Thinking of getting a DAB radio for the Kitchen but also for out an about
and wondered if they track the station tuned in to ?
(apologies for possibly wrong group but its a DIY project to build it into
the kitchen in a removable pod)
Anyone know ?

Thanks,

Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
...
Thinking of getting a DAB radio for the Kitchen but also for out an about
and wondered if they track the station tuned in to ?
(apologies for possibly wrong group but its a DIY project to build it into
the kitchen in a removable pod)
Anyone know ?

Thanks,

Nick

Unlike FM where all the National stations broadcast on different
frequencies, the National Multiplexes on DAB (which includes all the
national BBC stations) are on fixed frequencies so there is no need for the
DAB radio to retune - it just needs to be in range of a transmitter.

On DAB there are also local multiplexes (where you will find your local BBC
and Independent stations). As the name suggests they will only be receivable
in the locality. These frequencies are reused for different local stations
around the UK. Not sure what happens here with the DAB radio if you move it
elsewhere - I guess it just says "station unavailable" until you do a
rescan.

There is a group alt.radio.digital where you *should* be able to get more
info. Unfortunately is seems to be populated by an anti-DAB brigade who will
advise you to buy an FM radio instead.

Chris

Hi Chris,
Thanks for the info - will follow the "links" and educate myself on the
system
Nick

In article ,
Nick wrote:
Thinking of getting a DAB radio for the Kitchen but also for out an
about and wondered if they track the station tuned in to ? (apologies
for possibly wrong group but its a DIY project to build it into the
kitchen in a removable pod) Anyone know ?

Digital transmissions are on the same frequency throughout the country.
Unlike analogue where this would cause problems with cancellation etc it's
actually a benefit because in weak signal areas the two add.

I'm not sure how well it actually works in a poor signal area, though.
Receivers seem to make the most alarming noises when they lose signal -
rather worse than FM.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Chris wrote:
There is a group alt.radio.digital where you *should* be able to get
more info. Unfortunately is seems to be populated by an anti-DAB
brigade who will advise you to buy an FM radio instead.

Beware. 'DAB sounds worse than FM' continually searches for any mention of
DAB anywhere and pops up to spew his bile.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Thus spaketh Dave Plowman (News):
In article ,
Chris wrote:
There is a group alt.radio.digital where you *should* be able to get
more info. Unfortunately is seems to be populated by an anti-DAB
brigade who will advise you to buy an FM radio instead.

Beware. 'DAB sounds worse than FM' continually searches for any
mention of DAB anywhere and pops up to spew his bile.

But he has a valid point.

{{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:

But he has a valid point.

He does have a point, up to a point. But he's so vociferous that I
suspect most people ignore or even killfile him.

Thankfully "DAB sounds better than AM" so evening R5 listening (before
1am when the local BBC stations take the R5 feed) is improved, and for
me R4 sounds good enough, if I were an R3 buff maybe I'd be complaining.

In article ,
{{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
Thus spaketh Dave Plowman (News):
In article ,
Chris wrote:
There is a group alt.radio.digital where you *should* be able to get
more info. Unfortunately is seems to be populated by an anti-DAB
brigade who will advise you to buy an FM radio instead.

Beware. 'DAB sounds worse than FM' continually searches for any
mention of DAB anywhere and pops up to spew his bile.

But he has a valid point.

In the main I'm an R4 listener, and that sounds ok on DAB - apart from
when they reduce the rate at certain times. R3 also sounds ok. All the
other stations are in the main pop - and so heavily compressed at source
the final transmission medium is of less consequence if quality was the
aim. Not that it probably matters on a portable radio much anyway.
I'm not defending DAB as such as it promised good quality before the bean
counters got at it. But the fact remains it suits many people who simply
can't hear the effects of the low data rate or don't care. For those that
do, there is at present no date for the switch off of FM, and you also
have the cheap alternative of FreeView for a Hi-Fi tuner, with more
stations getting added regularly.

Doesn't stop me disliking 'Mr DAB'. He is exactly like dribble in that
only his opinion is valid and those who disagree idiots.

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In uk.d-i-y, Nick wrote:
Thinking of getting a DAB radio for the Kitchen but also for out an about
and wondered if they track the station tuned in to ?
(apologies for possibly wrong group but its a DIY project to build it into
the kitchen in a removable pod)

Presumably you're considering DAB as an alternative to FM. My
experiences with (early) DAB radios taught me that they drain batteries
very much quicker than FM radios, which might be worth taking into
account. If anyone can report that modern DAB chipsets are better in
this regard I'd be pleased to hear about it.

--
Mike Barnes

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
{{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
Thus spaketh Dave Plowman (News):
In article ,
Chris wrote:
There is a group alt.radio.digital where you *should* be able to get
more info. Unfortunately is seems to be populated by an anti-DAB
brigade who will advise you to buy an FM radio instead.
Beware. 'DAB sounds worse than FM' continually searches for any
mention of DAB anywhere and pops up to spew his bile.

But he has a valid point.

In the main I'm an R4 listener, and that sounds ok on DAB - apart from
when they reduce the rate at certain times. R3 also sounds ok. All the
other stations are in the main pop - and so heavily compressed at source
the final transmission medium is of less consequence if quality was the
aim. Not that it probably matters on a portable radio much anyway.
I'm not defending DAB as such as it promised good quality before the bean
counters got at it. But the fact remains it suits many people who simply
can't hear the effects of the low data rate or don't care. For those that
do, there is at present no date for the switch off of FM, and you also
have the cheap alternative of FreeView for a Hi-Fi tuner, with more
stations getting added regularly.

Doesn't stop me disliking 'Mr DAB'. He is exactly like dribble in that
only his opinion is valid and those who disagree idiots.


The Visonia from Maplin is a neat little job for the kitchen. Cheap and
cheerful, but I've been pleasantly surprised by the sound quality.

Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Nick wrote:
Thinking of getting a DAB radio for the Kitchen but also for out an about
and wondered if they track the station tuned in to ?
(apologies for possibly wrong group but its a DIY project to build it into
the kitchen in a removable pod)

Presumably you're considering DAB as an alternative to FM. My
experiences with (early) DAB radios taught me that they drain batteries
very much quicker than FM radios, which might be worth taking into
account. If anyone can report that modern DAB chipsets are better in
this regard I'd be pleased to hear about it.


Mine apparently does the batteries in an hour, so portable it ain't

Stuart Noble wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Nick wrote:
Thinking of getting a DAB radio for the Kitchen but also for out an about
and wondered if they track the station tuned in to ?
(apologies for possibly wrong group but its a DIY project to build it into
the kitchen in a removable pod)

Presumably you're considering DAB as an alternative to FM. My
experiences with (early) DAB radios taught me that they drain batteries
very much quicker than FM radios, which might be worth taking into
account. If anyone can report that modern DAB chipsets are better in
this regard I'd be pleased to hear about it.


Mine apparently does the batteries in an hour, so portable it ain't

A new chipset coming out next year will reduce the power consumption.

wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:
Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Nick wrote:
Thinking of getting a DAB radio for the Kitchen but also for out an about
and wondered if they track the station tuned in to ?
(apologies for possibly wrong group but its a DIY project to build it into
the kitchen in a removable pod)
Presumably you're considering DAB as an alternative to FM. My
experiences with (early) DAB radios taught me that they drain batteries
very much quicker than FM radios, which might be worth taking into
account. If anyone can report that modern DAB chipsets are better in
this regard I'd be pleased to hear about it.

Mine apparently does the batteries in an hour, so portable it ain't

A new chipset coming out next year will reduce the power consumption.

I'll wait then...

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

Digital transmissions are on the same frequency throughout the country.
Unlike analogue where this would cause problems with cancellation etc it's
actually a benefit because in weak signal areas the two add.

And for all the power the BBC and Castlewotnot will be saving when the
cut the ERP of the transmitters, the rest of us will be paying in
mains/battery electricty to run the DAB receivers which use a lot more
juice than analogue radios.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In article ,
JohnDW wrote:
Presumably you're considering DAB as an alternative to FM. My
experiences with (early) DAB radios taught me that they drain batteries
very much quicker than FM radios, which might be worth taking into
account. If anyone can report that modern DAB chipsets are better in
this regard I'd be pleased to hear about it.

Isn't there a plan to change the DAB coding algorithm to make
them international?

Yes - although nothing definite about the UK adopting it. It will make
current DAB receivers obsolete. The chips are cheaper to make and consume
a lot less power.

Needless to say, the UK one is the non- preferred version (again)

That's the problem with being first. And you can bet there will be a
better algorithm developed *after* the new one is adopted - if it is. It's
a fact of life with such things.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Guy King wrote:
The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

Digital transmissions are on the same frequency throughout the country.
Unlike analogue where this would cause problems with cancellation etc it's
actually a benefit because in weak signal areas the two add.

And for all the power the BBC and Castlewotnot will be saving when the
cut the ERP of the transmitters, the rest of us will be paying in
mains/battery electricty to run the DAB receivers which use a lot more
juice than analogue radios.

Actually - DAB is quite inefficent spectrally, and in terms of
transmitter power.
However.
The new chipset from the maker of 80% or so of chipsets in radios will
use much less power at the users end, and also support AAC, and the
other things needed to support a better technologically DAB radio - one
which can fit _much_ more per multiplex into each frequency band, as
well as needing less power to transmit.

At some point in the future - probably well before analog switchoff,
we'll switch over to this DAB standard - at that time DAB radio
chipsets'll be a couple of quid.

Hopefully, quality will be quite good, as bitrate is much less
expensive.

The message
from Ian Stirling contains these words:

Hopefully, quality will be quite good, as bitrate is much less
expensive.

At the moment much of it is bloody awful. R4 gets the scrag end of
what's left over after R3's pedants have had the lion's share.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from Huge contains these words:

OTOH, my wife loves her Pure Evoke II to pieces, and it's on R4
for most of the day.

I'd be quite content if I could buy a radio cheaper than usual because
it has no variable tuning, just locked to R4.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Huge wrote:
On 2006-11-14, Guy King wrote:
The message
from Ian Stirling contains these words:

Hopefully, quality will be quite good, as bitrate is much less
expensive.

At the moment much of it is bloody awful. R4 gets the scrag end of
what's left over after R3's pedants have had the lion's share.

OTOH, my wife loves her Pure Evoke II to pieces, and it's on R4
for most of the day.

I shall be deeply ****ed off if the format of DAB changes and it
no longer works; it wasn't cheap.

However, if it's at a time 10 years in the future, when a cheap 'new' DAB
set is a tenner, and there is little premium over FM, I suspect you'd be
less bothered.

Huge wrote:

I shall be deeply ****ed off if the format of DAB changes and it
no longer works; it wasn't cheap.



Same here. Not just for my Pure Evoke but for my Woodstock car radio.

--
Howard Neil

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Doesn't stop me disliking 'Mr DAB'. He is exactly like dribble in that
only his opinion is valid and those who disagree idiots.

Except that DAB's rather freer with the gratuitous expletives than
Dribble, when the argument's not going his way.

--
Andy

The message
from Huge contains these words:

I'd be quite content if I could buy a radio cheaper than usual because
it has no variable tuning, just locked to R4.

I wouldn't. I dislike radio plays and I *LOATHE* The Archers.

Oh, I have an OFF switch.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Thanks to all for the comments - interesting reading and sounds like my
needs will be better served with an ordinary FM RDS radio...
anyone recommendations for a small portable FM RDS radio ?

Thanks

Nick

On 2006-11-14 17:09:18 +0000, Huge said:

On 2006-11-14, Ian Stirling wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2006-11-14, Guy King wrote:
The message
from Ian Stirling contains these words:

Hopefully, quality will be quite good, as bitrate is much less
expensive.

At the moment much of it is bloody awful. R4 gets the scrag end of
what's left over after R3's pedants have had the lion's share.

OTOH, my wife loves her Pure Evoke II to pieces, and it's on R4
for most of the day.

I shall be deeply ****ed off if the format of DAB changes and it
no longer works; it wasn't cheap.

However, if it's at a time 10 years in the future, when a cheap 'new' DAB
set is a tenner, and there is little premium over FM, I suspect you'd be
less bothered.

Ah, if that's the timescale you're talking about, you'd be right.

Yes, and if SWMBO likes listening to Geordie Ruth and all is peaceful
it would be churlish to deny that ;-)

In article ,
Huge wrote:
I wouldn't. I dislike radio plays and I *LOATHE* The Archers.

Ohhhhh noooooooo

--
*Of course I'm against sin; I'm against anything that I'm too old to enjoy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

Ohhhhh noooooooo

Grace, don't go back into the barn...

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On 14 Nov 2006 17:10:01 GMT, Huge wrote:

I *LOATHE* The Archers.

"oh ner"

In article ,
Nick wrote:
Thanks to all for the comments - interesting reading and sounds like my
needs will be better served with an ordinary FM RDS radio...
anyone recommendations for a small portable FM RDS radio ?

My advice would be to go for the DAB portable - unless you're going to run
it on batteries. The sound quality will be fine for a portable.

--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Guy King wrote:
The message
from Ian Stirling contains these words:

Hopefully, quality will be quite good, as bitrate is much less
expensive.

At the moment much of it is bloody awful. R4 gets the scrag end of
what's left over after R3's pedants have had the lion's share.

Speaking as a radio three pedant....

Although it is still called radio three the channel is now used for
material that would previously have been broadcast radio 2. I feel
that now radio 3 is the only 'high sound quality' DAB channel there is
more justification for using it in this way. It's bit like the old
"music programme" which was broadcast on the third proigramme on in the
evenings in the fiftes(?).

Incidentally, while I am rambling on, radio 3 DAB has mostly given up
using true stereo but uses the much inferior 'joint stereo' instead. I
guess they have done this in order to get a less distorted sound at the
cost of a stereo image. I am happy with this, but it means that the
only place to find true stereo broadcasting is on FM.

Robert

Chris wrote:

Unlike FM where all the National stations broadcast on different
frequencies, the National Multiplexes on DAB (which includes all the
national BBC stations) are on fixed frequencies so there is no need for the
DAB radio to retune - it just needs to be in range of a transmitter.

There's one exception to this. The Digital One mux (that carries the
national commercial radio services) uses a different frequency in
Scotland, and doesn't broadcast at all in Northern Ireland. However
some of the D1 stations are available on the regional NI Mux

In article .com,
Robert Laws writes

Guy King wrote:
The message
from Ian Stirling contains these words:

Hopefully, quality will be quite good, as bitrate is much less
expensive.

At the moment much of it is bloody awful. R4 gets the scrag end of
what's left over after R3's pedants have had the lion's share.

Speaking as a radio three pedant....

Although it is still called radio three the channel is now used for
material that would previously have been broadcast radio 2. I feel
that now radio 3 is the only 'high sound quality' DAB channel there is
more justification for using it in this way. It's bit like the old
"music programme" which was broadcast on the third proigramme on in the
evenings in the fiftes(?).

Incidentally, while I am rambling on, radio 3 DAB has mostly given up
using true stereo but uses the much inferior 'joint stereo' instead. I
guess they have done this in order to get a less distorted sound at the
cost of a stereo image. I am happy with this, but it means that the
only place to find true stereo broadcasting is on FM.

Robert

Quite..


UK DAB is a **** poor implementation of a digital radio system.

The only people who get this right and worthy of calling it a decent
system are the Germans on their satellite transmissions, where the
broadcast quality is excellent:-))

And France Musique isn't that bad either, but its only 256 K/Bits
--
Tony Sayer