-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Digital audio broadcasting
- Thread starter blackgold
- Start date
I think the O/P was referring to Eureka 147, which is substantially different from IBOC/HD. The European DAB system uses a separate VHF band in the 200 MHz range and many stations share the same multiplexed transmitter. This eliminates the coverage advantages now enjoyed by powerful stations, and for a number of reasons I don't see it happening in the USA.
Dave B.
The other issue with DAB in the US is spectrum. The same 200 MHz spectrum used in the UK and Europe is used for other services in the US that can't be reallocated. I think Canada tested out Eureka 147 on some GHz frequencies but those were also not compatible for US-use due to military claiming that spectrum here.
It's funny that the biggest knock against DAB (or DAB+) for us is that we don't have national networks so the cellular-type system wouldn't be very ideal here. Yet it seems commercial radio is quickly moving to a semi-national setup in spite of our best efforts. NASH FM is an example of a quasi-national network, and I'm sure Clear Channel could reunite its national CHR stations under one name like "Kiss" or "Hit Music Now" and cover a pretty tasty swath of the country. Oh, and then there's NPR. So we may be moving that way sooner than we think. The DAB setup does allow for local and regional stations, but the coverage is more determined by which repeaters the stations are carried on versus sheer transmitter power.
It's funny that the biggest knock against DAB (or DAB+) for us is that we don't have national networks so the cellular-type system wouldn't be very ideal here. Yet it seems commercial radio is quickly moving to a semi-national setup in spite of our best efforts. NASH FM is an example of a quasi-national network, and I'm sure Clear Channel could reunite its national CHR stations under one name like "Kiss" or "Hit Music Now" and cover a pretty tasty swath of the country. Oh, and then there's NPR. So we may be moving that way sooner than we think. The DAB setup does allow for local and regional stations, but the coverage is more determined by which repeaters the stations are carried on versus sheer transmitter power.
You mean going back to the 'Red' and 'Blue' networks 
If I remember correctly, there is a limit on the number of Eureka 147 stations for each transmitter. The n umber being like 14 or so. A real limitation in the US.
We already have a national network. It is called Sirius/XM. Feel free to comment on that as you see fit
If I remember correctly, there is a limit on the number of Eureka 147 stations for each transmitter. The n umber being like 14 or so. A real limitation in the US.
We already have a national network. It is called Sirius/XM. Feel free to comment on that as you see fit
D
diymedia
Guest
DAB was actually the NAB's first choice in the late 80s, it even negotiated a licensing agreement to roll the tech out here. Problem was, the spectrum for DAB at the time was in the hands of the Pentagon, which wouldn't give it up. That, coupled with the concerns of larger broadcasters that DaveBayArea mentioned, pretty much killed DAB in the U.S., and led directly to the crash-development of IBOC.
Last edited:
All of the above, plus the fact that the Congress was pretty upset about the way the HDTV conversion went, and the FCC is on record stating it opposes any similar conversion for radio.
Like HDTV, it would require consumers to replace their radios with new digital receivers. Not very practical given the current experience.
Like HDTV, it would require consumers to replace their radios with new digital receivers. Not very practical given the current experience.
Last edited:
From what I've been told, Eureka 147 will work at any frequency above 30 mHz. So, you could technically run Eureka on the current FM band. The issue is that it uses a wide bandwidth, which means using it on FM here isn't practical. If you had a station on 101.3, you couldn't just piggyback Eureka onto it like you can (theoretically, anyway) with IBOC. You'd have to have your digital signal on a different frequency that would map to 101.3, much like what digital TV did. We can't easily double the number of FM signals in any given area, let alone in every single market.
This was way before the HDTV rollout! Talks had started by 1990.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
Lets see - 14 national networks. You can bet that there would be 2 top-40, one hip-hop, 3 talk / sports, 3 Spanish language, 2 country, one classic rock, NPR and religious. That's 14 - all we would get. Anybody else want to vomit? Never mind the people that want something different like smooth jazz, oldies, Asian, Christian rock, eclectic, modern rock, indie rock, and a multitude of other formats that increase diversity on the radio dial and serve substantial audiences. Over the air radio is so bland and over focus grouped that the only things worth listening to in my city are HD-2 channels, which are essentially where radio puts unwanted formats to shut people up. I suspect that as HD radio inevitably dies, so will the diversity that we enjoy now on HD-2. Satellite, as originally envisioned, was going to have thousands of channels, giving fans of less popular formats at least a chance of having a channel or two of their own. That number of channels was quickly diminished to a couple of hundred, and there is enough repetition of formats that satellite is only marginally better than over the air - let alone the poor audio quality of less popular channels so the same old stuff that is popular over the air can hog bandwidth. Streaming may be the only remaining hope for any sort of diversity on the public airwaves, which should serve everybody - not try to conform people into one of 14 carefully planned one size fits all popular garbage.
I dunno. Since we're in fantasy land, imagine those fourteen common formats offloaded to a national DAB+ network, maybe substituting one or two local/regional programs for some of the duplicated programming in denser urban areas… and removing those formats from FM and AM. It would open up a lot of spectrum for smaller broadcasters to bring in more niche programming.
Maybe. If they're for profit, they most likely will instead duplicate and compete with the DAB network channels. That's what has happened in Europe. That's often what happens when a frequency opens up in this country.
Not necessarily. When the idea of DAB was proposed, the idea was to have multiple 14 channel transmitters in the larger cities... enough channels to accommodate every existing station. In the case of the LA market, they would need to make room for the 87 different stations licensed to the metro.
And therein lies the rub: all the marginal signal FMs, the directional and daytime AMs, would suddenly be at parity with the "big boys". The $400 million Mt Wilson FM would be on a level playing field with the daytimer in Pomona that went for a coupla' million some years back. Not only did the broadcasters who had big investments not like this, the shareholders... particularly the pension and mutual funds... let it be known that this would be disruptive to a whole segment of the economy.
So finding out what listeners want and delivering it is bad?
(Focus groups are about the least used research tool in radio, anyway)
I was the programmer of 5 of the original XM channels, and at no time did I hear anything about "thousands of channels". Each of the two services which won pieces of spectrum originally contemplated about 100 channels... and reduction of quality has squeezed about double that in now. That is as far as the technology can go and that's the way it was designed nearly 20 years ago.
The real problem with DAB today is that the window for single use devices such as DAB receivers is closed. Users want all their entertainment to be channeled through one device, usually a smartphone or tablet. Nobody wants a "radio" anymore and that is why you will find that a typical Radio Shack has no radios save those huge clunky crankable emergency radios.
DAB is a form of OTA radio. Consumers want nothing to do with that.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
It is a good thing that there is an expansion mode beyond just 14 stations in a metro area. But isn't it in mono? Or if it has a stereo mode does that reduce the channels to 7? It just seems that the system is better suited to countries with state-run radio networks than it is to the free market system in the US. Of course, I would love it if the little family owned AM oldies station in Huntsville had parity with the big broadcasters in this area.
I seriously doubt the focus group method is valid. The person selecting the study subjects has a built in bias. Not scientific - unless the selection is completely random and there is a control group somewhere.
I remember the early technical articles on satellite and it definitely had thousands of channels. I think it was the radio astronomers and military that kept eating away at the number of channels until it was just a couple of hundred split between two competing companies. Even years before the system was deployed - it was depressing to think it would be more of the same.
Radio Shack's long term problem with selling radios is their tendency to cost reduce. They took good ideas from people like GE, and cost reduced to such a degree the performance was terrible: http://earmark.net/gesr/12-603.htm. Otherwise, they could have had a niche like C Crane does. I no longer even go, most outlets don't sell parts any more, and those that do have a small selection. I hate going 35 miles to Frys for parts, but they have them. If I can wait, there is Digikey and Mouser. And if I want a radio, I go on eBay or to C Crane. I sure don't go to Walmart or even Best Buy for radios because everything there is a minor variation of this junk: http://earmark.net/gesr/Current_Radio_Design.htm
Not that there is a that much over the air anyway. Since the demise of KONO 860, I am now down to two AM frequencies of interest, one in Huntsville, one in Madisonville. Both require really good radios in a quiet environment to hear, so extreme DX radios still come into play. That or strangely enough HD radio, which is so unpopular stations have nothing to lose putting interesting formats on the air like real Christian rock, smooth jazz, indie rock, 80's album rock, eclectic, and oldies. Should H FM every catch on with the public, I am afraid such creative and diverse formats will disappear in favor of the same garbage on regular channels.
I still think it is content, not delivery methods, that is killing radio. Most people don't care about delivery method. Just the content (music). The present situation on TV / cable / dish / netflicks / hulu, etc. all indicate people are willing to accept any delivery method that provides the content they want. So it is with music.
You can think that if you want, but when people have the ability to listen to any curated streaming service on their phone or computer, they choose the stream of their favorite local OTA radio station.
The content isn't the problem. People love the content, they love the presentation, they love the involvement with the community, they love the extras like contesting, promotions, and access to meet & greets. They LOVE it. And the ratings show it, especially among people under 40. A whole new generation is loving OTA radio, except from a different manner of distribution.
And they actually DO think about delivery methods. There is a reason they choose Hulu or Netflix. There's a reason they choose not to subscribe to Sirius or sign up for Spotify. There's a reason, and those reasons are cost and convenience. The idea of buying a free-standing radio that doesn't come with something else is not something people think about. For 40 years, people have been trained to think of radio as something they get with something else. The Walkman was a radio and a cassette player. The car is transportation with a radio. The phone and computer are devices that come with radios. So people think about delivery, and radio stations have to think the way their users think. Unless the electronics manufacturers have a unique idea for combining DAB with something else, it's not going to sell, and won't have any affect on consumers. They already have digital radio, and it's streaming on their phone.
Last edited:
The only thing stopping internet radio from complete domination is truly unlimited data. Well, domination while driving. At home internet listening has AM/FM radio totally beat with home wifi and even basic internet service (even at 768kbit). All I need to do is plug my iPhone into my stereo and I have digital radio at home. And when I'm on the road I have podcasts, loaded music and low-bitrate internet streams for live listening (KFI, KNX and Pandora).
Once the data cost drops the way per minute rate did AM and FM will be in the same class as vinyl, reliving my younger days with an antique yet memorable medium.
Once the data cost drops the way per minute rate did AM and FM will be in the same class as vinyl, reliving my younger days with an antique yet memorable medium.
A far bigger problem is digital music royalties. It's killing internet radio. You, the customer, don't know. But the internet broadcasters are being killed. At some point, that cost will be passed on to the consumers. For now, your only cost is data. They're trying to get you hooked.
It's probably not a good sign, then, that T-Mobile just announced that they will not be counting music streaming from selected services like Pandora and iHeartRadio against your data allotment. Music streaming on their 3G and 4G networks, where available, will essentially be "free data".
- Status