"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
is as **** as it is - because there's not enough capacity.


Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is **** 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 ****. 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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:29:30 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
dab.is@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.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio
quality
is as **** as it is - because there's not enough capacity.


Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is **** 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 ****. 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 **** 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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

On 2008-10-12, DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

In article ,
Whiskers 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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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

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.

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

On 2008-10-15, john d hamilton 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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

In article ,
Whiskers 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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Oct 11, 4:35*pm, "drewdawg" wrote:
"john d hamilton" wrote in ... 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!

"Whiskers" wrote in message

On 2008-10-15, john d hamilton 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/da...ion_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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article
,
Whiskers 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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"john d hamilton" wrote in message

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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

On 2008-10-15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Whiskers 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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

On 2008-10-15, DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
"Whiskers" wrote in message

On 2008-10-15, john d hamilton 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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

"Whiskers" wrote in message

On 2008-10-15, DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_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/do...9_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/dv...ld_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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Whiskers" wrote in message

On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

In article ,
Whiskers wrote:
On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Whiskers wrote:
On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

"Whiskers" wrote in message


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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

In article ,
Whiskers 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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article
,
Whiskers 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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Whiskers" wrote in message

On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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/da...ion_of_dab.htm

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@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 London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.