new DAB pocket radio story

[john d hamilton]

A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05, £39 from a Comet
store in London. It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but
everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
stations that I had previously *preset*. I quite often need to do a scan
since the reception quality is very different between the front and the rear
of my house.

I took it back to Comet, the girl there became very 'fish' faced, but gave
me another one. I said i would like to test it and she said you cannot pick
up any stations in this store. So I went to the next door shop where I
could sit down, and found that this replacement set had exactly the same
problem.

I took it back and she then tried to set up the presets herself, at the
counter in the store where we were before. ( Making a lie of what she said
about not having reception in the store). But she didn't know how to do it
and declined my offer of showing her how to. Any way even more fish faced,
she then gave me a refund for the £39.

I later rang Phillips technical help and they said they had not encountered
this particular problem with this radio and would ring me back. They
didn't, so I rang them again, but I got the distinct impression that they
really were not that interested in any of this, and got no further ahead.

Thinking I would buy another one, I rang the nearest John Lewis Store; but
it looks like although they do sell Phillips radios they do not sell this
'particular' pocket model. The model is DA1103/5 and the software version on
it is: V.1.3.2. I think it might be a very 'recent' version since it
offers 30 presets as opposed to the generally advertised 20 presets
available.

Since John Lewis said they could not even 'order' me one of these radios,
i'm wondering if they have been having trouble with them?

So my quandry now is whether to try to locate another one, or switch to
another pocket DAB radio? Is there another pocket radio that people would
recommend; or should I best pursue another one of these Phillips? Thanks
for any advice.

[Mark Carver]

john d hamilton wrote:
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05, £39 from a Comet
> store in London. It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but
> everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
> stations that I had previously *preset*. I quite often need to do a scan
> since the reception quality is very different between the front and the rear
> of my house.

Rescaning in the same locality is pointless. Take it to a local point of good
reception, and scan there. For instance all BBC national radio stations
operate on exactly the same frequency in the UK in what's called an SFN, so
rescanning will bring back exactly the same transmission if receivable.

The only time you need to rescan a DAB receiver in the UK, is to receive new
local stations when you enter a new area, or to receive a newly launched station.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <gcq1r4$u0l$***@registered.motzarella.org>,
john d hamilton <***@mail.invalid> wrote:
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05, £39 from a
> Comet store in London. It seemed quite good to me, and is small and
> neat, but everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped
> off* all the stations that I had previously *preset*. I quite often
> need to do a scan since the reception quality is very different between
> the front and the rear of my house.

Surely all you need to do is take it outside so it captures all the
available muxes?

I'm not surprised it wipes the store when you re-scan - you'd normally
only need to do this if you move to a different part of the country.

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[philo]

"john d hamilton" <***@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gcq1r4$u0l$***@registered.motzarella.org...
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05, £39 from a
Comet
> store in London. It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but
> everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
> stations that I had previously *preset*. I quite often need to do a scan
> since the reception quality is very different between the front and the
rear
> of my house.
>
> I took it back to Comet, the girl there became very 'fish' faced, but gave
> me another one. I said i would like to test it and she said you cannot
pick
> up any stations in this store. So I went to the next door shop where I
> could sit down, and found that this replacement set had exactly the same
> problem.
>
> I took it back and she then tried to set up the presets herself, at the
> counter in the store where we were before. ( Making a lie of what she said
> about not having reception in the store). But she didn't know how to do it
> and declined my offer of showing her how to. Any way even more fish faced,
> she then gave me a refund for the £39.
>
> I later rang Phillips technical help and they said they had not
encountered
> this particular problem with this radio and would ring me back. They
> didn't, so I rang them again, but I got the distinct impression that they
> really were not that interested in any of this, and got no further ahead.
>
> Thinking I would buy another one, I rang the nearest John Lewis Store; but
> it looks like although they do sell Phillips radios they do not sell this
> 'particular' pocket model. The model is DA1103/5 and the software version
on
> it is: V.1.3.2. I think it might be a very 'recent' version since it
> offers 30 presets as opposed to the generally advertised 20 presets
> available.
>
> Since John Lewis said they could not even 'order' me one of these radios,
> i'm wondering if they have been having trouble with them?
>
> So my quandry now is whether to try to locate another one, or switch to
> another pocket DAB radio? Is there another pocket radio that people would
> recommend; or should I best pursue another one of these Phillips?
Thanks
> for any advice.
>
>


No sense in getting the same radio again...
time to look into something that does what you want

[Whiskers]

["Followup-To:" header set to 24hoursupport.helpdesk.]
On 2008-10-11, john d hamilton <***@mail.invalid> wrote:
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05, £39 from a Comet
> store in London. It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but
> everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
> stations that I had previously *preset*. I quite often need to do a scan
> since the reception quality is very different between the front and the rear
> of my house.

[...]

Losing pre-sets on scanning may be a 'feature' of that particular model -
which seems remarkably cheap for the features claimed.

It wouldn't have occurred to me to re-scan in an attempt to overcome poor
reception; just go to a spot where the reception is as good as you can get
in your area (a local park, perhaps?) and scan - thereafter, if you can't
receive a particular station in a particular spot re-scanning isn't going
to help. I've never found it necessary to re-scan even when going to a
different part of the country, as far as national stations are concerned.

Pocket receivers often have rather poor aerials and don't work well
indoors or where the signal is weak - which DAB is in some places.

Some DAB receivers offer two sorts of scan: one to re-create the entire
station list, the other merely to add any new stations (and possibly
remove any no longer found). The latter sort of scan shouldn't upset your
pre-sets, but the former might well do so - although I agree that it would
be better not to if the pre-set stations are found by the new scan.

My only experience of pocket DAB receivers is a Sony XDR-M1 I've had for a
few years, which works well. I've also had good experience with Roberts
portables, although I haven't tried their pocket model.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[William Sommerwerck]

I think I know what's going on here.

Barring the (real) possibility that the set is incorrectly designed, or that
the instructions are incorrect (also highly likely), you were _not_ scanning
the stations. Rather, you were _reprogramming_ the unit.

There is no inherent law of nature that requires the scanned stations to
overwrite the manually programmed settings. For example, when I press SEEK
or SCAN on my car radio, it has no effect on the memory presets.

So...

Either the set has only an "auto program" function (which you are mistaking
for a scan), or you are selecting the "auto program" function (rather than a
simple scan).

It's not surprise that the salesperson was so ignorant of electronics that
she swapped the unit rather than trying to resolve the problem.

[john d hamilton]

"William Sommerwerck" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@comcast.com...
>I think I know what's going on here.
>
> Barring the (real) possibility that the set is incorrectly designed, or
> that
> the instructions are incorrect (also highly likely), you were _not_
> scanning
> the stations. Rather, you were _reprogramming_ the unit.
>
> There is no inherent law of nature that requires the scanned stations to
> overwrite the manually programmed settings. For example, when I press SEEK
> or SCAN on my car radio, it has no effect on the memory presets.
>
> So...
>
> Either the set has only an "auto program" function (which you are
> mistaking
> for a scan), or you are selecting the "auto program" function (rather than
> a
> simple scan).

Well Done again William....actually i pressed the option, wait for
it...........*Local Scan*.

[William Sommerwerck]

"john d hamilton" <***@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gcqdt8$m5i$***@registered.motzarella.org...
> "William Sommerwerck" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:***@comcast.com...

>> I think I know what's going on here.

>> Barring the (real) possibility that the set is incorrectly designed, or
>> that the instructions are incorrect (also highly likely), you were _not_
>> scanning the stations. Rather, you were _reprogramming_ the unit.

>> There is no inherent law of nature that requires the scanned stations to
>> overwrite the manually programmed settings. For example, when I press
>> SEEK or SCAN on my car radio, it has no effect on the memory presets.

>> So...

>> Either the set has only an "auto program" function (which you are
>> mistaking for a scan), or you are selecting the "auto program" function
>> (rather than a simple scan).

> Well Done again, William... Actually, I pressed the option, wait for it...
> *Local Scan*.

"Now I'm a dab at penny readings."
"They are not remarkably entertaining."

Coruscating logic cannot retroactively override poor product design.

Spock said "'Fascinating' I reserved for the unexpected." This is indeed
fascinating.

I found the owner's manual here...

http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/en/gb/consumer/cc/_onlineStoreStatus_true/_productid_DA1103_05_GB_CONSUMER/_retailStoreStatus_true/_stores_true/Portable-Radio+DA1103-05

"Batteries contain chemical substances, so they should be disposed of
properly."
So do chocolate cakes. There is only one way to dispose of chocolate cakes
properly.

After wading through the warnings (see above) about how I might electrocute
the dog if I pressed the wrong button, etc, I found that the only way one
can store (or clear) a station is by pressing the Preset button. There's
nothing in the instructions about any automatic storage. Nor does it seem
possible to preset more than one station at time. Once you've

I'm stumped. Wish I could see the thing. Unless you're doing something
Really Weird, it looks as if there's some Really Bad Code in the system
controller. I would go to the Philips site and let them know you're mad as
hell, and you're not going to this any more!

PS: "Local" Scan? How is it different from a "Full" scan? Do they mean
scanning all the blocks? What makes any particular block "local"? Inquiring
minds want to know!

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-11, William Sommerwerck <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> "john d hamilton" <***@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gcqdt8$m5i$***@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "William Sommerwerck" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:***@comcast.com...

[...]

> PS: "Local" Scan? How is it different from a "Full" scan? Do they mean
> scanning all the blocks? What makes any particular block "local"? Inquiring
> minds want to know!

Different transmitters can, and do, carry different 'local' stations as
well as providing the same 'national' stations as each other. Like VHF/FM
analogue stations, each transmitter has a very limited range - a few tens
of miles at most, usually - so DAB stations can be very 'local', even if
the transmitter shares the same radio frequency as other more powerful
neighbours. DAB is very different from analogue.
<http://www.getdabdigitalradio.com/WhatisDAB/> might help.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Andy Cuffe]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:57:54 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>I'm stumped. Wish I could see the thing. Unless you're doing something
>Really Weird, it looks as if there's some Really Bad Code in the system
>controller. I would go to the Philips site and let them know you're mad as
>hell, and you're not going to this any more!
>
>PS: "Local" Scan? How is it different from a "Full" scan? Do they mean
>scanning all the blocks? What makes any particular block "local"? Inquiring
>minds want to know!
>

Bad designs like this seem to be normal these days. If it works at
all, they consider it finished and move on to the next product. I
doubt Philips will care since they probably had nothing to do with the
actual design of the radio.
Andy Cuffe

***@gmail.com

[ian field]

"Andy Cuffe" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:57:54 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm stumped. Wish I could see the thing. Unless you're doing something
>>Really Weird, it looks as if there's some Really Bad Code in the system
>>controller. I would go to the Philips site and let them know you're mad as
>>hell, and you're not going to this any more!
>>
>>PS: "Local" Scan? How is it different from a "Full" scan? Do they mean
>>scanning all the blocks? What makes any particular block "local"?
>>Inquiring
>>minds want to know!
>>
>
> Bad designs like this seem to be normal these days. If it works at
> all, they consider it finished and move on to the next product. I
> doubt Philips will care since they probably had nothing to do with the
> actual design of the radio.
> Andy Cuffe

When I used to service monitors most of the Philips one's were made in
Hungary, these days I think more and more of their stuff comes straight from
China.

[Brian Gaff]

I've noticed that say, if you change areas you can lose presets on many dab
radios. Its a difficult one, as they are not really lying about it, they are
just not saying the software has a drawback if you rescan you have to re
store the presets.

I was thinking when you first said it was a pocket model that there have
been poor reception problems with dab. Most people are familiar with the
boiling mud effect you can get if signal is low, but some sets do rescan if
they get very low signals that this can confuse the heck out of users.

Dab is a bit of a flop for quality and coverage in my view.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff - ***@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"john d hamilton" <***@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gcq1r4$u0l$***@registered.motzarella.org...
>A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05, £39 from a
>Comet store in London. It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat,
>but everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
>stations that I had previously *preset*. I quite often need to do a scan
>since the reception quality is very different between the front and the
>rear of my house.
>
> I took it back to Comet, the girl there became very 'fish' faced, but gave
> me another one. I said i would like to test it and she said you cannot
> pick up any stations in this store. So I went to the next door shop where
> I could sit down, and found that this replacement set had exactly the same
> problem.
>
> I took it back and she then tried to set up the presets herself, at the
> counter in the store where we were before. ( Making a lie of what she said
> about not having reception in the store). But she didn't know how to do it
> and declined my offer of showing her how to. Any way even more fish faced,
> she then gave me a refund for the £39.
>
> I later rang Phillips technical help and they said they had not
> encountered this particular problem with this radio and would ring me
> back. They didn't, so I rang them again, but I got the distinct
> impression that they really were not that interested in any of this, and
> got no further ahead.
>
> Thinking I would buy another one, I rang the nearest John Lewis Store; but
> it looks like although they do sell Phillips radios they do not sell this
> 'particular' pocket model. The model is DA1103/5 and the software version
> on it is: V.1.3.2. I think it might be a very 'recent' version since it
> offers 30 presets as opposed to the generally advertised 20 presets
> available.
>
> Since John Lewis said they could not even 'order' me one of these radios,
> i'm wondering if they have been having trouble with them?
>
> So my quandry now is whether to try to locate another one, or switch to
> another pocket DAB radio? Is there another pocket radio that people would
> recommend; or should I best pursue another one of these Phillips?
> Thanks for any advice.
>

[ian field]

"Brian Gaff" <***@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sy5Ik.70412$***@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> I've noticed that say, if you change areas you can lose presets on many
> dab radios. Its a difficult one, as they are not really lying about it,
> they are just not saying the software has a drawback if you rescan you
> have to re store the presets.
>
> I was thinking when you first said it was a pocket model that there have
> been poor reception problems with dab. Most people are familiar with the
> boiling mud effect you can get if signal is low, but some sets do rescan
> if they get very low signals that this can confuse the heck out of users.
>
> Dab is a bit of a flop for quality and coverage in my view.
>
> Brian
>
> --
> Brian Gaff - ***@blueyonder.co.uk
> Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name may be lost.
> Blind user, so no pictures please!
> "john d hamilton" <***@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gcq1r4$u0l$***@registered.motzarella.org...
>>A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05, £39 from a
>>Comet store in London. It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat,
>>but everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
>>stations that I had previously *preset*. I quite often need to do a scan
>>since the reception quality is very different between the front and the
>>rear of my house.
>>
>> I took it back to Comet, the girl there became very 'fish' faced, but
>> gave me another one. I said i would like to test it and she said you
>> cannot pick up any stations in this store. So I went to the next door
>> shop where I could sit down, and found that this replacement set had
>> exactly the same problem.
>>
>> I took it back and she then tried to set up the presets herself, at the
>> counter in the store where we were before. ( Making a lie of what she
>> said about not having reception in the store). But she didn't know how to
>> do it and declined my offer of showing her how to. Any way even more fish
>> faced, she then gave me a refund for the £39.
>>
>> I later rang Phillips technical help and they said they had not
>> encountered this particular problem with this radio and would ring me
>> back. They didn't, so I rang them again, but I got the distinct
>> impression that they really were not that interested in any of this, and
>> got no further ahead.
>>
>> Thinking I would buy another one, I rang the nearest John Lewis Store;
>> but it looks like although they do sell Phillips radios they do not sell
>> this 'particular' pocket model. The model is DA1103/5 and the software
>> version on it is: V.1.3.2. I think it might be a very 'recent' version
>> since it offers 30 presets as opposed to the generally advertised 20
>> presets available.
>>
>> Since John Lewis said they could not even 'order' me one of these radios,
>> i'm wondering if they have been having trouble with them?
>>
>> So my quandry now is whether to try to locate another one, or switch to
>> another pocket DAB radio? Is there another pocket radio that people would
>> recommend; or should I best pursue another one of these Phillips? Thanks
>> for any advice.

I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB because
reception is so unreliable.

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-11, ian field <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[...]

> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB because
> reception is so unreliable.

Not what <http://www.worlddab.org/> seem to think.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-11, ian field <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB
>> because reception is so unreliable.
>
> Not what <http://www.worlddab.org/> seem to think.


WorldDMB are liars.

For example, if you go to the WorldDMB home page and hover your mouse
over the word "DAB+", it says that the system is backwardly compatible
with DAB. But the opposite is in fact true, and I've asked WorldDMB to
tell the truth and correct their website, but they've done nothing.

The President of WorldDMB is Quetin Howard, the ex-chief exec (before
being sacked) of Digital One, who lied on BBC TV:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/articles/President-of-WorldDMB-was-dishonest-about-DAB+-on-BBC-TV.php

and he basically lies whenever he feels like it.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <C69Ik.46571$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
ian field <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB
> because reception is so unreliable.

It's not been terribly popular anywhere as it offers little over FM for
the majority of listeners. Indeed in the UK the bit rate is so low the
quality can be poorer - on most stations. The other thing is battery life
is poor on a portable receiver.

It does work pretty well for mobile reception, though, like in a car, in
reasonable signal areas - but very few makers offered DAB as OEM. And
aftermarket units are expensive - as are decent aerials.

--
*It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[tony sayer]

In article <***@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<***@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <C69Ik.46571$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
> ian field <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB
>> because reception is so unreliable.
>
>It's not been terribly popular anywhere as it offers little over FM for
>the majority of listeners. Indeed in the UK the bit rate is so low the
>quality can be poorer - on most stations. The other thing is battery life
>is poor on a portable receiver.
>
>It does work pretty well for mobile reception, though, like in a car, in
>reasonable signal areas - but very few makers offered DAB as OEM. And
>aftermarket units are expensive - as are decent aerials.
>

Fantastic DAB;!..
--
Tony Sayer

[Ken]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:43:58 +0100, "ian field"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
> scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.

Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
I think DAB+ will be the future here.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Ken <***@telia.com> wrote:
> > I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
> > scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
>
> Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
> I think DAB+ will be the future here.

I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but isn't
compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will make
it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and for
those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of the same
stations on FreeView or Satellite.

--
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-12, Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Ken <***@telia.com> wrote:
>> > I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
>> > scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
>>
>> Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
>
> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but isn't
> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will make
> it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and for
> those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of the same
> stations on FreeView or Satellite.

As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and some
receivers can cope with both. But there is now a significant number of
receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are
likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both standards at
once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to it.
Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new DAB
receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or so.

While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get 'better'
sound reproduction, most people just want something 'good enough' - which
DAB manifestly is. I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type: "Varied Speech" at
"128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a Roberts MP23). Radio 3
probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets, but most stations are Mono
and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it. I just
don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my kitchen or
bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.

BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
> > I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
> > isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
> > will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
> > radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already can
> > get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.

> As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and some
> receivers can cope with both.

I suppose some new or future ones will. As regards transmitters carrying
both the high cost of transmission is said to be one reason for some
existing or proposed stations closing. of course this cost is mainly
'rental' costs - but these private companies aren't there to provide
charity.

> But there is now a significant number of
> receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are
> likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both standards
> at once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to
> it. Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new
> DAB receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or
> so.

Absolutely. It took long enough to get to this level of acceptance.

> While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get
> 'better' sound reproduction,
but the thing is they didn't when it started
> most people just want something 'good
> enough' - which DAB manifestly is.
Indeed.
> I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type:
> "Varied Speech" at "128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a
> Roberts MP23).
Same here - and I'm using a pretty good sound system in this room. The
speakers are Chartwell LS3/5a. But we are in a minority if the vocal lobby
who only look at bitrates are to be believed.

> Radio 3 probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets,
> but most stations are Mono and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any
> the worse for it. I just don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall
> experience' in my kitchen or bedroom, or even the living-room, and
> certainly not in the car.

In an ideal world the rates would be a minimum 192 kbps for all - but that
would cost too much it seems.

> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.

Of course more modern codecs can use lower rates with less noticeable
degradation. But not as low as that. ;-)

--
*Modulation in all things *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article
> <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>>> isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer
>>> resistance
>>> will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
>>> radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already
>>> can
>>> get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>
>> As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and
>> some
>> receivers can cope with both.
>
> I suppose some new or future ones will. As regards transmitters
> carrying
> both the high cost of transmission is said to be one reason for some
> existing or proposed stations closing. of course this cost is mainly
> 'rental' costs - but these private companies aren't there to provide
> charity.


DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's one
of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters. DAB+ is definitely
going to happen, and it'll happen sooner than you think.

I saw a quote that sums up the situatino with DAB+ pretty well:

(wording from memory)
"people overestimate how much progress can be made in 1 year, but they
underestimate how much progress can be made in 10 years"

That's spot on where DAB+ is concerned. There will be loads of DAB+
stations in 5 years' time.


>> But there is now a significant number of
>> receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters
>> are
>> likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both
>> standards
>> at once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen
>> to
>> it. Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new
>> DAB receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years
>> or
>> so.
>
> Absolutely. It took long enough to get to this level of acceptance.


Irrelevant.


>> While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get
>> 'better' sound reproduction,
> but the thing is they didn't when it started


Now you're lying, because I told you what the score was in the early
days, so repeating this is lying.


>> most people just want something 'good
>> enough' - which DAB manifestly is.
> Indeed.
>> I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type:
>> "Varied Speech" at "128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a
>> Roberts MP23).
> Same here - and I'm using a pretty good sound system in this room.
> The
> speakers are Chartwell LS3/5a. But we are in a minority if the vocal
> lobby
> who only look at bitrates are to be believed.


You're also an R4 listener though, and you admitted that you don't
listen to the pop music statinos or similar, which is wehre you get
the shit audio quality.

Basically, both of you two are just extremely selfish people.


>> Radio 3 probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets,
>> but most stations are Mono and many only get 80kbps and don't seem
>> any
>> the worse for it. I just don't expect, or even want, a 'concert
>> hall
>> experience' in my kitchen or bedroom, or even the living-room, and
>> certainly not in the car.
>
> In an ideal world the rates would be a minimum 192 kbps for all -
> but that
> would cost too much it seems.


They screwed up in the first place:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

So don't try to suggest that we couldn't have had good audio quality,
because we DEFINITELY could have had it.


>> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
>
> Of course more modern codecs can use lower rates with less
> noticeable
> degradation. But not as low as that. ;-)


The BBC is already using 128 kbps - and even 192 kbps for R3 - for a
lot of its Internet stuff now.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <a3pIk.47343$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's one
> of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters.

You really think Arqiva will stop charging what the market will stand? You
make it sound like it's the power consumption of the transmitters which
costs.

--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <a3pIk.47343$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's
>> one
>> of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters.
>
> You really think Arqiva will stop charging what the market will
> stand? You
> make it sound like it's the power consumption of the transmitters
> which
> costs.


Here we go again, being lectured by the Plowman on something he knows
bugger all about.

The reason why it's 2-3 times cheaper per station on DAB+ is because
the bit rates are 2-3 times lower, so the capacity consumed is 2-3
times lower, so they can fit 2-3 times more stations on a multiplex,
so the overall multiplex costs can be shared between 2-3 times as many
stations.

Even you should be able to understand the logic of that.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-12, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>> In article <a3pIk.47343$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's
>>> one
>>> of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters.
>>
>> You really think Arqiva will stop charging what the market will
>> stand? You
>> make it sound like it's the power consumption of the transmitters
>> which
>> costs.
>
>
> Here we go again, being lectured by the Plowman on something he knows
> bugger all about.
>
> The reason why it's 2-3 times cheaper per station on DAB+ is because
> the bit rates are 2-3 times lower, so the capacity consumed is 2-3
> times lower, so they can fit 2-3 times more stations on a multiplex,
> so the overall multiplex costs can be shared between 2-3 times as many
> stations.
>
> Even you should be able to understand the logic of that.

So 'they' squeeze 3 times as much stuff into the bandwidth to exploit the
'better' compression algorithms now devised. Doesn't that rather leave
listeners with much the same 'listening quality' as we have now? And then
there's the question of where the twice-as-many-as-now broadcasters are
going to come from along with how twice-as-much-as-now revenue is going to
be generated (both those being in addition to everything already in place).
There aren't going to be three times as many listeners, are there? Or
three times as much stuff worth listening to? Or three times as many hours
in each day?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Richard Evans]

Whiskers wrote:

>
> So 'they' squeeze 3 times as much stuff into the bandwidth to exploit the
> 'better' compression algorithms now devised. Doesn't that rather leave
> listeners with much the same 'listening quality' as we have now? And then
> there's the question of where the twice-as-many-as-now broadcasters are
> going to come from along with how twice-as-much-as-now revenue is going to
> be generated (both those being in addition to everything already in place).
> There aren't going to be three times as many listeners, are there? Or
> three times as much stuff worth listening to? Or three times as many hours
> in each day?

Or they could simply reduce costs by switch off some of the multiplexes.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
> > The reason why it's 2-3 times cheaper per station on DAB+ is because
> > the bit rates are 2-3 times lower, so the capacity consumed is 2-3
> > times lower, so they can fit 2-3 times more stations on a multiplex,
> > so the overall multiplex costs can be shared between 2-3 times as many
> > stations.
> >
> > Even you should be able to understand the logic of that.

> So 'they' squeeze 3 times as much stuff into the bandwidth to exploit
> the 'better' compression algorithms now devised. Doesn't that rather
> leave listeners with much the same 'listening quality' as we have now?
> And then there's the question of where the twice-as-many-as-now
> broadcasters are going to come from along with how twice-as-much-as-now
> revenue is going to be generated (both those being in addition to
> everything already in place). There aren't going to be three times as
> many listeners, are there? Or three times as much stuff worth
> listening to? Or three times as many hours in each day?

Indeed - a fairly well heeled consortium in the UK have just dropped plans
to launch a new group of radio stations - mainly speech based, which would
have to compete with BBC ones. For a fairly limited audience since the
majority prefer music stations and the bands are awash with those. Many of
which barely profitable.

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-12, Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <***@4ax.com>,
>> Ken <***@telia.com> wrote:
>>>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
>>>> scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
>>>
>>> Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
>>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
>>
>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>> isn't
>> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
>> will make
>> it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and
>> for
>> those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of
>> the same
>> stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>
> As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and
> some
> receivers can cope with both. But there is now a significant number
> of
> receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are
> likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both
> standards at
> once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to
> it.
> Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new DAB
> receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or
> so.


There will be a slow migration over to DAB+. All "DAB" receivers are
gonig to support DAB+ and DMB-A soon.


> While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get
> 'better'
> sound reproduction, most people just want something 'good enough' -
> which
> DAB manifestly is.


On a portable radio maybe - on *anything* better you've got to be deaf
to think that.


> I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type: "Varied Speech" at
> "128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a Roberts MP23). Radio
> 3
> probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets,


Funny how you've mentioned the ONLY two stations that are using
reasonable bit rates on DAB - R4 at 128k is reasonable because speech
is far easier to encode than music.


> but most stations are Mono
> and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.


That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest that
music should be broadcast in mono.


> I just
> don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my
> kitchen or
> bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.


Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want something
better than others should be denied it?


> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.


BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3
streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations. The
live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few weeks.

Why don't you check your facts first?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-12, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> "Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net

[...]

>> but most stations are Mono
>> and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.
>
>
> That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest that
> music should be broadcast in mono.

I suppose it's a matter of taste - as is deciding what is or isn't "music".
My statement is factuallu correct; your opinion is differenct from mine,
but opinions are not facts. If a radio station wants more bits per
second, I suppose they are able to bid for them - if they can't pay for
more then their revenue model may not match their pretensions. Which
could be why some of the new stations don't last long. Or the regualtions
about providing more 'bandwidth' are inappropriate (which is my opinion).

>> I just
>> don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my
>> kitchen or
>> bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
>
>
> Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want something
> better than others should be denied it?

Who the hell are you to say that just because you want something different
from what most people are content with, we should all spend more money?

>> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
>
>
> BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3
> streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations. The
> live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few weeks.
>
> Why don't you check your facts first?

I did. The last podcast I downloaded is 'Talking Allowed" from last week,
which is very definitely ar 64kbps - I've never seen a BBC podcast at any
other bit rate.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-12, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> "Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
>
> [...]
>
>>> but most stations are Mono
>>> and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.
>>
>>
>> That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest
>> that
>> music should be broadcast in mono.
>
> I suppose it's a matter of taste


Getting facts wrong has nothing to do with taste. And on the subject
of music being in mono, that's ridiculous, and I'm not going to waste
my time discussing anything so ridiculous.


>- as is deciding what is or isn't
> "music".


Again, ridiculous.


> My statement is factuallu correct; your opinion is differenct
> from mine, but opinions are not facts.


No. You can't just reclassify music stations as not being music just
because you might not like the bloody music they're playing.

I've never come across such a ridiculous way to try and squirm out of
admiting that they're wrong.

I'd suggest that you just keep your mouth shut if you don't know what
you're talking about. I do that, and that's why I'm very rarely wrong.


> If a radio station wants more
> bits per second, I suppose they are able to bid for them


DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality is
as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.


> - if they can't
> pay for more then their revenue model may not match their
> pretensions.


The balls up basically happened in the 1990s, and now the multiplexes
are pretty much full, adn the transmissino costs are ridiculously
expensive (that's one of the major balls ups of the DAB system).

Basically, the only way to improve quality now is to switch to DAB+.
And it will happen, despite what unknowledgable people on the subject
like yourself might think.


> Which could be why some of the new stations don't last long. Or the
> regualtions about providing more 'bandwidth' are inappropriate
> (which is
> my opinion).


Again, you haven't got a clue, have you? You don't know anything about
"the regulations about providing more bandwidth are inappropriate".
How is that your "opinion" when you don't even have a clue what the
regulations are?

The reason I know you don't know what you're talking about is that I
do know what the regulations are, and what you've just said doesn't
make any sense.

BTW, good luck Googling for them, because the bit about audio quality
is stuck in teh middle of a really big pdf. Happy hunting.


>>> I just
>>> don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my
>>> kitchen or
>>> bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
>>
>>
>> Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want
>> something
>> better than others should be denied it?
>
> Who the hell are you to say that just because you want something
> different
> from what most people are content with, we should all spend more
> money?


I'm me. And I'm not being told what I want to listen to by some low
audio quality loving tree dweller.


>>> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
>>
>>
>> BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3
>> streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations.
>> The
>> live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few
>> weeks.
>>
>> Why don't you check your facts first?
>
> I did. The last podcast I downloaded is 'Talking Allowed" from last
> week,
> which is very definitely ar 64kbps - I've never seen a BBC podcast
> at any
> other bit rate.


So in checking your "facts" that "BBC podcasts are 64 kbps" you
downloaded a speech podcast, even though speech is often mono and
speech is far easier to encode than music so music typically uses
higher bit rates? Mm, good researching.

Try some music podcasts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/directory/




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <***@dead> wrote in message
news:ByqIk.12$***@newsfe18.ams2

> DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
> is
> as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.


Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
multiplex. On the commercial multiplexes it's more about transmission
costs being sky high.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <APqIk.14$***@newsfe18.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> > DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
> > is
> > as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.


> Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
> multiplex.

So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higher
bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you prefer FM
anyway. Just how selfish can you get?

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <APqIk.14$***@newsfe18.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
>>> is
>>> as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
>
>
>> Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
>> multiplex.
>
> So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higher
> bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you prefer
> FM
> anyway. Just how selfish can you get?


If you re-read the single sentence you've quoted, I simply said that
the quality is shit. I didn't say anywhere that I wanted to remove
stations so that the statinos I listen to can be at higher quality -
you're the only person suggeseting that.

I'd be happy if the BBC simply provided its stations at high quality
(and I'm talking properly high here) via the Internet and the digital
TV platforms, and they must also promote the fact that the quailty is
higher on those platforms. Then they can do whatever the fooking hell
they like with DAB for the next few years until it's time to switch
over to DAB+.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <2pvIk.269$***@newsfe03.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> >>> DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
> >>> is as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
> >
> >
> >> Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
> >> multiplex.
> >
> > So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higher
> > bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you prefer
> > FM
> > anyway. Just how selfish can you get?


> If you re-read the single sentence you've quoted, I simply said that
> the quality is shit. I didn't say anywhere that I wanted to remove
> stations so that the statinos I listen to can be at higher quality -
> you're the only person suggeseting that.

You're certainly dishonest enough not to admit it openly.

> I'd be happy if the BBC simply provided its stations at high quality
> (and I'm talking properly high here) via the Internet and the digital
> TV platforms, and they must also promote the fact that the quailty is
> higher on those platforms. Then they can do whatever the fooking hell
> they like with DAB for the next few years until it's time to switch
> over to DAB+.

If that is truly your view why continue your crusade against all things
DAB? Haven't you really got anything better to do?

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <2pvIk.269$***@newsfe03.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>>> DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio
>>>>> quality
>>>>> is as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
>>>> multiplex.
>>>
>>> So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have
>>> higher
>>> bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you
>>> prefer
>>> FM
>>> anyway. Just how selfish can you get?
>
>
>> If you re-read the single sentence you've quoted, I simply said
>> that
>> the quality is shit. I didn't say anywhere that I wanted to remove
>> stations so that the statinos I listen to can be at higher
>> quality -
>> you're the only person suggeseting that.
>
> You're certainly dishonest enough not to admit it openly.


This is what I wrote, because you quoted me:

"Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
multiplex."

Where in that sentence does it say that I want stations to be removed
from the BBC multiplex?


>> I'd be happy if the BBC simply provided its stations at high
>> quality
>> (and I'm talking properly high here) via the Internet and the
>> digital
>> TV platforms, and they must also promote the fact that the quailty
>> is
>> higher on those platforms. Then they can do whatever the fooking
>> hell
>> they like with DAB for the next few years until it's time to switch
>> over to DAB+.
>
> If that is truly your view why continue your crusade against all
> things
> DAB?


Because the BBC will not do the things I've described. For example,
the BBC has got 231,000 kbps of capacity on satellite, yet they won't
even increase the bit rates of the radio stations from 192 kbps to 256
kbps on satellite. The BBC digital radio people have spent the last 7
or 8 months trying to make up excuses to justify providing the live
Internet radio streams at lower quality than the BBC listen again
streams. And the BBC wants to continue pushing everybody on to DAB
without informing the public that the quality is higher via the
digital TV platforms and it will be higher via the Internet within the
next few weeks.


> Haven't you really got anything better to do?


I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to
mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage BBC
resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my
website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about the
dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I
haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <uoDIk.944$***@newsfe28.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> > Haven't you really got anything better to do?


> I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to
> mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage BBC
> resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my
> website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about the
> dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I
> haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).

You could try getting a life...

--
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Richard Evans]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <uoDIk.944$***@newsfe28.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> Haven't you really got anything better to do?
>
>
>> I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to
>> mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage BBC
>> resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my
>> website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about the
>> dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I
>> haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).
>
> You could try getting a life...
>
When all else fails, resort to simple insults?

Richard E.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Richard Evans" <***@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48f325fc$***@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <uoDIk.944$***@newsfe28.ams2>,
>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>> Haven't you really got anything better to do?
>>
>>
>>> I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to
>>> mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage
>>> BBC
>>> resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my
>>> website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about
>>> the
>>> dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I
>>> haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).
>>
>> You could try getting a life...
>>
> When all else fails, resort to simple insults?


Yep, that's the Plowman for ya.




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <uoDIk.944$***@newsfe28.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> Haven't you really got anything better to do?
>
>
>> I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to
>> mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage
>> BBC
>> resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my
>> website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about
>> the
>> dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I
>> haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).
>
> You could try getting a life...


Awww. I'm hurt.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[tony sayer]

In article <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <***@operamail.com> scribeth thus
>On 2008-10-12, Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <***@4ax.com>,
>> Ken <***@telia.com> wrote:
>>> > I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
>>> > scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
>>>
>>> Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
>>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
>>
>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but isn't
>> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will make
>> it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and for
>> those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of the same
>> stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>
>As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and some
>receivers can cope with both. But there is now a significant number of
>receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are
>likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both standards at
>once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to it.
>Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new DAB
>receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or so.
>
>While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get 'better'
>sound reproduction, most people just want something 'good enough' - which
>DAB manifestly is. I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type: "Varied Speech" at
>"128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a Roberts MP23). Radio 3
>probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets, but most stations are Mono
>and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it. I just
>don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my kitchen or
>bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
>

Fine you don't ... others might..

>BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
>

--
Tony Sayer

[William Sommerwerck]

> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more-modern
> codec etc, but isn't compatible with the present system.
> I think consumer resistance will make it a dead duck.
> There is little demand for high-quality radio...

In the US, digital radio is transmitted in-band, on both the FM (VHF) _and_
AM (MW) bands. I don't much care for the sound of it -- even at 96kbps, it
sounds rather flat, squashed, and airless -- but it works without requiring
a new band. And the sound quality of the BBC and other auxiliary "talk"
channels is acceptable.

Sony has an HD digital tuner (XDR-F1HD) using Philips chips that has simply
incredible performance. In terms of sensitivity, separation, and distortion,
it blows away (by a wide margin) the best conventional tuners costing
thousands of dollars -- and it retails for $100. (That's not a mistype.) I
got mine for $50, using an iBiquity.rebate. (iBiquity is the company that
developed this system. It's called "HD", which is supposed to mean "hybrid
digital" (as the digital data are transmitted along with the analog), but
the name conveniently suggests "high definition", which the sound
most-definitely is not.)

You can see my review ("HD is lossy compression -- what did you expect?") --
and others -- here:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B00168Q248/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_next_3?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageNumber=3&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

There has been talk about opening a VHF band with truly uncompromised
digital transmission. But it's unlikely this will ever occur, as people will
not be willing to replace existing tuners and receivers.

[Ken]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:01:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
>>> scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
>>
>> Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
>
> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but isn't
> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will make
> it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and for
> those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of the same
> stations on FreeView or Satellite.

We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Ken <***@telia.com> wrote:
> > I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
> > isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
> > will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
> > radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already can
> > get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>
> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.

Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the corner.

--
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Ken]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:55:00 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>>> isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
>>> will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
>>> radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already can
>>> get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>>
>> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
>> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
>
> Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
> present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
> afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the corner.

Since 1996 we have testing DAB here in Sweden and we don't like it.
The same in Finland. Finland closed down DAB completely.
Old DAB is too inefficient.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Ken <***@telia.com> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>>> isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer
>>> resistance
>>> will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
>>> radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already
>>> can
>>> get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>>
>> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
>> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
>
> Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
> present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
> afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the
> corner.


Plowman, DAB is DEAD in Sweden and Finland - the transmitters were
even switched off in Finland, and most of the transmitters were
switched off in Sweden as well when the government refused to fund it.

Now that DAB+ is available adn there's receivers and ALL DAB receivers
are going to include support for DAB+ in the near future, there's no
way that any country that's considering what system to use would use
DAB. End of story.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <t5pIk.47344$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> >> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
> >> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
> >
> > Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
> > present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
> > afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the
> > corner.


> Plowman, DAB is DEAD in Sweden and Finland - the transmitters were
> even switched off in Finland, and most of the transmitters were
> switched off in Sweden as well when the government refused to fund it.

According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would never
start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless worm.

> Now that DAB+ is available adn there's receivers and ALL DAB receivers
> are going to include support for DAB+ in the near future, there's no
> way that any country that's considering what system to use would use
> DAB. End of story.

Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <t5pIk.47344$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
>>>> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
>>>
>>> Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of
>>> the
>>> present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started
>>> shortly
>>> afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the
>>> corner.
>
>
>> Plowman, DAB is DEAD in Sweden and Finland - the transmitters were
>> even switched off in Finland, and most of the transmitters were
>> switched off in Sweden as well when the government refused to fund
>> it.
>
> According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would
> never
> start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless
> worm.


Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start using the
old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries, which is exactly what
I said.


>> Now that DAB+ is available adn there's receivers and ALL DAB
>> receivers
>> are going to include support for DAB+ in the near future, there's
>> no
>> way that any country that's considering what system to use would
>> use
>> DAB. End of story.
>
> Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.


What on earth has that got to do with anything? You're off your
trolley.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Ken]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:29:30 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
<***@dead> wrote:

> Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start
> using the old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries,
> which is exactly what I said.

Old DAB is still experimental in Sweden.
There are only 4 transmitters running now,
Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö and Luleå.
We need a more efficient digital radio system in Sweden
before the population start buying receivers.

Digital TV in Sweden using MPEG2 now, but from 1 january 2009
we are going to start using MPEG4 on the new channels
and at year 2015 Sweden are not using MPEG2 any more.
The swedes have to buy new digital TV boxes.

[Richard Evans]

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

>> According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would
>> never
>> start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless
>> worm.
>
>
> Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start using the
> old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries, which is exactly what
> I said.

http://www.worlddab.org/news/document/537/The_20future_20of_20radio.pdf

(hopefully I've copied and pasted that link correctly, but I wont know
or certain until I post and then see if it works)

>> Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.
>
>
> What on earth has that got to do with anything? You're off your
> trolley.

Neither was HDTV.
Oh hang on a minute, that doesn't have anything to do with it either.

Richard E.

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-13, Richard Evans <***@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>>> According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would
>>> never
>>> start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless
>>> worm.
>>
>>
>> Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start using the
>> old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries, which is exactly what
>> I said.
>
> http://www.worlddab.org/news/document/537/The_20future_20of_20radio.pdf
>
> (hopefully I've copied and pasted that link correctly, but I wont know
> or certain until I post and then see if it works)

[...]

Link works fine. Interesting read, too.

It says that Sweden currently has a DAB system limited to a few areas and
it is estimated that about 2% of the population listen to DAB in any one
week. Uncertainty about the future of the technology has discouraged wider
adoption. The report seems to recommend adopting Eureka 147 DAB (DAB/DAB+)
for future development.

It also summarises the digital radio position in other European countries.
I précis this information below.

Denmark has an established DAB network, covering 99% of the population
(with a target of 100% by 2009) and more than 1.3 million people (23% of
the populaation) had access to a DAB receiver in Dec 2007 - ten times as
many as two years earlier. There are 17 channels. Test broadcasts using
DRM started last year.

Finland has not had great success with DAB, and the only broadcaster to
have used it has ceased for the time being. Coverage never got to more
than 40% of the population. Instead, that broadcaster is using DVB-T to
reach 99% of the population, and investigation of other systems is taking
place.

Norway has a developing DAB network covering 80% of the population with [I
think I've interpreted the text correctly] 17 channels and currently more
than half a million people (13.4% of the population) having access to DAB
receivers. Plans are to shut down FM broadcasts when DAB coverage reaches
100% of the population.

Great Britain was the first country in Europe to start digital radio
broadcasts, using DAB, with regular national broadcasts starting in 1997.
National broadcasts currently reach 85% of the population and there are
about 400 channels. RAJAR reported that at the start of 2008 10.8% of all
radio listening was via DAB, almost a third of the population have access
to a DAB receiver, and more people use DAB than all other digital
platforms combined. The paper is out of date in that it mentions plans
for new multiplexes with DAB+ facilities; those plans now seem to have
been cancelled. Mention is made of the government's "Digital Radio
Working Group" due to report in November with suggestions for future
development. Almost 7 million DAB receivers have been bought since 2001.

Germany's DAB network covers 85% of the population and there are over 180
stations. Market penetration has been low, though, with fewer than half a
million receivers sold. The regional nature of German government probably
doesn't help co-ordinate development. [I've noticed comments in various
newsgroups from German residents who seem to be surprised at the easy
availability of DAB receivers in Britain; perhaps German retailers are
also part of the reason for low market penetration?]. DAB+ pilot
broadcasts began this year and there have been trials of DRM+.

France [being France <grin>] is going it's own way. DAB broadcasts take
place in a few regions, but development was halted in 2005. Instead,
T-DMB and DRM have been chosen by the government. A full-scale gradual
national introduction of DMB is planned to start this year.

Malta plans to be the first European country to launch DAB+ commercially,
this year.

Switzerland plans a DAB+ commercial multiplex in 2008 - 2009.

Australia [missprint for Austria?] plans to launch DAB+ next January.

Italy and the Czech Republic are carrying out tests with DAB and DAB+

The Netherlands will start to issue combined FM and DAB licences starting
when existing FM licences are renewed in 2009.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Ken <***@telia.com> wrote:
>>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
>>> scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
>>
>> Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
>
> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
> isn't
> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will
> make
> it a dead duck.


Hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a
giraffe.

The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know what
it is and what it provides.




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <NRoIk.47341$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> > I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
> > isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
> > will make it a dead duck.


> Hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a
> giraffe.

> The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know what it
> is and what it provides.

You think people want to chuck out what they've got and buy new? You're
mad. Or perhaps you think the 'promise' of better quality will get
everyone buying it? Even more mad.

--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <NRoIk.47341$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>>> isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer
>>> resistance
>>> will make it a dead duck.
>
>
>> Hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a
>> giraffe.
>
>> The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know
>> what it
>> is and what it provides.
>
> You think people want to chuck out what they've got and buy new?
> You're
> mad. Or perhaps you think the 'promise' of better quality will get
> everyone buying it? Even more mad.


You're viewing DAB+ as if once it starts then DAB ends on the same
day - i.e. an abrupt changeover, like digital switchover on TV. It
won't be anything like that. DAB+ will be phased in, and it will
slowly take over. Remember that there are only 7 million DAB sets
sold, and there are 120 - 150m FM devices *in-use* according to Ofcom.
DAB+ receivers will vastly outnumber DAB-only devices within the next
few years, and it's YOU who's mad if you think that DAB+ won't be used
once DAB+ receivers form the majority. The economics (transmission
cost per listener) will favour DAB+ within the next 2 years. DAB+ also
allows stations to launch on "full" multiplexes, i.e. ones that
couldn't carry another DAB station, such as the multiplexes in London.
We'll see the first DAB+ statino launch in the next 3 years. Mark my
words. Some of the fastest selling "DAB" radios at the moment are
upgradeable to DAB+, and the number of DAB+-capable receivers has been
ticking up since last summer. By next year all "DAB" radios in the
shops should support DAB+ and DMB-A - all the broadcasters now want
that to happen - see the new WorldDMB Receiver Profiles, which all
include support for DAB+ and DMB-A.

You see, the problem is, you're spouting about things you don't
understand again. Just keep your trap shut if you don't understand
things, or else you embarrass yourself.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[tony sayer]

In article <***@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<***@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <NRoIk.47341$***@newsfe24.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> > I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>> > isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
>> > will make it a dead duck.
>
>
>> Hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a
>> giraffe.
>
>> The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know what it
>> is and what it provides.
>
>You think people want to chuck out what they've got and buy new? You're
>mad. Or perhaps you think the 'promise' of better quality will get
>everyone buying it? Even more mad.
>

Well back in the 70's we were selling the Philips K70 chassis TV's, and
the pix and sound were excellent and thats what keep them selling or
rather renting in those days..


We had a constant stream of referrals of new customers who wanted a set
like the ones we were renting as the picture and sound was so much
better then the majority of TV's around in those days which were more
"colourful" than an accurate rendering of the original picture and sound
for that matter..

Course this was before digital so it can't have been any good can
it;!....
--
Tony Sayer

[john d hamilton]

Many thanks to all. After learning for the first time about DAB+ in this
group, I again rang Phillips to ask if this DA1103/5 would receive DAB+ when
it came out. I was told that it would *not* receive it and that DAB+ and
anyway would not be broadcast for another two years. The question I have
to ask myself now is whether it's worth paying nearly twice as much for the
pure 1500 pocket DAB radio? I email the Pure helpline to ask them is their
Pure 1500 set would pick up the forthcoming DAB+, but they have not
replied.

So which I'm wondering is the best pocket DAB radio to go for, either of the
above or another one entirely ? Grateful for any further suggestions.

[William Sommerwerck]

Did you buy a DAB radio out of need, or novelty?

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-15, john d hamilton <***@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> Many thanks to all. After learning for the first time about DAB+ in this
> group, I again rang Phillips to ask if this DA1103/5 would receive DAB+ when
> it came out. I was told that it would *not* receive it and that DAB+ and
> anyway would not be broadcast for another two years. The question I have
> to ask myself now is whether it's worth paying nearly twice as much for the
> pure 1500 pocket DAB radio? I email the Pure helpline to ask them is their
> Pure 1500 set would pick up the forthcoming DAB+, but they have not
> replied.
>
> So which I'm wondering is the best pocket DAB radio to go for, either of the
> above or another one entirely ? Grateful for any further suggestions.

The only receiver I know of which is upgradeable to DAB+ (in theory at any
rate) is the Pure 'One Elite'. That is portable, but not 'hand-held' or
'pocket' size. The Revo iBlik RadioStation claims to handle DAB+ 'out of
the box', but that's mains-powered only (and an iPod accessory too). As
there are no DAB+ broadcasts in the UK at present, there is no convenient
way to test those features.

If you want to listen to terrestrial broadcast digital radio in the UK
right now, DAB is what there is. Future developments are just that - in
the future. Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is a
never-ending game; at some point one has to take the plunge and accept
what's on offer right now (or be forever on the brink).

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/waystolisten/digitalradio/> links to
<http://www.digitalradionow.com/home.php> for 'Products and Retailers'.
There you'll find <http://www.digitalradionow.com/faq.php?topic=DABPlus>
which seems to be the 'official position' for now.

From earlier posts, it seems that DAB reception in your area is marginal
for the time being. So a pocket DAB receiver of any brand is likely to
struggle. A larger portable or 'table-top' model might work better, or
you may need a roof aerial to get good results. The Digitalradionow site
has a 'station finder' which can give some idea of likely reception for
your postcode. New transmitters are gradually being added to the network.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
> If you want to listen to terrestrial broadcast digital radio in the UK
> right now, DAB is what there is. Future developments are just that - in
> the future. Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is a
> never-ending game; at some point one has to take the plunge and accept
> what's on offer right now (or be forever on the brink).

Yup. And of course *if* DAB+ comes along, the two will run side by side
for a long time. Probably 10 years.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article
> <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
>> If you want to listen to terrestrial broadcast digital radio in the
>> UK
>> right now, DAB is what there is. Future developments are just
>> that - in
>> the future. Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is
>> a
>> never-ending game; at some point one has to take the plunge and
>> accept
>> what's on offer right now (or be forever on the brink).
>
> Yup.


Nope. See other post.


>And of course *if* DAB+ comes along, the two will run side by side
> for a long time. Probably 10 years.


There is no if about it.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-15, Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
>> If you want to listen to terrestrial broadcast digital radio in the UK
>> right now, DAB is what there is. Future developments are just that - in
>> the future. Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is a
>> never-ending game; at some point one has to take the plunge and accept
>> what's on offer right now (or be forever on the brink).
>
> Yup. And of course *if* DAB+ comes along, the two will run side by side
> for a long time. Probably 10 years.

The BBC started VHF/FM broadcasting in 1955; AM hasn't vanished yet, and
the Beeb were still broadcasting their three main stations nationally on
both AM and FM until quite recently (I forget when they dropped the MW
versions of Radio 2 Radio 3 and Radio 4 - Radio 4 is still on LW nationally
and MW in a few areas, and the World Service and Five Live are still on MW
nationally). I doubt if DAB will run in parallel with another system for
50 years, though!

It remains to be seen whether Britain will attempt to have DAB and DAB+ at
the same time, or whether the existing MW and/or FM bands will be
digitalised instead (DRM and DRM+ respectively), or as well - France
seems to be going for DRM. So will we still be able to use the oldest
receivers when they hit their 100th birthdays? We may know a little
better when the govt working party report soon.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-15, john d hamilton <***@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Many thanks to all. After learning for the first time about DAB+ in
>> this
>> group, I again rang Phillips to ask if this DA1103/5 would receive
>> DAB+
>> when it came out. I was told that it would *not* receive it and
>> that
>> DAB+ and anyway would not be broadcast for another two years.
>> The
>> question I have to ask myself now is whether it's worth paying
>> nearly
>> twice as much for the pure 1500 pocket DAB radio? I email the Pure
>> helpline to ask them is their Pure 1500 set would pick up the
>> forthcoming DAB+, but they have not replied.
>>
>> So which I'm wondering is the best pocket DAB radio to go for,
>> either of
>> the above or another one entirely ? Grateful for any further
>> suggestions.
>
> The only receiver I know of which is upgradeable to DAB+ (in theory
> at any
> rate) is the Pure 'One Elite'.


Roberts Stream 202 Wi-Fi radio with DAB is DAB+ upgradeable as well,
and I think there's one or two more battery-powered portable radios
that are DAB+ upgradeable..


> That is portable, but not 'hand-held' or
> 'pocket' size. The Revo iBlik RadioStation claims to handle DAB+
> 'out of
> the box', but that's mains-powered only (and an iPod accessory too).
> As
> there are no DAB+ broadcasts in the UK at present, there is no
> convenient
> way to test those features.
>
> If you want to listen to terrestrial broadcast digital radio in the
> UK
> right now, DAB is what there is. Future developments are just
> that - in
> the future.


Here we go - I can feel an out-of-his-depth gob-off coming.


> Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is a
> never-ending game; at some point one has to take the plunge and
> accept
> what's on offer right now (or be forever on the brink).


DAB was relaunched in the UK in 2002. AAC was standardised in 1997.
Don't try to suggest that they didn't have more than enough time to
upgrade DAB prior to relaunching it.

If you don't understand what went on, why do you try to sound like you
do know what you're talking about? Here's the lowdown on what
happened:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-15, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> "Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
>> On 2008-10-15, john d hamilton <***@mail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Many thanks to all. After learning for the first time about DAB+ in
>>> this
>>> group, I again rang Phillips to ask if this DA1103/5 would receive
>>> DAB+
>>> when it came out. I was told that it would *not* receive it and
>>> that
>>> DAB+ and anyway would not be broadcast for another two years.
>>> The
>>> question I have to ask myself now is whether it's worth paying
>>> nearly
>>> twice as much for the pure 1500 pocket DAB radio? I email the Pure
>>> helpline to ask them is their Pure 1500 set would pick up the
>>> forthcoming DAB+, but they have not replied.
>>>
>>> So which I'm wondering is the best pocket DAB radio to go for,
>>> either of
>>> the above or another one entirely ? Grateful for any further
>>> suggestions.
>>
>> The only receiver I know of which is upgradeable to DAB+ (in theory
>> at any
>> rate) is the Pure 'One Elite'.
>
>
> Roberts Stream 202 Wi-Fi radio with DAB is DAB+ upgradeable as well,
> and I think there's one or two more battery-powered portable radios
> that are DAB+ upgradeable..

OK, so there is some movement in the directiom you want :))

>> That is portable, but not 'hand-held' or
>> 'pocket' size. The Revo iBlik RadioStation claims to handle DAB+
>> 'out of
>> the box', but that's mains-powered only (and an iPod accessory too).
>> As
>> there are no DAB+ broadcasts in the UK at present, there is no
>> convenient
>> way to test those features.
>>
>> If you want to listen to terrestrial broadcast digital radio in the
>> UK
>> right now, DAB is what there is. Future developments are just
>> that - in
>> the future.
>
>
> Here we go - I can feel an out-of-his-depth gob-off coming.

Don't feel too bad about it, I'm getting used to your obsession now. My
own obsessions are different, but an be just as inhibiting when they
intrude.

>> Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is a
>> never-ending game; at some point one has to take the plunge and
>> accept
>> what's on offer right now (or be forever on the brink).
>
>
> DAB was relaunched in the UK in 2002. AAC was standardised in 1997.
> Don't try to suggest that they didn't have more than enough time to
> upgrade DAB prior to relaunching it.

Yes, of course, it's blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that
Ofcom should have insisted in 2002 (having failed to do so in 1980) that
all digital radio broadcasts in the UK should henceforth be made to a
standard that was going to come into existence in 2006, with the first
commercial receivers not being on the market till 2007.

Such lack of hindsight before the event is quite appalling.

(AAC is not DAB+; one is a codec, the other is a radio broadcast standard).

> If you don't understand what went on, why do you try to sound like you
> do know what you're talking about? Here's the lowdown on what
> happened:

[...]

<Yawn>

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-15, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:

>>> Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is a
>>> never-ending game; at some point one has to take the plunge and
>>> accept
>>> what's on offer right now (or be forever on the brink).
>>
>>
>> DAB was relaunched in the UK in 2002. AAC was standardised in 1997.
>> Don't try to suggest that they didn't have more than enough time to
>> upgrade DAB prior to relaunching it.
>
> Yes, of course, it's blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain
> that
> Ofcom should have insisted in 2002 (having failed to do so in 1980)
> that
> all digital radio broadcasts in the UK should henceforth be made to
> a
> standard that was going to come into existence in 2006, with the
> first
> commercial receivers not being on the market till 2007.
>
> Such lack of hindsight before the event is quite appalling.


I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

But you clearly haven't bothered, so I'll briefly explain why you're
wrong.

AAC was standardised in 1997. DAB was re-launched in 2002. That's a
5-year gap, so don't try to make out that the UK DAB people couldn't
have upgraded DAB in that 5-year period. If you release a new
broadcast radio system, it's meant to last a long time, so you have to
get the design right before you launch it. But they launched an
incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to drop
out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the sky
high transmission costs.

On the day that the BBC dropped its bit rates, which if I remember
correctly was on 18th or 21st December 2001, in the first couple of
posts on the first thread about the BBC slashing their bit rates
someone said that they should have used AAC, and that MP2 was not
designed to be used at such low bit rates as 128 kbps.

So it is not me taking advantage of hindsight. The BBC screwed things
up completely. That's all there is to it. Basically, the non-technical
BBC execs simply over-ruled the engineers. For example, here's a
brochure for a BBC R&D open day in 1999:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/BBC_R&D_AAC_1999_Open_Day.pdf

and at the top it says:

"New audio coding systems (such as AAC) can halve the bit-rate"

"Don't squeeze the bit-rate"

The BBC R&D department had also taken part in 2 listening tests that
compared AAC with MP2 in 1996 and 1998, and both of those tests had
confirmed that AAC was twice as efficient as MP2 (see links to these
listening tests on my page about the incompetent adoption of DAB),
hence why they said what they did about AAC above.

When non-technical execs make technical decisions at the BBC, they
first take advice from the experts in R&D. So they will have heard
what the R&D people were saying about AAC vs MP2, but they must have
simply ignored them.

The BBC had been saying since the early 1990s that they were going to
launch new radio stations on DAB, and by 1998 they were already saying
they were going to launch 4 new stations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm

That's in addition to Radios 1-5 and the World Service. They could
have realised that the audio quality would be crap on DAB at any point
from when they first said they were going to launch a load of new
stations on DAB. But they didn't, and here we are.

So don't try to make out that I'm only saying this with the benefit of
hindsight.


> (AAC is not DAB+; one is a codec, the other is a radio broadcast
> standard).



Don't try to lecture me about what DAB+ is. DAB+ was basically my
idea. I was by far the first to point out on my website just how much
more efficient (6x and 4x for DVB-H and DMB respectively) and
therefore how much cheaper for the broadcasters the mobile TV systems
were for carrying radio than DAB is, because they use AAC (and later
AAC+) and stronger error correction. And DAB+ is simply the DMB mobile
TV system but without the video. See:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dvb-h_dab_dmb.htm#DMB_Should_Replace_DAB



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <wlFJk.104045$***@newsfe14.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> But they launched an
> incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
> extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
> plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to drop
> out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
> stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the sky
> high transmission costs.

The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they can't
generate the income to cover their operating costs, wherever these arise
from.
Of course it's expensive to transmit. It's called market forces.
Otherwise you just have a free for all.

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <wlFJk.104045$***@newsfe14.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> But they launched an
>> incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
>> extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
>> plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to drop
>> out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
>> stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the sky
>> high transmission costs.
>
> The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they can't
> generate the income to cover their operating costs, wherever these arise
> from.
> Of course it's expensive to transmit. It's called market forces.
> Otherwise you just have a free for all.

The stations that have so far failed have been broadcasting stuff that
doesn't attract enough of an audience to generate the sort of advertising
revenue needed to keep the thing solvent. Nothing to do with technology.

Channel 4 are struggling to keep going on their one TV channel; that's why
they can't afford to splurge on new radio stations.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <wlFJk.104045$***@newsfe14.ams2>,
>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> But they launched an
>>> incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
>>> extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
>>> plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to
>>> drop
>>> out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
>>> stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the
>>> sky
>>> high transmission costs.
>>
>> The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they
>> can't
>> generate the income to cover their operating costs, wherever these
>> arise
>> from.
>> Of course it's expensive to transmit. It's called market forces.
>> Otherwise you just have a free for all.
>
> The stations that have so far failed have been broadcasting stuff
> that
> doesn't attract enough of an audience to generate the sort of
> advertising
> revenue needed to keep the thing solvent.


Digital One is only carrying one station - Planet Rock - that isn't
already a big station on FM/AM. Why? Because the transmission cost for
a stereo station is £1 million per year.


> Nothing to do with technology.


Nothing to do with technology? Transmission costs on DAB are as high
as they are precisely because the technology is very inefficient.

Can you not understand that the FIXED multiplex transmission costs
being shared by say 30 stations is gonig to lead to lower transmission
costs than if they're shared between 10 stations?


> Channel 4 are struggling to keep going on their one TV channel;
> that's why
> they can't afford to splurge on new radio stations.


Correct. That's the only correct thing you've said for some time now.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <X%GJk.29683$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> Digital One is only carrying one station - Planet Rock - that isn't
> already a big station on FM/AM. Why? Because the transmission cost for
> a stereo station is £1 million per year.


> > Nothing to do with technology.


> Nothing to do with technology? Transmission costs on DAB are as high
> as they are precisely because the technology is very inefficient.

> Can you not understand that the FIXED multiplex transmission costs
> being shared by say 30 stations is gonig to lead to lower transmission
> costs than if they're shared between 10 stations?

That will be why FM costs are lower then...

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <X%GJk.29683$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> Digital One is only carrying one station - Planet Rock - that isn't
>> already a big station on FM/AM. Why? Because the transmission cost
>> for
>> a stereo station is £1 million per year.
>
>
>>> Nothing to do with technology.
>
>
>> Nothing to do with technology? Transmission costs on DAB are as
>> high
>> as they are precisely because the technology is very inefficient.
>
>> Can you not understand that the FIXED multiplex transmission costs
>> being shared by say 30 stations is gonig to lead to lower
>> transmission
>> costs than if they're shared between 10 stations?
>
> That will be why FM costs are lower then...


FM is totally irrelevant. You just say things for the sake of it,
don't you. You put absolutely no thought in to whatever you say, and
you just go straight for the gob off.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <2vIJk.43989$***@newsfe16.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> >> Nothing to do with technology? Transmission costs on DAB are as
> >> high
> >> as they are precisely because the technology is very inefficient.
> >
> >> Can you not understand that the FIXED multiplex transmission costs
> >> being shared by say 30 stations is gonig to lead to lower
> >> transmission
> >> costs than if they're shared between 10 stations?
> >
> > That will be why FM costs are lower then...


> FM is totally irrelevant. You just say things for the sake of it,
> don't you. You put absolutely no thought in to whatever you say, and
> you just go straight for the gob off.

Not so. You give the impression transmissions fees bear some relation to
the actual costs. You're wrong.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <2vIJk.43989$***@newsfe16.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>> Nothing to do with technology? Transmission costs on DAB are as
>>>> high
>>>> as they are precisely because the technology is very inefficient.
>>>
>>>> Can you not understand that the FIXED multiplex transmission
>>>> costs
>>>> being shared by say 30 stations is gonig to lead to lower
>>>> transmission
>>>> costs than if they're shared between 10 stations?
>>>
>>> That will be why FM costs are lower then...
>
>
>> FM is totally irrelevant. You just say things for the sake of it,
>> don't you. You put absolutely no thought in to whatever you say,
>> and
>> you just go straight for the gob off.
>
> Not so. You give the impression transmissions fees bear some
> relation to
> the actual costs. You're wrong.


Digital One charges over £1m per annum to carry a stereo station. So
how much would you say the transmission costs would be for Digital
One?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <wlFJk.104045$***@newsfe14.ams2>,
> > DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> >> But they launched an incredibly inefficient system, and its
> >> inefficiency also makes it extremely expensive to transmit, which is
> >> something that is still plaguing the system today, because Channel 4
> >> wouldn't have had to drop out if the transmission costs had been
> >> lower, and the national stations that closed down earlier this year
> >> were all due to the sky high transmission costs.
> >
> > The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they
> > can't generate the income to cover their operating costs, wherever
> > these arise from. Of course it's expensive to transmit. It's called
> > market forces. Otherwise you just have a free for all.

> The stations that have so far failed have been broadcasting stuff that
> doesn't attract enough of an audience to generate the sort of
> advertising revenue needed to keep the thing solvent. Nothing to do
> with technology.

Yup. There are already more than can make a reasonable income from the
advertising pot that exists. So a new one has either to expand that pot or
pinch from others.

> Channel 4 are struggling to keep going on their one TV channel; that's
> why they can't afford to splurge on new radio stations.

I think they also found out - rather late - the costs of trying to
provide the sort of speech based progs they promised.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In article <wlFJk.104045$***@newsfe14.ams2>,
>> > DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> >> But they launched an incredibly inefficient system, and its
>> >> inefficiency also makes it extremely expensive to transmit, which is
>> >> something that is still plaguing the system today, because Channel 4
>> >> wouldn't have had to drop out if the transmission costs had been
>> >> lower, and the national stations that closed down earlier this year
>> >> were all due to the sky high transmission costs.
>> >
>> > The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they
>> > can't generate the income to cover their operating costs, wherever
>> > these arise from. Of course it's expensive to transmit. It's called
>> > market forces. Otherwise you just have a free for all.
>
>> The stations that have so far failed have been broadcasting stuff that
>> doesn't attract enough of an audience to generate the sort of
>> advertising revenue needed to keep the thing solvent. Nothing to do
>> with technology.
>
> Yup. There are already more than can make a reasonable income from the
> advertising pot that exists. So a new one has either to expand that pot or
> pinch from others.
>
>> Channel 4 are struggling to keep going on their one TV channel; that's
>> why they can't afford to splurge on new radio stations.
>
> I think they also found out - rather late - the costs of trying to
> provide the sort of speech based progs they promised.

It's all too easy to find people who will talk ceaselessly for no money at
all - but finding people who can talk and have other people want to
listen, is a whole other kettle of ballgames.

Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations onto the
same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much talent as
the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed efforts and
twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused transmitter capacity.
Even if there are people out there with equipment that can actually handle
the new codec.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net

> Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations onto
> the
> same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much
> talent as
> the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed
> efforts
> and twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused
> transmitter
> capacity. Even if there are people out there with equipment that can
> actually handle the new codec.


DAB+ wouldn't launch yet anyway, because there aren't enough receivers
out there.

But the economics are vastly superior on DAB+ than on DAB. The
transmission costs per station are 2-3 times lower than on DAB. It
also makes it cost effective to provide much better quality.

DAB+ is an inevitability.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[hwh]

Whiskers wrote:
> Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations onto the
> same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much talent as
> the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed efforts and
> twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused transmitter capacity.

No. It means that you only need one multiplex to transmit the same
number of stations that were previously on two of them.

gr, hwh

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
> > I think they also found out - rather late - the costs of trying to
> > provide the sort of speech based progs they promised.

> It's all too easy to find people who will talk ceaselessly for no money
> at all - but finding people who can talk and have other people want to
> listen, is a whole other kettle of ballgames.

Absolutely. The idea of the 'big brother' channel providing serious
competition to R4 is a joke. In the early days of CH4 I might have
believed it.

> Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations onto the
> same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much talent as
> the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed efforts
> and twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused transmitter
> capacity.

Indeed. Our hyper 'DAB' friend seems to think the transmitter rental is
based on how much electricity it uses.

> Even if there are people out there with equipment that can
> actually handle the new codec.

My view is there'll be great resistance to replacing relatively new
equipment *if* they use the new standard. Portable radios don't really fit
into the 'must have the latest' scenario. And the numbers who won't use
the current DAB because of the quality are tiny.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article
> <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
> Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
>>> I think they also found out - rather late - the costs of trying
>>> to
>>> provide the sort of speech based progs they promised.
>
>> It's all too easy to find people who will talk ceaselessly for no
>> money
>> at all - but finding people who can talk and have other people want
>> to
>> listen, is a whole other kettle of ballgames.
>
> Absolutely. The idea of the 'big brother' channel providing serious
> competition to R4 is a joke. In the early days of CH4 I might have
> believed it.


C4 were going to launch 3 new stations: E4 Radio, which would have had
Big Brother programmes on it, plus Channel 4 Radio, whcih was meant to
compete with R4, adn Pure4, which was a bit like 6 Music with more
talk.


>> Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations
>> onto the
>> same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much
>> talent as
>> the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed
>> efforts
>> and twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused
>> transmitter
>> capacity.
>
> Indeed. Our hyper 'DAB' friend seems to think the transmitter rental
> is
> based on how much electricity it uses.



Oh, that couldn't be further from the truth. How much do you think it
would cost to transmit Digital One?


>> Even if there are people out there with equipment that can
>> actually handle the new codec.
>
> My view is there'll be great resistance to replacing relatively new
> equipment *if* they use the new standard. Portable radios don't
> really fit
> into the 'must have the latest' scenario. And the numbers who won't
> use
> the current DAB because of the quality are tiny.


I've explained this elsewhere. If you're too stupid to understand what
I've said, I can't be arsed repeating it again.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <wlFJk.104045$***@newsfe14.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> But they launched an
>> incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
>> extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
>> plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to
>> drop
>> out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
>> stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the sky
>> high transmission costs.
>
> The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they
> can't
> generate the income to cover their operating costs,


4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier this
year because they couldn't afford to pay the £1 million per year
transmission costs.

DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big, big
saving for a station.


> wherever these arise
> from.
> Of course it's expensive to transmit. It's called market forces.


What an utterly ridiculous statement.


> Otherwise you just have a free for all.


?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <0TGJk.29594$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> 4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier this
> year because they couldn't afford to pay the £1 million per year
> transmission costs.

> DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big, big
> saving for a station.

The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.

--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <0TGJk.29594$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> 4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
>> this
>> year because they couldn't afford to pay the £1 million per year
>> transmission costs.
>
>> DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big,
>> big
>> saving for a station.
>
> The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.


Totally wrong. It was the TRANSMISSION COSTS that caused the DAB
crisis earlier this year. GCap wanted to close 4 stations (theJazz,
Core, Life and Planet Rock - the latter was sold), and it wanted to
sell its 67% stake in Digital One for £1 to Arqiva.

It was the transmission costs that led to that and to Fru Hazlitt
saying that DAB is "not an economically viable platform".

It's common knowledge that the transmission costs are exhorbitant on
DAB.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[tony sayer]

In article <LVIJk.11528$***@newsfe28.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
FM <***@dead.?> scribeth thus
>"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>> In article <0TGJk.29594$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> 4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
>>> this
>>> year because they couldn't afford to pay the £1 million per year
>>> transmission costs.
>>
>>> DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big,
>>> big
>>> saving for a station.
>>
>> The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.
>
>
>Totally wrong. It was the TRANSMISSION COSTS that caused the DAB
>crisis earlier this year. GCap wanted to close 4 stations (theJazz,
>Core, Life and Planet Rock - the latter was sold), and it wanted to
>sell its 67% stake in Digital One for £1 to Arqiva.

Who do the actual transmission.

And I reckon before long will become a large broadcaster in their own
right..

Then all the commercial broadcast and transmission platforms will be
Aussie controlled;(...
>
>It was the transmission costs that led to that and to Fru Hazlitt
>saying that DAB is "not an economically viable platform".
>
>It's common knowledge that the transmission costs are exhorbitant on
>DAB.
>

Indeed couldn't be better set up for a Monopoly organisation;!...
>
>

--
Tony Sayer

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"tony sayer" <***@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jqGbkGBZNE+***@bancom.co.uk
> In article <LVIJk.11528$***@newsfe28.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
> than
> FM <***@dead.?> scribeth thus
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>>> In article <0TGJk.29594$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>> 4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
>>>> this
>>>> year because they couldn't afford to pay the £1 million per year
>>>> transmission costs.
>>>
>>>> DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a
>>>> big,
>>>> big
>>>> saving for a station.
>>>
>>> The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.
>>
>>
>> Totally wrong. It was the TRANSMISSION COSTS that caused the DAB
>> crisis earlier this year. GCap wanted to close 4 stations (theJazz,
>> Core, Life and Planet Rock - the latter was sold), and it wanted to
>> sell its 67% stake in Digital One for £1 to Arqiva.
>
> Who do the actual transmission.
>
> And I reckon before long will become a large broadcaster in their
> own
> right..
>
> Then all the commercial broadcast and transmission platforms will be
> Aussie controlled;(...
>>
>> It was the transmission costs that led to that and to Fru Hazlitt
>> saying that DAB is "not an economically viable platform".
>>
>> It's common knowledge that the transmission costs are exhorbitant
>> on
>> DAB.
>>
>
> Indeed couldn't be better set up for a Monopoly organisation;!...


How did Arqiva taking over NGW get past the monopolies and mergers
thing?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[tony sayer]

In article <6PXJk.5183$***@newsfe27.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than FM
<***@dead.?> scribeth thus
>"tony sayer" <***@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:jqGbkGBZNE+***@bancom.co.uk
>> In article <LVIJk.11528$***@newsfe28.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
>> than
>> FM <***@dead.?> scribeth thus
>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>>>> In article <0TGJk.29594$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>>> 4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
>>>>> this
>>>>> year because they couldn't afford to pay the £1 million per year
>>>>> transmission costs.
>>>>
>>>>> DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a
>>>>> big,
>>>>> big
>>>>> saving for a station.
>>>>
>>>> The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Totally wrong. It was the TRANSMISSION COSTS that caused the DAB
>>> crisis earlier this year. GCap wanted to close 4 stations (theJazz,
>>> Core, Life and Planet Rock - the latter was sold), and it wanted to
>>> sell its 67% stake in Digital One for £1 to Arqiva.
>>
>> Who do the actual transmission.
>>
>> And I reckon before long will become a large broadcaster in their
>> own
>> right..
>>
>> Then all the commercial broadcast and transmission platforms will be
>> Aussie controlled;(...
>>>
>>> It was the transmission costs that led to that and to Fru Hazlitt
>>> saying that DAB is "not an economically viable platform".
>>>
>>> It's common knowledge that the transmission costs are exhorbitant
>>> on
>>> DAB.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed couldn't be better set up for a Monopoly organisation;!...
>
>
>How did Arqiva taking over NGW get past the monopolies and mergers
>thing?
>
>
>
They rolled over and let them tickle their tummies like the way we do so
well;(...

I expect that no one at the commission really understood it all....
--
Tony Sayer

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>> In article <wlFJk.104045$***@newsfe14.ams2>,
>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> But they launched an
>>> incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
>>> extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
>>> plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to
>>> drop
>>> out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
>>> stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the sky
>>> high transmission costs.
>>
>> The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they
>> can't
>> generate the income to cover their operating costs,
>
> 4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier this
> year because they couldn't afford to pay the £1 million per year
> transmission costs.

They couldn't afford the transmitter costs because they failed to provide
content that people would listen to in large enough numbers to attract
advertisers to pay the bills.

> DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big, big
> saving for a station.

[...]

Only if you can find 2 - 3 times as many people to set up stations and
provide stuff people want to listen to. If four companies have failed to
manage that, what makes you think eight to twelve companies could?

Multiplying the number of stations is easy; multiplying the amount of
talent to make good use of them is very very difficult, and multiplying
the number of listeners is in a different realm entirely.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>>> In article <wlFJk.104045$***@newsfe14.ams2>,
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>> But they launched an
>>>> incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
>>>> extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
>>>> plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to
>>>> drop
>>>> out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
>>>> stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the
>>>> sky
>>>> high transmission costs.
>>>
>>> The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because
>>> they
>>> can't
>>> generate the income to cover their operating costs,
>>
>> 4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
>> this
>> year because they couldn't afford to pay the £1 million per year
>> transmission costs.
>
> They couldn't afford the transmitter costs because they failed to
> provide
> content that people would listen to in large enough numbers to
> attract
> advertisers to pay the bills.


Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious.


>> DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big,
>> big
>> saving for a station.
>
> [...]
>
> Only if you can find 2 - 3 times as many people to set up stations
> and
> provide stuff people want to listen to.


Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing multiplexes,
and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit, because
they use 2-3 times less capacity.

A good example is that a DAB+ station could fit onto what is a "full"
multiplex in terms of there being insufficient spare capacity to carry
another DAB stereo station. So DAB+ stations could be launched in the
most lucrative radio markets, such as London, when DAB stations
coudln't be launched because there's not enough capacity.

Also, if a broadcaster currently has capacity on a London multiplex,
once there's a sufficiently high number of DAB+ receivers in the
market it could withdraw one station and replace it with the same
station but in DAB+ and launch one or two new stations alongside it to
make extra money.

Basically, leave DAB+ to people who know about it, there's a good boy.


> If four companies have failed to
> manage that, what makes you think eight to twelve companies could?


There are 7.7m DAB receivers sold so far. There are 120m - 150m FM
devices in-use according to Ofcom. So the advertising pot for DAB will
obviously increase over time, so all your nonsense, or maybe Plowman's
nonsense, about the advertising pot being a fixed size on DAB, is
obviously just nonsense.


> Multiplying the number of stations is easy; multiplying the amount
> of
> talent to make good use of them is very very difficult, and
> multiplying
> the number of listeners is in a different realm entirely.


See above re ownership.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <4PKJk.32074$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
> multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing multiplexes,
> and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
> that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit, because
> they use 2-3 times less capacity.

FFS. Transmitter rental is a figure plucked out of the air - based on what
'they' think the market can stand. There's absolutely no reason to believe
a more efficient transmission method will alter this.

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <4PKJk.32074$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
>> multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing multiplexes,
>> and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
>> that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit, because
>> they use 2-3 times less capacity.
>
> FFS. Transmitter rental is a figure plucked out of the air - based
> on what
> 'they' think the market can stand. There's absolutely no reason to
> believe
> a more efficient transmission method will alter this.


Bullshit. The multiplex transmission costs are already known (and
contracts have been signed), and the transmitter networks don't need
to change at all to carry DAB+, so the transmission providers can't
turn round and just increase costs. The broadcasters all know this, so
the multiplex operators (which are all owned by the broadcasters
anyway) can hardly just bump the price up.

See:

http://www.worlddab.org/public_documents/dab_plus_brochure_200803.pdf

"The benefits of DAB+ include:

Lower transmission costs for digital stations"




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>> In article <4PKJk.32074$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
>>> multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing multiplexes,
>>> and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
>>> that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit, because
>>> they use 2-3 times less capacity.
>>
>> FFS. Transmitter rental is a figure plucked out of the air - based
>> on what
>> 'they' think the market can stand. There's absolutely no reason to
>> believe
>> a more efficient transmission method will alter this.
>
>
> Bullshit. The multiplex transmission costs are already known (and
> contracts have been signed), and the transmitter networks don't need
> to change at all to carry DAB+, so the transmission providers can't
> turn round and just increase costs. The broadcasters all know this, so
> the multiplex operators (which are all owned by the broadcasters
> anyway) can hardly just bump the price up.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.worlddab.org/public_documents/dab_plus_brochure_200803.pdf
>
> "The benefits of DAB+ include:
>
> Lower transmission costs for digital stations"

Page 4 of 12:

[...]

WorldDMB created a Task Force of its Technical Committee to develop the
additional standard. After examining the options, DAB+ using MPEG-4
HEAAC v2 was adopted. DAB+ was published in February 2007 as ETSI TS
102 563 “Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB);Transport of Advanced Audio
Coding (AAC) audio”.

[...]

Which could just be a clue as to why Ofcom didn't insist on DAB+ being
immplemented five years earlier. Don't you think?

Page 8 (Graphics omitted, for obvious reasons):

Possible scenarios with DAB+

The following figures show how the bit rate of a DAB ensemble may be
assigned to:

Multiplex with MPEG Audio Layer II (DAB)
9 radio services using MPEG Audio Layer II at 128 kbps

Multiplex with HE-AAC v2 (DAB+)
28 radio services using HE-AAC v2 at 40 kbps and 1
audio service using HE-AAC v2 at 32 kbps.

Multiplex with MPEG Audio Layer II and HE-AAC v2 (DAB and DAB+)
5 radio services using MPEG Audio Layer II at 128 kbps
and 12 radio services using HE-AAC v2 at 40 kbps and
1 radio service using HE-AAC v2 at 32 kbps

A 40 kbps subchannel with HE-AAC v2 provides a similar audio quality
(even slightly better in most cases) to MPEG Audio Layer II at 128
kbps.

Technology is the easy bit, content is the hard part.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>>> In article <4PKJk.32074$***@newsfe19.ams2>,
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>> Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
>>>> multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing
>>>> multiplexes,
>>>> and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
>>>> that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit,
>>>> because
>>>> they use 2-3 times less capacity.
>>>
>>> FFS. Transmitter rental is a figure plucked out of the air - based
>>> on what
>>> 'they' think the market can stand. There's absolutely no reason to
>>> believe
>>> a more efficient transmission method will alter this.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. The multiplex transmission costs are already known (and
>> contracts have been signed), and the transmitter networks don't
>> need
>> to change at all to carry DAB+, so the transmission providers can't
>> turn round and just increase costs. The broadcasters all know this,
>> so
>> the multiplex operators (which are all owned by the broadcasters
>> anyway) can hardly just bump the price up.
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.worlddab.org/public_documents/dab_plus_brochure_200803.pdf
>>
>> "The benefits of DAB+ include:
>>
>> Lower transmission costs for digital stations"
>
> Page 4 of 12:
>
> [...]
>
> WorldDMB created a Task Force of its Technical Committee to
> develop the
> additional standard. After examining the options, DAB+ using
> MPEG-4
> HEAAC v2 was adopted. DAB+ was published in February 2007 as ETSI
> TS
> 102 563 “Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB);Transport of Advanced
> Audio
> Coding (AAC) audio”.
>
> [...]
>
> Which could just be a clue as to why Ofcom didn't insist on DAB+
> being
> immplemented five years earlier. Don't you think?


You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
already explained what happened in a reply to you once today. That was
a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some moron
who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.

Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

But you clearly haven't bothered, so I'll briefly explain why you're
wrong.

AAC was standardised in 1997. DAB was re-launched in 2002. That's a
5-year gap, so don't try to make out that the UK DAB people couldn't
have upgraded DAB in that 5-year period. If you release a new
broadcast radio system, it's meant to last a long time, so you have to
get the design right before you launch it. But they launched an
incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to drop
out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the sky
high transmission costs.

On the day that the BBC dropped its bit rates, which if I remember
correctly was on 18th or 21st December 2001, in the first couple of
posts on the first thread about the BBC slashing their bit rates
someone said that they should have used AAC, and that MP2 was not
designed to be used at such low bit rates as 128 kbps.

So it is not me taking advantage of hindsight. The BBC screwed things
up completely. That's all there is to it. Basically, the non-technical
BBC execs simply over-ruled the engineers. For example, here's a
brochure for a BBC R&D open day in 1999:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/BBC_R&D_AAC_1999_Open_Day.pdf

and at the top it says:

"New audio coding systems (such as AAC) can halve the bit-rate"

"Don't squeeze the bit-rate"

The BBC R&D department had also taken part in 2 listening tests that
compared AAC with MP2 in 1996 and 1998, and both of those tests had
confirmed that AAC was twice as efficient as MP2 (see links to these
listening tests on my page about the incompetent adoption of DAB),
hence why they said what they did about AAC above.

When non-technical execs make technical decisions at the BBC, they
first take advice from the experts in R&D. So they will have heard
what the R&D people were saying about AAC vs MP2, but they must have
simply ignored them.

The BBC had been saying since the early 1990s that they were going to
launch new radio stations on DAB, and by 1998 they were already saying
they were going to launch 4 new stations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm

That's in addition to Radios 1-5 and the World Service. They could
have realised that the audio quality would be crap on DAB at any point
from when they first said they were going to launch a load of new
stations on DAB. But they didn't, and here we are.

So don't try to make out that I'm only saying this with the benefit of
hindsight.


> (AAC is not DAB+; one is a codec, the other is a radio broadcast
> standard).



Don't try to lecture me about what DAB+ is. DAB+ was basically my
idea. I was by far the first to point out on my website just how much
more efficient (6x and 4x for DVB-H and DMB respectively) and
therefore how much cheaper for the broadcasters the mobile TV systems
were for carrying radio than DAB is, because they use AAC (and later
AAC+) and stronger error correction. And DAB+ is simply the DMB mobile
TV system but without the video. See:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dvb-h_dab_dmb.htm#DMB_Should_Replace_DAB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


> Page 8 (Graphics omitted, for obvious reasons):
>
> Possible scenarios with DAB+
>
> The following figures show how the bit rate of a DAB ensemble may
> be
> assigned to:
>
> Multiplex with MPEG Audio Layer II (DAB)
> 9 radio services using MPEG Audio Layer II at 128 kbps
>
> Multiplex with HE-AAC v2 (DAB+)
> 28 radio services using HE-AAC v2 at 40 kbps and 1
> audio service using HE-AAC v2 at 32 kbps.
>
> Multiplex with MPEG Audio Layer II and HE-AAC v2 (DAB and DAB+)
> 5 radio services using MPEG Audio Layer II at 128 kbps
> and 12 radio services using HE-AAC v2 at 40 kbps and
> 1 radio service using HE-AAC v2 at 32 kbps
>
> A 40 kbps subchannel with HE-AAC v2 provides a similar audio
> quality
> (even slightly better in most cases) to MPEG Audio Layer II at
> 128
> kbps.
>
> Technology is the easy bit, content is the hard part.


If technology was the easy bit, why did the BBC et al adopt DAB? The
adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent.




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <kMNJk.28721$***@newsfe01.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
> already explained what happened in a reply to you once today. That was
> a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some moron
> who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.

> Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier today:

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> I did ask you to read this:

> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...

--
*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <kMNJk.28721$***@newsfe01.ams2>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
>> already explained what happened in a reply to you once today. That
>> was
>> a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some
>> moron
>> who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.
>
>> Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier
>> today:
>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>> I did ask you to read this:
>
>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
>
> Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...


I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like to
dispute on that page, fire away.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>> In article <kMNJk.28721$***@newsfe01.ams2>,
>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
>>> already explained what happened in a reply to you once today. That
>>> was
>>> a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some
>>> moron
>>> who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.
>>
>>> Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier
>>> today:
>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>> I did ask you to read this:
>>
>>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
>>
>> Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...
>
> I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like to
> dispute on that page, fire away.

I have read it - before I read anything you've posted in usenet, as it
happens. You express your own opinion very forcibly, but with little
support from external sources and the very blindness to your own ignorance
that you are so fond of accusing others of. At excessive length.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>>> In article <kMNJk.28721$***@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>> You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
>>>> already explained what happened in a reply to you once today.
>>>> That
>>>> was
>>>> a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some
>>>> moron
>>>> who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.
>>>
>>>> Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier
>>>> today:
>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>> I did ask you to read this:
>>>
>>>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
>>>
>>> Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...
>>
>> I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like
>> to
>> dispute on that page, fire away.
>
> I have read it - before I read anything you've posted in usenet, as
> it
> happens. You express your own opinion very forcibly, but with
> little
> support from external sources and the very blindness to your own
> ignorance
> that you are so fond of accusing others of. At excessive length.


Little support from external sources, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization

"AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known formally
as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"

Multi-channel listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part
in 1996:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w1420.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Stereo listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part in
1998:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w2006.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

BBC R&D open day brochure from 1999 saying AAC it twice as efficient
as MP2, and they say "don't squeeze the bit rate":

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/BBC_R&D_AAC_1999_Open_Day.pdf

BBC mentions plans to launch 4 new stations in 1998:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm

We've seen that it took them about 16 months to add AAC+ and RS coding
to DAB when they designed DAB+.

So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the 1990s
when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in 1997
to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for DAB?
The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a right 2
and 8.

That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be advertising
DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't support
DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete DAB
radios. Tut tut.

The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
*deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest otherwise.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> "Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
>> On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>>>> In article <kMNJk.28721$***@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:

[...]

>>>>> I did ask you to read this:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
>>>>
>>>> Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...
>>>
>>> I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like
>>> to
>>> dispute on that page, fire away.
>>
>> I have read it - before I read anything you've posted in usenet, as
>> it
>> happens. You express your own opinion very forcibly, but with
>> little
>> support from external sources and the very blindness to your own
>> ignorance
>> that you are so fond of accusing others of. At excessive length.
>
>
> Little support from external sources, you say?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization
>
> "AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known formally
> as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"

Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.

> Multi-channel listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part
> in 1996:
>
> http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w1420.pdf
>
> Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.
>
> Stereo listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part in
> 1998:
>
> http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w2006.pdf
>
> Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs, not
about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the
responsibility of the BBC anyway).

> BBC R&D open day brochure from 1999 saying AAC it twice as efficient
> as MP2, and they say "don't squeeze the bit rate":
>
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/BBC_R&D_AAC_1999_Open_Day.pdf
>
> BBC mentions plans to launch 4 new stations in 1998:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm
>
> We've seen that it took them about 16 months to add AAC+ and RS coding
> to DAB when they designed DAB+.

"They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist as a
standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until 2007.

> So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the 1990s
> when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in 1997
> to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
> Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for DAB?
> The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
> relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a right 2
> and 8.

Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new broadcasting
systems, they were and are in the business of providing content for
systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you still
haven't given any support for.

> That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
> advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be advertising
> DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't support
> DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete DAB
> radios. Tut tut.

So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the one with
hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you can tell
us.

> The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
> *deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest otherwise.

No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least incompetent. We've
had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has. If the
exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in other
countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make sense - but
no-one can turn back the clock.

Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated; that's an
opinion. I am not going to create a large web site and spend my days
posting uselessly to newsgroups bemoaning any 'facts' of 'incompetence'
that such facilites are not already available for me - and certainly not
attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before anyone else
had and without international consensus. There are many ways digital
radio broadcasting /could/ be done, but most of those ways are not going
to be developed.

DAB is right here, right now, and it works - just as it did ten years ago.
DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in one or two
countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too, but
there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.

In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial radio or
TV station to equal. That's something to be glad about, I think. But then
I'm not a commercial broadcaster trying to come up with content that
rivals the Beeb's but lacking more than 70 years experience and
back-catalogue and a guaranteed revenue stream. I do sympathise with the
likes of Channel 4 about that :)) That's the big problem for independent
broadcasters in this country, not the technology. It has been ever since
the first commercial TV stations were licensed in the 1950s.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> "Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
>>> On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>>>>> In article <kMNJk.28721$***@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>> I did ask you to read this:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...
>>>>
>>>> I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like
>>>> to
>>>> dispute on that page, fire away.
>>>
>>> I have read it - before I read anything you've posted in usenet,
>>> as
>>> it
>>> happens. You express your own opinion very forcibly, but with
>>> little
>>> support from external sources and the very blindness to your own
>>> ignorance
>>> that you are so fond of accusing others of. At excessive length.
>>
>>
>> Little support from external sources, you say?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization
>>
>> "AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known
>> formally
>> as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"
>
> Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.


DAB+ has got nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. DAB+ came
years later. I'm talking about the fact that the AAC audio codec was
available to be used from 1997 onwards, but the non-technical BBC
executives chose to ignore its existence - even though the BBC R&D
guys were saying how good it was.

AAC was the solution to DAB's problems. But the non-technical BBC
execs simply didn't have a clue what they were doing. And here we are
today.


>> Multi-channel listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took
>> part
>> in 1996:
>>
>> http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w1420.pdf
>>
>> Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.
>>
>> Stereo listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part in
>> 1998:
>>
>> http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w2006.pdf
>>
>> Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.
>
> Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs,
> not
> about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the
> responsibility of the BBC anyway).


If the BBC wanted to upgrade DAB prior to relaunch it could have done
and it would have done.


>> BBC R&D open day brochure from 1999 saying AAC it twice as
>> efficient
>> as MP2, and they say "don't squeeze the bit rate":
>>
>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/BBC_R&D_AAC_1999_Open_Day.pdf
>>
>> BBC mentions plans to launch 4 new stations in 1998:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm
>>
>> We've seen that it took them about 16 months to add AAC+ and RS
>> coding
>> to DAB when they designed DAB+.
>
> "They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist as
> a
> standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until
> 2007.


Again, what on earth has DAB+ got to do with this? You don't even seem
able to follow which digital radio standard we're talking about here.
We're talking about DAB, and the fact that DAB wasn't upgraded prior
to its relaunch when it should have been upgraded.


>> So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the
>> 1990s
>> when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in
>> 1997
>> to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
>> Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for
>> DAB?
>> The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
>> relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a
>> right 2
>> and 8.
>
> Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new
> broadcasting
> systems, they were and are in the business of providing content for
> systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you
> still
> haven't given any support for.


BBC R&D has always been in teh business of inventing new broadcasting
technologies. For example, DVB-T2 that will be used to deliver HDTV
via Freeview from next year was basically an idea that stemmed from
BBC R&D experimenting with MIMO antennas.


>> That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
>> advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be
>> advertising
>> DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't support
>> DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete DAB
>> radios. Tut tut.
>
> So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the one
> with
> hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you can
> tell
> us.


People that know about DAB+ and who're considering buying a DAB radio
tend to want one that supports DAB. By keeping quiet about the DAB+
issue, and especially advertising DAB aat a time when most receivers
don't support DAB+, the BBC is misleading the general public.


>> The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
>> *deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest
>> otherwise.
>
> No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least incompetent.


This is just ridiculous. From when you first turned up on this thread,
you continually got things wrong, and now you're lecturing ME about
DAB.

You get one chance at launching a new radio system, so it's got to be
right. But they screwed up royal, and here I am basically some
know-nothing telling me what's what.

THEY HAD FIVE WHOLE YEARS TO ADOPT AAC BETWEEN 1997 AND 2002. THEY DID
NOTHING. THAT IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.


>We've
> had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has. If
> the
> exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in
> other
> countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make
> sense - but
> no-one can turn back the clock.


They had the opportunity from 1997 to 2002. They did nothing. Nada.
Niet. Sweet FA.

The DAB crisis this year could have been avoided if they'd have
adopted AAC.
The audio quality on the BBC's stations would be shithot if they'd
have adopted AAC.
There wouldn't have been the bubbling mud that people suffer from if
they'd have adopted AAC, because adoption of AAC also requires
adapting the error correction coding.


> Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated; that's
> an
> opinion.


That just displays your incompetence. FLAC is a lossless codec, and
the chance of a lossless codec ever being used on a terrestrial
digital broadcasting system are nil.

Diract is a sodding video codec. Why would you want sodding Diract to
be implemented? Eh? Explain yourself oh wise one.


> I am not going to create a large web site and spend my days
> posting uselessly to newsgroups bemoaning any 'facts' of
> 'incompetence'
> that such facilites are not already available for me - and certainly
> not
> attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before
> anyone
> else had and without international consensus.


The thing you're ignoring is that the BBC R&D people were already
telling the non-technical suits to use AAC.


> DAB is right here, right now, and it works


It works if you don't mind shit quality, and if you actually receive a
signal that doesn't suffer from bubbling mud.


>- just as it did ten years ago.
> DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in one
> or two
> countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too, but
> there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.


Don't tell me what to do or what not to do.


> In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial
> radio
> or TV station to equal.


The audio quality on BBC DAB stations is shit.

And BBC has been providing far lower quality on its Internet radio
streams than commercial radio for the last 2 years, and it's currently
trying to fabricate excuses to avoid providing the SAME bit rate as
commercial radio Internet streams.

That's your idea of setting a very high standard, is it?

How would you explain the BBC providing its Internet radio streams at
32 kbps until last year? And transcoding the audio by receiving the
radio stations off satellite? And why did they transcode the stations
for the listen again streams when they could have been sent via the
Internet? And why did they transcode anythying when it would only have
cost £10k per year for a direct link?

And why is the audio quality on Radio 1 and Radio 2 FM shit these days
when it used to be superb?

You saying that the BBC sets very high standards is yet another
ridiculous thing you've said.


> That's something to be glad about, I think.


Yeah, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm over teh moon about the BBC's
performance.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
> "Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
>> On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>> "Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
>>>> On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>>>>>> In article <kMNJk.28721$***@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:

[...]

>>> Little support from external sources, you say?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization
>>>
>>> "AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known
>>> formally
>>> as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"
>>
>> Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.
>
> DAB+ has got nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. DAB+ came
> years later. I'm talking about the fact that the AAC audio codec was
> available to be used from 1997 onwards, but the non-technical BBC
> executives chose to ignore its existence - even though the BBC R&D
> guys were saying how good it was.
>
> AAC was the solution to DAB's problems. But the non-technical BBC
> execs simply didn't have a clue what they were doing. And here we are
> today.

DAB with AAC support, is DAB+. You are trying to pretend that DAB should
have been DAB+ from the start, but it couldn't be. AAC didn't exist in
the mid '90s, for a start.

[...]

>>> Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.
>>
>> Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs,
>> not
>> about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the
>> responsibility of the BBC anyway).
>
> If the BBC wanted to upgrade DAB prior to relaunch it could have done
> and it would have done.

That 'relaunch' seems to be something you've invented; the BBC started
broadcasting on DAB in the mid '90s. All that happened in 2002 was the
addition of more BBC stations and some advertising of the services.
Clearly the BBC didn't change the codecs used for their broadcasts,
because the existing broadcasting standards (which are not set by the BBC)
made no provision for doing so. As for what the BBC may or may not have
'wanted', that is unknown. You know what /you/ want to have happened, but
that's just your own opinion.

[...]

>> "They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist as
>> a
>> standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until
>> 2007.
>
> Again, what on earth has DAB+ got to do with this? You don't even seem
> able to follow which digital radio standard we're talking about here.
> We're talking about DAB, and the fact that DAB wasn't upgraded prior
> to its relaunch when it should have been upgraded.

You are talking about DAB with the ability to handle AAC codecs; that is
DAB+, not DAB. DAB by definition does not support AAC and never will;
DAB+ does, and is about to 'go live' in Italy and Australia.

>>> So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the
>>> 1990s
>>> when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in
>>> 1997
>>> to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
>>> Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for
>>> DAB?
>>> The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
>>> relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a
>>> right 2
>>> and 8.
>>
>> Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new
>> broadcasting
>> systems, they were and are in the business of providing content for
>> systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you
>> still
>> haven't given any support for.
>
>
> BBC R&D has always been in teh business of inventing new broadcasting
> technologies. For example, DVB-T2 that will be used to deliver HDTV
> via Freeview from next year was basically an idea that stemmed from
> BBC R&D experimenting with MIMO antennas.

They do research (or used to); sometimes the results of that research
eventually finds its way into new broadcasting standards, sometimes it
doesn't. The BBC don't impose technical standards unilaterally; such
things have to be done by international agreement between governments,
broadcasters, manufacturers, and others.

>>> That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
>>> advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be
>>> advertising
>>> DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't support
>>> DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete DAB
>>> radios. Tut tut.
>>
>> So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the one
>> with
>> hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you can
>> tell
>> us.
>
>
> People that know about DAB+ and who're considering buying a DAB radio
> tend to want one that supports DAB. By keeping quiet about the DAB+
> issue, and especially advertising DAB aat a time when most receivers
> don't support DAB+, the BBC is misleading the general public.

When mass-market DAB receivers support both DAB and DAB+, people will be
able to buy them. At present, hardly any support DAB+ at all, and only a
few claim to be 'upgradeable'. That's how new the new standard is. Now
that there is an agreed standard for DAB+, manufacturers have undertaken to
start designing models to accomodate it. But there is nothing to listen
to on DAB+ in this country yet, and it's anybody's guess when there will
be.

>>> The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
>>> *deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest
>>> otherwise.
>>
>> No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least incompetent.
>
> This is just ridiculous. From when you first turned up on this thread,
> you continually got things wrong, and now you're lecturing ME about
> DAB.

Actually, I'm tryig to introduce you to the concept of 'logic'.

> You get one chance at launching a new radio system, so it's got to be
> right. But they screwed up royal, and here I am basically some
> know-nothing telling me what's what.

No, you are expressing an unsupported and unrealistic opinion and I'm
telling you so.

> THEY HAD FIVE WHOLE YEARS TO ADOPT AAC BETWEEN 1997 AND 2002. THEY DID
> NOTHING. THAT IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.

That's your opinion. How "they" were supposed to start using a standard
in 2002 or 1995 or at any other time in the past, that wasn't available
until 2007 at the earliest, is beyond anyone but you.

>>We've
>> had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has. If
>> the
>> exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in
>> other
>> countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make
>> sense - but
>> no-one can turn back the clock.
>
>
> They had the opportunity from 1997 to 2002. They did nothing. Nada.
> Niet. Sweet FA.
>
> The DAB crisis this year could have been avoided if they'd have
> adopted AAC.
> The audio quality on the BBC's stations would be shithot if they'd
> have adopted AAC.
> There wouldn't have been the bubbling mud that people suffer from if
> they'd have adopted AAC, because adoption of AAC also requires
> adapting the error correction coding.

It would be iven better if they;d used soe other system that doesn't exist
yet. Get real!

>> Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated; that's
>> an
>> opinion.
>
>
> That just displays your incompetence. FLAC is a lossless codec, and
> the chance of a lossless codec ever being used on a terrestrial
> digital broadcasting system are nil.

I don't see why; it's still a more efficient use of resources than
analogue, and would give the potential for genuinely 'as good as a CD'
sound - which no lossy codec ever will, not even your beloved AAC. It
would also remove the temptation to impose low bit rates to get more
stations into the space - which will always tend to result in listeners
getting a 'just about good enough for the uncritical masses' listening
experience. FLAC is also royalty-free, unlike AAC.

> Diract is a sodding video codec. Why would you want sodding Diract to
> be implemented? Eh? Explain yourself oh wise one.

Why not? Moving pictures would be a useful adjunct to sound radio -
without necessarily going the whole hog to 'television' quality. Film
trailers, animations, traffic-cameras, ...

I notice you haven't commented in Vorbis.

[...]

>> and certainly
>> not
>> attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before
>> anyone
>> else had and without international consensus.
>
>
> The thing you're ignoring is that the BBC R&D people were already
> telling the non-technical suits to use AAC.

No they weren't, they were publishing the results of some research.

>> DAB is right here, right now, and it works
>
> It works if you don't mind shit quality, and if you actually receive a
> signal that doesn't suffer from bubbling mud.

Aha. I think we've got to the point of your ire; you're in a poor
reception area, or haven't got a good enough aerial.
>
>
>>- just as it did ten years ago.
>> DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in one
>> or two
>> countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too, but
>> there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.
>
> Don't tell me what to do or what not to do.

Why not? You put a huge amount of effort into telling everyone else what
to do.

>> In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial
>> radio
>> or TV station to equal.
>
> The audio quality on BBC DAB stations is shit.

Actually, no, it isn't. The quality of your DAB reception may be though.
The quality of the BBC VHF/FM stations is about as good as DAB (at its
best it used to be better, but I don't think any of the content now on
analogue radio has escaped being digitised and compressed at least once
on its way to the transmitter). Where I live, analogue reception is
mostly poor - Radio 3 FM is useless. But that's down to geography and
transmitter placement and power, not to the underlying technology. But
I'm close enough to the BBC's local DAB transmitter to get a 'full
strength' signal even with the aerial of my portable folded. That's luck,
not technology.

> And BBC has been providing far lower quality on its Internet radio
> streams than commercial radio for the last 2 years, and it's currently
> trying to fabricate excuses to avoid providing the SAME bit rate as
> commercial radio Internet streams.
>
> That's your idea of setting a very high standard, is it?

You are confusing content with transmission technology; they aren't the
same thing at all. I agree that for internet listeners with a lot of
bandwidth available, the BBC could provide better streams and 'podcasts'.
But they'd still have to accomodate those on lesser internet connections.

> How would you explain the BBC providing its Internet radio streams at
> 32 kbps until last year? And transcoding the audio by receiving the
> radio stations off satellite? And why did they transcode the stations
> for the listen again streams when they could have been sent via the
> Internet? And why did they transcode anythying when it would only have
> cost £10k per year for a direct link?

If you think you could run the BBC better than the present staff, why not
apply for a job?

> And why is the audio quality on Radio 1 and Radio 2 FM shit these days
> when it used to be superb?

I've never understood why anyone would choose to listen to Radio 1 so I
can't comment on that. I seldom listen to Radio 2 either - and would use
DAB if I did. But apart from poor reception (which is often worse now
than it used to be thanks to the profusion of licensed and pirate stations
in what used to be a nearly empty VHF waveband), I'm pretty sure even the
analogue stations now get digitised and compressed material, which will
never sound as good as genuine analogue.

> You saying that the BBC sets very high standards is yet another
> ridiculous thing you've said.
>
>
>> That's something to be glad about, I think.
>
>
> Yeah, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm over teh moon about the BBC's
> performance.

Do try not to confuse technology with the content. Content is
/programmes/, not codecs or transmitters. Anyone trying to compete with
the BBC has access to exactly the same technology, but finding programmes
to equal what the BBC produce is what defeats commercial competitors.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <***@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <***@operamail.com> wrote:
> If you think you could run the BBC better than the present staff, why
> not apply for a job?

Think he did and was turned down. Hence the crusade...

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman ***@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>> "Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
>>> On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>> "Whiskers" <***@operamail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@ID-107770.user.individual.net
>>>>> On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>>>>>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <***@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@davenoise.co.uk
>>>>>>> In article <kMNJk.28721$***@newsfe01.ams2>,
>>>>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <***@dead> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Little support from external sources, you say?
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization
>>>>
>>>> "AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known
>>>> formally
>>>> as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"
>>>
>>> Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.
>>
>> DAB+ has got nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. DAB+
>> came
>> years later. I'm talking about the fact that the AAC audio codec
>> was
>> available to be used from 1997 onwards, but the non-technical BBC
>> executives chose to ignore its existence - even though the BBC R&D
>> guys were saying how good it was.
>>
>> AAC was the solution to DAB's problems. But the non-technical BBC
>> execs simply didn't have a clue what they were doing. And here we
>> are
>> today.
>
> DAB with AAC support, is DAB+. You are trying to pretend that DAB
> should
> have been DAB+ from the start, but it couldn't be. AAC didn't exist
> in
> the mid '90s, for a start.


Ah, I see the penny looks to have dropped a bit, but not all the way
to the floor yet.

You say that AAC didn't exist in teh mid 90s. It was actually in
development from 1993/4 (so BBC R&D would have known about it from
1993/4). The BBC carried out a listening test on it in 1996. It was
standardised in 1997.

There was FIVE WHOLE YEARS for them to adopt it before 2002, but they
did nothing. Hence the accusation of gross incompetence.

AAC would have solved all of DAB's main problems. It's incompetent to
launch the system they did when AAC had been available for so long.


>>>> Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.
>>>
>>> Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs,
>>> not
>>> about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the
>>> responsibility of the BBC anyway).
>>
>> If the BBC wanted to upgrade DAB prior to relaunch it could have
>> done
>> and it would have done.
>
> That 'relaunch' seems to be something you've invented; the BBC
> started
> broadcasting on DAB in the mid '90s.


The "big launch" happened in 2002. There had been absolutely no TV
advertising for DAB prior to that. I remember something published by
the DRDB in around 2002 which said that consumer awareness of DAB
before the TV ads was 1%. A whopping 1%.

DAB was properly launched in 2002.


> All that happened in 2002 was the
> addition of more BBC stations and some advertising of the services.
> Clearly the BBC didn't change the codecs used for their broadcasts,
> because the existing broadcasting standards (which are not set by
> the BBC)
> made no provision for doing so. As for what the BBC may or may not
> have
> 'wanted', that is unknown. You know what /you/ want to have
> happened, but
> that's just your own opinion.


The BBC could have added AAC if they'd have wanted to.


>>> "They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist
>>> as
>>> a
>>> standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until
>>> 2007.
>>
>> Again, what on earth has DAB+ got to do with this? You don't even
>> seem
>> able to follow which digital radio standard we're talking about
>> here.
>> We're talking about DAB, and the fact that DAB wasn't upgraded
>> prior
>> to its relaunch when it should have been upgraded.
>
> You are talking about DAB with the ability to handle AAC codecs;
> that is
> DAB+, not DAB. DAB by definition does not support AAC and never
> will;
> DAB+ does, and is about to 'go live' in Italy and Australia.


No, we're talking about DAB. We're talking about what happened in the
1990s. DAB+ only came out about 18 months ago.

DAB+ is irrelevant to this discussion.


>>>> So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the
>>>> 1990s
>>>> when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in
>>>> 1997
>>>> to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
>>>> Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for
>>>> DAB?
>>>> The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
>>>> relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a
>>>> right 2
>>>> and 8.
>>>
>>> Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new
>>> broadcasting
>>> systems, they were and are in the business of providing content
>>> for
>>> systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you
>>> still
>>> haven't given any support for.
>>
>>
>> BBC R&D has always been in teh business of inventing new
>> broadcasting
>> technologies. For example, DVB-T2 that will be used to deliver HDTV
>> via Freeview from next year was basically an idea that stemmed from
>> BBC R&D experimenting with MIMO antennas.
>
> They do research (or used to); sometimes the results of that
> research
> eventually finds its way into new broadcasting standards, sometimes
> it
> doesn't. The BBC don't impose technical standards unilaterally;
> such
> things have to be done by international agreement between
> governments,
> broadcasters, manufacturers, and others.


The BBC could have done whatever it wanted with DAB. If the BBC didn't
want to launch DAB, DAB would have failed in the UK. So the BBC had
the opportunity to adopt AAC if it wanted.

Sorry, but it's just ridiculous to launch a radio system - which are
things taht are meant to be around for a long time - when it simply
wasn't up to the job from day one. And I'm talking about day 1 being
March 2002, when the TV ads started.

There were no DAB receivers in teh shops until late 1999 / early 2000
(IIRC), and then they cost £800 - Malcolm Knight off this group bought
one of the first ones. It will have been late 2000 or early 2001 when
VideoLogic brought out their DRX601E DAB tuner at £300, and probably
the Psion Wavefinder came out at about the same time.

So with AAC being standardised in 1997, it's not as if they didn't
have the opportunity to hold things up so that AAC could be added to
DAB.

Face facts. The BBC was grossly incompetent. That's all there is to
it. Deny it if you like, but you're just deluding yourself due to your
BBC Fanboyism.



>>>> That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
>>>> advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be
>>>> advertising
>>>> DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't
>>>> support
>>>> DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete
>>>> DAB
>>>> radios. Tut tut.
>>>
>>> So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the
>>> one
>>> with
>>> hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you
>>> can
>>> tell
>>> us.
>>
>>
>> People that know about DAB+ and who're considering buying a DAB
>> radio
>> tend to want one that supports DAB. By keeping quiet about the DAB+
>> issue, and especially advertising DAB aat a time when most
>> receivers
>> don't support DAB+, the BBC is misleading the general public.
>
> When mass-market DAB receivers support both DAB and DAB+, people
> will be
> able to buy them. At present, hardly any support DAB+ at all, and
> only a
> few claim to be 'upgradeable'. That's how new the new standard is.
> Now
> that there is an agreed standard for DAB+, manufacturers have
> undertaken
> to start designing models to accomodate it. But there is nothing to
> listen to on DAB+ in this country yet, and it's anybody's guess when
> there will be.


Thanks for an update on DAB+. I wasn't aware of the overall DAB+
picture. Thanks for that. Very interesting. Ta.


>>>> The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
>>>> *deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest
>>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least
>>> incompetent.
>>
>> This is just ridiculous. From when you first turned up on this
>> thread,
>> you continually got things wrong, and now you're lecturing ME about
>> DAB.
>
> Actually, I'm tryig to introduce you to the concept of 'logic'.


There wasn't any logic in what you said above.


>> You get one chance at launching a new radio system, so it's got to
>> be
>> right. But they screwed up royal, and here I am basically some
>> know-nothing telling me what's what.
>
> No, you are expressing an unsupported and unrealistic opinion and
> I'm
> telling you so.


There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about saying that a digital
radio system that the broadcasters originally intended to be used in
this country for a very long time, and they thoroughly expected it
would become a global digital radio standard should be fit for purpose
BEFORE it was launched.

You don't get two goes with these things. It needed to be right first
time. It wasn't.


>> THEY HAD FIVE WHOLE YEARS TO ADOPT AAC BETWEEN 1997 AND 2002. THEY
>> DID
>> NOTHING. THAT IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.
>
> That's your opinion. How "they" were supposed to start using a
> standard
> in 2002 or 1995 or at any other time in the past, that wasn't
> available
> until 2007 at the earliest, is beyond anyone but you.


You're still sticking to this nonsense about DAB+. DAB+ is just a
standard that was designed recently. I'm talking about the AAC codec
being added to DAB. That could have happened at any time from 1997
onwards.


>>> We've
>>> had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has.
>>> If
>>> the
>>> exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in
>>> other
>>> countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make
>>> sense - but
>>> no-one can turn back the clock.
>>
>>
>> They had the opportunity from 1997 to 2002. They did nothing. Nada.
>> Niet. Sweet FA.
>>
>> The DAB crisis this year could have been avoided if they'd have
>> adopted AAC.
>> The audio quality on the BBC's stations would be shithot if they'd
>> have adopted AAC.
>> There wouldn't have been the bubbling mud that people suffer from
>> if
>> they'd have adopted AAC, because adoption of AAC also requires
>> adapting the error correction coding.
>
> It would be iven better if they;d used soe other system that doesn't
> exist
> yet. Get real!


Sorry, but you're just coming out with drivel. I've repeatedly said
that I'm referring to the AAC codec being added to DAB. Nothing to do
with DAB+ - that came a lot later.

AAC could have been added to DAB from 1997 onwards - they could have
worked towards adding it from 1994 onwards, because that's when it got
the go-ahead from MPEG.


>>> Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated;
>>> that's
>>> an
>>> opinion.
>>
>>
>> That just displays your incompetence. FLAC is a lossless codec, and
>> the chance of a lossless codec ever being used on a terrestrial
>> digital broadcasting system are nil.
>
> I don't see why; it's still a more efficient use of resources than
> analogue,


An average FLAC bit rate is around 800 kbps. A DAB multiplex can carry
1184 kbps. So only one FLAC-compressed station could be carrier per
DAB multiplex. A DAB multiplex has a bandwidth of 1.75 MHz, so that's
1.75 MHz per station.

An FM station has a bandwidth of about 400 kHz.

So, no, it's more efficient than analogue, it's far less efficient
than analogue.

And the cost of transmitting a FLAC-encoded station on a national DAB
multiplex to 90% of the population would be £11m per year - nice and
economically feasible to go with the high spectral efficiency.

It's basically one of the most ridiculous things anybody has said on
this newsgroup all year - possibly 2 years in fact. But you'll just
ignore that, and come up with some more idiocy in your next post no
doubt.


> and would give the potential for genuinely 'as good as a CD'
> sound - which no lossy codec ever will, not even your beloved AAC.


FLAC doesn't offer the potential to provide CD quality, it does
provide CD quality. That's why it's called a lossless codec, because
there is no loss - it is a perfect bit-for-bit copy of the original
when decompressed - that's what a lossless codec is, otherwise it's
not lossless. Strewth.


> It would also remove the temptation to impose low bit rates to get
> more
> stations into the space - which will always tend to result in
> listeners
> getting a 'just about good enough for the uncritical masses'
> listening
> experience. FLAC is also royalty-free, unlike AAC.


I bet the broadcasters would be over the moon that FLAC is
royalty-free. Just the £11m per annum transmission costs on national
DAB to worry about then. Gordon Bennett.

And what choice we'd have. I'd be able to receive 4 stations on DAB.

Do you work for the FSA by any chance?


>> Diract is a sodding video codec. Why would you want sodding Diract
>> to
>> be implemented? Eh? Explain yourself oh wise one.
>
> Why not? Moving pictures would be a useful adjunct to sound radio -
> without necessarily going the whole hog to 'television' quality.
> Film
> trailers, animations, traffic-cameras, ...


Yeah, I can see you've considered the bandwidth required for this as
well. You are aware that video requires far higher bit rates than
audio, are you? Video on handheld devices requires a bit rate of about
200 kbps for the video, then there's the audio. You can do video on
DAB - that's what DMB is, but it consumes a lot of bandwidth, and it's
basically a waste of capacity when it could be delivered via the
Internet.


> I notice you haven't commented in Vorbis.


I didn't need to comment on Ogg, because I had more than enough
ammunition with your idiotic suggestion to use FLAC.

Regarding Ogg, what's the point in using it when you'ev got AAC/AAC+?
AAC+ is more efficient than Ogg, so the broadcasters will use AAC+.


>>> and certainly
>>> not
>>> attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before
>>> anyone
>>> else had and without international consensus.
>>
>>
>> The thing you're ignoring is that the BBC R&D people were already
>> telling the non-technical suits to use AAC.
>
> No they weren't, they were publishing the results of some research.


I've already told you that when non-technical BBC suits make technical
decisions they get presentations by BBC R&D people to advise them
about the technical issues. They will have known what the score was,
but they ignored it.


>>> DAB is right here, right now, and it works
>>
>> It works if you don't mind shit quality, and if you actually
>> receive a
>> signal that doesn't suffer from bubbling mud.
>
> Aha. I think we've got to the point of your ire; you're in a poor
> reception area, or haven't got a good enough aerial.


No bubbling mud on 3 multiplexes. A bit of bubbling mud on 1
multiplex. That's indoor reception.

Perfect FM reception, BTW.


>>> - just as it did ten years ago.
>>> DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in
>>> one
>>> or two
>>> countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too,
>>> but
>>> there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.
>>
>> Don't tell me what to do or what not to do.
>
> Why not? You put a huge amount of effort into telling everyone else
> what
> to do.


I could say the same thing about you.


>>> In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial
>>> radio
>>> or TV station to equal.
>>
>> The audio quality on BBC DAB stations is shit.
>
> Actually, no, it isn't.


Erm, yes, it is.


> The quality of your DAB reception may be though.


See above - there's nothing wrong with my DAB reception quality on 3
multiplexes.


> The quality of the BBC VHF/FM stations is about as good as DAB


The quality on FM still easily beats DAB, and that's with the BBC
degrading R1 and R2. R3 FM wipes the floor with R3 DAB. The only
station that has a similar quality on both is R4.


> (at its
> best it used to be better, but I don't think any of the content now
> on
> analogue radio has escaped being digitised and compressed at least
> once
> on its way to the transmitter).


The audio for BBC FM stations is distributed to the transmitters via
NICAM. NICAM uses a 14-to-10 bit companding algorithm with a bit rate
of 728 kbps.

Anybody with a high SNR signal is effectively listening to NICAM, and
NICAM pisses all over MP2.


> Where I live, analogue reception is
> mostly poor - Radio 3 FM is useless.


Right. So don't even bother commenting on FM.

Bored of this now.

<snip>



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"john d hamilton" <***@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gd4g53$eno$***@registered.motzarella.org
> Many thanks to all. After learning for the first time about DAB+ in
> this
> group, I again rang Phillips to ask if this DA1103/5 would receive
> DAB+
> when it came out. I was told that it would *not* receive it and
> that
> DAB+ and anyway would not be broadcast for another two years. The
> question I have to ask myself now is whether it's worth paying
> nearly
> twice as much for the pure 1500 pocket DAB radio?


Pure has said that it will only sell DAB+ upgradeable receivers by
next year, i.e. it's changing its receivers over to using DAB/DAB+
receiver modules. So if you wait a bit you can get a DAB+ upgradeable
version instead.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

[drewdawg]

"john d hamilton" <***@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gcq1r4$u0l$***@registered.motzarella.org...
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05, £39 from a
Comet
> store in London. It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but
> everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
> stations that I had previously *preset*. I quite often need to do a scan
> since the reception quality is very different between the front and the
rear
> of my house.
>
I'm not sure if the DA1103/05 has this feature but my Zenith DTT901
(American HDTV receiver) has both an "Auto Tune" and an "EZ add" scan
function.

Auto Tune does what you described in wiping the presets clean and setting
all channels receivable in that scan.

EZ add leaves the presets as they are and adds to them channels received in
that scan.

For my unit I can scan channels with my aerial facing west (Baltimore) and
add channels while its facing north (Philadelphia).

Not all receivers do this (my Sylvania doesn't) so there may be a DAB out
there with this handy feature.

Good luck. ;-)

[terry]

On Oct 11, 4:35 pm, "drewdawg" <***@failed.net> wrote:
> "john d hamilton" <***@mail.invalid> wrote in messagenews:gcq1r4$u0l$***@registered.motzarella.org...> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05,  £39 from a
> Comet
> > store in London.  It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but
> > everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
> > stations that I had previously *preset*.  I quite often need to do a scan
> > since the reception quality is very different between the front and the
> rear
> > of my house.
>
> I'm not sure if the DA1103/05 has this feature but my Zenith DTT901
> (American HDTV receiver) has both an "Auto Tune" and an "EZ add" scan
> function.
>
> Auto Tune does what you described in wiping the presets clean and setting
> all channels receivable in that scan.
>
> EZ add leaves the presets as they are and adds to them channels received in
> that scan.
>
> For my unit I can scan channels with my aerial facing west (Baltimore) and
> add channels while its facing north (Philadelphia).
>
> Not all receivers do this (my Sylvania doesn't) so there may be a DAB out
> there with this handy feature.
>
> Good luck. ;-)

What a kerfuffle about a radio!!!!!
What's the point? Trying to tell everyone that one can afford to pay
the monthly fee 'to be allowed' to pick up satellite broadcasts? Or is
the DAB land based transmitters?
Fortunately we still have good old fashioned mono AM (Amplitude
Modulated) Medium Wave (Broadcast Band in North America); in this
immediate part of Canada five different stations. Plus the usual
cacophony of some nine more on the FM band! And no radio or TV
receiving licences.
No trouble to pick up AM anywhere in this house even down in the below
ground basement! Just about everyone has an old radio stuck up above
the workbench.
Also vehicle radio stays on one AM channel (local content) most of the
time, turned down low so as to hear emergency sirens (and the
occasional boom-box) in a temporarily adjacent juvenile vehicle! Also
find it best to turn of any stereo effect (AM is mono anyway) so as to
throw the sound over onto the speaker/s nearest the driver.
Got a bedside radio with memory functions but don't use them, just
tune quickly and digitally to whichever frequency/station one wants!
OK that's so Luddite but everything works!