Connect a DAB tuner to a freeview aerial?
Jacob Thomas
digital radio, can I use the same aerial to connect to my Cambridge
Audio DAB 300 tuner which currently uses the supplied indoor aerial -
would reception be improved?
Thanks
Jacob T
![Brian Gregory [UK]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Brian Gregory [UK]
news:a7c7d23c.04030...@posting.google.com...
No, No.
Although DAB stands for "Digital Audio Broadcast" in Europe it generally
implies one particular system for digital radio called Eureka 147. It's
not the same system as used for freeview and uses different radio
frequencies.
--
Brian Gregory (In the UK).
n...@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.
John Porcella
TV aerials are designed for UHF transmissions in a couple of bands, but DAB
in the UK using a different band entirely.
However, if you have a TV and a DAB aerial combined together into one
downlead cable, then you could put this into a wall outlet that has a TV and
a DAB outlet, as I have done to feed two TVs and two DAB players.
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
DAB sounds worse than FM
Ignoring reception, are you aware that the audio quality of all the BBC
stations is higher on Freeview than on DAB? This is because the bit
rates used by the BBC stations on Freeview are higher than on DAB. See:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/index.htm#bit_rate_table
So the best thing you can do is connect your Freeview box to your hi-fi
system.
--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info
DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
internet and FM
Simon Heather
Excerpt from the Videologic DAB FAQ:
Can I use my existing external TV/FM aerial for receiving DAB digital radio?
Probably not, but give it a try. Your FM or TV aerial is not concentrated in
the DAB range, so the only advantage a TV or FM aerial may give you is if it
's mounted high up on the roof of the house.
Some DAB stations can be received by plugging a standard FM or TV aerial
into a DAB radio, but the best reception will always be via a dedicated DAB
aerial. There's no guarantee your existing aerial will work.
Tim Hall
<email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote:
>Jacob Thomas wrote:
>> I had a new TV aerial fitted for a freeview box. As this receives
>> digital radio, can I use the same aerial to connect to my Cambridge
>> Audio DAB 300 tuner which currently uses the supplied indoor aerial -
>> would reception be improved?
>
>
>Ignoring reception, are you aware that the audio quality of all the BBC
>stations is higher on Freeview than on DAB? This is because the bit
>rates used by the BBC stations on Freeview are higher than on DAB. See:
>
>http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/index.htm#bit_rate_table
>
>So the best thing you can do is connect your Freeview box to your hi-fi
>system.
Fewer radio stations on Freeview though.
Tim
Brian Gregory [UK]
I'd be really surprised if a UHF TV aerial (other than some simple set
top type aerial) worked better than any indoor DAB aerial.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Indeed not, but DAB has dreadful audio quality, so I'm very happy that I
never listen to DAB any more, because now I listen to higher quality
digital radio via Freeview, or broadband internet stations using MP3.
Also, just how many radio stations do you need? How many do you listen
to at any one time? It's channelspotters like you that have made DAB how
it is; bung full of lots of low audio quality stations.
And BTW, it's channelspotters like you that are giving the green light
to the broadcasters to actually lower the bit rates of the stations to
fit in yet more stations. The rumour is that the minimum bit rate for
stereo stations will be lowered to either 112kbps or even 96kbps.
How I actually will laugh my arse of, possibly rolling about on the
floor, when the minimum bit rate levels are reduced, and all the fools
that have supported DAB up to now start complaining about the poor audio
quality. And once I've got off the floor from laughing, I'll turn on my
trusty £80 Freeview receiver connected via digital audio output to my
Sony MD player, turn my amplifier on, sit back and think to myself: "the
stupid twats".
A.A. Gill said last week in the Sunday Times: "the public is a tasteless
fat moron". Have you been eating all the pies again?
oOoOoOo
> Tim Hall wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:20:39 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
>> <email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Jacob Thomas wrote:
>>>> I had a new TV aerial fitted for a freeview box. As this receives
>>>> digital radio, can I use the same aerial to connect to my Cambridge
>>>> Audio DAB 300 tuner which currently uses the supplied indoor aerial
>>>> - would reception be improved?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ignoring reception, are you aware that the audio quality of all the
>>> BBC stations is higher on Freeview than on DAB? This is because the
>>> bit rates used by the BBC stations on Freeview are higher than on
>>> DAB. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/index.htm#bit_rate_table
>>>
>>> So the best thing you can do is connect your Freeview box to your
>>> hi-fi system.
>>
>>
>> Fewer radio stations on Freeview though.
>
>
> Indeed not, but DAB has dreadful audio quality, so I'm very happy
> that I never listen to DAB any more, because now I listen to higher
> quality digital radio via Freeview, or broadband internet stations
> using MP3.
Sounds alright to me. OK I can tell the difference between DAB and DTT
but it doesn't bother me at all.
DAB sounds worse than FM
blah
Selective quoting doesn't make what you said true. I already said (in
the bit you omitted) that I can tell the difference.
The difference doesn't bother me.
David Robinson
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> > oOoOoOo wrote:
> >> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> >>
> >> Sounds alright to me.
> >
> > http://www.rnid.org.uk/
> > http://tinyurl.com/2w259
>
> Selective quoting doesn't make what you said true.
It makes his joke work better though.
> The difference doesn't bother me.
Ah, you see, that wouldn't make the joke work. Unless there are
websites promoting treatments which make people more critical and
discerning! ;-)
Cheers,
David.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Right, and would you like a prize?
Basically, who cares what you think? Just because the difference doesn't
bother *you*, doesn't mean jackshit about whether it bothers other
people.
Tim Hall
<email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote:
>Tim Hall wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:20:39 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
>> <email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Jacob Thomas wrote:
>>>> I had a new TV aerial fitted for a freeview box. As this receives
>>>> digital radio, can I use the same aerial to connect to my Cambridge
>>>> Audio DAB 300 tuner which currently uses the supplied indoor aerial
>>>> - would reception be improved?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ignoring reception, are you aware that the audio quality of all the
>>> BBC stations is higher on Freeview than on DAB? This is because the
>>> bit rates used by the BBC stations on Freeview are higher than on
>>> DAB. See:
>>>
>>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/index.htm#bit_rate_table
>>>
>>> So the best thing you can do is connect your Freeview box to your
>>> hi-fi system.
>>
>>
>> Fewer radio stations on Freeview though.
>
>
>Indeed not, but DAB has dreadful audio quality, so I'm very happy that I
>never listen to DAB any more, because now I listen to higher quality
>digital radio via Freeview, or broadband internet stations using MP3.
<snip>
Thank you for your informative and helpful response.
Nowhere did I comment on the quality of DAB versus DTT audio
broadcasts broadcasts. I was merely pointing out to the OP that if he
decided to go down the DTT route he'd not have such a wide choice of
radio stations, something that seemed to be lacking from your post.
Tim
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 00:40:05 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote:
>> Indeed not, but DAB has dreadful audio quality, so I'm very happy
>> that I never listen to DAB any more, because now I listen to higher
>> quality digital radio via Freeview, or broadband internet stations
>> using MP3.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Thank you for your informative and helpful response.
Glad to be of help.
Ricky
"DAB sounds worse than FM" said:
> >> So the best thing you can do is connect your Freeview box to your
> >> hi-fi system.
> Tim Hall wrote:
> > Fewer radio stations on Freeview though.
"DAB sounds worse than FM" replied:
> Indeed not, but DAB has dreadful audio quality, so I'm very happy that I
> never listen to DAB any more, because now I listen to higher quality
> digital radio via Freeview, or broadband internet stations using MP3.
>
> Also, just how many radio stations do you need? How many do you listen
> to at any one time? It's channelspotters like you that have made DAB how
> it is; bung full of lots of low audio quality stations.
Do you not get a bit bored making the same point over and over again?
How many radio stations do I need? Not many, but (except for the BBC
stations) Freeview has a crap selection of digital radio stations.
I am currently listening to 6Music through my Freeview box. I have
been known to listen to BBC7 through it too. But I've never listened
to the remaining selection of guff. When I had access to a DAB radio I
found myself listening to 6Music and Planet Rock in equal measure
(yes, I'm a sad old git who likes 70s music). That's only 2 channels,
but only one is available on Freeview. Choice of radio stations isn't
about how many radio stations I can get, its about getting the one or
two that I want.
And anyway, I do a lot of my radio listening in the car - nobody's
done an in-car Freeview box yet, so in-car DAB is the only way ahead.
Ric.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:<QhP2c.70815$6Z.48909@newsfe1-win>...
>
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" said:
>>>> So the best thing you can do is connect your Freeview box to your
>>>> hi-fi system.
>
>> Tim Hall wrote:
>>> Fewer radio stations on Freeview though.
>
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" replied:
>> Indeed not, but DAB has dreadful audio quality, so I'm very happy
>> that I
>> never listen to DAB any more, because now I listen to higher quality
>> digital radio via Freeview, or broadband internet stations using MP3.
>>
>> Also, just how many radio stations do you need? How many do you
>> listen
>> to at any one time? It's channelspotters like you that have made DAB
>> how
>> it is; bung full of lots of low audio quality stations.
>
> Do you not get a bit bored making the same point over and over again?
No Rickaaaaaaaay.
> How many radio stations do I need? Not many, but (except for the BBC
> stations) Freeview has a crap selection of digital radio stations.
So has DAB. If you're a channelspotter then you really need to get DSat.
> I am currently listening to 6Music through my Freeview box. I have
> been known to listen to BBC7 through it too. But I've never listened
> to the remaining selection of guff. When I had access to a DAB radio I
> found myself listening to 6Music and Planet Rock in equal measure
> (yes, I'm a sad old git who likes 70s music).
You said it...
> That's only 2 channels,
> but only one is available on Freeview. Choice of radio stations isn't
> about how many radio stations I can get, its about getting the one or
> two that I want.
Your insight to the situation is incredible. I really had never thought
of that shocking revelation.
There's the following options:
(1) If you want maximum choice of stations and the best audio quality
then go for digital satellite
(2) If you want better audio quality on the BBC stations and a fair
choice of commercial stations at the same audio quality as on DAB, then
go for Freeview (or cable)
(3) If you're okay with low audio quality then go for DAB
All of the above assumes that you already have FM, so local stations
aren't an issue, which should be the case in the vast majority of cases.
> And anyway, I do a lot of my radio listening in the car - nobody's
> done an in-car Freeview box yet,
You can get in-car DVB-T receivers actually, but they're new, probably
expensive at the moment, and would need 2 aerials on your car to get
decent reception, and you won't get nationwide coverage, but then, you
can't get that on DAB either.
> so in-car DAB is the only way ahead.
No it's not. And the new DVB-H spec has been completed other than the
licensing issues with the video codec:
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20040219S0037
Also, there'll be mobile broadband wireless access (MBWA) in a few
years:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/20/
Ricky
"DAB sounds worse than FM" replied:
> >> ...DAB has dreadful audio quality...
Ricky:
> > Do you not get a bit bored making the same point over and over again?
"DAB sounds worse than FM":
> No Rickaaaaaaaay.
Aaaah. Nostalgia. I haven't heard that one for a year or two. Come
back Patsy Palmer, all is forgiven...
> > And anyway, I do a lot of my radio listening in the car - nobody's
> > done an in-car Freeview box yet,
>
> You can get in-car DVB-T receivers actually, but they're new, probably
> expensive at the moment, and would need 2 aerials on your car to get
> decent reception, and you won't get nationwide coverage, but then, you
> can't get that on DAB either.
Oh well, nobody's done an affordable in car DVB-T receiver yet. In car
DAB costs about 150 quid in Argos...
And you can get DAB in all the places I go in my car on a regular
basis (central belt Scotland).
> > so in-car DAB is the only way ahead.
>
> No it's not. And the new DVB-H spec has been completed other than the
> licensing issues with the video codec:
>
> http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20040219S0037
>
> Also, there'll be mobile broadband wireless access (MBWA) in a few
> years:
>
> http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/20/
Thanks for the info, but for cost reasons in car DAB is the only
sensible option for me at the moment. I don't generally expect a piece
of consumer electronic equipment to last more than five years or so.
So I'll probably buy in car DAB now and replace it with whatever
better thing is available in the future - especially if the analogue
switch off occurs and broadcasters have much more bandwidth to waste.
Ric.