Quote:“A lot of people still don’t get it – they don’t understand what digital radio offers and why it’s important,” said Ford Ennals, its chief executive.
Why give up good sounding FM for rather poor DAB radio. Mine hasn't been switched on for 4 years now because I'd rather listen to people speaking sense and decent music. All I get on DAB is bubbling mud and trashy music played in bubbling mud.
Every house has more than one FM radio so why chuck them all for one mud box?
Having said that, if a lot of private Noise FM stations want to go to FM only, then let them. But Radio 4, Radio 3, Radio Lancashire and GMR are BBC owned stations and should be available without having to buy this crappy DAB. Public service broadcasting....
Oh yes, I forgot. Not quality any more is it. It's Quantity... of Money. The British public as a body of people are not stupid. Individually it's a different matter, but together they can see what's what and past most of the hype.
BBC1 (TV) was clear here. Now it blocks and vanishes as soon as it rains. Progress....
Cheers,
Steve P.
If we've always had that, why is the car boot open? You aren't smuggling in another old TV are you...?
Just invested in one of those nice little "pantry" VHF/FM stereo xmtrs from a well-known auction site - arrived yesterday. Yes, I know, I should have built my own (its not that hard) - just no time...
Very sweet. Bit powerful so will attenuate it (just as well the neighbours are a long way away...)
Its a compromise - I feed DAB/MP3/CD/FM into a couple of AM xmtrs & one FM to keep the house purring... DAB just doesn't sound the same...
My experience of DAB in cars is NOT GOOD - lots of drop-out - you can get little local DAB repeaters (DAB -> local FM) for not-a-lot-of-moolah that are powered off the cigarette socket specifically for use in cars... not tried one of those yet...
My DAB reception is far better than FM but this is obviously something which is dependant on local conditions.
I can't help but think that DAB is a surplus platform those as the obvious way to broadcast digitally would be internet streaming.
I'm no expert but are the costs of maintaining and operating a conventional transmitter network plus those for able and satellite, more than it would cost to install and maintain a nationwide wireless internet access which is either free to use or could be used at a subscription charge comparable to a TV Licence fee?
The main thing that matters is content, not how it's broadcast. I'd rather have a 405-line black and white TV with two channels of decent programmes than a wide-screen 3D thing with "fifty-seven channels and nothing on."
i find it hard to belive that 30% of house holds now have dab! I only know of 3 and i am one of them. and i only have one for r4extra .
i feel a bit sorry for people trying to sell them when an £8.00 fm set sounds better than the cheepest dab set £24.00 from a wel lknown supper market.
in fact if you want the clear (sic)sound of dab from an fm radio turn the bass right down and the treble right up.
i may change my mind if i can find a seperate dab tuner that comes anyware near the sound of my leak trough line.
rob t
The sub-header to that article states "The switchover to digital radio is likely to be delayed because the Government has failed to meet listening targets".
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I don't understand that sentence. It implies that the Government has total control of 'listening targets':i.e. people listening to DAB as opposed to FM. So, just how is the Gov't. meant to be able to control what method we use for receiving such broadcasts - apart from switching off F.M. - which, therefore, begs the question?
Secondly, Ford Ennals is quoted as saying: "A lot of people don't get it; they don't understand what DAB offers and why it's important".
You know something? I'm one of them! Perhaps that is because I have seen, read or heard little promotional blurb to explain it all to me. And that itself is a bit surprising, since the vast bulk of my radio & TV 'entertainment' comes from the BBC - whom, I would have thought, would have been 'plugging' it like crazy.
Thirdly, quote: "A department spokesperson said that the analogue switch-off will not happen until digital listening reached 50%".
Is that figure of 50% a reasonable figure to use as a decider, I ask myself? Suppose the government research figures arrive at, say, 55% - and at that point, the decision is made to throw the switch. Suppose, further, that the remaining 45% have simply stopped using FM or DAB completely - and the latter could be because the reception is poor. Surely a deciding figure of something like 75 - 80% would be more democratic? Or are my expectations here of 'democracy' somewhat naive?
These are the thoughts that crossed my mind when I read the article - together with remarks from various users - here and elsewhere. I have no experience of DAB, since all my VHF broadcast radio equipment is F.M. - which works just fine. And that could be taken as the viewpoint "If it ain't broken, don't fix it".
"The switchover to digital radio is likely to be delayed because the Government has failed to meet listening targets".
Does that mean the MP's don't listen to it........
al wrote "vast bulk of my radio & TV 'entertainment' comes from the BBC - whom, I would have thought, would have been 'plugging' it like crazy. "
our local bbc station does not broardcast on dab.
the only staition that i have heard pushing dab is radio 5 .in fact i whent onto one of there chat shows to ask the presenter why i should scrap a perfectly good fm radio in favour of dab? his answer .
the clarity of the sound (no hiss)
vast amount of stations (compaired to fm)
low power comsumption!!!???
its the future (so was mini disc)
none of thease auguments hold water.
rob t
(06-11-2012, 05:18 PM)Steve_P Wrote: Why give up good sounding FM for rather poor DAB radio. Mine hasn't been switched on for 4 years now because I'd rather listen to people speaking sense and decent music. All I get on DAB is bubbling mud and trashy music played in bubbling mud.
Steve,
If you are hearing bubbling mud, this is telling you that you have a reception problem.
When the standards were being agreed - roughly 20 years ago - it was decided that the listening public wouldn't like the "digital cliff" effect. So, rather than have an "all or nothing" scheme, it was decided to build an error detection and correction scheme that has a bit of a "soft" edge. In other words, with a good signal, the signal is perfect. With errors exceeding a certain rate, the error correction causes the "bubbling mud"effect. When the errors reach the next level, then the signal mutes completely.
In other words, the bubbling mud is a deliberate and intentional effect that informs listeners that they need to improve their aerial system.
Unfortunately, the public doesn't realise this. So they associate bubbling mud with MP2 compression. People knock DAB, saying it uses an outdated codec, and DAB+ (with AAC) will be much better. Not so!
Your Freeview box uses MP2. But do you ever hear bubbling mud when watching TV? Thought not...
MP2 is great. It's much better than most people give it credit for. The same could be said about DAB itself. Aside from the bubbling mud, the audible problems with DAB are caused by poor system design and poor operational practices - nothing to do with the DAB medium itself. Indeed, arguably, the DAB medium offers a more direct "window" into the transmission signal, so problems at the broadcast centre are easier to hear.
The biggest problem with radio in general is dynamic range compression. All stations use it; most use it excessively. The so-called "loudness war", that started back in the 1980s, is still all-pervasive today. If I listen to DAB radio, I don't hear problems caused by MP2 data-rate reduction. I hear problems with signals bouncing off the limiters because people are over-driving the desk. In local radio, operators use the faders as switches, with no regard to levels - the Optimod processors prevent the transmitters from over-modulating.
As an aside, I was in the basement of BH in London today, looking at the Optimod processors for the national services. They have bargraphs showing the incoming signal and the leaving signal. It's very dramatic, especially on R1. From the desk, a lot of dynamic range. Leaving the processor, almost none. Literally, you can hardly see the level meter move. Just a dB or two. I took pictures, but the battery in my camera went flat shortly afterwards...
Just to be clear, I don't advocate FM-switchoff. We have a long way to go first - not least with car stereos and portables. The public don't get DAB because they don't feel the need for more stations when all the commercial offerings are indistinguishable anyway. Long live FM, definitely.
But, DAB is fine. More bit-rate would be nice; more discrete-stereo services would also be an improvement, but where I live, DAB generally sounds much better than FM. I am much more sensitive to multipath distortion than MP2 artefacts. In careful tests, most people are much less able to perceive MP2 artefacts than you might imagine. Yes, AAC might be better, but if we moved to DAB+, just how long do you think it would be before they decide to wind the bit rates down to very low levels? And don't forget that a move to DAB+ would render the majority of existing sets obsolete...
My DAB listening is mostly on an Arcam Alpha 9 - very nice, and expensive back in the day. Mine was rescued from a skip, and just needed a new voltage regulator IC. I also have a Genus Type R portable, which sounds most unlike typical portables. If anything, it lacks treble. And it looks like a Hacker, which was the reason for buying it!