Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

[KB1OKL]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

I'll give you that this article does not speak particularly well of DAB, but it's not an article ABOUT DAB. It's about a radio company closing a couple of stations because they aren't making enough money and trying to spin it to their stockholders. What do you expect the company to say, "We've been having problems selling advertising, so we're ditching the stations we are all going to migrate to in favor of a broadcast format the government has already decided to turn off?"

I'll bet not. You talk about propaganda... And 10% of listening in the UK is with DAB? Is that a bad thing? They are actually doing the Digital thing right over there, unlike here. (Yes I'm a Eureka 147 fan)

Over there the Gov't has actually committed to a conversion date, I believe.
Clouseau

I think you and I are reading different articles Inspector, this is a direct quote from the article:

Chief executive Fru Hazlitt said digital "was not an economically viable growth platform for GCap Media".

Here is another article more critical of DAB in the UK although the same characters as in the first: BBC and 4 digital group are still pro-DAB at the end of the story, but lots of critical stuff, looks like it's not doing any better over there than here and the UK is a small country prone to try out all the new fads which explains the 10% vs the .01% here. (or 1 out of every 10,000 people of the population here own an HD radio. This means there are 1.5 HD radios in my town, or about 18 in Worcester, MA, 2nd largest city in new England.

Q&A: DAB Digital radio

DAB Digital radio is being portrayed in some quarters as the 21st century's version of Betamax, the video format that lost out to VHS in the 1970s.

The government has not committed to any switchover date:

"Only a minuscule number of cars in the UK have a DAB radio installed.
This alone may have convinced the government that the country is not yet ready for a switchover to digital radio, of a type seen in the planned switchover to digital television."

Digital radio just ain't making it anywhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7238768.stm

 

[Carmine5]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

As a follow up, here is a little more info on the British plan to switch to DAB (possibly) by 2020.

http://techdigest.tv/2008/06/dab_should_repl.html

I thought this point was interesting as there have been similar suggestions made here on moving AM stations to FM:

"Local radio services would be able to continue to use the FM spectrum, as it's currently more cost effective. Additionally, radio stations on the AM spectrum would be moved to FM."

Personally, I would like to see digital radio be delivered exclusively on the web and AM/FM stay analog for those who prefer or must use conventional radios.

The problem, of course, is the cost of streaming audio. It's just too high for many broadcasters and listeners and too restrictive. Right now, terrestrial radio is still the most cost effective way to reach a huge population.

But that may change if this initiative actually gains traction (AND a reasonable solution on royalty fees can be hammered out):

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...er_lessig_unveil_us_broadband_initiative.html

C5

 

[LinoNYC]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

I don't understand the obsession with "digital." And I don't buy the "we must go digital or die!" shibboleth.

The motivations for digitizing AM vs. FM are different (you know this) With FM it's primarily to offer extra programming that will, hopefully, offset some of the advantages alternative sources now have. Eliminating multipath and excessive clipping are tangential but appreciated by us city dwellers.

With AM it's simple: survival.

When we go to live concerts - whatever your tastes are - you hear analog performances. We all have analog eyes, ears and heads.

No, you hear acoustic performances. Amplified or not, they are coupled to by moving air.

Most of us watch analog movies when we go to the megaplex

.

No you view optical movies,often with digital sound. Here too things are changing. In Thailand over 10% of the 600+ screens are already equipped for digital presentation. In S.E. Asia as everywhere else the use of Varicams for theatrical production is increasing exponentially. Right now even filmed productions are telecined into digital intermediate form for editing then Arrilaser-ed back to film for release to theaters. This is becoming commonplace here as well, it's universal for (filmed) TV sitcom production.

And the VAST majority of recorded material heard on the radio - from the Beatles to Elvis to Sinatra to Barbara Mandrell - is ANALOG source material. It may have been saved and stored in new digital form, but the actual recording is an analog one, in the overwhelming majority of cases.

So by that logic they should stay analog even if a superior distribution medium exists. Great. BTW: you've already acknowledged multiple layers of D-A conversion , so what's the point.

I think the public doesn't care beyond convenient forms of storage and use and sound which is reasonably pleasing. Consider the iPod - hardly a hi-fi device. And the sound from digital cellphones frankly sucks, sucks, sucks.

Basic agreement here but quality digital distribution is still better in most instances. A $50 CD/DVD player still outperforms even the most expensive turntables for average users.

Lino

 

[LinoNYC]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

I'll give you that this article does not speak particularly well of DAB, but it's not an article ABOUT DAB. It's about a radio company closing a couple of stations because they aren't making enough money and trying to spin it to their stockholders. What do you expect the company to say, "We've been having problems selling advertising, so we're ditching the stations we are all going to migrate to in favor of a broadcast format the government has already decided to turn off?"

I'll bet not. You talk about propaganda... And 10% of listening in the UK is with DAB? Is that a bad thing? They are actually doing the Digital thing right over there, unlike here. (Yes I'm a Eureka 147 fan)

Over there the Gov't has actually committed to a conversion date, I believe.
Clouseau

I think you and I are reading different articles Inspector, this is a direct quote from the article:

Chief executive Fru Hazlitt said digital "was not an economically viable growth platform for GCap Media".

Here is another article more critical of DAB in the UK although the same characters as in the first: BBC and 4 digital group are still pro-DAB at the end of the story, but lots of critical stuff, looks like it's not doing any better over there than here and the UK is a small country prone to try out all the new fads which explains the 10% vs the .01% here. (or 1 out of every 10,000 people of the population here own an HD radio. This means there are 1.5 HD radios in my town, or about 18 in Worcester, MA, 2nd largest city in new England.

Q&A: DAB Digital radio

DAB Digital radio is being portrayed in some quarters as the 21st century's version of Betamax, the video format that lost out to VHS in the 1970s.

The government has not committed to any switchover date:

"Only a minuscule number of cars in the UK have a DAB radio installed.
This alone may have convinced the government that the country is not yet ready for a switchover to digital radio, of a type seen in the planned switchover to digital television."

Digital radio just ain't making it anywhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7238768.stm

It is pointless and somewhat fraudulent to compare the DTV conversion to any similar radio scenario.

In America only some 10-15% of TV is viewed OTA, TV's are mostly stay-put devices and thus converters are practical. I still expect atleast some outcry next February.

DAB's relative failure has been in the very mode in which it was implemented. It is just not economically viable to sustain a completely separate service over the long transition now envisioned.

It is not that DAB as concept has failed, it's the current model is not viable and in-band is now being explored.

Lino

 

[Seattleradiodude]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

When we go to live concerts - whatever your tastes are - you hear analog performances. We all have analog eyes, ears and heads. Most of us watch analog movies when we go to the megaplex. And the VAST majority of recorded material heard on the radio - from the Beatles to Elvis to Sinatra to Barbara Mandrell - is ANALOG source material.

This is true, but you have to remember that Digital is also a form of transfer, in this case... the transmitter to radio.

For a "in the moment" example
You are reading a DIGITAL display, and the text in which the display is producing is made up of digital pixels, and sent to you through a digial connection.

 

[KB1OKL]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

I don't understand the obsession with "digital." And I don't buy the "we must go digital or die!" shibboleth.

The motivations for digitizing AM vs. FM are different (you know this) With FM it's primarily to offer extra programming that will, hopefully, offset some of the advantages alternative sources now have. Eliminating multipath and excessive clipping are tangential but appreciated by us city dwellers.

With AM it's simple: survival.

When we go to live concerts - whatever your tastes are - you hear analog performances. We all have analog eyes, ears and heads.

No, you hear acoustic performances. Amplified or not, they are coupled to by moving air.

Live sound is analog of course, sound moves in analog waves like dropping a rock into a pond, everything in nature is analog, trees grow constantly, rivers flow constantly etc. Jackhammers (a man made tool of course) emulate digital sound at maybe 25 bytes per second, multiply that by millions and you have digital sound. It is at best and always will be a composite and recreation of real sound and yes I know the human ear compensates for this just as the eye does for TV tube's one electron sweeping back and forth. But with analog the ear does not have to compensate making analog much easier on both the ears and the mind, it's much less tiring to listen to. I have good jazz LP's which are inviting to one's ears, are so realistic you'd swear they were in the room playing, I have never experienced this with a CD.

Most of us watch analog movies when we go to the megaplex

.

Again of course the majority of movies are analog, what's the percentage of homes now receiving digital broadcasts, I know mine isn't even though I could easily get it for an additional 10 bucks a month)

No you view optical movies,often with digital sound. Here too things are changing. In Thailand over 10% of the 600+ screens are already equipped for digital presentation. In S.E. Asia as everywhere else the use of Varicams for theatrical production is increasing exponentially. Right now even filmed productions are telecined into digital intermediate form for editing then Arrilaser-ed back to film for release to theaters. This is becoming commonplace here as well, it's universal for (filmed) TV sitcom production.

Hence the artificial looking pictures you get on most sitcoms

And the VAST majority of recorded material heard on the radio - from the Beatles to Elvis to Sinatra to Barbara Mandrell - is ANALOG source material. It may have been saved and stored in new digital form, but the actual recording is an analog one, in the overwhelming majority of cases.

So by that logic they should stay analog even if a superior distribution medium exists. Great. BTW: you've already acknowledged multiple layers of D-A conversion , so what's the point.

Yes of course it should stay analog, why ruin the great recorded continuous sounds of the past, that's like colorizing movies which were originally black and white.

I think the public doesn't care beyond convenient forms of storage and use and sound which is reasonably pleasing. Consider the iPod - hardly a hi-fi device. And the sound from digital cellphones frankly sucks, sucks, sucks.

Basic agreement here but quality digital distribution is still better in most instances. A $50 CD/DVD player still outperforms even the most expensive turntables for average users.

The average consumers have tin ears then but that is not true as I've played LP's for people and they can't believe how much better they sound than even CD's, never mind MP3 players, but then again people nowadays (especially kids) are continuously exposed to junk sound, so they think it's the norm. Most of the music is mixed for MP3 players in digital studios so it doesn't really sound much better on good systems anyway, ever listen to how bad the music is mixed on the new kids music?The are NO dynamics at all and there are layers upon layers of guitars, vocals all mixed together, voice tracking, pitch correction, etc. no wonder a 50 dollar CD player sounds as good to most people if they're used to that junk, you can make good recorded music sound bad through a bad system but you can't make bad recorded music sound good through a good system, you just show the flaws more.

Lino

 

[LinoNYC]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

Live sound is analog of course, sound moves in analog waves like dropping a rock into a pond, everything in nature is analog, trees grow constantly, rivers flow constantly etc. Jackhammers (a man made tool of course) emulate digital sound at maybe 25 bytes per second, multiply that by millions and you have digital sound. It is at best and always will be a composite and recreation of real sound and yes I know the human ear compensates for this just as the eye does for TV tube's one electron sweeping back and forth. But with analog the ear does not have to compensate making analog much easier on both the ears and the mind, it's much less tiring to listen to. I have good jazz LP's which are inviting to one's ears, are so realistic you'd swear they were in the room playing, I have never experienced this with a CD.

This is the sort of nonsense argument that people who don't want to understand the technology always make.

Fact: Analog takes acoustic energy, which has been converted into electricity and whatever is done to it afterward remains just electricity until it is converted back into soundwaves via a mechanical device -speaker.

There is nothing "holy" about this process. Each step and device in analog imparts it's own sonic imprint (distortion) you prefer these distortions to those of digital. Fine.

Yes of course it should stay analog, why ruin the great recorded continuous sounds of the past, that's like colorizing movies which were originally black and white.

Again of course the majority of movies are analog, what's the percentage of homes now receiving digital broadcasts, I know mine isn't even though I could easily get it for an additional 10 bucks a month)

I would suggest a visit to a radio or TV station, see how much of the process is still analog.

You are already hearing and seeing all digital content. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, even the re-issued LP's and singles that you might buy likely have digitization somewhere along the chain.

The digital vs. analog debate is over, has been since CD's overtook vinyl sales in 1989. Most major market radio and TV stations are digital right up to the transmitter. The smaller ones will be soon, it makes economic sense.

Lino

 

[necrat123]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

I would suggest a visit to a radio or TV station, see how much of the process is still analog.

Every network affiliated TV has one stage of digital, in that every major US television network is transmitting digitally now.
ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, PBS, MyNet, CW, Telemundo, Univision, Telefutura are all transmitting digital via satellite. (ABC was the last hold out switching from Analog to Digital in 2004-2005).

 

[clouseau]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

I think you and I are reading different articles Inspector, this is a direct quote from the article:

Chief executive Fru Hazlitt said digital "was not an economically viable growth platform for GCap Media".

Bob, I'm telling you it's about one company and one company's business plan. The manager of that company is recommending closing 2 underperforming stations to increase advertising on an analog station. Here's what I'M reading from you quote.. (Emphasis added.)

Chief executive Fru Hazlitt said digital "was not an economically viable growth platform for GCap Media".

GCAP, an organization with much bigger fish to fry and one trying to fend off a takeover and a company which is currently underperforming. I thinks it quite a step from what is written and what your reading. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Everyone that wants to read it has, and neither you or I are going to change their minds.

As for this topic on this multi-fasceted thread - out.

Clouseau

 

[clouseau]

Re: Digital Radio Wobbles Around the World

I would say you're guessing right. And by a massively wide margin.

Hey Hey Hey!!! HD radio is in one out of every 10 households. Give or take 4 or 5 decimal places.

I don't understand the obsession with "digital." And I don't buy the "we must go digital or die!" shibboleth.

I agree with you. Frankly, despite the greatly improved noise floor, I'd rather have seen an FM HD implementation more along the lines of FMeXtra. That is, an Analog main and maybe up to 4 HD subs. (Depending on desired fidelity). Or duplicate the main if desired. While I can really appreciate the silence on digital, IMHO I believe most people find FM fidelity acceptable. AM however, is another whole story. It has a track record of not being able to compete, fidelity wise. I know that's not a popular view here, but history doesn't lie.

When we go to live concerts - whatever your tastes are - you hear analog performances. We all have analog eyes, ears and heads. Most of us watch analog movies when we go to the megaplex. And the VAST majority of recorded material heard on the radio - from the Beatles to Elvis to Sinatra to Barbara Mandrell - is ANALOG source material. It may have been saved and stored in new digital form, but the actual recording is an analog one, in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Well I'm stating the obvious here, but digital's advantage is in the ability to reproduce to multiple copies. We all know this. It reproduces EXACTLY what we tell it to reproduce. Or it fails. (Funny how Real Audio tries to work around this with Surestream, but I digress). Digital doesn't sound cruddy because of multipath. It's either perfect or gone. Ditto your CD. It's either perfect reproduction or it fails. No POPS. In many cases digital works better, but I have yet to see a "Digital Microphone".

I think the public doesn't care beyond convenient forms of storage and use and sound which is reasonably pleasing. Consider the iPod - hardly a hi-fi device. And the sound from digital cellphones frankly sucks, sucks, sucks.

Regrettably, we have all been marketed to that "Digital is better". Some of us know that isn't always true. Many more of us do not...

Clouseau