07-11-2012, 06:25 PM
Yes, coverage of DAB is highly variable, and your reception of analogue signals in no indication. FM is very poor around here, DAB is fine. My portable set works well using the telescopic aerial on most stations. For the hi-fi DAB tuner, it is fed a simple parallel feed of my FM system - I don't have a dedicated DAB aerial.
My FM aerial is very crude, and could definitely be improved. Basically, it's one of those T-shaped dipoles that comes free with most hi-fi tuners. I mounted it up in the attic - as high as I could manage. It's held up with drawing pins poked into the rafters. It's almost at the peak of the roof, but obviously inside. The roof is slate...
From the attic, there is a good quality down-lead to the cellar, where it meets a distribution amplifier (dedicated to radio - I have a separate one for TV).
I guess the DAB signals must be a lot stronger than FM, given that noise-free stereo reception isn't really feasible from this setup, and also given that the dipole will be much less sensitive at ~220 MHz.
The power consumption of the sets is a valid concern, but this could be fixed if there was the will. I have an MP3 player that is lot more complicated than a DAB receiver, yet it runs for 40 hours from a charge. It's tiny - I find it hard to see how they've managed to fit a battery in there! The silicon companies need to get behind it, but they don't consider it to be a big enough market. But until the prices and power consumption improve, the market will be limited. Catch 22.
To say that DAB isn't as good as FM without qualification simply isn't fair. For people who get good DAB reception, but are in weak analogue reception areas, like Joe and I, DAB is clearly better. For people who want to listen to Radio 3 in the best possible quality, DAB is better than FM in most cases (though R3 is available via the internet at 320 kb/s AAC for those with computers equipped with decent sound cards). For people who want 6Music or 4Extra, FM isn't an option. But, against that, for portable use, I'd use an FM radio.
Most of my listening is on FM. I like FM, and would hate to see it go. But, I'm not going to knock DAB simply because it's fashionable to do so. There are plenty of crappy DAB radios out there that sound awful, but that's not the fault of DAB. There are plenty of stations on DAB that sound awful, but that's normally nothing to do with DAB itself.
Yes, DAB could be better - we could be a bit more generous with the bit rates, and not use so much dynamic range compression - but engineers don't make these sorts of choices, sadly. We're rather stuck at the moment - the BBC gets enough stick at the best of times, so how do you think the critics would respond if we went to DAB+, obsoleting most of the existing DAB radios out there? If I was the DG, I would purchase another multiplex and give all the BBC services more bit rate. And would put 6Music and 4Extra onto FM. One day...
My FM aerial is very crude, and could definitely be improved. Basically, it's one of those T-shaped dipoles that comes free with most hi-fi tuners. I mounted it up in the attic - as high as I could manage. It's held up with drawing pins poked into the rafters. It's almost at the peak of the roof, but obviously inside. The roof is slate...
From the attic, there is a good quality down-lead to the cellar, where it meets a distribution amplifier (dedicated to radio - I have a separate one for TV).
I guess the DAB signals must be a lot stronger than FM, given that noise-free stereo reception isn't really feasible from this setup, and also given that the dipole will be much less sensitive at ~220 MHz.
The power consumption of the sets is a valid concern, but this could be fixed if there was the will. I have an MP3 player that is lot more complicated than a DAB receiver, yet it runs for 40 hours from a charge. It's tiny - I find it hard to see how they've managed to fit a battery in there! The silicon companies need to get behind it, but they don't consider it to be a big enough market. But until the prices and power consumption improve, the market will be limited. Catch 22.
To say that DAB isn't as good as FM without qualification simply isn't fair. For people who get good DAB reception, but are in weak analogue reception areas, like Joe and I, DAB is clearly better. For people who want to listen to Radio 3 in the best possible quality, DAB is better than FM in most cases (though R3 is available via the internet at 320 kb/s AAC for those with computers equipped with decent sound cards). For people who want 6Music or 4Extra, FM isn't an option. But, against that, for portable use, I'd use an FM radio.
Most of my listening is on FM. I like FM, and would hate to see it go. But, I'm not going to knock DAB simply because it's fashionable to do so. There are plenty of crappy DAB radios out there that sound awful, but that's not the fault of DAB. There are plenty of stations on DAB that sound awful, but that's normally nothing to do with DAB itself.
Yes, DAB could be better - we could be a bit more generous with the bit rates, and not use so much dynamic range compression - but engineers don't make these sorts of choices, sadly. We're rather stuck at the moment - the BBC gets enough stick at the best of times, so how do you think the critics would respond if we went to DAB+, obsoleting most of the existing DAB radios out there? If I was the DG, I would purchase another multiplex and give all the BBC services more bit rate. And would put 6Music and 4Extra onto FM. One day...
