Singapore’s Media Corp to drop digital radio on Dec. 1

[radioskeptic]

The Media Corp radio stations in Singapore were the first in Southeast Asia to embrace digital radio back in 1999. Last week they announced their plans to discontinue DAB next month.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1162810/1/.html
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC111102-0000175/End-of-digital-radio-here

Those Asian news stories refer only to DAB, suggesting the system with digital signals in an entirely different band – not “HD” radio. But Andy Sennitt, posting on WVBF’s blog, seems to think that the Media Corp. stations have been using the flawed “iNiquity” system:

“HD Radio? Hmmmm” (http://wvbf.blogspot.com/2011/11/hd-radio-hmmmm.html)

I couldn’t find anything on the web indicating that digital radio was “HD” in Singapore. Does anybody here know what system they’ve been using?

But it doesn’t really matter. As those of us who follow British radio consultant Grant Goddard’s blog know, DAB hasn’t done very well in Europe, either.

 

[radioskeptic]

My mistake.. It was Lou Josephs that posted on the WVBF blog. He was copying and pasting a substantial part of an article by Andy Sennitt (quoting at greater length than would be allowed here on R-I), and Sennitt said nothing about "HD" in Singapore, at least in the quoted passage (and I couldn't find the complete story).

Still, the failure of any form of digital audio broadcasting anywhere in the world has significant implications for "HD."

 

[KB1OKL]

Another nail in the coffin of seedy-quality radio.

 

[DudeFan]

Latest studies by OFCOM in the U.K. indicate that the DAB multiplex is still experiencing steady growth. 91% of the UK now can receive the BBC Multiplex DAB. Less so for the commercial multiplexes, although the last figures I saw showed 46% of the population tuning in. Keep in mind that the UK is not using IBOC, has had DAB in place for almost 2 decades now, and has not only been encouraging the sunset of AM broadcast stations, but also analog FM at some undetermined point in the future.

 

[tomservo]

Singapore seems like the ideal place for DAB (but not IBOC) due to the small size of the nation and the incredible urban density of the city. I wonder if they failed to promote it or make it robust enough to be worthwhile?

 

[radioskeptic]

In Reply # 3, DudeFan wrote:

Latest studies by OFCOM in the U.K. indicate that the DAB multiplex is still experiencing steady growth.

Oh really?

I think you need to read these posts from Grant Goddard’s blog:

“Growing DAB radio usage in the UK. Confused? You should be!”
http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/growing-dab-radio-usage-in-uk-confused.html

“UK DAB radio receiver sales fell in 2009 and 2010, but ‘digital radio sales have held up - they are flat’ insists Mr Switchover”
http://grantgoddardradioblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/uk-dab-radio-receiver-sales-fell-in.html

 

[radioskeptic]

Tom Taylor reported this development on TRI this morning. His headline on the item read, “Singapore bails on its 12-year experiment with DAB, a victim of streaming and smartphone apps.” (Emphasis added.)

Exactly so.

And it’s not only in Singapore that DAB has failed to catch on. The European public hasn’t exactly embraced it, either, as those of us who follow Grant Goddard’s blog know.

So how long will it take before “HD” radio, too, is acknowledged to be “a victim of streaming and smartphone apps”?

I’m not talking about the AM version, which is a complete engineering disaster. Even some of the staunchest defenders of “HD” FM are abandoning that debacle. I mean the FM version.

Public radio, having done so much to promote “HD” FM, has put so much of its own prestige on that line that the pubcasters cling to the system primarily to save face—just as CBS and a few others involved in the development of “HD” cling to the AM version. But what about all the other commercial operators that keep defending the FM version of this failed technology?

All they want is a way to get another “station” into a market—and, for the consolidators, to circumvent the FCC’s per-market ownership caps—by operating analog FM translators for their HD-2’s and HD-3’s! Shouldn’t a translator have to carry an “HD” sub as an “HD” sub, if they carry it at all?

(I have nothing against AM stations having FM translators. AM’s need all the help they can get. The FCC has been remiss in not enforcing Part 15 rules against incidental hash generators for decades. It’s so bad these days that I can’t even listen to 50-kw clears in my car!)

Some of those analog “translators” carrying “HD” subs are powerful enough to be Class A FM’s! They occasionally show up in the Arbitrons, and when Tom Taylor reports them, he usually notes that virtually all the measured listening is through the analog translators.

One other thing. Some of the most important deals involving translators for “HD” subs have been deals between Clear Channel and EMF. With big money outfits like that involved, don’t expect the obvious failure of “HD” FM to be conceded anytime soon.