-
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
"DAB is the Betamax of radio."
- Thread starter slim101
- Start date
L
LinoNYC
Guest
slim101 said:
One reason for the European and Canadian DAB failure is the necessity of buying a totally new radio. Price had been a consideration untill three years ago, now it's more the fact that people have many other media choices and don't want to buy several new radios ie; clock, kitchen,car.
AS I see it, the future of digital broadcasting requires it be compatible with analog sets and thus permit a gradual transition.
No surprise that these nations are experimenting with some form of iboc.
Lino
M
Mike Walker
Guest
For the second year in a row, more DAB radios were sold in the UK than analog. Not exactly a failure. As for the rest of Europe, I haven't a clue. But I read lots of British audio magazines. When they review radios, they're ALWAYS digital.
LinoNYC said:
Are you claiming no such purchase of new radios is necessary to get HD Radio?
So DRM digital radio's problems are much more similar to HD radio then you wish to admit. The only difference is that DRM has much wider public acceptance in the UK then HD radio has in the USA.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
SUPERCASTER said:
I hear a gnat flying around again. No ol' Sup re-read the part about "gradual transition" that's how DAB via some form of iboc will eventually become accepted.
Lino
LinoNYC said:
Europe still has analog stations on the air in addition to DRM digital stations. How is that not a "gradual transition"?
The recievers in Canada were also hard to come by. I've had better luck in finding AM stereo tuners than DAB tuners. Here in Ottawa, we supposedly have DAB broadcasting. I went to find a receiver to hear what it sounded like. I couldn't find one, and when approaching sales people, they had either never heard of it, or in the case of one person, told me about this reciever that had an "input for DAB" which upon inspection was a spot to put the cable in for cable FM reception. I thought the idea was go0d...putting both AM and FM on a level playing field, on one band. If anyone has actually heard DAB, how is the sound quality? The only DAB promo I've ever heard was on 1050 CHUM a few years ago.
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Supercaster, with all due respect "DRM" and "DAB" are completely separate technologies. DAB, in the "L" band is the technology that's in broad use in Europe. DRM is used mostly for shortwave stations. Mediumwave (AM Broadcast, where DRM also works) is largely dead in Europe. We have a MUCH higher percentage of AM listeners in the US.
So when someone in Europe (or Canada) speaks of "DAB", they're NOT talking about DRM!
So when someone in Europe (or Canada) speaks of "DAB", they're NOT talking about DRM!
Most of the DAB receivers I see advertised on the interwebs have capability for at least Analog FM (88-108mhz), along with DAB band III (174-240mhz), and many with MW and some with DRM also. Therefore; the "gradual transition" argument doesn't hold much water.
The radios come in mains powered, battery powered, pocket portable, stereo component...pretty much every variety that HD radio does not have.
Its probably just that DAB and HD are a fix for a problem that doesn't exist. For most listeners, its not about ###kb/s of digital quality...its about the "content".
slim101 said:
From "What is L Band?" http://www.tech-faq.com/l-band.shtml
L band is not the same as
mentioned above.
How does that jive with Mike's statement:
Why are you comparing analog USA AM listeners with European digital DRM and DAB listeners, and not with USA digital HD radio listeners?
Worldwide, there are still many more analog radio listeners then digital radio listeners.
Mike Walker said:
Mike:
Thanks for the short yet comprehensive explanation of how Europe is handling its transition to digital audio broadcasting.
To me, your comment on AM was a pure comparison of 'analog there vs. analog here'. It's incredible to me that anyone would interpret that as a 'DRM digital there vs analog here' comparison. So much for reading comprehension these days... ???
You're right......analog AM is largely dead there, which is exactly why DRM is being offered as a means to revive the band there.
DAB in the UK is gaining fairly wide acceptance, but it's not without its problems, which mainly stem from attempts by broadcasters there to squeeze more multicast channels onto frequency space than is optimal for that system as it was originally designed......which is why an improved version is being developed. For that matter, the DRM consortium keeps working on improvements to its system as well, including development of a version for the frequencies up to 108 MHz.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
slim101 said:
On the contrary, after 13 years of DAB service only the UK has (recently) shown meaningful public acceptance.
European broadcasters are experimenting with their own forms of iboc:
http://www.radioeng.co.uk/in-band-on-channel.html
Any conversion of aural broadcasting iin a mature market is going to be a long-term project.
People often make this statement. The simple rebuttal is show where an AM/MW station has had sucess competing with FM for young listeners. The young end of any market has allways been for music and for over 30 years AM has been lost to this audience, no matter what it has tried.
Lino
LinoNYC said:
Have any broadcasters in the U-S, Canada or Europe ever bothered to actually ASK people what they want?
You are ASSUMING that people will ALWAYS buy radios that receive only a very limited number of radio stations offering limited choices. Those days are fading away.
People can now find the content they want when they want it.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
vsa said:
Broadcasters do alot of testing, what we have is the somewhat unfortunate result of Billy and Mary sixpack.
We are really talking about two different subjects here. My comment on this thread concerned the difficulty of integrating digital broadcasting into mature markets.
The issue of internet radio is another matter, based on what I have seen and read, it will be atleast five years, if ever that my city NYC has anything resembling the kind of penetration that traditional radio enjoys, when, if that day arrives it probably won't be free.
It's been now 33 years since catv started offering unique programming, even with the lack of censorship and the recent arrival of good writers etc. the networks still dominate.
As i have asked before, how are 30-50.000 net "stations" -all chasing a scattered and individually miniscule listenership going to earn enough to be a continuing operation?
Right now, I'am listening to an FM station from Bangkok that a friend works at. I'am wasting their bandwidth and the stream cuts out.rebuffers frequently.
I live in the number one market in America but that's of no value to a station in Siam.
-Especially young people. What makes you think that they'll be any more receptive to preprogrammed fare just because it's delivered over the 'net?
The competition is personal media- mp3 players.
Local radio is best situated to provide "content" that is unique to the territory.
Local radio is also best situated to promote and use the internet.
What surprises me about yours and other's negative position regarding iboc is that you all seem to overlook the huge potential that all the new FM subchannels offer.
Right now most of these are either unused or totally automated ghost ships. This is the potential training ground for next gen talent that has been missing since the demise of 'mom and pop' AM.
Radio ain't going to be what is was a decade ago, but it still has the greatest potential for audience and revenue.
Lino
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Lino, since it's inception as a mass-medium in the 20s, there has never been a decade to decade transition in which radio was "what it was a decade ago". Radio has always demonstrated it's ability to adapt to changing market conditions, consumer needs, and technological developments. It has weathered every storm, and come out the other end doing just fine. That will be true of the following decade, as well.
As for "asking listeners what they want", what a silly idea. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT! Radio isn't their life (as it is some of ours). If "what people want" was the guiding force behind technological advancement, we'd no doubt never have gotten personal computers (they sure weren't DEMANDING them in the '70s!), the internet (which was developed for the government and universities), fm stereo (people "got it" despite the fact that they showed no real demand, and it took decades for it to make much of an impact), digital cameras (were people REALLY complaining about film? Instant photography was a tiny piece of the market when the first digital cameras caught on), etc. Progress happens when people with an idea GO FOR IT, then demonstrate the benefits. THAT IS THE ONLY PATH TO PROGRESS! (I don't recall people in the 50s DEMANDING we go to the moon!)
As for "asking listeners what they want", what a silly idea. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT! Radio isn't their life (as it is some of ours). If "what people want" was the guiding force behind technological advancement, we'd no doubt never have gotten personal computers (they sure weren't DEMANDING them in the '70s!), the internet (which was developed for the government and universities), fm stereo (people "got it" despite the fact that they showed no real demand, and it took decades for it to make much of an impact), digital cameras (were people REALLY complaining about film? Instant photography was a tiny piece of the market when the first digital cameras caught on), etc. Progress happens when people with an idea GO FOR IT, then demonstrate the benefits. THAT IS THE ONLY PATH TO PROGRESS! (I don't recall people in the 50s DEMANDING we go to the moon!)
M
Mike Walker
Guest
Let me "turn it around" and remind you vsa that "cume", the total number of people who listen to terrestrial radio, IS NOT DECREASING. TSL (time spent listening) IS, but that's true of all media, as there's simply more media!
A quarter of a billion people in the US alone listen to terrestrial radio every week. That dwarfs EVERY competitor by a huge margin. It's important to remember who's the dog (terrestrial radio), and who's the tail (internet/satellite/everything else)
A quarter of a billion people in the US alone listen to terrestrial radio every week. That dwarfs EVERY competitor by a huge margin. It's important to remember who's the dog (terrestrial radio), and who's the tail (internet/satellite/everything else)
Mike Walker said:
In "radio", FM eventually overtook AM. Internet radio will eventually overtake the dominance of FM. It may take another 10 to 15 years, but it will happen.
As for digital photography, thank you for making my point. Eastman Kodak was very slow to embrace digital photography. That mistake has almost killed a once dominant company. Most radio companies are making the exact same mistake.
Give it awhile, especially after in-car wireless Internet access becomes common. Most major traditional broadcasters will eventually either cease to exist or will be a shell of their former selves.
L
LinoNYC
Guest
Mike Walker said:
Mike I agree with you about radio, to an extent. However it has never faced the sort of head-on competition, not even from television the invention the David Sarnoff said would make radio 'obsolete'. TV never achieved the degree of economy and portability that radio had after World War two.
Radio was always where kids went for free music and a sense of community, the internet now provides both of these, on-demand with nothing you don't want.
I talk to alot of people in my locations ranging in age from teens to early thirties, the change in media consumption over the last 8 years has been really startling. I'am glad that i don't work in mass media, from the conversations I've had it looks like a very rough period will hit once the youngest ones hit the prime demos.
Lino
M
Mike Walker
Guest
FM and AM are only the delivery system...the "truck" the product is delivered in. The STATIONS and the NETWORKS, where programming originates...that's what will endure. RADIO (in my mind) isn't a delivery method, it's an idea...the delivery of audio content (news, entertainment, spots, COMPANIONSHIP) in real-time. Over time, it makes no difference how that delivery is accomplished. The people who produce the content will be the same guys and gals doing terrestrial radio today...the ones with the experience, talent, and infrastructure to deliver what people will consume. THAT is what will survive over time.
But before the delivery method ("the truck") can be replaced, a truly better, more efficient method must be developed. One that's MORE efficient, MORE convenient, with BETTER coverage, BETTER penetration, BETTER economy of scale, LOWER COST, etc. Internet radio is none of those things. It may be in time, but certainly isn't now! It's less efficient, less convenient, with poorer coverage and penetration into remote areas, vastly poorer economy of scale, and higher...RECURRING cost! You may believe that this will "replace" terrestrial radio. Hell, I may believe it too (sometimes I do). But not until each and every one of the above points can be addressed, and conquered...for any one of them is a compelling reason for the continued success of the method of delivery (AM and FM) we have now.
As I asked my wife the other day...imagine radio had always been delivered via some kind of wired network (phone lines, the internet, cable). The only "wirelessness" it posessed was within short distances of a wireless router. Imagine that access to this "radio" came only with a monthly fee...and a rather high one (my broadband is about 60 bucks a month for 5mbps). Then imagine someone came along with terrestrial AM and FM...cutting the tether to a specifically defined data network (internet, wi-fi, wi-max, etc). Don't you think this 'new system' would CLOBBER what had existed before? I sure do!
But before the delivery method ("the truck") can be replaced, a truly better, more efficient method must be developed. One that's MORE efficient, MORE convenient, with BETTER coverage, BETTER penetration, BETTER economy of scale, LOWER COST, etc. Internet radio is none of those things. It may be in time, but certainly isn't now! It's less efficient, less convenient, with poorer coverage and penetration into remote areas, vastly poorer economy of scale, and higher...RECURRING cost! You may believe that this will "replace" terrestrial radio. Hell, I may believe it too (sometimes I do). But not until each and every one of the above points can be addressed, and conquered...for any one of them is a compelling reason for the continued success of the method of delivery (AM and FM) we have now.
As I asked my wife the other day...imagine radio had always been delivered via some kind of wired network (phone lines, the internet, cable). The only "wirelessness" it posessed was within short distances of a wireless router. Imagine that access to this "radio" came only with a monthly fee...and a rather high one (my broadband is about 60 bucks a month for 5mbps). Then imagine someone came along with terrestrial AM and FM...cutting the tether to a specifically defined data network (internet, wi-fi, wi-max, etc). Don't you think this 'new system' would CLOBBER what had existed before? I sure do!
- Status