Maker Pro
Maker Pro

new DAB pocket radio story

T

tony sayer

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

Fine you don't ... others might..
 
W

Whiskers

Jan 1, 1970
0
[...]
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).
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 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.
 
I

ian field

Jan 1, 1970
0
Andy Cuffe said:
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

When I used to service monitors most of the Philips one's were made in
Hungary, these days I think more and more of their stuff comes straight from
China.
 
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Whiskers said:
[...]
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


Getting facts wrong has nothing to do with taste. And on the subject
of music being in mono, that's ridiculous, and I'm not going to waste
my time discussing anything so ridiculous.

- as is deciding what is or isn't
"music".


Again, ridiculous.

My statement is factuallu correct; your opinion is differenct
from mine, but opinions are not facts.


No. You can't just reclassify music stations as not being music just
because you might not like the bloody music they're playing.

I've never come across such a ridiculous way to try and squirm out of
admiting that they're wrong.

I'd suggest that you just keep your mouth shut if you don't know what
you're talking about. I do that, and that's why I'm very rarely wrong.

If a radio station wants more
bits per second, I suppose they are able to bid for them


DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality is
as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.

- if they can't
pay for more then their revenue model may not match their
pretensions.


The balls up basically happened in the 1990s, and now the multiplexes
are pretty much full, adn the transmissino costs are ridiculously
expensive (that's one of the major balls ups of the DAB system).

Basically, the only way to improve quality now is to switch to DAB+.
And it will happen, despite what unknowledgable people on the subject
like yourself might think.

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).


Again, you haven't got a clue, have you? You don't know anything about
"the regulations about providing more bandwidth are inappropriate".
How is that your "opinion" when you don't even have a clue what the
regulations are?

The reason I know you don't know what you're talking about is that I
do know what the regulations are, and what you've just said doesn't
make any sense.

BTW, good luck Googling for them, because the bit about audio quality
is stuck in teh middle of a really big pdf. Happy hunting.

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?


I'm me. And I'm not being told what I want to listen to by some low
audio quality loving tree dweller.

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.


So in checking your "facts" that "BBC podcasts are 64 kbps" you
downloaded a speech podcast, even though speech is often mono and
speech is far easier to encode than music so music typically uses
higher bit rates? Mm, good researching.

Try some music podcasts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/directory/




--
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
 
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
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. On the commercial multiplexes it's more about transmission
costs being sky high.



--
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
 
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave Plowman (News) said:
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.


Here we go again, being lectured by the Plowman on something he knows
bugger all about.

The reason why it's 2-3 times cheaper per station on DAB+ is because
the bit rates are 2-3 times lower, so the capacity consumed is 2-3
times lower, so they can fit 2-3 times more stations on a multiplex,
so the overall multiplex costs can be shared between 2-3 times as many
stations.

Even you should be able to understand the logic of that.



--
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
 
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave Plowman (News) said:
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?


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.

I'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+.



--
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
 
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave Plowman (News) said:
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.


Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start using the
old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries, which is exactly what
I said.

Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.


What on earth has that got to do with anything? You're off your
trolley.



--
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
 
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave Plowman (News) said:
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.


You're viewing DAB+ as if once it starts then DAB ends on the same
day - i.e. an abrupt changeover, like digital switchover on TV. It
won't be anything like that. DAB+ will be phased in, and it will
slowly take over. Remember that there are only 7 million DAB sets
sold, and there are 120 - 150m FM devices *in-use* according to Ofcom.
DAB+ receivers will vastly outnumber DAB-only devices within the next
few years, and it's YOU who's mad if you think that DAB+ won't be used
once DAB+ receivers form the majority. The economics (transmission
cost per listener) will favour DAB+ within the next 2 years. DAB+ also
allows stations to launch on "full" multiplexes, i.e. ones that
couldn't carry another DAB station, such as the multiplexes in London.
We'll see the first DAB+ statino launch in the next 3 years. Mark my
words. Some of the fastest selling "DAB" radios at the moment are
upgradeable to DAB+, and the number of DAB+-capable receivers has been
ticking up since last summer. By next year all "DAB" radios in the
shops should support DAB+ and DMB-A - all the broadcasters now want
that to happen - see the new WorldDMB Receiver Profiles, which all
include support for DAB+ and DMB-A.

You see, the problem is, you're spouting about things you don't
understand again. Just keep your trap shut if you don't understand
things, or else you embarrass yourself.



--
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
 
K

Ken

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start
using the old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries,
which is exactly what I said.

Old DAB is still experimental in Sweden.
There are only 4 transmitters running now,
Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö and Luleå.
We need a more efficient digital radio system in Sweden
before the population start buying receivers.

Digital TV in Sweden using MPEG2 now, but from 1 january 2009
we are going to start using MPEG4 on the new channels
and at year 2015 Sweden are not using MPEG2 any more.
The swedes have to buy new digital TV boxes.
 
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave Plowman (News) said:
You're certainly dishonest enough not to admit it openly.


This is what I wrote, because you quoted me:

"Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
multiplex."

Where in that sentence does it say that I want stations to be removed
from the BBC multiplex?

If that is truly your view why continue your crusade against all
things
DAB?


Because the BBC will not do the things I've described. For example,
the BBC has got 231,000 kbps of capacity on satellite, yet they won't
even increase the bit rates of the radio stations from 192 kbps to 256
kbps on satellite. The BBC digital radio people have spent the last 7
or 8 months trying to make up excuses to justify providing the live
Internet radio streams at lower quality than the BBC listen again
streams. And the BBC wants to continue pushing everybody on to DAB
without informing the public that the quality is higher via the
digital TV platforms and it will be higher via the Internet within the
next few weeks.

Haven't you really got anything better to do?


I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to
mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage BBC
resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my
website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about the
dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I
haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).


--
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
 
W

Whiskers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Here we go again, being lectured by the Plowman on something he knows
bugger all about.

The reason why it's 2-3 times cheaper per station on DAB+ is because
the bit rates are 2-3 times lower, so the capacity consumed is 2-3
times lower, so they can fit 2-3 times more stations on a multiplex,
so the overall multiplex costs can be shared between 2-3 times as many
stations.

Even you should be able to understand the logic of that.

So 'they' squeeze 3 times as much stuff into the bandwidth to exploit the
'better' compression algorithms now devised. Doesn't that rather leave
listeners with much the same 'listening quality' as we have now? And then
there's the question of where the twice-as-many-as-now broadcasters are
going to come from along with how twice-as-much-as-now revenue is going to
be generated (both those being in addition to everything already in place).
There aren't going to be three times as many listeners, are there? Or
three times as much stuff worth listening to? Or three times as many hours
in each day?
 
T

tony sayer

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave Plowman (News) said:
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.

Well back in the 70's we were selling the Philips K70 chassis TV's, and
the pix and sound were excellent and thats what keep them selling or
rather renting in those days..


We had a constant stream of referrals of new customers who wanted a set
like the ones we were renting as the picture and sound was so much
better then the majority of TV's around in those days which were more
"colourful" than an accurate rendering of the original picture and sound
for that matter..

Course this was before digital so it can't have been any good can
it;!....
 
J

john d hamilton

Jan 1, 1970
0
Many thanks to all. After learning for the first time about DAB+ in this
group, I again rang Phillips to ask if this DA1103/5 would receive DAB+ when
it came out. I was told that it would *not* receive it and that DAB+ and
anyway would not be broadcast for another two years. The question I have
to ask myself now is whether it's worth paying nearly twice as much for the
pure 1500 pocket DAB radio? I email the Pure helpline to ask them is their
Pure 1500 set would pick up the forthcoming DAB+, but they have not
replied.

So which I'm wondering is the best pocket DAB radio to go for, either of the
above or another one entirely ? Grateful for any further suggestions.
 
W

Whiskers

Jan 1, 1970
0
Many thanks to all. After learning for the first time about DAB+ in this
group, I again rang Phillips to ask if this DA1103/5 would receive DAB+ when
it came out. I was told that it would *not* receive it and that DAB+ and
anyway would not be broadcast for another two years. The question I have
to ask myself now is whether it's worth paying nearly twice as much for the
pure 1500 pocket DAB radio? I email the Pure helpline to ask them is their
Pure 1500 set would pick up the forthcoming DAB+, but they have not
replied.

So which I'm wondering is the best pocket DAB radio to go for, either of the
above or another one entirely ? Grateful for any further suggestions.

The only receiver I know of which is upgradeable to DAB+ (in theory at any
rate) is the Pure 'One Elite'. That is portable, but not 'hand-held' or
'pocket' size. The Revo iBlik RadioStation claims to handle DAB+ 'out of
the box', but that's mains-powered only (and an iPod accessory too). As
there are no DAB+ broadcasts in the UK at present, there is no convenient
way to test those features.

If you want to listen to terrestrial broadcast digital radio in the UK
right now, DAB is what there is. Future developments are just that - in
the future. Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is a
never-ending game; at some point one has to take the plunge and accept
what's on offer right now (or be forever on the brink).

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/waystolisten/digitalradio/> links to
<http://www.digitalradionow.com/home.php> for 'Products and Retailers'.
There you'll find <http://www.digitalradionow.com/faq.php?topic=DABPlus>
which seems to be the 'official position' for now.

From earlier posts, it seems that DAB reception in your area is marginal
for the time being. So a pocket DAB receiver of any brand is likely to
struggle. A larger portable or 'table-top' model might work better, or
you may need a roof aerial to get good results. The Digitalradionow site
has a 'station finder' which can give some idea of likely reception for
your postcode. New transmitters are gradually being added to the network.
 
T

terry

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'm not sure if the DA1103/05 has this feature but my Zenith DTT901
(American HDTV receiver) has both an "Auto Tune" and an "EZ add" scan
function.

Auto Tune does what you described in wiping the presets clean and setting
all channels receivable in that scan.

EZ add leaves the presets as they are and adds to them channels received in
that scan.

For my unit I can scan channels with my aerial facing west (Baltimore) and
add channels while its facing north (Philadelphia).

Not all receivers do this (my Sylvania doesn't) so there may be a DAB out
there with this handy feature.

Good luck. ;-)

What a kerfuffle about a radio!!!!!
What's the point? Trying to tell everyone that one can afford to pay
the monthly fee 'to be allowed' to pick up satellite broadcasts? Or is
the DAB land based transmitters?
Fortunately we still have good old fashioned mono AM (Amplitude
Modulated) Medium Wave (Broadcast Band in North America); in this
immediate part of Canada five different stations. Plus the usual
cacophony of some nine more on the FM band! And no radio or TV
receiving licences.
No trouble to pick up AM anywhere in this house even down in the below
ground basement! Just about everyone has an old radio stuck up above
the workbench.
Also vehicle radio stays on one AM channel (local content) most of the
time, turned down low so as to hear emergency sirens (and the
occasional boom-box) in a temporarily adjacent juvenile vehicle! Also
find it best to turn of any stereo effect (AM is mono anyway) so as to
throw the sound over onto the speaker/s nearest the driver.
Got a bedside radio with memory functions but don't use them, just
tune quickly and digitally to whichever frequency/station one wants!
OK that's so Luddite but everything works!
 
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
Whiskers said:
The only receiver I know of which is upgradeable to DAB+ (in theory
at any
rate) is the Pure 'One Elite'.


Roberts Stream 202 Wi-Fi radio with DAB is DAB+ upgradeable as well,
and I think there's one or two more battery-powered portable radios
that are DAB+ upgradeable..

That is portable, but not 'hand-held' or
'pocket' size. The Revo iBlik RadioStation claims to handle DAB+
'out of
the box', but that's mains-powered only (and an iPod accessory too).
As
there are no DAB+ broadcasts in the UK at present, there is no
convenient
way to test those features.

If you want to listen to terrestrial broadcast digital radio in the
UK
right now, DAB is what there is. Future developments are just
that - in
the future.


Here we go - I can feel an out-of-his-depth gob-off coming.

Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is a
never-ending game; at some point one has to take the plunge and
accept
what's on offer right now (or be forever on the brink).


DAB was relaunched in the UK in 2002. AAC was standardised in 1997.
Don't try to suggest that they didn't have more than enough time to
upgrade DAB prior to relaunching it.

If you don't understand what went on, why do you try to sound like you
do know what you're talking about? Here's the lowdown on what
happened:

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

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
 
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
D

DAB sounds worse than FM

Jan 1, 1970
0
john d hamilton said:
Many thanks to all. After learning for the first time about DAB+ in
this
group, I again rang Phillips to ask if this DA1103/5 would receive
DAB+
when it came out. I was told that it would *not* receive it and
that
DAB+ and anyway would not be broadcast for another two years. The
question I have to ask myself now is whether it's worth paying
nearly
twice as much for the pure 1500 pocket DAB radio?


Pure has said that it will only sell DAB+ upgradeable receivers by
next year, i.e. it's changing its receivers over to using DAB/DAB+
receiver modules. So if you wait a bit you can get a DAB+ upgradeable
version instead.



--
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
 
Top