[Electronics-talk] The digital radio TV from Oehm

[David Andrews]

Gerald, despite your cynicism, I think that Best Buy intends to offer 
the accessible HD radio again.  I had a long talk with an employee of 
iBiquity Digital at the NAB Radio Show and apparently Best Buy lost 
its manufacturer of that radio, due to circumstances out of its 
control.  They are in the process of lining up two new ones, so they 
have redundancy.

I also bought SCA radios from Richard Oehm in the 80's and worked 
with him on a equipment development project.  I always found him to 
be competent and reliable.  His offering isn't for everybody -- but 
it is a democracy and a capitalistic country after all and we all can choose.

Dave

At 05:42 PM 1/24/2013, you wrote:

>Ah, but the Oehm DTV Radio comes with Braille instructions that 
>explain exactly which buttons to press on the remote control to 
>program it without sighted help.  And it's practically hand-made 
>from scratch right here in the good old USA.  Isn't that worth 
>paying $175 for?  Besides, the owner of the tiny company that makes 
>this radio has to make a living, right?  Oh well, you know how it 
>goes with these specialized radios geared for the blind. Here today 
>and gone tomorrow.  Remember the Insignia HD Radio?  How well did 
>that work out?  It doesn't seem to be available on Bestbuy.com 
>anymore which lists it as "sold out".
>
>Gerald
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "George Cassell" 
><ApolloSeven at Earthlink.net>
>To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances" 
><electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:47 PM
>Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] The digital radio TV from Oehm
>
>
>>This is nuts!
>>
>>Modifying a table top radio in order to be able to pick up digital TV
>>channels -- and only 2 thru 69 at that.  It's like buying a motorcycle so
>>you can add two wheels to it and try to make it into a car.  How crazy is
>>that?
>>
>>Just buy a cheap digital TV that receives, not only the over the air
>>channels, but cable channels as well.  Then you can connect it to an
>>antennae (rabbit ears or outside deep fringe, if you wish), just as you were
>>going to do with that stupid radio, or to a cable and be able  to pick up
>>cable channels, or even a cable box and pick up the entire package.
>>
>>And just what is this digital keypad (which many of the keys don't even
>>function) going to do for you?  If it could dial your phone for you, I might
>>even think that it goes from being totally nuts to being just plain stupid.
>>But it doesn't even do that!
>>
>>With a standard digital TV (since you want to be able to do the basic
>>things), I don't know of any digital TV with which I can't turn it on and
>>off, raise and lower the volume, go up and down through the channels, and
>>with it's own keypad, punch in the exact channels you wish to watch.  And if
>>you can't watch the channels, and simply want to hear them, then put a
>>cardboard in front of the screen and pretend that it's a damn radio!
>>
>>Give me a break you guys.
>>
>>-- George
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
>>To: "Discussion of accessible electronics and appliances"
>><electronics-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:54 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Electronics-talk] The digital radio TV from Oehm
>>
>>
>>Andy,
>>
>>You could be right, but whether the TV receives cable channels or has a
>>coaxial cable connection really should be two separate
>>issues.  Some antenna systems for digital TV use coaxial cable for
>>connection since they use both UHF and VHF antennas.  If the
>>unit uses two or four screws as was often done in the past to accommodate
>>300 ohm twin lead, one could by a transformer to connect
>>a coaxial cable.  I know you know all this, but it may not be obvious to
>>everyone.  I guess to be sure we provide a helpful
>>answer, we would need to know why a coaxial cable was as important as it
>>appears to be, and what sort of antenna connection the
>>unit has.  It occurred to me that there may have been an assumption that not
>>receiving cable channels means no coaxial cable
>>connection, and that wouldn't necessarily be the case, but I am just
>>speculating.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Steve Jacobson