hd radio
 

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote

They may not approve of it. But they all do it :-)


Yes, but only because they have to use it or otherwise they'd lose
(primarily young) listeners. If they could have their way, audio would be
banned from the Internet.


Yet another assertion backed up by nothing at all. Face it Steve, you are
just a load of hot air!

David.

hd radio
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote

They may not approve of it. But they all do it :-)


Yes, but only because they have to use it or otherwise they'd lose
(primarily young) listeners. If they could have their way, audio
would be banned from the Internet.


Yet another assertion backed up by nothing at all. Face it Steve,
you are just a load of hot air!


I read all DAB-related news articles that Google News Alerts finds, I
read all the relevant people's blogs, I read all the digital
radio-related documents from Ofcom and the DAB industry, and I've been
following this subject in this fashion (obviously Google News and
blogs weren't around then, but I've comprehensively followed what's
gone on throughout) since the end of 2001. I also write a website
about digital radio, my "local" NG is about digital radio, I write
about digital radio for a magazine, I've written articles for the
national press in Scandinavia about digitla radio, and I've written
consultant reports about digital radio. I also took an MSc in digital
comms and DSP prior to all of this (digital comms and DSP happen to be
the most relevant subjects to a digital radio system, in case you're
not aware). So I don't need to explain myself to you, and I certainly
don't care if you claim that I'm full of hot air about this just
because I don't intend to waste time looking for the references that
show just how biased the UK radio industry is against Internet radio.

They are extremely biased against Intenret radio because they're
scared that the Internet will do the same to radio as it has done to
other forms of old media such as newspapers. It's pure protectionism.

Protectionism was also the reason why the BBC promoted Freeview so
heavily, because the BBC favours platforms on which its channels face
the least amount of competition, and Greg Dyke said in his book after
leaving the BBC that they decided to push Freeview because it would
"swamp the market with dumb set-top boxes" (i.e. boxes without card
slots so that they couldn't be used to enforce subscription payments
to pay for the BBC) so that the BBC would be able to hang on to the
licence fee for another decade or more. It worked.

I'm afraid that your view of how the radio broadcasters think is naive
in the extreme.


--
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
 

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Rubbish. The engineers thought the broadcasters would use the high bit
rate levels needed to provide high audio quality, but they completely
ignore the cost aspects, because DAB is extraordinarily expensive to
transmit, which is one of the main reasons why such low bit rates are
used in the UK

Please explain why DAB is 'extraordinarily expensive to transmit'?
Does it use so much extra electricity? Very much more expensive equipment?

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

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

hd radio
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Rubbish. The engineers thought the broadcasters would use the high
bit
rate levels needed to provide high audio quality, but they
completely
ignore the cost aspects, because DAB is extraordinarily expensive
to
transmit, which is one of the main reasons why such low bit rates
are
used in the UK

Please explain why DAB is 'extraordinarily expensive to transmit'?
Does it use so much extra electricity?


The cost of electricity is tiny in comparison to the overall cost.


Very much more expensive equipment?


It must do, because it *IS* extraordinarily expensive to transmit.



--
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
 

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Please explain why DAB is 'extraordinarily expensive to transmit'?
Does it use so much extra electricity?


The cost of electricity is tiny in comparison to the overall cost.


Very much more expensive equipment?


It must do, because it *IS* extraordinarily expensive to transmit.

So it would have nothing to do with a monopoly supplier charging what it
wants? Of course it has to pay the governnmint for those rights.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

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

hd radio
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Please explain why DAB is 'extraordinarily expensive to
transmit'?
Does it use so much extra electricity?


The cost of electricity is tiny in comparison to the overall cost.


Very much more expensive equipment?


It must do, because it *IS* extraordinarily expensive to transmit.

So it would have nothing to do with a monopoly supplier charging
what it
wants? Of course it has to pay the governnmint for those rights.


I've already said once in this thread that DAB was extraordinarily
expensive long before Arqiva became the monopoly transmission
provider, so what you're saying cannot explain the high costs.

At the end of the day, if they had upgraded DAB prior to launching it
it would have been about 2 - 2.5 times as efficient as DAB is, and
that would have led to far larger cost savings than any issue with
having a monopoly transmission provider. As per usual, you're barking
up the wrong tree, Plowman.


--
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:
Please explain why DAB is 'extraordinarily expensive to transmit'?
Does it use so much extra electricity?


The cost of electricity is tiny in comparison to the overall cost.


Very much more expensive equipment?


It must do, because it *IS* extraordinarily expensive to transmit.

So it would have nothing to do with a monopoly supplier charging what it
wants? Of course it has to pay the governnmint for those rights.


Blowing off again, Pucci Poos?

You know ****-all about HD anything it appears....



--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.


Pucci speaks from personal experience here!

:-)



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

hd radio
 

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Rubbish. The engineers thought the broadcasters would use the high bit
rate levels needed to provide high audio quality, but they completely
ignore the cost aspects, because DAB is extraordinarily expensive to
transmit, which is one of the main reasons why such low bit rates are
used in the UK

Please explain why DAB is 'extraordinarily expensive to transmit'?
Does it use so much extra electricity?


The cost of electricity is tiny in comparison to the overall cost.


Very much more expensive equipment?


It must do, because it *IS* extraordinarily expensive to transmit.


No it isn't, because transmission costs are not related to the modulation
type used, nor to the coding used in digital syatems, nor directly to the
bit rate (although clearly a lower bit-rate per audio stream allows more
audio streams for a given equipment/aerial system).

As it happens I do know something about how the charges for transmission are
made up, they are based on the number of sites used, and indeed which sites
those are. The number of aerials and their position on the tower or mast
plus the size and power consumption of the transmitter equipment.. That's
it, not whether it's DAB or FM.

David.

hd radio
 

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
So it would have nothing to do with a monopoly supplier charging
what it
wants? Of course it has to pay the governnmint for those rights.


I've already said once in this thread that DAB was extraordinarily
expensive long before Arqiva became the monopoly transmission
provider, so what you're saying cannot explain the high costs.

Then explain why, oh sage of all such things. You've already boasted about
your encyclopedic knowledge of all things DAB.

At the end of the day, if they had upgraded DAB prior to launching it
it would have been about 2 - 2.5 times as efficient as DAB is, and
that would have led to far larger cost savings than any issue with
having a monopoly transmission provider.

It depends on how you define efficiency.

As per usual, you're barking up the wrong tree, Plowman.

I'd just like a break down of the costs involved. And my view is the cost
of being allowed to transmit on DAB has little to do with the actual costs.

--
*INDECISION is the key to FLEXIBILITY *

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

hd radio
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
So it would have nothing to do with a monopoly supplier charging what it
wants? Of course it has to pay the governnmint for those rights.


Blowing off again, Pucci Poos?

Dear Kitty - always having to add your words of wisdom it being your own
personal newsgroup?

You know ****-all about HD anything it appears....

Sadly, of course, like so often, you have nothing to contribute to the
subject.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

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