The DAB debate continues...
It may seem unimportant as long as you can hear radio, Ofcom did state in an earlier article I read some weeks ago that listners are more concerned with content rather than the quality of sound(that is a paraphrase)and is it a big deal well perhaps when the standard is different to the system which appears to be being adopted across many parts of the world and as I said some time ago a system that may be seen as being poorer? In the sense that our choice and if too many radio's are sold in that format you could understand the public being left with a radio of a limited lifespan or having to change to another piece of kit.
The only people who lose out are those who have already bought DAB radios which I stated in other entries in my blog, because I also am one of many but I would continue with FM Radio(I always had good sound quality when using an aerial in the loft and had a hi fi seperate system whereas now I use a portable FM/AM Radio and to get a decent signal in stereo using the radio's own antenna is zero so I do where possible use the satellite system via Sky and the present DAB system in the UK is incompatible with more advanced version of digital radio as used here. I also stated ages ago that the current stations are broadcasting in a lower bitrate so claims of CD quality could be argued to be less than proved.
Even many DAB radio's here require a decent signal strength and clear path, possibly the use of an external aerial but then how many receivers have the connection to do this and how many people realise until it is too late.
There is a very good article in today's Guardian which I happily refer you to which echo's much of my views expressed over a long period of time and I give a link to here as was always planned
The BBC is shortchanging consumers on digital radio Jack Schofield
To read the article and many more as I have said before and also refered readers to the Guardian website many times on the BBC Messageboard for stories worth reading, you will have to sign up to the website but it is free...
Within this article Jack sites the following:
"Between 3m and 4m DAB radios have been sold here in the past decade, but that isn't a reason for selling another 20m of the same. In fact, smart consumers may want to wait until the dual-standard radios appear"
They are coming as I said earlier but if a broadcaster does not offer its programming in the new format, why would you buy one? And all the while more DAB radio's in the older continue to sell. Probably due to the lack of information to the public."
I paraphrase my reference with the intention of using as little of the article without changing its meaning, he has acess to some figures that he quotes but he is again basically saying what I have said previously and that the main reason could be that manufacturers having made so many radio's in the present format used within the UK plus the broadcasters having promoted their product so heavily have a lot of money tied up in this new venture.
Perhaps if the new radio's could pick up stations from further afield and offer more choice people would switch or wait for the new design. I understand that it sounds good and quality is constant but that the new system uses frequency spectrum from both AM and FM wavelengths or it could but this gives more space for stations to use and if AM is used in this way, the familiar fading of signals many remember of Radio Luxembourg's English service on 208metres or radio 5's problems at certain times of the year would be a thing of the past.
Dare I suggest that the real reason for the heavy promotion of DAB as used here could be to free up wavelengths so the Government can sell off the spectrum to other services for vast amounts of revenue which I believe is the main reason for the push for the British to accept digital television and allow the analogue system to be switched off.
Yes it would appear that I can suggest this as in this very fast and ever changing world of broadcasting, I say or think something and can say it months or years before even within hours and suddenly an article will appear in print or on a website and I no sooner say the above about AM/FM being used for other reasons and again the Guardian runs another story about possible plans that Ofcom are suggesting or putting out for discussion. Though I am sure that The Guardian is carrying this from a press release probably put out by Ofcom and available at their own website.
So to keep everything correct this new article can be found at the following links:
Ofcom Dials Up FM's Demise
And this at Ofcom's own website which you may like to compare with how the Guardian reports the same story...this link is available without registering.
Also, for all those environmentalists who go on about global warming, they tell you to switch off your television at night and not leave it on standby but for now DAB radio's use more battery power and if on mains more juice. And what about all the extra boxes people need to receive digital television to work with their televisions?
Broadcasters could broadcast better-than-DAB audio using its satellite feeds take a look at www.digitalradiotech.co.uk
This article also goes onto say:
"The BBC is held responsible by many in the industry because it is the BBC that has massive amounts of bandwidth available on its digital TV platforms, including 36.2Mbps on Freeview.
The BBC uses 256kbps just to transmit the audio with BBC1. But most of its its digital radio is around 128kbps(Radio 3 being the exception at 190kps)
The BBC is transmitting radio via satellite at between 128kbps and 190kbps"
Because of there being no information readily available as many DAB radio's display you would not know, but I know that I have seen those figures mentioned before in the press and on the net but for easiness using the article seems to make sense and a big discussion many, many months ago was held on a BBC messageboard about how good or bad DAB radio is and the bitrates used and comparison's were made with the choice and quality of radio when comparing say Sky's platform against Freeview so it is a fair bet the same can be said when comparing radio sound carried via satellite compared to DAB or Freeview and that I believe to be in the public domain. It was prompted by the fact that many people had purchased DAB and then found that BBC7 was in mono but available in stereo on Freeview and Sky. And since purchasing my DAB radio I discover that quite a few stations are in mono and at a low bitrate.
The article continues:
"Whereas in Germany ARD is using 320kbps for stereo radio and 448kbps for surround sound.
It's not DAB but the BBC and other broadcasters could use other digital platforms. Sticking with the BBC this could be done by devoting 1% of the BBC's available DTV bandwidth to radio instead of the current 0.7%.
According to Rajar's audience research published in August, more people listened to digital radio via the DTV platforms (38.9%) or the internet (22.8%) than had DAB sets (15.3%)"
But this information from Rajar was published in a variety of sources and I have talked of this before that satellite or Freeview is more popular still than DAB and we know that changes are being made that suggest many pc users listen via a streaming broadcast or by podcasting.
On the other hand allowing that the BBC have promoted the DAB revolution and helped invent if my memory serves me correctly, should all the criticism in this article be aimed at the BBC?
After all using my own area as an example We have Radio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, BBC 6Music, 1 Xtra, BBC7 and The Asian Network and one or two local stations but to get their local stations onto a DAB network they have to work with what is a commercial company running the multi-plexes that transmit the signals and its because more of the commercial stations have come on board the system that so many are trying to use as much of the available spectrum and they are also broadcasting at a lower bitrate. So I will not necessarily hammer the BBC on this one.
Commercial radio stations are running big advertising campaigns and the Government has told the BBC to do a big promotion on the subject.
Now, as I have always said like many bloggers we learn much of what we see or hear from a variety of sources and where possible most of what we write is our own opinion but naturally we write from what we learn from a variety of sources and sometimes where possible I return to a story that is initially written later as due to being on dial up I am able to only do so much on one visit. Where possible I will always credit an article and give a link to the story so that a writer gets acknowledgement and hopefully be returned to many times.
But wait:I have not talked about how the sound quality may improve if/when the long delayed and promised Freesat(a co project)between ITV and the BBC and others no doubt launches as an alternative to Sky's platform which will offer mainly or totally free channels or a stand alone satellite radio delivered system for radio similar to the two systems that are popular in the States where you pay perhaps $10 per month and receive 100 radio stations in high quality sound with no commercials. This could happen in 2009/2010. The advantage of this system is that it can offer channels which are more exclusive and considered not commercially viable but widen the choice available. And that to me could be(if I could afford it)very appealing.
There are some newspapers involved in commercial radio and it might be a thought to ask if they should/could do more to inform the public about this advancement in broadcasting to other stop others purchasing a system that may be obsolete in time and avoid others taking the plunge to find more expense later or again have they invested so much into digital they have decided to go along with it. Maybe, they should have resisted going on to this DAB platform and said that they would use the newer system when it is launched. After all FM and AM has not as yet been silenced. Also, if Ofcom decide to licence new stations and allow FM/AM to continue after the consultation paper is issued and decisions have been made...it could still be around for another 25 years+ but the fact such a paper has been released and its being talked about, I think the intention is there that FM and AM may be a thing of the past for broadcasting entertainment to the public.
Is there any point to buying and radio with AM/FM any more and what about LW that's all but disappeared and even Short wave is having problems. Then again, not buying receivers with these wavelengths does play into the hands of those promoting DAB in this country.
The only people who lose out are those who have already bought DAB radios which I stated in other entries in my blog, because I also am one of many but I would continue with FM Radio(I always had good sound quality when using an aerial in the loft and had a hi fi seperate system whereas now I use a portable FM/AM Radio and to get a decent signal in stereo using the radio's own antenna is zero so I do where possible use the satellite system via Sky and the present DAB system in the UK is incompatible with more advanced version of digital radio as used here. I also stated ages ago that the current stations are broadcasting in a lower bitrate so claims of CD quality could be argued to be less than proved.
Even many DAB radio's here require a decent signal strength and clear path, possibly the use of an external aerial but then how many receivers have the connection to do this and how many people realise until it is too late.
There is a very good article in today's Guardian which I happily refer you to which echo's much of my views expressed over a long period of time and I give a link to here as was always planned
The BBC is shortchanging consumers on digital radio Jack Schofield
To read the article and many more as I have said before and also refered readers to the Guardian website many times on the BBC Messageboard for stories worth reading, you will have to sign up to the website but it is free...
Within this article Jack sites the following:
"Between 3m and 4m DAB radios have been sold here in the past decade, but that isn't a reason for selling another 20m of the same. In fact, smart consumers may want to wait until the dual-standard radios appear"
They are coming as I said earlier but if a broadcaster does not offer its programming in the new format, why would you buy one? And all the while more DAB radio's in the older continue to sell. Probably due to the lack of information to the public."
I paraphrase my reference with the intention of using as little of the article without changing its meaning, he has acess to some figures that he quotes but he is again basically saying what I have said previously and that the main reason could be that manufacturers having made so many radio's in the present format used within the UK plus the broadcasters having promoted their product so heavily have a lot of money tied up in this new venture.
Perhaps if the new radio's could pick up stations from further afield and offer more choice people would switch or wait for the new design. I understand that it sounds good and quality is constant but that the new system uses frequency spectrum from both AM and FM wavelengths or it could but this gives more space for stations to use and if AM is used in this way, the familiar fading of signals many remember of Radio Luxembourg's English service on 208metres or radio 5's problems at certain times of the year would be a thing of the past.
Dare I suggest that the real reason for the heavy promotion of DAB as used here could be to free up wavelengths so the Government can sell off the spectrum to other services for vast amounts of revenue which I believe is the main reason for the push for the British to accept digital television and allow the analogue system to be switched off.
Yes it would appear that I can suggest this as in this very fast and ever changing world of broadcasting, I say or think something and can say it months or years before even within hours and suddenly an article will appear in print or on a website and I no sooner say the above about AM/FM being used for other reasons and again the Guardian runs another story about possible plans that Ofcom are suggesting or putting out for discussion. Though I am sure that The Guardian is carrying this from a press release probably put out by Ofcom and available at their own website.
So to keep everything correct this new article can be found at the following links:
Ofcom Dials Up FM's Demise
And this at Ofcom's own website which you may like to compare with how the Guardian reports the same story...this link is available without registering.
Also, for all those environmentalists who go on about global warming, they tell you to switch off your television at night and not leave it on standby but for now DAB radio's use more battery power and if on mains more juice. And what about all the extra boxes people need to receive digital television to work with their televisions?
Broadcasters could broadcast better-than-DAB audio using its satellite feeds take a look at www.digitalradiotech.co.uk
This article also goes onto say:
"The BBC is held responsible by many in the industry because it is the BBC that has massive amounts of bandwidth available on its digital TV platforms, including 36.2Mbps on Freeview.
The BBC uses 256kbps just to transmit the audio with BBC1. But most of its its digital radio is around 128kbps(Radio 3 being the exception at 190kps)
The BBC is transmitting radio via satellite at between 128kbps and 190kbps"
Because of there being no information readily available as many DAB radio's display you would not know, but I know that I have seen those figures mentioned before in the press and on the net but for easiness using the article seems to make sense and a big discussion many, many months ago was held on a BBC messageboard about how good or bad DAB radio is and the bitrates used and comparison's were made with the choice and quality of radio when comparing say Sky's platform against Freeview so it is a fair bet the same can be said when comparing radio sound carried via satellite compared to DAB or Freeview and that I believe to be in the public domain. It was prompted by the fact that many people had purchased DAB and then found that BBC7 was in mono but available in stereo on Freeview and Sky. And since purchasing my DAB radio I discover that quite a few stations are in mono and at a low bitrate.
The article continues:
"Whereas in Germany ARD is using 320kbps for stereo radio and 448kbps for surround sound.
It's not DAB but the BBC and other broadcasters could use other digital platforms. Sticking with the BBC this could be done by devoting 1% of the BBC's available DTV bandwidth to radio instead of the current 0.7%.
According to Rajar's audience research published in August, more people listened to digital radio via the DTV platforms (38.9%) or the internet (22.8%) than had DAB sets (15.3%)"
But this information from Rajar was published in a variety of sources and I have talked of this before that satellite or Freeview is more popular still than DAB and we know that changes are being made that suggest many pc users listen via a streaming broadcast or by podcasting.
On the other hand allowing that the BBC have promoted the DAB revolution and helped invent if my memory serves me correctly, should all the criticism in this article be aimed at the BBC?
After all using my own area as an example We have Radio 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, BBC 6Music, 1 Xtra, BBC7 and The Asian Network and one or two local stations but to get their local stations onto a DAB network they have to work with what is a commercial company running the multi-plexes that transmit the signals and its because more of the commercial stations have come on board the system that so many are trying to use as much of the available spectrum and they are also broadcasting at a lower bitrate. So I will not necessarily hammer the BBC on this one.
Commercial radio stations are running big advertising campaigns and the Government has told the BBC to do a big promotion on the subject.
Now, as I have always said like many bloggers we learn much of what we see or hear from a variety of sources and where possible most of what we write is our own opinion but naturally we write from what we learn from a variety of sources and sometimes where possible I return to a story that is initially written later as due to being on dial up I am able to only do so much on one visit. Where possible I will always credit an article and give a link to the story so that a writer gets acknowledgement and hopefully be returned to many times.
But wait:I have not talked about how the sound quality may improve if/when the long delayed and promised Freesat(a co project)between ITV and the BBC and others no doubt launches as an alternative to Sky's platform which will offer mainly or totally free channels or a stand alone satellite radio delivered system for radio similar to the two systems that are popular in the States where you pay perhaps $10 per month and receive 100 radio stations in high quality sound with no commercials. This could happen in 2009/2010. The advantage of this system is that it can offer channels which are more exclusive and considered not commercially viable but widen the choice available. And that to me could be(if I could afford it)very appealing.
There are some newspapers involved in commercial radio and it might be a thought to ask if they should/could do more to inform the public about this advancement in broadcasting to other stop others purchasing a system that may be obsolete in time and avoid others taking the plunge to find more expense later or again have they invested so much into digital they have decided to go along with it. Maybe, they should have resisted going on to this DAB platform and said that they would use the newer system when it is launched. After all FM and AM has not as yet been silenced. Also, if Ofcom decide to licence new stations and allow FM/AM to continue after the consultation paper is issued and decisions have been made...it could still be around for another 25 years+ but the fact such a paper has been released and its being talked about, I think the intention is there that FM and AM may be a thing of the past for broadcasting entertainment to the public.
Is there any point to buying and radio with AM/FM any more and what about LW that's all but disappeared and even Short wave is having problems. Then again, not buying receivers with these wavelengths does play into the hands of those promoting DAB in this country.
posted by The Great Gildersleeve | 11:08 am
8 Comments:
If any readers find this post somewhat familiar, that may be because parts have been lifted without credit from my Guardian column: The BBC is shortchanging consumers on digital radio
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1948256,00.html
Jack Schofield
Computer editor
The Guardian
Apologies if you feel this is the case but you jumped in remarkably quickly before the whole entry was written.
You echo an awful lot of my own views, the advantage being that what you have is actual numbers and figures.
To prove no lifting of an article or no credit being given was never intended I have left your comment here for others to see which I could have removed.
If this still is a problem say so.
Regards
Gildy.
"stand alone satellite radio delivered system for radio similar to the two systems that are popular in the States where you pay perhaps $10 per month and receive 100 radio stations in high quality sound with no commercials."
Please do not buy into the idea that the North American satellite stations are delivering "high quality sound". They deliver what the market will apparently tolerate. In at least some cases the result is dreadful.
Thanks for the link to the Gaurdian article.
Its a pleasure Peter and thanks for the information, it needs discussing though as decisions are well in advance and are made so far ahead that we the consumers are usually the last to find out, its hard for us to reverse situations.
Do call again...
I do hope that though I have directed anyone reading this to an article in The Guardian, you'll agree that my entry is a more informative and detailed piece both for and against hopefully helping you make your mind up.
Gildy, thanks for pulling all of this together for those of us who are perhaps not as interested in the various technicalities but often feel like kicking our DAB radios because of the poor reception, particularly on music stations. At least I understand a little more now, thanks to you doing all the work in putting it all in one understandable and easily readable piece.
I agree with Isobel, thanks to Gildy for summing up a complex issue in an easy to understand way.
Jack, with respect I have read all of Gildy's blog post and he has clearly identified text which is from an external source and it is linked. Gildy is particularly good at referencing and acknowledging the original source(s). Thanks for an interesting article.
Thanks Mags and Ja,
The entry is much as I wanted it if now a little longer than originally planned and things do have a habit of coming to light as you are putting thoughts down or soon after. Yes, its important that the news is there for people in the UK to read but also anyone away from these shores as they may be able to add some extra information to the story.
Also, its trying to tread the line where its not too complicated as all we need to know is...can we hear things in good quality sound, if not...why not and to stop being taken in by spin.
Come to think of it...I did have a link to a website that said some of the kind of information which was featured in Jack's article so its out there and that linked to on here some weeks ago and was written by a radio enthusiast as part of a radio ham type website.
Post a Comment
<< Home