Slashdot Mirror


Shortwave Radio and The PC

An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica has an indepth guide on the Ten Tec RX-320, a shortwave radio receiver that connects to the PC and is controlled by software (both Linux and Windows). The article goes into depth on different high frequency modes, broadcast shortwave, and even a bit on ham radio and new digital modes."

116 comments

  1. The Point? by lordrich · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But internet radio is taking over shortwave, this is a pointless product! And besides, won't the pc cause interference with the radio?

    1. Re:The Point? by mactov · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whether the PC causes RF problems with reception depends on the PC. I was using a Mac alongside a ICOM receiver between 1989 and 2001 with no problem whatsoever -- from the Mac. The neighbor's microwave oven was another matter entirely. I always knew when they were defrosting stuff. I don't know about other PC's -- maybe someone else can comment on that?

      Internet radio taking over shortwave, maybe, in some ways. They really are two different media, though, with different strengths. And there are still places in the world where not that many people have access to a computer or an ISP, but they still may have an old SW set to listen to the BBC.

      (And for the romanticist, there's nothing like listening to a cricket match between Fiji and the Solomon Islands teams over Solomon Islands radio, commented in Pidgin English, by the glow of shimmering tubes!)

      --
      OK, now what?
    2. Re:The Point? by dr_canak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pointless? Internet radio is gonna take over shortwave? I don't think so. Not for a long time. Thought about using some mod points to mod this parent as a troll. But then figured i could simply point out that, as soon as you can get computers to the entire third world, then you can start talking about the death of shortwave as a source of news and programming.

      No doubt other technologies are developing rapidly. Actually, internet radio is just one. But shortwave is still the only way for people to have ready access to information in the third world (which is a *large* part of the world).

      The amount of good shortwave programming is less than it once was (BBC no longer directs a sw broadcast to the states, DW is stopping its broadcast to the US sometime soon), but it still is quite strong.

      Head over to usenet and check out the sw groups. Considerable numbers of posts everyday from new users wanting to know what radio to take when they head somewhere out of their country of origin. My sister lives in Berlin. I got her a cheap sw radio so she can readily listen to BBC, VOA, and AFR. Gives her more option of english language programming besides CNN that she might not otherwise get. Pick up a copy of "Passport to Worldband Radio" and you'll see all the programming that is out there, not accessible via internet radio.

      Anyway, I could go on and on and on. The point is that the medium is hardly dead. Not what it once was to be sure, but a very viable (and vibrant) broadcast community still exists, and will exist for some time to come. Its a good way to get a variety of opinions, from a variety of broadcast outlets, not to mention the *high* geek factor that is involved in the hobby.

      my .04
      jeff

    3. Re:The Point? by ChaoticPenguin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone who says that shortwave is dead and pointless have obviously not listened to SW broadcasts coming out from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. And I challenge you to find it streamed live on the Net. Nothing beats hearing first hand (or first ear?) to propanganda. In the future, where every country and every civilization on the planet has access to the Internet, then yes, SW will be dead. But until then, SW remains the best form of receiving information (or propanganda) about places with no Internet connectivity.

    4. Re:The Point? by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      Wel, They can get your ISP to block stuff if They can work that into a Patriot Act. Hell, your ISP can block stuff if enough customers/parents/legislators raise a ruckus about it. Or your ISP can drop your service.

      But they can't block shortwave. Even if it's from another country.

    5. Re:The Point? by mike449 · · Score: 1

      In a simple setup: indoor aerial, regular beige box PC, cheap Taiwanese monitor - RF problems are huge.
      Even if you run a coax cable to an outdoor antenna, it still picks up interference from the nearby PC, because it is impossible to match antenna to the cable perfectly for all frequencies. LCD screen and well-shielded PC case can help a lot. Still, I haven't seen a setup without problems.

    6. Re:The Point? by benna · · Score: 1

      As I type this I have been listening to BBC world service over the internet. I have a shortwave radio too. Its really just much better sound this way. Its still fun to use the shortwave but realistically I use the computer for what I can.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    7. Re:The Point? by pinkfloyd43 · · Score: 1

      No it's not! Begin taken over by internet radio. Like they produced a product that would have interference? It probably in some crazy scheme has some type of cover to stop the interference. DUH

  2. Nostalgia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of the morse code ISA card I had for my 286... hours of fun...

  3. Icom do them, too by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Javaradio (http://www.javaradio.com) setup is based around the Icom PCR-100 or PCR-1000. If I recall correctly, Yaesu do one too.

  4. Next story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...how somebody built a radio-tivo using this (and it will run Linux)

    1. Re:Next story... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Well, it's not under Linux, but its on Irix, and the only OS dependent part is the open call in the controller demon. It uses a PCR-1000 and lame.

      It's not rocket science.

  5. Possible apps... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. Weather alerts - Global reach, software controllable as well. Should be ideal to get local alerts. Specially suited for /ers who spend hours in front of their PCs blissfully unaware of the weather!

    2. Terror alerts - need we say more?

    3. Service Pack alerts! the best of the lot. We could have daily bulletins, sponsored programs by virus writers, chat shows with hackers etc.

    Good stuff.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Possible apps... by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 4, Funny
      1. Weather alerts

      I have a weather alert device adjacent to my computer. Despite being called a 'window', it hasn't crashed yet, although as I'm in England, I do regularly get the grey screen of dampness from it.

    2. Re:Possible apps... by Aliencow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, why stream higher quality stuff through the Net at higher quality when you can have to mess around with more hardware, have a smaller user base, etc..

    3. Re:Possible apps... by Surak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. Weather alerts - Global reach, software controllable as well. Should be ideal to get local alerts. Specially suited for /ers who spend hours in front of their PCs blissfully unaware of the weather!

      Two things:

      a. kweather.
      b. One word: *window* (you know, that big glass thing in the wall that let's you look outside ;)

      2. Terror alerts - need we say more?

      Yeah, because as we all know terrorists are gonna wait until the condition is orange or red before they strike! ;)

      3. Service Pack alerts! the best of the lot. We could have daily bulletins, sponsored programs by virus writers, chat shows with hackers etc.

      Ummm, don't already do this? Or am I missing out on something here?

    4. Re:Possible apps... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Weather alerts and other emergency information are already being broadcast on NOAA weather radio in the VHF band. Digital coding in the signal ("SAME", Specific Area Message Encoding) allows you to filter out alerts that don't apply to your county.

    5. Re:Possible apps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My italics!!! The /i tag..it does nothing!

      And what does "umm, dont already do this?..." mean?

      Time to work on your HTML I think!

    6. Re:Possible apps... by ocelotbob · · Score: 1
      The issue here is, though the poster you replied to was being silly, there are places where a weather alert is vital. In Texas, Oklahoma, etc, they can have insane storm cells. Now, these cells will all create intense thunderstorms that'll drop hail the size of golf balls, and provide one of nature's light shows. Unfortunately, some of these cells can also spawn a tornado, and I think you know what a tornado can do to someone. Now, though both storms look pretty much the same to the casual observer, they look different to weather monitoring equipment, and thus, an alert can be issued to warn people that it may be a good idea to head into the storm shelter.

      It probably would have also been useful for my place back in NM, so that I would have known the thunderstorm was coming, and thus, would have made sure to put the refridgerator into the moving truck before getting the tow dolly. Would have probably avoided a big dent in said fridge that way =<

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    7. Re:Possible apps... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      1. I don't think people in India are going to be interested in the weather in California, and vise-versa. There are plenty of weather information systems already (See #2).

      2. Uhh, you mean "The News"? Yes, the news is already being broadcast worldwide, and includes such information as weather and terrorism information (although I don't see the big deal, terrorism has been happening forever and there have been very few deaths because of it. Now, suddenly, everyone is convinced there is a terrorist on every street corner.)

      3. If someone doesn't have a internet connection (to check for updates), how are they going to get the updates, after you notify them?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Possible apps... by op00to · · Score: 1

      Where there is no TV, no cable, and no electricity, you'll still find a shortwave radio. You'll be able to find one in just about any gathering of people in the world. I think that's a little bit better than people with broadband...

  6. Interesting by Kwelstr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But I always wonder if the Internet could be carried by short wave radio. I mean, if you digitize the packets and send them via short wave, couldn't you just have a world wide wireless internet?

    Just wondering, I am not an expert on this field.

    --


    ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    1. Re:Interesting by Papyrus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hams have been doing packet radio for decades.

    2. Re:Interesting by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's been done, it's called Packet Radio.

      IIRC, there is support for it in the more recent Linux Kernels (as a module).

      I've seen some small Packet Radio setups but it doesn't seem to be as popular as it could be (for reasons a packet radio nut should probably explain)

    3. Re:Interesting by Kwelstr · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking on routing the internet over short wave, to get a true world wide wireless internet.
      But I am just wondering about it. I have no idea if it could be done or not.

      --


      ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    4. Re:Interesting by clone22 · · Score: 2, Informative

      See this Linux Journal article ca. 1995:

      http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=1071

      --
      Ask me about my vow of silence!
    5. Re:Interesting by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking on routing the internet over short wave, to get a true world wide wireless internet.

      But I am just wondering about it. I have no idea if it could be done or not.


      Well, yes, it could be done but the problems you would have make this pointless. Interference from sunspots, low bandwidth, expensive equipment (for large scale/high power work). Someone with better knowledge of this sort of thing will need to flesh this out for you (I'm not an expert)

    6. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I always wonder if the Internet could be carried by short wave radio.

      The inspiration for Ethernet was a packet radio network in Hawai called ALOHANET. So yes, it can be done :)

    7. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody heard you the first time.

    8. Re:Interesting by SlimFastForYou · · Score: 1

      LOL was wondering about that... but then dismissed it.

      Bah... everything seems to provoke dejavu these days :-/. Kwelstr had me thinking I had gone senile this whole time at the ripe old age of 18.

    9. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bandwidth and propigation become the main problems - The shortwave or HF spectrum that propigates world wide is in the range of 1MHz-30MHz, not all that much spectrum space to begin with and it is pretty full already with everything from broadcast, ham, maritime, aircraft, to military uses. These users can't/won't all be relocated.

      The propigation problem is that of the 1-30MHz spectrum the part that works for a given path from point A to point B changes. It is effected by the 11 year sunspot cycle, the season, and by time of day. Once you add in a little geomagnetic disturbance the noise can drown out even the strong signals. This is why each of the services I mentioned above has a serveral little slices of spectrum. For example hams have allocations at 1.8,3.8,5,7,10,14,18,21,24,28MHz in the HF spectrum.

      One other thing to consider is antennas - you've seen the ham with the 150' towers and huge yagi antennas, several wire antennas etc etc. In order to get an antenna that works well at those low frequencies they get very big. A 1/2 wave simple dipole is 260 feet long @1.8 MHz (468/freq=length)... not exactly what you want to atach to your ultralight thin notebook. I won't realy get into the fact that that antenna will only work if it gets off the ground by about 80 feet.

    10. Re:Interesting by rspress · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, and since we were doing it over radio we had wireless networks long before the rest of the computer world caught up. Packet radio was good for email and jumping digipeaters but not very good for file transfers. TCP/IP networks were available in many areas that went a little farther than the standard ax25 networks that most hams used. Also there is a lot more than just music and news broadcasts on shortwave. Spy stations and digital diplomatic traffic are there as well as a host of other things to listen to. The digitally controlled receivers make listening to and decoding these signals much easier. As far as noise goes it depends on how well built the PC you are using is....as stated before Macs seem much better for this purpose....less RF interference. Even if the programs are for windows, Virtual PC will run them just fine.

    11. Re:Interesting by evilviper · · Score: 1

      HAMs have been doing this for some time. You sign up for a timeslot ahead of time, and you can maybe check your e-mail while in the middle of the ocean.

      The speed of the connections is incredibly slow, and at that, it takes a lot of equipment, and work to setup.

      Really now, who would want that? People are better off with SW radios, and using that frequency for something reasonably important.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. How about the internet over short wave? by Kwelstr · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Couldn't we just have a world wide wireless net if we digitize the signal and send the packets via short wave?

    Just wondering.

    --


    ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    1. Re:How about the internet over short wave? by Surak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Amateur radio support (aka AX.25) is already present in the Linux kernel and has been for some time.

    2. Re:How about the internet over short wave? by Aliencow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah I can imagine being on the net at midnight, downloading stuff from England at 0.01bit second, and then bam, it drops at 0 because of the sun... And screaming and crying...WHY you damn sun ? Why did you have to show up again??

    3. Re:How about the internet over short wave? by Kwelstr · · Score: 1

      But I am thinking more of short wave internet routers. A world wide wireless internet cannot be censor.
      But I am really not any kind of expert here.

      --


      ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    4. Re:How about the internet over short wave? by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 3, Informative

      A world wide wireless internet cannot be censor.

      Yes it can, just create a lot of interference.
      Its not even that hard to do (when you consider that its governments that might want to do so).

      You might also like to do a bit of research into what sunspot activity does to short wave radio transmission.

    5. Re:How about the internet over short wave? by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure, you can even have Internet over Carrier Pigeon, just don't expect it to perform very well! Much more interesting is Shortwave Radio over the Internet.

      When I played around w/ Packet Radio there were a lot of problems, collisions, weak transmitters come and go, the retries and lag time is tremendous - the buzz at the time was: don't expect to be able to d/l PacMan video games using Packet! Whats the max packet baud rate these days? 9600? On HF it's even lower.

      At work I can ping a remote site and get a response in about 70 milliseconds, going thru about 20 routers. Packet radio can't touch that.

      Look into PSK31, it's an interesting active mode these days for point-to-point qso's, an HF chat room if you will.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    6. Re:How about the internet over short wave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No different than trying to get to a Slashdotted page. We seem to live with that. :)

    7. Re:How about the internet over short wave? by canuck_wingnut · · Score: 1

      "Whats the max packet baud rate these days? 9600? On HF it's even lower."

      56k packet is being successfully utilised, and some groups (Japan. there may be others)
      Are experimenting with faster speeds.

      check out http://www.paccomm.com/ for the WA4DSY modem

      --
      -: :- mv sco /dev/null because a computer is a terrible thing to waste. -:
  8. SW is not Dead! (Yet) by Vollernurd · · Score: 4, Informative

    To all those who thought that SW went out with Churchill and Franklin D.: SW is not dead.

    In some countries like Africa, SW radio is the only medium that a population that might not be able to read can rely on for information/education. See hoe the success of the Clockwork radios depended on Charitable organisations using them in continents where electricity supplies were rare.

    SW radio is still the only way you can listen to radio in some places, simply because of the durability of the signal over long distances, and the relatively low cost of equipment.

    Hang on, then why the hell would I want to attach one to a PC? Surely even the pleasure of DXing doesn't get augmented with use of the PC.

    Now where's my morse-button...?

    --
    Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
    1. Re:SW is not Dead! (Yet) by Surak · · Score: 0

      In some countries like Africa...

      Oh, my! When did the various countries on the continent of Africa unite to become one country! Why did no one tell me? I saw no mention of this on CNN, FOX News, anything.

    2. Re:SW is not Dead! (Yet) by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
      I agree that SW is still alive and well. However, computer augmented receivers have been around for a while now. For example, to record and display what has been found graphically.

      On the other hand, SW receivers don't like PCs nearby unless they have been very well shielded.

    3. Re:SW is not Dead! (Yet) by mactov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hang on, then why the hell would I want to attach one to a PC? Surely even the pleasure of DXing doesn't get augmented with use of the PC.

      Lots of reasons, but one is that SW listening conditions are changing constantly in only somewhat-predictable ways. If you are a dedicated DXer it can be both helpful and fun to exchange notes (quickly!) with other DXers.

      Used to be, that happened via print media that was always pretty out of date by the time one got hold of it, or via radio programs that one had to have reception to get (so you got into a Catch 22 of how do you hear the program if you can't figure out current reception conditions?)

      One group of DX'ers who moved from print to online is SPEEDX. Their website is a vast improvement over the old magazine format.

      --
      OK, now what?
    4. Re:SW is not Dead! (Yet) by water-and-sewer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Shortwave (better known as Worldband) is far from dead. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in the mountains of Nicaragua from 1998-2000 and I was as addicted to SW in those days as I am to the internet today.

      In remote sites and in poor countries where the internet is still basically another planet, the radio is still a regular and important source of news and information. Shortwave has certainly decreased in importance but it's by no means dead.

      That said, there are new projects that may bring it back into vogue. Check out the Internet Radio Linking Project (http://www.irlp.net), which cuts the ionosphere out of the equation. Your voice is transmitted to a local node which feeds it into a VOIP receiver. The signal travels the rest of the way over the internet, and pops back out from another local node near the receiver. Much lower signal loss that way, and the infrastructure is already in place. They offer a modified Redhat solution you can pretty much drop into place on your Linux box. Of course, you still have to get your ham operator's license, but if you were thinking of transmitting you were responsible for doing that anyway.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    5. Re:SW is not Dead! (Yet) by Vollernurd · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty cool idea and would certainly help against those damn sunspots.

      But the Ionosphere has its own advantages, one being that it is totally free to use. Imagine, you are not relying on a corporation's infrastructure to carry your transmissions.

      With conventional shortwave you can use relatively low cost transmitters, though where your signal actually ends up is sometimes anyone's guess.

      --
      Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
    6. Re:SW is not Dead! (Yet) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Shortwave (better known as Worldband)

      Really? I've *never* heard it called that? Sounds like a Microsoft "give it a new name and trademark it" kind of thing to me.

    7. Re:SW is not Dead! (Yet) by patchmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Hang on, then why the hell would I want to attach one to a PC? Surely even the pleasure of DXing doesn't get augmented with use of the PC.
      Believe it or not, the radio interface -- all the switches, dials, and displays -- add a LOT to the cost of the radio. By hooking your computer up to a black box with nothing but an ON/OFF switch, you use something you already have for the interface and save a lot of money on the radio. The RX-320 would probably cost twice as much if it had all the standard dials and displays.

      The pleasure of listening to SW can be increased considerably with the use of the PC. You can download extensive lists of station broadcast schedules and easily program the radio to try all the known frequencies for a particular broadcaster before settling on the best one. If I want to listen to the BBC, I can quickly pull up all the current BBC freqs and try them all. One day I may get a better signal from the Caribbean, the next I get a better signal from Singapore. This setup makes it easy to try them all.

      It's also great for identifying those rare catches when you're really DXing. Push a button and the software tells you which stations are scheduled to be broadcasting on that freq at the moment. It's nothing you couldn't do by flipping through books and pages of notes, but it's a whole lot easier and faster.

      There are also signal processing programs that can clean up noisy signals that the typical notch filter and passband tuning just can't handle. You're not going to get that kind of processing without passing the signal through a computer. And as long as you're using the computer anyway, might as well control the radio with it.
  9. Digital SW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    A new digital standard for SW/LW/MW will officially launch this time next week, DRM is based upon COFDM (as per DTV in Europe, 802.11a/g etc) and uses the AAC codec at around 30kbps, it doesn't sound much but it's an amazing improvement upon analogue shortwave and will really bring it back to life again, instead of being the preserve of nutters living in huts in Montana.

    Anyway, checkout the samples, not bad for a signal that has travelled to and from the extreme of Europe.

    1. Re:Digital SW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "instead of being the preserve of nutters living in huts in Montana"
      Oh great, look what you've done, you insulted half the /. readership, that's all.
    2. Re:Digital SW by imac.usr · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, I don't think they could have picked a more geek-unfriendly acronym. Unless it were named something like Radio Interphase Advanced Algorithm, or something...

      --
      I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
  10. Re:Shortwave ?? It still exists ?? by Angry+Toad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My favourite shortwave phenomenon was always the numbers stations. Where else can you listen to real-life spy messages, even if there's not a hope in hell you'll ever be able to decode them?

    As I recall there was always a ton of mysterious signals on shortwave - wierd humming stations, modem-ish tone stations (in the 70's)and all sorts of strange, intelligent-sounding clicks and pops. Shortwave is a peculiar little world.

  11. Re:Macintosh? Solutions! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    WorldStation is Java-program and it's listed as Mac OS X-software, so I think there's only problem that those RX-320 boxes have serial ports. There are some USB-to-Serial-converters for Macs, so it's not big deal either.

    Remember that Macs can run Linux as well. And another solution is to run VirtualPC-emulation for Windows.

    And if those system ever hit mainstream, there will be native Mac solutions as well, but that's not likely.

  12. Yes, shortwave is thriving by tkrotchko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Primarily because its inexpensive and effective.

    The BBC World Service, Deutsche Welles and a host of other national services give a good world opinion on the state of affairs, which seems to contrast with local news during periods of heightened global tension.

    Its also fun to listen to the angry broadcasts of small angry countries like Cuba and NK, although the hey-dey for this kind of rhetoric was the cold war.

    Now whether or not a PC is the most effective way to listen to shortwave is debatable, but the value of shortwave is not. For $250-300 you can get an excellent portable shortwave radio that will entertain you far longer than the latest hot video card.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  13. Newer PC-controlled receivers by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Informative

    TenTec's RX-320 is a solid rig, but a bit dated. Newer receivers, such as the Icom PCR1000, outperform the RX-320 in every way (VFO speed, frequency coverage, receive modes, sensitivity, filters, notch, etc). Of course it costs more than twice as much, but you get more than 1 Ghz additional receive coverage (100 kHz - 1.3 GHz), which allows it to be used as a scanner, and not just a SWR.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Newer PC-controlled receivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RX-320 blows away PCR1000 on HF (I have both and the topic is shortwave).
      It's also, IMO, a better design.
      At under $300, it can't be beat for up to 30MC (that's MHz to you youngsters).
      If you want to roll your own, Analog Devices has a nice DDS. Direct Digital Synthesizer. Quality amplifier and mixer components are pennies on the dollar with a little looking.One could do the whole thing for under $100 if using the PeeCee sound card. With 24bit 96kHz stereo cards in the $100 range, and some filtering on the RF input side of things a PeeCee can be turned into a radio that cost $10k, 10 years ago for under $300.

  14. It's all been done...WinRadio by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

    WinRadio has been doing this for years, as least in a reception sense. I had one back in 1996 or so. It's a radio that either plugs in as a PCI card, or can hook up to a serial, USB, or PCMCIA slot. It's a wonderful piece of equipment. Biggest problem: Noise from your computer and/or monitor. But it's manageable, and beats those old fiddly push-button radios by a mile. It's Australian in origin, and since the American dollar is in the dumps don't count on getting one for less than $500 US or so.

  15. LinRadio by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Thanks to Hemos for the TenTec info. Check out the following sites for info on PC controlled receivers that do not suffer from internally generated noise. These guys have done a great job. http://www.linradio.com/ and http://www.winradio.com/ The g303i is the receiver to go for if you just want HF reception. Other units go to 4GHz! Some receivers are external and some internal ie they mount in your PC! http://www.winradio.com/home/g303i.htm You may recognise some of their kit from the Paris Safe House in The Bourne Identity. Note the open software development unlike better known oriental brands.

    --
    My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
  16. Re:It's all been done...WinRadio- PC Noise by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

    Apparantly noise is less of a problem with new PC's. The team at WinRadio can no doubt advise. Incidentally, since the PC is demodulating and digitally processing the received signals, a faster processor is better.

    --
    My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
  17. An example by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A friend of mine from college is currently in the Peace Corps in the South Pacific.

    She is only able to check her email around once a month or less, and the only telephone is a multi-dollar-per-minute satellite phone.

    She is never more than a day behind on world news thanks to BBC shortwave.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:An example by stevew · · Score: 1

      Odlly enough, there are alot or missionary workers and UN organizations that have email service because of HF packet systems. One of the commenters above says "It's good for short text messages." Yep!

      So - it isn't going to replace broadband anytime soon. (Well maybe UHF packet will ;-) but it has it's place for long haul text, etc.

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
  18. Packet and TCP/IP by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Informative

    TCP/IP can be routed over packet.

    Of course, the issue is "Would you want to" on HF. (aka shortwave)

    The answer is No, unless you're on some remote island in the South Pacific where there are no phone lines and satellite connections are multiple $$$ per minute, in which case a 1200 (or slower) bps connection is a godsend.

    The legal limit on channel bandwidth in most HF bands is on the order of 3-6 kHz (Enough for SSB voice). Since there's lots of noise on HF, advanced modulation schemes that allow you to stick more than 1 bps per Hertz usually don't work. Most HF data connections are 2400 bps or less. (300 bps is quite common, and currently the most popular digital mode is PSK31 at 31 bps, due to its bandwidth being narrower than Morse and having superior noise immunity to any faster data mode.)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  19. I was about to say by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    That either Kenwood, Icom, or Yaesu have been doing PC-controlled radio receivers for a few years. Now I remember properly that it's always in the Icom ads. :)

    Icom has a LOT of neat receivers, such as their "super scanners" (Which is what I like to call their scanners that have video capability.)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  20. Couple of good technical articles.. by chizz · · Score: 1

    ..on this receiver, and the dirt on the underlying technology in Electronics and Wireless World, earlier this year. I've a list of URLs somewhere I can post for folks who are interested.

  21. New Ham / Interesting Article! by r3mdh · · Score: 2

    Thanks to Hemos and the Anonymous Reader for posting this article. I was introduced to the world of Amateur Radio late last year and took a class for (and passed) my Technician Class exam a week ago. My new callsign (KC8WVJ) showed up in the FCC database just a few days ago. I mostly use 2-meter FM voice to communicate, but this article sheds light on other ways to communicate world-wide. I for one would be interested in reading more articles of this nature. Thanks ./!

    1. Re:New Ham / Interesting Article! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Glad to have you among the ranks! Shame on you for not mentioning that you wife's a ham, too! 5 WPM code is easy, and it opens up the whole world to you, literally.

      Nice website, by the way.

      73 de k4det

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    2. Re:New Ham / Interesting Article! by r3mdh · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, my wife and I got our Tech/No Code a couple of Saturdays ago. We're going to get our 5wpm/General this fall. Taking a class along with reading the ARRL book really helps to solidify the theory. It's best to actually UNDERSTAND what you're learning, rather than memorizing the question/answer pool. The General test (35 questions) doesn't look too bad, but the Extra exam (50 questions) looks like a nightmare. :-)

      73 de kc8wvj

  22. Forget computer-controlled radios, go SDR! by per+unit+analyzer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why settle for an HF radio that's merely computer-controlled when you can make the computer the radio. Gerald Youngblood's SDR-1000 is a full-blown Software Defined Radio (SDR) that blows away most ham rigs. The demo Gerald did at Dayton was very impressive. The best part is that if you want your radio to have a new feature, all you have to do is write the code to do it...

    --zawada

    --
    In Soviet Russia, the Beowulf cluster imagines you!
    1. Re:Forget computer-controlled radios, go SDR! by waspleg · · Score: 1

      $500? what does it do? my only interest in radio was back when you could listen to cell phone calls cause they weren't encrypted

      what i've never been able to figure out is the attraction, so you can listen to various forms of radio from everywhere, so what? is air traffic control really that interseting? make me understand why this is worth $500 and realize i am totally ignorant of anything related to any form of ham/shortwave...

    2. Re:Forget computer-controlled radios, go SDR! by patchmaster · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of personal preference/interest. Some people find it fascinating to dig out of the muck a radio signal that started at a small transmitter halfway around the globe. Some people would rather watch paint dry.

      There's a whole world of things to listen to out there. Ships at sea, utility transmissions, weather data, radio FAX... I've mostly been into broadcast SW. I find it interesting to listen to news from various places around the world. Both the flavor of the local news and their spin on world news can be entertaining and enlightening. There are also shows on local culture and events that can give you some idea of what life is like in places you may never visit. Maybe you find that interesting, maybe not.

  23. Shortwave + Internet problems by dcavanaugh · · Score: 3, Informative

    I had the same problems with packet that you mentioned. I was doing 1200 bps on the 2m band. It was pretty much useless for anything beyond quickie text messages. I heard about people doing 110 bps on shortwave. The ability of shortwave signals to bounce off the ionosphere was much more useful before we had all these communications satellites and global fiber optic networks.

    I don't think we will ever see the stability or bandwidth to make shortwave support anything that geeks would consider useful. Ham satellites are a little more promising. If we had a Wifi via Ham satellite, now THAT would be fun.

  24. scaling by zogger · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's absolutely no comparison (yet, in widespread useage) when it comes to scaling and cost. I can purchase commercial shortwave air time for as little as 25$ an hour side band upto around 100$ or more for full duplex from huge whopper powerful transmitters, the data can be received by millions of people. And if it's non commercial from my own rig, it's upfront hardware cost, then just some electricity cost,that's it. Now,to contrast that, go to any net broadcaster you can find,either MP3 or Real or quciktime, etc, pick any of those,now see what a million streams at even very, very low bit rates (say 16kbps-vocal, talk radio) cost. Go ahead, check it out. Now try it at 128kbps(somewhat decent music quality).

    Granted, shortwave hardly ever has that sort of high fidelity quality associated with it, but, it works for inside the parameters for what it's designed for, no way does the ole intarweb come close yet. It has potential, but it ain't there yet. Technically it's possible, cost wise it's just way out of sight. I know there are peer to peer streaming technologies, I have played around with one of them (streamer), but it's very far from even say the level of acceptance of OGG as a generic format standard, ie, "real darn low". I would like there to be more interest and development in that sort of project, but most people only want a clear channel experience, or to download mp3 files..

    Shortwave is still most useful, as well as radio in general. The main reason is-it works, doesn't require anything in the way of outside infrastructre to work and reach theoretical millions. Ain't no wirez in the middle anyplace absolutely positively needed, and receivers are as cheap as under 50 dollars new.

  25. What's Good on Shortwave? by WC+as+Kato · · Score: 1

    I haven't been able to find anything interesting on shortwave. It's neat to be able to hear stations from all over the world, but that novelty wears out pretty quick. All I hear are religious and non-English shows. Are all the good shows non-English? Dang it, another $200 bucks down the toilet. Maybe I can buy a few more and make a beowulf cluster...

    --
    --- I'm Green Hornet's sidekick not Inspector Clouseau's!
    1. Re:What's Good on Shortwave? by Little+Brother · · Score: 1
      The best thing IMHO about shortwave bands, IMHO isn't listening to them but it is transmitting on the ham bands. Although you need a license, any geek worth his salt should be able to pass the first license exam after reading the book (ARRL's "Now You're Talking") through once. Thereafter you have license to transmit on a few local frequencies. However with technologies like echolink (repetares linking, often over microwave or radio wave) or IRLP (Internet Radio Linking Project (linux based)) communication to remote locations is possible. I know much of what you can do on radio you can do with voice chat on the internet, but you will come accross a completly different group of people, people who arn't neccicarly computer geeks but still (generaly) fairly intelligent, often with fairly decent electronic knowledge. I have talked with people from Norway, Germany, and England, and have spoken to people in a research station in Antartica. It is a truly thrilling experience.

      73
      KG4WWN

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

    2. Re:What's Good on Shortwave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Compared to what we can do in this Google Age, it is harder to find good stuff on SW. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

      One of the best ways to get started is the book "Passport To World Band Radio" with this book you can tune in to right frequency at the right time which is important. I could never get a station until I got this book. Highly recommended. [http://www.passband.com]

      The BBC World Service has some great programs and other stations for English programming include Deutsche Welle, Radio Netherlands, Radio Austria International, Voice of Russia, Radio Canada International, and the Voice of America.

    3. Re:What's Good on Shortwave? by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1
      I haven't been able to find anything interesting on shortwave. It's neat to be able to hear stations from all over the world, but that novelty wears out pretty quick. All I hear are religious and non-English shows. Are all the good shows non-English? Dang it, another $200 bucks down the toilet. Maybe I can buy a few more and make a beowulf cluster...

      You just need to look a little harder. There is lots of Really Neat Stuff on shortwave. My favourites remain the BBC, Radio Netherlands, and Radio Australia. The BBC are almost as polite as us Canadians, while the Dutch have a case on everybody. Then there are the Australians...

      I find shortwave particularly handy while travelling - particularly in the U.S., where the rest of the world disappears as soon as I cross the border.

      HF utility stations are a hoot in their own right. International air-traffic control, weather charts from Uzbekistan, assorted spooks, and so on. Great fun.

      ...laura

    4. Re:What's Good on Shortwave? by dogfart · · Score: 1
      Good work, spaceyhackerlady, but I'm afraid the original post has a point.

      During the days of the Cold War, every country with a political axe to grind had English language transmissions to North America.

      With the demise of the Evil Empire (and other changes - South Africa no longer has a NA English service) many of these stations folded up, cut their hours, or dropped their power.

      The ones that are left have been dropping out, due to a perceived lack of interest in short wave by USAians and the cost savings of Internet streaming. BBC World Service is excellent, but their transmissions to the US were dropped some years ago (they still do a few hours a day to English-speaking Central America that can be received well). Canada and Australia have faced budget curbacks (and threats to terminate the services as well).

      Speaking of Canada, one of the coolest short wave things are the Canadian commercial broadcasters with low power short wave outlets. Nothing like hearing the Toronto traffic report from 2,000 miles away.

      --

      "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    5. Re:What's Good on Shortwave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have access to shortwave, however I regularly listen to BBC Radio 1 online. It's a wonderful station. They play a very varied selection of music (Rock, House, Trance, Bhangra, Reggae, Rap, etc...) with no commercials. If the shortwave transmission of BBCR1 is better than the internet version (I think the bitrate varies dynamicaly depened upon traffic), I'd certain plunk don't $300 for access.

  26. Re:It's still going by p51d007 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I grew up on shortwave radio from the 60's, 70's as a kid. I remember the first time I listened to one, got hooked on it, studied and passed my amateur test and got licensed. No, the PC won't cause interference, unless you have it sitting on top of your computer, the receiver is an external box. I've been hearing the death of sw/ham radio for years. Everyone has been saying ham radio is dying.....well, they said the same thing about CW (morse code), but it's still around. Plus, you think the manufacturers of amateur radio gear are in a money loosing business? Doubt it.....every few months I get a catalog with all the new gear....they build it, people are buying it.

  27. Clear Channel by nightsweat · · Score: 2, Funny

    The bad news is if these leads to a shortwave resurgence Clear Channel will buy up all the shortwave stations so they can broadcast crap music to the ends of the Earth.

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    1. Re:Clear Channel by ezHiker · · Score: 1

      The bad news is if these leads to a shortwave resurgence Clear Channel will buy up all the shortwave stations so they can broadcast crap music to the ends of the Earth.
      Well I don't know if that would be any worse what we have now. Except for the VOA, and WWV time signals, just about the only SW stations broadcasting from the US right now are a bunch of evangelist Christian stations.
      Doesn't present a very well-balanced view of America.
      At least a bunch of Clear Channel owned music stations would give people in other parts of the world some insight on the crappy radio we have to listen to every day!

  28. Bah. by NeoPotato · · Score: 1

    My laptop works fine as a radio without this. Why, I can just plug in these speakers and pick up a local country station using my laptop as an antenna! Unfortunately, the frequency isn't quite right, and there's no way to control the volume, so I'm stuck listening to staticy country music whenever my speakers are plugged in.

  29. Re:Macintosh? What's that? by garrulous · · Score: 1

    Hmm yeah, maybe we should think twice before buying into a closed hardware standard.

  30. RE: All the threads about SW radio Internet Router by Little+Brother · · Score: 4, Informative
    OK, first of all let's define SW. For the sake of this post I'll consider SW to include the 6 Meter HAM band (about 50 MHz) and lower. Yes, it would be possible to reallocate the frequency plans so that a few, high-bandwidth (for this I'm only saying a couple of Mbps) internet routers would exist. However this would tie up so much of the available radio spectrum that most other SW would be unable to function. As I personaly think being to communicate world events to third world contries is more important than giving a single third world contriy e-mail. It probably isn't feasable.

    However, if you use the UHF, VHF, and microwave bands. (WiFi btw is basicly just what we're already talking about on the microwave bands) then a lot more spectrum opens up. The problem with these bands is they do not skip the way the SW bands do so cannot cross long distances. Your maximum range is about 10% beyond the horizon. However, if you stratigicly placed routers/repeaters over a country, you might be able to give that entire country a wireless computer network, just don't do peer-to-peer filesharing or other high bandwidth tasks on it please. Interfearence could be partial overcome by using many, many different bands so that traffic could be spread out over 20-50 different frequencies or so.

    73
    KG4WWN

    --

    Little Brother, watching the watchers

  31. Re:It's still going by stevew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A couple of things here - (I'm a ham for over 25 years too, i.e. since tubes were the "hot" technology ;-) PC's CAN AND DO interfere with radios. The FCC requirements in effect today help alot, but you can still have cables, etc from the puter that cause grief.

    Also - the author states that ham radio isn't dead. I'd counter that it is indeed sick at this point. The average age of amateurs is constantly rising. There is almost NO new blood coming into the hobby. When I first got licensed, I joined a ham club called the West Valley ARC (West San Fernando Valley) and the average age of the members was perhaps 20. Unfortunately, when I go to a ham club meeting, all I see is folks older than myself..and I'm an OLD FART! (For those not in the know, Old Fart is a technical term...means ancient as the hills).

    The Internet and todays communications technology has taken all the magic out of ham radio. I don't see the genie being put back in the bottle easily either.

    --
    Have you compiled your kernel today??
  32. Shortwave Array by CrosbieSmith · · Score: 1

    Anybody built a short-wave array antenna?

    1. Re:Shortwave Array by oldzoot · · Score: 1

      Never built any kind of receiving array antenna. Usually long wire is good enough. Looping the wire into a horizontal loop can help make it more omni-directional.

      Sometimes phased arrays are used for getting higher gain and directionality. These are usually beam type yagi antennas. For higher frequencies, the antennas may be side by side on a single boom, for lower (hf) frequencies, the beams may be stacked vertically, one above the other. Note that the effects serve for both receive and transmit. The cost of a stacked multi-band HF yagi with tower can be considerable. Figure about $2-3K for a 50 -75 foot tower, another $1.5K for a rotator, probably $1K for the tower installation ( several cubic yards of concrete for the base in a BIG hole ) not to mention the $1K each for the antenna kits.

      Zoot

      --
      enough is too much
    2. Re:Shortwave Array by fatima · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's pretty easy to build shortwave antennas. You can make simple ones out of wire (like a dipole or longwire) which work well but aren't very directional. You can move up to more complex antennas and, other than construction details, they're easy to build out of tubing or wire. Of course, making one that works over a wide frequency range is more difficult, and would require a log periodic antenna; with enough space, you could build a log periodic to cover 3-30 MHz without too much trouble.

      If not having an antenna is all that's keeping you from shortwave listening, then buy a 100 foot spool of wire from Radio Shack, hook one end up to your receiver, and throw the other end over the nearest tree.

      It's equally important, however, to ground the radio. Without a good ground, the radio can't perform up to its potential, no matter how good your antenna system is.

      The ARRL (arrl.org) sells a number of excellent books on antenna design and construction.

  33. My favorite computer controlled short wave radio. by celerityfm · · Score: 1

    Take a look at this - http://www.icomamerica.com/brochures/IC-7800_pre-r elease.pdf Ok so its not just a radio, its a transciever for amateur radio operators, but omg look at this thing, 7" TFT display, usb and VGA out (you can operate the radio with keyboard/mouse/monitor WITHOUT the pc!) - compact flash slot to store settings and digital transmissions, DUAL recievers, the list goes on and on.

    In any case, expect to pay $5000 and be a licences amateur radio operator to enjoy it. I just wanted to link to the brochure because if you've never seen a radio like this, you NEED to-- you owe it to your inner geek :)

    --
    ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
  34. FIXED LINK. Sorry about that. by celerityfm · · Score: 1
    --
    ...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...
  35. Re:It's still going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Unfortunately, when I go to a ham club meeting, all I see is folks older than myself.."

    So if I meet a "hot chick" on the airwaves, I know what to expect?

  36. Day of the dead. by Crusty+Oldman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Two things that are certainly NOT dead: Shortwave and BSD. Visit the page at: DSP radio for LINUX on Intel platforms

    It's a beautifully documented, state of the art, software-defined, digital signal processor. It's downloadable and it's free! (Yeah, I know that Linux is not BSD, and vice versa. But this radio runs under both. Okay?)

  37. Review Missed VoA: Voice of America by tats · · Score: 2

    Thats another great radio station. Have grown up on staple of BBC, VoA, Radio Australia and (what was then) Radio Moscow during childhood in India. Didn't understand communist/capitalist propoganda back then, but the Russian english accept sure was closer to Americal accent than British. Australian accent was, well Australian. Also heard bits of Dueshe Welle.

    Remember waking up at nights to listen to brtish top 20 charts on BBC, and Billboard top 10 on VoA. VoA was hosted by Ray macdonald (if I remember correctly) who got married to a Calcutta girl. Then cam MTV which destroyed the snob-value of tracking charts ...

    DXing is as addictive as Slashdot.

  38. Transmit by gmby · · Score: 1

    What no transmit!? How are we supposed to troll then?

    --
    I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
  39. Stand-alone _and_ PC-controlled? by ewall · · Score: 1

    I haven't used shortwave for years, but I'd love to have it again in a handy portable version (for travel in Africa) that could be connected to the computer (for recording at home)...

    I've done a quick search for this, but not found anything. And, since I've been out of the loop for so long, I don't even know what companies are respected and recommended. Any /. Hams out there have some tips for me?

    --
    Karma Police, come arrest this man...
    1. Re:Stand-alone _and_ PC-controlled? by patchmaster · · Score: 1

      I don't think one radio is going to fill your needs. The smaller radios that are easy to travel with aren't likely to have computer interfaces. Those with computer interfaces are likely to be a pain when you travel. The RX-320 mentioned in the article isn't physically large, but you do need the computer to make it work.

      Depending on what you're trying to listen to in Africa, you could probably get by with a fairly cheap portable. The major broadcasters tend to send some pretty powerful signals in that direction. If that's all you're looking to tune in, almost any SW radio should work fine.

      The Radio Netherlands web site has a pretty good list of receivers along with reviews. Like all such reviews, I'm sure not everyone would agree with their ratings, but it's a place to start. I'll leave it to you to find the web site in the hopes it will reduce the /. effect.

  40. and another cool thing you can do with this radio by dr_canak · · Score: 2

    Granted, you can do this with any audio source, but since my rx-320 is already connected to my computer, I'll use it as an example.

    Using Winamp and the Shoutcast plugin, I can stream AM broadcast programming over shoutcast and the internet. This is very nice for my sister and her boyfriend who are big area sports fans (Big City USA), but obviously can't listen to the games on radio (as they live in germany). I simply setup the radio during a game, and they can listen to their heart's content. Like i said, I know you can do this with any audio source, but the ten-tec is a nice solution, and another example of the fun you can have with a radio attached to a p.c.

    And yes i know all about the "illegal to rebroadcast or retransmit..." stuff they announce before a broadcast. I limit the connected users to "1", disguise the channel as something irrelevant, and assume the liklihood of it being picked up by anyone other than my sis to be pretty small.

  41. Open-Source TEN_TEC Trasceiver by AdmTaco · · Score: 2, Informative

    My favorite is the Ten-Tec Pegasus. Why? Because you can receive AND TRANSMIT (with appropropriate Ham license) on all the frequencies using your computer and the interface box. Heck, they even include source code! The product name is "Pegasus". Check it out: http://www.tentec.com/TT550.htm

  42. What about Linux though?? by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    I've been a shortwave listener on and off for years now. I moved to a new home about two years ago and shortwave reception kind of fell by the wayside, my radio broke in the move.

    I'd like to see about getting one of these cool radios and throw up an antenna but I refuse to use any windows stuff in my house. Does the company have a version of Linux??

  43. Lightning, Computers, Morse Code by oldCoder · · Score: 1
    Is there a Text-to-Morse realtime converter? So we can do "Messaging"? Now just pop over to systran or babel fish and hook in the automatic translation services between your text and the traslation to morse code... I think I have the recipe for a disaster or a comedy. I should sell this idea to Hollywood; Hacker in Pacoima starts Panic in Kinshasa!

    When lightning hits your antenna, you could lose your SW radio. Your computer, however, is (or should be) more expensive. Of course modem lines pose a similar threat, but without the big lightning rod on your roof being connected to your PC. With a little bad luck, you could take out your entire network.

    --

    I18N == Intergalacticization
  44. Give one a try... by d-ude · · Score: 1

    You can try this radio out by visiting N2JEU's website and clicking the link for the web-controlled Ten-Tec.

    Requires Real Audio to listen in. Plenty of links to established programing for those who don't know which frequencies to pick as well.

  45. Re:SW is not Dead! (Yet) - remember rwanda? by mhanoh · · Score: 1
    Just because it gives access to information does not mean it's always a good thing.

    Rewanda - A Historical Chronology

    Google search: rwanda genocide extremist radio