Help with TV/radio stations?
In this section
Monday, 1 August 2011
S
Steve P11:38 AM
"nearly as good as FM. One day DAB receivers will be affordable and with planet and wallet friendly low battery-drain; with nationwide DAB coverage all will be well."
Nearly.
| link to this comment |
You might find this a useful read - Lies, statistics, and anti-DAB campaigners - James Cridland .
| link to this comment |
Alvin Pritchard: The thinking process behind that last Digital Economy Act considered DAB+ and rejected using it in the UK due to the number of existing equipment that would be unable to receive transmissions using the more modern codec.
| link to this comment |
S
Steve P7:36 PM
Brian - you say "considered DAB+ and rejected using it in the UK due to the number of existing equipment that would be unable to receive transmissions using the more modern codec."
Why do they not take the same view to existing FM equipment?
You Mr Cridland interestingly thinks that FM receivers integrated into other kit do not matter. To my mind they matter a very great deal BECAUSE they make the other kit obsolete. (see below)
NB I am in no way hostile to Digital Radio. Just to ceasing FM.
In fact, Ofcom calls them radio devices', for a very good reason: they're not all primarily bought as radios. They're quoting GFK figures, who define these radio devices (fig 7) as portable radios, personal media players, car audio systems, home audio systems, clock radios, radio recorders, headphone stereos, tuners and receivers. It's difficult to argue that the primary purpose of an iPod Nano, which has an FM radio in it, is as a radio: or, for that matter, a car. Radio's ubiquity in new devices means that you see a lot of devices having radio inside.
| link to this comment |
S
Steve P7:40 PM
PS The wuoted 1.9 FM recievers per household in regular use - I find incredible.
We have one per room, ALL in regular use except the spare bedroom. Plus a garage/shed radio and one per car.
PLUS iPods etc.
So we're about a dozen - that can't be very unusual, making 1.9 impossible to credit.
| link to this comment |
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Steve P: The Digital Economic Act process considered FM and found it ... analogue. The radio broadcasters do not wish to pay for both an analogue and digital transmission system. Parliament decided that FM would be for community radio only (and also "white space broadband") and DAB for radio.
| link to this comment |
Steve P: One of the most common errors people make is to assume that everyone else does what you do.
Thus the popular phrase: "assume" = make an ASS out out yoU and ME.
| link to this comment |
M
michael10:05 AM
Extension of available spectrum and DAB+ would have made the Act more worthy. The push for indoor and in-vehicle coverage will help, but for public acceptance, cost of receivers, battery-efficiency and audio quality are also important. If they had the choice, some music broadcasters might prefer to stay with FM quality and relinquish DAB. Bitrate limitations may indirectly increase sales of higher-quality CDs and downloads - a thought that will not have occured to anyone...
| link to this comment |
Michael: it is probably worth noting that the "rights holders" are the ones most pushing for the lower bitrates, for just the reason you specified.
| link to this comment |
S
Steve P11:58 AM
Brian - I don't assume that every household is like us, but if one in 6 is, the average of 1.9 is too low even if 5 in 6 use no radio at all.
How many do you use?
| link to this comment |
Select more comments
Your comment please