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."

41 of 116 comments (clear)

  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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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. 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 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!
    4. 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.

  5. 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 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?
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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??

  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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); }
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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?
  17. 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 ./!

  18. 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!
  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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
  23. 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

  24. 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??
  25. 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?)

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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