Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Since 1996 we have testing DAB here in Sweden and we don't like it.I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already can
get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the corner.
In article <mc63f4t262ve962v0l4vt8rvh5n4mi9ar1@4ax.com>,
Ken <ken_3@telia.com> wrote:
I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
I think DAB+ will be the future here.
I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
isn't
compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will
make
it a dead duck.
On 2008-10-12, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
In article <mc63f4t262ve962v0l4vt8rvh5n4mi9ar1@4ax.com>,
Ken <ken_3@telia.com> wrote:
I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
I think DAB+ will be the future here.
I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
isn't
compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
will make
it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and
for
those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of
the same
stations on FreeView or Satellite.
As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and
some
receivers can cope with both. But there is now a significant number
of
receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are
likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both
standards at
once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to
it.
Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new DAB
receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or
so.
While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get
'better'
sound reproduction, most people just want something 'good enough' -
which
DAB manifestly is.
I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type: "Varied Speech" at
"128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a Roberts MP23). Radio
3
probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets,
but most stations are Mono
and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.
I just
don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my
kitchen or
bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
In article
slrngf3o33.jop.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer
resistance
will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already
can
get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and
some
receivers can cope with both.
I suppose some new or future ones will. As regards transmitters
carrying
both the high cost of transmission is said to be one reason for some
existing or proposed stations closing. of course this cost is mainly
'rental' costs - but these private companies aren't there to provide
charity.
But there is now a significant number of
receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters
are
likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both
standards
at once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen
to
it. Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new
DAB receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years
or
so.
Absolutely. It took long enough to get to this level of acceptance.
While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get
'better' sound reproduction,
but the thing is they didn't when it started
most people just want something 'good
enough' - which DAB manifestly is.
Indeed.
I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type:
"Varied Speech" at "128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a
Roberts MP23).
Same here - and I'm using a pretty good sound system in this room.
The
speakers are Chartwell LS3/5a. But we are in a minority if the vocal
lobby
who only look at bitrates are to be believed.
Radio 3 probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets,
but most stations are Mono and many only get 80kbps and don't seem
any
the worse for it. I just don't expect, or even want, a 'concert
hall
experience' in my kitchen or bedroom, or even the living-room, and
certainly not in the car.
In an ideal world the rates would be a minimum 192 kbps for all -
but that
would cost too much it seems.
BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
Of course more modern codecs can use lower rates with less
noticeable
degradation. But not as low as that. ;-)
In article <btq3f4hgqibhef4lbqvr1goc38tcaeglt3@4ax.com>,
Ken <ken_3@telia.com> wrote:
I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer
resistance
will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already
can
get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the
corner.
Fantastic DAB;!..In article <C69Ik.46571$I31.46303@newsfe24.ams2>,
ian field <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:
I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB
because reception is so unreliable.
It's not been terribly popular anywhere as it offers little over FM for
the majority of listeners. Indeed in the UK the bit rate is so low the
quality can be poorer - on most stations. The other thing is battery life
is poor on a portable receiver.
It does work pretty well for mobile reception, though, like in a car, in
reasonable signal areas - but very few makers offered DAB as OEM. And
aftermarket units are expensive - as are decent aerials.
Fine you don't ... others might..On 2008-10-12, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
In article <mc63f4t262ve962v0l4vt8rvh5n4mi9ar1@4ax.com>,
Ken <ken_3@telia.com> wrote:
I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
Not true. Old DAB is too inefficient.
I think DAB+ will be the future here.
I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but isn't
compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will make
it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and for
those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of the same
stations on FreeView or Satellite.
As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and some
receivers can cope with both. But there is now a significant number of
receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are
likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both standards at
once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to it.
Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new DAB
receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or so.
While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get 'better'
sound reproduction, most people just want something 'good enough' - which
DAB manifestly is. I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type: "Varied Speech" at
"128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a Roberts MP23). Radio 3
probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets, but most stations are Mono
and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it. I just
don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my kitchen or
bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
--BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
[...]"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngf3o33.jop.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
I suppose it's a matter of taste - as is deciding what is or isn't "music".but most stations are Mono
and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.
That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest that
music should be broadcast in mono.
Who the hell are you to say that just because you want something differentI just
don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my
kitchen or
bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want something
better than others should be denied it?
I did. The last podcast I downloaded is 'Talking Allowed" from last week,BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3
streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations. The
live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few weeks.
Why don't you check your facts first?
When I used to service monitors most of the Philips one's were made inOn Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:57:54 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm stumped. Wish I could see the thing. Unless you're doing something
Really Weird, it looks as if there's some Really Bad Code in the system
controller. I would go to the Philips site and let them know you're mad as
hell, and you're not going to this any more!
PS: "Local" Scan? How is it different from a "Full" scan? Do they mean
scanning all the blocks? What makes any particular block "local"?
Inquiring
minds want to know!
Bad designs like this seem to be normal these days. If it works at
all, they consider it finished and move on to the next product. I
doubt Philips will care since they probably had nothing to do with the
actual design of the radio.
Andy Cuffe
I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
will make it a dead duck.
You think people want to chuck out what they've got and buy new? You'reHahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a
giraffe.
The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know what it
is and what it provides.
You really think Arqiva will stop charging what the market will stand? YouDAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's one
of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters.
On 2008-10-12, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngf3o33.jop.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
[...]
but most stations are Mono
and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.
That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest
that
music should be broadcast in mono.
I suppose it's a matter of taste
- as is deciding what is or isn't
"music".
My statement is factuallu correct; your opinion is differenct
from mine, but opinions are not facts.
If a radio station wants more
bits per second, I suppose they are able to bid for them
- if they can't
pay for more then their revenue model may not match their
pretensions.
Which could be why some of the new stations don't last long. Or the
regualtions about providing more 'bandwidth' are inappropriate
(which is
my opinion).
I just
don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my
kitchen or
bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want
something
better than others should be denied it?
Who the hell are you to say that just because you want something
different
from what most people are content with, we should all spend more
money?
BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3
streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations.
The
live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few
weeks.
Why don't you check your facts first?
I did. The last podcast I downloaded is 'Talking Allowed" from last
week,
which is very definitely ar 64kbps - I've never seen a BBC podcast
at any
other bit rate.
DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
is
as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the
corner.
According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would neverPlowman, DAB is DEAD in Sweden and Finland - the transmitters were
even switched off in Finland, and most of the transmitters were
switched off in Sweden as well when the government refused to fund it.
Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.Now that DAB+ is available adn there's receivers and ALL DAB receivers
are going to include support for DAB+ in the near future, there's no
way that any country that's considering what system to use would use
DAB. End of story.
DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
is
as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higherActually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
multiplex.
In article <a3pIk.47343$I31.17399@newsfe24.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's
one
of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters.
You really think Arqiva will stop charging what the market will
stand? You
make it sound like it's the power consumption of the transmitters
which
costs.
In article <APqIk.14$dN6.10@newsfe18.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
is
as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
multiplex.
So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higher
bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you prefer
FM
anyway. Just how selfish can you get?
In article <t5pIk.47344$I31.40399@newsfe24.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of
the
present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started
shortly
afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the
corner.
Plowman, DAB is DEAD in Sweden and Finland - the transmitters were
even switched off in Finland, and most of the transmitters were
switched off in Sweden as well when the government refused to fund
it.
According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would
never
start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless
worm.
Now that DAB+ is available adn there's receivers and ALL DAB
receivers
are going to include support for DAB+ in the near future, there's
no
way that any country that's considering what system to use would
use
DAB. End of story.
Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.
In article <NRoIk.47341$I31.5153@newsfe24.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer
resistance
will make it a dead duck.
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a
giraffe.
The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know
what it
is and what it provides.
You think people want to chuck out what they've got and buy new?
You're
mad. Or perhaps you think the 'promise' of better quality will get
everyone buying it? Even more mad.
DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
is as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
multiplex.
So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higher
bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you prefer
FM
anyway. Just how selfish can you get?
You're certainly dishonest enough not to admit it openly.If you re-read the single sentence you've quoted, I simply said that
the quality is shit. I didn't say anywhere that I wanted to remove
stations so that the statinos I listen to can be at higher quality -
you're the only person suggeseting that.
If that is truly your view why continue your crusade against all thingsI'd be happy if the BBC simply provided its stations at high quality
(and I'm talking properly high here) via the Internet and the digital
TV platforms, and they must also promote the fact that the quailty is
higher on those platforms. Then they can do whatever the fooking hell
they like with DAB for the next few years until it's time to switch
over to DAB+.