All posts by MikeB
Below are all of MikeB's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
Anthony: DRM sounds interesting, but I then googled DRM receivers - and then found out there really weren't any!
Frankly, it's a big ask of people to buy a DAB plus radio when they already have a DAB one, (and many argue that since they have a FM/MW or even LW set, why buy a new one at all) although you could argue that if DAB plus is to become a standard feature on all new DAB radios, then eventually older models will be flushed through and DAB plus will be in the majority. But I can buy a DAB plus set in most stores.
If I google for a DRM set (and since it needs a new chip, I can't use existing kit), out of the first page I get a number of sites about DRM, but when actual sets are mentioned, they are both discontinued, and there is a review saying 'a waste of money, do not buy!' Its not encouraging me to chose DRM....
With the rise of the net and DAB, is this a technology that is really needed? If the mainstream brands haven't bothered, do they know something which DRM supporters cannot see?
| link to this comment |
Chris Rankin: ' the problem seems to be a sudden and catastrophic drop in signal quality from the Crystal Palace transmitter.' - according to R & T Investigation, there are no problems.
| link to this comment |
Charles Stuart: Looking at the LW Wiki, it seems that those US transmitters have long gone, and the Russians have followed suite. Longwave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As for Classic FM have a more 'highbrow' station - I suspect that they know where their market is! They would probably argue that thats what Radio 3 is for... If you look on the net, there are a huge number of very good 'highbrow' classical stations - start here: Classical Music Radio Stations - Commercial free classical streaming live
online radio stations
Stan: After reading about LW, I thought about the various arguments in favour of its retention - but ultimately none of them really pass muster. Its perfectly true that some people still use LW, but even if there are still 90,000 listeners (and that figure seems to be some years old, so if anyone has some up-to-date figures, it would be interesting to know what they are), Radio 4 has some 11m listeners, which means that less than 1% of its audience listens on LW.
Could they get new valves or update entirely to new technology? Yes. Is it worth it for such a tiny audience? Not really. I suspect that the BBC though that the LW audience would expire just before the equipment did. Its cost for updating the system will certainly not be 'next to nothing'.
LW might be a perfect emergency system, but since most people (as you point out) dont have a LW radio any longer, or if they do, dont use it (I had to check today as to whether my car's radio had LW - it did, but since I've had the car for two years, it shows how much use I've made of LW). Which raises the interesting point - how would we know how to listen to LW, if we dont use LW?
The idea of deep sea fisherman relying on LW for information sounds strange, when you consider that they must have GPS, VHF, sonar and probably satellite-based systems for weather updates, etc. Even the average weekend sailor has access to a fairly high standard of electronic kit, including Winlink, etc. Its nice to have LW as a backup, but how many actually use it? As for the idea that without LW, a nuclear sub might think Britain has been attacked ....
I agree with your thoughts about the expats...I actually resisted adding that though in my original comment!
Digital listening http://stakeholders.ofcom….pdf is increasing year on year and in all age groups, although most strongly amoungst younger listeners. However, apart from the 64-75, and 75 plus age groups, its already over 50% of listeners (and last year was 46% in the 64-75 range). Thats only going to grow. And once again, this is a zero sum game - if you listening on a digital platform, your not listening to an analogue station. DAB's loss is not LW's gain.
'Pragmatism and cost factors will doubtless reign' - it could be argued that perhaps it should do more often!
| link to this comment |
Stan:
' Excuse me, but 90000 licence fees amount to over £13million. The annual cost of keeping the 198kHz on the air is around £9million (an estimated figure, and one that is probably vastly exaggerated because it comes from a report advocating the shutdown of the service). '
I couldn't find out how up to date that '90,000' figure is (and if that number is just in the UK, includes expats, or how many are actually are licence fee payers), but £9m does not sound excessive (and why should they be wrong?) . Even assuming there are still 90,000 listeners (who all stump up for the licence fee), that means that transmitting the service costs £100 a head! Not for content - just for transmission. And whats on LW that you cant get elsewhere? 'The Daily Service' for 15min each weekday, 'Yesterday in Parliament' for 30min six days a week, and Test Match Special. So 4 and a half hours a week, plus cricket when its on. For a hundred quid a head.
I have no objection to LW being used as an emergency channel (although how many people would be able to use it, or even know about it is another matter - and why would we need such an emergency service - is there something that Norwich is aware of that the rest of us in East Anglia are not?)), but if Economy 7 customers wish to use it as a timer, then its not unreasonable to ask them to pay for it.
Its true that figure 3.49 does not assume that listeners only use digital (but are using it at least some of the time monthly), but the trend is clear from looking at figure 3.48.
Look at Rajar's latest figures. 'Listening to radio via a digital platform in terms of
weekly reach* has increased by 10% year on year , with 27.7 million people now tuning in to radio via a digitally enabled receiver (DAB, DTV, Online) each week (up from 25.2 million in Q4, 2012).' The share of digital listening is now 36.1%, up 9% in a year, and DAB listening is up 10% year on year (and people are listening more). Commercial digital listeningfor national stations is at 57%, and the BBC is at 35%. Considering the low number of DAB radio's in cars, thats a lot of listeners. The number of non digital radios being sold is dropping, while DAB remians constant.
The data shows a clear trend, and this chap is reading it Digital Radio | Matt Deegan Writes - and he pointed out one vital fact.
'radio has a 90.8% reach in the UK.....In home, radio has a 76.3% reach. That means 76.3% of the UK population listen to the radio, in some form, at home in an average week.
I thought I'd then look at Total Analogue' and Total Digital' reach...The result is that analogue radio (AM and FM) only has a 51.7% reach in homes.'
His killer fact? 'So only half the country, in radio's most-popular location, during an average week, listen to ANYTHING on AM or FM.' Ouch!
He points out 'As a station owner I will go where the ears are, on platforms I can get access to or can afford. DAB, Internet, DTV, whatever reaches the most people in the most cost-effective way, my stations will be there.' FM is still there, but getting a smaller share as time goes on, as his chart shows.
I have nothing against analogue at all, and its still very popular. However, the trend is clear, and the market can see it.
| link to this comment |
Stan: There is no doubt that analogue radio will continue - as you say, its relatively cheap and robust. LW is gradually losing listeners throughout the world, but seems to survive in areas like North Africa, where a transmitter with a long reach which can be picked up by relatively cheap equipment makes sense. In the development world, the phrase 'appropriate technology' has been used for a long time, and broadcasting is little different.
However, technology does move on, and even well tried systems get left behind. In the UK, DAB and digital broadcasting in general is gaining ground, but its the public which will ultimately decide. Often, how a technology develops has little to do with quality, and often surprisingly little to do with price (IPads still sell in huge numbers, despite their relatively high cost). Its about costs, usability, availability and whether it 'clicks'. I'd like as many choices as possible, but it does seem we now live in a digital world. That Sony does look nice though, and I agree, the Evoke 2 is a very nice bit of kit (the wood surround really helps with the tone).
| link to this comment |
Stan: TV's having the capacity to listen to radio is nothing new. Back in the late 1970's I remember visiting my grandmothers familiy in a mining village in South Wales - because of the mountains, they had a central aerial for the village, and in order to listen to the radio, you used the TV (it seems very odd at the time..). My Philips CRT has the capacity to listen to FM. The simple reason why listening via your TV is not very popular is simply because most people have one TV, and its in the lounge. Which is pretty useless if you want to listen to the radio while washing up...
As for energy consumption, I can think of pretty much nobody who even thinks of such of such a thing when deciding when to use their TV. In fact Brianists figures are for LCD TV's - a Sony 32in LED offically uses 54Kw per year (4 hours per day for 365 days - 36w per hour?) - so much less than an LCD. And of course most radios are plugged in at the mains (Pure's actually dont use batteries any longer - you buy a power pack which recharges when you plug it in the mains).
'IPads and other new-fangled technologies is due to them being very "trendy" at the moment' - actually tablets are hugely popular, and very useful (80% of the things most people do on their laptop can be done on a tablet - and they are very easy to use). In fact one of the things I do with my Ipod touch is to read this site, make comments, and listen to pretty much any radio station in the world!
And to put into context the cost of a tablet, while I couldn't find the original cost of the Sony radio you have , I notice that back in 1976, you could get a Pye radio relatively similar in spec for £49.50 Vintage British Argos 1976 Catalogue | Flickr - Photo Sharing! . Thats around £310 today! Basically the cost of a 16GB Retina Ipad or Galaxy Note.
| link to this comment |
Stan: The Sony was a good find, although people put things in skips for all sorts of reasons. Of course the main reason the radio sounds so good is its apparently very high quality 5w speaker - comparing it with a Pure Evoke 1S on FM would be interesting (my Pure Flow is just 2.5w).
As for up-to-date equipment, check out how much any B & O equipment goes for on ebay - vintage/retro is in. And expensive!
| link to this comment |
Sam: You didn't actually give us any information to work with, and the swearing/exclamation marks really didn't help..
OK - we really need a postcode, which you can enter very easily when you next post. Once we have that we have a location, which means we can see where your nearest transmitter is, etc. Also details of your aerial (indoor, on roof, etc) and what transmitter your tuned to.
However, you said your in Oswestry, so putting in the Guildhall's postcode into the Digital UK website (all this info will come up automatically if you supply your postcode to the site), the Wrekin is 40km away, while Sutton Coldfield is 87km. However, they are in a very similar direction, and the Wrekin is indicated as not being great for you. It could be that you've picked up Coldfield instead. However, since Wrekin is channel 26, its the first to normally be picked up.
You could have local interference, or you could have too high a signal, which is overloading the tuner. Check your signal strength - is it 100% or lower, and what transmitter are you on? Also, we need more than 'picture is funny' - is its breaking up and going blocky?
| link to this comment |
Sam: WY11 really isn't enough (trust me, none of us are out to find exactly where you live), and if you put your postcode at the top right hand corner of the page (or use my location when you ask a question), it will give you a lot of info.
However, if your getting 100% signal strength, its really too high (if you have a booster, etc, try to bypass it), and look here Freeview signals: too much of a good thing is bad for you | Digital switchover | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice .
Just because your 40km from the transmitter, it doesn't mean your not going to get too strong a signal. Why ITV should be doing this, goodness knows, but its worth checking on your TV that you are tuned into the Wrekin transmitter.
The other thing to think about is interference - see here: Freeview intermittent interference | Freeview Interference | ukfree.tv - 11 years of independent, free digital TV advice
| link to this comment |
Tuesday 22 April 2014 10:53AM
Mona McNee: There is a certain irony that this last post (spam) was about literacy...