Digital Radio in the UK: "Not Economically Viable"?

[KB1OKL]

http://www.hear2.com/2008/02/digital-radio-i.html#comments

It appears digital radio is not doing very well in Britain either, digital radio broadcasters are falling over one by one like dominoes all over the world. Let's see? Germany, Australia, now Britain? Reminds me of the fall of communism in the Soviet block during the 80's.

 

[R.F. Burns]

If you are trying to draw comparisons between Europe and the US you are only fooling yourself. Life in Europe is much different than ours is in the United States. These analog vs digital debates remind me of the anti CD people of the 1980's. Their claim that CD's didn't sound musical and LP's were far superior sure had an effect on the evolution of recorded music. We live in a digital world. Better get used to it or face a very unhappy rest of your life. Analog technology is going the way of the horse drawn carriage.

 

[kyscott]

If you are trying to draw comparisons between Europe and the US you are only fooling yourself. Life in Europe is much different than ours is in the United States. These analog vs digital debates remind me of the anti CD people of the 1980's. Their claim that CD's didn't sound musical and LP's were far superior sure had an effect on the evolution of recorded music. We live in a digital world. Better get used to it or face a very unhappy rest of your life. Analog technology is going the way of the horse drawn carriage.

Apples and oranges, RF. CDs had one MAJOR advantage. They were.....wait for it now...COMPACT! The current incarnation of digital radio broadcasting isn't getting people to flock to the stores and demand receivers. In fact, the stores that were supposed to be carrying IBOC radios are not doing it now. I have yet to see one in my local Wal Mart, yet they have many beautiful HDTV sets (I just purchased my second one yesterday).

There is no major advantage for a consumer to purchase an IBOC radio compared to a HDTV set. If the processing is set up correctly, there is no sonic difference noticable to the consumer when it blends over on FM. There is a difference on AM, however how many AM stations running an IBOC signal also play music? This was a bad system from the start. What will be interesting to see is if Ibiquity and the FCC own up to their mistake, scrap the system and start over with a more viable system.

 

[Mike Walker]

That article doesn't say that DAB is a failure in the UK. Far from it, digital radios have outsold analog-only units there for several years. It's difficult to find a review of an analog-only radio in the UK. Now replacing the existing infrastructure (if they decide to), that's what the article is about. But as it exists, digital radio is BOOMING in the UK! And in the UK there are tons of cheap, portable DAB radios (here, not so much!)

 

[Dighton Rockhead]

I would agree that the article seems to be addressing the issue of the current generation DAB infastructure.

The one thing that's hobbling the UK's version of DAB a bit is that they've tried sqeezing too many channels into the available bandwidth, resulting in some sound quality and reception concerns.

Keep in mind, however, that the UK's version of DAB represents an even older generation of technology than even our own HD.

Supposedly, they're working on an improved version of DAB, to be called DAB+. From what I understand, however, it won't be compatible with the existing version.

 

[Play Freebird]

The one thing that's hobbling the UK's version of DAB a bit is that they've tried sqeezing too many channels into the available bandwidth, resulting in some sound quality and reception concerns.

Do you think we might be able learn something from this experience?

 

[R.F. Burns]

The one thing that's hobbling the UK's version of DAB a bit is that they've tried sqeezing too many channels into the available bandwidth, resulting in some sound quality and reception concerns.

Do you think we might be able learn something from this experience?

Having listened to XM I'd say that while FM HD at this time isn't overdoing things with their extra 1 or 2 channels, the same can't be said for XM. Their audio is awful to say the least.

 

[LinoNYC]

I would agree that the article seems to be addressing the issue of the current generation DAB infastructure.

The one thing that's hobbling the UK's version of DAB a bit is that they've tried sqeezing too many channels into the available bandwidth, resulting in some sound quality and reception concerns.

Keep in mind, however, that the UK's version of DAB represents an even older generation of technology than even our own HD.

Supposedly, they're working on an improved version of DAB, to be called DAB+. From what I understand, however, it won't be compatible with the existing version.

This is correct, their receivers are not "smart" -not upgradeable. The codec dates from the early 1990's there were revisions before deployment so I don't know the exact date when things "froze'.

About 3-1/2 years ago the BBC featured an interview with a famous Austrailian broadcaster (did not get his name) he pointed out that the European dab scheme was already outdated and that the American system was superior in both sound quality and upgradeability.

As I see it digital radio faces two major problems,

1) Perception, "radio" is, to most people the stations they know, period. As long as they can receive these stations it's generally "good enough". It's going to be tough going to ask people to spend for a new set when all most perceive is that they'll get more of the same. This, along with....

2) A flooded media landscape. No matter how much you tell people about such things as "stations between the stations" most are thick as bricks and the only way they will doscover these added streams is when they accidentally discover them after buy a set that happens to have iboc embedded. The same will (hopefully) apply to noticing an improvement in AM audio.

One thing the European dab travails do is to highlight the wisdom of an in-band approach, something they are now working on.

Lino

 

[Play Freebird]

Having listened to XM I'd say that while FM HD at this time isn't overdoing things with their extra 1 or 2 channels, the same can't be said for XM. Their audio is awful to say the least.

I agree, which is why I've never bothered to subscribe to XM. Maybe good ol' analog FM isn't as outmoded and awful as we've been told.

It's hard to understand why so many of my fellow Americans are willing to fall for the hype again and again. An amusing commentary on this problem was written several years ago by Paul Fussel; it's called BAD, or The Dumbing of America

http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Dumbing-America-Paul-Fussell/dp/0671792288

If you can find a copy at your local library, give it a read.

 

[Mike Walker]

IT ISN'T HYPE! i live in a rural area. There is a 100kw station here in Wilkes County, which is VERY strong, and can achieve full quieting on my toaster. Besudes it, EVERY FM STATION IS A DX CATCH FOR ME, and they're ALL compromised by noise, multipath distortion, mono (or heavily blended reception), or some combination of the three...even with 600 dollars worth of antenna/preamp/rotor recently installed. But FM HD brings me full stereo, vanishingly low distortion, and a dead-silent background. That isn't "hype"! It's reality, and easily demonstrable.

Yes, good stereo WOULD be achievable with an expensive analog tuner, say a Magnum Dynalab (f anyone wants to buy me one!). But it's achievable on a 100 dollar table-radio (patched through my audio system) with HD! In effect, HD enables cheap radios to perform like super-tuners. Not just opinion, but verifiable, measurable fact!