All posts by Michael Rogers
Below are all of Michael Rogers's postings, with the most recent are at the bottom of the page.
The all-wise planners, hmmm, are too far down the road to do a U-turn now. DAB is here to stay. Although superior, DAB+, DRM and DRM+ will not be feasible for years to come as there are too many DAB-only receivers in use, which would become redundant. The audio-quality and spectrum limitations on DAB rob it of convincing superiority over FM. DAB take-up is still unconvincing. I hope FM will remain alongside DAB - complemented by residual AM in areas where FM and DAB coverage is not viable. An optimal mix would minimise duplication costs and offer an acceptable compromise to the vast majority.
| link to this comment |
" I had hoped there would have been a channel for foreign language films and programmes. We see fewer films of this type than we ever showed before." MikeB
Demand is low in the UK, which is reflected in the low incidence of foreign language films. The solution is simple : satellite. This also offers a wider range of English-language output, especially current affairs.
I imagine most of us would agree that there has been a dumbing down of programme quality and content over the years - not to mention TV repeats. Much commerical output on FM and DAB is "sound-alike". This may in part reflect ownership. Where demand wanes, advertisers will wander. I respect the taste and preferences of others - and would regret "consolidation".
| link to this comment |
Trev : Welcome to the thread! You make valid points. DAB is here to stay. Too much has been invested to change it or replace it by DAB+ or DRM. Not to mention face-saving... As you say, FM offers better audio quality because too many sound-alike music stations at low bit rates clog up the limited DAB spectrum. To win over FM aficionados, DAB would need to be on significantly higher bit-rates and in stereo and with many more relays to make incar and in-house reception audibly significantly better than FM now. Technically this could be implemented, but....
| link to this comment |
Mark, you reiterate what has been discussed at length in this thread. DAB+ would indeed be better, but will not be feasible for many years to come. Listeners who have bought relatively expensive DAB radios would not be amused to have to dump them and buy replacement DAB+ radios. If that were "enforced", many would give up on DAB/+ and revert to FM. The government has delayed the original 2015 FM-to-DAB transition due to sluggish take-up and broadcasters' lack of commercial conviction. Most listen to radio on an indoor portable or incar and are more interested in stable reception of a signal of reasonable quality than in true hifi and stereo. Those who want hifi will have a static woofer-tweeter stereo system and will choose FM or FreeSat or high bit-rate satellite broadcasts; they might be interested in DAB+. But they are a minority with very limited commerecial momentum. Government and commerce have manouevered themselves into a corner with limited options. The best would be a compromise with broadcasts split between FM and DAB, avoiding costly duplication where possible. AM would need to be retained for areas too costly to cover with FM or DAB.
As TV is essentially static and picture quality is highly valued, gradual transition to HD will probably evolve. 3D has all but failed. 4K has the appeal of "super HD", but many might well be satisfied with HD, so 4K take-up might not establish itself until the present generation of flatscreen sets needs replacing.
The most serious problem remains the mushrooming plethora of choice which has funding implications for the affordability of high-quality programmes...
| link to this comment |
JPW : Your understanding is in line with what has been published. You are fortunate to be in an area with good DAB coverage. It is indeed intended that FM will be used by local and community stations. There is, however, a lack of clarity over local BBC radio, which for technical and legal reasons has to be on a commercial DAB multiplex. If commercial operators consider advertising in a given reception area to be commercially unviable, there would be no multiplex and no local BBC. For this reason agreement has been reached to share the cost three ways. The extent to which this will be ultimately rolled out remains, however, uncertain. The coverage maps for my area "confirm" existing DAB coverage, including the commercial multiplex carrying local BBC. The powers that be would maintain that targets have already been met. De facto, however, the higher frequency DAB signal does not extend as far as FM or AM and does not match the optimistic Ofcom DAB coverage maps. My hope is, as stated in previous posts, that a compromise will ensue with minimal duplication of services, with FM and AM retained where needed for full coverage by national and regional services of more remote and low population-density areas. Related concerns arise over broadband. The national average for BT is around 14Mb/s. I get one twentieth of this on a phone line susceptible to line-breaks on windy days. Some of us are less equal than others :-)
| link to this comment |
Mark, how I wish the evidence of as-now DTT and DAB implementation supported your convictions. Here we were duped by DTT promises and de-facto "sorry we can't help with your reception problems" outcomes. Pre-DTT coverage has still not been met post-DSO. I am very versant with the Dept of Culture, Ofcom and other websites, which do not indicate any futher extension of DAB coverage. Current AM radio continues to exist only because FM does not provide full coverage. Propagation at DAB frequencies cannot even equate to FM. Stated 90% DAB coverage would in reality be substantially less than current combined FM and AM coverage. This applies equally in many other remote and less-populated areas of the UK. The legally binding conditions for DAB are stated to already meet FM coverage here , which they do not. Either an expensive plethora of unpublished DAB transmitters or continued AM would be essential in many low-lying areas. Unless *real* propagation data inform planning , "plebs and peasants" in remote and low-lying areas stand to be ignored and fobbed-off with pretend coverage data. I re-iterate : I am pro-DAB. The obvious solution would, as previously stated, be DAB for the vast majority, with FM and AM filler coverage where DAB does not penetrate, all designed to minimise duplication. Vacated FM and AM spectrum would be available for local, community and commercial operators.
| link to this comment |
Robbie : A 60cm dish with any standard satellite receiver will receive many Italian channels from Hotbird at 13°E, but not all and some programmes will be blanked out. A registered tivu box is necessary to receive all the main channels all of the time. See previous postings in this thread. I am not familiar with the Cisco box, but a cable receiver would not be suitable.
| link to this comment |
A typical BBC con. The children's channels are the same as BBC3 and BBC4, switching between daytime and evening. The benefit of
wonky news feed definition in HD is dubious. Better would have been an additional HD channel offering programmes worthy of HD definition. Oh, and re-training of presenters in correct English usage....BUT we are all greatly comforted to know that our licence fee serves to enhance top-echelon salaries, pay-offs, pensions and benefits in view of these astounding "upgrades"...
| link to this comment |
Does that mean that Radio Scotland will only be available on commercial DAB multiplexes? I would have assumed that it would be on a main Scotland-wide multiplex, akin to Radio Wales and Radio Cymru.
I guess I might well qualify as "the wrong sort of listener" as I have the expectation that BBC local radio will, as now on AM/FM, be available on a domestic portable DAB radio when, as planned, the current AM/FM service is discontinued. Currently local DAB does not wiggle its way into our low-lying topography and there are, as yet, no published plans for a local commercial multiplex which would carry BBC local radio. There must be similar situations elsewhere, so I hope the planners will find a viable compromise allowing full coverage to continue - with FM / AM retained where necessary.
| link to this comment |
Friday 1 November 2013 8:47PM
The difference in audio quality of DAB versus FM is most noticeable on a pukka tweeter-woofer hi-fi system or on quality headphones. The cunning deciders reckon that most are listening to a plastic DAB cheapo and will not notice bitrates and fake stereo. There is logic in their thinking. Most of us do listen on a portable radio with dubious
audio quality on a smallish speaker in a sub-Bose cabinet. When
DAB radios become battery-friendly and DAB coverage includes the innnermost rooms of our domestic mansions, we may have to start looking elsewhere for a focus for our niggles. Quality of programme content perhaps ? The present state-of-play gives me one valued additional station on DAB. Music of choice is available via multimedia. Whenif AM and FM are garotted, I will lose more desirable stations that I will have gained, especially local radio and more distant stations. Should broadband ever merit the term in this and other more remote locations, I will have the incomparably wider choice of webradio via a laptop or wifi slate-thingy. At present it is frequently punctuated by meditation-soliciting silent two-minute breaks when the connection drops or reboots. The occasional snap-crackle-pop of AM or the swish-swish of FM only last a second or less. Isn't progress lovely !