Agreed with regards to the dropped bit rates. DAB+ could have been executed way better but too many channels are 96 kbps. DAB without the + was simply terrible and implemented too early. Thankfully it is fully out-phased (unfortunately leaving frustrated customers that had non compliant tuners). Transmitters needed not te be changed, DAB+ acceptance is simply a question at the receiving side.
Let's say DAB+ itself is promising but implementation is not driven by better sound quality. For speech and news it is OK though. Not need for a rooftop aerial here. As a side note: I just bought a DVB-T2 tuner here as Germany started rolling out DVB-T2 last year. It seems commerce is driving development of more efficient compression techniques as it is HEVC/H265 they are using. I am curious about picture and sound quality. As usual with such developments many channels are clustered behind a pay wall. "Follow the money" as usual
Let's say DAB+ itself is promising but implementation is not driven by better sound quality. For speech and news it is OK though. Not need for a rooftop aerial here. As a side note: I just bought a DVB-T2 tuner here as Germany started rolling out DVB-T2 last year. It seems commerce is driving development of more efficient compression techniques as it is HEVC/H265 they are using. I am curious about picture and sound quality. As usual with such developments many channels are clustered behind a pay wall. "Follow the money" as usual
Last edited:
Same here in Aus.
That is the experience here, result of auction of expensive RF spectrum.
Even ABC Classical/Jazz runs lousy bitrate and associated lack of fidelity.
Same here, driven by politicians with exactly no technical knowledge.
I live in the far northern part of Perth, and the fitted standard telescopic antennas don't cut it for DAB, marginal for FM, AM is fine.
To this end I fitted a TV antenna socket to a DAB portable in order to take a listen.
The result was fully underwhelming, the digital compression artifacts just too apparent to ignore.
What kind of morons think everybody is going to listen tethered to a rooftop antenna, retards.
DAB did have promise, but turned out to be a govt cash cow selling spectrum licences, now radio is distinctly inferior to what is has been historically.
Dan.
That's the first time I ever knew DF96 say he prefered something as I might. Well done and I very much appreciate the criticisms you make. You never seem to be saying more than the facts as you see them, that's fine. I mostly push people to doubt. I would rather the science helped me. Often it doesn't and perhaps never will in my lifetime for some things. Bad sound is bad sound no matter what anyone's science says. I was told the science of hi fi is so as to be sure each production item is exactly the same as any other. After that it is a huge step to ask a casual observer to use that science. Unlike women us men often would allow that basic understanding to do the buying for us. Not me.
My experience is that most women buy on fashion, appearance (including the packaging), a good story, an attractive shop/website, a feeling that trendy people are doing the same; they often remain oblivious to the actual content (and fair price) of what they are buying. Men would never do this, especially when buying audio equipment!
Good production engineering ensures that every item meets the spec. Good sound engineering means that the spec is good enough for whatever market the item is aimed at. Good marketing means the market the item is aimed at is persuaded that the spec is good enough.
Good production engineering ensures that every item meets the spec. Good sound engineering means that the spec is good enough for whatever market the item is aimed at. Good marketing means the market the item is aimed at is persuaded that the spec is good enough.
How right is this observation ! "As others buy it I should buy it too". Exceptions confirm the rule, I sold an audiophile amplifier to a woman yesterday that uses it with normal loudspeakers for better TV sound
Not a fashionable (often mediocre sounding) "sound bar" in her house.
Last edited:
I am not a fan of DAB with its usually low bitrate, but in my area FM are almost useless.
in my home I have decent reception. and in the car, as long as its standing parked outside my house. 500M down the road, and no reception are possible. Basically the whole route from my home to my workplace (15km) are without FM reception and has been so for tens of years. and its not my gear that's the problem, every single one I have asked tell me the same tale. No reception in that area.
Just to clarify this is not completely out in no mans land. its actually about 30mins of driving (in legal speeds) from Lillehammer (The host city for the 94 winter Olympics)
in my home I have decent reception. and in the car, as long as its standing parked outside my house. 500M down the road, and no reception are possible. Basically the whole route from my home to my workplace (15km) are without FM reception and has been so for tens of years. and its not my gear that's the problem, every single one I have asked tell me the same tale. No reception in that area.
Just to clarify this is not completely out in no mans land. its actually about 30mins of driving (in legal speeds) from Lillehammer (The host city for the 94 winter Olympics)
The switch was not motivated by coverage. DAB runs at much higher frequencies than FM, and the transmitters have less range. There are large areas not covered by DAB, because they're too sparsely populated (mostly by recreational cabins).
The main reason for the change, is that DAB allows a shitload of stations compared to FM, although some of this is at a horribly poor sampling rate. And the rest at a merely poor sampling rate. The weather station NRK Vær runs at 16kbit/s (Not that this content need super hifi sound).
Before, we had 6 countrywide stations + a few local stations in each area.
On DAB there is currently 23 countrywide stations + local stations.
A lot of people are touting internet radio as an alternative. The bandwith costs for that would be massive - both on the sending and the receiving end.
While there are no landline ISPs in Norway that use metered access (that I'm aware of), almost every cellphone have metered data communications, with quotas. If you listen to radio all day, your quota will have to be increased. I have a 20Gb/month quota on my subscription, and in summer, that can be marginal at times, not even counting in net radio.
Johan-Kr
The main reason for the change, is that DAB allows a shitload of stations compared to FM, although some of this is at a horribly poor sampling rate. And the rest at a merely poor sampling rate. The weather station NRK Vær runs at 16kbit/s (Not that this content need super hifi sound).
Before, we had 6 countrywide stations + a few local stations in each area.
On DAB there is currently 23 countrywide stations + local stations.
A lot of people are touting internet radio as an alternative. The bandwith costs for that would be massive - both on the sending and the receiving end.
While there are no landline ISPs in Norway that use metered access (that I'm aware of), almost every cellphone have metered data communications, with quotas. If you listen to radio all day, your quota will have to be increased. I have a 20Gb/month quota on my subscription, and in summer, that can be marginal at times, not even counting in net radio.
Johan-Kr
I suspect to sell the bandwidth as when UK Band 1 and 3 from old 405 line TV were taken away ( FM is Band 2 ). Norway always had reception problems. Tandberg were able to make radios that suited better than imported receivers when they started. Maybe in Norway FM was not a totally sucessful system. Maybe the cost of total coverage too high. I won an award from Tandberg when less than 20 ( 40+ years ago ) so got to know them and their history ( UK importer was AC Farnell ). Tandberg TR220 ( ? ) with Dual idler drive turntable would be something I would love to own as a compact vinyl player. I redesigned the phono stage for optimum overload margin to suit the fitted Shure pick up of the TR220 if that's it''s number.
Still I would like to know if coverage has improved in areas where there was no FM reception for tens of years. It is fully understandable that no company wants to invest money in transmitting FM nor DAB+ in sparsely populated areas. But the change has been made, how is coverage of DAB+ now (despite all the technical drawbacks and all possible negative features of DAB+) in normal habitated areas ?
One of the original justifications for developing DAB is that it eliminates the multipath distortion suffered by FM in mountainous regions, so should give better sound. It is ironic that DAB now delivers worse sound quality than FM. Some DAB marketing still persists with the lie that it sounds better.
Honest DAB advertising would go something like:
"Bored with near hi-fi sound on the radio? Prefer short battery life? Like standing by the window to get good reception? Want to throw away all your old radios? Go with DAB - join the lemmings! You too can choose between 26 stations all playing the same pop music with the same syndicated news service every hour."
Honest DAB advertising would go something like:
"Bored with near hi-fi sound on the radio? Prefer short battery life? Like standing by the window to get good reception? Want to throw away all your old radios? Go with DAB - join the lemmings! You too can choose between 26 stations all playing the same pop music with the same syndicated news service every hour."
Yeah, complaining helps. The choice has been made anyway. Please think of the day when FM is switched off. You will have a power efficient very good reception ornament.
Content here in Germany is not bad I must say. Choices have been made here too. DAB+ and DVB-T2 as standards.
@ DF96: it is DAB+ and not the older DAB which is completely phased out.
Content here in Germany is not bad I must say. Choices have been made here too. DAB+ and DVB-T2 as standards.
@ DF96: it is DAB+ and not the older DAB which is completely phased out.
Last edited:
Well, I threw away a bunch of old radios the other day. I haven't had the heart to throw away this one or the Onkyo T4700, yet...
Johan-Kr
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Johan-Kr
The reasons here were claimed 'better quality' digital audio and more channels.
The result has been some stupid allocations of bit rate with FM premier sound quality channels parallel broadcasts at less than FM quality.
The real reason was auctioning off spectrum space for crazy high prices.
Reliable car radio reception with 50-80km radius is the norm around here, even better for the main national AM services.
Yup, nobody mentions how power hungry DAB+ portable radios really are.
I have lately been running streaming services versions of my usual radio programmes and find the flexibility to be very welcome.
Being able to post listen to a missed program is very useful, and being able to download and listen later is even better.
Dan.
"Yup, nobody mentions how power hungry DAB+ portable radios really are."
And that really baffles me. I think that one of the major advances in consumer electronics, back in the late 1950s/60s, was the advent of truly portable radios. When I was young, the family had a Beolit 609 FM (state-of-the-art portable at that time). It was used for all radio listening in good quality, any where you wanted to take it - no mains power connection, and just the telescopic aerial, and nobody even had to think about battery life - which was about 6-9 months (6xA-cell) as I remember. To lose that convenience and portability again after 50-60 years, and swap it for portable battery life that can be as little as 5-10 hours, seems like a major step backwards from a major advance. Can't understand why people (most of them not audiophiles) don't seem to be upset about it. Myself, I get very worked up about this!
And that really baffles me. I think that one of the major advances in consumer electronics, back in the late 1950s/60s, was the advent of truly portable radios. When I was young, the family had a Beolit 609 FM (state-of-the-art portable at that time). It was used for all radio listening in good quality, any where you wanted to take it - no mains power connection, and just the telescopic aerial, and nobody even had to think about battery life - which was about 6-9 months (6xA-cell) as I remember. To lose that convenience and portability again after 50-60 years, and swap it for portable battery life that can be as little as 5-10 hours, seems like a major step backwards from a major advance. Can't understand why people (most of them not audiophiles) don't seem to be upset about it. Myself, I get very worked up about this!
Last edited:
Accept the fact and choose either a portable radio with Li-ion battery or don't use a portable DAB+ device at all to avoid annoyance. Let's hope newer chipsets are less power hungry. We can get angry but it won't solve anything*. Maybe addressing to manufacturers of those chipsets would be more efficient ?!
*Same with smart phones. My Nokia 6310i would have a 10 day battery life when used regularly. My current phones battery is way more powerful but it is depleted in a day. Choice for micro USB connectors at phones that need to be charged so darn often is a disgrace and probably an idea of an autistic engineer. Recently had to replace a defective one of a Samsung smart phone only to discover this specific phone was glued together !!! I needed to heat it up and cut it. Who in earth designs devices like this ?! I can get worked up but I choose to buy an iPhone with a better connector.
*Same with smart phones. My Nokia 6310i would have a 10 day battery life when used regularly. My current phones battery is way more powerful but it is depleted in a day. Choice for micro USB connectors at phones that need to be charged so darn often is a disgrace and probably an idea of an autistic engineer. Recently had to replace a defective one of a Samsung smart phone only to discover this specific phone was glued together !!! I needed to heat it up and cut it. Who in earth designs devices like this ?! I can get worked up but I choose to buy an iPhone with a better connector.
Last edited:
Well, we can get angry, and if people refuse to buy DAB radios, or having unknowingly bought them refuse to use them, then somebody might just get upset enough about that to halt the FM switch-off. That has happened already in the UK, where the switch-off has been cancelled a number of times, so consumer resistance can have an effect.
As for having a go at chip manufacturers, as DF96 pointed out there's not a lot they can do in the imaginable future given the basic nature of digital technology, and its processing/power requirements.
I suspect that a reason for the public apathy is that many have bought a DAB set, and then just shoved it in a cupboard when they realise that for portability they will need to provide a new set of batteries for it every day (and some DAB sets I've seen don't even have a mains power option). They then just continue to use their old FM sets, not realising that it's planned that they will eventually stop working.
As for having a go at chip manufacturers, as DF96 pointed out there's not a lot they can do in the imaginable future given the basic nature of digital technology, and its processing/power requirements.
I suspect that a reason for the public apathy is that many have bought a DAB set, and then just shoved it in a cupboard when they realise that for portability they will need to provide a new set of batteries for it every day (and some DAB sets I've seen don't even have a mains power option). They then just continue to use their old FM sets, not realising that it's planned that they will eventually stop working.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.