Help with TV/radio stations?
In this section
Thursday, 26 July 2012
S
Stephen P9:36 PM
But why on earth should we adopt this inferior technology?
Di di di dah - heard it before!
| link to this comment |
Friday, 27 July 2012
M
Mark1:33 PM
@ michael
The BBC, the Government and commercial radio have agreed to jointly fund the rollout of local DAB multiplexes to FM coverage levels. It won't be left to the commercial operator to decide on the level of coverage.
The rechargeable battery packs for Pure radios cost £20 (you might find them cheaper online). That isn't "very expensive" considering how many hours listening you get from them. One set of batteries can cost up to £10 these days.
| link to this comment |
Saturday, 28 July 2012
S
Stephen P1:25 AM
"The BBC, the Government and commercial radio have agreed to jointly fund the rollout of local DAB multiplexes to FM coverage levels. It won't be left to the commercial operator to decide on the level of coverage."
And will "The BBC, the Government and commercial radio" be jointly funding the rollout of DAB to the 15 FM receivers I have integrated into various other bits of equipment; and replacing all of those?
"The rechargeable battery packs for Pure radios cost £20 (you might find them cheaper online)."
For £20 I can buy a FM radio and a decade's batteries.
| link to this comment |
M
michael10:32 AM
What will public reaction be when it is fully realised that all AM/FM radios will have very limited use and need replacing by more expensive, less portable DAB radios? In order for coverage to equal FM, thousands of DAB relays would be needed. Increased costs both for listeners and for operators are unavoidable, so operators will shut down as many AM and FM transmitters and build as few DAB relays as they dare. In many areas with DAB now, coverage, audio quality and reception are inferior to FM or AM. For listeners, low cost and portability are prime criteria. The transition to DTV was different inasmuch as television is mostly static. Also, the mostly improved picture quality and significant number of new services available made the outlay for set-top boxes acceptable. The BBC Audience Councils are monitoring public sentiment. Disaffection with DAB thus far is giving rise to concern. This will inform further planning and implementation. The public debate will continue, including our contributions!
| link to this comment |
B
Betamax_man6:33 PM
"Also, the mostly improved picture quality..."
Do you really think so?
As with DAB we are forced to have reducing bit rates to squeeze more channels/stations into a given mux - Digital TV: poorer picture quality, DAB: poorer audio quality. IMHO we should demand quality over quantity.
Virgin Radio used to be 160kbs and now Absolute is only 112kbs.
The main advantage DAB has, and the reason I have adopted it, is Planet Rock and Real XS. I could not stand the dross most of the independents play, over and over again.
| link to this comment |
S
Stephen P7:51 PM
The main advantage DAB has, and the reason I have adopted it, is Planet Rock and Real XS.
So If I have no idea what they are I don't benefit from DAB ?
| link to this comment |
M
michael 9:29 PM
Bitrates sure are an issue. DAB+ would help, but that is politically untenable now. Stable doors etc. DTV bitrates are likewise not optimal, but post DSO, most viewers do get "better and more pictures" than before on vulnerable analog. (Please note: I say this on behalf of the majority, although locally we are cursed with daily CCI from another DTV transmitter, in which OFFcom etc show no serious interest.) Of course, I would love to have the shopping channels in HD, nay 3D, as do residents of Planet Zog... The divine market will decide whether there is demand for a Stravinsky or Crudthump DAB channel. There is, sadly, little merit in perusing what might have been (my defunct hobby-horse: 150KHz-240MHz DRM). Government, BBC, Ofcom et al need reasoned input as to how to dig ourselves out of the hole of despond: what imperfect combination of AM/FM/DAB is most viable to ensure a bright future for radio? Maybe Danny Boyle could help...
| link to this comment |
Sunday, 29 July 2012
M
Mark11:22 AM
@ michael
"In order for coverage to equal FM, thousands of DAB relays would be needed."
From the BBC/Ofcom's own figures:
404 transmitters are needed for about 98% coverage of the BBC national multiplex (230 are already built, with 174 to be built by 2015).
699 transmitters are needed on the local multiplexes for FM equivalent coverage. This is covered by the signed Memorandum of Understanding and will be built by 2017.
Many of the sites used for local & national will be the same.
(94.9% of the population have robust coverage of BBC Radios 1,2 3 & 4. The FM coverage of Radio Cymru, Radio Scotland & Radio Ulster in those nations is similar).
| link to this comment |
M
michael10:06 PM
Make that 700 and just maybe we, too, will one day get a DAB relay with local BBC radio. Since we don't get a reliable local BBC FM signal, equal DAB coverage inspires little. Thus far I have seen no plans that would give us hope. And we are not alone. A "memorandum of understanding" is not a binding contract, more "it would be nice if...". I do hope my scepticism will be utterly confounded.
| link to this comment |
T
The Mekon10:27 PM
I'm in Haddington, E.Lothian (EH41). At the moment our DAB coverage is the BBC multiplex only. It's good as far as it goes but do the gods who decide such things have any plans to extend coverage to here and many other places the commercial stations also? Until they do there is no way that digital radio can ever replace FM and AM.
| link to this comment |
Select more comments
Your comment please