hd radio
 

In article 4ab07e4d.361386578@localhost,
Don Pearce wrote:
Why did the ship-board pirates of the 1960s all use MW? How about
established and thus cheaper technology coupled with a large number of
compatible receivers in use by the target audience?

David.


I would have thought it was more to do with the coverage area they
could reach. That makes for a very easy equation for potential
advertisers.

When the pirates of the '60s were around AM reception was the norm for
that type of music. Hardly any cars had FM radios and there were few FM
portables either.

--
*Why do the two "sanction"s (noun and verb) mean opposites?*

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

hd radio
 

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
....but it doesn't stop you *blowing off* and trying to own every
thread that starts in this group....


Can't comment on him trying to own every thread on this group, but
whenever DAB is mentioned he always talks utter, utter crap because he
has absolutely no understanding of the subject whatsoever.

Well whenever DAB appears anywhere, up you pop. With exactly the same one
sided approach. And with your usual ability of only answering points with
dogma.
You've been talking this ****e for ages about the costs of DAB
transmission and simply won't understand how wrong you are.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

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

hd radio
 

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
The giveaway signs of when Pucci's just *blowing off* is that he
posts everything as a question - frequently stating with 'So you'...

So transparent!

LOL!!


So you think Plowman's an idiot then? I agree completely.

I'd suggest you Google some of Kitties posts before siding with him so
readily. But you do make a good pair.

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

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

hd radio
 

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The transmission costs Dave are very real and are bitrate dependant or
as Steve has explained on Capacity units.

If you ran a small ILR station who wanted to go DAB you'd see very soon
that you couldn't afford it"!..

Your point being that a complete DAB MUX would cost more than one FM
channel? If so, is that why the government seem to have presumed FM can
be vacated for 'local' uses, etc? i.e. for users who only want one
station/channel?

That's another way of putting it. Mr DAB and his friends seem to think
transmitting one DAB multiplex costs more than 9 FM stations. Now I know
digital can be power hungry, but that beggars belief.

It all depends whether you really want to transmit one radio programme
or nine (especially if you're talking low power local radio). I would
guess that, for a single programme, FM is much cheaper, but maybe, for
nine DAM is cheaper. I also suspect that it depends greatly on the
coverage required, where things like the size of the transmitter tower,
the aerial system and the transmitter power come into the equation.
--
Ian

hd radio
 

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
That's another way of putting it. Mr DAB and his friends seem to think
transmitting one DAB multiplex costs more than 9 FM stations. Now I know
digital can be power hungry, but that beggars belief.

It all depends whether you really want to transmit one radio programme
or nine (especially if you're talking low power local radio). I would
guess that, for a single programme, FM is much cheaper, but maybe, for
nine DAM is cheaper. I also suspect that it depends greatly on the
coverage required, where things like the size of the transmitter tower,
the aerial system and the transmitter power come into the equation.

Let's just go like for like. The cost of building/running the number of FM
transmitters needed to cover the same area as a DAB multiplex.
The whole point I was making that what Arqiva charge for a single DAB
'frequency' is neither here nor there.

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

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

hd radio
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


The BBC obviously has different views on whether it wants people
to
use its website (it does) to whether it wants people to listen
to
live radio via the Internet (it very much does not).

"obviously"?

Why did the BBC setup the Coyopa system if it ("very much")
doesn't
want anyone to listen to it? I'm afraid that isn't obvious to me
at
this point.


The BBC is specifically biased against live Internet radio, and
they're
not biased against people listening on-demand via the iPlayer.
Coyopa's
main job is to encode and do whatever else needs to be done to
generate
the on-demand streams - the live streams are much easier to
generate in
comparison.

Afraid I don't see how the assertion in your first statement comes
from the
one in your second.


There wasn't meant to be a link between the first and and second
statements. And I've dealt with you before, so I might as well say
from the off that I have no intention of jumping through your hoops
attempting to "prove" that the BBC is biased. I can't actually prove
it anyway, because it would require them to actually admit that
they're biased, whcih they're too smart to actually do. I am 100%
certain in my mind that they are extremely biased based on following
this issue closely, and that's all I'm going to say on the matter,
because I've got work to be getting on with if you don't mind.


And AIUI the same aac/acc+ streams are used for both
'live' and 'listen again'. I thought Coyopa provides them both.


It does.


Is your
definition of 'internet radio' specifically one that excludes
'listen
again'?


When it comes to the BBC, yes, I suppose it is. I've no doubt that
won't sit well with your pedantic mind, but there you have it.


And can you say why you feel the BBC "very much" don't want us to
listen, yet provide these services, *both* live and listen again?


Becasue they want everybody to listen to live radio via DAB. That's
it.


As chance would have it, I'm 'listening again' to the Last Night
of
the Proms as I write this. (Trumpet Concerto, excellent!) From
the
results I can't detect any obvious signs that the BBC don't want
me to
do this. Thoroughly enjoyable.


As I say, they're not biased against the on-demand streams - they
consider the on-demand streams to complement live listening, but
they
are blatantly biased against the live Internet streams. They
originally
intended to deliver the live streams at lower quality (64 kbps AAC+
is
what I was told by the person in charge of them) than the on-demand
streams (probably 96 kbps AAC+),

Which "person in charge" was that? You can tell us now since the two
I have
in mind as people you may mean have both moved on to other things.
So
there's just the two of us here. :-)


Ah, you're referring to Cridland and Ousby, I presume, AKA Tweedle
Dumb & Tweedle Dumber, or DAB-Biased & Technically Incompetent. It was
Cridland who told me.


So far as I know, the BBC and Siemens went through quite a long
'lab' phase
where they experimented with bitrates and other settings. AIUI The
purpose
was to obtain practical evidence to decide what they should settle
on.


Pure, unadulterated horse****. If you believe that you'll believe
anything.


However as I understand it, the BBC are streaming aac/aac+ at 192
for R3
and 128 for most of their other radio stations. For both live and
listen
again. Not the values you assert they "intended".


Cridland wrote on a number of occasions last year that the intention
was to deliver the live streams at lower quality than the on-demand
streams. His "justification" for that was that live radio was also
available via DAB, FM and the digital TV platforms, while the
on-demand streams were only available online. I objected to that on
the basis that it's either technically possible and economically
feasible to deliver the live and the on-demand streams at the same
quality or it is not, and if it is possible, the BBC delivering the
live streams at lower quality would demonstrably show that the BBC was
being biased against the live streams. In the end they realised that
they couldn't win, so they relented.


I'd have thought you
would regard that as comparing favourably with DAB and DTTV.


I do.


So how does that show that they are "biased" against internet radio?


They didn't want to use it, and the only reason they did end up using
it was because I shamed them into using it.


--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

hd radio
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
You reckon?, when you claimed that transmission costs are
proportional to
bit rate? give me a break!

David.


David they are.. I've seen how much it will cost one of our local
ILR
stations to go on DAB and they simply can't afford it with the way
the
DAB system works. They can afford the FM system they use but not
DAB at
any bitrate let alone 192 K!..

Yes - but that's just down to how the supplier charges to make their
profit. You're not seriously suggesting it costs more to transmit at
a
higher rate? Ie, uses more electricity?



The electricity consumed is a tiny fraction of the cost of operating a
multiplex. Let's say that there's an antenna with a gain of say 5, and
that the transmitter is 50% efficient. A 10 kW ERP DAB transmitter
would therefore consume (10 kW / 5) / 0.5 = 4 kW of electricity.

Can't remember how much leccy is per kWh these days, but I remember
that it once was about 6p/kWh, so 4 kW x 6 p/kWh = 24 p/hour = 365 x
24 x 24p = £2102 per year.



--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

hd radio
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
....but it doesn't stop you *blowing off* and trying to own every
thread that starts in this group....


Can't comment on him trying to own every thread on this group, but
whenever DAB is mentioned he always talks utter, utter crap because
he
has absolutely no understanding of the subject whatsoever.

Well whenever DAB appears anywhere, up you pop.


As do you.


With exactly the same one
sided approach.


As do you.


And with your usual ability of only answering points with
dogma.


As do you.


You've been talking this ****e for ages about the costs of DAB
transmission and simply won't understand how wrong you are.


Unfortunately for your argument, the transmission costs ARE VERY
EXPENSIVE. If you can change that fact then you might have "a point".
But as things stand you are decidedly "point-less".


--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

hd radio
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote


[Pucci]

Tell me about it. I dread to think of the number of days I've
wasted if you add up all the time I've spent countering utter
bull**** that he's spewed about DAB on Usenet when replying to me.
Also, when he's blatantly lost an argument he comes out with
remarks that are literally just grown up versions of what you'd
hear on a primary school playground.


Yep!


The man is a buffoon, plain and simple.


'Buffoon' is far too polite! ;-)


Agreed!


But I'll tell ya summat for nowt - I have Classic FM on DAB on all
day as 'sonic wallpaper' and I've become quite used to it - the
DAB signal you can get (even if it drops out occasionally) beats
the FM you can't get and the speakers you use help no end!

That said, I do have FM on my main system....


Portable DAB radios aren't really a problem, because they're too
limited in what they can reproduce.



I'm not listening to a portable Steve - this is my computer amp and
DAB 'tuna':

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/DABRadio.jpg


Fair enough. I definitely say that you'd be better off buying a Wi-Fi
Internet radio receiver of some sort then.


On these little speakers the (nearfield) sound is really quite
exquisite!


Hold on, are you suggesting that the sound on a DAB station could be
described as "exquisite"????


Internet radio stations (thousands of them:
http://www.live365.com/index.live) are also immediately available
but who's got the time to listen to them?


I don't use live365, but if you pick your favourite genres of music
that narrows the several thousand stations into tens of hundreds, and
the way I look at it is that if you can find just one or two stations
that you like a lot then it's worth the effort exerted in finding
them, and that effort only has to be exerted once.


--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

hd radio
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
The giveaway signs of when Pucci's just *blowing off* is that he
posts everything as a question - frequently stating with 'So
you'...

So transparent!

LOL!!


So you think Plowman's an idiot then? I agree completely.

I'd suggest you Google some of Kitties posts before siding with him
so
readily.


David, you have demonstrated literally thousands of times that you're
a ****** who knows nothing about DAB but who loves to gob off about
DAB as if you're some kind of expert, so who to side with out of you
and someone who also considers you to be a ****** wasn't a difficult
contest.



--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report