Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Dave

Dave coughed up some electrons that declared:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Dave

It's not as clear cut - especially as there are multiple audio radio bands
(SW, LW, MW and VHF/FM). Last I heard was DAB was in a bit of trouble
generally, so I don't expect we'll lose the lot. I would expect the AM
bands to continue forever even if they pull FM to make room for digital.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:42:19 +0000, Tim S wrote:
It's not as clear cut - especially as there are multiple audio radio bands
(SW, LW, MW and VHF/FM). Last I heard was DAB was in a bit of trouble
generally, so I don't expect we'll lose the lot. I would expect the AM
bands to continue forever even if they pull FM to make room for digital.

There was this one recently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7792083.stm

.... very much reading between the lines, but if the decline in use is
sharp on both FM and AM, then I don't know if AM's future is secure.

Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth just
means more channels of utter ****e, rather than a few better ones. Digital
radio is presumably just as prone...

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:42:19 +0000, Tim S wrote:
It's not as clear cut - especially as there are multiple audio radio bands
(SW, LW, MW and VHF/FM). Last I heard was DAB was in a bit of trouble
generally, so I don't expect we'll lose the lot. I would expect the AM
bands to continue forever even if they pull FM to make room for digital.

There was this one recently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7792083.stm

... very much reading between the lines, but if the decline in use is
sharp on both FM and AM, then I don't know if AM's future is secure.

Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth just
means more channels of utter ****e, rather than a few better ones. Digital
radio is presumably just as prone...

Our TV aerial looks through quite a tall tree and in spring, summer and
autumn we get picture loss using free view due to the wet foliage when
it rains.

Dave

Jules wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:42:19 +0000, Tim S wrote:
It's not as clear cut - especially as there are multiple audio radio bands
(SW, LW, MW and VHF/FM). Last I heard was DAB was in a bit of trouble
generally, so I don't expect we'll lose the lot. I would expect the AM
bands to continue forever even if they pull FM to make room for digital.

There was this one recently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7792083.stm

... very much reading between the lines, but if the decline in use is
sharp on both FM and AM, then I don't know if AM's future is secure.

Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth just
means more channels of utter ****e, rather than a few better ones. Digital
radio is presumably just as prone...


Oddly enough, channel 5 was ****e here on analogue, and is generally
fine on digital.


cheers

Jules

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth
just means more channels of utter ****e, rather than a few better
ones. Digital radio is presumably just as prone...


Oddly enough, channel 5 was ****e here on analogue, and is generally
fine on digital.

CH5 analogue can be poor here too - and I can see the Crystal Palace mast
out of this window. Because it was squeezed in as an afterthought, it's
often not that good where it can be subject to co-channel interference. So
fine in the north of Scotland. ;-)

--
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.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:39:32 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

CH5 analogue can be poor here too - and I can see the Crystal Palace mast
out of this window.

Is that where your aerial is pointed though? If it is then,
according to the not always reliable
http://www.ukfree.tv/shutdowndetail.php?tx=TQ339712, it does not
transmit analogue Channel 5.

That channel was indeed squeezed in and may only have been available
from another analogue transmitter in some places, as well as the
aerial group problem someone else has mentioned if it was on the
same transmitter.

Given the post-switchover range of frequencies and your distance
from the transmitter it looks like a log periodic aerial would be
suitable http://www.aerialsandtv.com/onlineaerials.html#DMlog if
you were thinking of changing aerial due to the age of the existing
one. I suspect it won't improve analogue Channel 5 though, as that
is not on the transmitter.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Oddly enough, channel 5 was ****e here on analogue, and is generally
fine on digital.

That could be because ch5 analogue is outside the channel grouping that
your aerial was designed for. However the digital mux that carries ch5
is probably within channel grouping of your aerial

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:43:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth just
means more channels of utter ****e, rather than a few better ones. Digital
radio is presumably just as prone...

Oddly enough, channel 5 was ****e here on analogue, and is generally
fine on digital.

I haven't seen C5 for many years; it wasn't transmitted to the area
outside of Cambridge where I lived (something to do with it
interfering with the university's astronomy dept. I believe) and I
refused to pay x pounds/month for a bazillion digital channels when I was
only ever going to watch four or five of them.

In article . com,
Jules wrote:
I haven't seen C5 for many years; it wasn't transmitted to the area
outside of Cambridge where I lived (something to do with it
interfering with the university's astronomy dept. I believe) and I
refused to pay x pounds/month for a bazillion digital channels when I was
only ever going to watch four or five of them.

You can get a DTTV STB these days for not a lot - and there's no extra
payment over and above the licence fee. There is a lot of rubbish on some
of the channels but hey - some must watch it. Others do repeats which can
be useful. Also satellite is getting quite cheap to buy - and again quite
a lot is free to air.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

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

"Jules" wrote in message
news
I haven't seen C5 for many years; it wasn't transmitted to the area
outside of Cambridge where I lived (something to do with it
interfering with the university's astronomy dept. I believe) and I
refused to pay x pounds/month for a bazillion digital channels when I was
only ever going to watch four or five of them.

?? No monthly charges for Freeview.

Tim

Jules wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:43:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth just
means more channels of utter ****e, rather than a few better ones. Digital
radio is presumably just as prone...
Oddly enough, channel 5 was ****e here on analogue, and is generally
fine on digital.

I haven't seen C5 for many years; it wasn't transmitted to the area
outside of Cambridge where I lived (something to do with it
interfering with the university's astronomy dept. I believe) and I
refused to pay x pounds/month for a bazillion digital channels when I was
only ever going to watch four or five of them.



Ah freeview now means you get about 15 for free. Decentish ones that is.

Jules wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:42:19 +0000, Tim S wrote:
It's not as clear cut - especially as there are multiple audio radio
bands (SW, LW, MW and VHF/FM). Last I heard was DAB was in a bit of
trouble generally, so I don't expect we'll lose the lot. I would
expect the AM bands to continue forever even if they pull FM to make
room for digital.

There was this one recently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7792083.stm

... very much reading between the lines, but if the decline in use is
sharp on both FM and AM, then I don't know if AM's future is secure.

Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth
just means more channels of utter ****e, rather than a few better
ones. Digital radio is presumably just as prone...

I carry a DAB radio so I can listen to Radio 4 if working in unoccupied
propertys. Reception in some parts of the Towns is non existent so I have
to tune via FM.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Tim S wrote:
Dave coughed up some electrons that declared:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Dave

It's not as clear cut - especially as there are multiple audio radio bands
(SW, LW, MW and VHF/FM). Last I heard was DAB was in a bit of trouble
generally, so I don't expect we'll lose the lot. I would expect the AM
bands to continue forever even if they pull FM to make room for digital.

Thanks for pointing out my non thinking of bands other than FM :-)

Dave

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Dave

No you are not correct -
http://help.digitaluk.co.uk/al/197/1...?aid=6096&bt=4

Peter

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Dave


No Dave..


Regards.


Micky Leeds U.K.

Micky Savage wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Dave


No Dave..

Thanks

Dave

Dave wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Seems undesirable. It's not too hard to plug a £10 freeview box into
your telly, but replacing a car radio is a different matter for the
average punter - and a pain in the arse for anyone in those cars that
have the damn thing custom-built into the dash.

Pete

"Pete Verdon" d wrote in
message ...
Dave wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Seems undesirable. It's not too hard to plug a £10 freeview box into your
telly, but replacing a car radio is a different matter for the average
punter - and a pain in the arse for anyone in those cars that have the
damn thing custom-built into the dash.

Then people who have radio/CDs will get a DAB radio and an iTrip whereas
people who have radio/tape players will get a DAB radio and a cassette
adapter.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave
wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

No

--
Frank Erskine

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

No. There are no firm dates for switching off any radio service - unlike
analogue TV.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

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

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000 someone who may be Dave
wrote this:-

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Eventually? Possibly.

In the short term? No.


DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC). Overseas they
are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow eventually (though
the officials concerned had yet to admit this the last time I
checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly but
quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
frighten the public.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 14 Jan, 08:17, David Hansen
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000 someone who may be Dave
wrote this:-

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Eventually? Possibly.

In the short term? No.

DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC). Overseas they
are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow eventually (though
the officials concerned had yet to admit this the last time I
checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly but
quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
frighten the public.

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones. I have
a couple of portable FM/AM radios, each operated by a pair of AA
batteries. I use 2800 mAh rechargeable NiMH AA batteries and get
several weeks usage between recharges, using them for several hours a
day. I don't think I get more than a couple of days usage out of the
same batteries used in a DAB or DAB+ radio. Hmm - the UK government
seems to be mandating a move from an old, energy efficient technology
to one that uses 6 - 10 times more energy for the same output. Very
'Green'. I wonder how many coal-fired power station equivalents that
adds up to across the country.

It's not only the UK that has to decide whether to migrate from DAB
(MP2 codec) to DAB+ (AAC+ codec) - also Norway, Denmark, Ireland and
Switzerland.

OB: d-i-y
As a kid, I built my own crystal radio. Getting the sweet spot on the
germanium contact was an interesting exercise. I don't think DAB or DAB
+ will be quite the same experience for kids these days.

Sid

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:29:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

The same is true of televisions I gather. Proponents claim that this
is balanced by the relatively low power of the transmitters. I'm not
convinced, but that is their claim.

As for government being two faced with regard to power consumption/
climate change, that's nothing new. The charitable explanation is
that it takes a long time for the message to permeate to many parts
of government.

It's not only the UK that has to decide whether to migrate from DAB
(MP2 codec) to DAB+ (AAC+ codec) - also Norway, Denmark, Ireland and
Switzerland.

The last time I checked, some months ago, with the exception of
Ireland they were already more advanced in making the change.

Of course those who are at the cutting edge may get cut. The
question is whether there is a smooth path for most to move from DAB
to DAB+ for those who have bought the sets. They have done
reasonably well with television, only the earliest boxes not being
able to be updated for the latest change.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:29:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

The same is true of televisions I gather. Proponents claim that this
is balanced by the relatively low power of the transmitters. I'm not
convinced, but that is their claim.

This is untrue of course.
There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.

Converting an old analogue set will use more power as you are adding a new
bit.

As for government being two faced with regard to power consumption/
climate change, that's nothing new. The charitable explanation is
that it takes a long time for the message to permeate to many parts
of government.

The correct explanation is that the government know about the GW lie and are
only using it for political ends.
Why they don't just say that we are too dependent on other countries and
need to reduce oil consumption I don't know.
I do know that ten years ago any government that said they were going
nuclear would suffer but now its accepted as inevitable by most.

On Jan 14, 12:18*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message

news
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:29:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

The same is true of televisions I gather. Proponents claim that this
is balanced by the relatively low power of the transmitters. I'm not
convinced, but that is their claim.

This is untrue of course.
There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.


One (less power) doesn't neccessarily follow from the other (less
chips). It depends on the nature of the chips, supply voltage,
operating frequency and I/O characteristics.

MBQ

On 14 Jan, 12:18, "dennis@home" wrote:

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

This is untrue of course.

More Dennis.

There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.

Except for DAB and its additional codec, which has a long track-record
of being power-hungry to a point that made battery operation
impractical.

Only very recently, such that "old stock" radios are still on the
shelves, have low-power DAB chipsets appeared.

wrote:
On 14 Jan, 08:17, David Hansen
[...]

It's not only the UK that has to decide whether to migrate from DAB
(MP2 codec) to DAB+ (AAC+ codec) - also Norway, Denmark, Ireland and
Switzerland.

What system does Ireland use now? DAB or DAB+? I'm in the North-West of
Northern Ireland --- Irish DAB haas not been extended to here yet.

Two things I like DAB for: 1. Test Match Special on BBC 5/Sports; 2. The
ability to record onto SD card on my Pure Pure Digital DMX-50 (though
the novelty does wear off).

Best regards,

Jon C.

In article , Jonathan Campbell
scribeth thus
wrote:
On 14 Jan, 08:17, David Hansen
[...]

It's not only the UK that has to decide whether to migrate from DAB
(MP2 codec) to DAB+ (AAC+ codec) - also Norway, Denmark, Ireland and
Switzerland.

What system does Ireland use now? DAB or DAB+? I'm in the North-West of
Northern Ireland --- Irish DAB haas not been extended to here yet.

Two things I like DAB for: 1. Test Match Special on BBC 5/Sports; 2. The
ability to record onto SD card on my Pure Pure Digital DMX-50 (though
the novelty does wear off).

Best regards,

Jon C.

Its just plain old DAB...

and I thought the Irish would have more sense;!..
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:21:12 +0000 someone who may be Jonathan
Campbell wrote this:-

What system does Ireland use now? DAB or DAB+? I'm in the North-West of
Northern Ireland --- Irish DAB haas not been extended to here yet.

http://www.rte.ie/digitalradio/faq_map.html shows a map with green
in a few expected areas. As I understand it they are still using
DAB.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

wrote:

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

My children's little Sony stereo starts up a cooling fan when you turn
it to DAB! How amazingly rubbish is that?

Daniele
--
Your chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK)
http://search.ebay.co.uk/220341650190

In article ,
David Hansen wrote:
DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC).

Well, being first with something often has downsides. The commercial
channels which have given up on it - or not taken up their option - are
doing so because they couldn't get enough listeners to make it profitable.
But this is down to the artificially high charges made to transmit on DAB
- it was expected to be a licence to print money like all these things.

Overseas they are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow
eventually (though the officials concerned had yet to admit this the
last time I checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly
but quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
frighten the public.

It can only be a guess that DAB+ will prove a success. And by the time it
arrives there will undoubtedly be a better system on the horizon.

I've had DAB from pretty early on - when the data rate was not too bad.
Only a tuner - never a portable radio - and that cost the thick end of 300
quid, even at trade price.

But what is a fact is that very few indeed bothered with it. Price was
said to be the problem - but that never really bother dyed in the wood
Hi-Fi types. Probably because things had moved on and few bothered with
radio for serious listening. But was a problem for the average casual use
on a kitchen etc portable. As was battery life.

So the data rates were reduced to the point where it no longer provided
high quality audio - with the exception of R3. R4 being mainly speech
based possibly too. Everything else suffered.

Sales then took off. ;-) After heavy promotion.

The one area where it does offer advantages is in car use - at least in
decent signal areas. Round London, for example. It doesn't suffer from the
fading and distortion you get with FM round high buildings, etc. But the
lack of factory fit units and the cost of aftermarket ones means it's only
for enthusiasts. And again most ICE types prefer their own choice of music
rather than radio.

Other fly in the ointment is DDTV - that carries most radio stations, and
for the very low cost of a tuner gives decent enough quality for those who
have problems with FM. And of course internet radio.

So my prediction is DAB+ will make no difference to the popularity or
otherwise of the service - unless things are split up so it gives a choice
of stations not available elsewhere that the public actually want to
listen to.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

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

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:19:11 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

So my prediction is DAB+ will make no difference to the popularity or
otherwise of the service - unless things are split up so it gives a choice
of stations not available elsewhere that the public actually want to
listen to.

Personally the only DAB station I would like to get is BBC7. It is
available on Freeview and satellite though and certainly not worth
getting a DAB radio for.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
So my prediction is DAB+ will make no difference to the popularity or
otherwise of the service - unless things are split up so it gives a choice
of stations not available elsewhere that the public actually want to
listen to.

In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that? If not, I've no interest in it.

--
Mike Barnes

In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that? If not, I've no interest in it.

It certainly won't be synchronised with FM - no digital medium can be. I
also doubt they'll all be exactly the same as one another either - this
doesn't happen with any of the current digital systems.

Not a problem here, though. Over 30 years ago I installed cabling that
allows me to listen (and watch) to the same source in any or all of the
rooms. The reason for this was the appalling FM reception of certain
stations in this part of London which made portable radios pretty useless.

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

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

In uk.d-i-y, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Barnes wrote:
In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that? If not, I've no interest in it.

It certainly won't be synchronised with FM

I was afraid of that. But it's not all bad news - I can just eliminate
DAB from consideration for good.

- no digital medium can be.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm not saying this is a practical
suggestion but I can see no reason why the programme source shouldn't be
a defined time (say two seconds, for the sake of argument) ahead of real
time. Then the FM transmitters and digital receivers could delay output
until the correct time.

I
also doubt they'll all be exactly the same as one another either - this
doesn't happen with any of the current digital systems.

The same solution (if it is a solution) would apply.

Not a problem here, though. Over 30 years ago I installed cabling that
allows me to listen (and watch) to the same source in any or all of the
rooms. The reason for this was the appalling FM reception of certain
stations in this part of London which made portable radios pretty useless.

Nice. I can see several reasons why that would be impractical here,
especially in the bathroom and the garden.

Most people don't have the reception problem you have or the ability to
fix it the way you have, and DAB is a simple alternative to FM. We have
nine FM receivers in regular use so we're unlikely to move away until
they switch it off (which is where we came in, I think).

--
Mike Barnes

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:46:04 +0000 someone who may be Mike Barnes
wrote this:-

In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that?

No.

If you used the same receivers in each room then they might be in
step if you are lucky. However, the pips will not be at the right
time due to the delays introduced by encoding and decoding them.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:46:04 +0000 someone who may be Mike Barnes
wrote this:-

In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that?

No.

If you used the same receivers in each room then they might be in
step if you are lucky. However, the pips will not be at the right
time due to the delays introduced by encoding and decoding them.


gosh, a correct statement from dynamo dave.

Actually even the FM pips aren't always on time either.

Not according to this NTP synchronised computer anyway. Up to a second
or so late..you can add another second or two for the digital radio
stuff on freeview.

In article , David Hansen
scribeth thus
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:46:04 +0000 someone who may be Mike Barnes
wrote this:-

In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that?

No.

If you used the same receivers in each room then they might be in
step if you are lucky. However, the pips will not be at the right
time due to the delays introduced by encoding and decoding them.



Just to clarify that...

The FM and DAB won't be in sync..

All FM sets will be..

And

All DAB sets will be too

...but you can't mix the Two formats..

--
Tony Sayer

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000 someone who may be Dave
wrote this:-

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Eventually? Possibly.

In the short term? No.


DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC). Overseas they
are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow eventually (though
the officials concerned had yet to admit this the last time I
checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly but
quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
frighten the public.

That must be where I picked up on the fact that our DAB radios will
become redundant soon.

Dave