, and no restricted permits for DJs anymore either. Absolutely nothing.

> At the time I took my First 'Phone, I was still messing around
> with 11m.

Same with me. Back then, you needed one just to fix or make adjustments to a
CB. Now you don't even need a license for the 11 meter band anymore at
all. When you think about it, how ridiculous that a license is needed for 10
meters, but no license is needed for 11 meters when both are basically the same
band. Then again, the reason is that people just said the hell with the
license, and when millions of people do that, then the FCC can't do anything
about it. Just like with GMRS and business bands, now many of the business
band frequencies can be used without license, and FRS radios share GMRS
frequencies. Since no one can tell if you are using 500 mW or 1 watt by
listening or monitoring your transmission, everyone can use the GMRS radios
without a license and who would ever know they were not using the FRS radios?
No one.

In fact, you can convert a 440 HT to work on FRS frequencies, and you have a 2
in 1. Sure the modulation swings a bit more than they use for FRS, so just
talk farther back from the mic and most will never know.

I also find it funny that a ham is allowed to modify a FRS radio to use on 440,
but is not allowed to modify the ham radio to use on FRS. Since a ham is
licensed to know what they are doing and has the authority to make their own
radios on licensed frequencies, surely they should be allowed to make radios to
use on citizens band frequencies. How hypocritical.

But the person listening in on the other end would never know anyway.

> I didn't get my Novice until '81, and just did a "paper upgrade"
> to General a couple years ago.

I know a lot of people start with the entry level and work their way up, but was
never like that. I didn't want to waste time with all that, I just take the
highest one right away. Just like with broadcasting. While everyone else
was getting their third class, I figured why not just go ahead and get the First
class. Besides, in ham, you get attached to your call, and many don't want
to change it when they upgrade, so they are stuck with a big long novice call
sign all their lives. By just going for it and taking all of them at once,
your first call sign is your last and no one thinks of you as a novice when they
hear your call. Looks like when you got your General, you changed you call
being it is the tech/general type of call sign.

No sentimental attachment to your old call?

> > The General Class Radiotelephone License is really simple now. Nothing
> like
> > it was when the First Class was around. You don't even need to drive
> tons of
> > miles to go to an FCC office, you can take it from independent testing
> companies
> > that send the results in to the FCC which sends you your license.
>
> Does the FCC even administer tests anymore? I mean, if I had waited until
> now to do it, could I have done it the way I did before, going to Detroit
> and taking it there, or would I *have* to go with one of the independents?

No, they don't do any of it anymore. First off, unless you plan to install
or fix radios on planes or ships, there is no need to have a commercial license
at all, it no longer has any thing to do with broadcasting. And for ham
licenses, you have to find a ham club or hamfest to take it. But that means
there are tons of places in your local area to take one, no more driving far to
an FCC office for anything anymore. Even renewals are done online via their
website, don't have to send in any forms or anything. Of course the GROL
never needs renewal, but the ham licenses you can renew, change address, etc.,
all online, then the new license comes in the mail.

> > And no more certificates! Just a crummy laser printed wallet card like
> you
> > get for your ham license. Although there is a company that prints
> > certificates on authentic paper and style of the old licenses, and even
> asks you
> > license number and verifies you have the license before sending you one
> for a
> > fee that is suitable for framing. The only thing missing from it is the
> FCC
> > seal, which they can not obviously recreate for you.
>
> I'm told that the license really doesn't mean as much as it did before,
> anyway, and that the accepted documentation is a certificate from the
> Society of Broadcast Engineers after taking one of their tests. Well, I do
> have the purty piece of paper and the verification card, and they're good
> for life, whatever good they are. :-)

Yes, they are just good souvenirs to hang on the wall. I found it
interesting on a ferry boat going over to a small island that it was posted on
the boat that someone with a GROL must be on board. I always have mine in my
wallet, and if they had said they couldn't go across because the guy with the
GROL was sick that day, I could just have pulled out mine and said they are free
to go across, I will sign that I was on board. Who knows, one day it may
come in use for something while on a plane or boat.

> PG-19-5757, IIRC. Liked it better
> when it was P1. I worked my butt off for that P1, durn it! :-( Thank you,
> Ronald Reagan.

But you can still hang it on the wall to show that you got the real one.

> > > Of course, we didn't have digital in '79, anyway. It is good that the
> > > digital techniques they're using now are compatible with the old
> equipment.
> >
> > And that is why when FM went to FM stereo, or black and white television
> went to
> > color, that it was successful, because old mono radios and black and white
> sets
> > still can be used today with it, they are backwards compatible.
>
> Right.
>
> > But HDTV can not be successful, since it requires everyone throw away all
> their
> > sets and vcrs and buy a new set or vcr for every room of their home at
> thousands
> > of dollars each set.
> >
> > Never going to happen.
>
> I don't think I'd say "never", but it's certainly not going to happen
> universally by aught-six

It can only happen the way UHF television happened, the FCC requires all sets be
manufactured to have both VHF and UHF, and after a few decades, everyone is able
to get both. But UHF never replaced VHF, just as HDTV can never REPLACE NTSC,
as the FCC still believes is going to happen.

FM never replaced AM either. AM is still going strong.

> , like the 1991 plan set forth. What I'm hoping
> for, if it gets right down to "convert or do without", is an inexpensive
> set-top box that will act as a block converter and display a 16:9 aspect
> ratio on a 4:3 set.

No good for a VCR. How do you program it to record from more than one
channel? And you need a box like this for every set in the house then.

The reason I don't get satellite television or digital cable, is for this very
reason. I can't record different shows on the VCRs, or use the tuner in the
television sets. I get analog cable because that is all that is compatible
with TVs and VCRs to work the way they were designed to work.

> So, it'll be letterbox, but I'm getting used to that
> with the NBC and UPN stuff, anyway.

They even do this with commercials now, and I never get used to it. I laugh
when I see the widescreen tvs in the stores showing a letterboxed movie and they
STILL have unused black bars on the widescreen tvs! Because even movies
couldn't all agree on one screen size.

When one customer was asking the salesman "You mean if I buy this widescreen TV,
I am STILL going to have black bars when I watch movies" I had to bust out
laughing. "Why should I pay $3000 if I am going to have the same black bars I
already have on my home set?" I love when people find that out for the first
time.

> I'm not sure how doable that'll be
> though, picking up a block of digital frequencies, remodulating them to
> NTSC, then converting them to regular cable frequencies.

And for what? All that technology and extra equipment so you end up with the
same quality NTSC you already have now, only with black bars instead of full
screen. What a mess.

> Sure, the digital
> quality picture and sound won't be there, but that'll be okay for a few
> years until the price of the HDTV equipment comes down.

I will stick with analog television. I expect it will be around for the rest
of my life and I like the quality better. The pixelated garbage I see on the
store displays does not impress me, it horrifies me how quality keeps getting
worse ever year that goes by.

> > > Probably similar to the cheaper ham radio transceivers they have these
> days,
> > > which use phase modulation for transmit because it's cheaper to do than
> true
> > > FM.
> >
> > Really the only ones doing that were some Yaesu HTs from around 10 years
> ago,
> > like the FT-470. Now, the Yaesu HTs use real FM too.
>
> That's cool. So happens I have an FT-470. Maybe I'll buy me another HT and
> put this one on 1200-baud packet. :-) I had an Icom IC-2AT that I'm told
> was true FM. It was a nice radio for packet, with a 40W Ramsey amplifier
> between it and the antenna.

I remember before everyone had a cell phone, I would always have my FT-470 on my
belt and everyone would ask what it was and if it was a phone. I told them I
could indeed make phone calls with it, but mostly I used it to communicate with
friends all over the area through repeaters the way police communicate with each
other.

Now everyone has cell phones on their belts and having an HT on yours doesn't
get any attention at all anymore, especially since everyone has FRS radios now
too.

> > > I may have to take a refresher course on TV when everything switches
> over to
> > > high-definition. :-( Hey, NTSC was fine. Why'd they have to change
> it?
> >
> > To stimulate the economy, forcing everyone to go out and buy new sets, and
> to
> > make pirate stations more difficult, thus why they are also trying to
> change AM
> > and FM to digital too.
>
> If that's their aim, they need to make some serious adjustments for windage
> and drop, 'cause they're not even hitting the backstop.

This is what happens when the FCC is no longer made up of radio people or
engineers, but by people like Colin Powel Jr, who is appointed to the FCC for
political reasons and they have no idea whatsoever about anything regarding
radio anymore. They don't see a problem with BPL and are just fine with it.

I fear the real reason is that they will use BPL to black out radio reception at
critical times and it is going to be used for something more devious than they
are letting on.

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419CCEAC.7AB034E2@sucks.com...
> > Man, you do a lot of eBaying, don't you? :-)
>
> Not really. In fact, MOST things that I find on Ebay, I can get brand
new, in
> a box, with warranty and instruction manual, for HALF what things sell for
on
> Ebay. After all, Ebay is an auction site, and an auction is a contest
in
> which people compete to see who can pay the MOST for an item.

True. Well, when I bought my laptop through Dell Financial Services' eBay
store, my aim was to pay the most, but still less than what it was worth.
:-) Since the pickings were a bit slim at the time, I paid more than I
would have if I'd wanted, but I needed it then, and didn't want to wait. I
still didn't get stung too bad.

> But with something like an old 80s CLASS A amplifier Denon stereo, the
consumer
> is too stupid to know it is better than anything on the market today, plus
it
> doesn't have digital inputs and 5.1 and surround, so the consumer doesn't
want
> this and doesn't bid on it, and I end up the winner. If you go look at
any
> Denons today that are under $1000, they don't have class A amplifiers
> anymore. Don't know how much you have to pay to get one if they make
any at
> all anymore.

Class A is the ideal, but the object of the exercise is to amplify the full
360 degrees of the waveform with as little distortion as possible. So, if a
class AB1 or AB2, or a pair of class B amplifiers set back to back can do it
with little enough distortion, I don't really care. If I can't hear the
difference, it doesn't make any difference. There's an efficiency factor,
too, because class A amps tend to be biased more toward saturation than
what's strictly necessary if you use a little finesse in the design, and
that's just power wasted in the form of heat.

> > Again, I'd need speakers. Klipsch ain't in my budget.
>
> You don't want those. Dynaudio is the best, and you can find them on
the used
> market so you don't have to pay thousands of dollars for them.

Never heard of them, but I'll have to look them up.

> > > There was also another model number near it that was also the same but
> > with a
> > > little more power out that you can probably find to.
> >
> > Power is necessary if you want bass at low volume that doesn't sound
forced.
>
> This unit is clean. I don't remember what it was rated at, but under
75
> watts I think, and I can turn it up so loud people have to cover their
ears with
> their hands and still no distortion. When I ask people how many watts
they
> think it is, they always guess 200 or more watts.

Loud is one thing, but there's a difference between making your head buzz
and feeling it in your chest. If you can feel it like that, then you're
dealing with power.

> But for normal actual listening, I never have the volume control over 1/4
way
> up, so why anyone needs anything more powerful is just because they think
they
> need to have it, or because other stereos need 200 watts so that they are
clean
> at 20 watts. This one is clean at 20 watts because it is well
designed.

Always good to have more than you need, though. Of course, there are so
many ways of rating power -- total, per channel, peak, RMS, DC input power
to the finals, etc., etc. The whole thing is whether it sounds good to you
or not. You can throw the dice and grab something off the shelf and haul it
home (I got so disgusted with the hunk of junk I had before, I did that last
summer), or you can go someplace with good acoustics so you can listen to
it. What I wound up with will do until I can get into a better place and so
on, but it is strictly mass-fi, and most of its selling points are flash and
trash. But, it don't sound bad for a $200 toy that looks like it's from
outer space. :-) It's rated at 460 watts, which is total power output,
probably peak. The speakers are 4-way bass reflex, with a separately fed
subwoofer in each enclosure. Not wonderful, but better than the
Fishersaurus I had. :-) This is the JVC MX-GB5. Way too many presets, but
does sound better than what I had. Fit my budget, too.

> > > One of the sweetest things about this unit is the phono preamp
section.
> > When
> > > you play a turntable through the built in phono preamp, the sound will
> > amaze
> > > you. This unit was known for it's sweet phono amp. In fact, I
would
> > like
> > > to get another one of these units just to use as an oversized phono
preamp
> > since
> > > nothing else sounds as sweet.
> >
> > But then, if you don't have a decent turntable -- or even any vinyl for
that
> > matter -- that's kind of lost. It's probably set up for a magnetic
> > cartridge, anyway.
>
> That's all I am talking about. And it is absolutely amazing. I
remember
> making a cassette tape of some records through this unit, and brought the
> cassette with in a friend's car. He wanted to know what the hell I did
because
> he never heard anything sound so good before. And this was after it was
> recorded to a cassette first.

Of course, you needed a good cassette deck, too, and you probably used metal
or chrome. What happened to cobalt? I heard about it, but didn't see any
of it while it was still around.

> In fact, I have taken things from these cassettes, digitally removed any
tape
> hiss, and remastered them to CD, and those CDs sound better than a lot of
modern
> CD recordings sold in stores today.

Peachy. If you do your own processing and mixing, you can do pretty much
what you want.

> > That's nice, but again, without speakers...
>
> Yes the speakers are the most important part of the system. Better to
have
> better speakers and a lesser quality stereo, than the best stereo in the
world
> and a poor pair of speakers.
>
> Always budget for the speakers first. Then find the stereo.

Right. I sure don't know enough (or have the equipment) to design my own
speaker enclosures.

> But it is amazing what you can find of both on the used market, because a
lot of
> people judge the sound by magazine articles instead of their own ears, and
they
> will get rid of the best stuff and think they are "upgrading" to better
stuff
> just because it costs a lot more money.

You do have to know what you want to buy. Or throw dem bones...

> I helped a friend pick up some speakers some guy was selling, and he was
all
> impressed with his home set up and invited us into his "listening room" to
> impress us with his system. He had the wires from the amps going to the
> speakers elevated from the floor on upside down wine glasses. I didn't
want
> to ask. But when I got home, I looked it up on the internet, and it
turns
> out these people actually think it helps the sound! Yes, you heard
right.
> Elevating the speaker wire off the floor is supposed to make it SOUND
better.
> Everything in his HI-FI cabinet was on bouncy moving shelves and on
special
> expensive rubber mats, and his place was a museum of every quack device
made.

That's nutz.

> The ironic part was that when he played us something, it sounded just
awful.
> The system in my car sounds 100 times better.

Probably a case of ego. He probably knew it sounded like garbage, but
couldn't admit it. :-)

> I actually found a company that makes special glass or ceramic "speaker
wire
> elevator" things (so you don't have to use wine glasses) and they wanted
> hundreds of dollars a piece for them or something really ridiculous.

Crazy. If we were talking about high-impedence stuff, that may make a
difference. But, 4 to 16 ohms, nah. :-)

> Amazing what people will fall for. Like those stickers you put on your
cell
> phone that are supposed to improve your signal reception. I have one
that I
> framed and put on my wall in it's original package only because it is so
funny
> and gets so many laughs when my engineer friends come over and see it.
> MOBILE POWER Antenna Booster "Boosts your phone signal!" It's just a
> worthless sticker that does absolutely nothing, yet they charge $20 for
it.
>
> Lucky for me a store was throwing them away and I was able to take one as
a
> souvenir, even for a gag I wouldn't pay $20 for this. But for free, it
makes
> a hilarious flammable souvenir of a quack device from this century.

Yeah, that is nutz. If it uses any power at all, it's a parasitic effect,
and everybody knows about parasites. :-) The only way a parasitic effect
really works to any advantage is if you're talking about a directional
antenna array. You build a Yagi with one driven element and directors and
reflectors can be parasitic. But, if you tune them right and space them
right, they'll give you gain in one direction and attenuation everywhere
else.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419CDDC6.8888B1BE@sucks.com...
> > > > (I got my license before the two classes were consolidated into the
> > General
> > > > 'Phone.)
> > >
> > > Which is pretty much the exact same test given for the Ham radio Extra
> > Class
> > > license. One borrowed the same questions from the other, I just
forget
> > which
> > > stole them from who. But if you pass one exam, might as well take
the
> > same
> > > test for the other service and get both licenses.
> >
> > The Amateur Extra Class test is heavier into digital than it used to be,
I'm
> > hearing.
>
> Well it does change every so often. It was around 1995, where you could
check
> the question pool of both the Extra and the GROL and see MANY questions
and
> answers that were word for word the same on both. Very disappointing
that
> the GROL no longer carries the broadcast endorsement and is completely
worthless
> in regards to broadcasting. There is no license for broadcasting
anymore at
> all, and no restricted permits for DJs anymore either. Absolutely
nothing.

I never wanted to operate a board or gab into a mic, anyway. Put me back in
the back where I can babysit the transmitter, take readings, fix what's
broke, and do regular maintenance. Let the guys with the big egos spin the
hot wax. :-)

> > At the time I took my First 'Phone, I was still messing around
> > with 11m.
>
> Same with me. Back then, you needed one just to fix or make adjustments
to a
> CB. Now you don't even need a license for the 11 meter band anymore at
> all. When you think about it, how ridiculous that a license is needed
for 10
> meters, but no license is needed for 11 meters when both are basically the
same
> band. Then again, the reason is that people just said the hell with
the
> license, and when millions of people do that, then the FCC can't do
anything
> about it. Just like with GMRS and business bands, now many of the
business
> band frequencies can be used without license, and FRS radios share GMRS
> frequencies. Since no one can tell if you are using 500 mW or 1 watt by
> listening or monitoring your transmission, everyone can use the GMRS
radios
> without a license and who would ever know they were not using the FRS
radios?
> No one.

The law says that a radio has to be type accepted to operate in certain
bands, though. Ham rigs aren't type accepted for CB, FRS, or commercial
bands. Period. Anyone who violates that law deserves to lose their
license. I'm sorry, but I had to learn the rules and regs to get it, and
I'm going to follow them while I have it.

> In fact, you can convert a 440 HT to work on FRS frequencies, and you have
a 2
> in 1. Sure the modulation swings a bit more than they use for FRS, so
just
> talk farther back from the mic and most will never know.

And be in violation of the law. If you over-deviate accidentally, they can
(but probably won't, but they can) getcha for operating out of spec, and if
they discover you're not using a type accepted radio, it's monetary
forfeiture time.

> I also find it funny that a ham is allowed to modify a FRS radio to use on
440,
> but is not allowed to modify the ham radio to use on FRS. Since a ham
is
> licensed to know what they are doing and has the authority to make their
own
> radios on licensed frequencies, surely they should be allowed to make
radios to
> use on citizens band frequencies. How hypocritical.

Hams are licensed to know what's legal and what's not, too, even if they can
adjust things so that they look legal. I prefer wearing the white hat.

> But the person listening in on the other end would never know anyway.

Maybe. Could be they're looking at you through a telescope and checking you
out on a service monitor to see how many microvolts per meter you're putting
out at a given distance. I'll just keep it legal, TYVM.

> > I didn't get my Novice until '81, and just did a "paper upgrade"
> > to General a couple years ago.
>
> I know a lot of people start with the entry level and work their way up,
but was
> never like that. I didn't want to waste time with all that, I just take
the
> highest one right away. Just like with broadcasting. While everyone
else
> was getting their third class, I figured why not just go ahead and get the
First
> class. Besides, in ham, you get attached to your call, and many don't
want
> to change it when they upgrade, so they are stuck with a big long novice
call
> sign all their lives. By just going for it and taking all of them at
once,
> your first call sign is your last and no one thinks of you as a novice
when they
> hear your call. Looks like when you got your General, you changed you
call
> being it is the tech/general type of call sign.
>
> No sentimental attachment to your old call?

Well, after sending in my original Novice ticket, I found out I didn't have
to. :-( But, I got my Tech in '83, and changed my call at that point.
That became a Tech Plus in '87 by virtue of the Tech class no longer
requiring code, and I just hung on until the General class didn't require
more than 5wpm code anymore. Since I already had the General theory and the
5wpm code, I met all of the requirements for the General.

I hated KA8NMM, btw, especially after having to say "KA8NMM interim DT"
after passing the theory test in Detroit. That was a mouthfull while
walking to and from the college campus. :-) Much preferred saying "N8EUJ"
when it finally showed up in the mail.

> > > The General Class Radiotelephone License is really simple now.
Nothing
> > like
> > > it was when the First Class was around. You don't even need to
drive
> > tons of
> > > miles to go to an FCC office, you can take it from independent testing
> > companies
> > > that send the results in to the FCC which sends you your license.
> >
> > Does the FCC even administer tests anymore? I mean, if I had waited
until
> > now to do it, could I have done it the way I did before, going to
Detroit
> > and taking it there, or would I *have* to go with one of the
independents?
>
> No, they don't do any of it anymore. First off, unless you plan to
install
> or fix radios on planes or ships, there is no need to have a commercial
license
> at all, it no longer has any thing to do with broadcasting. And for ham
> licenses, you have to find a ham club or hamfest to take it. But that
means
> there are tons of places in your local area to take one, no more driving
far to
> an FCC office for anything anymore. Even renewals are done online via
their
> website, don't have to send in any forms or anything. Of course the
GROL
> never needs renewal, but the ham licenses you can renew, change address,
etc.,
> all online, then the new license comes in the mail.

Yep. VE sessions all over the place, here. And, I did the online renewal a
couple years ago. Over dialup. :-) Man, that was a mess. Took a lot
longer than it should have, because the FCC's ULS business doesn't like
Microsoft's Java kludge, so I had to download and install Sun Java, then
fill out the app. The file they sent me was a big honkin' .EXE file about
10MB big. But, I got it done and got the license in the mail a few days
later.

> > > And no more certificates! Just a crummy laser printed wallet card
like
> > you
> > > get for your ham license. Although there is a company that prints
> > > certificates on authentic paper and style of the old licenses, and
even
> > asks you
> > > license number and verifies you have the license before sending you
one
> > for a
> > > fee that is suitable for framing. The only thing missing from it is
the
> > FCC
> > > seal, which they can not obviously recreate for you.
> >
> > I'm told that the license really doesn't mean as much as it did before,
> > anyway, and that the accepted documentation is a certificate from the
> > Society of Broadcast Engineers after taking one of their tests. Well, I
do
> > have the purty piece of paper and the verification card, and they're
good
> > for life, whatever good they are. :-)
>
> Yes, they are just good souvenirs to hang on the wall. I found it
> interesting on a ferry boat going over to a small island that it was
posted on
> the boat that someone with a GROL must be on board. I always have mine
in my
> wallet, and if they had said they couldn't go across because the guy with
the
> GROL was sick that day, I could just have pulled out mine and said they
are free
> to go across, I will sign that I was on board. Who knows, one day it
may
> come in use for something while on a plane or boat.

I carry my verification card with me all the time, too. :-) Who knows,
indeed!

> > PG-19-5757, IIRC. Liked it better
> > when it was P1. I worked my butt off for that P1, durn it! :-( Thank
you,
> > Ronald Reagan.
>
> But you can still hang it on the wall to show that you got the real one.

Had to surrender the original First at that time, IIRC, or I'd have sent
them a copy. :-( Even though the work record on the back didn't have to be
filled out, they still had to have the original. But, that's okay. I know
what I had.

> > > > Of course, we didn't have digital in '79, anyway. It is good that
the
> > > > digital techniques they're using now are compatible with the old
> > equipment.
> > >
> > > And that is why when FM went to FM stereo, or black and white
television
> > went to
> > > color, that it was successful, because old mono radios and black and
white
> > sets
> > > still can be used today with it, they are backwards compatible.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > But HDTV can not be successful, since it requires everyone throw away
all
> > their
> > > sets and vcrs and buy a new set or vcr for every room of their home at
> > thousands
> > > of dollars each set.
> > >
> > > Never going to happen.
> >
> > I don't think I'd say "never", but it's certainly not going to happen
> > universally by aught-six
>
> It can only happen the way UHF television happened, the FCC requires all
sets be
> manufactured to have both VHF and UHF, and after a few decades, everyone
is able
> to get both. But UHF never replaced VHF, just as HDTV can never REPLACE
NTSC,
> as the FCC still believes is going to happen.

I don't think NTSC and HDTV can coexist, in pure forms, in the same box,
either. Not only are the aspect ratios different, but frequencies, scan
rates, refresh rates, everything is different, if I'm not badly mistaken,
and so far different that you'd have to have too much crap in one box.

> FM never replaced AM either. AM is still going strong.

Nope.

> > , like the 1991 plan set forth. What I'm hoping
> > for, if it gets right down to "convert or do without", is an inexpensive
> > set-top box that will act as a block converter and display a 16:9 aspect
> > ratio on a 4:3 set.
>
> No good for a VCR. How do you program it to record from more than one
> channel? And you need a box like this for every set in the house then.

Block converters convert one block of frequencies to another block of
frequencies, so what you get out is a whole frequency range, not one channel
at a time. A splitter would be all you need if they did it right.

> The reason I don't get satellite television or digital cable, is for this
very
> reason. I can't record different shows on the VCRs, or use the tuner in
the
> television sets. I get analog cable because that is all that is
compatible
> with TVs and VCRs to work the way they were designed to work.

You can get multi-room options with some satellite packages. Free, in fact,
a lot of times. I'd wondered if the "several rooms" option could be
concentrated in one room, so I could hook up my two VCRs and my TV. :-)
But, since I'm not in a position to point a dish in the right direction,
it's a moot point.

> > So, it'll be letterbox, but I'm getting used to that
> > with the NBC and UPN stuff, anyway.
>
> They even do this with commercials now, and I never get used to it. I
laugh
> when I see the widescreen tvs in the stores showing a letterboxed movie
and they
> STILL have unused black bars on the widescreen tvs! Because even movies
> couldn't all agree on one screen size.

I just ignore 'em. :-)

> When one customer was asking the salesman "You mean if I buy this
widescreen TV,
> I am STILL going to have black bars when I watch movies" I had to bust
out
> laughing. "Why should I pay $3000 if I am going to have the same black
bars I
> already have on my home set?" I love when people find that out for the
first
> time.

It's silly stuff, for sure.

> > I'm not sure how doable that'll be
> > though, picking up a block of digital frequencies, remodulating them to
> > NTSC, then converting them to regular cable frequencies.
>
> And for what? All that technology and extra equipment so you end up
with the
> same quality NTSC you already have now, only with black bars instead of
full
> screen. What a mess.

It wouldn't take that much. Back in the early '80s when all the "good
stuff" on cable was between VHF channels 6 and 7, they had these boxes that
would take that block of frequencies and move it down into low VHF so you
could watch 'em. Kind of grey-market in some areas, but if they could do it
there, I think they could do it between HDTV and NTSC.

> > Sure, the digital
> > quality picture and sound won't be there, but that'll be okay for a few
> > years until the price of the HDTV equipment comes down.
>
> I will stick with analog television. I expect it will be around for the
rest
> of my life and I like the quality better. The pixelated garbage I see
on the
> store displays does not impress me, it horrifies me how quality keeps
getting
> worse ever year that goes by.

Oh, I'm not ready to jump yet. I expect that I'll keep buying NTSC stuff as
the old stuff wears out over the next 20 years, anyway. If I live that
long. :-) I'll be 50 my next birthday, and I haven't lived my life with a
healthy old age as a primary goal. :-)

> > > > Probably similar to the cheaper ham radio transceivers they have
these
> > days,
> > > > which use phase modulation for transmit because it's cheaper to do
than
> > true
> > > > FM.
> > >
> > > Really the only ones doing that were some Yaesu HTs from around 10
years
> > ago,
> > > like the FT-470. Now, the Yaesu HTs use real FM too.
> >
> > That's cool. So happens I have an FT-470. Maybe I'll buy me another HT
and
> > put this one on 1200-baud packet. :-) I had an Icom IC-2AT that I'm
told
> > was true FM. It was a nice radio for packet, with a 40W Ramsey
amplifier
> > between it and the antenna.
>
> I remember before everyone had a cell phone, I would always have my FT-470
on my
> belt and everyone would ask what it was and if it was a phone. I told
them I
> could indeed make phone calls with it, but mostly I used it to communicate
with
> friends all over the area through repeaters the way police communicate
with each
> other.

Yep. I used to get questions like that, too, and the "Are you a cop?"
question, too, in various dialects and accents, depending on the part of
town I was in. :-) Usually, if I got the "Hey, is you da po-leece?"
question, I'd reach for the radio and say, "No, but I can get 'em. You want
'em?" :-)

> Now everyone has cell phones on their belts and having an HT on yours
doesn't
> get any attention at all anymore, especially since everyone has FRS radios
now
> too.

Me, too. Even going to the QRP club breakfast, I don't carry my HT; I carry
the Nokia. :-) Hey, I was in Dayton, Ohio last June, and I was able to
talk to a friend of mine here in Burton, with a whole 600mW. Can't do that
with an HT. If I could get everybody to QRT, I could talk from Corbin, KY
to Monroe, MI through the FARA system that links a bunch of repeaters along
the I-75 corridor, but it's not private or nearly as reliable as a cell
phone.

> > > > I may have to take a refresher course on TV when everything switches
> > over to
> > > > high-definition. :-( Hey, NTSC was fine. Why'd they have to
change
> > it?
> > >
> > > To stimulate the economy, forcing everyone to go out and buy new sets,
and
> > to
> > > make pirate stations more difficult, thus why they are also trying to
> > change AM
> > > and FM to digital too.
> >
> > If that's their aim, they need to make some serious adjustments for
windage
> > and drop, 'cause they're not even hitting the backstop.
>
> This is what happens when the FCC is no longer made up of radio people or
> engineers, but by people like Colin Powel Jr, who is appointed to the FCC
for
> political reasons and they have no idea whatsoever about anything
regarding
> radio anymore. They don't see a problem with BPL and are just fine
with it.

I don't think it's been proven to any extent that Michael Powell didn't get
in on his own merits. However, I don't know what his engineering
qualifications are, if any. I'm not sure when the engineers moved out and
the lawyers and administrators moved in, but it would be nice if they at
least listened to what their staff engineers have to say.

> I fear the real reason is that they will use BPL to black out radio
reception at
> critical times and it is going to be used for something more devious than
they
> are letting on.

Now, going that way might get you put into one of those jackets with the
extra long sleeves that buckle in back. BPL is a mess, but it would be
absolute idiocy to alienate us hams like that. They need us for emergency
communications if nothing else, and if we can't hear, we're not going to
maintain our licenses. If BPL really is that noisy, it'll fail, and it'll
be replaced with something else.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:419CD0DD.42AEC406@sucks.com...
> > > Bull. All you need to do is add on a digital TV decoder, and you
> > > are ready to roll. You can use all your old equipment, but just
> > > have a much cleaner input signal. You can also upgrade over time,
> > > and get the benefits of the new widescreen format and 5.1 sound.
>
> > You're making a lot of assumptions, here. First, you're assuming that
> > everybody's got a nice, HDTV-ready antenna outside on a nice, tall
tower.
> > Most people can do that, I'll grant you. Some of us can't. Some of is
live
> > in concrete and steel boxes, not by choice, but by necessity.
>
> Not only that. I know someone that bought an HDTV set, and is not able
to pick
> up anything even with an outside antenna, signal not strong enough to pick
up,
> yet their simulcasted analog TV channels come in just fine. Digital
doesn't
> go as far as analog, and it is either a good solid picture, or absolutely
> nothing. You can't pull in a weak station like you can with analog.

By its very nature, digital is either all or nothing, true or false, 1 or 0.

> By the time people figure this out, it is too late, they shelled out the
money
> and lost big time. At least he can still use the big set to watch DVDs,
but he
> is very disappointed. Another of my friends that forgot to ask me
advice
> before going out and buying something.

You need an antenna specially designed for that digital set, too, don't you?
What's the frequency range for HD? I get the impression it's somewhere
other than where the NTSC bands are.

> > > HDTV is already successful, and there is no going back for those
> > > who have already gotten a taste of it.
> >
> > HDTV won't be a success until a poor person can walk into a Starvation
Army
> > store on the east side of Flint and pick up a used HD set for $100. I
don't
> > see that happening any time soon.
>
> Right. People forget it is not just replacing the one set in the living
or
> family room for $3000, but EVERY set in the house. The kitchen,
bedrooms,
> dens, etc. And then don't forget that all of your VCRs in every room
won't
> work with digital television either.
>
> It will cost as much as buying a new car to get a house switched over to
HDTV.
>
> Yet the FCC figured everyone would be able to do this by 2006.

I'm still thinking it might be doable with block converters to get the
signals to all of your NTSC equipment. Not one channel per device on Ch. 3
or 4, but a whole block to each device, like cable already works.

> DVD players are cheaper and I still know lots of people that don't have
their
> first DVD player yet.

I've hed my DVD player a little over a year, I think. Got three movies so
far -- the "Matrix" series. :-) I still get most of my stuff off cable
with the VCRs.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, Burton, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To address may be spam-resistant.)

Mark S.

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Tom Rutherford" <tom@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:bKGnd.22084$Rf1.17998@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> You need an antenna specially designed for that digital set, too, don't
> you?
> What's the frequency range for HD? I get the impression it's somewhere
> other than where the NTSC bands are.
>
> I'm still thinking it might be doable with block converters to get the
> signals to all of your NTSC equipment. Not one channel per device on Ch.
> 3
> or 4, but a whole block to each device, like cable already works.
>

HDTV is the very same TV bands/channels which are allocated for NTSC. The
"special antennas" that you see some stores carrying are designed to reduce
multipath which would wreak havoc on a digital signal but would just give
you shadows on an NTSC signal. A block converter wouldn't do any good as
you can tune to the HDTV channels already on your analog set. All you will
see is maybe a brighter level of white noise versus an empty channel. Like
listening to a continuous 9k6 or faster packet transmission... the signal
strength is there but it just sounds like white noise. Here's a list of
HDTV channels by market:
http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstations.asp

Just find your market and look under RF channel to see where your HDTV
stations are transmitting. Maybe it's on the same channel as a DX analog
station you used to watch but now can't because of the closer, stronger HDTV
transmission.

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> Maybe. Could be they're looking at you through a telescope and checking you
> out on a service monitor to see how many microvolts per meter you're putting
> out at a given distance.

They don't even have the manpower (they claim) to come out and check a
commercial stations when complaints are made, so they are not going around every
neighborhood monitoring FRS frequencies to see who is using modified ham radios
on them.

> > FM never replaced AM either. AM is still going strong.
>
> Nope.

The big money makers in most markets, and the highest rated station, is usually
an AM station. They usually have a much larger coverage area too than the
FMs.

> > I remember before everyone had a cell phone, I would always have my FT-470
> on my
> > belt and everyone would ask what it was and if it was a phone. I told
> them I
> > could indeed make phone calls with it, but mostly I used it to communicate
> with
> > friends all over the area through repeaters the way police communicate
> with each
> > other.
>
> Yep. I used to get questions like that, too, and the "Are you a cop?"
> question, too, in various dialects and accents, depending on the part of
> town I was in. :-) Usually, if I got the "Hey, is you da po-leece?"
> question, I'd reach for the radio and say, "No, but I can get 'em. You want
> 'em?" :-)

At a hamfest once, someone came up to me and asked where something was, and I
said I did not know. He said, "Don't you work here? You have a radio on
you." I told him to look around, EVERYONE had a radio on them. When he
looked around, he said: "Oh yeah."

> I don't think it's been proven to any extent that Michael Powell didn't get
> in on his own merits.

When he was recently interviewed on the radio and several asked him about this,
he gave being a lawyer as his background. Nothing technical or relating to
radio or broadcasting did he mention.

> However, I don't know what his engineering
> qualifications are, if any.

The qualifications are, that you have to be a good friend of the Bush family.

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> I just had a scary thought, though. Howard Stern
> with a law degree, in line for appointment to Michael Powell's job if the
> next president is a Democrat. :-)

So long as the Diebold voting machines are in place, you will never see a
Democrat president ever again.

In Howard Stern's book, he mentions that he had a First Class FCC License.
The way he talks about things on the air, it just doesn't seem possible, but
perhaps on the on the air talk is just an act and he knows more than he let's
his audience in on.

He also ran as a Libertarian for Governor of New York, but during the last two
elections, he acts as if he never heard of the Libertarian Party before. He
just used the party to get on the ballot easier and gave the poor Libertarians
hope, since all they need to win is a celebrity, they could win the presidential
elections with a good actor as their candidate.

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41A2168F.79EB71AA@sucks.com...
> > I just had a scary thought, though. Howard Stern
> > with a law degree, in line for appointment to Michael Powell's job if
the
> > next president is a Democrat. :-)
>
> So long as the Diebold voting machines are in place, you will never see a
> Democrat president ever again.

You don't have much faith in the process, do you? Crooked stuff will be
outed, one way or another. There are just too many people watching.

> In Howard Stern's book, he mentions that he had a First Class FCC License.
> The way he talks about things on the air, it just doesn't seem possible,
but
> perhaps on the on the air talk is just an act and he knows more than he
let's
> his audience in on.

As I've said a few times before, even the devil can quote Scripture. :-)
Have you not heard those foul-mouthed rednecks on 75m late at night, using
all kinds of racial epithets and what not? They at least had to make
General, and that's enough work I wouldn't want to lose that license.

> He also ran as a Libertarian for Governor of New York, but during the last
two
> elections, he acts as if he never heard of the Libertarian Party before.
He
> just used the party to get on the ballot easier and gave the poor
Libertarians
> hope, since all they need to win is a celebrity, they could win the
presidential
> elections with a good actor as their candidate.

The Libertarians do have a problem. They keep running idiots for office,
yet the majority of them that I've met are really smart folks. A little
scary if you take Ayn Rand seriously, but I generally like the idea of
getting the government out of places where ordinary citizens can do the job.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, portable in Pontiac, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To may be anti-spammed.)

Truth

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

> > > I just had a scary thought, though. Howard Stern
> > > with a law degree, in line for appointment to Michael Powell's job if
> the
> > > next president is a Democrat. :-)
> >
> > So long as the Diebold voting machines are in place, you will never see a
> > Democrat president ever again.
>
> You don't have much faith in the process, do you?

I follow the news and all the past history of Diebold machines and what they
have been programmed to do. This last election only confirmed that they are
still doing what they were made to do.

> Crooked stuff will be
> outed, one way or another. There are just too many people watching.

No, too many people believe as you do. So no matter how many people keep
trying to educate the rest, they just brush it off as a wild crazy conspiracy
theory and it can go on and continue. You would THINK after the previous
times these machines were busted there would have been outrage that they were
being used in this presidential election, but people like you never even KNEW
about the previous experiences with Diebold machines, did you?

Eveyone watched the WTC come down too, but how many know a controlled demolition
when they see one? Most buy the jet fuel theory, and don't bother to see how
that theory doesn't hold true for building 7.

Buildings don't come straight down neatly into their own footprint without a lot
of explosives and computers to make that happen. Otherwise, companies like
Controlled Demolition Inc. would not be in business, buildings that needed to
come down could just pour jet fuel on them and they would come down neatly all
on their own.

> > In Howard Stern's book, he mentions that he had a First Class FCC License.
> > The way he talks about things on the air, it just doesn't seem possible,
> but
> > perhaps on the on the air talk is just an act and he knows more than he
> let's
> > his audience in on.
>
> As I've said a few times before, even the devil can quote Scripture. :-)

Actually, no he can't. He doesn't exist. Stern does, and was able to
turn around from being a supporter of Bush and the war, to waking up and
realizing how wrong he was. The moment he changed his viewpoint and said so
on his show, was the moment that Clear Channel took him off all their
stations. Only proving his new learned information about Bush all the more.

> Have you not heard those foul-mouthed rednecks on 75m late at night, using
> all kinds of racial epithets and what not?

No, I never listen to the ham bands at all, unless I am on simplex talking to
someone local. I can't stand the way one ham will talk for an hour before the
next guy gets to talk.

One time on the way to work, a half hour drive, I got on a repeater and wanted
to talk to a friend. Well, on butted in 2 or 3 other people who decided to
invite themselves into the conversation and form a "roundtable" as they like to
call it. Well, I got to talk ONCE, and by the time I got to work, it STILL
was not my turn to talk, so I had to just turn off the radio and go to work or I
would have been late.

CB is much more normal. You talk like you do on the telephone or in person,
each person says a few words, lets the other person say a few words and back and
forth. Not let one person talk for an hour and the other person has to sit
and wait until his time to talk comes up, then he says one or two sentences, and
the other person talks for another hour again.

If I use ham radio, I have to find local simplex frequencies to use and hope
that no other ham finds us and buts in to end the communication by talking for
an hour. What is with these people?

I find myself using FRS and CB a lot more than ham radio, because people know
how to talk normal with short sentences and let the other person interact too,
and the conversations are more fun too, and no restrictions on speech. (The
reason Stern is going to satellite is because broadcast radio doesn't allow him
free speech anymore)

> > He also ran as a Libertarian for Governor of New York, but during the last
> two
> > elections, he acts as if he never heard of the Libertarian Party before.
> He
> > just used the party to get on the ballot easier and gave the poor
> Libertarians
> > hope, since all they need to win is a celebrity, they could win the
> presidential
> > elections with a good actor as their candidate.
>
> The Libertarians do have a problem. They keep running idiots for office

Not idiots, but they pass over better candidates. Like this last election,
Aaron Russo would have been more known and recognized than Nader. Russo was
already on News networks and talk radio shows before the convention, but the
convention chose Badnarik instead, and you never saw or heard about him, he
didn't even try. In fact, instead of being on the ballot in all 50 states
like usual, he only got on the ballot in 48 states. One giant leap backwards
for the party.

I keep telling them, if they actually want to win, just get a famous movie star
to run as the candidate. (after all, Bush would never be president now if not
for movie star Ronald Reagan, and the Bush family riding in on his coat tails)
Have their REAL man as the running mate. As soon as the election is won, have
the movie star resign, and let your real man take over.

They don't WANT to win, and that is the problem. Aaron Russo wanted to win, so
they didn't like him. They want candidates that keep telling the press:
"Yes, I have no chance of winning, but that is not the reason I am running, I am
running because blah blah blah." Who wants to vote for a candidate that
publicly says he doesn't think he has a chance of winning?

If you are on the ballot in all 50 states, people can check your name just as
easy as the other dozen candidates on the ballot.

> yet the majority of them that I've met are really smart folks. A little
> scary if you take Ayn Rand seriously, but I generally like the idea of
> getting the government out of places where ordinary citizens can do the job.

Everyone seems to love the Libertarian ideas, yet then at the same time, they
keep voting for Republicats anyway. Hypocrites.

Since there is no way in hell your one vote is going to effect the election at
all anyway, might as well vote for the party with the ideas you support, rather
than pretending you have to choose one of the two in the government party as if
your one vote is really going to have an effect on the outcome.

Voting for Bush or Kerry is wasting your vote, since they are going to win
without your vote anyway. Might as well not throw you vote away, and give it
to someone that can actually USE your vote.

If you have a dollar, and you give it to Bill Gates, that would be wasting that
dollar, because to him it is nothing. But give that dollar to a homeless
person on the street, and that dollar now has some value.

Same with votes.

Throwing your one single vote on a pile of millions of other votes is like
flushing it down the toilet. Give it to someone that can really USE it.
Someone that deserves it more, and will really appreciate it.

Tom Rutherford

02-10-2005, 02:18 AM

"Truth" <yenc@sucks.com> wrote in message
news:41A4C417.26C3FB7B@sucks.com...
> > > > I just had a scary thought, though. Howard Stern
> > > > with a law degree, in line for appointment to Michael Powell's job
if
> > the
> > > > next president is a Democrat. :-)
> > >
> > > So long as the Diebold voting machines are in place, you will never
see a
> > > Democrat president ever again.
> >
> > You don't have much faith in the process, do you?
>
> I follow the news and all the past history of Diebold machines and what
they
> have been programmed to do. This last election only confirmed that they
are
> still doing what they were made to do.

I saw a news report where the Diebold machines in California had been
doctored, and they were corrected. You can bet your bottom dollar that all
of the Diebold machines are now being gone over with a fine tooth comb to
make sure there was no tampering. The Democrats are seeing to that. I also
heard that the head of the Diebold company promised to support Bush. Now,
if all of the Diebold machines in the red states turn out to have been
doctored, that guy is going to wind up serving hard time. What we need to
do is to dump the electoral college. Who knows how those delegates are
actually going to vote once they get to where they're supposed to be?
What's to stop them from voting for the opposition?

> > Crooked stuff will be
> > outed, one way or another. There are just too many people watching.
>
> No, too many people believe as you do. So no matter how many people
keep
> trying to educate the rest, they just brush it off as a wild crazy
conspiracy
> theory and it can go on and continue. You would THINK after the
previous
> times these machines were busted there would have been outrage that they
were
> being used in this presidential election, but people like you never even
KNEW
> about the previous experiences with Diebold machines, did you?

Obviously, I did.

> Eveyone watched the WTC come down too, but how many know a controlled
demolition
> when they see one? Most buy the jet fuel theory, and don't bother to
see how
> that theory doesn't hold true for building 7.

Now, this is nuts.

> Buildings don't come straight down neatly into their own footprint without
a lot
> of explosives and computers to make that happen. Otherwise, companies
like
> Controlled Demolition Inc. would not be in business, buildings that needed
to
> come down could just pour jet fuel on them and they would come down neatly
all
> on their own.

Uh-huh. How many thousands of pounds of jet fuel were in those planes?
That stuff burns hot. It melted the girders, which caused the buildings to
collapse, that and the shock of the plane actually hitting the buildings. I
don't know how those buildings were numbered, and I don't care. To think
that some conspiracy to take those buildings down with HE and blame it on
terrorists is pure paranoia, and anyone who takes it seriously needs
professional help.

> > > In Howard Stern's book, he mentions that he had a First Class FCC
License.
> > > The way he talks about things on the air, it just doesn't seem
possible,
> > but
> > > perhaps on the on the air talk is just an act and he knows more than
he
> > let's
> > > his audience in on.
> >
> > As I've said a few times before, even the devil can quote Scripture.
:-)
>
> Actually, no he can't. He doesn't exist. Stern does, and was able
to
> turn around from being a supporter of Bush and the war, to waking up and
> realizing how wrong he was. The moment he changed his viewpoint and
said so
> on his show, was the moment that Clear Channel took him off all their
> stations. Only proving his new learned information about Bush all the
more.

If Stern weren't such a foulmouth and a despicable person to begin with,
what you say might be more believable. And, don't look behind you. That
non-existent devil is breathing down your neck.

> > Have you not heard those foul-mouthed rednecks on 75m late at night,
using
> > all kinds of racial epithets and what not?
>
> No, I never listen to the ham bands at all, unless I am on simplex talking
to
> someone local. I can't stand the way one ham will talk for an hour
before the
> next guy gets to talk.

That's how it's done. Live with it, or tear up your ticket.

> One time on the way to work, a half hour drive, I got on a repeater and
wanted
> to talk to a friend. Well, on butted in 2 or 3 other people who decided
to
> invite themselves into the conversation and form a "roundtable" as they
like to
> call it. Well, I got to talk ONCE, and by the time I got to work, it
STILL
> was not my turn to talk, so I had to just turn off the radio and go to
work or I
> would have been late.

You probably picked a time and a repeater where an established roundtable
had been going on for years. The polite thing to do would've been to make
sure the frequency wasn't in use, and if not, call for your friend, and go
simplex where you wouldn't disturb anybody. Ham radio works on such
customs.

> CB is much more normal. You talk like you do on the telephone or in
person,
> each person says a few words, lets the other person say a few words and
back and
> forth. Not let one person talk for an hour and the other person has to
sit
> and wait until his time to talk comes up, then he says one or two
sentences, and
> the other person talks for another hour again.

Before I got my license, I listened to see how things were done. If I
hadn't liked it, I'd have stayed in the 11m ghetto. But, I was tired of the
foul language, the constant heterodyne, the rudeness, etc. So, I moved up
in the world.

> If I use ham radio, I have to find local simplex frequencies to use and
hope
> that no other ham finds us and buts in to end the communication by talking
for
> an hour. What is with these people?

That's how things are done. But, most (if not all) repeaters have a timer
on them that encourages people to unkey every so often for possible
emergency traffic. Otherwise, the repeater will time out on them and it
won't come back until they drop carrier. If a repeater doesn't have a timer
like that, I'm not likely to use it for a short contact in the middle of an
established net, formalized or not.

> I find myself using FRS and CB a lot more than ham radio, because people
know
> how to talk normal with short sentences and let the other person interact
too,
> and the conversations are more fun too, and no restrictions on speech.
(The
> reason Stern is going to satellite is because broadcast radio doesn't
allow him
> free speech anymore)

We've never had the freedom to use obscene, profane, or indecent language.
Such is the cultural equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

> > > He also ran as a Libertarian for Governor of New York, but during the
last
> > two
> > > elections, he acts as if he never heard of the Libertarian Party
before.
> > He
> > > just used the party to get on the ballot easier and gave the poor
> > Libertarians
> > > hope, since all they need to win is a celebrity, they could win the
> > presidential
> > > elections with a good actor as their candidate.
> >
> > The Libertarians do have a problem. They keep running idiots for office
>
> Not idiots, but they pass over better candidates. Like this last
election,
> Aaron Russo would have been more known and recognized than Nader. Russo
was
> already on News networks and talk radio shows before the convention, but
the
> convention chose Badnarik instead, and you never saw or heard about him,
he
> didn't even try. In fact, instead of being on the ballot in all 50
states
> like usual, he only got on the ballot in 48 states. One giant leap
backwards
> for the party.

Obviously, there weren't enough Libertarians in those other two states who
were interested. It costs money to get on the ballot. If you don't have
it, then you won't get there, and your supporters will just have to write
your name in.

> I keep telling them, if they actually want to win, just get a famous movie
star
> to run as the candidate. (after all, Bush would never be president now
if not
> for movie star Ronald Reagan, and the Bush family riding in on his coat
tails)
> Have their REAL man as the running mate. As soon as the election is won,
have
> the movie star resign, and let your real man take over.

Yeah...Win by obviously defrauding the system. The'll sure get the
confidence of the people.

> They don't WANT to win, and that is the problem. Aaron Russo wanted to
win, so
> they didn't like him. They want candidates that keep telling the
press:
> "Yes, I have no chance of winning, but that is not the reason I am
running, I am
> running because blah blah blah." Who wants to vote for a candidate that
> publicly says he doesn't think he has a chance of winning?

A person who wants to vote against the other candidates. If you can't vote
for someone, vote against all of the ones who have a chance to win. Pirot
in '92. Folks who voted for him didn't vote for Bush the First. So, that
lying scumbag from Hope, AR won.

> If you are on the ballot in all 50 states, people can check your name just
as
> easy as the other dozen candidates on the ballot.

And if not, they can write you in.

> > yet the majority of them that I've met are really smart folks. A little
> > scary if you take Ayn Rand seriously, but I generally like the idea of
> > getting the government out of places where ordinary citizens can do the
job.
>
> Everyone seems to love the Libertarian ideas, yet then at the same time,
they
> keep voting for Republicats anyway. Hypocrites.

Because the Libertarians keep putting up idiots!

> Since there is no way in hell your one vote is going to effect the
election at
> all anyway, might as well vote for the party with the ideas you support,
rather
> than pretending you have to choose one of the two in the government party
as if
> your one vote is really going to have an effect on the outcome.
>
> Voting for Bush or Kerry is wasting your vote, since they are going to win
> without your vote anyway. Might as well not throw you vote away, and
give it
> to someone that can actually USE your vote.

You don't vote for someone who doesn't have any delegates. Until they
abolish the electoral college, we're stuck with two parties that dominate
the election. There's going to be one or the other.

> If you have a dollar, and you give it to Bill Gates, that would be wasting
that
> dollar, because to him it is nothing. But give that dollar to a
homeless
> person on the street, and that dollar now has some value.

I'll give to Salvation Army, Operation Blessing, or one of the other outfits
that can determine where best to use that dollar. If I hand that dollar to
any ol' homeless person on the street, it might get used to buy a hamburger
or a cup of coffee, or it might go toward a bottle of Thunderbird or a rock
of cocaine.

> Same with votes.
>
> Throwing your one single vote on a pile of millions of other votes is like
> flushing it down the toilet. Give it to someone that can really USE
it.
> Someone that deserves it more, and will really appreciate it.

Will it be wasted, though? The popular vote really doesn't mean much in
most elections, anyway. It's that outdated electoral college. Yes, if it
weren't for the electoral college, Al Gore would've got into office in 2000.
But, I'd still like to see it abolished. Hillary Clinton said she'd push
for legislation to dump it, but either she didn't, or it didn't get very
far.
--
-- 73 DE Tom Rutherford, N8EUJ, portable in Pontiac, MI
"She said it was either her or the ham radio. Over."
(Reply-To may be anti-spammed.)