digital radios
Dave
analogue radio will go the same way?
Dave
Tim S
> Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
> analogue radio will go the same way?
>
> Dave
It's not as clear cut - especially as there are multiple audio radio bands
(SW, LW, MW and VHF/FM). Last I heard was DAB was in a bit of trouble
generally, so I don't expect we'll lose the lot. I would expect the AM
bands to continue forever even if they pull FM to make room for digital.
Peter Andrews
"Dave" <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:rdWdnd9TiNWfl_DU...@bt.com...
> Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
> analogue radio will go the same way?
>
> Dave
No you are not correct -
http://help.digitaluk.co.uk/al/197/146/article.aspx?aid=6096&bt=4
Peter
Micky Savage
> analogue radio will go the same way?
>
> Dave
No Dave..
Regards.
Micky Leeds U.K.
Jules
> It's not as clear cut - especially as there are multiple audio radio bands
> (SW, LW, MW and VHF/FM). Last I heard was DAB was in a bit of trouble
> generally, so I don't expect we'll lose the lot. I would expect the AM
> bands to continue forever even if they pull FM to make room for digital.
There was this one recently:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7792083.stm
... very much reading between the lines, but if the decline in use is
sharp on both FM and AM, then I don't know if AM's future is secure.
Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth just
means more channels of utter shite, rather than a few better ones. Digital
radio is presumably just as prone...
cheers
Jules
Pete Verdon
> Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
> analogue radio will go the same way?
Seems undesirable. It's not too hard to plug a £10 freeview box into
your telly, but replacing a car radio is a different matter for the
average punter - and a pain in the arse for anyone in those cars that
have the damn thing custom-built into the dash.
Pete
Dave
Thanks for pointing out my non thinking of bands other than FM :-)
Dave
Dave
Our TV aerial looks through quite a tall tree and in spring, summer and
autumn we get picture loss using free view due to the wet foliage when
it rains.
Dave
Dave
> "Dave" <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:rdWdnd9TiNWfl_DU...@bt.com...
>> Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
>> analogue radio will go the same way?
>>
>> Dave
>
>
> No Dave..
Thanks
Dave
OG
"Pete Verdon" <use...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> wrote in
message news:496d1f61$0$506$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
Then people who have radio/CDs will get a DAB radio and an iTrip whereas
people who have radio/tape players will get a DAB radio and a cassette
adapter.
Frank Erskine
wrote:
>Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
>analogue radio will go the same way?
>
No
--
Frank Erskine
Dave Plowman (News)
Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
> analogue radio will go the same way?
No. There are no firm dates for switching off any radio service - unlike
analogue TV.
--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
The Natural Philosopher
Oddly enough, channel 5 was shite here on analogue, and is generally
fine on digital.
> cheers
>
> Jules
>
David Hansen
<dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote this:-
>Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
>analogue radio will go the same way?
Eventually? Possibly.
In the short term? No.
DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC). Overseas they
are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow eventually (though
the officials concerned had yet to admit this the last time I
checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly but
quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
frighten the public.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
The Medway Handyman
I carry a DAB radio so I can listen to Radio 4 if working in unoccupied
propertys. Reception in some parts of the Towns is non existent so I have
to tune via FM.
--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
unop...@mail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000 someone who may be Dave
>
> >Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
> >analogue radio will go the same way?
>
> Eventually? Possibly.
>
> In the short term? No.
>
> DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
> the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC). Overseas they
> are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow eventually (though
> the officials concerned had yet to admit this the last time I
> checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly but
> quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
> frighten the public.
>
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones. I have
a couple of portable FM/AM radios, each operated by a pair of AA
batteries. I use 2800 mAh rechargeable NiMH AA batteries and get
several weeks usage between recharges, using them for several hours a
day. I don't think I get more than a couple of days usage out of the
same batteries used in a DAB or DAB+ radio. Hmm - the UK government
seems to be mandating a move from an old, energy efficient technology
to one that uses 6 - 10 times more energy for the same output. Very
'Green'. I wonder how many coal-fired power station equivalents that
adds up to across the country.
It's not only the UK that has to decide whether to migrate from DAB
(MP2 codec) to DAB+ (AAC+ codec) - also Norway, Denmark, Ireland and
Switzerland.
OB: d-i-y
As a kid, I built my own crystal radio. Getting the sweet spot on the
germanium contact was an interesting exercise. I don't think DAB or DAB
+ will be quite the same experience for kids these days.
Sid
Dave Plowman (News)
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> > Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
> > broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth
> > just means more channels of utter shite, rather than a few better
> > ones. Digital radio is presumably just as prone...
> >
> Oddly enough, channel 5 was shite here on analogue, and is generally
> fine on digital.
CH5 analogue can be poor here too - and I can see the Crystal Palace mast
out of this window. Because it was squeezed in as an afterthought, it's
often not that good where it can be subject to co-channel interference. So
fine in the north of Scotland. ;-)
--
Small asylum seeker wanted as mud flap, must be flexible and willing to travel
Dave Plowman (News)
David Hansen <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
> DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
> the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC).
Well, being first with something often has downsides. The commercial
channels which have given up on it - or not taken up their option - are
doing so because they couldn't get enough listeners to make it profitable.
But this is down to the artificially high charges made to transmit on DAB
- it was expected to be a licence to print money like all these things.
> Overseas they are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow
> eventually (though the officials concerned had yet to admit this the
> last time I checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly
> but quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
> frighten the public.
It can only be a guess that DAB+ will prove a success. And by the time it
arrives there will undoubtedly be a better system on the horizon.
I've had DAB from pretty early on - when the data rate was not too bad.
Only a tuner - never a portable radio - and that cost the thick end of 300
quid, even at trade price.
But what is a fact is that very few indeed bothered with it. Price was
said to be the problem - but that never really bother dyed in the wood
Hi-Fi types. Probably because things had moved on and few bothered with
radio for serious listening. But was a problem for the average casual use
on a kitchen etc portable. As was battery life.
So the data rates were reduced to the point where it no longer provided
high quality audio - with the exception of R3. R4 being mainly speech
based possibly too. Everything else suffered.
Sales then took off. ;-) After heavy promotion.
The one area where it does offer advantages is in car use - at least in
decent signal areas. Round London, for example. It doesn't suffer from the
fading and distortion you get with FM round high buildings, etc. But the
lack of factory fit units and the cost of aftermarket ones means it's only
for enthusiasts. And again most ICE types prefer their own choice of music
rather than radio.
Other fly in the ointment is DDTV - that carries most radio stations, and
for the very low cost of a tuner gives decent enough quality for those who
have problems with FM. And of course internet radio.
So my prediction is DAB+ will make no difference to the popularity or
otherwise of the service - unless things are split up so it gives a choice
of stations not available elsewhere that the public actually want to
listen to.
--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?
Rob Horton
>
> Oddly enough, channel 5 was shite here on analogue, and is generally
> fine on digital.
>
That could be because ch5 analogue is outside the channel grouping that
your aerial was designed for. However the digital mux that carries ch5
is probably within channel grouping of your aerial
tony sayer
>Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
>analogue radio will go the same way?
>
>Dave
As many others have said no. It looks like FM will be around to stay for
a long time yet. DAB is a poorly implemented digital radio system and
there really ought be something better then the olde world system we
have been lumbered with.
One other reason is that the money grabbing government stands to make
more revenue from digital TV spectrum but they won't from radio;!..
Cynic, moi:?..
--
Tony Sayer
David Hansen
Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote this:-
>CH5 analogue can be poor here too - and I can see the Crystal Palace mast
>out of this window.
Is that where your aerial is pointed though? If it is then,
according to the not always reliable
<http://www.ukfree.tv/shutdowndetail.php?tx=TQ339712>, it does not
transmit analogue Channel 5.
That channel was indeed squeezed in and may only have been available
from another analogue transmitter in some places, as well as the
aerial group problem someone else has mentioned if it was on the
same transmitter.
Given the post-switchover range of frequencies and your distance
from the transmitter it looks like a log periodic aerial would be
suitable <http://www.aerialsandtv.com/onlineaerials.html#DMlog> if
you were thinking of changing aerial due to the age of the existing
one. I suspect it won't improve analogue Channel 5 though, as that
is not on the transmitter.
David Hansen
unop...@mail.com wrote this:-
>One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
>require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.
The same is true of televisions I gather. Proponents claim that this
is balanced by the relatively low power of the transmitters. I'm not
convinced, but that is their claim.
As for government being two faced with regard to power consumption/
climate change, that's nothing new. The charitable explanation is
that it takes a long time for the message to permeate to many parts
of government.
>It's not only the UK that has to decide whether to migrate from DAB
>(MP2 codec) to DAB+ (AAC+ codec) - also Norway, Denmark, Ireland and
>Switzerland.
The last time I checked, some months ago, with the exception of
Ireland they were already more advanced in making the change.
Of course those who are at the cutting edge may get cut. The
question is whether there is a smooth path for most to move from DAB
to DAB+ for those who have bought the sets. They have done
reasonably well with television, only the earliest boxes not being
able to be updated for the latest change.
David Hansen
Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote this:-
> So my prediction is DAB+ will make no difference to the popularity or
>otherwise of the service - unless things are split up so it gives a choice
>of stations not available elsewhere that the public actually want to
>listen to.
Personally the only DAB station I would like to get is BBC7. It is
available on Freeview and satellite though and certainly not worth
getting a DAB radio for.
tony sayer
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> scribeth thus
>On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:39:32 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
>Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>>CH5 analogue can be poor here too - and I can see the Crystal Palace mast
>>out of this window.
>
>Is that where your aerial is pointed though? If it is then,
>according to the not always reliable
><http://www.ukfree.tv/shutdowndetail.php?tx=TQ339712>, it does not
>transmit analogue Channel 5.
>
>That channel was indeed squeezed in and may only have been available
>from another analogue transmitter in some places, as well as the
>aerial group problem someone else has mentioned if it was on the
>same transmitter.
>
>Given the post-switchover range of frequencies and your distance
>from the transmitter it looks like a log periodic aerial would be
>suitable <http://www.aerialsandtv.com/onlineaerials.html#DMlog> if
>you were thinking of changing aerial due to the age of the existing
>one. I suspect it won't improve analogue Channel 5 though, as that
>is not on the transmitter.
>
>
>
Humm...
I thought that channel 5 came from Croydon .. not the place;-)...
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/croydon/index.php
--
Tony Sayer
dennis@home
"David Hansen" <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p1irm49sju48lstll...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:29:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
> unop...@mail.com wrote this:-
>
>>One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
>>require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.
>
> The same is true of televisions I gather. Proponents claim that this
> is balanced by the relatively low power of the transmitters. I'm not
> convinced, but that is their claim.
This is untrue of course.
There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.
Converting an old analogue set will use more power as you are adding a new
bit.
> As for government being two faced with regard to power consumption/
> climate change, that's nothing new. The charitable explanation is
> that it takes a long time for the message to permeate to many parts
> of government.
The correct explanation is that the government know about the GW lie and are
only using it for political ends.
Why they don't just say that we are too dependent on other countries and
need to reduce oil consumption I don't know.
I do know that ten years ago any government that said they were going
nuclear would suffer but now its accepted as inevitable by most.
Jules
>> Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
>> broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth just
>> means more channels of utter shite, rather than a few better ones. Digital
>> radio is presumably just as prone...
>
> Oddly enough, channel 5 was shite here on analogue, and is generally
> fine on digital.
I haven't seen C5 for many years; it wasn't transmitted to the area
outside of Cambridge where I lived (something to do with it
interfering with the university's astronomy dept. I believe) and I
refused to pay x pounds/month for a bazillion digital channels when I was
only ever going to watch four or five of them.
RobertL
> Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
> analogue radio will go the same way?
>
> Dave
No. FM radio will continue beyond the analgue TV shut-down.
AFAIK, no date has been suggested for shutting it down.
Let's hope FM keeps going until the replacement is has as good sound
quality (and is in full stereo).
Robert
Jonathan Campbell
>
> It's not only the UK that has to decide whether to migrate from DAB
> (MP2 codec) to DAB+ (AAC+ codec) - also Norway, Denmark, Ireland and
> Switzerland.
What system does Ireland use now? DAB or DAB+? I'm in the North-West of
Northern Ireland --- Irish DAB haas not been extended to here yet.
Two things I like DAB for: 1. Test Match Special on BBC 5/Sports; 2. The
ability to record onto SD card on my Pure Pure Digital DMX-50 (though
the novelty does wear off).
Best regards,
Jon C.
Dave Plowman (News)
Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> I haven't seen C5 for many years; it wasn't transmitted to the area
> outside of Cambridge where I lived (something to do with it
> interfering with the university's astronomy dept. I believe) and I
> refused to pay x pounds/month for a bazillion digital channels when I was
> only ever going to watch four or five of them.
You can get a DTTV STB these days for not a lot - and there's no extra
payment over and above the licence fee. There is a lot of rubbish on some
of the channels but hey - some must watch it. Others do repeats which can
be useful. Also satellite is getting quite cheap to buy - and again quite
a lot is free to air.
--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
Andy Dee
>
> Let's hope FM keeps going until the replacement is has as good sound
> quality (and is in full stereo).
>
> Robert
>
Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?
A
Bob Mannix
news:TJmbl.21422$ey5....@newsfe18.ams2...
What is "full stereo", given stereo is an attempt to give the impression of
"full" when it isn't?
Only asking - I'll get me coat...
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not
Tim Downie
"Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.01.14....@remove.this.gmail.com...
> I haven't seen C5 for many years; it wasn't transmitted to the area
> outside of Cambridge where I lived (something to do with it
> interfering with the university's astronomy dept. I believe) and I
> refused to pay x pounds/month for a bazillion digital channels when I was
> only ever going to watch four or five of them.
?? No monthly charges for Freeview.
Tim
Paul Herber
<allt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>"Bob Mannix" <b1o...@mannix.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>What is "full stereo",
>
>quadraphonic? That system for people with 4 ears.
a real soundscape has height.
--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.sandrila.co.uk/
Jules
Hmm, true, I had forgotten that it didn't have any monthly fees. I think
it was the aerial cost (I had a crappy old thing in the loft) and
decoder cost that put me off there. Not so much that the costs were
astronomical, but more that I already had a good TV with a good analogue
tuner which showed four channels (of which I'd take in 10% of
programming at best) - paying yet more money for no real net gain
doesn't seem like a particularly sensible thing to do.
Maybe TV will one day go truly "pay only for what you use" in a similar
way to books and music, and that might change things for the better...
Jules
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:01:09 +0000, clumsy bastard
> <allt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Bob Mannix" <b1o...@mannix.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>What is "full stereo",
>>
>>quadraphonic? That system for people with 4 ears.
>
> a real soundscape has height.
stand on a chair.
The Medway Handyman
>
Captain Kirk out of Star Trek had 3 ears.
The left ear.
The right ear.
and...
The Final Front Ear.
I'll get me coat...
--
Dave Plowman (News)
The Medway Handyman <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Captain Kirk out of Star Trek had 3 ears.
> The left ear.
> The right ear.
> and...
> The Final Front Ear.
Those oldies amongst us will remember it being Davy Crockett - with a wild
frontier...
--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch.
tony sayer
<jg.camp...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
Its just plain old DAB...
and I thought the Irish would have more sense;!..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<b1o...@mannix.org.uk> scribeth thus
>"Andy Dee" <no...@honest.gov> wrote in message
>news:TJmbl.21422$ey5....@newsfe18.ams2...
>> RobertL wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Let's hope FM keeps going until the replacement is has as good sound
>>> quality (and is in full stereo).
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>> Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?
>>
>
>What is "full stereo", given stereo is an attempt to give the impression of
>"full" when it isn't?
>
>Only asking - I'll get me coat...
>
>
DAB is capable, if thats the right word, of a ballsup called intensity
Stereo which is a very poor relation to proper Stereo...
But then again it doesn't matter too much as anyone who wants better
quality will have FM..
DAB really only being suitable for portable Mono use.
--
Tony Sayer
David Hansen
Campbell <jg.camp...@gmail.com> wrote this:-
>What system does Ireland use now? DAB or DAB+? I'm in the North-West of
>Northern Ireland --- Irish DAB haas not been extended to here yet.
<http://www.rte.ie/digitalradio/faq_map.html> shows a map with green
in a few expected areas. As I understand it they are still using
DAB.
The Natural Philosopher
The Natural Philosopher
> A
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <YWobl.20135$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> The Medway Handyman <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Captain Kirk out of Star Trek had 3 ears.
>
>> The left ear.
>
>
>> The right ear.
>
>
>> and...
>
>
>
>> The Final Front Ear.
>
> Those oldies amongst us will remember it being Davy Crockett - with a wild
> frontier...
>
Melba'..
"Now backwoodsmen like the back and frontiersman like the front
But since you are a Constable I guess you want.. a little down payment?"
The Natural Philosopher
> Tim
Dave
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000 someone who may be Dave
> <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote this:-
>
>> Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
>> analogue radio will go the same way?
>
>
> In the short term? No.
>
>
> DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
> the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC). Overseas they
> are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow eventually (though
> the officials concerned had yet to admit this the last time I
> checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly but
> quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
> frighten the public.
That must be where I picked up on the fact that our DAB radios will
become redundant soon.
Dave
Dave
> Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
> analogue radio will go the same way?
I am replying to my own post, because I would like to thank all the
posters that have contributed to my question. It becomes slightly
clearer, but with treacle painted over my eyes :-)
Many thanks
Dave
Dave Plowman (News)
Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> > DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
> > the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC). Overseas they
> > are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow eventually (though
> > the officials concerned had yet to admit this the last time I
> > checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly but
> > quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
> > frighten the public.
> That must be where I picked up on the fact that our DAB radios will
> become redundant soon.
Not 'soon'. There are no dates for the introduction of DAB+ - nor even any
firm proposals.
--
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.
David Hansen
<dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote this:-
>That must be where I picked up on the fact that our DAB radios will
>become redundant soon.
Only radios which cannot now pick up DAB+, or cannot be upgraded to
pick up DAB+, will become obsolete. Some of the former are already
on sale, check with the manufacturer about the latter.
As has been said, der Tag is not soon, but the UK will have to do it
eventually.
Mike
wrote:
>Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
>analogue radio will go the same way?
Maybe......in fifty years time.
--
tony sayer
<nos...@nospam.com> scribeth thus
I can see a time when some local commercial stations will come off Dab
as it simply isn't cost effective for them to transmit on that format!.
The few people I know that have DAB receivers bought them to receive BBC
Radio 5 Live better;!....
--
Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News)
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1h3um4pfitklhpj4p...@4ax.com>, Mike
> <nos...@nospam.com> scribeth thus
> >On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
> >>analogue radio will go the same way?
> >
> >Maybe......in fifty years time.
> >
> >
> I can see a time when some local commercial stations will come off Dab
> as it simply isn't cost effective for them to transmit on that format!.
Perhaps it's time the rentals were adjusted to the real world. Can't see
DAB being intrinsically more expensive to transmit than any other.
> The few people I know that have DAB receivers bought them to receive BBC
> Radio 5 Live better;!....
In my case I went DAB years ago because of diabolical FM reception in this
part of London - which has since been at least partially cured by a new
fill in tranmitter. But do still use it for R7 - which is guaranteed to
brighten up the dullest day.
--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
Man at B&Q
wrote:
> "David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:p1irm49sju48lstll...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:29:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
> > unope...@mail.com wrote this:-
>
> >>One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
> >>require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.
>
> > The same is true of televisions I gather. Proponents claim that this
> > is balanced by the relatively low power of the transmitters. I'm not
> > convinced, but that is their claim.
>
> This is untrue of course.
> There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.
>
One (less power) doesn't neccessarily follow from the other (less
chips). It depends on the nature of the chips, supply voltage,
operating frequency and I/O characteristics.
MBQ
Jules
>> ?? No monthly charges for Freeview.
>>
> Only the license fee ;-)
I'm glad I don't have to pay that any more :-) It got to be a real pain
doing so, spending half the year overseas, and then forever being told
"this content isn't available in your region" from various BBC sources ;)
Andy Dingley
> >>One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
> >>require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.
> This is untrue of course.
More Dennis.
> There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.
Except for DAB and its additional codec, which has a long track-record
of being power-hungry to a point that made battery operation
impractical.
Only very recently, such that "old stock" radios are still on the
shelves, have low-power DAB chipsets appeared.
Mike
wrote:
Some say it's probably the best technology item they've ever bought
(or being given) - the older the user the happier they are with it.
(cue "DAB Sounds Worse Than FM" butting in and saying that's because
they are deaf!)
But the main advantages are ease of use, with an always accurate clock
and no fiddly tuning. It's so easy my mum loves it and she still can't
use a video recorder.
--
Rod
showing 31 seconds behind our 'Rugby' based clocks. They are within a
couple of seconds of my PC (with its auto-correction seemingly working
fine).
My biggest gripe is that the radio seems excessively bassy and lacks
high frequencies. Perhaps it is my ears but I do not have that
impression from TV sound or even internet sources, CDs, etc. Don't know
if it the the radio itself (i.e. make/model) or the DAB
technology/bitrates/etc.
--
Rod
Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>
Dave Plowman (News)
Rod <poly...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> My biggest gripe is that the radio seems excessively bassy and lacks
> high frequencies. Perhaps it is my ears but I do not have that
> impression from TV sound or even internet sources, CDs, etc. Don't know
> if it the the radio itself (i.e. make/model) or the DAB
> technology/bitrates/etc.
Likely the radio as the frequency response of the system is fine. Some
equate the too low bitrate as making things sound too bright.
--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *
The Medway Handyman
> In article <YWobl.20135$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> The Medway Handyman <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Captain Kirk out of Star Trek had 3 ears.
>
>> The left ear.
>
>
>> The right ear.
>
>
>> and...
>
>
>
>> The Final Front Ear.
>
> Those oldies amongst us will remember it being Davy Crockett - with a
> wild frontier...
I thought that was the 'wear the fox hat' joke?
dennis@home
"Andy Dingley" <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:40866fbd-f09a-48af...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
So you agree that DAB doesn't use more power.
Bob Eager
Stop twisting his words. SOME DAB doesn't use more power. Probably at
least 95% of the installed base does..
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com
Andy Champ
Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.
Andy
geoff
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes
>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <YWobl.20135$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
>> The Medway Handyman <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Captain Kirk out of Star Trek had 3 ears.
>>
>>> The left ear.
>>
>>> The right ear.
>>
>>> and...
>>
>>> The Final Front Ear.
>> Those oldies amongst us will remember it being Davy Crockett - with
>>a wild
>> frontier...
>>
>Ah. Dave Absalom and the 'Ballad of Constable McLeggan and 'Peaches'
>Melba'..
Did you mean Mike Absalom ?
>
>"Now backwoodsmen like the back and frontiersman like the front
>But since you are a Constable I guess you want.. a little down payment?"
--
geoff
dennis@home
"Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:11:00 UTC, "dennis@home"
> <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Andy Dingley" <din...@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
>> news:40866fbd-f09a-48af...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 14 Jan, 12:18, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
>> >> >>require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.
>> >
>> >> This is untrue of course.
>> >
>> > More Dennis.
>> >
>> >> There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.
>> >
>> > Except for DAB and its additional codec, which has a long track-record
>> > of being power-hungry to a point that made battery operation
>> > impractical.
>> >
>> > Only very recently, such that "old stock" radios are still on the
>> > shelves, have low-power DAB chipsets appeared.
>>
>> So you agree that DAB doesn't use more power.
>
> Stop twisting his words. SOME DAB doesn't use more power. Probably at
> least 95% of the installed base does..
Who's twisting?
Maybe he should have said dab used to use more power then?
tony sayer
Bits .. Dab is renowned for throwing away bits and due to the MP2 coder
which does not perform well at all at low bitrates..
--
Tony Sayer
Tim Lamb
<to...@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>My biggest gripe is that the radio seems excessively bassy and lacks
>>high frequencies. Perhaps it is my ears but I do not have that
>>impression from TV sound or even internet sources, CDs, etc. Don't know
>>if it the the radio itself (i.e. make/model) or the DAB
>>technology/bitrates/etc.
>>
>
>Bits .. Dab is renowned for throwing away bits and due to the MP2 coder
>which does not perform well at all at low bitrates..
Some male voices *buzz*. Is it Robinson at 8.00am?
I know my hearing is going and our Dab speaker is mouse ear size but I
wonder if any broadcaster ever listens to himself.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
chris French
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:31:21 +0000, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <1h3um4pfitklhpj4p...@4ax.com>, Mike
>><nos...@nospam.com> scribeth thus
>>>On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave <dave...@btopenworld.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
>>>>analogue radio will go the same way?
>>>
>>>Maybe......in fifty years time.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I can see a time when some local commercial stations will come off Dab
>>as it simply isn't cost effective for them to transmit on that format!.
>>
>>The few people I know that have DAB receivers bought them to receive BBC
>>Radio 5 Live better;!....
>
>Some say it's probably the best technology item they've ever bought
>(or being given) - the older the user the happier they are with it.
>(cue "DAB Sounds Worse Than FM" butting in and saying that's because
>they are deaf!)
I recently bought one, as I was looking for a new small portable radio
for around the house use, and found a small-ish Sony DAB/FM radio for a
reasonable price (around £25). As expected, the battery life is pretty
short really compared to my old equivalent radio. But it takes AA's and
it's no great problem to change .
DAB sound quality may well be worse, but given that except for some R4
programs I don't sit and listen as such, but mostly am doing housework,
or cooking or something at the time, and this a small little mono radio,
I don't think it matters. The reception seems to be more reliable here
than FM, which seems flakey at times. I expect for the majority of radio
listening this is the case, and DAB quality isn't really an issue.
>
>But the main advantages are ease of use, with an always accurate clock
>and no fiddly tuning. It's so easy my mum loves it and she still can't
>use a video recorder.
>
My 4 yo daughter loves it as she can just click through the different
stations till she finds some music she likes the sound of :-) I must say
that I like not having to fiddle about with any tuning
--
Chris French
Dave
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:02:00 +0000 someone who may be Dave
> <dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote this:-
>
>> That must be where I picked up on the fact that our DAB radios will
>> become redundant soon.
>
> Only radios which cannot now pick up DAB+, or cannot be upgraded to
> pick up DAB+, will become obsolete. Some of the former are already
> on sale, check with the manufacturer about the latter.
>
> As has been said, der Tag is not soon, but the UK will have to do it
> eventually.
Yet another reason to leave the EU.
Dave
David Hansen
<dave...@btopenworld.com> wrote this:-
>> As has been said, der Tag is not soon, but the UK will have to do it
>> eventually.
>
>Yet another reason to leave the EU.
The EU has nothing to do with the decision.
Dave Plowman (News)
Huge <use...@huge.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Always
> >
> > Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.
> Yes, it does. And it didn't always do that.
There are plenty who seem to dislike DAB on principle but are blind to the
faults of FM stereo.
On balance, I still prefer R3 DAB to R3 FM. Although there are other
factors that don't allow a direct comparison.
--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*
The Natural Philosopher
> Andy
The Natural Philosopher
>
>
>
Dave Plowman (News)
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> > Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.
> >
> So what is not 'full stereo' about that?
Poor separation for a start.
--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *
Dave Plowman (News)
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> >
> >
> always has in my memory..subcarrier at what - 57khz?
38kHz, IIRC.
Good explanation here from an occasional reader of this group.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/RadCom/part21/page1.html
--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
tony sayer
--
Tony Sayer
Andy Champ
> Andy Champ wrote:
>> Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.
>>
> So what is not 'full stereo' about that?
>
The noise on the channels is (pretty well) the sum of the noise on the
sum and difference channels. It's just a bodge to let mono sets work
without needing to know anything about stereo.
I'm sure I've heard people say that DAB often isn't proper stereo 'cos
it's joint stereo. I think that given the right CODECs joint stereo
would actually work better.
Andy
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <123210879...@proxy00.news.clara.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>> Yes, it does. And it didn't always do that.
>>>
>>>
>> always has in my memory..subcarrier at what - 57khz?
>
> 38kHz, IIRC.
Muy bad. 57Khz is the storecast bollocks. Was ultra low bandwidth muzak,
now RDS/
Anyway, sum and difference ws pretty much hat any Viny;l receord diod as
well.
If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a tape
recorder or a CD, latterly.
The Natural Philosopher
Yup. 'Storecast' as it was in my day!
I haven't built an FM receiver since 1976 or so, Tony..
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <123210875...@proxy00.news.clara.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>> Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.
>>>
>> So what is not 'full stereo' about that?
>
> Poor separation for a start.
>
Lets face it,. 100:1 difference (20dB) in channels is available with the
meaneet of equipment. That puts the mage firmly at the edge of one
loudspeaker. Most meaningful stereo is in the 2-3 times difference only.
ISTR that I could get around 40dB with a good chipset and reasonable
signal; level - 10uv or so, certainly better than 30dB in the mid range,
tailing off a bit above 4Khz..but there isn't a lot of info in the last
two octaves anyway.
Its unusual to get more than 40db crosstalk rejection in a stereo amp
anyway...especially at higher freqs where capacitative coupling across
e.g. tone control wiring tends to screw things up.
Andy Champ
>
> Muy bad. 57Khz is the storecast bollocks. Was ultra low bandwidth muzak,
> now RDS/
>
> Anyway, sum and difference ws pretty much hat any Viny;l receord diod as
> well.
>
IIRC stereo on Vinyl is done by the two axes that the needle gets pushed
in - both 45 degrees from vertical. And it's very hard to move in one
axis and not the other, which limits separation.
> If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a tape
> recorder or a CD, latterly.
Or many other digital technologies. I think it's actually a waste of
bandwidth; that hiss on FM is way lower on digital systems, so sum and
difference, or something more sophisticated is the way to go.
Mind, if you have the bandwidth and not the CPU power (which was the
case when CD was designed) send them both in full.
Andy
Dave Plowman (News)
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a tape
> recorder or a CD, latterly.
Heh heh - you should have seen the crosstalk between channels on the
Studer A800 2" 24 track which were the R-R of analogue machines. So bad
that if you had time code on track 24, you couldn't really use tk 23...
--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <123213852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>> If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a tape
>> recorder or a CD, latterly.
>
> Heh heh - you should have seen the crosstalk between channels on the
> Studer A800 2" 24 track which were the R-R of analogue machines. So bad
> that if you had time code on track 24, you couldn't really use tk 23...
>
ON a tape track as well.
tony sayer
Philosopher <a@b.c> scribeth thus
>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <123210879...@proxy00.news.clara.net>,
>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>> Yes, it does. And it didn't always do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> always has in my memory..subcarrier at what - 57khz?
>>
>> 38kHz, IIRC.
>
>Muy bad. 57Khz is the storecast bollocks.
Never used in the UK 'tho they do have Two subcarrier allocations for
use in the USofA..
>Was ultra low bandwidth muzak,
>now RDS/
>
>Anyway, sum and difference ws pretty much hat any Viny;l receord diod as
>well.
>
>If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a tape
>recorder or a CD, latterly.
>
>>
>> Good explanation here from an occasional reader of this group.
>>
>> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/RadCom/part21/page1.html
>>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
Philosopher <a@b.c> scribeth thus
Some are a Tad better than that NP;!..
And tuners too!...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <123213852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>> If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a tape
>> recorder or a CD, latterly.
>
>Heh heh - you should have seen the crosstalk between channels on the
>Studer A800 2" 24 track which were the R-R of analogue machines. So bad
>that if you had time code on track 24, you couldn't really use tk 23...
>
What we're they measuring at?..
--
Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News)
Your ears will do. Timecode is a series of pulses so gets on everything it
shouldn't. ;-) So not only did you not want to hear it on a audio track
but needed to be protected from too much corruption.
--
*What are the pink bits in my tyres? Cyclists & Joggers*
The Natural Philosopher
ISTR most of the so called 'good stuff' could do about 60dB SNR on a
turntable picklup, and similar on a very strong VHF, and scrape in -50dB
or so crosstalk, getting worse over 1Khz..
But its been a long time..
tony sayer
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <TEE3PCCa...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <501ecc8...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
>> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> >In article <123213852...@proxy01.news.clara.net>,
>> > The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>> >> If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a
>> >> tape recorder or a CD, latterly.
>> >
>> >Heh heh - you should have seen the crosstalk between channels on the
>> >Studer A800 2" 24 track which were the R-R of analogue machines. So bad
>> >that if you had time code on track 24, you couldn't really use tk 23...
>> >
>
>> What we're they measuring at?..
>
>Your ears will do. Timecode is a series of pulses so gets on everything it
>shouldn't. ;-) So not only did you not want to hear it on a audio track
>but needed to be protected from too much corruption.
>
Well yes you can hear it but you should measure it to see if it comes
within spec .. it might have been the machine had a fault on it.
Or were they all like it?..
--
Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News)
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >Heh heh - you should have seen the crosstalk between channels on the
> >> >Studer A800 2" 24 track which were the R-R of analogue machines. So
> >> >bad that if you had time code on track 24, you couldn't really use
> >> >tk 23...
> >> >
> >
> >> What we're they measuring at?..
> >
> >Your ears will do. Timecode is a series of pulses so gets on everything
> >it shouldn't. ;-) So not only did you not want to hear it on a audio
> >track but needed to be protected from too much corruption.
> >
> Well yes you can hear it but you should measure it to see if it comes
> within spec .. it might have been the machine had a fault on it.
Crikey - hope none of the old Thames maintenance engineers read this. ;-)
They were maintained scrupulously. Far better than at the BBC - and that
applied to all tape machines.
> Or were they all like it?..
Indeed - we had three. It was part of the Studer spec that you either left
a guard track or used it carefully for something that didn't much matter.
--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŚ.Ś.just don't point!
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <kS0aK+Cb...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Heh heh - you should have seen the crosstalk between channels on the
>>>>> Studer A800 2" 24 track which were the R-R of analogue machines. So
>>>>> bad that if you had time code on track 24, you couldn't really use
>>>>> tk 23...
>>>>>
>>>> What we're they measuring at?..
>>> Your ears will do. Timecode is a series of pulses so gets on everything
>>> it shouldn't. ;-) So not only did you not want to hear it on a audio
>>> track but needed to be protected from too much corruption.
>>>
>
>> Well yes you can hear it but you should measure it to see if it comes
>> within spec .. it might have been the machine had a fault on it.
>
> Crikey - hope none of the old Thames maintenance engineers read this. ;-)
> They were maintained scrupulously. Far better than at the BBC - and that
> applied to all tape machines.
>
>> Or were they all like it?..
>
> Indeed - we had three. It was part of the Studer spec that you either left
> a guard track or used it carefully for something that didn't much matter.
>
across tracks on any machine. Very good machines had screens and stuff
put in..but even the best TAPE will ghost through to the layer below if
left too long on a reel.
One good reason to go digital really.
Crosstalk doesn't happen. Or if it does, its so corrupted as to be unusable
geoff
<to...@bancom.co.uk> writes
I bought some speaker cable from CPC the other day
"4mm separation between conductors to minimise crosstalk"
WTF ???
--
geoff
Dave Plowman (News)
> "4mm separation between conductors to minimise crosstalk"
CPC seem to just print maker's blurb without thinking. See the post about
CFL floodlights - 35 watt said to be a 300 watt equivalent. TLC selling
the same thing changed it to 150 watt. But charge more. ;-)
--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.
tony sayer
Yes it has .. I'll measure a couple of relatively modern ones when I get
a moment...
--
Tony Sayer
D.M. Procida
> One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
> require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.
My children's little Sony stereo starts up a cooling fan when you turn
it to DAB! How amazingly rubbish is that?
Daniele
--
Your chance to own a nearly immaculate BMW C1 (Cardiff, UK)
<http://search.ebay.co.uk/220341650190>
Mike Barnes
> So my prediction is DAB+ will make no difference to the popularity or
>otherwise of the service - unless things are split up so it gives a choice
>of stations not available elsewhere that the public actually want to
>listen to.
In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that? If not, I've no interest in it.
--
Mike Barnes
Dave Plowman (News)
Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
> they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
> Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that? If not, I've no interest in it.
It certainly won't be synchronised with FM - no digital medium can be. I
also doubt they'll all be exactly the same as one another either - this
doesn't happen with any of the current digital systems.
Not a problem here, though. Over 30 years ago I installed cabling that
allows me to listen (and watch) to the same source in any or all of the
rooms. The reason for this was the appalling FM reception of certain
stations in this part of London which made portable radios pretty useless.
--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *
David Hansen
<mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote this:-
>In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
>they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
>Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that?
No.
If you used the same receivers in each room then they might be in
step if you are lucky. However, the pips will not be at the right
time due to the delays introduced by encoding and decoding them.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
The Natural Philosopher
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:46:04 +0000 someone who may be Mike Barnes
> <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote this:-
>
>> In this house we often have several FM receivers going at once, and
>> they're perfectly synchronised, and the pips are precisely on the hour.
>> Does anyone know, would DAB+ do that?
>
> No.
>
> If you used the same receivers in each room then they might be in
> step if you are lucky. However, the pips will not be at the right
> time due to the delays introduced by encoding and decoding them.
>
>
Actually even the FM pips aren't always on time either.
Not according to this NTP synchronised computer anyway. Up to a second
or so late..you can add another second or two for the digital radio
stuff on freeview.