hd radio
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"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.



OK so why's a single channel FM system cheaper than DAB?..
--
Tony Sayer

hd radio
 

In article , DAB sounds worse than FM
wrote:
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message



Oh, so the cost of transmitting DAB and FM is the same, is it? Er, no
it is not. See page 48 of this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...t_spectrum.pdf

FM transmission costs the BBC £16.4m per annum, whereas for DAB:

"The BBC wishes to increase DABs population coverage to 90% of the UK
population, which we understand would cost £11m per annum in total to
increase the number of transmitters from the current 96 to 230.

Is that is the cost of setting up the system and bringing it into
operation? i.e. Not the running costs once fully in operation. The wording
makes it seem like a setup cost spread over some years to me.

If it is a setup cost, are you including that in what you call the "cost of
transmitting" for DAB but omitting it for FM?

Increasing coverage further to levels similar to those of FM radio may
cost the BBC up to £40m per annum, as the number of transmitters would
need to be increased to approximately 1000."

Is that also a setup cost, and not the running costs once setup?

plus the footnote at the bottom of that page shows taht the BBC pays an
additional £3.6m to transmit its local stations on DAB. So DAB will
cost about £43.6m in comparison to FM costing £16.4m. Bargain.

Not clear from your quotes at this point if you are mixing up annual
running costs for a network with the installation costs of putting one in
place. Those two types of costs are quite different in nature.

And I'm afraid that proves that your theory about transmission costs is
pure drivel.

But if your figures mix up apples and oranges, they may only "prove" that
apples are not oranges. Perhaps you can clarify this?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

hd radio
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Indeed. I doubt the base costs vary by much. What the actual
'transmitter
rental' is has historically been in the end a political decision. In
exactly the same way as for cellular phones. Basically, a tax.


You haven't got the first clue what you're going on about Plowman.

More of a clue than you, apparently. Get your head out of your arse and do
some proper research. You're supposed to have some form of engineering
qualification. Do you really think the bitrate makes much difference to
the *real* costs of transmission?


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"!..

Let alone all the MUX's around the UK which have been licensed but have
not as yet started up!..

--
Tony Sayer

hd radio
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
People who work for DAB multiplex operators have told me on the phone
that the carriage costs are proportional to the number of capacity
units consumed, and capacity units are either exactly or almost
exactly proportional to the bit rate used.

That could well be so. But doesn't give the *actual* costs - only how it
is charged for. Surely you can see the difference?


Judging by what Seve said earlier I think by "carriage costs" is meant the
cost of getting the signal to the transmitter site, rather than the cost of
broadcasting it; this would be why units of 64kb/s were mentioned. There is
nothing to stop a broadcaster using a more modern audio compression
algorithm on the link and thus cutting carriage costs.

David.



The Studio to Transmitter link is more to do with where the multiplexer
unit is located and more often than not a bloody long way from where the
station is located!.

Just one of the component costs of Dabble.
--
Tony Sayer

hd radio
 

In article , Laurence Payne
scribeth thus
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:01:01 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

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

Three opinions (from people with an axe to grind) about what they
suppose the industry to think.

Seems that a lot of the industry wish it would go away as it does
nothing to make the bottom line better;!..
--
Tony Sayer

hd radio
 

In article , Brian Gaff
scribeth thus
The thing seems to hinge around money. DAB is a kind of open system, whereas
HD radio is a proprietary system owned and licensed by a company.

DRM, could be handy for medium wave I thought, if only to get rid of
interference problems to some extent.

Brian


More grief with the availability of suitable receivers Brian..
--
Tony Sayer

hd radio
 

On 2009-09-14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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 have always inferred that it costs a lot more from the fact that I
haven't noticed any pirates using DAB. I notice that they do
bear the extra cost of broadcasting on FM rather than AM.

Has anyone spotted pirate DAB?

--
Jan

hd radio
 

In article , Jan Wysocki
scribeth thus
On 2009-09-14, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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 have always inferred that it costs a lot more from the fact that I
haven't noticed any pirates using DAB. I notice that they do
bear the extra cost of broadcasting on FM rather than AM.


Easier to use FM simpler aerial systems for a start..


Has anyone spotted pirate DAB?

Yes quite .. ever wondered why?..
--
Tony Sayer

hd radio
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"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.



You may not like his style but he's absolutely right on a lot of
what's
wrong with the implementation of UK DAB


Thank you Tony. I agree. ;-)


--
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
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

The quote is a highly accurate portrayal of the radio industry's
view of
Internet radio.

As if there was a thing called "the radio industry's view".


Okay then, "the radio industry's conensus view", or if you want to
narrow
it down further, "the consensus view of the bigger UK radio
broadcasting
groups, including the BBC".


Oh yes? Care to offer evidence that there is such a "consensus"?


Individuals have their own views. Some commercial radio stations
may feel
threatened, but then those aren't worth much anyway.


Your view of them is irrelevant.


If you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about.

As if you were the great expert that you pretend to be.


Compared to you I'm definitely an expert on this, so I can safely
ignore
any doubts you have about my expertise.


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!..


Yep - and one of the reasons why some music stations use mono is to
save on transmission costs, because the lower bit rate used is
cheaper.


--
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