DAB Has Won

[Silk]

Everywhere I go now, I see portable DAB radios. I hardly ever see a
portable FM radio being used.

In environments that need noise-free stable reception, DAB is king. It's
now only a matter of time before FM radio is consigned to history.

[Richard Evans]

And on which planet is this? lol

[Richard Evans]

On 20/05/2012 16:25, Silk wrote:

Actually what I mostly see is people walking around with ear buds, and
it's hard to tell exactly what their ear buds are connected to, but I
suspect that in most cases it would be an Ipod or some other type of
music player.

So I think the real title of this thread should be IPod has won.

Richard E.

[tony sayer]

In article <jpb760$95a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos
p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus

>On 20/05/2012 16:25, Silk wrote:
>> Everywhere I go now, I see portable DAB radios. I hardly ever see a
>> portable FM radio being used.

Blind as well as deaf now?, poor troll;(...;?..

>>
>> In environments that need noise-free stable reception, DAB is king. It's
>> now only a matter of time before FM radio is consigned to history.

DAB confined to history and IP radio to take over;!..

>
>Actually what I mostly see is people walking around with ear buds, and
>it's hard to tell exactly what their ear buds are connected to, but I
>suspect that in most cases it would be an Ipod or some other type of
>music player.
>
>So I think the real title of this thread should be IPod has won.
>
>Richard E.

Yep thats about the mark nowadays;!...
--
Tony Sayer

[Richard Evans]

On 20/05/2012 21:11, Richard Evans wrote:

> On 20/05/2012 18:20, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article<jpb760$95a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans<rp.evans.nos
>> p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>> On 20/05/2012 16:25, Silk wrote:
>>>> Everywhere I go now, I see portable DAB radios. I hardly ever see a
>>>> portable FM radio being used.
>>
>> Blind as well as deaf now?, poor troll;(...;?..
>

> When he said "DAB has won",
> was he referring to the number of receives still being used lol.

OOps *receivers*

[Richard Evans]

On 20/05/2012 18:20, tony sayer wrote:

> In article<jpb760$95a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans<rp.evans.nos
> p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> On 20/05/2012 16:25, Silk wrote:
>>> Everywhere I go now, I see portable DAB radios. I hardly ever see a
>>> portable FM radio being used.
>
> Blind as well as deaf now?, poor troll;(...;?..

[Silk]

On 20/05/2012 18:20, tony sayer wrote:

> In article<jpb760$95a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans<rp.evans.nos
> p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> On 20/05/2012 16:25, Silk wrote:
>>> Everywhere I go now, I see portable DAB radios. I hardly ever see a
>>> portable FM radio being used.
>
> Blind as well as deaf now?, poor troll;(...;?..

Typical response from someone who refuses to face facts.

I travel around a lot and I get to visit offices, kitchens are assorted
work places and I'd guess that the vast majority of portable radios that
aren't old and knackered are using DAB these days.

I also take the point that broadcast radio, especially pop music radio,
is an endangered species.

[Silk]

It's ok, I'm not going to pick you up on a typo and call you a
semi-literate twat whilst completely ignoring the original argument.
That would be childish.

[Silk]

On 20/05/2012 21:11, Richard Evans wrote:

I'm refering to the portable radios I see being used. The only radios I
see using FM are either old or the user hasn't worked out how to switch
to the superior digital option.

[Richard Evans]

On 20/05/2012 22:06, Silk wrote:

>
> I'm refering to the portable radios I see being used. The only radios I
> see using FM are either old or the user hasn't worked out how to switch
> to the superior digital option.

Well I've only ever seen one DAB portable radio in use, and that was at
my parents house, and I don't think they use it any more.

However one possible explanation for FM radios in use being old radios,
could be that FM radios continue working for many years. I have several
FM radios most of which are quite old now, but what exactly would be the
point in replacing them, when they still work perfectly.

[tony sayer]

In article <jpbmbp$opg$3...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>
scribeth thus

Of course, whoever are we to doubt the great Silken one;!...
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jpbm4c$opg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>
scribeth thus

>On 20/05/2012 18:20, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article<jpb760$95a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans<rp.evans.nos
>> p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>> On 20/05/2012 16:25, Silk wrote:
>>>> Everywhere I go now, I see portable DAB radios. I hardly ever see a
>>>> portable FM radio being used.
>>
>> Blind as well as deaf now?, poor troll;(...;?..
>
>Typical response from someone who refuses to face facts.
>
>I travel around a lot and I get to visit offices, kitchens are assorted
>work places and I'd guess that the vast majority of portable radios that
>aren't old and knackered are using DAB these days.

Oddly enough so do I!..

What I do see is people using ipods, or their mobile for music, using
their PC as a radio sometimes the olde radio up the corner in shops is
on and more often than otherwise its an FM one. I know a few people who
have had problems in receiving BBC Radio 5 live on MF and use DAB for
that.

I know very, very, few people who have a DAB receiver in their car or
other vehicle and as that was one of the reasons it came about is a very
poor showing;(...

>
>I also take the point that broadcast radio, especially pop music radio,
>is an endangered species.

Yes daddy O, if you say so must be so;!...

--
Tony Sayer

[Richard Evans]

On 20/05/2012 22:06, Silk wrote:

>

> I'm refering to the portable radios I see being used. The only radios I
> see using FM are either old or the user hasn't worked out how to switch
> to the superior digital option.

As for digital being superior. That is very much a matter of opinion,
but I don't see much point in getting back into that argument.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

Where's Dabsworth when you need him? One year he's posting every 5 mins, the
next he's nowhere to be seen.

B2003

[hwh]

On 5/20/12 11:02 PM, Silk wrote:
> On 20/05/2012 18:20, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article<jpb760$95a$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans<rp.evans.nos
>> p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>> On 20/05/2012 16:25, Silk wrote:
>>>> Everywhere I go now, I see portable DAB radios. I hardly ever see a
>>>> portable FM radio being used.
>>
>> Blind as well as deaf now?, poor troll;(...;?..
>
> Typical response from someone who refuses to face facts.
>
> I travel around a lot and I get to visit offices, kitchens are assorted
> work places and I'd guess that the vast majority of portable radios that
> aren't old and knackered are using DAB these days.

But are they tuned to DAB or FM?

gr, hwh

[Silk]

The dead don't moan. At least not ad finitum.

[Silk]

On 21/05/2012 15:39, hwh wrote:

> But are they tuned to DAB or FM?

DAB, of course. What's the point having a DAB radio and using FM?

[Silk]

On 21/05/2012 09:43, tony sayer wrote:

> Of course, whoever are we to doubt the great Silken one;!...

Indeed. Be told or be damned.

[hwh]

Many people do. Because people tend to listen to stations simulcasting
in FM and DAB and FM sounds better.

gr, hwh

[Silk]

On a portable, in a noisy environment, both actual and electrical? I
think not. Normal people can't tell the difference in an ideal
environment, let alone in most places portables are used. This is a
simple fact, you need to accept it and move on. Most people have.

[J G Miller]

On Monday, May 21st, 2012, at 19:17:56h +0100, Silk declared:

> The dead don't moan. At least not ad finitum.

"Being dead means not having an opinion."

-- Kai, Last of the Brunnen-G

[Richard Evans]

On 21/05/2012 15:04, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:

Well if anyone is interested in discussions over this subject, just go
and find some posts from a few years ago, and I'm sure you will find
plenty of heated discussion. I don't see much point repeating it all
again now.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

One point is that people buy a DAB radio thinking it is the future and
it is going to be better. But then they discover that they don't like
DAB, and start using their radio in FM mode.

On similar lines, I have an old Realistic Scanner, which I had fun with
many years ago, but it isn't a lot of use as a scanner any more, as so
much stuff has now gone digital. Apart from the air band, and I
sometimes tune into the volmets just out of curiosity. Most of the time
however these days, I use that scanner as an FM radio, which is a
function it performs very well.

Richard E.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:04:03 +0100
Richard Evans <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Well if anyone is interested in discussions over this subject, just go
>and find some posts from a few years ago, and I'm sure you will find
>plenty of heated discussion. I don't see much point repeating it all
>again now.

I think you're missing the whole point of Usenet :o)

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:10:01 +0100
Richard Evans <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>On similar lines, I have an old Realistic Scanner, which I had fun with
>many years ago, but it isn't a lot of use as a scanner any more, as so
>much stuff has now gone digital. Apart from the air band, and I
>sometimes tune into the volmets just out of curiosity. Most of the time
>however these days, I use that scanner as an FM radio, which is a
>function it performs very well.

I bought a Bearcat trunk tracker many years ago. Eventually got the tracking
set up for the Met. 6 months later they went digital. Sods law.
It will pick up FM broadcast but its mono only with a tinny speaker and a pain
to tune so its not really worth the bother.

Have the buses and taxis gone digital too now? Airband is fun for 5 minutes
but the novelty of listening to "Speedbird 456 descend flight level 12" soon
pales.

B2003

[tony sayer]

In article <jpe6uj$qi9$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>
scribeth thus

Yes about all what its usable for, noisy workplaces as a background
noise...
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jpfj4o$s0m$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, bolta...@boltar.world
scribeth thus

>On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:10:01 +0100
>Richard Evans <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>On similar lines, I have an old Realistic Scanner, which I had fun with
>>many years ago, but it isn't a lot of use as a scanner any more, as so
>>much stuff has now gone digital. Apart from the air band, and I
>>sometimes tune into the volmets just out of curiosity. Most of the time
>>however these days, I use that scanner as an FM radio, which is a
>>function it performs very well.
>
>I bought a Bearcat trunk tracker many years ago. Eventually got the tracking
>set up for the Met. 6 months later they went digital. Sods law.
>It will pick up FM broadcast but its mono only with a tinny speaker and a pain
>to tune so its not really worth the bother.
>
>Have the buses and taxis gone digital too now?

Most are Taxis are using digital data either on PMR or GPRS. Most all
still use FM PMR voice frequencies 165 to 168 odd..


Buses either UHF or more likely these days Trunked Band 3 ...

>Airband is fun for 5 minutes
>but the novelty of listening to "Speedbird 456 descend flight level 12" soon
>pales.

Yes...

>
>B2003
>

--
Tony Sayer

[Richard Evans]

NO I'M NOT!!! LOL :-)

[Richard Evans]

On 22/05/2012 09:35, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:10:01 +0100
> Richard Evans<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On similar lines, I have an old Realistic Scanner, which I had fun with
>> many years ago, but it isn't a lot of use as a scanner any more, as so
>> much stuff has now gone digital. Apart from the air band, and I
>> sometimes tune into the volmets just out of curiosity. Most of the time
>> however these days, I use that scanner as an FM radio, which is a
>> function it performs very well.
>
> I bought a Bearcat trunk tracker many years ago. Eventually got the tracking
> set up for the Met. 6 months later they went digital. Sods law.
> It will pick up FM broadcast but its mono only with a tinny speaker and a pain
> to tune so its not really worth the bother.

My scanner only receives in mono, and only has a small speaker, however
it's fine as a bedside radio, plus it's very selective, and sensitive,
which makes it useful for picking up distant FM signals.

For tuning, it has 400 programmable channels, and I simply used one of
the channel banks to program in the frequencies or my favorite FM stations.

>
> Have the buses and taxis gone digital too now?

Buses are still analog in London, however when I've tried scanning
through Band III I've never picked up anything. I suppose it's worth a
Google search to try and find a list of channels. If I knew which
frequencies were used, I could set it to scan just those channels, and
then I might actually pick something up.

I would imagine that Taxis are also still analogue, but again the
problem is knowing what frequencies to listen to.

> Airband is fun for 5 minutes
> but the novelty of listening to "Speedbird 456 descend flight level 12" soon
> pales.

Depends what you use it for.

Some friends once took me to a hill to the west of Gatwick, when the
planes were landing from that direction. The fun part was that you could
hear the turbulence just after a big jet went overhead, and it was
rather a spooky noise. We put my scanner on the roof of the car, and so
could work out when to expect the next jet and even what type is was
going to be.

Another use. Parked up near Biggin Hill during an air display. Again we
could use the scanner to work out what was going on.

One time, many years ago when I lived with my mum and dad, I was
listening to Biggin Hill in my bedroom, and I heard a Spitfire giving
it's location. Then I heard a powerful old fassioned sounding engine,
and realized the location it had given was where I was, I rushed out
into the garden just in time to see this spitfire banking overhead.

Also listening to the Red Arrows can be fun.
LEFT. RIGHT. BREAK. Whoopieeee!!!!!!!

Richard E.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

Ugh, I hate the red arrows - same tedious act using the same dull jets for
god knows how many decades. If I'm at an airshow they're my cue to head for
the marquees.

B2003

[Richard Evans]

On 22/05/2012 15:06, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:

>
> Ugh, I hate the red arrows - same tedious act using the same dull jets for
> god knows how many decades. If I'm at an airshow they're my cue to head for
> the marquees.

Well that just proves that different people like different things.

Apparently, a few people even like DAB :-o

[Silk]

On 21/05/2012 22:10, Richard Evans wrote:
> On 21/05/2012 19:19, Silk wrote:
>> On 21/05/2012 15:39, hwh wrote:
>>
>>> But are they tuned to DAB or FM?
>>
>> DAB, of course. What's the point having a DAB radio and using FM?
>
> One point is that people buy a DAB radio thinking it is the future and
> it is going to be better. But then they discover that they don't like
> DAB, and start using their radio in FM mode.

No they don't. They turn it on, find their favourite station and leave
it there. At least, that's what normal people do.

> On similar lines, I have an old Realistic Scanner,

Oh.

[Silk]

Yes, you are.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:39:16 +0100
Silk <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>No they don't. They turn it on, find their favourite station and leave
>it there. At least, that's what normal people do.

No, thats what some people do. Others - especially if they're elderly - start
fiddling , can't figure out how to get back to Sanatogen FM , then call up
their offspring to come and help. My mum trying to work an FM radio was
bad enough , with DAB it might as well be the cockpit of the space shuttle.

B2003

[Silk]

DAB is easier to "tune" than FM, so what's your point?

The fact is, nobody normal listens to DAB in a normal environment and feels
the need to look for the same station on FM because they think it might
sound better. I just never happens and you know it.

[Silk]

There's a good chance of seeing a real death, if that's your thing.

[tony sayer]

In article <309949879359480784....@news.aioe.org>, Silk
<m...@privacy.net> scribeth thus

Digital up but Dab down so it sez 'ere....


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/third-listeners-digital-radio

--
Tony Sayer

[Richard Evans]

On 23/05/2012 16:50, Silk wrote:

> The fact is, nobody normal listens to DAB in a normal environment and feels
> the need to look for the same station on FM because they think it might
> sound better. I just never happens and you know it.

Hummm.... Well even if people are happy with the sound quality, a lot of
people will still have DAB reception problems,on their indoor portable
radios, and the bubbling mud sound does get very annoying, and that will
make a lot of people switch their DAB radio into FM mode.

As for whether the sound quality is good enough on a portable DAB radio,
I'm not sure I want to get into that one, as we will never agree. All I
can say is that when my mum switched on her Pure DAB radio, I found the
sound so annoying that my only interest in that radio was when she was
going to switch it off.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 23/05/2012 17:20, tony sayer wrote:

>
>
> Digital up but Dab down so it sez 'ere....
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/third-listeners-digital-radio
>

So in the last 5 years, the number of people who own a DAB radio has
more or less doubled, and yet the percentage of listening that is done
on DAB radios has recently gone down. Admittedly that 2nd figure isn't
for the same time period, it is a recent trend. Perhaps this suggests
that a lot of people who bought DAB radios no longer use them on DAB,
although I would rather they had provided the 2 sets of figures from the
same time period. I would like to know why they don't give clear figures
on this.

One thing however that does seem clear is that DAB listening is getting
stuck at a bit below 20%. It seems to me that only about 20% of the
population are happy with DAB, and most of that 20% of people are
already using it. I wonder what percentage of the population have
hearing problems ;-)

Richard E.

[Silk]

On 23/05/2012 17:20, tony sayer wrote:

> Digital up but Dab down so it sez 'ere....
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/third-listeners-digital-radio
>

What a load of crap. For one thing, it's common knowledge that RAJAR
stats are unreliable at best and it doesn't take into account the fact
that most cars don't have DAB as standard. If cars were all fitted with
DAB radios, then 99% of them would be using DAB (yes, there will always
be a small percentage of wierdos).

[Silk]

On 23/05/2012 20:51, Richard Evans wrote:

> Hummm.... Well even if people are happy with the sound quality, a lot of
> people will still have DAB reception problems,on their indoor portable
> radios, and the bubbling mud sound does get very annoying, and that will
> make a lot of people switch their DAB radio into FM mode.

Rubbish. it's much more likely you'll get a noise-free signal with DAB
if you live in a good area and have a decent radio.

> As for whether the sound quality is good enough on a portable DAB radio,
> I'm not sure I want to get into that one, as we will never agree. All I
> can say is that when my mum switched on her Pure DAB radio, I found the
> sound so annoying that my only interest in that radio was when she was
> going to switch it off.

You can't tell the difference between DAB and FM in ideal conditions on
a portable DAB/FM radio. It's only when you have more challenging
reception condidions that DAB shows its superiority.

[tony sayer]

In article <jpjjv2$m1q$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>
scribeth thus

>On 23/05/2012 17:20, tony sayer wrote:
>
>> Digital up but Dab down so it sez 'ere....
>>
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/17/third-listeners-digital-radio
>>
>What a load of crap.

Yes of course. They must have deliberately distorted those figures shame
on them:(..

> For one thing, it's common knowledge that RAJAR
>stats are unreliable at best

Yes of course they are, aren't the management of radio stations so
stupid enough to pay a small fortune for that data when its so very
unreliable and inaccurate. You tell 'em;!...

>and it doesn't take into account the fact
>that most cars don't have DAB as standard.

No I see you've noted this but hey!, DAB's on the up and up so no
matter;)..

Course you can add to that commercial vehicles, vans, lorries, tractors
even!...

> If cars were all fitted with
>DAB radios, then 99% of them would be using DAB (yes, there will always
>be a small percentage of wierdos).

You calling my missus a wierdo sonny?, the station shes listens to most
in our DAB fitted car is on 234 kHz..
>

--
Tony Sayer

[Richard Evans]

On 23/05/2012 22:20, Silk wrote:
> On 23/05/2012 20:51, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> Hummm.... Well even if people are happy with the sound quality, a lot of
>> people will still have DAB reception problems,on their indoor portable
>> radios, and the bubbling mud sound does get very annoying, and that will
>> make a lot of people switch their DAB radio into FM mode.
>
> Rubbish. it's much more likely you'll get a noise-free signal with DAB
> if you live in a good area and have a decent radio.

I can only assume you get that idea from using DAB in car. DAB was
designed to be used in cars, so it's not surprising it works well in
cars. However the DAB networks were not designed for indoor portable
use, which requires much higher signal levels. Hence it's no big
surprise that a lot of people have reception problems when using DAB on
indoor portable radios.

>
>> As for whether the sound quality is good enough on a portable DAB radio,
>> I'm not sure I want to get into that one, as we will never agree. All I
>> can say is that when my mum switched on her Pure DAB radio, I found the
>> sound so annoying that my only interest in that radio was when she was
>> going to switch it off.
>
> You can't tell the difference between DAB and FM in ideal conditions on
> a portable DAB/FM radio.

Yes you can. In ideal conditions FM sounds much better than DAB.

> It's only when you have more challenging
> reception condidions that DAB shows its superiority.

Well strange then that some people have nicknamed DAB as "Doesn't
Actually Broadcast"

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 23/05/2012 22:20, Silk wrote:

> On 23/05/2012 20:51, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> Hummm.... Well even if people are happy with the sound quality, a lot of
>> people will still have DAB reception problems,on their indoor portable
>> radios, and the bubbling mud sound does get very annoying, and that will
>> make a lot of people switch their DAB radio into FM mode.
>
> Rubbish. it's much more likely you'll get a noise-free signal with DAB
> if you live in a good area and have a decent radio.

Also isn't it strange that even the broadcaster admit that the DAB
signal is not good enough for indoor use. The BBC even use this to dodge
the argument about poor sound quality, trying to mislead us into
thinking that it is due to the poor signal.

As I pointed out before. DAB works well in many areas for in car use,
because that is exactly what it was designed to do. A lot of this is due
to the time interleaving, which helps to fix short term loss of signal
when driving through occasional null zones. FM doesn't have any time
interleaving, so listening to FM you can sometimes get momentary loss of
signal, which is one of the minor reception issues that pro DAB people
like to pick on.

In door use is different matter. As far as I know most FM networks were
designed for indoor portable use, hence the signals are strong enough
for indoor portable use. Hence FM portable radios usually work well if
you are in the coverage area. DAB networks were not designed for indoor
use, they only designed the signals to be strong enough to be received
by cars, and in many areas those signal levels are not strong enough for
indoor portable use.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

It just occurred to me, what exactly has DAB won.

If it is the prize for the most expensive flop, well then DAB at least
be one of the main front runners.

Richard E.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:50:56 +0000 (UTC)
Silk <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>DAB is easier to "tune" than FM, so what's your point?

Not if you're elderly. No I don't know why but she gets confused whereas
twiddling a dial on an analogue radio presented no problems.

>The fact is, nobody normal listens to DAB in a normal environment and feels
>the need to look for the same station on FM because they think it might
>sound better. I just never happens and you know it.

Define "normal". If I have a choice of listening to a station on DAB or on
FM through my hifi tuner it'll be FM every time.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

No it isn't. But its like fireworks - fun the first few times but it rapidly
gets old. If I see yet another loop with coloured smoke *yawn* or a
Perilous High Speed Flight Of 2 Planes Towards Each Other , Will They
Make It!? *Zzzzzz* I'd be tempted to use a surface to air on them myself.
If I want to see real seat of the pants flying I'll go to a red bull air race,
not watch the same tired old "stunt" act being wheeled on like an end of the
pier comedian who's jokes you've heard a million times already and last came
up with something original in 1975.

</rant>

B2003

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012, at 20:51:53h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> and the bubbling mud sound does get very annoying

Agreed but that only occurs for people on the fringes of the
reception area or if they have placed their radio antenna at
or near a node produced by the standing waves within a room.

> and that will make a lot of people switch their DAB radio into FM mode.

And then they may well just get hissy FM or multipath interference.

The issue with DAB is rarely the reception quality but the low grade
quality of the broadcast content its-self due to the low bit rate.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, May 24th, 2012, at 00:12:20h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> In ideal conditions FM sounds much better than DAB.

Exactly.

And most people are not listening in ideal conditions
which is why they think DAB is better than FM.

DAB offers convenience which generally wins every time
with the average listener who only wants average quality
or even below average quality.

Just think about how many people listen to sub-quality
encoded MP3 files as compared to those who listen to FLAC
encoded files ...

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012, at 23:50:26h +0100, Tony Sayer explained:

> the station shes listens to most in our DAB fitted car is on 234 kHz..

Les Grosses Têtes?

(RTL daily equivalent of a combination of BBC Radio Bore's
Start The Week With Robert Robinson + I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue
+ Stop The Week)

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012, at 15:40:06h +0100, Silk declared:

>
> On 22/05/2012 14:29, Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> NO I'M NOT!!! LOL :-)
>
> Yes, you are.

What would Mr Punch do?

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, May 24th, 2012, at 00:26:33h +0100, Richard Evans declared:

> If it is the prize for the most expensive flop, well then DAB at least
> be one of the main front runners.

But nowhere near the front runner ITV Digital.

[Silk]

Mr Punch isn't real. Sorry about that.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, May 24th, 2012, at 14:52:01h +0100, Silk wrote:

> Mr Punch isn't real. Sorry about that.

Neither is Silk.

[Silk]

I think you'll find it is.

[Richard Evans]

Hummm.....
Interesting how ITV Digital went bust, and then Freeview became a great
success. The only reason I can think of is that ITV Digital spent too
much money on Premier League Football.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 09:54, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:50:56 +0000 (UTC)
> Silk<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> DAB is easier to "tune" than FM, so what's your point?
>
> Not if you're elderly. No I don't know why but she gets confused whereas
> twiddling a dial on an analogue radio presented no problems.

I suspect it's just a matter of elderly people not being good at
learning new things. Also with FM the only complication is having to
remember the frequency of your favorite stations, which actually isn't
all that difficult.

>
>> The fact is, nobody normal listens to DAB in a normal environment and feels
>> the need to look for the same station on FM because they think it might
>> sound better. I just never happens and you know it.
>
> Define "normal". If I have a choice of listening to a station on DAB or on
> FM through my hifi tuner it'll be FM every time.

I don't need a hi-fi to notice that FM sounds better than DAB.
It might be different if I were listening to Radio 3 at 192k, but since
I don't listen to Radio 3, I'd much rather stick with FM (and internet
where appropriate).

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 13:47, J G Miller wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012, at 20:51:53h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> and the bubbling mud sound does get very annoying
>
> Agreed but that only occurs for people on the fringes of the
> reception area or if they have placed their radio antenna at
> or near a node produced by the standing waves within a room.

I don't actually agree. DAB transmission networks were designed for in
car use. Hence there are a lot of areas where the signal is strong
enough for good reception in a car, but not strong enough for in door
portable use.

I'm only 9 miles form Crystal palace, and I more or less have line of
sight to the transmitter, and yet indoor DAB reception is very patchy.
(at least it was last time I bothered to try it ). At the front of my
flat where the signal is strongest, it works in about 50% of locations,
but in the middle of my flat, where the signal is not so strong, it
takes a fair bit of hunting around to find a good enough signal. More
like 20% of locations.

Indoor FM reception works in about 80% of locations in my flat, except
for XFM which can be a bit problematic.

>
>> and that will make a lot of people switch their DAB radio into FM mode.
>
> And then they may well just get hissy FM or multipath interference.

I think most people would rather have some hiss, than have bubbling mud.
And as for multipath, I find it is rarely bad enough to hear without
using a hi-fi system.

>
> The issue with DAB is rarely the reception quality but the low grade
> quality of the broadcast content its-self due to the low bit rate.
>

I agree that low audio quality is DABs main problem, however I think
indoor portable reception is also a significant issue for a lot of people.

Richard E.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:36:47 +0100
Richard Evans <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> Define "normal". If I have a choice of listening to a station on DAB or on
>> FM through my hifi tuner it'll be FM every time.
>
>I don't need a hi-fi to notice that FM sounds better than DAB.
>It might be different if I were listening to Radio 3 at 192k, but since
>I don't listen to Radio 3, I'd much rather stick with FM (and internet
>where appropriate).

Its not even just the quality - on FM I've got a load of presets set up at
home and in the car which I can manually scan through and listen to whats on
in a few seconds. With DAB it takes a couple of seconds for it to retune just
to the next station which really pees me off.

B2003

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 16:49, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:

>
> Its not even just the quality - on FM I've got a load of presets set up at
> home and in the car which I can manually scan through and listen to whats on
> in a few seconds. With DAB it takes a couple of seconds for it to retune just
> to the next station which really pees me off.

Sounds like my 1st in car DAB radio. When I exchanged it for a Blaupunkt
Woodstock finding stations was much faster (provided you knew which
multiplex they were on). If the sound quality wasn't so bad, I would
probably still be using DAB.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 13:50, J G Miller wrote:
> On Thursday, May 24th, 2012, at 00:12:20h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> In ideal conditions FM sounds much better than DAB.
>
> Exactly.
>
> And most people are not listening in ideal conditions
> which is why they think DAB is better than FM.
>
> DAB offers convenience which generally wins every time
> with the average listener who only wants average quality
> or even below average quality.

Perhaps. I don't think that argument has been proven either way.

>
> Just think about how many people listen to sub-quality
> encoded MP3 files as compared to those who listen to FLAC
> encoded files ...

Well I don't know what level of quality most people use on their Ipods,
but you don't need FLAC to provide audio quality vastly better than DAB.

My guess be that most people would use 128k or higher. Although
personally I think 128k is less than ideal for mp3 it still sounds
vastly better than UK DAB.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 14:52, Silk wrote:

>
> Mr Punch isn't real. Sorry about that.

Oh Yes he is. lol

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, May 24th, 2012, at 16:36:47h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> Also with FM the only complication is having to remember the
> frequency of your favorite stations, which actually isn't
> all that difficult.

Not difficult indeed but if as is the case for the BBC they fail
to provide the frequency of their stations ...

And many commercial stations fail to promote their full
frequency specification either, just rounding it up or
down to the nearest MHz.

So without looking it up, what is the frequency for your favorite
BBC Radio 1,2,3, or 4 from the Crystal Palace transmitter?

And presumably you tune to 720 kHz for the AM service
of BBC Radio 4 since that provides the strongest AM signal
in your location?

[J G Miller]

Well silk is indeed real, but the fictitious Usenet persona
Silk is not.

Have you done a lot of pantomine work?

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 17:09, J G Miller wrote:

>
> So without looking it up, what is the frequency for your favorite
> BBC Radio 1,2,3, or 4 from the Crystal Palace transmitter?

Completely off the top of my head.

From Wrotham
Radio 1 is 98.8
Radio 2 is 89.1 and
I don't know about Radio 3 and Radio 4 as I don't normally listen to them.

From Crystal Palace, it's all 300Khz lower (or 304Khz strictly speaking).
So Radio 1 id 98.5 and Radio 2 is 88.8
Also BBC London is on 94.9

From Caterham
Radio 1 is 99.3, and Radio 2 I assume would be 89.6

From Kenley
Radio 1 is 98.0 and Radio 2 I assume would be 88.7


Actually for the national FM stations, you don't really need to remember
the exact frequency. I have often done it by tuning around, recognizing
the national stations, because they are on a number of different
frequencies close together. I then just select the one that seems to be
the strongest.

>
> And presumably you tune to 720 kHz for the AM service
> of BBC Radio 4 since that provides the strongest AM signal
> in your location?

That's one I haven't remembered yet, I only quite recently discovered
that Radio 4 has a MW frequency. I want to try it out in the car at some
point just out of curiosity, although I'm not certain why London needs a
Radio 4 MW frequency, as I find 198 Khz seems perfectly adequate if I
tune in in my car. Perhaps a stronger signal is needed for good indoor
reception.

Richard E.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, May 24th, 2012, at 16:30:13h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> The only reason I can think of is that ITV Digital spent too
> much money on Premier League Football.

That was a significant factor but not the only one --

1) pirate cards

2) poor reception resulted in many potential customers
dropping or never taking up the service

3) B$kyB offered a better alternative for those who
prefered to pay for their TV entertainment

In fact people should be thankful that ITV Digital did go bust
or there would never have been Freeview.

Remember the government prefers people to pay for their TV
(which is why the digital service was originally almost entirely
subscriptions services) because they get a cut of the action
(VAT on the service).

[J G Miller]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 17:04:50 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> I don't think that argument has been proven either way.

I think you have not observed how most people behave with
respect to radio and TV reception and just how lazy most
people are in practice.

> Although personally I think 128k is less than ideal for mp3

Exactly -- they are perfectly happy to listen to degraded audio
128 k MP3s rather than the original better quality CD because
it is all so much more convenient.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, May 24th, 2012, at 17:30:24h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> Completely off the top of my head.

Well you do know some frequencies but not all the network
stations, and if you were to ask the woman on the Croydon
tram, she would be totally clueless.

> Actually for the national FM stations, you don't really need to remember
> the exact frequency.

Well you do if you want to tune in to the correct frequency because
otherwise you may be 0,1 MHz or so out.

[hwh]

On 5/24/12 7:13 PM, J G Miller wrote:
> Exactly -- they are perfectly happy to listen to degraded audio
> 128 k MP3s rather than the original better quality CD because
> it is all so much more convenient.

It is just as convenient to listen to 320 kbps MP3's.

gr, hwh

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 18:13, J G Miller wrote:

>
>> Although personally I think 128k is less than ideal for mp3
>
> Exactly -- they are perfectly happy to listen to degraded audio
> 128 k MP3s rather than the original better quality CD because
> it is all so much more convenient.

But I think it's a question of how bad it needs to be before people make
the effort to do something about it.

From my own experience 128k mp3 is not bad normally bad enough to be
significantly annoying (at least not with a good encoder etc.) UK DAB is
bad enough to be very annoying.

Unfortunately however the only cure of low quality DAB, is either the
off switch, or the FM switch. Hence one of the reasons why DAB listening
seems to be unable to get past about 20%.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

Personally, these days, on my IPod, I'm using mostly VBR AAC, with a
medium quality setting. It's good enough so that I can't tell the
difference in everyday situations.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 18:16, J G Miller wrote:

>
>> Actually for the national FM stations, you don't really need to remember
>> the exact frequency.
>
> Well you do if you want to tune in to the correct frequency because
> otherwise you may be 0,1 MHz or so out.

But I can hear the difference is sound quality if I'm 0.1 Mhz out.

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 18:10, J G Miller wrote:

>
> Remember the government prefers people to pay for their TV
> (which is why the digital service was originally almost entirely
> subscriptions services) because they get a cut of the action
> (VAT on the service).

So now they are going to earn their payout by selling off some UHF spectrum.

[Richard Evans]

If I used 320k, I don't think I would be able to fit all my 18,000
tracks onto the 160Gb hard drive.

[hwh]

128 kbps is 1 MB/minute. So if a track averages 4 minutes, that would be
4 MB. times 18000 would make only 72000 Mb or 72 GB.

At 320 kbps that is 150 GB. So the tracks would fit on an iPod. Let
alone on a 1 TB. drive. Do they still sell those?

gr, hwh

[J G Miller]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 18:59:17 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

> But I can hear the difference is sound quality if I'm 0.1 Mhz out.

You can, but most people do not care -- their attitude is
"it is good enough".

[tony sayer]

In article <jpjk9n$mvi$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>
scribeth thus
>On 23/05/2012 20:51, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> Hummm.... Well even if people are happy with the sound quality, a lot of
>> people will still have DAB reception problems,on their indoor portable
>> radios, and the bubbling mud sound does get very annoying, and that will

>> make a lot of people switch their DAB radio into FM mode.
>

>Rubbish. it's much more likely you'll get a noise-free signal with DAB
>if you live in a good area and have a decent radio.
>
>> As for whether the sound quality is good enough on a portable DAB radio,
>> I'm not sure I want to get into that one, as we will never agree. All I
>> can say is that when my mum switched on her Pure DAB radio, I found the
>> sound so annoying that my only interest in that radio was when she was
>> going to switch it off.
>
>You can't tell the difference between DAB and FM in ideal conditions on
>a portable DAB/FM radio. It's only when you have more challenging
>reception condidions that DAB shows its superiority.

"Of course O great one, of course!"..

How sorry to see the poor olde troll loosing his hearing .. so sad;(...

--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jplb6i$9o3$4...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
scribeth thus
>On Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012, at 23:50:26h +0100, Tony Sayer explained:
>
>> the station shes listens to most in our DAB fitted car is on 234 kHz..
>
>Les Grosses Têtes?
>
>(RTL daily equivalent of a combination of BBC Radio Bore's
> Start The Week With Robert Robinson + I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue
> + Stop The Week)

Well she is a froggie so not too surprising really and well into
politicks;!..
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jplmg3$g1i$2...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
scribeth thus

>On Thursday, May 24th, 2012, at 16:36:47h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> Also with FM the only complication is having to remember the
>> frequency of your favorite stations, which actually isn't
>> all that difficult.
>
>Not difficult indeed but if as is the case for the BBC they fail
>to provide the frequency of their stations ...
>
>And many commercial stations fail to promote their full
>frequency specification either, just rounding it up or
>down to the nearest MHz.
>
>So without looking it up, what is the frequency for your favorite
>BBC Radio 1,2,3, or 4 from the Crystal Palace transmitter?
>

304 kHz off Wrotham;)..

>And presumably you tune to 720 kHz for the AM service
>of BBC Radio 4 since that provides the strongest AM signal
>in your location?

--
Tony Sayer

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 19:39, hwh wrote:

>
> 128 kbps is 1 MB/minute. So if a track averages 4 minutes, that would be
> 4 MB. times 18000 would make only 72000 Mb or 72 GB.
>
> At 320 kbps that is 150 GB. So the tracks would fit on an iPod.

I'll take your word for it, but it sounds like a tight fit.

Also another advantage of lower bit rates, is when I use it plugged into
my car stereo, the acceleration can cause it to stop reading the hard
drive for a few seconds. When that happens, the higher the bit rate, the
more chance that the music will stop.

> Let
> alone on a 1 TB. drive. Do they still sell those?

If you mean a 160Gb IPod, I saw an IPod Classic in the supermarket the
other day, and it said the 160Gb version was available on request.

If you mean 1Tb hard drives, I would think probably yes ;-).
I reckon it's about 2-3 years since I bought the 2Tb drive that I use in
my server at home.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

Well I find that a bit hard to believe, but I can't prove otherwise.

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 19:48, tony sayer wrote:
> In article<jplmg3$g1i$2...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller<mil...@yoyo.ORG>
> scribeth thus
>> On Thursday, May 24th, 2012, at 16:36:47h +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

>>
>> So without looking it up, what is the frequency for your favorite
>> BBC Radio 1,2,3, or 4 from the Crystal Palace transmitter?
>>
>
> 304 kHz off Wrotham;)..

For a minute there I thought you meant a 304 Khz signal transmitted from
Wrotham. You had me rather confused for a minute lol.

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 17:30, Richard Evans wrote:
> On 24/05/2012 17:09, J G Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> So without looking it up, what is the frequency for your favorite
>> BBC Radio 1,2,3, or 4 from the Crystal Palace transmitter?
>
> Completely off the top of my head.
>
> From Wrotham
> Radio 1 is 98.8
> Radio 2 is 89.1 and
> I don't know about Radio 3 and Radio 4 as I don't normally listen to them.
>
> From Crystal Palace, it's all 300Khz lower (or 304Khz strictly speaking).
> So Radio 1 id 98.5 and Radio 2 is 88.8
> Also BBC London is on 94.9
>
> From Caterham
> Radio 1 is 99.3, and Radio 2 I assume would be 89.6
>
> From Kenley
> Radio 1 is 98.0 and Radio 2 I assume would be 88.7
>
>
> Actually for the national FM stations, you don't really need to remember
> the exact frequency. I have often done it by tuning around, recognizing
> the national stations, because they are on a number of different
> frequencies close together. I then just select the one that seems to be
> the strongest.

Oh and other frequencies from Crystal Palace/Croydon, again off the top
of my head.

Capital FM 95.8
LBC 97.3
XFM 104.9
Magic 105.4
Heart 106.2
Absolute 105.8

[Richard Evans]

On 24/05/2012 19:45, tony sayer wrote:
> In article<jpjk9n$mvi$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk<m...@privacy.net>

>>

>> You can't tell the difference between DAB and FM in ideal conditions on
>> a portable DAB/FM radio. It's only when you have more challenging
>> reception condidions that DAB shows its superiority.
>
> "Of course O great one, of course!"..
>
> How sorry to see the poor olde troll loosing his hearing .. so sad;(...
>

Or perhaps he's in denial.
The title of this thread might be a clue to that ;-)

[bolta...@boltar.world]

I'm with Silk on this one. These days you really don't want to go revealing
your real name on public forums especially if you have robust views on
certain things like I do because what may seem like a harmless remark at
the time might come back to haunt you in a job interview or some other
important situation a few years down the line if they bother to google you.

B2003

[Richard Evans]

On 25/05/2012 09:54, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:

>
> I'm with Silk on this one. These days you really don't want to go revealing
> your real name on public forums especially if you have robust views on
> certain things like I do because what may seem like a harmless remark at
> the time might come back to haunt you in a job interview or some other
> important situation a few years down the line if they bother to google you.

That's an interesting point.
Although if they Googled my name, they might have some trouble narrowing
down the search. Last time I looked there were about 8,000 people with
my name, just on Facebook.

Richard E.

[Silk]

Indeed. If you're a "me too" man are simply don't give a shit about your
reputation, use your real name.

[Silk]

Believe it or not, it's the truth. DAB has the advantage that you don't
have to worry about "tuning". In most cases, especially on portables,
DAB will sound better as the "tuning" is always spot on.

Normal people are simply not as anal as you.

[Richard Evans]

On 27/05/2012 08:38, Silk wrote:

> Normal people are simply not as anal as you.

Excuse me.
The fact that low quality audio happens to irritate me, doesn't make me
anal. In fact believe it or not most of the time, when it comes to new
technology, I can't be bothered to figure out how it works.

[Silk]

Dicky bebe, you keep missing the point. I agree, as an audio enthusiast,
digital radio in the UK falls far short of what it could and should be. But
I understand I'm in the minority and most people don't give a toss, just as
they didn't when Radio 1 was on MW for 2 decades and that was FAR worse
than FM. The low take up of DAB has NOTHING to do with sound quality. I
believe it's down to many factors, not least a general decline in music
radio due to iPods and Internet streaming.

[Gagarin M.]

On Sunday, May 20, 2012 5:25:39 PM UTC+2, Silk wrote:
> Everywhere I go now, I see portable DAB radios. I hardly ever see a
> portable FM radio being used.
>
> In environments that need noise-free stable reception, DAB is king. It's
> now only a matter of time before FM radio is consigned to history.

Note Here, in the rest of the world!

[Richard Evans]

On 27/05/2012 22:02, Silk wrote:
> Richard Evans<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/05/2012 08:38, Silk wrote:
>>
>>> Normal people are simply not as anal as you.
>>
>> Excuse me.
>> The fact that low quality audio happens to irritate me, doesn't make me
>> anal. In fact believe it or not most of the time, when it comes to new
>> technology, I can't be bothered to figure out how it works.
>
> Dicky bebe,

Cheek!

you keep missing the point. I agree, as an audio enthusiast,
> digital radio in the UK falls far short of what it could and should be. But
> I understand I'm in the minority and most people don't give a toss, just as
> they didn't when Radio 1 was on MW for 2 decades and that was FAR worse
> than FM. The low take up of DAB has NOTHING to do with sound quality. I
> believe it's down to many factors, not least a general decline in music
> radio due to iPods and Internet streaming.

No I didn't miss that point. I do agree that there are other factors
besides sound quality. I just don't like being called anal, as actually
I'm not.

[tony sayer]

In article <2c96838c-b502-4023...@googlegroups.com>,
Gagarin M. <gagarin.m...@gmail.com> scribeth thus

His nibbs seems to think FM will be consigned to history. If so what
does he think Ofcom will do with it and/or the spectrum released?..

--
Tony Sayer

[Silk]

On 28/05/2012 00:58, Richard Evans wrote:

> I just don't like being called anal, as actually
> I'm not.

If you're not, give an example of someone who is?

[Richard Evans]

If I did know anyone I'm hardly going to insult them by saying so here.

[Silk]

It was kind of rhetorical.

[Richard Evans]

Well actually, I only occasionally listen to my hi-fi and enjoy the
quality of the music. Most of the time I'm not too bothered, just as
long as the audio doesn't sound annoying.

Unfortunately however I do find that DAB does actually annoy me. That
doesn't mean I'm anal, and no I'm not looking for problems with the
audio. I actually wish I could avoid noticing the problems with DAB
audio, but I find it a bit like trying not to notice a punch to the
head. I can not simply not notice it. It it there, it is impossible not
to notice it, and it is very annoying.

Richard E.

[Silk]

Try putting "richard evans alt.radio.digital" into Google. Scary.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, May 31st, 2012, at 21:47:12h +0100, Silk wrote:

> Try putting "richard evans alt.radio.digital" into Google. Scary.

You want people to be tracked by Google for having using these search terms?

If you do not want to be tracked, then try DuckDuckGo.

[Richard Evans]

Well unless I go for a job in the DAB industry, which is extremely
unlikely, then I don't think I have much to worry about. If a potential
employer found all that lot he/she might be more interested to know how
I know so much about DAB.

Richard E.