I'm sure most Uk residents have heard by now about the governments plans to switch over completely to digital radio within the next 4 years and completely turn off the analogue transmitters.
Now I have no problem at all with digital radio, but right now there are I estimate at least 80 million FM and AM radio recievers in the UK, including the ones built into expensive hifis and into cars, and I think it is a hugely shortsighted government which seeks to make every single one of these unnecessarily obsolete in four years time.
For all the good it will (read: probably won't) do, there is an official petition on the government website:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
Please sign this if you live in the UK!!
Now I have no problem at all with digital radio, but right now there are I estimate at least 80 million FM and AM radio recievers in the UK, including the ones built into expensive hifis and into cars, and I think it is a hugely shortsighted government which seeks to make every single one of these unnecessarily obsolete in four years time.
For all the good it will (read: probably won't) do, there is an official petition on the government website:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
Please sign this if you live in the UK!!
I'm not saying that digital radio is a bad thing. I like both digital radio and T.V the quality improvements are noticeable and a good thing.
My problem is that when the FM radio stops transmitting it makes all these FM radios instantly obsolete for no good reason. Afterall you can make a TV recieve digital by plugging in an extra decoder box, but a radio simply no longer works.
At the moment we have analogue and digital broadcasts side by side, and I can see no hugely pressing reason not to continue this way for the time being. The costs element of continuing to run the analogue transmitters cannot surely musch increase the overheads of running the digital system in place now.
It simply feels like the UK government is rushing ahead trying to force everyone to switch to the wonderful new digital transmission age when there is really no need, and are ending up throwing out a perfectly good system and inconveniencing a lot of people, when they have to replace all the current radios in their house - and more expensive their car! - purely because of bureaucracy.
My problem is that when the FM radio stops transmitting it makes all these FM radios instantly obsolete for no good reason. Afterall you can make a TV recieve digital by plugging in an extra decoder box, but a radio simply no longer works.
At the moment we have analogue and digital broadcasts side by side, and I can see no hugely pressing reason not to continue this way for the time being. The costs element of continuing to run the analogue transmitters cannot surely musch increase the overheads of running the digital system in place now.
It simply feels like the UK government is rushing ahead trying to force everyone to switch to the wonderful new digital transmission age when there is really no need, and are ending up throwing out a perfectly good system and inconveniencing a lot of people, when they have to replace all the current radios in their house - and more expensive their car! - purely because of bureaucracy.
When CDs came out, nobody said you CANNOT make vinyl records after a certain date. As cell phones take over, no one has said you CANNOT have a land line phone. Etc. There was and is a market in the USA for the good old analog TV. But the lobby was there to convince the government to sell off the bandwidth and yank it out from under us.
Locally we have a channel 6 TV station. ANywhere that had a channel 6, one could listen to the sound signal on an FM radio, it was down at 87.7 on the low end of the dial.
I used to listen to the TV news driving to and from work. 6AM and 6PM. They took that from me. I could also listen to football games in season.
Here in the shop, we have a little TV in the break room. We can't afford cable. We didn;t qualify for a "coupon." (We are not someone's home) We also didn;t have the budget for a new TV ($159 and up) And a converter cost money too. Inside the metal building, analog reception was weak, but good enough for us. Digital is all or nothing, you cannot watch a weak digital signal, you get a blue screen instead. SO we are not sure we'd even see anything anyway.
So we no longer have TV at work.
I was in my local Sears store geting tires a couple days ago, they have an antenna TV in the waiting room. I discovered the local channels all have multiple signals. For example Ch47.1, 47.2, etc. FOr every one of our local half dozen stations, the extra program channels were either the exact same thing or they were blank.
SO digital TV? Thanks for nothing.
Just like Video tape, land line phones, and so on, the market will take care of itself. We don;t need to mandate that you CANNOT use an existing technology.
Locally we have a channel 6 TV station. ANywhere that had a channel 6, one could listen to the sound signal on an FM radio, it was down at 87.7 on the low end of the dial.
I used to listen to the TV news driving to and from work. 6AM and 6PM. They took that from me. I could also listen to football games in season.
Here in the shop, we have a little TV in the break room. We can't afford cable. We didn;t qualify for a "coupon." (We are not someone's home) We also didn;t have the budget for a new TV ($159 and up) And a converter cost money too. Inside the metal building, analog reception was weak, but good enough for us. Digital is all or nothing, you cannot watch a weak digital signal, you get a blue screen instead. SO we are not sure we'd even see anything anyway.
So we no longer have TV at work.
I was in my local Sears store geting tires a couple days ago, they have an antenna TV in the waiting room. I discovered the local channels all have multiple signals. For example Ch47.1, 47.2, etc. FOr every one of our local half dozen stations, the extra program channels were either the exact same thing or they were blank.
SO digital TV? Thanks for nothing.
Just like Video tape, land line phones, and so on, the market will take care of itself. We don;t need to mandate that you CANNOT use an existing technology.
This is an interesting view on this subject.
http://community.whathifi.com/blogs...5-a-silence-falls-across-digital-britain.aspx
http://community.whathifi.com/blogs...5-a-silence-falls-across-digital-britain.aspx
The real reason that the governments are trying to switch things over to digital is with digital you can fit more channels into a bandwidth. With this option, the various bands become more valuable. And guess who sells the rights to the various frequency bands in a country?
In regards to the switch to digital giving more high quality channels, it might be good to define quality in context. The picture and audio may be better, but beyond that quality is debatable!
Peace,
Dave
In regards to the switch to digital giving more high quality channels, it might be good to define quality in context. The picture and audio may be better, but beyond that quality is debatable!
Peace,
Dave
My TV reception can only be by Digital signal. The Analogue has already been switched off.dave_gerecke said:
During the dual transmission phase of changeover, I was able to compare picture quality. The Analogue was definitely better.
Now that I cannot directly compare I rue the day we lost Analogue, each time I see the Digital artefacts ruining a noise free picture.
Watch faces in particular. They distort noticeably.
Is this our human evolution picking up subtle facial features being especially sensitive to expression etc?
Then there are drop outs and/or pixelisation rather than Analogue's noise increase.
Sound wise the Digital is very similar to the Digital NICAM signal we had. The older FM audio signal, although mono and only 12kHz bandwidth, had it's nice to listen to sound. The TV sound technicians do a good job when allowed.
The Digital Standard that was hurriedly rushed out is poor.
The ability to squeeze in more channels by increasing channel compression leaves out of control of the signal we receive.
No matter how good our receivers, we cannot recover the lost information.
Will HDTV be significantly better? When will it take over and the "new" Digital receivers and decoders become obsolete?
I have filled out the petition. Thanks for posting it.
In my experience, if you're getting a good signal, you can have very, very good digital TV. Weak signals, of course, are not very good. But a good antenna does not cost much and can even be DIYed. The current receivers can receive both HD and SD, even the $40 specials.AndrewT said:
If you're recording TV or streaming it, the advantages of digital are even more clear. Simply put, even the best realtime video compressors for home use cannot match the $10,000 and up units they use at the stations. (Interestingly enough, that's also a cheaper approach if recording is widespread. Even if the compressor they use at the station costs a million dollars, when spread out over a mere 100,000 viewers, that's an equivalent cost of only $10 per viewer. Just try to find a complete video compressor for $10, let alone one that can even approach the quality of the one at the station. If the station compressor is cheaper than a million and/or there are more than 100,000 viewers, it turns out even cheaper. And don't forget that modern TV stations are turning to digital content distribution, which means the cost of a compressor could potentially be spread over hundreds of millions of viewers.)
I think you are confusing the cost of compressing the transmission with the post by Andrew wherein he complains about the RESULT of compressing. He has no desire to compress anything in his home. SO he , nor I , am in the market to buy a $10 compressor. We don;t want to compress anything. he was complaining that due to the compression, information was lost. And no matter how good your receiving equipment might be, you can never recover that lost data.
In my experience, the quality loss from compression is much less than quality lost through analog transmission. Analog can be quite good but not after being sent through the air with plenty of noise sources all around. (And I guess you like to watch everything live?) Oh, and digital also gives the program guide, which turns out to be the main reason why I greatly prefer it for MythTV.Enzo said:
In real life, I do not know anybody who claims analog TV is better quality than digital TV.
Then don't forget that not only does digital save bandwidth when transmitting it to your home, it also saves bandwidth within the industry. And TV is already going digital right at the cameras. Don't forget computer-generated graphics that have been 100% digital all along...
As I live in the same area of Scotland as Andrew T I totally share his experience with regard to digital TV broadcasts.
With regard to proposals to abolish FM radio, there will be substantial downgrading of sound value due to compression. It is fine for background listening to speech broadcasts, but those famous BBC lunchtime live concerts of classical music, late night jazz etc, will loose out very greatly. I spent a lot of money on a good tuner specifically so that I could listen to those programmes at the highest sound quality available. Now I am to be the owner of a piece of junk and subjected to sound quality at the lowest broadcast quality. For kitchen radios and portables fine, but for experiencing top quality sound, forget digital.
The same seems to be happening with the making of CDs - far too often the sound is compressed to such an extent that any overtones are lost.
There seem to be no standards in place for recorded music. I cannot but feel that the record companies should agree a professional standard for the sound quality of their products .... and stick to such standards. The MP3 seems to dictate the highest standard required in reproduction of music. I have old 15" ips master tapes (final mixes) as sent to the record companies in the 60s and 70s for record cutting. Played on an ancient Revox A77/G36 through a decent amp and speakers these are about as good as it gets. I also have somewhere a few acetates and they too are excellent. Even the recordings were generally far better then. The advances in technique is entirely - it would seem - to the benefit of the recording companies profit margins. The replaying and home equipment designer can easily produce systems which show up the failings of the modern media.
In the UK CDs etc are an extortionate price and - now - most pop and dance music is being downloaded - again at very high cost, but very low quality. It is time that the end user should have a decent standard of media available br it broadcast or bought on plastic.
[I even have one which was mixed down to stereo, mono and quad-sound in the Power Station in NY: it is a Who track and has the splices between versions in place and also the hand written mix-notes.]
With regard to proposals to abolish FM radio, there will be substantial downgrading of sound value due to compression. It is fine for background listening to speech broadcasts, but those famous BBC lunchtime live concerts of classical music, late night jazz etc, will loose out very greatly. I spent a lot of money on a good tuner specifically so that I could listen to those programmes at the highest sound quality available. Now I am to be the owner of a piece of junk and subjected to sound quality at the lowest broadcast quality. For kitchen radios and portables fine, but for experiencing top quality sound, forget digital.
The same seems to be happening with the making of CDs - far too often the sound is compressed to such an extent that any overtones are lost.
There seem to be no standards in place for recorded music. I cannot but feel that the record companies should agree a professional standard for the sound quality of their products .... and stick to such standards. The MP3 seems to dictate the highest standard required in reproduction of music. I have old 15" ips master tapes (final mixes) as sent to the record companies in the 60s and 70s for record cutting. Played on an ancient Revox A77/G36 through a decent amp and speakers these are about as good as it gets. I also have somewhere a few acetates and they too are excellent. Even the recordings were generally far better then. The advances in technique is entirely - it would seem - to the benefit of the recording companies profit margins. The replaying and home equipment designer can easily produce systems which show up the failings of the modern media.
In the UK CDs etc are an extortionate price and - now - most pop and dance music is being downloaded - again at very high cost, but very low quality. It is time that the end user should have a decent standard of media available br it broadcast or bought on plastic.
[I even have one which was mixed down to stereo, mono and quad-sound in the Power Station in NY: it is a Who track and has the splices between versions in place and also the hand written mix-notes.]
star882 said:
Probably because your in the US of A where NTSC was/is the analogue standard (often known as Never Twice the Same Colour) at 525 lines interlaced, having seen it I agree almost anything is better.... Here in the UK we have PAL, a later version (Perfect at Last
) at 625 lines interlaced. This gives a very good analog picture which degrades gracefully. The digital TV system uses mpeg compression and shows artifacts of the format as well as blocking when the signal falters (rain for example) So here the Digital is worse than the Analog picture (IMHO)On topic - the Digital radio here is worse than the TV as the compression is wound up to reduce the channel bandwidth resulting in AM/MP3 quality on most channels. some of the BBC channels like R3 (classical concerts) have slightly less compression but the differance between the R3 output on FM and Digital is marked.
Still my main gripe is the lack of thought put into this as the cost of DAB far outstrips FM radios. dosn't work on portables without an external aerial and the decoders eat batteries in portables. (the cost addition for TV's is minimal so thats a different story)
I just want a portable that works as a portable, lasts a reasonable amount of time on a set of batteries and is not huge... DAB delivers none of the above IMHO
Alan
Very interesting views on digital.
As for Freeview in the UK. If you view it on a good CRT receiver (which sadly are not available now) as opposed to an LCD or Plasma the digital artifacts are far less apparent. In fact I would go so far as to say on screen sizes up to 32" given the right hardware the results are trully outstanding. Our region gets switched off this autumn, personally I can't wait as it will mean that transmitter powers should be able to be increased and channels re allocated. If you have reasonable field strength at your location pixellation just is not an issue, it just shouldn't happen... some digital multiplexes are "outside" the old regions channel groupings so a wideband aerial is required in those situations. Amplifiers often make the problem worse.
As for DAB... thats a mixed bag. It has (had) the potential to provide excellent quality with MP2 compression, chosen because it "mauled" the signal less. It was not however suitable for lower bitrates and the quality of some of the channels is diabolical to say the least. But don't blame the technology.
As for Freeview in the UK. If you view it on a good CRT receiver (which sadly are not available now) as opposed to an LCD or Plasma the digital artifacts are far less apparent. In fact I would go so far as to say on screen sizes up to 32" given the right hardware the results are trully outstanding. Our region gets switched off this autumn, personally I can't wait as it will mean that transmitter powers should be able to be increased and channels re allocated. If you have reasonable field strength at your location pixellation just is not an issue, it just shouldn't happen... some digital multiplexes are "outside" the old regions channel groupings so a wideband aerial is required in those situations. Amplifiers often make the problem worse.
As for DAB... thats a mixed bag. It has (had) the potential to provide excellent quality with MP2 compression, chosen because it "mauled" the signal less. It was not however suitable for lower bitrates and the quality of some of the channels is diabolical to say the least. But don't blame the technology.
I'm very much against digital radio as a direct replacement to FM here in the Uk. There is a new group on facebook for those that want to contribute to the debate.
Welcome to Facebook
Welcome to Facebook
FM radio in UK
Yes, all you B&B owners and AA listed motel (inn?) owners and managers in the UK please write your MP supporting free broadcast of FM radio on 88mhz to 108mhz. I'm a US citizen, when I went to the UK I took a pocket radio, listened to FM illegally, I suppose. Cable TV in our room was vile. I DO NOT own an IPOD, think MP3 is fuzzy, the latest version of the 8 track tape. Would like to know the weather tomorrow if nothing else. Listening to what other people think is popular is part of my cultural experience of a city or country. Even local commercials would be interesting if they want to turn off the BBC-FM and abandon the bandwidth. Classical radio in the US is mostly listener supported and "underwritten" by sponsors trying to reach the cultured crowd.
I'm NOT going to buy or rent a locally useful "digital" radio when I go over there. If the UK spec exactly matches a USA spec, then maybe a universal digital radio would be interesting. However, digital TV here in the US absolutely requires a roof yagi antenna hooked up to the receiver in bad weather, and doesn't work very well even then if the wind is high. I'm 4 miles from the tri-county DTV antenna, direct line of sight from the roof.
Yes, all you B&B owners and AA listed motel (inn?) owners and managers in the UK please write your MP supporting free broadcast of FM radio on 88mhz to 108mhz. I'm a US citizen, when I went to the UK I took a pocket radio, listened to FM illegally, I suppose. Cable TV in our room was vile. I DO NOT own an IPOD, think MP3 is fuzzy, the latest version of the 8 track tape. Would like to know the weather tomorrow if nothing else. Listening to what other people think is popular is part of my cultural experience of a city or country. Even local commercials would be interesting if they want to turn off the BBC-FM and abandon the bandwidth. Classical radio in the US is mostly listener supported and "underwritten" by sponsors trying to reach the cultured crowd.
I'm NOT going to buy or rent a locally useful "digital" radio when I go over there. If the UK spec exactly matches a USA spec, then maybe a universal digital radio would be interesting. However, digital TV here in the US absolutely requires a roof yagi antenna hooked up to the receiver in bad weather, and doesn't work very well even then if the wind is high. I'm 4 miles from the tri-county DTV antenna, direct line of sight from the roof.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.