|
|
hd radio
So, after asking a simple question in the tv group, I thought i'd ask here,
why did we go dab, and what of DRM and HD Radio, any chance of these coming to us? Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ |
hd radio
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
om... So, after asking a simple question in the tv group, I thought i'd ask here, why did we go dab, and what of DRM and HD Radio, any chance of these coming to us? I thought "DRM" stood for "Digital Rights Management". What has that to do with radio? And I've never heard of "HD" radio, the term is essentially meaningless, it sounds like someone trying to jump on the HDTV bandwagon. Why did we go DAB? Well "DAB" simply stands for "Digital Audio Broadcasting" so the term applies to *any* form of digital "radio". Why did we go for the system we have? At the time it was adopted it was felt to be a good compromise between quality and cost that's why. David. |
hd radio
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Brian Gaff" wrote in message om... So, after asking a simple question in the tv group, I thought i'd ask here, why did we go dab, and what of DRM and HD Radio, any chance of these coming to us? I thought "DRM" stood for "Digital Rights Management". What has that to do with radio? And I've never heard of "HD" radio, the term is essentially meaningless, it sounds like someone trying to jump on the HDTV bandwagon. Why did we go DAB? Well "DAB" simply stands for "Digital Audio Broadcasting" so the term applies to *any* form of digital "radio". Why did we go for the system we have? At the time it was adopted it was felt to be a good compromise between quality and cost that's why. David. DRM is Digital Radio Mondial, it is a low bit-rate digital radio that can use short and medium-wave AM transmitters, and using AAC+ compression, is capable of quite decent results, if not up to FM standards. It is being promoted as a replacement for short-wave AM in those countries (like Indonesia) which need a long-range radio medium of better quality than short-wave. There have been suggestions that Europe could adopt DRM for AM, but I've heard no more about his in recent times. HD radio is an American digital radio system, roughly comparable to our DAB, but as I understand it use as a more modern form of compression than the MP2 of DAB, but at no greater bit rates than we're using, but which nevertheless should therefore manage better quality. S. http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
hd radio
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:32:51 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote: So, after asking a simple question in the tv group, I thought i'd ask here, why did we go dab, and what of DRM and HD Radio, any chance of these coming to us? Do you see a need for DRM? Why? I can't see HD Radio being introduced as it's so similar in performance to DAB. |
hd radio
The clever bit about hd radio is that it can be used on the same
transmission as fm at the same time. Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message ... "Brian Gaff" wrote in message om... So, after asking a simple question in the tv group, I thought i'd ask here, why did we go dab, and what of DRM and HD Radio, any chance of these coming to us? I thought "DRM" stood for "Digital Rights Management". What has that to do with radio? And I've never heard of "HD" radio, the term is essentially meaningless, it sounds like someone trying to jump on the HDTV bandwagon. Why did we go DAB? Well "DAB" simply stands for "Digital Audio Broadcasting" so the term applies to *any* form of digital "radio". Why did we go for the system we have? At the time it was adopted it was felt to be a good compromise between quality and cost that's why. David. DRM is Digital Radio Mondial, it is a low bit-rate digital radio that can use short and medium-wave AM transmitters, and using AAC+ compression, is capable of quite decent results, if not up to FM standards. It is being promoted as a replacement for short-wave AM in those countries (like Indonesia) which need a long-range radio medium of better quality than short-wave. There have been suggestions that Europe could adopt DRM for AM, but I've heard no more about his in recent times. HD radio is an American digital radio system, roughly comparable to our DAB, but as I understand it use as a more modern form of compression than the MP2 of DAB, but at no greater bit rates than we're using, but which nevertheless should therefore manage better quality. S. http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
hd radio
"David Looser" wrote in message
... "Brian Gaff" wrote in message om... So, after asking a simple question in the tv group, I thought i'd ask here, why did we go dab, and what of DRM and HD Radio, any chance of these coming to us? I thought "DRM" stood for "Digital Rights Management". What has that to do with radio? And I've never heard of "HD" radio, the term is essentially meaningless, it sounds like someone trying to jump on the HDTV bandwagon. Why did we go DAB? Well "DAB" simply stands for "Digital Audio Broadcasting" so the term applies to *any* form of digital "radio". Why did we go for the system we have? At the time it was adopted it was felt to be a good compromise between quality and cost that's why. 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. -- 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
"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. "Rubbish" yourself! It's only "extraordinarily expensive to transmit" because Arquiva has an effective monopoly on transmission, so it makes bugger-all difference what system is used, and indeed whether it's digital or analogue, to these high costs of transmission. David. |
hd radio
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... HD radio is an American digital radio system, roughly comparable to our DAB, I would personally describe them as being very different systems, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by "roughly comparable to our DAB". They both use OFDM for their transmission scheme, but other than that they're very different. but as I understand it use as a more modern form of compression than the MP2 of DAB, but at no greater bit rates than we're using, but which nevertheless should therefore manage better quality. HD Radio uses a codec that is similar to AAC+, so they could use far lower bit rates than we use with MP2 and still deliver higher audio quality (40 kbps AAC+ provides the same level of audio quality as 128 kbps MP2 according to blind listening tests). -- 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
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
... On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:32:51 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote: So, after asking a simple question in the tv group, I thought i'd ask here, why did we go dab, and what of DRM and HD Radio, any chance of these coming to us? Do you see a need for DRM? Why? I can't see HD Radio being introduced as it's so similar in performance to DAB. HD Radio is actually far more efficient than DAB. It won't be introduced in the UK though because teh broadcasters only want to use DAB. -- 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
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. Who says the UK radio industry is "terrified"? I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, Who the hell wants to listen to "very local unregulated" (i.e. crap) content? as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." Back in the 1930s there was a brief craze for short-wave listening, which opened a "window to the radio stations of the world". It soon died out, the internet may spawn another brief interest in the same thing, but it won't amount to a hill of beans in terms of listening hours. - from the Myers Report If the above is representative of the quality of this report it isn't worth the paper it's written on. David. |
hd radio
"David Looser" wrote in message
... "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. "Rubbish" yourself! It's only "extraordinarily expensive to transmit" because Arquiva has an effective monopoly on transmission, so it makes bugger-all difference what system is used, and indeed whether it's digital or analogue, to these high costs of transmission. DAB was extraordinarily expensive to transmit long before Arqiva became the monopoly transmission provider, so you'll need to find a new theory to explain why it is so expensive. The cost of transmitting a 128 kbps stereo station on the Digital One multiplex was over £1m per annum the last time I saw any figures. The cost is proportional to the bit rate, so if we say that DAB needs to use 192 kbps MP2 to provide "good" audio quality than it would obviously cost £1.5m per annum to broadcast nationally at "good" audio quality. It's no wonder that we get teh **** audio quality we do given such ridiculously high costs. The main problem is that DAB is simply a ridiculously inefficient system, so that only a very low number of stations can be carried at "good" audio quality on each multiplex. If they'd have made the system more efficient prior to properly launching it (which was possible, because teh AAC audio codec was standardised in 1997) then we basically wouldn't have had the issue with the audio quality, because for example the BBC could have delivered its stations at high quality at 128 kbps AAC. The fact of the matter is that the BBC was grossly incompetent when it decided to go ahead with using DAB in the late 1990s without first upgrading it. End of story. -- 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
"David Looser" wrote in message
... "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote "It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. Who says the UK radio industry is "terrified"? John Myers, ex-chief exe of GMG Radio group in the "Myers report": http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/pub...cial_Radio.pdf I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, Who the hell wants to listen to "very local unregulated" (i.e. crap) content? People other than yourself, presumably. as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." Back in the 1930s there was a brief craze for short-wave listening, which opened a "window to the radio stations of the world". It soon died out, the internet may spawn another brief interest in the same thing, but it won't amount to a hill of beans in terms of listening hours. I don't think that listening to local stations from other countries will ever take off either. But there's also tens of thousands of Internet-only stations that cover every niche music genre imaginable, so anybody who doesn't want to listen to lowest common denominator playlisted drivel on DAB they do have somewhere to turn. There also happens to be personalised radio services such as last.fm and music streaming services such as Spotify that will increasingly eat into traditional radio listening, as will listening on-demand instead of listening live, which obviously can't be done via DAB because DAB cannot deliver on-demand streams - you have to use the Internet (or cable). - from the Myers Report If the above is representative of the quality of this report it isn't worth the paper it's written on. The quote is a highly accurate portrayal of the radio industry's view of Internet radio. If you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. -- 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
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
... The main problem is that DAB is simply a ridiculously inefficient system Just to give you an idea of how inefficient DAB is, the new DVB-T2 system is TEN TIMES as efficient as DAB - i.e. DVB-T2 can carry 10 times as many radio statinos at the same level of audio quality as DAB in the same amount of bandwidth. And transmission costs are inversely proportional to efficiency, so the cost of transmitting a station on DVB-T2 would be TEN TIMES lower than the cost of transmitting at the same level of audio quality on DAB. Because the cost is so much lower, if we had used DVB-T2 instead of the ridiculously inefficient DAB system then there's no chance that we'd have a problem with audio quality. We have a problem with the audio quality BECAUSE we use DAB. -- 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
"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". Individuals have their own views. Some commercial radio stations may feel threatened, but then those aren't worth much anyway. If you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about. As if you were the great expert that you pretend to be. Sorry. Yeah, so am I David. |
hd radio
"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". 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. Sorry. Yeah, so am I ? -- 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
"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. |
hd radio
"David Looser" wrote in message
... "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"? There's a few different quotes I could point to that show how biased the radio industry is general against Internet radio, but it would take time to dig the various quotes up, and I don't feel that I need to justify what I say to you about this, so if you want to disagree with me that's fine, but suffice it to say that you'd be wrong. 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! I know with 100% certainty that DAB's carriage costs in teh UK are propotional to the number of "capacity units" a radio station consumes, and the number of capacity units consumed is either exactly proportional to the bit rate (in the case of bit rates that are an integer multiple of 64 kbps) or almost exactly proportional (for the other bit rates). Therefore, the transmission costs for a radio station broadcasting on DAB are proportional to the bit rate (or almost exactly proportional if the bit rate isn't an integer multiple of 64 kbps). -- 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
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:40:21 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote: There's a few different quotes I could point to that show how biased the radio industry is general against Internet radio, but it would take time to dig the various quotes up, and I don't feel that I need to justify what I say to you about this, so if you want to disagree with me that's fine, but suffice it to say that you'd be wrong. They may not approve of it. But they all do it :-) |
hd radio
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
... On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:40:21 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote: There's a few different quotes I could point to that show how biased the radio industry is general against Internet radio, but it would take time to dig the various quotes up, and I don't feel that I need to justify what I say to you about this, so if you want to disagree with me that's fine, but suffice it to say that you'd be wrong. 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. -- 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
"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. |
hd radio
In article ,
David Looser wrote: 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. 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. -- *Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
hd radio
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 -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... "Laurence Payne" wrote in message ... On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:32:51 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote: So, after asking a simple question in the tv group, I thought i'd ask here, why did we go dab, and what of DRM and HD Radio, any chance of these coming to us? Do you see a need for DRM? Why? I can't see HD Radio being introduced as it's so similar in performance to DAB. HD Radio is actually far more efficient than DAB. It won't be introduced in the UK though because teh broadcasters only want to use DAB. -- 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
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:13:20 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote: There's a few different quotes I could point to that show how biased the radio industry is general against Internet radio, but it would take time to dig the various quotes up, and I don't feel that I need to justify what I say to you about this, so if you want to disagree with me that's fine, but suffice it to say that you'd be wrong. 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. Maybe. A more common criticism (of the BBC at least) is that it's embraced the Internet TOO enthusiastically, spending a lot of money in competing in an area arguably not within it's remit. |
hd radio
"David Looser" wrote in message
... "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). 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. 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. Gosh, he knows that a multiplex with over one hundred transmitters (e.g. the Digital One national DAB multiplex with approx transmission costs per 128k station £1m) would cost more to operate than one that has a couple of transmitters (e.g. a smallish local DAB multiplex with approx annual transmission costs per 128k station of about £90k). I must be in the presence of a genius. What I said about the transmission costs being proportional to the number of capacity units still stands irrespective of the number of transmitters: Transmission cost per station = number of capacity units x cost per capacity unit and the cost per capacity unit is obviously going to be very, very different on multiplexes that have a very different number of transmitters. 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. 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 DAB’s 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. 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." 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. And I'm afraid that proves that your theory about transmission costs is pure drivel. -- 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 , David Looser wrote: 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. 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. -- 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 ,
Brian Gaff wrote: DRM, could be handy for medium wave I thought, if only to get rid of interference problems to some extent. I've got pretty good AM reception here - but it involves a large whip aerial on the roof with a balanced feeder into a tuner designed for an external aerial. The idea being most household etc interference radiates sort of sideways. So an aerial clear of this is a great help. But admittedly not much use with the average AM radio with an internal ferrite rod. -- *Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
hd radio
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:45:13 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote: 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. OK, so you make your living (I hope you get paid for all this!) by creating hot air about digital radio :-) Unless it really IS all hot air, you, of all people, must have all the source material at your fingertips? Obviously the BBC would prefer the licence fee and a monopoly. They'll argue against change until change becomes inevitable. Then they'll embrace it, and pretend it was all their idea really. At all stages, hot air will be generated in enormous quantities. I prefer to look at what they actually DO. |
hd radio
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. |
hd radio
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
... 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. I *know* what the radio industry thinks about this subject. Plowman and the other one don't, because they don't follow the subject. -- 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: 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? -- *I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk