DAB discussion on the PM Blog
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/01/dab_1.shtml

-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

In <fnqlmb$v7l$1@registered.motzarella.org>, "Graham." 
wrote:

>DAB discussion on the PM Blog
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/01/dab_1.shtml

I wonder if Quentin Howard lied again? (see previous threads for when he
lied on Working Lunch about DAB). 

There was also a feature on the business news (Radio 2, 17:30) about DAB+.
More misinformation and of course no mention of appalling audio quality
and parsimonious bitrates.

"Mike Henry" <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:79t1q35j7vl2ghmk70g9rihd7r693ras4f@4ax.com...
> In <fnqlmb$v7l$1@registered.motzarella.org>, "Graham." 
> wrote:
>
>>DAB discussion on the PM Blog
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pm/2008/01/dab_1.shtml
>
> I wonder if Quentin Howard lied again? (see previous threads for when he
> lied on Working Lunch about DAB).
>
> There was also a feature on the business news (Radio 2, 17:30) about DAB+.
> More misinformation and of course no mention of appalling audio quality
> and parsimonious bitrates.

Bitrates are only low because of greedy media companies who own most of the 
multiplexes.  They see a station as a money earner through advertising.  The 
lower the audio quality the more stations that can be crammed in to one 
small space.  DAB quality should not mean mono telephone like audio.
People don't advertise on DAB as there is a limited audience.  People are 
finally starting to wake up and reject poor quality.  We all know people 
stopped buying DABradio after being lied to with advertising, that is why 
the price has dropped so much.  Who wants a radio with poor audio quality 
often in mono, poor battery life and poor selection of stations - most being 
loud music stations playing the same tunes in a slightly different order.
Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality 
picture!

...snip...
> Bitrates are only low because of greedy media companies who own most of 
> the multiplexes.  They see a station as a money earner through 
> advertising.  The lower the audio quality the more stations that can be 
> crammed in to one small space.  DAB quality should not mean mono telephone 
> like audio.
> People don't advertise on DAB as there is a limited audience.  People are 
> finally starting to wake up and reject poor quality.  We all know people 
> stopped buying DABradio after being lied to with advertising, that is why 
> the price has dropped so much.  Who wants a radio with poor audio quality 
> often in mono, poor battery life and poor selection of stations - most 
> being loud music stations playing the same tunes in a slightly different 
> order.
> Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality 
> picture!

There is the issue, pointed out many times on this NG, that most DAB radios 
are placing portables, many using AM.  In this scenario even a low bitrate 
DAB can sound good.  There is clearly the issue of what about "quality" 
radio (i.e. high bitrates) but the majority of the listening public don't 
understand or care about that.

Whether that justifies the low quality of DAB compared to high-end FM is 
something that will be argued about for a long time; but it cannot be 
ignored.

Paul DS.

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Pete Smith
  Newsgroups: uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:17 AM
  Subject: Re: DAB discussion on the PM Blog
  bitrates.

  Bitrates are only low because of greedy media companies who own most of 
the
  multiplexes.  They see a station as a money earner through advertising. 
The
  lower the audio quality the more stations that can be crammed in to one
  small space.  DAB quality should not mean mono telephone like audio.
  People don't advertise on DAB as there is a limited audience.  People are
  finally starting to wake up and reject poor quality.  We all know people
  stopped buying DABradio after being lied to with advertising, that is why
  the price has dropped so much.  Who wants a radio with poor audio quality
  often in mono, poor battery life and poor selection of stations - most 
being
  loud music stations playing the same tunes in a slightly different order.
  Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality
  picture!



  Not thier fault really, yes they have done it, but it is the people who 
set the system up in the first place by not specifing firm good quaulity 
standards to be worked to.
  So that is back to the Government, Ofcom etc.

  Regards,
  David

  Please reply to News Group

>Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality 
>picture!
>
>
Bloody right they do. The bank I go to have one so that people queuing
have something to distract them..

Picture on News 24 is appalling .. fizzy isn't the word for it!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article <47a175f8$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
   Pete Smith  wrote:
> Bitrates are only low because of greedy media companies who own most of
> the multiplexes.  They see a station as a money earner through
> advertising.  The lower the audio quality the more stations that can be
> crammed in to one small space.  DAB quality should not mean mono
> telephone like audio.

 A bit of exaggeration is ok for effect but don't you think that's going a
bit far?

> People don't advertise on DAB as there is a limited audience. 

There's a limited audience on any channel. AM, FM, DAB. The trick is to
supply what will grab your hoped for audience share. And that is unlikely
to be just another pop music station. There are too many already. 

> People are finally starting to wake up and reject poor quality.

Strangely it's only mentioned on groups like this. The average listener
doesn't notice. Oh - and when DAB used the sort of bitrates most here
seemed to want those same people didn't bother buying it. It was only when
the station choice was increased that it became more popular. 

>  We all know people stopped buying DABradio after being lied to with
> advertising, that is why the price has dropped so much.

The price always drops with new technology. Haven't you noticed? Nor have
people stopped buying DAB.

>  Who wants a radio with poor audio quality often in mono, poor battery
> life and poor selection of stations - most being loud music stations
> playing the same tunes in a slightly different order.

 Well, if you're talking about a portable radio where battery life may
matter, how important is stereo? And how many really need a battery radio
these days? Are they that far from a mains socket in most houses? Apart
from perhaps in the bathroom? 
 And it's nothing new. FM portables were also more power hungry than basic
AM ones too.

 BTW - there's a good 'selection' of stations on DAB - more than on FM. Of
course they may not be what you want to listen to. But that's market
forces. If you have an idea for a cheap to run channel which would attract
large radio audiences regardless of the format I'm sure plenty would love
to hear from you.   


> Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to
> refuse a poor quality picture!

Is this a general purpose rant? ;-)

-- 
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

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

"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
news:bGDV$nGWNZoHFwVL@bancom.co.uk...
> >Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality
>>picture!
>>
> Bloody right they do. The bank I go to have one so that people queuing
> have something to distract them..
>
> Picture on News 24 is appalling .. fizzy isn't the word for it!...
>
>
Unfortunately Joe Public only seem to understand one thing, and that's 
price, not quality. A colleague was in the market for a large flat screen 
TV, and they wouldn't even entertain anything other than an LCD, simply 
because they are the cheapest, regardless of the fact that they'd have to 
sit looking at the thing for years.

When we bought our plasma a couple of years ago, I tried to demonstrate to 
the wife the difference in the quality of the picture on various types and 
makes of TV, but her reaction was simply "They all look the same to me",  it 
says it all really!

Fred wrote:

> When we bought our plasma a couple of years ago, I tried to
> demonstrate to the wife the difference in the quality of the picture
> on various types and makes of TV, but her reaction was simply "They
> all look the same to me",  it says it all really!

You should try saying that about her dresses. :)

-- 
Ashley
For Windsor Weather see www.snglinks.com/wx

In article <47a1aa53$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, Fred
 scribeth thus
>"tony sayer"  wrote in message 
>news:bGDV$nGWNZoHFwVL@bancom.co.uk...
>> >Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality
>>>picture!
>>>
>> Bloody right they do. The bank I go to have one so that people queuing
>> have something to distract them..
>>
>> Picture on News 24 is appalling .. fizzy isn't the word for it!...
>>
>>
>Unfortunately Joe Public only seem to understand one thing, and that's 
>price, not quality. A colleague was in the market for a large flat screen 
>TV, and they wouldn't even entertain anything other than an LCD, simply 
>because they are the cheapest, regardless of the fact that they'd have to 
>sit looking at the thing for years.
>
>When we bought our plasma a couple of years ago, I tried to demonstrate to 
>the wife the difference in the quality of the picture on various types and 
>makes of TV, but her reaction was simply "They all look the same to me",  it 
>says it all really! 
>
>

They need educating!..

But they do spend a lot of the time .. large expensive TV's c/w surround
hi fi systems can be found on a lot of council estates driven by sky
boxes;!..
-- 
Tony Sayer

"Ashley Booth"  wrote in message 
news:ne2dndG4lsFjLDzanZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d@bt.com...
> Fred wrote:
>
>> When we bought our plasma a couple of years ago, I tried to
>> demonstrate to the wife the difference in the quality of the picture
>> on various types and makes of TV, but her reaction was simply "They
>> all look the same to me",  it says it all really!
>
> You should try saying that about her dresses. :)
>
>
Discretion is the better part of valour in such situations :o)

In message , tony sayer 
 writes
>In article <47a1aa53$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, Fred
> scribeth thus
>>"tony sayer"  wrote in message
>>news:bGDV$nGWNZoHFwVL@bancom.co.uk...
>>> >Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality
>>>>picture!
>>>>
>>> Bloody right they do. The bank I go to have one so that people queuing
>>> have something to distract them..
>>>
>>> Picture on News 24 is appalling .. fizzy isn't the word for it!...
>>>
>>>
>>Unfortunately Joe Public only seem to understand one thing, and that's
>>price, not quality. A colleague was in the market for a large flat screen
>>TV, and they wouldn't even entertain anything other than an LCD, simply
>>because they are the cheapest, regardless of the fact that they'd have to
>>sit looking at the thing for years.
>>
>>When we bought our plasma a couple of years ago, I tried to demonstrate to
>>the wife the difference in the quality of the picture on various types and
>>makes of TV, but her reaction was simply "They all look the same to me",  it
>>says it all really!
>>
>>
>
>They need educating!..
>
>But they do spend a lot of the time .. large expensive TV's c/w surround
>hi fi systems can be found on a lot of council estates driven by sky
>boxes;!..

My mother has just taken deliver of her first flatscreen / IDTV.

I was there when the engineers came to install it.   Her lounge isn't 
exactly small but the 28" screen is quite large enough given the 
constraints of space and viewing distance.

Anyway, the engineers (from a local, reputable dealer) were telling me 
that they regularly install much larger flat panel jobs into much 
smaller rooms where they're thoroughly inappropriate.   Their best story 
concerned a man who'd bought a 60" set to go in his room in a 
residential care home!   They did, they told me, get it in.......but in 
their words "he could kick the screen from his bed"!

On a slightly different note, I think we've all found from time to time 
that it's amazing what poor pictures people will put up with and indeed 
will describe as being "good".
-- 
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

The message <bGDV$nGWNZoHFwVL@bancom.co.uk>
from tony sayer  contains these words:

> >Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality 
> >picture!
> >
> >
> Bloody right they do. The bank I go to have one so that people queuing
> have something to distract them..

> Picture on News 24 is appalling .. fizzy isn't the word for it!...

 You're right! "Fuzzy" is the word you're looking for. :-)

-- 
Regards, John.

 Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

In article , Johnny B Good
 scribeth thus
>The message <bGDV$nGWNZoHFwVL@bancom.co.uk>
>from tony sayer  contains these words:
>
>> >Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality 
>> >picture!
>> >
>> >
>> Bloody right they do. The bank I go to have one so that people queuing
>> have something to distract them..
>
>> Picture on News 24 is appalling .. fizzy isn't the word for it!...
>
> You're right! "Fuzzy" is the word you're looking for. :-)
>


My daughter commented "why has that man got bees flying around his head"!"
-- 
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Strangely it's only mentioned on groups like this. The average listener
> doesn't notice. Oh - and when DAB used the sort of bitrates most here
> seemed to want those same people didn't bother buying it. It was only when
> the station choice was increased that it became more popular. 

Our friends in Germany use the bitrates 'most here seemed to want'.

Their body which doles out funds to the regional public broadcasters has
recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns out, would you believe it, 
that nobody's interested in a new platform that only offers the same 
range of programmes and services as the incumbent.

Who'd have thought it?

The message 
from "faderstart@live.co.uk"  contains these words:

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > Strangely it's only mentioned on groups like this. The average listener
> > doesn't notice. Oh - and when DAB used the sort of bitrates most here
> > seemed to want those same people didn't bother buying it. It was only when
> > the station choice was increased that it became more popular. 

> Our friends in Germany use the bitrates 'most here seemed to want'.

> Their body which doles out funds to the regional public broadcasters has
> recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns out, would you believe it, 
> that nobody's interested in a new platform that only offers the same 
> range of programmes and services as the incumbent.

> Who'd have thought it?



I have always said that the people making all the noise against DAB
should go and pay for some bandwidth from one of the commercial DAB
companies and then run a very high quality service.  If their theory is
correct then they will get very rich.

In article ,
   faderstart@live.co.uk  wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > Strangely it's only mentioned on groups like this. The average
> > listener doesn't notice. Oh - and when DAB used the sort of bitrates
> > most here seemed to want those same people didn't bother buying it. It
> > was only when the station choice was increased that it became more
> > popular. 

> Our friends in Germany use the bitrates 'most here seemed to want'.

 Yup. 

> Their body which doles out funds to the regional public broadcasters has
> recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns out, would you believe it, 
> that nobody's interested in a new platform that only offers the same 
> range of programmes and services as the incumbent.

 They do have in general a better FM service than the UK, though. 

> Who'd have thought it?

 Well for most radio is merely a means of communication or a source of
background music. Meaning they ain't particularly critical about quality.
Only needs to be adequate. Which applies to any of the delivery systems,
really.

-- 
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

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

In article <313030303037313547A271A798@invalid.invalid>, NOSPAM
<nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The message  from
> "faderstart@live.co.uk"  contains these words:

> > Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > > Strangely it's only mentioned on groups like this. The average
> > > listener doesn't notice. Oh - and when DAB used the sort of bitrates
> > > most here seemed to want those same people didn't bother buying it.
> > > It was only when the station choice was increased that it became
> > > more popular. 

> > Our friends in Germany use the bitrates 'most here seemed to want'.

> > Their body which doles out funds to the regional public broadcasters
> > has recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns out, would you
> > believe it, that nobody's interested in a new platform that only
> > offers the same range of programmes and services as the incumbent.

> > Who'd have thought it?

> I have always said that the people making all the noise against DAB
> should go and pay for some bandwidth from one of the commercial DAB
> companies and then run a very high quality service.  If their theory is
> correct then they will get very rich.
 
 I've oft been curious about the hostility to DAB by those who consider
themselves among the cognoscenti. Had it replaced FM - or if there were
definite plans for it to do so - it might been understandable. And while
being very vocal about the failings of DAB curiously ignore the problems
with FM reception - especially for mobile or portable use. If FM had been
so perfect in every way there would have been no need to develop an
alternative.

-- 
*If I throw a stick, will you leave?

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

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

>  I've oft been curious about the hostility to DAB by those who consider
> themselves among the cognoscenti. Had it replaced FM - or if there were
> definite plans for it to do so - it might been understandable. And while
> being very vocal about the failings of DAB curiously ignore the problems
> with FM reception - especially for mobile or portable use. If FM had been
> so perfect in every way there would have been no need to develop an
> alternative.


I suspect many of them never use a portable radio or perhaps even a car
radio, the very place where DAB should be superior with sufficient
coverage.

MB

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
 scribeth thus
>In article ,
>   faderstart@live.co.uk  wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > Strangely it's only mentioned on groups like this. The average
>> > listener doesn't notice. Oh - and when DAB used the sort of bitrates
>> > most here seemed to want those same people didn't bother buying it. It
>> > was only when the station choice was increased that it became more
>> > popular. 
>
>> Our friends in Germany use the bitrates 'most here seemed to want'.
>
> Yup. 
>
>> Their body which doles out funds to the regional public broadcasters has
>> recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns out, would you believe it, 
>> that nobody's interested in a new platform that only offers the same 
>> range of programmes and services as the incumbent.
>
> They do have in general a better FM service than the UK, though. 

They have very good services on satellite .. something that the "run by
accountants" BBC could well do to notice...

>
>> Who'd have thought it?
>
> Well for most radio is merely a means of communication or a source of
>background music. Meaning they ain't particularly critical about quality.
>Only needs to be adequate. Which applies to any of the delivery systems,
>really.
>

It often makes me wonder that as a sound man you have that attitude?.

Do you bother about sound quality in your line of work?....

-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
 scribeth thus
>In article <313030303037313547A271A798@invalid.invalid>, NOSPAM
><nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The message  from
>> "faderstart@live.co.uk"  contains these words:
>
>> > Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > > Strangely it's only mentioned on groups like this. The average
>> > > listener doesn't notice. Oh - and when DAB used the sort of bitrates
>> > > most here seemed to want those same people didn't bother buying it.
>> > > It was only when the station choice was increased that it became
>> > > more popular. 
>
>> > Our friends in Germany use the bitrates 'most here seemed to want'.
>
>> > Their body which doles out funds to the regional public broadcasters
>> > has recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns out, would you
>> > believe it, that nobody's interested in a new platform that only
>> > offers the same range of programmes and services as the incumbent.
>
>> > Who'd have thought it?
>
>> I have always said that the people making all the noise against DAB
>> should go and pay for some bandwidth from one of the commercial DAB
>> companies and then run a very high quality service.  If their theory is
>> correct then they will get very rich.
> 
> I've oft been curious about the hostility to DAB by those who consider
>themselves among the cognoscenti. Had it replaced FM - or if there were
>definite plans for it to do so - it might been understandable. And while
>being very vocal about the failings of DAB curiously ignore the problems
>with FM reception - especially for mobile or portable use. If FM had been
>so perfect in every way there would have been no need to develop an
>alternative.

So why did they?. ISTR that it was the BBC engineers who wanted to
improve the sound quality for starters!..
>

Oh dear!, as comrade dave lives in the bit on London where FM is a bit
multipath afflicted, he's on a mission that FM is bad all over..

There was a lot more wrong with DAB than low bitrates.. Like the x-pense
of using it for the broadcasters..

Now dave tell us all =just how would you -afford- DAB if say you were
running a station like Radio Jackie in Sarf west lunnon?..
-- 
Tony Sayer

On 1 Feb, 08:24, "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote:
> In article <313030303037313547A271A...@invalid.invalid>, NOSPAM
> <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > The message  from
> > "faderst...@live.co.uk"  contains these words:
> > > Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > > > Strangely it's only mentioned on groups like this. The average
> > > > listener doesn't notice. Oh - and when DAB used the sort of bitrates> > > > most here seemed to want those same people didn't bother buying it.
> > > > It was only when the station choice was increased that it became
> > > > more popular.
> > > Our friends in Germany use the bitrates 'most here seemed to want'.
> > > Their body which doles out funds to the regional public broadcasters
> > > has recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns out, would you
> > > believe it, that nobody's interested in a new platform that only
> > > offers the same range of programmes and services as the incumbent.
> > > Who'd have thought it?
> > I have always said that the people making all the noise against DAB
> > should go and pay for some bandwidth from one of the commercial DAB
> > companies and then run a very high quality service.  If their theory is
> > correct then they will get very rich.
>
>  I've oft been curious about the hostility to DAB by those who consider
> themselves among the cognoscenti. Had it replaced FM - or if there were
> definite plans for it to do so - it might been understandable. And while
> being very vocal about the failings of DAB curiously ignore the problems
> with FM reception - especially for mobile or portable use. If FM had been
> so perfect in every way there would have been no need to develop an
> alternative.

Come on you three - you know the arguments very well...

1. For the majority of stations, broadcasting on DAB is more expensive
than broadcasting on FM.
2. With the spectrum available in the UK, it is not possible to
transition all FM stations to DAB; many that can transition cannot
reach their full FM coverage area.
3. The specific multiplex license model chosen for the UK encourages
monopolies/duopolies, and stifles genuine competition. It also gives
most spectrum to "local" muxes, while DAB is most efficient when
providing national stations, and (like-for-like) barely more efficient
than FM when providing local stations.
4. The fact that the quality at the proposed bitrates was "unfit for
broadcast" (EBU classification) was known before a single DAB radio
was sold.
5. Technologies to double the capacity were available before a single
DAB radio was sold, and BBC engineers strongly advised using those
technologies in place of those in DAB.
6. Technologies to further double the capacity were available before
sub-£100 DAB radios and extra BBC stations arrived.
7. Those involved in DAB in the UK fought to keep these technologies
_out_ of DAB for as long as possible, to allow the inferior and unfit-
for-purpose DAB v1 to sell enough to ensure they didn't look stupid
for supporting it in the first place. They have succeeded to some
degree in the UK and maybe Denmark, and spectacularly failed
throughout the rest of the world.
8. The lack of acceptance of DAB V1 throughout the rest of the world,
and the delay in DAB, has prevented DAB radios from benefiting from
the economies of scale that have been the price of DVD players, and
latterly Freeview boxes, plummet.

DAB and DRM solve the capacity, bitrate, cost and quality problems.
As they are adopted by other countries, the economies of scale will
kick in.


I've never claimed the great unwashed want fewer stations. However, a
successful replacement for FM needs to be fit-for-purpose: coverage,
reception, choice, sound quality, cost for broadcasters, and cost for
listeners are all important. Newer technologies tick all the boxes. I
don't think DAB is the Betamax of Video - it's the VideoCD, and now
DVD has arrived. We're like China, keeping the silly unsuitable first
generation product, while the rest of the world moves on.

I wouldn't kill DAB, but I would have already planned a migration
route to DAB and DRM. Given that this saves broadcasters money, I
think you'd be daft to imagine that this route hasn't been planned
already, and what we're seeing now is a kind sop to manufacturers,
allowing them to dump all their DAB V1 only radio on an unsuspecting
public.

Just like all those "HD" TVs that were sold without HDCP. The
manufactures were allowed to push all those through the supply chain
before the information was publicised that "HD Ready" meant having
HDCP.

Your DAB V1 only radio will receive some stations for a long time to
come, but don't be daft enough to believe that it'll still receive
_all_ stations within five years. There is a business opportunity for
some smaller stations: switch to DAB, lose 25% of your potential
audience, but save 75% of your outlay.

Cheers,
David.

>Your DAB V1 only radio will receive some stations for a long time to
>come, but don't be daft enough to believe that it'll still receive
>_all_ stations within five years. There is a business opportunity for
>some smaller stations: switch to DAB+, lose 25% of your potential
>audience, but save 75% of your outlay.
>
>Cheers,
>David.

Well put David..

Did we really "need" DAB anyway?..
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article <kQ+6qkDgiuoHFwCZ@bancom.co.uk>,
   tony sayer  wrote:
> > I've oft been curious about the hostility to DAB by those who consider
> >themselves among the cognoscenti. Had it replaced FM - or if there were
> >definite plans for it to do so - it might been understandable. And
> >while being very vocal about the failings of DAB curiously ignore the
> >problems with FM reception - especially for mobile or portable use. If
> >FM had been so perfect in every way there would have been no need to
> >develop an alternative.

> So why did they?. ISTR that it was the BBC engineers who wanted to
> improve the sound quality for starters!..

Well, I heard a demonstration probably long before you did and the BBC
engineers on hand emphasised the reception improvements. I don't remember
sound quality being mentioned - probably just taken for granted. It is
marketing hype that reckons digital has any improvment over *good*
analogue. Engineers Know different. 
> >

> Oh dear!, as comrade dave lives in the bit on London where FM is a bit
> multipath afflicted, he's on a mission that FM is bad all over..

You're going to wear out that needle soon. Hopefully. Of course perhaps
you never leave home so don't experience real world mobile reception?

> There was a lot more wrong with DAB than low bitrates.. Like the x-pense
> of using it for the broadcasters..

Ah. Now the truth comes out.

> Now dave tell us all =just how would you -afford- DAB if say you were
> running a station like Radio Jackie in Sarf west lunnon?..

It's yet another of those stations that simply duplicates others. If they
don't have suitable business model, so what? Isn't that what commercial
broadcasting is all about?

I'm surprised you as a true blue Tory can't see that...
> --

-- 
*60-year-old, one owner - needs parts, make offer

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> > Oh dear!, as comrade dave lives in the bit on London where FM is a bit
> > multipath afflicted, he's on a mission that FM is bad all over..
> 
> You're going to wear out that needle soon. Hopefully. Of course perhaps
> you never leave home so don't experience real world mobile reception?


The main failure of analogue Band II was trying was to adapt a band II
network intended to provide roof top reception to provide mobile reception.
Some of the BBC's transmitter sites are under powered, and other are simply
in the wrong place for mobile reception, but were acceptable for roof top
reception.

DAB failure was to use the same sites as used by Band II/UHF television
and again the coverage isn't good enough for mobile reception.

The answer for DAB is more local transmitters, possibly placed on
towers and roof tops which are also used for mobile telephones.
This means signal strength at street level in town/city centres would
be good, when it needs to good.

But there is a downside to this and that is cost.

In article ,
   tony sayer  wrote:
> >> Their body which doles out funds to the regional public broadcasters
> >> has recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns out, would you
> >> believe it, that nobody's interested in a new platform that only
> >> offers the same range of programmes and services as the incumbent.
> >
> > They do have in general a better FM service than the UK, though. 

> They have very good services on satellite .. something that the "run by
> accountants" BBC could well do to notice...

And satellite is an excellent alternative for mobile or portable use?
Methinks you're not really following things... 

> >> Who'd have thought it?
> >
> > Well for most radio is merely a means of communication or a source of
> >background music. Meaning they ain't particularly critical about
> >quality. Only needs to be adequate. Which applies to any of the
> >delivery systems, really.

> It often makes me wonder that as a sound man you have that attitude?.

OK - tell me how *most* use radio these days? Sit down of an evening with
their cocoa in front the the receiver? 

> Do you bother about sound quality in your line of work?...

I'm not surprised the radio station you are associated with can't afford
transmitter rental if the owners have so little idea as you about their
target audience. Of which only a *tiny* proportion will be interested in
the ultimate audio quality. Which no pop station is interesting in
transmitting anyway - being far more concerned with perceived loudness.

-- 
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

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

In article ,
   m.t6 <> wrote:
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> > > Oh dear!, as comrade dave lives in the bit on London where FM is a
> > > bit multipath afflicted, he's on a mission that FM is bad all over..
> > 
> > You're going to wear out that needle soon. Hopefully. Of course
> > perhaps you never leave home so don't experience real world mobile
> > reception?


> The main failure of analogue Band II was trying was to adapt a band II
> network intended to provide roof top reception to provide mobile
> reception. Some of the BBC's transmitter sites are under powered, and
> other are simply in the wrong place for mobile reception, but were
> acceptable for roof top reception.

Yup.

> DAB failure was to use the same sites as used by Band II/UHF television
> and again the coverage isn't good enough for mobile reception.

I find it very good round London. And most of the south coast. Of course I
haven't been everywhere in either so can only speak as I find.

> The answer for DAB is more local transmitters, possibly placed on
> towers and roof tops which are also used for mobile telephones.
> This means signal strength at street level in town/city centres would
> be good, when it needs to good.

It doesn't seem to need quite that complexity. As I said DAB seems to work
fine in the 'difficult' parts of London between very high buildings, etc.

> But there is a downside to this and that is cost.

Most are apparently quite satisfied with FM reception in their cars given
the poor sales of DAB car radios.

-- 
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *

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

In article <kQ+6qkDgiuoHFwCZ@bancom.co.uk>,
   tony sayer  wrote:
>

> So why did they?. ISTR that it was the BBC engineers who wanted to
> improve the sound quality for starters!..
> >

For in-car users

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

>
>
> I suspect many of them never use a portable radio or perhaps even a car
> radio, the very place where DAB should be superior with sufficient
> coverage.
>
> MB

Technology seems to have marched on since DAB was developed. The FM receiver 
fitted to a modern car appears to have hugely improved performance of those 
of 10+ years ago. My current car radio hardly demonstrates any reception 
problems, even in city centres. I can drive from the Midlands to the 
Scottish borders listening to Radio4 without having to retune and never have 
problems with reception. The big problem is that I cannot receive the World 
Service, and during the hours of darkness Radio5 reception on MW is 
terrible.I have a DAB radio at home, which sits at the bed side. Its only 
real use is that it CAN receive the World Service and Radio 5. It has a 
built in FM tuner, and the sound quality of Radio4 is noticably worse on 
DAB, to the extent that I have to increase the volume to understand what is 
being said properly. As you can probably guess, I have little interest in 
music stations. So, to some extent, I think DAB is the solution to a problem 
(in car reception) that went away as FM receiver technology improved.

I think the other problem with DAB is not a technological one. It is that 
there is only a limited market for commercial radio, it cannot be extended 
ad-infinitum. I, and many of my colleagues, do not listen to commercial 
radio because of the adverts. They are so much more intrusive and harder to 
ignore than on the TV. I either fast forward over TV ads, or when its a live 
program, I read the paper, make coffee etc. None of these are realistic 
options when driving! I suspect this is one reason why OneWord failed - the 
average Radio4 listener is more likely to be advert intolerant, and that was 
their target audience.

In article <fnvbne$sdk$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Julian Thornhill
 wrote:
> >
> >
> > I suspect many of them never use a portable radio or perhaps even a car
> > radio, the very place where DAB should be superior with sufficient
> > coverage.
> >
> > MB

> Technology seems to have marched on since DAB was developed. The FM
> receiver fitted to a modern car appears to have hugely improved
> performance of those of 10+ years ago. My current car radio hardly
> demonstrates any reception problems, even in city centres. I can drive
> from the Midlands to the Scottish borders listening to Radio4 without
> having to retune and never have problems with reception.

Even going through Tebay and the pass to the south on the M6?

> The big problem is that I cannot receive the World Service, and during
> the hours of darkness Radio5 reception on MW is terrible.I have a DAB
> radio at home, which sits at the bed side. Its only real use is that it
> CAN receive the World Service and Radio 5. It has a built in FM tuner,
> and the sound quality of Radio4 is noticably worse on DAB, to the extent
> that I have to increase the volume to understand what is being said
> properly. 

Volume level between the different tuning sections of a radio is entirely
up to the manufacturer.  People used to complain that they had to turn up
the volume when swapping between medium/long wave and FM.  The main reason
for the ccomplaint was "it will use the batteries up quicker".

Volume setting does not equate to quality, simply the amount of compression
the broadcaster uses.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:05:17 -0800 (PST),
"davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk" 
wrote:

>7. Those involved in DAB in the UK fought to keep these technologies
>_out_ of DAB for as long as possible, to allow the inferior and unfit-
>for-purpose DAB v1 to sell enough to ensure they didn't look stupid
>for supporting it in the first place. 

Are you sure it's not more likely that "those involved in DAB" fought
to keep those technologies out of it to ensure that space on the
platform would always be limited and thus there would not be too much
unwanted competition for the services which "those involved in DAB"
wished to broadcast? 
--

I can drive
>> from the Midlands to the Scottish borders listening to Radio4 without
>> having to retune and never have problems with reception.
>
> Even going through Tebay and the pass to the south on the M6?

Ah - sorry, I go up the M1/M18/A1

However, my car radio of 20 years ago certainly could not make the same 
journey without stretches of poor reception, (though of cousrs, it could be 
that a few more transmitters have been turned on) and reception in town was 
poor in urban canyons. My 7 year old radio, in my older car, is better, but 
not as good as the one in my 3 year old car, which is almost perfect. I am 
assuming that this radio uses some sort of DSP processing. However, I think 
my original point, that the need for DAB in a car has reduced is still 
valid.

>

>
> Volume level between the different tuning sections of a radio is entirely
> up to the manufacturer.  People used to complain that they had to turn up
> the volume when swapping between medium/long wave and FM.  The main reason
> for the ccomplaint was "it will use the batteries up quicker".
>
> Volume setting does not equate to quality, simply the amount of 
> compression
> the broadcaster uses.
>

Agreed, its is somewhat subjective. My impression is that both the DAB and 
FM stage give the same volume level. However, the FM stage sounds clearer. I 
have to make the DAB stage significantly louder to properly understand 
everything. (age of ears = 44)

The message 
from charles  contains these words:

> In article <fnvbne$sdk$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Julian Thornhill
>  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I suspect many of them never use a portable radio or perhaps even a car
> > > radio, the very place where DAB should be superior with sufficient
> > > coverage.
> > >
> > > MB

> > Technology seems to have marched on since DAB was developed. The FM
> > receiver fitted to a modern car appears to have hugely improved
> > performance of those of 10+ years ago. My current car radio hardly
> > demonstrates any reception problems, even in city centres. I can drive
> > from the Midlands to the Scottish borders listening to Radio4 without
> > having to retune and never have problems with reception.

> Even going through Tebay and the pass to the south on the M6?

I could name plenty of places like that, they could be cured equally by
more FM transmitters but then there would be problems finding spare
frequencies which is one advantage of DAB,


MB

The message <fnvfgf$6e$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>
from "Julian Thornhill"  contains these words:

>  I can drive
> >> from the Midlands to the Scottish borders listening to Radio4 without
> >> having to retune and never have problems with reception.
> >
> > Even going through Tebay and the pass to the south on the M6?

> Ah - sorry, I go up the M1/M18/A1

> However, my car radio of 20 years ago certainly could not make the same 
> journey without stretches of poor reception, (though of cousrs, it could be 
> that a few more transmitters have been turned on) and reception in town was 
> poor in urban canyons. My 7 year old radio, in my older car, is better, but 
> not as good as the one in my 3 year old car, which is almost perfect. I am 
> assuming that this radio uses some sort of DSP processing. However, I think 
> my original point, that the need for DAB in a car has reduced is still 
> valid.



I suspect it is because there are a lot more transmitters than 20 years
ago and RDS will help a lot in many places.


MB

In article <fnvbne$sdk$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, Julian Thornhill wrote:
> Technology seems to have marched on since DAB was developed. The FM receiver 
> fitted to a modern car appears to have hugely improved performance of those 
> of 10+ years ago. My current car radio hardly demonstrates any reception 
> problems, even in city centres. I can drive from the Midlands to the 
> Scottish borders listening to Radio4 without having to retune and never have 
> problems with reception.

Likewise. I've had FM receivers in my cars since the very first car I owned in 
the early 1970s, and have been quite happy with their performance, which has 
steadily improved over the years. The small amount of interference I can 
sometimes hear is not distracting because it is unrelated to programme content 
and can be mentally "tuned out", unlike the tiring distortions of the sound 
itself which accompany even perfect reception of DAB stations. With good 
reception or bad, FM sounds the same either with or without a bit of added 
hiss, whereas bad reception of DAB is unlistenable.

If DAB actually sounded better then it might be worth having, but in its 
present form, as you say, it does appear to be the solution to a non-existent 
problem, and that would be true even if the system to which the UK has 
committed itself wasn't already obsolescent.

Rod.

In article <fnvbne$sdk$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
   Julian Thornhill  wrote:
> I have a DAB radio at home, which sits at the bed side. Its only real
> use is that it CAN receive the World Service and Radio 5. It has a
> built in FM tuner, and the sound quality of Radio4 is noticably worse on
> DAB, to the extent that I have to increase the volume to understand
> what is being said properly.

If this is the case, your radio is faulty. The vast majority simply can't
tell the difference between R4 at 128 kbps and FM even on a high quality
system let alone a bedside radio. Of course there could be a level change
between them - that is down to the design of the radio.

-- 
*Don't use no double negatives *

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

In article ,
   Roderick Stewart  wrote:
> Likewise. I've had FM receivers in my cars since the very first car I
> owned in the early 1970s, and have been quite happy with their
> performance, which has steadily improved over the years. The small
> amount of interference I can sometimes hear is not distracting because
> it is unrelated to programme content and can be mentally "tuned out",
> unlike the tiring distortions of the sound itself which accompany even
> perfect reception of DAB stations. With good reception or bad, FM
> sounds the same either with or without a bit of added hiss, whereas bad
> reception of DAB is unlistenable.

 Have you ever owned a DAB car radio?

-- 
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.  

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

In article ,
	Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article ,
>    Roderick Stewart  wrote:
>> Likewise. I've had FM receivers in my cars since the very first car I
[snip]
>  Have you ever owned a DAB car radio?

Are any fitted as standard?

My radio is integrated into the fascia such that I can't change it.

-- 
Paul Martin

tony sayer wrote:
> In article , Johnny B Good
>  scribeth thus
>> The message <bGDV$nGWNZoHFwVL@bancom.co.uk>
>>from tony sayer  contains these words:
>>>> Next is LCD TVs, people need to be educated to refuse a poor quality 
>>>> picture!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Bloody right they do. The bank I go to have one so that people queuing
>>> have something to distract them..
>>> Picture on News 24 is appalling .. fizzy isn't the word for it!...
>> You're right! "Fuzzy" is the word you're looking for. :-)
> 
> My daughter commented "why has that man got bees flying around his head"!"

Actually, "Fizzy" is a good description for poor quality digital 
reproduction.

In article ,
   Paul Martin  wrote:
> In article ,
> 	Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article ,
> >    Roderick Stewart  wrote:
> >> Likewise. I've had FM receivers in my cars since the very first car I
> [snip]
> >  Have you ever owned a DAB car radio?

> Are any fitted as standard?

I dunno.

> My radio is integrated into the fascia such that I can't change it.

You can get adaptor plates to allow the fitting of a standard radio for
most of these types.

-- 
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> With good reception or bad, FM
> > sounds the same either with or without a bit of added hiss, whereas bad
> > reception of DAB is unlistenable.
> 
>  Have you ever owned a DAB car radio?

Not a car radio. I have however a DAB/FM hi-fi tuner and I did have a DAB 
portable but I sold it because I didn't like the sound quality. I no longer 
use the DAB capabilities of the hi-fi tuner for the same reason.

I can't do anything to improve the sound quality of DAB, even with perfect 
reception, so I wouldn't use it in my car even if I had it, and carrying 
the portable around the house showed me what happens to the sound if 
reception is less than perfect. I was not impressed.

Rod.

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> If this is the case, your radio is faulty. The vast majority simply can't
> tell the difference between R4 at 128 kbps and FM even on a high quality
> system let alone a bedside radio. Of course there could be a level change
> between them - that is down to the design of the radio.

Maybe he's not one of the vast majority?

Rod.

In article ,
   Roderick Stewart  wrote:
> In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > If this is the case, your radio is faulty. The vast majority simply
> > can't tell the difference between R4 at 128 kbps and FM even on a high
> > quality system let alone a bedside radio. Of course there could be a
> > level change between them - that is down to the design of the radio.

> Maybe he's not one of the vast majority?

Perhaps. Two people who thought they were ones who could always tell R4
DAB from FM failed rather miserably when asked to prove it here.

But I take it you agree the quality is so poor you'd have to increase the
level over FM to make speech intelligible?   

> Rod.

-- 
*Caution:  I drive like you do.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
 scribeth thus
>In article ,
>   Paul Martin  wrote:
>> In article ,
>>      Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > In article ,
>> >    Roderick Stewart  wrote:
>> >> Likewise. I've had FM receivers in my cars since the very first car I
>> [snip]
>> >  Have you ever owned a DAB car radio?
>
>> Are any fitted as standard?
>
>I dunno.

I believe that Vauxhall Astra's are, well some of them, other then that
seems not!...
>
>> My radio is integrated into the fascia such that I can't change it.
>
>You can get adaptor plates to allow the fitting of a standard radio for
>most of these types.
>

-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
 scribeth thus
>In article <kQ+6qkDgiuoHFwCZ@bancom.co.uk>,
>   tony sayer  wrote:
>> > I've oft been curious about the hostility to DAB by those who consider
>> >themselves among the cognoscenti. Had it replaced FM - or if there were
>> >definite plans for it to do so - it might been understandable. And
>> >while being very vocal about the failings of DAB curiously ignore the
>> >problems with FM reception - especially for mobile or portable use. If
>> >FM had been so perfect in every way there would have been no need to
>> >develop an alternative.
>
>> So why did they?. ISTR that it was the BBC engineers who wanted to
>> improve the sound quality for starters!..
>
>Well, I heard a demonstration probably long before you did and the BBC
>engineers on hand emphasised the reception improvements. I don't remember
>sound quality being mentioned - probably just taken for granted. It is
>marketing hype that reckons digital has any improvment over *good*
>analogue. Engineers Know different. 


O dear Dave I saw colour TV here long before U ;!..

Yes perhaps in those days quality was taken for granted, and ODFM
modulation should cope rather well with very difficult reception
conditions but witness the other comments in this and other threads that
FM isn't quite as -bad- as you make it out to be!,...

>> >
>
>> Oh dear!, as comrade dave lives in the bit on London where FM is a bit
>> multipath afflicted, he's on a mission that FM is bad all over..
>
>You're going to wear out that needle soon. Hopefully. Of course perhaps
>you never leave home so don't experience real world mobile reception?

Yep the needle is well sharp;)..

>
>> There was a lot more wrong with DAB than low bitrates.. Like the x-pense
>> of using it for the broadcasters..
>
>Ah. Now the truth comes out.

Truth?, one of many..

>
>> Now dave tell us all =just how would you -afford- DAB if say you were
>> running a station like Radio Jackie in Sarf west lunnon?..
>
>It's yet another of those stations that simply duplicates others. If they
>don't have suitable business model, so what? Isn't that what commercial
>broadcasting is all about?

Well that shows what you don't know about running a small radio station.

Jackie is an example of a station that does give a shit about the local
listeners and I can tell you that they make very little money indeed and
no way could they afford to be on a DAB MUX and for that matter hundreds
of other small stations in the UK!....

Have a look at their website and see what anyone might think. 

Down the bottom of their home page is an article about reception that
would put the BBC to shame.

As well as a good listen now section where several streaming feeds can
be selected!.


http://www.radiojackie.com/


>
>I'm surprised you as a true blue Tory can't see that...
>> --
>
Not as blue as you comrade;)..
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , charles
 scribeth thus
>In article <kQ+6qkDgiuoHFwCZ@bancom.co.uk>,
>   tony sayer  wrote:
>>
>
>> So why did they?. ISTR that it was the BBC engineers who wanted to
>> improve the sound quality for starters!..
>> >
>
>For in-car users
>
And ironically thats where you find bu**er all receivers;!..
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
 scribeth thus
>In article ,
>   tony sayer  wrote:
>> >> Their body which doles out funds to the regional public broadcasters
>> >> has recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns out, would you
>> >> believe it, that nobody's interested in a new platform that only
>> >> offers the same range of programmes and services as the incumbent.
>> >
>> > They do have in general a better FM service than the UK, though. 
>
>> They have very good services on satellite .. something that the "run by
>> accountants" BBC could well do to notice...
>
>And satellite is an excellent alternative for mobile or portable use?
>Methinks you're not really following things... 

No comrade you aren't!, thats where the BBC could really excel a few
more bits there would make for very good 21st century home use but they
won't do that being so bloody minded and dogmatic about the rates on
DABble!...

>
>> >> Who'd have thought it?
>> >
>> > Well for most radio is merely a means of communication or a source of
>> >background music. Meaning they ain't particularly critical about
>> >quality. Only needs to be adequate. Which applies to any of the
>> >delivery systems, really.
>
>> It often makes me wonder that as a sound man you have that attitude?.
>
>OK - tell me how *most* use radio these days? Sit down of an evening with
>their cocoa in front the the receiver? 

No not everyone but some do take it rather seriously..

>
>> Do you bother about sound quality in your line of work?...
>
>I'm not surprised the radio station you are associated with can't afford
>transmitter rental if the owners have so little idea as you about their
>target audience. Of which only a *tiny* proportion will be interested in
>the ultimate audio quality. Which no pop station is interesting in
>transmitting anyway - being far more concerned with perceived loudness.
>


Which station am I associated with?.

Nothing to do with it.

Answer the question..

Do you give a shit about what you do or would you be the first to
complain if a work experience yob was given your job?....
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article ,
   tony sayer  wrote:
> >> So why did they?. ISTR that it was the BBC engineers who wanted to
> >> improve the sound quality for starters!..
> >
> >Well, I heard a demonstration probably long before you did and the BBC
> >engineers on hand emphasised the reception improvements. I don't
> >remember sound quality being mentioned - probably just taken for
> >granted. It is marketing hype that reckons digital has any improvment
> >over *good* analogue. Engineers Know different. 


> O dear Dave I saw colour TV here long before U ;!..

I first saw it in Studio H in 1962. Image orthicon cameras the size of
coffins. 

> Yes perhaps in those days quality was taken for granted, and ODFM
> modulation should cope rather well with very difficult reception
> conditions but witness the other comments in this and other threads that
> FM isn't quite as -bad- as you make it out to be!,...

The more I read some of the comments, the more I'm convinced many are
nothing to do with DAB. 

> >> >
> >
> >> Oh dear!, as comrade dave lives in the bit on London where FM is a
> >> bit multipath afflicted, he's on a mission that FM is bad all over..
> >
> >You're going to wear out that needle soon. Hopefully. Of course perhaps
> >you never leave home so don't experience real world mobile reception?

> Yep the needle is well sharp;)..

> >
> >> There was a lot more wrong with DAB than low bitrates.. Like the
> >> x-pense of using it for the broadcasters..
> >
> >Ah. Now the truth comes out.

> Truth?, one of many..

There's truth and truth. 


> >> Now dave tell us all =just how would you -afford- DAB if say you were
> >> running a station like Radio Jackie in Sarf west lunnon?..
> >
> >It's yet another of those stations that simply duplicates others. If
> >they don't have suitable business model, so what? Isn't that what
> >commercial broadcasting is all about?

> Well that shows what you don't know about running a small radio station.

That indeed is true. And I'd guess equally as true as most others reading
this group.

> Jackie is an example of a station that does give a shit about the local
> listeners

Being a local station I'd hope so. Not really any point in one which
didn't, given the vast choice?

> and I can tell you that they make very little money indeed and
> no way could they afford to be on a DAB MUX and for that matter hundreds
> of other small stations in the UK!....

You'd best take that up with the government. But I'm wondering why you
seem worried about it not being able to afford DAB - a system you consider
so poor? And that no one - if you believe the posts on here - uses anyway? 

> Have a look at their website and see what anyone might think. 

> Down the bottom of their home page is an article about reception that
> would put the BBC to shame.

> As well as a good listen now section where several streaming feeds can
> be selected!.

> http://www.radiojackie.com/

Last time I listened to it, it was merely another pop music radio station. 

> >I'm surprised you as a true blue Tory can't see that...

> Not as blue as you comrade;)..

It's nice to see you believe in non commercial broadcasting.

-- 
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

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

In article ,
   tony sayer  wrote:
> In article , Dave Plowman (News)
>  scribeth thus
> >In article ,
> >   tony sayer  wrote:
> >> >> Their body which doles out funds to the regional public
> >> >> broadcasters has recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns
> >> >> out, would you believe it, that nobody's interested in a new
> >> >> platform that only offers the same range of programmes and
> >> >> services as the incumbent.
> >> >
> >> > They do have in general a better FM service than the UK, though. 
> >
> >> They have very good services on satellite .. something that the "run by
> >> accountants" BBC could well do to notice...
> >
> >And satellite is an excellent alternative for mobile or portable use?
> >Methinks you're not really following things... 

> No comrade you aren't!, thats where the BBC could really excel a few
> more bits there would make for very good 21st century home use but they
> won't do that being so bloody minded and dogmatic about the rates on
> DABble!...

So let's see. You want identical progs on AM, FM, Freeview, DAB and now
satellite? Then of course there's the internet. Do you sit at home
switching between them and giving them points?

> >
> >> >> Who'd have thought it?
> >> >
> >> > Well for most radio is merely a means of communication or a source
> >> >of background music. Meaning they ain't particularly critical about
> >> >quality. Only needs to be adequate. Which applies to any of the
> >> >delivery systems, really.
> >
> >> It often makes me wonder that as a sound man you have that attitude?.
> >
> >OK - tell me how *most* use radio these days? Sit down of an evening
> >with their cocoa in front the the receiver? 

> No not everyone but some do take it rather seriously..

Ok. Then since you are perfectly satisfied with FM which works very well
on a permanent installation, why all the fuss? 

> >
> >> Do you bother about sound quality in your line of work?...
> >
> >I'm not surprised the radio station you are associated with can't afford
> >transmitter rental if the owners have so little idea as you about their
> >target audience. Of which only a *tiny* proportion will be interested in
> >the ultimate audio quality. Which no pop station is interesting in
> >transmitting anyway - being far more concerned with perceived loudness.
> >
> Which station am I associated with?.

The one you plug in every other post?

> Nothing to do with it.

> Answer the question..

> Do you give a shit about what you do or would you be the first to
> complain if a work experience yob was given your job?....

Talk about a leading question. And a total non sequitur.

-- 
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > > If this is the case, your radio is faulty. The vast majority simply
> > > can't tell the difference between R4 at 128 kbps and FM even on a high
> > > quality system let alone a bedside radio. Of course there could be a
> > > level change between them - that is down to the design of the radio.
> 
> > Maybe he's not one of the vast majority?
> 
> Perhaps. Two people who thought they were ones who could always tell R4
> DAB from FM failed rather miserably when asked to prove it here.
> 
> But I take it you agree the quality is so poor you'd have to increase the
> level over FM to make speech intelligible?

No. I didn't think intelligibility was what we were talking about. I thought 
it was sound quality. Speech is perfectly intelligible on a mobile phone or 
a shortwave radio station from halfway round the world, but it doesn't sound 
like a realistic representation of a human voice.

I would never claim that I could instantly tell the difference between DAB 
and FM, but there is most certainly a difference. It depends on the type of 
material being broadcast, and the difference is occasionally clear straight 
away, and at other times it can be manifest as a feeling that it simply 
isn't a pleasure to listen any more. I can listen to CDs all day, but after 
listening to DAB for a few minutes I just want to switch it off, or if it's 
possible to switch to the same programme on FM it feels like having the wax 
removed from my ears. It's hard to describe exactly what the difference is, 
but FM just sounds clearer and more alive.

Rod.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" 
 writes
>> >
>> >> >> Who'd have thought it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well for most radio is merely a means of communication or a source
>> >> >of background music. Meaning they ain't particularly critical about
>> >> >quality. Only needs to be adequate. Which applies to any of the
>> >> >delivery systems, really.
>> >
>> >> It often makes me wonder that as a sound man you have that attitude?.
>> >
>> >OK - tell me how *most* use radio these days? Sit down of an evening
>> >with their cocoa in front the the receiver?
>
>> No not everyone but some do take it rather seriously..
>
>Ok. Then since you are perfectly satisfied with FM which works very well
>on a permanent installation, why all the fuss?

Possibly because two of the best stations (at least for my listening 
tastes) 6Music and BBC7 aren't on FM - the 80k mono of R7 is perfectly 
acceptable for what is almost all speech programming, on the other hand, 
the 128k JS of 6Music is particularly badly suited to the type of music 
that is played, and that I enjoy (and that would apply to Radio 3 too).
-- 
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in
message news:4f6a4e778adave@davenoise.co.uk

[snip]

: : It doesn't seem to need quite that complexity. As I
: : said DAB seems to work fine in the 'difficult' parts of
: : London between very high buildings, etc.
: :
: : : But there is a downside to this and that is cost.
: :
: : Most are apparently quite satisfied with FM reception
: : in their cars given the poor sales of DAB car radios.

Most people don't change their car radios, they use the ones that the 
manufacturers fit. Car manufacturers don't fit many DAB radios. I only 
changed mine because it broke after 5 years. I thought about DAB but 
decided against it for the reason you quote.

Ivor

"tony sayer"  wrote in message
news:ngM6GwDrkuoHFwAh@bancom.co.uk
: : In article , Dave
: : Plowman (News)  scribeth thus

[snip]

: : : Well for most radio is merely a means of
: : : communication or a source of background music.
: : : Meaning they ain't particularly critical about
: : : quality. Only needs to be adequate. Which applies to
: : : any of the delivery systems, really.
: : :
: :
: : It often makes me wonder that as a sound man you have
: : that attitude?.
: :
: : Do you bother about sound quality in your line of
: : work?....

How do you listen to broadcast radio..? I think you'll find most people 
listen on the move, or whilst doing other things. I for one rarely listen 
to music on radio, I usually listen to Radio 4 at home or in the car, 
coupled with a bit of the local BBC station for traffic reports etc.

If I want music, I'll listen to my own choice on CD, not someone else's 
choice over lower quality radio.


Ivor

On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:05:17 -0800 (PST),
"davidrobinson@postmaster.co.uk" 
wrote:

>Come on you three - you know the arguments very well...
>
>1. For the majority of stations, broadcasting on DAB is more expensive
>than broadcasting on FM.
>2. With the spectrum available in the UK, it is not possible to
>transition all FM stations to DAB; many that can transition cannot
>reach their full FM coverage area.

What does 'possible to transition' mean, 'possible to transfer'?

>3. The specific multiplex license model chosen for the UK encourages
>monopolies/duopolies, and stifles genuine competition. It also gives
>most spectrum to "local" muxes, while DAB is most efficient when
>providing national stations, and (like-for-like) barely more efficient
>than FM when providing local stations.

This does not seem to make sense, the specific multiplex cannot
license anything. Can I assume you mean 'licence model'?

Otherwise, you seem to be 'hitting the nail on the head', though I
haven't heard of DAB VI before. Version 6? Oh, sorry, it was V1. :-)

Sorry, but while I am being 'picky' - 

>6. Technologies to further double the capacity were available before

 shouldn't this be 'Technologies to further (the) doubling (of) the
capacity...'?
JAG
Lancashire

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:31:17 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
 wrote:

> Ok. Then since you are perfectly satisfied with FM which works very well
> on a permanent installation, why all the fuss? 

Because "they" are threatening to turn it off and leave us with something
inferior.

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:13:28 -0000, Ivor Jones <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid>
wrote:

>: : Most are apparently quite satisfied with FM reception
>: : in their cars given the poor sales of DAB car radios.
> 
> Most people don't change their car radios, they use the ones that the 
> manufacturers fit.

Most people *can't* change their car radios because the vile things that
manufacturers fit these days are so specific and integrated into the car.
So much for standardisation of fittings and freedom of choice. You have no
choice at all now, like with a lot of other things. Progress? Pah.

"Paul Ratcliffe" <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in
message news:slrnfq921l.435.abuse@news.pr.network
: : On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:31:17 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
: : (News)  wrote:
: :
: : : Ok. Then since you are perfectly satisfied with FM
: : : which works very well on a permanent installation,
: : : why all the fuss?
: :
: : Because "they" are threatening to turn it off and leave
: : us with something inferior.

First I've heard of it, when and where did you hear that FM is being 
turned off..?

Ivor

In article <slrnfq921l.435.abuse@news.pr.network>,
   Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:31:17 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
>  wrote:

> > Ok. Then since you are perfectly satisfied with FM which works very
> > well on a permanent installation, why all the fuss? 

> Because "they" are threatening to turn it off and leave us with something
> inferior.

'They' haven't even started talking about it yet. Nor is there any
commercial interest in those frequencies that might be vacated. Basically
because they are of little use for anything else.

-- 
*What am I? Flypaper for freaks!?

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
 scribeth thus
>In article ,
>   tony sayer  wrote:
>> >> So why did they?. ISTR that it was the BBC engineers who wanted to
>> >> improve the sound quality for starters!..
>> >
>> >Well, I heard a demonstration probably long before you did and the BBC
>> >engineers on hand emphasised the reception improvements. I don't
>> >remember sound quality being mentioned - probably just taken for
>> >granted. It is marketing hype that reckons digital has any improvment
>> >over *good* analogue. Engineers Know different. 
>
>
>> O dear Dave I saw colour TV here long before U ;!..
>
>I first saw it in Studio H in 1962. Image orthicon cameras the size of
>coffins. 

OK it was 1963 here.. but the old man bought home this coloured screen
to put on the 17" PYE continental so as make it coloured;)...

>
>> Yes perhaps in those days quality was taken for granted, and ODFM
>> modulation should cope rather well with very difficult reception
>> conditions but witness the other comments in this and other threads that
>> FM isn't quite as -bad- as you make it out to be!,...
>
>The more I read some of the comments, the more I'm convinced many are
>nothing to do with DAB. 

You can interpret that which ever way you wish..
>
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Oh dear!, as comrade dave lives in the bit on London where FM is a
>> >> bit multipath afflicted, he's on a mission that FM is bad all over..
>> >
>> >You're going to wear out that needle soon. Hopefully. Of course perhaps
>> >you never leave home so don't experience real world mobile reception?
>
>> Yep the needle is well sharp;)..
>
>> >
>> >> There was a lot more wrong with DAB than low bitrates.. Like the
>> >> x-pense of using it for the broadcasters..
>> >
>> >Ah. Now the truth comes out.
>
>> Truth?, one of many..
>
>There's truth and truth. 
>
>
>> >> Now dave tell us all =just how would you -afford- DAB if say you were
>> >> running a station like Radio Jackie in Sarf west lunnon?..
>> >
>> >It's yet another of those stations that simply duplicates others. If
>> >they don't have suitable business model, so what? Isn't that what
>> >commercial broadcasting is all about?
>
>> Well that shows what you don't know about running a small radio station.
>
>That indeed is true. And I'd guess equally as true as most others reading
>this group.

Indeed and if you had you'd be hard pressed to stump up the transmission
costs in order to join the "DAB" club let alone if someone like Arquiva
was doing the FM as well!..

>
>> Jackie is an example of a station that does give a shit about the local
>> listeners
>
>Being a local station I'd hope so. Not really any point in one which
>didn't, given the vast choice?
>
>> and I can tell you that they make very little money indeed and
>> no way could they afford to be on a DAB MUX and for that matter hundreds
>> of other small stations in the UK!....
>
>You'd best take that up with the government. But I'm wondering why you
>seem worried about it not being able to afford DAB - a system you consider
>so poor? And that no one - if you believe the posts on here - uses anyway? 

Well thats another duff thing about it..

And I bet that some GCap executives would wish it would go away, its
draining them dry..

>
>> Have a look at their website and see what anyone might think. 
>
>> Down the bottom of their home page is an article about reception that
>> would put the BBC to shame.
>
>> As well as a good listen now section where several streaming feeds can
>> be selected!.
>
>> http://www.radiojackie.com/
>
>Last time I listened to it, it was merely another pop music radio station. 

Well perhaps to your old ears;)..
>
>> >I'm surprised you as a true blue Tory can't see that...
>
>> Not as blue as you comrade;)..
>
>It's nice to see you believe in non commercial broadcasting.
>
Yes oddly enough I do support a local community station..
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
 scribeth thus
>In article ,
>   tony sayer  wrote:
>> In article , Dave Plowman (News)
>>  scribeth thus
>> >In article ,
>> >   tony sayer  wrote:
>> >> >> Their body which doles out funds to the regional public
>> >> >> broadcasters has recently put the kibosh on DAB funding. Turns
>> >> >> out, would you believe it, that nobody's interested in a new
>> >> >> platform that only offers the same range of programmes and
>> >> >> services as the incumbent.
>> >> >
>> >> > They do have in general a better FM service than the UK, though. 
>> >
>> >> They have very good services on satellite .. something that the "run by
>> >> accountants" BBC could well do to notice...
>> >
>> >And satellite is an excellent alternative for mobile or portable use?
>> >Methinks you're not really following things... 
>
>> No comrade you aren't!, thats where the BBC could really excel a few
>> more bits there would make for very good 21st century home use but they
>> won't do that being so bloody minded and dogmatic about the rates on
>> DABble!...
>
>So let's see. You want identical progs on AM, FM, Freeview, DAB and now
>satellite? Then of course there's the internet. Do you sit at home
>switching between them and giving them points?

Nope I never said that they should. But I do think that if we have to go
digital for radio then there should be a high quality service via say
satellite which is very well equipped to do that..

>
>> >
>> >> >> Who'd have thought it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well for most radio is merely a means of communication or a source
>> >> >of background music. Meaning they ain't particularly critical about
>> >> >quality. Only needs to be adequate. Which applies to any of the
>> >> >delivery systems, really.
>> >
>> >> It often makes me wonder that as a sound man you have that attitude?.
>> >
>> >OK - tell me how *most* use radio these days? Sit down of an evening
>> >with their cocoa in front the the receiver? 
>
>> No not everyone but some do take it rather seriously..
>
>Ok. Then since you are perfectly satisfied with FM which works very well
>on a permanent installation, why all the fuss? 

Because they will want us to go digital one day for radio and the preset
system is a real abortion...
>

>> >
>> >> Do you bother about sound quality in your line of work?...
>> >
>> >I'm not surprised the radio station you are associated with can't afford
>> >transmitter rental if the owners have so little idea as you about their
>> >target audience. Of which only a *tiny* proportion will be interested in
>> >the ultimate audio quality. Which no pop station is interesting in
>> >transmitting anyway - being far more concerned with perceived loudness.
>> >

Hollyhocks..


>> Which station am I associated with?.
>
>The one you plug in every other post?

Which is?. And its not that one above..
>
>> Nothing to do with it.
>
>> Answer the question..
>
>> Do you give a shit about what you do or would you be the first to
>> complain if a work experience yob was given your job?....
>
>Talk about a leading question. And a total non sequitur.
>

Dear dear!, can't you answer a simple question?, as a TV sound man do
you take the audio quality of your work seriously or do you have that
same attitude that "everyone's listening on a 3 inch speaker"?..

-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
 scribeth thus
>In article <slrnfq921l.435.abuse@news.pr.network>,
>   Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:31:17 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News)
>>  wrote:
>
>> > Ok. Then since you are perfectly satisfied with FM which works very
>> > well on a permanent installation, why all the fuss? 
>
>> Because "they" are threatening to turn it off and leave us with something
>> inferior.
>
>'They' haven't even started talking about it yet. Nor is there any
>commercial interest in those frequencies that might be vacated. 


>Basically
>because they are of little use for anything else.
>

What Band 2 ?...
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , Ivor Jones
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> scribeth thus
>"tony sayer"  wrote in message
>news:ngM6GwDrkuoHFwAh@bancom.co.uk
>: : In article , Dave
>: : Plowman (News)  scribeth thus
>
>[snip]
>
>: : : Well for most radio is merely a means of
>: : : communication or a source of background music.
>: : : Meaning they ain't particularly critical about
>: : : quality. Only needs to be adequate. Which applies to
>: : : any of the delivery systems, really.
>: : :
>: :
>: : It often makes me wonder that as a sound man you have
>: : that attitude?.
>: :
>: : Do you bother about sound quality in your line of
>: : work?....
>
>How do you listen to broadcast radio..? 

On the move with a car system thats quite good in a decent Audi car:)

And at home on either an Audiolab system with electrostatics or another
system with rather old but very good Spendor BC1 speakers..

>I think you'll find most people 
>listen on the move, or whilst doing other things. I for one rarely listen 
>to music on radio, I usually listen to Radio 4 at home or in the car, 
>coupled with a bit of the local BBC station for traffic reports etc.
>

Fine. A lot of People do but I still can get the honourable member for
sarf lunnon to answer a simple question as one who handles sound for TV
and calls himself a professional;!...

why should low audio quality be sent out regardless of what people are
doing with it?..


>If I want music, I'll listen to my own choice on CD, not someone else's 
>choice over lower quality radio.

A lot of people hear CD's on radio then go and buy them. thats one of
the things what radio is quite good at. OK some stations do have a
restricted play list but not all...


Radio 3 for example..

>
>
>Ivor
>

-- 
Tony Sayer