|
|
Digital Radio Show - day one
|
1 June 2006
Radio Today
Day one of The Digital Radio Show went, to my eyes, to perfection - I think
it can be safely said that the whole day was enjoyed by all!
|
Why, was there a lying competition taking place?
Seen this:
|
Steve, you're name is missing on the list of speakers!? Any reason for
that?
|
"Quentin Howard, the original "Digital Evangelist", is the UK's leading
expert on commercial digital radio and acknowledged as the author of Britain's
world-dominating position in digital radio broadcasting."
|
But its spectral efficiency is scandalously poor, if you're talking
about wideband FM with pilot-tone stereo. It takes 2.2 MHz to transmit
a single national FM network in this way. But with DAB, you can carry
at least half a dozen networks in a mere 1.5MHz. You ought to welcome
this huge advance.
|
I notice that you only use the example of national stations. And you're
using the incompetent UK DAB implementation as an example, which uses
bit rates around half those required to provide FM-quality.
Local stations on DAB are no more spectrally efficient than FM:
For DAB to provide FM-quality needs 224 kbps, so bandwidth per station
is
bandwidth per DAB station = 1712 kHz / 5 stations at 224 kbps = 342.4
kHz
bandwidth per FM station ~= 300 kHz
|
As I remember it.. it was to do originally with Higher Audio quality..the
improved mobile reception was added in later but its such a long time ago
|
And you have to ask yourself why improved mobile reception was important
anyway. Would it be anything to do with the true main reason for developing
DAB in the first place: higher audio quality?
|
now;-!....
|
But who in the BBC is going to support that change of direction?
I've moaned through official and unofficial channels. Retired
ex-Engineers have moaned semi-publicly in the paper for retired BBC
staff, Prospero. I'm sure that many subscribers to this ng and many
who do not subscribe have moaned and we all get fobbed off with the
same patronising answers.
Until The Great British Public takes an interest in audio (and video)
quality and starts moaning, nothing will be done.
I've posted this before, so forgive me for repeating myself, but when
I joined the BBC the sort of quality issues that we're discussing
would have resulted in disciplinary action. Now, anybody who cares has
either gone or probably keeps quiet.
|
|
Local DAB stations are the problem, because they account for the vast
majority of all existing FM stations. And the Radio Authority have done
nothing to improve this situation by allowing quasi-national stations
to be carried on a large number of local DAB multiplexes up and down
the country.
And, of course, as Hans said, you are totally missing the point anyway,
because the criticism is of the DAB system in comparison to the modern
digital radio systems.
I don't blame you for not comparing the dreadfully inefficient DAB
system with DVB-H or DRM+, because DAB is a dinosaur in comparison to
these very highly efficient systems.
|
|
DAB is more efficient than FM but modern systems are more efficient than
that.
gr, hwh
|
|
The maths for local stations doesn't work out so well.
In fact, when I tried it, I came to the conclusion that DAB was
probably no more efficient than FM for local stations overall, and
|
Yes, DAB is no more efficient than FM for local stations.
|
dramatically less efficient if you wanted to plan the stations based on
local need, rather than fitting in with what DAB could do "best".
You know all this of course. You're just having fun with Steve who
really does seem to like wasting his time in threads like this.
|
Seriously, I really do not enjoy these kinds of thread at all, it's just
that I seem to let myself get involved in them even though they're just
|
...some kind of masochist, then?
|
using the same old tired excuses trying to let the BBC off the hook for the
current situation. And it's interesting that both Charles and Richard are
ex-BBC people, innit....
|
I can't speak for Charles, but most people I knew at the Beeb were
there because they believed in what it was for and wanted to make a
contribution, and they're probably as disappointed as anyone here
about the present DAB situation. You seem to be looking at all this
through the wrong end of a telescope.
|
|
Yes, because we were there at the time (actually I think Richard had gone
his own way long before hand) and are telling you what actually happened.
|
Okay then, let's get this one straight. Are you telling me that DAB was
designed to provide low audio quality? You keep telling me that I don't seem
to understand the current situation, and you're somehow telling me "what's
what". Well, Charlie, the audio quality is low. So therefore the BBC must
have intended to support DAB because it provides low audio quality, right?
|
Haven't you read any of the previous posts. DAB was NOT intended to be a
low quality medium. Indeed it was designed to give better results in cars
than FM. Since its original launch, the data rate has been reduced to
accomodate more programmes. It's that that gives the lower quality, not
DAB itself.
|
|
I know you don't want to believe it which is why you keep coming up with
your conspiracy theories.
|
There's no conspiracy theory around the FACT that the audio quality on DAB
|
but you keep accusing me and others of inventing answers. BTW, where you
in 1994 when DAB was first demonstrated?
|
No, I was simply trying to find out if you were involved/interested at the
time or whether it is all something you've read about, because you appear
to be telling people who were involved that they are writing nonsense.
|
But you're STILL harping on about this totally unrelated issue about the
main reason why DAB was designed.
Let me remind you that the original discussion was about whether DAB is an
efficient system or not and whether it was out-of-date in the mid 1990s.
Feel free to argue with me on this topic. But I'm not interested in
discussing what the main reason was for why DAB was designed, because it's a
circular argument and I haven't got the time to waste on such irrelevant
topics.
|
|
|
is low. It is low, just listen to it.
|
|
|
Something else which you know only too well.
Mind you, I'm here too. Can't quite be bothered to make such a
significant contribution though!
Cheers,
David.
|
|
If I were him I'd be absolutely desperate to keep all of that information
very secret, because, for an engineer, that has to be *the* most
embarrassing sentence in the entire world of broadcast engineering.
"In 1997, Simon became Senior Strategy Manager, BBC Radio, working with the
then Director of Radio, Matthew Bannister. Promoted to Head of Strategy,
Radio, under the current Director of Radio & Music, Jenny Abramsky, he
worked on the development of the BBC's digital radio and new services
strategy."
D'oh!
|
Delegates were treated to a great array of the very latest in digital
broadcasting technology - from the Morphy Richards' DRM/DAB/FM/MW receiver
with sleek and simple functionality to suit the mass-market of new British
DRM consumers to the Orban stand, enough to blow even those hardest parted
with their cash away!
The focus of the afternoon's sessions was truly multinational and rather
refreshing. From South Korea to Norway, and onto Sweden, Denmark and France,
|
How odd, the Swedish government pulled the plug on DAB last year. Perhaps
Swedish Radio haven't got the message?
|
|
France won't be using DAB either, because their 5 largest radio broadcasters
are all vehemently opposed to using the outdated DAB system.
Presumably he's referring to the CEO at VDL (Nicolas Croiset's boss), Count
Dracula:
|
there was a chance for all to be enlightened with talks the countries' aims
and ambitions for the future of digital broadcasting in their areas.
Of particular interest was the panel analysing global digital radio
markets - Joan Warner, CEO of Commercial Radio Australia, spoke about the
country's plans for using Eureka 147 with AAC+ encoding. No doubt, as one of
the follow-ups to the event here on Radio Today, we'll focus-in on 'DAB+'.
|
Come on then folks, let's see what you could've won.
Anyway, I was the first one to use the term "DAB+" on my website, then I
removed all references to it because DABv2 had caught on, but I think I'll
start using DAB+ again now that it seems to be accepted.
|
More to come later today as day two is now upon us!
|
|