new DAB pocket radio story

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <slrngfedpb.bcn.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
In article <wlFJk.104045$dG5.53952@newsfe14.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
But they launched an incredibly inefficient system, and its
inefficiency also makes it extremely expensive to transmit, which is
something that is still plaguing the system today, because Channel 4
wouldn't have had to drop out if the transmission costs had been
lower, and the national stations that closed down earlier this year
were all due to the sky high transmission costs.

The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they
can't generate the income to cover their operating costs, wherever
these arise from. Of course it's expensive to transmit. It's called
market forces. Otherwise you just have a free for all.

The stations that have so far failed have been broadcasting stuff that
doesn't attract enough of an audience to generate the sort of
advertising revenue needed to keep the thing solvent. Nothing to do
with technology.

Yup. There are already more than can make a reasonable income from the
advertising pot that exists. So a new one has either to expand that pot or
pinch from others.

Channel 4 are struggling to keep going on their one TV channel; that's
why they can't afford to splurge on new radio stations.

I think they also found out - rather late - the costs of trying to
provide the sort of speech based progs they promised.

--
*I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <0TGJk.29594$xU3.10876@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier this
year because they couldn't afford to pay the Ł1 million per year
transmission costs.

DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big, big
saving for a station.

The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.

--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <X%GJk.29683$xU3.17134@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

Digital One is only carrying one station - Planet Rock - that isn't
already a big station on FM/AM. Why? Because the transmission cost for
a stereo station is Ł1 million per year.

Nothing to do with technology.

Nothing to do with technology? Transmission costs on DAB are as high
as they are precisely because the technology is very inefficient.

Can you not understand that the FIXED multiplex transmission costs
being shared by say 30 stations is gonig to lead to lower transmission
costs than if they're shared between 10 stations?

That will be why FM costs are lower then...

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef304b47dave@davenoise.co.uk

In article <X%GJk.29683$xU3.17134@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
Digital One is only carrying one station - Planet Rock - that isn't
already a big station on FM/AM. Why? Because the transmission cost
for
a stereo station is Ł1 million per year.


Nothing to do with technology.


Nothing to do with technology? Transmission costs on DAB are as
high
as they are precisely because the technology is very inefficient.

Can you not understand that the FIXED multiplex transmission costs
being shared by say 30 stations is gonig to lead to lower
transmission
costs than if they're shared between 10 stations?

That will be why FM costs are lower then...

FM is totally irrelevant. You just say things for the sake of it,
don't you. You put absolutely no thought in to whatever you say, and
you just go straight for the gob off.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef301ce5dave@davenoise.co.uk

In article <0TGJk.29594$xU3.10876@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
this
year because they couldn't afford to pay the Ł1 million per year
transmission costs.

DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big,
big
saving for a station.

The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.

Totally wrong. It was the TRANSMISSION COSTS that caused the DAB
crisis earlier this year. GCap wanted to close 4 stations (theJazz,
Core, Life and Planet Rock - the latter was sold), and it wanted to
sell its 67% stake in Digital One for Ł1 to Arqiva.

It was the transmission costs that led to that and to Fru Hazlitt
saying that DAB is "not an economically viable platform".

It's common knowledge that the transmission costs are exhorbitant on
DAB.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

In article <slrngfedpb.bcn.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
On 2008-10-16, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
In article <wlFJk.104045$dG5.53952@newsfe14.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
But they launched an incredibly inefficient system, and its
inefficiency also makes it extremely expensive to transmit, which is
something that is still plaguing the system today, because Channel 4
wouldn't have had to drop out if the transmission costs had been
lower, and the national stations that closed down earlier this year
were all due to the sky high transmission costs.

The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they
can't generate the income to cover their operating costs, wherever
these arise from. Of course it's expensive to transmit. It's called
market forces. Otherwise you just have a free for all.

The stations that have so far failed have been broadcasting stuff that
doesn't attract enough of an audience to generate the sort of
advertising revenue needed to keep the thing solvent. Nothing to do
with technology.

Yup. There are already more than can make a reasonable income from the
advertising pot that exists. So a new one has either to expand that pot or
pinch from others.

Channel 4 are struggling to keep going on their one TV channel; that's
why they can't afford to splurge on new radio stations.

I think they also found out - rather late - the costs of trying to
provide the sort of speech based progs they promised.

It's all too easy to find people who will talk ceaselessly for no money at
all - but finding people who can talk and have other people want to
listen, is a whole other kettle of ballgames.

Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations onto the
same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much talent as
the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed efforts and
twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused transmitter capacity.
Even if there are people out there with equipment that can actually handle
the new codec.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <2vIJk.43989$AO4.23825@newsfe16.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

Nothing to do with technology? Transmission costs on DAB are as
high
as they are precisely because the technology is very inefficient.

Can you not understand that the FIXED multiplex transmission costs
being shared by say 30 stations is gonig to lead to lower
transmission
costs than if they're shared between 10 stations?

That will be why FM costs are lower then...

FM is totally irrelevant. You just say things for the sake of it,
don't you. You put absolutely no thought in to whatever you say, and
you just go straight for the gob off.

Not so. You give the impression transmissions fees bear some relation to
the actual costs. You're wrong.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef25fa2fdave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <wlFJk.104045$dG5.53952@newsfe14.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
But they launched an
incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to
drop
out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the sky
high transmission costs.

The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because they
can't
generate the income to cover their operating costs,

4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier this
year because they couldn't afford to pay the ÂŁ1 million per year
transmission costs.

They couldn't afford the transmitter costs because they failed to provide
content that people would listen to in large enough numbers to attract
advertisers to pay the bills.

DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big, big
saving for a station.

[...]

Only if you can find 2 - 3 times as many people to set up stations and
provide stuff people want to listen to. If four companies have failed to
manage that, what makes you think eight to twelve companies could?

Multiplying the number of stations is easy; multiplying the amount of
talent to make good use of them is very very difficult, and multiplying
the number of listeners is in a different realm entirely.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfepmm.ge2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net

Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations onto
the
same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much
talent as
the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed
efforts
and twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused
transmitter
capacity. Even if there are people out there with equipment that can
actually handle the new codec.

DAB+ wouldn't launch yet anyway, because there aren't enough receivers
out there.

But the economics are vastly superior on DAB+ than on DAB. The
transmission costs per station are 2-3 times lower than on DAB. It
also makes it cost effective to provide much better quality.

DAB+ is an inevitability.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <slrngfepmm.ge2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

I think they also found out - rather late - the costs of trying to
provide the sort of speech based progs they promised.

It's all too easy to find people who will talk ceaselessly for no money
at all - but finding people who can talk and have other people want to
listen, is a whole other kettle of ballgames.

Absolutely. The idea of the 'big brother' channel providing serious
competition to R4 is a joke. In the early days of CH4 I might have
believed it.

Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations onto the
same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much talent as
the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed efforts
and twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused transmitter
capacity.

Indeed. Our hyper 'DAB' friend seems to think the transmitter rental is
based on how much electricity it uses.

Even if there are people out there with equipment that can
actually handle the new codec.

My view is there'll be great resistance to replacing relatively new
equipment *if* they use the new standard. Portable radios don't really fit
into the 'must have the latest' scenario. And the numbers who won't use
the current DAB because of the quality are tiny.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[hwh]

Whiskers wrote:

Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations onto the
same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much talent as
the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed efforts and
twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused transmitter capacity.

No. It means that you only need one multiplex to transmit the same
number of stations that were previously on two of them.

gr, hwh

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef3eb394dave@davenoise.co.uk

In article <2vIJk.43989$AO4.23825@newsfe16.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
Nothing to do with technology? Transmission costs on DAB are as
high
as they are precisely because the technology is very inefficient.

Can you not understand that the FIXED multiplex transmission
costs
being shared by say 30 stations is gonig to lead to lower
transmission
costs than if they're shared between 10 stations?

That will be why FM costs are lower then...


FM is totally irrelevant. You just say things for the sake of it,
don't you. You put absolutely no thought in to whatever you say,
and
you just go straight for the gob off.

Not so. You give the impression transmissions fees bear some
relation to
the actual costs. You're wrong.

Digital One charges over Ł1m per annum to carry a stereo station. So
how much would you say the transmission costs would be for Digital
One?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef42750fdave@davenoise.co.uk

In article
slrngfepmm.ge2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
I think they also found out - rather late - the costs of trying
to
provide the sort of speech based progs they promised.

It's all too easy to find people who will talk ceaselessly for no
money
at all - but finding people who can talk and have other people want
to
listen, is a whole other kettle of ballgames.

Absolutely. The idea of the 'big brother' channel providing serious
competition to R4 is a joke. In the early days of CH4 I might have
believed it.

C4 were going to launch 3 new stations: E4 Radio, which would have had
Big Brother programmes on it, plus Channel 4 Radio, whcih was meant to
compete with R4, adn Pure4, which was a bit like 6 Music with more
talk.

Using a different audio codec to squeeze twice as many stations
onto the
same transmitter, just means you'll have to find twice as much
talent as
the existing stations haven't. So you get twice as many failed
efforts
and twice as many unpaid bills - and twice as much unused
transmitter
capacity.

Indeed. Our hyper 'DAB' friend seems to think the transmitter rental
is
based on how much electricity it uses.

Oh, that couldn't be further from the truth. How much do you think it
would cost to transmit Digital One?

Even if there are people out there with equipment that can
actually handle the new codec.

My view is there'll be great resistance to replacing relatively new
equipment *if* they use the new standard. Portable radios don't
really fit
into the 'must have the latest' scenario. And the numbers who won't
use
the current DAB because of the quality are tiny.

I've explained this elsewhere. If you're too stupid to understand what
I've said, I can't be arsed repeating it again.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfeqrd.ge2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net

On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef25fa2fdave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <wlFJk.104045$dG5.53952@newsfe14.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
But they launched an
incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to
drop
out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the
sky
high transmission costs.

The usual rubbish. Stations close - or fail to open - because
they
can't
generate the income to cover their operating costs,

4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
this
year because they couldn't afford to pay the ÂŁ1 million per year
transmission costs.

They couldn't afford the transmitter costs because they failed to
provide
content that people would listen to in large enough numbers to
attract
advertisers to pay the bills.

Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious.

DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big,
big
saving for a station.

[...]

Only if you can find 2 - 3 times as many people to set up stations
and
provide stuff people want to listen to.

Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing multiplexes,
and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit, because
they use 2-3 times less capacity.

A good example is that a DAB+ station could fit onto what is a "full"
multiplex in terms of there being insufficient spare capacity to carry
another DAB stereo station. So DAB+ stations could be launched in the
most lucrative radio markets, such as London, when DAB stations
coudln't be launched because there's not enough capacity.

Also, if a broadcaster currently has capacity on a London multiplex,
once there's a sufficiently high number of DAB+ receivers in the
market it could withdraw one station and replace it with the same
station but in DAB+ and launch one or two new stations alongside it to
make extra money.

Basically, leave DAB+ to people who know about it, there's a good boy.

If four companies have failed to
manage that, what makes you think eight to twelve companies could?

There are 7.7m DAB receivers sold so far. There are 120m - 150m FM
devices in-use according to Ofcom. So the advertising pot for DAB will
obviously increase over time, so all your nonsense, or maybe Plowman's
nonsense, about the advertising pot being a fixed size on DAB, is
obviously just nonsense.

Multiplying the number of stations is easy; multiplying the amount
of
talent to make good use of them is very very difficult, and
multiplying
the number of listeners is in a different realm entirely.

See above re ownership.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <4PKJk.32074$xU3.31424@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing multiplexes,
and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit, because
they use 2-3 times less capacity.

FFS. Transmitter rental is a figure plucked out of the air - based on what
'they' think the market can stand. There's absolutely no reason to believe
a more efficient transmission method will alter this.

--
*Always borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef45e84cdave@davenoise.co.uk

In article <4PKJk.32074$xU3.31424@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing multiplexes,
and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit, because
they use 2-3 times less capacity.

FFS. Transmitter rental is a figure plucked out of the air - based
on what
'they' think the market can stand. There's absolutely no reason to
believe
a more efficient transmission method will alter this.

Bullshit. The multiplex transmission costs are already known (and
contracts have been signed), and the transmitter networks don't need
to change at all to carry DAB+, so the transmission providers can't
turn round and just increase costs. The broadcasters all know this, so
the multiplex operators (which are all owned by the broadcasters
anyway) can hardly just bump the price up.

See:

http://www.worlddab.org/public_documents/dab_plus_brochure_200803.pdf

"The benefits of DAB+ include:

Lower transmission costs for digital stations"




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef45e84cdave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <4PKJk.32074$xU3.31424@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing multiplexes,
and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit, because
they use 2-3 times less capacity.

FFS. Transmitter rental is a figure plucked out of the air - based
on what
'they' think the market can stand. There's absolutely no reason to
believe
a more efficient transmission method will alter this.


Bullshit. The multiplex transmission costs are already known (and
contracts have been signed), and the transmitter networks don't need
to change at all to carry DAB+, so the transmission providers can't
turn round and just increase costs. The broadcasters all know this, so
the multiplex operators (which are all owned by the broadcasters
anyway) can hardly just bump the price up.

See:

http://www.worlddab.org/public_documents/dab_plus_brochure_200803.pdf

"The benefits of DAB+ include:

Lower transmission costs for digital stations"

Page 4 of 12:

[...]

WorldDMB created a Task Force of its Technical Committee to develop the
additional standard. After examining the options, DAB+ using MPEG-4
HEAAC v2 was adopted. DAB+ was published in February 2007 as ETSI TS
102 563 “Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB);Transport of Advanced Audio
Coding (AAC) audio”.

[...]

Which could just be a clue as to why Ofcom didn't insist on DAB+ being
immplemented five years earlier. Don't you think?

Page 8 (Graphics omitted, for obvious reasons):

Possible scenarios with DAB+

The following figures show how the bit rate of a DAB ensemble may be
assigned to:

Multiplex with MPEG Audio Layer II (DAB)
9 radio services using MPEG Audio Layer II at 128 kbps

Multiplex with HE-AAC v2 (DAB+)
28 radio services using HE-AAC v2 at 40 kbps and 1
audio service using HE-AAC v2 at 32 kbps.

Multiplex with MPEG Audio Layer II and HE-AAC v2 (DAB and DAB+)
5 radio services using MPEG Audio Layer II at 128 kbps
and 12 radio services using HE-AAC v2 at 40 kbps and
1 radio service using HE-AAC v2 at 32 kbps

A 40 kbps subchannel with HE-AAC v2 provides a similar audio quality
(even slightly better in most cases) to MPEG Audio Layer II at 128
kbps.

Technology is the easy bit, content is the hard part.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngff7qn.ge2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net

On 2008-10-16, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef45e84cdave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <4PKJk.32074$xU3.31424@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
Not so. You're assuming that DAB+ could only be launched on new
multiplexes. But DAB+ stations could fit onto existing
multiplexes,
and DAB and DAB+ stations only pay for the capacity they use, and
that's why DAB+ stations are 2-3 times cheaper to transmit,
because
they use 2-3 times less capacity.

FFS. Transmitter rental is a figure plucked out of the air - based
on what
'they' think the market can stand. There's absolutely no reason to
believe
a more efficient transmission method will alter this.


Bullshit. The multiplex transmission costs are already known (and
contracts have been signed), and the transmitter networks don't
need
to change at all to carry DAB+, so the transmission providers can't
turn round and just increase costs. The broadcasters all know this,
so
the multiplex operators (which are all owned by the broadcasters
anyway) can hardly just bump the price up.

See:

http://www.worlddab.org/public_documents/dab_plus_brochure_200803.pdf

"The benefits of DAB+ include:

Lower transmission costs for digital stations"

Page 4 of 12:

[...]

WorldDMB created a Task Force of its Technical Committee to
develop the
additional standard. After examining the options, DAB+ using
MPEG-4
HEAAC v2 was adopted. DAB+ was published in February 2007 as ETSI
TS
102 563 “Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB);Transport of Advanced
Audio
Coding (AAC) audio”.

[...]

Which could just be a clue as to why Ofcom didn't insist on DAB+
being
immplemented five years earlier. Don't you think?

You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
already explained what happened in a reply to you once today. That was
a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some moron
who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.

Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

But you clearly haven't bothered, so I'll briefly explain why you're
wrong.

AAC was standardised in 1997. DAB was re-launched in 2002. That's a
5-year gap, so don't try to make out that the UK DAB people couldn't
have upgraded DAB in that 5-year period. If you release a new
broadcast radio system, it's meant to last a long time, so you have to
get the design right before you launch it. But they launched an
incredibly inefficient system, and its inefficiency also makes it
extremely expensive to transmit, which is something that is still
plaguing the system today, because Channel 4 wouldn't have had to drop
out if the transmission costs had been lower, and the national
stations that closed down earlier this year were all due to the sky
high transmission costs.

On the day that the BBC dropped its bit rates, which if I remember
correctly was on 18th or 21st December 2001, in the first couple of
posts on the first thread about the BBC slashing their bit rates
someone said that they should have used AAC, and that MP2 was not
designed to be used at such low bit rates as 128 kbps.

So it is not me taking advantage of hindsight. The BBC screwed things
up completely. That's all there is to it. Basically, the non-technical
BBC execs simply over-ruled the engineers. For example, here's a
brochure for a BBC R&D open day in 1999:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/BBC_R&D_AAC_1999_Open_Day.pdf

and at the top it says:

"New audio coding systems (such as AAC) can halve the bit-rate"

"Don't squeeze the bit-rate"

The BBC R&D department had also taken part in 2 listening tests that
compared AAC with MP2 in 1996 and 1998, and both of those tests had
confirmed that AAC was twice as efficient as MP2 (see links to these
listening tests on my page about the incompetent adoption of DAB),
hence why they said what they did about AAC above.

When non-technical execs make technical decisions at the BBC, they
first take advice from the experts in R&D. So they will have heard
what the R&D people were saying about AAC vs MP2, but they must have
simply ignored them.

The BBC had been saying since the early 1990s that they were going to
launch new radio stations on DAB, and by 1998 they were already saying
they were going to launch 4 new stations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm

That's in addition to Radios 1-5 and the World Service. They could
have realised that the audio quality would be crap on DAB at any point
from when they first said they were going to launch a load of new
stations on DAB. But they didn't, and here we are.

So don't try to make out that I'm only saying this with the benefit of
hindsight.

(AAC is not DAB+; one is a codec, the other is a radio broadcast
standard).

Don't try to lecture me about what DAB+ is. DAB+ was basically my
idea. I was by far the first to point out on my website just how much
more efficient (6x and 4x for DVB-H and DMB respectively) and
therefore how much cheaper for the broadcasters the mobile TV systems
were for carrying radio than DAB is, because they use AAC (and later
AAC+) and stronger error correction. And DAB+ is simply the DMB mobile
TV system but without the video. See:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dvb-h_dab_dmb.htm#DMB_Should_Replace_DAB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Page 8 (Graphics omitted, for obvious reasons):

Possible scenarios with DAB+

The following figures show how the bit rate of a DAB ensemble may
be
assigned to:

Multiplex with MPEG Audio Layer II (DAB)
9 radio services using MPEG Audio Layer II at 128 kbps

Multiplex with HE-AAC v2 (DAB+)
28 radio services using HE-AAC v2 at 40 kbps and 1
audio service using HE-AAC v2 at 32 kbps.

Multiplex with MPEG Audio Layer II and HE-AAC v2 (DAB and DAB+)
5 radio services using MPEG Audio Layer II at 128 kbps
and 12 radio services using HE-AAC v2 at 40 kbps and
1 radio service using HE-AAC v2 at 32 kbps

A 40 kbps subchannel with HE-AAC v2 provides a similar audio
quality
(even slightly better in most cases) to MPEG Audio Layer II at
128
kbps.

Technology is the easy bit, content is the hard part.

If technology was the easy bit, why did the BBC et al adopt DAB? The
adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent.




--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <kMNJk.28721$Zl2.9435@newsfe01.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
already explained what happened in a reply to you once today. That was
a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some moron
who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.

Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...

--
*It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[tony sayer]

In article <LVIJk.11528$qt6.3193@newsfe28.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef301ce5dave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <0TGJk.29594$xU3.10876@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
this
year because they couldn't afford to pay the Ł1 million per year
transmission costs.

DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a big,
big
saving for a station.

The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.


Totally wrong. It was the TRANSMISSION COSTS that caused the DAB
crisis earlier this year. GCap wanted to close 4 stations (theJazz,
Core, Life and Planet Rock - the latter was sold), and it wanted to
sell its 67% stake in Digital One for Ł1 to Arqiva.

Who do the actual transmission.

And I reckon before long will become a large broadcaster in their own
right..

Then all the commercial broadcast and transmission platforms will be
Aussie controlled;(...

It was the transmission costs that led to that and to Fru Hazlitt
saying that DAB is "not an economically viable platform".

It's common knowledge that the transmission costs are exhorbitant on
DAB.

Indeed couldn't be better set up for a Monopoly organisation;!...
--
Tony Sayer