A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05,  £39 from a Comet 
store in London.  It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but 
everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the 
stations that I had previously *preset*.  I quite often need to do a scan 
since the reception quality is very different between the front and the rear 
of my house.

I took it back to Comet, the girl there became very 'fish' faced, but gave 
me another one.  I said i would like to test it and she said you cannot pick 
up any stations in this store.  So I went to the next door shop where I 
could sit down, and found that this replacement set had exactly the same 
problem.

I took it back and she then tried to set up the presets herself, at the 
counter in the store where we were before. ( Making a lie of what she said 
about not having reception in the store). But she didn't know how to do it 
and declined my offer of showing her how to. Any way even more fish faced, 
she then gave me a refund for the £39.

I later rang Phillips technical help and they said they had not encountered 
this particular problem with this radio and would ring me back.  They 
didn't, so I rang them again, but I got the distinct impression that they 
really were not that interested in any of this, and got no further ahead.

Thinking I would buy another one, I rang the nearest John Lewis Store; but 
it looks like although they do sell Phillips radios they do not sell this 
'particular' pocket model. The model is DA1103/5 and the software version on 
it is:  V.1.3.2.  I think it might be a very 'recent' version since it 
offers 30 presets as opposed to the generally advertised 20 presets 
available.

Since John Lewis said they could not even 'order' me one of these radios, 
i'm wondering if they have been having trouble with them?

So my quandry now is whether to try to locate another one, or switch to 
another pocket DAB radio? Is there another pocket radio that people would 
recommend;  or should I best pursue another one of these Phillips?   Thanks 
for any advice.

john d hamilton wrote:
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05,  £39 from a Comet 
> store in London.  It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but 
> everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the 
> stations that I had previously *preset*.  I quite often need to do a scan 
> since the reception quality is very different between the front and the rear 
> of my house.

Rescaning in the same locality is pointless. Take it to a local point of good 
reception, and scan there. For instance all BBC national radio stations 
operate on exactly the same frequency in the UK in what's called an SFN, so 
rescanning will bring back exactly the same transmission if receivable.

The only time you need to rescan a DAB receiver in the UK, is to receive new 
local stations when you enter a new area, or to receive a newly launched station.


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article <gcq1r4$u0l$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
   john d hamilton <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote:
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05,  £39 from a
> Comet store in London.  It seemed quite good to me, and is small and
> neat, but everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped
> off* all the stations that I had previously *preset*.  I quite often
> need to do a scan since the reception quality is very different between
> the front and the rear of my house.

Surely all you need to do is take it outside so it captures all the
available muxes?

I'm not surprised it wipes the store when you re-scan - you'd normally
only need to do this if you move to a different part of the country.

-- 
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gcq1r4$u0l$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05,  £39 from a
Comet
> store in London.  It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but
> everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
> stations that I had previously *preset*.  I quite often need to do a scan
> since the reception quality is very different between the front and the
rear
> of my house.
>
> I took it back to Comet, the girl there became very 'fish' faced, but gave
> me another one.  I said i would like to test it and she said you cannot
pick
> up any stations in this store.  So I went to the next door shop where I
> could sit down, and found that this replacement set had exactly the same
> problem.
>
> I took it back and she then tried to set up the presets herself, at the
> counter in the store where we were before. ( Making a lie of what she said
> about not having reception in the store). But she didn't know how to do it
> and declined my offer of showing her how to. Any way even more fish faced,
> she then gave me a refund for the £39.
>
> I later rang Phillips technical help and they said they had not
encountered
> this particular problem with this radio and would ring me back.  They
> didn't, so I rang them again, but I got the distinct impression that they
> really were not that interested in any of this, and got no further ahead.
>
> Thinking I would buy another one, I rang the nearest John Lewis Store; but
> it looks like although they do sell Phillips radios they do not sell this
> 'particular' pocket model. The model is DA1103/5 and the software version
on
> it is:  V.1.3.2.  I think it might be a very 'recent' version since it
> offers 30 presets as opposed to the generally advertised 20 presets
> available.
>
> Since John Lewis said they could not even 'order' me one of these radios,
> i'm wondering if they have been having trouble with them?
>
> So my quandry now is whether to try to locate another one, or switch to
> another pocket DAB radio? Is there another pocket radio that people would
> recommend;  or should I best pursue another one of these Phillips?
Thanks
> for any advice.
>
>


No sense in getting the same radio again...
time to look into something that does what you want

["Followup-To:" header set to 24hoursupport.helpdesk.]
On 2008-10-11, john d hamilton <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote:
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05,  £39 from a Comet 
> store in London.  It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but 
> everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the 
> stations that I had previously *preset*.  I quite often need to do a scan 
> since the reception quality is very different between the front and the rear 
> of my house.

[...]

Losing pre-sets on scanning may be a 'feature' of that particular model - 
which seems remarkably cheap for the features claimed.

It wouldn't have occurred to me to re-scan in an attempt to overcome poor 
reception; just go to a spot where the reception is as good as you can get 
in your area (a local park, perhaps?) and scan - thereafter, if you can't
receive a particular station in a particular spot re-scanning isn't going
to help.  I've never found it necessary to re-scan even when going to a 
different part of the country, as far as national stations are concerned.

Pocket receivers often have rather poor aerials and don't work well 
indoors or where the signal is weak - which DAB is in some places.

Some DAB receivers offer two sorts of scan: one to re-create the entire 
station list, the other merely to add any new stations (and possibly 
remove any no longer found).  The latter sort of scan shouldn't upset your 
pre-sets, but the former might well do so - although I agree that it would 
be better not to if the pre-set stations are found by the new scan.  

My only experience of pocket DAB receivers is a Sony XDR-M1 I've had for a
few years, which works well.  I've also had good experience with Roberts
portables, although I haven't tried their pocket model.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

I think I know what's going on here.

Barring the (real) possibility that the set is incorrectly designed, or that
the instructions are incorrect (also highly likely), you were _not_ scanning
the stations. Rather, you were _reprogramming_ the unit.

There is no inherent law of nature that requires the scanned stations to
overwrite the manually programmed settings. For example, when I press SEEK
or SCAN on my car radio, it has no effect on the memory presets.

So...

Either the set has only an "auto program" function (which you are mistaking
for a scan), or you are selecting the "auto program" function (rather than a
simple scan).

It's not surprise that the salesperson was so ignorant of electronics that
she swapped the unit rather than trying to resolve the problem.

"William Sommerwerck"  wrote in message 
news:9fadnRrgQZcFJG3VnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@comcast.com...
>I think I know what's going on here.
>
> Barring the (real) possibility that the set is incorrectly designed, or 
> that
> the instructions are incorrect (also highly likely), you were _not_ 
> scanning
> the stations. Rather, you were _reprogramming_ the unit.
>
> There is no inherent law of nature that requires the scanned stations to
> overwrite the manually programmed settings. For example, when I press SEEK
> or SCAN on my car radio, it has no effect on the memory presets.
>
> So...
>
> Either the set has only an "auto program" function (which you are 
> mistaking
> for a scan), or you are selecting the "auto program" function (rather than 
> a
> simple scan).

Well Done again William....actually i pressed the option,  wait for 
it...........*Local Scan*.

"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gcqdt8$m5i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> "William Sommerwerck"  wrote in message
> news:9fadnRrgQZcFJG3VnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@comcast.com...

>> I think I know what's going on here.

>> Barring the (real) possibility that the set is incorrectly designed, or
>> that the instructions are incorrect (also highly likely), you were _not_
>> scanning the stations. Rather, you were _reprogramming_ the unit.

>> There is no inherent law of nature that requires the scanned stations to
>> overwrite the manually programmed settings. For example, when I press
>> SEEK or SCAN on my car radio, it has no effect on the memory presets.

>> So...

>> Either the set has only an "auto program" function (which you are
>> mistaking for a scan), or you are selecting the "auto program" function
>> (rather than a simple scan).

> Well Done again, William... Actually, I pressed the option, wait for it...
> *Local Scan*.

"Now I'm a dab at penny readings."
"They are not remarkably entertaining."

Coruscating logic cannot retroactively override poor product design.

Spock said "'Fascinating' I reserved for the unexpected." This is indeed
fascinating.

I found the owner's manual here...

http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/en/gb/consumer/cc/_onlineStoreStatus_true/_productid_DA1103_05_GB_CONSUMER/_retailStoreStatus_true/_stores_true/Portable-Radio+DA1103-05

"Batteries contain chemical substances, so they should be disposed of
properly."
So do chocolate cakes. There is only one way to dispose of chocolate cakes
properly.

After wading through the warnings (see above) about how I might electrocute
the dog if I pressed the wrong button, etc, I found that the only way one
can store (or clear) a station is by pressing the Preset button. There's
nothing in the instructions about any automatic storage. Nor does it seem
possible to preset more than one station at time. Once you've

I'm stumped. Wish I could see the thing. Unless you're doing something
Really Weird, it looks as if there's some Really Bad Code in the system
controller. I would go to the Philips site and let them know you're mad as
hell, and you're not going to this any more!

PS: "Local" Scan? How is it different from a "Full" scan? Do they mean
scanning all the blocks? What makes any particular block "local"? Inquiring
minds want to know!

On 2008-10-11, William Sommerwerck  wrote:
> "john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gcqdt8$m5i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "William Sommerwerck"  wrote in message
>> news:9fadnRrgQZcFJG3VnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@comcast.com...

[...]

> PS: "Local" Scan? How is it different from a "Full" scan? Do they mean
> scanning all the blocks? What makes any particular block "local"? Inquiring
> minds want to know!

Different transmitters can, and do, carry different 'local' stations as 
well as providing the same 'national' stations as each other.  Like VHF/FM 
analogue stations, each transmitter has a very limited range - a few tens 
of miles at most, usually - so DAB stations can be very 'local', even if 
the transmitter shares the same radio frequency as other more powerful 
neighbours.  DAB is very different from analogue.  
<http://www.getdabdigitalradio.com/WhatisDAB/> might help.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

I've noticed that say, if you change areas you can lose presets on many dab 
radios. Its a difficult one, as they are not really lying about it, they are 
just not saying the software has a drawback if you rescan you have to re 
store the presets.

I was thinking when you first said it was a pocket model that there have 
been poor reception problems with dab. Most people are familiar with the 
boiling mud effect you can get if signal is low, but some sets do rescan if 
they get very low signals that this can confuse the  heck out of users.

Dab is a bit of a flop for quality and coverage in my view.

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:gcq1r4$u0l$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05,  £39 from a 
>Comet store in London.  It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, 
>but everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the 
>stations that I had previously *preset*.  I quite often need to do a scan 
>since the reception quality is very different between the front and the 
>rear of my house.
>
> I took it back to Comet, the girl there became very 'fish' faced, but gave 
> me another one.  I said i would like to test it and she said you cannot 
> pick up any stations in this store.  So I went to the next door shop where 
> I could sit down, and found that this replacement set had exactly the same 
> problem.
>
> I took it back and she then tried to set up the presets herself, at the 
> counter in the store where we were before. ( Making a lie of what she said 
> about not having reception in the store). But she didn't know how to do it 
> and declined my offer of showing her how to. Any way even more fish faced, 
> she then gave me a refund for the £39.
>
> I later rang Phillips technical help and they said they had not 
> encountered this particular problem with this radio and would ring me 
> back.  They didn't, so I rang them again, but I got the distinct 
> impression that they really were not that interested in any of this, and 
> got no further ahead.
>
> Thinking I would buy another one, I rang the nearest John Lewis Store; but 
> it looks like although they do sell Phillips radios they do not sell this 
> 'particular' pocket model. The model is DA1103/5 and the software version 
> on it is:  V.1.3.2.  I think it might be a very 'recent' version since it 
> offers 30 presets as opposed to the generally advertised 20 presets 
> available.
>
> Since John Lewis said they could not even 'order' me one of these radios, 
> i'm wondering if they have been having trouble with them?
>
> So my quandry now is whether to try to locate another one, or switch to 
> another pocket DAB radio? Is there another pocket radio that people would 
> recommend;  or should I best pursue another one of these Phillips? 
> Thanks for any advice.
>

"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gcq1r4$u0l$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05,  £39 from a
Comet
> store in London.  It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, but
> everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the
> stations that I had previously *preset*.  I quite often need to do a scan
> since the reception quality is very different between the front and the
rear
> of my house.
>
I'm not sure if the DA1103/05 has this feature but my Zenith DTT901
(American HDTV receiver) has both an "Auto Tune" and an "EZ add" scan
function.

Auto Tune does what you described in wiping the presets clean and setting
all channels receivable in that scan.

EZ add leaves the presets as they are and adds to them channels received in
that scan.

For my unit I can scan channels with my aerial facing west (Baltimore) and
add channels while its facing north (Philadelphia).

Not all receivers do this (my Sylvania doesn't) so there may be a DAB out
there with this handy feature.

Good luck. ;-)

"Brian Gaff"  wrote in message 
news:sy5Ik.70412$E41.7059@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> I've noticed that say, if you change areas you can lose presets on many 
> dab radios. Its a difficult one, as they are not really lying about it, 
> they are just not saying the software has a drawback if you rescan you 
> have to re store the presets.
>
> I was thinking when you first said it was a pocket model that there have 
> been poor reception problems with dab. Most people are familiar with the 
> boiling mud effect you can get if signal is low, but some sets do rescan 
> if they get very low signals that this can confuse the  heck out of users.
>
> Dab is a bit of a flop for quality and coverage in my view.
>
> Brian
>
> -- 
> Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
> Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name may be lost.
> Blind user, so no pictures please!
> "john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:gcq1r4$u0l$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>A week ago I bought a Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05,  £39 from a 
>>Comet store in London.  It seemed quite good to me, and is small and neat, 
>>but everytime I did a 'local' scan of the stations; it *wiped off* all the 
>>stations that I had previously *preset*.  I quite often need to do a scan 
>>since the reception quality is very different between the front and the 
>>rear of my house.
>>
>> I took it back to Comet, the girl there became very 'fish' faced, but 
>> gave me another one.  I said i would like to test it and she said you 
>> cannot pick up any stations in this store.  So I went to the next door 
>> shop where I could sit down, and found that this replacement set had 
>> exactly the same problem.
>>
>> I took it back and she then tried to set up the presets herself, at the 
>> counter in the store where we were before. ( Making a lie of what she 
>> said about not having reception in the store). But she didn't know how to 
>> do it and declined my offer of showing her how to. Any way even more fish 
>> faced, she then gave me a refund for the £39.
>>
>> I later rang Phillips technical help and they said they had not 
>> encountered this particular problem with this radio and would ring me 
>> back.  They didn't, so I rang them again, but I got the distinct 
>> impression that they really were not that interested in any of this, and 
>> got no further ahead.
>>
>> Thinking I would buy another one, I rang the nearest John Lewis Store; 
>> but it looks like although they do sell Phillips radios they do not sell 
>> this 'particular' pocket model. The model is DA1103/5 and the software 
>> version on it is:  V.1.3.2.  I think it might be a very 'recent' version 
>> since it offers 30 presets as opposed to the generally advertised 20 
>> presets available.
>>
>> Since John Lewis said they could not even 'order' me one of these radios, 
>> i'm wondering if they have been having trouble with them?
>>
>> So my quandry now is whether to try to locate another one, or switch to 
>> another pocket DAB radio? Is there another pocket radio that people would 
>> recommend;  or should I best pursue another one of these Phillips? Thanks 
>> for any advice.

I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB because 
reception is so unreliable.

On 2008-10-11, ian field  wrote:

[...]

> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB because 
> reception is so unreliable. 

Not what <http://www.worlddab.org/> seem to think.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

In article <C69Ik.46571$I31.46303@newsfe24.ams2>,
   ian field  wrote:
> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB
> because reception is so unreliable. 

It's not been terribly popular anywhere as it offers little over FM for
the majority of listeners. Indeed in the UK the bit rate is so low the
quality can be poorer - on most stations. The other thing is battery life
is poor on a portable receiver.

It does work pretty well for mobile reception, though, like in a car, in
reasonable signal areas - but very few makers offered DAB as OEM. And
aftermarket units are expensive - as are decent aerials.

-- 
*It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:57:54 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
 wrote:

>
>I'm stumped. Wish I could see the thing. Unless you're doing something
>Really Weird, it looks as if there's some Really Bad Code in the system
>controller. I would go to the Philips site and let them know you're mad as
>hell, and you're not going to this any more!
>
>PS: "Local" Scan? How is it different from a "Full" scan? Do they mean
>scanning all the blocks? What makes any particular block "local"? Inquiring
>minds want to know!
>

Bad designs like this seem to be normal these days.  If it works at
all, they consider it finished and move on to the next product.  I
doubt Philips will care since they probably had nothing to do with the
actual design of the radio.  
Andy Cuffe

acuffe@gmail.com

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:43:58 +0100, "ian field"
 wrote:

> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have 
> scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable. 
 
Not true.  Old DAB is too inefficient.
I think DAB+ will be the future here.

In article ,
   Ken  wrote:
> > I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have 
> > scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable. 
>  
> Not true.  Old DAB is too inefficient.
> I think DAB+ will be the future here.

I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but isn't
compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will make
it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and for
those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of the same
stations on FreeView or Satellite.

-- 
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-10-12, Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:
> In article ,
>    Ken  wrote:
>> > I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have 
>> > scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable. 
>>  
>> Not true.  Old DAB is too inefficient.
>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
>
> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but isn't
> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will make
> it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and for
> those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of the same
> stations on FreeView or Satellite.

As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and some 
receivers can cope with both.  But there is now a significant number of 
receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are 
likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both standards at 
once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to it.  
Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new DAB 
receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or so.

While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get 'better' 
sound reproduction, most people just want something 'good enough' - which 
DAB manifestly is.  I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type: "Varied Speech" at 
"128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a Roberts MP23).  Radio 3 
probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets, but most stations are Mono 
and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.  I just 
don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my kitchen or 
bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.

BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more-modern
> codec etc, but isn't compatible with the present system.
> I think consumer resistance will make it a dead duck.
> There is little demand for high-quality radio...

In the US, digital radio is transmitted in-band, on both the FM (VHF) _and_
AM (MW) bands. I don't much care for the sound of it -- even at 96kbps, it
sounds rather flat, squashed, and airless -- but it works without requiring
a new band. And the sound quality of the BBC and other auxiliary "talk"
channels is acceptable.

Sony has an HD digital tuner (XDR-F1HD) using Philips chips that has simply
incredible performance. In terms of sensitivity, separation, and distortion,
it blows away (by a wide margin) the best conventional tuners costing
thousands of dollars -- and it retails for $100. (That's not a mistype.) I
got mine for $50, using an iBiquity.rebate. (iBiquity is the company that
developed this system. It's called "HD", which is supposed to mean "hybrid
digital" (as the digital data are transmitted along with the analog), but
the name conveniently suggests "high definition", which the sound
most-definitely is not.)

You can see my review ("HD is lossy compression -- what did you expect?") -- 
and others -- here:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B00168Q248/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_next_3?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageNumber=3&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

There has been talk about opening a VHF band with truly uncompromised
digital transmission. But it's unlikely this will ever occur, as people will
not be willing to replace existing tuners and receivers.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:01:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
 wrote:

>>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have 
>>> scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable. 
>>  
>> Not true.  Old DAB is too inefficient.
>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
> 
> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but isn't
> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will make
> it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and for
> those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of the same
> stations on FreeView or Satellite.
 
We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland, 
that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.

In article ,
   Whiskers  wrote:
> > I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
> > isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
> > will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
> > radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already can
> > get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.

> As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and some
> receivers can cope with both.

I suppose some new or future ones will. As regards transmitters carrying
both the high cost of transmission is said to be one reason for some
existing or proposed stations closing. of course this cost is mainly
'rental' costs - but these private companies aren't there to provide
charity.    

>  But there is now a significant number of
> receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are
> likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both standards
> at once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to
> it. Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new
> DAB receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or
> so.

Absolutely. It took long enough to get to this level of acceptance.

> While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get
> 'better' sound reproduction,
but the thing is they didn't when it started
> most people just want something 'good
> enough' - which DAB manifestly is.
Indeed.
>  I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type:
> "Varied Speech" at "128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a
> Roberts MP23).
Same here - and I'm using a pretty good sound system in this room. The
speakers are Chartwell LS3/5a. But we are in a minority if the vocal lobby
who only look at bitrates are to be believed.

>  Radio 3 probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets,
> but most stations are Mono and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any
> the worse for it.  I just don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall
> experience' in my kitchen or bedroom, or even the living-room, and
> certainly not in the car.

In an ideal world the rates would be a minimum 192 kbps for all - but that
would cost too much it seems.

> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.

Of course more modern codecs can use lower rates with less noticeable
degradation. But not as low as that. ;-)

-- 
*Modulation in all things *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
   Ken  wrote:
> > I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
> > isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
> > will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
> > radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already can
> > get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>  
> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland, 
> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.

Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the corner.

-- 
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Whiskers"  wrote in message
news:slrngf2a0q.gib.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-11, ian field  wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB
>> because reception is so unreliable.
>
> Not what <http://www.worlddab.org/> seem to think.


WorldDMB are liars.

For example, if you go to the WorldDMB home page and hover your mouse 
over the word "DAB+", it says that the system is backwardly compatible 
with DAB. But the opposite is in fact true, and I've asked WorldDMB to 
tell the truth and correct their website, but they've done nothing.

The President of WorldDMB is Quetin Howard, the ex-chief exec (before 
being sacked) of Digital One, who lied on BBC TV:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/articles/President-of-WorldDMB-was-dishonest-about-DAB+-on-BBC-TV.php

and he basically lies whenever he feels like it.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:55:00 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
 wrote:

>>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>>> isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
>>> will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
>>> radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already can
>>> get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>>  
>> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland, 
>> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
> 
> Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
> present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
> afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the corner.
 
Since 1996 we have testing DAB here in Sweden and we don't like it.
The same in Finland. Finland closed down DAB completely.
Old DAB is too inefficient.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4fed0cba50dave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article ,
>   Ken  wrote:
>>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
>>> scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
>>
>> Not true.  Old DAB is too inefficient.
>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
>
> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but 
> isn't
> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will 
> make
> it a dead duck.


Hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a 
giraffe.

The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know what 
it is and what it provides.




-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

"Whiskers"  wrote in message
news:slrngf3o33.jop.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-12, Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:
>> In article ,
>>    Ken  wrote:
>>>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have
>>>> scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable.
>>>
>>> Not true.  Old DAB is too inefficient.
>>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
>>
>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but 
>> isn't
>> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance 
>> will make
>> it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and 
>> for
>> those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of 
>> the same
>> stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>
> As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and 
> some
> receivers can cope with both.  But there is now a significant number 
> of
> receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are
> likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both 
> standards at
> once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to 
> it.
> Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new DAB
> receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or 
> so.


There will be a slow migration over to DAB+. All "DAB" receivers are 
gonig to support DAB+ and DMB-A soon.


> While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get 
> 'better'
> sound reproduction, most people just want something 'good enough' - 
> which
> DAB manifestly is.


On a portable radio maybe - on *anything* better you've got to be deaf 
to think that.


>  I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type: "Varied Speech" at
> "128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a Roberts MP23).  Radio 
> 3
> probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets,


Funny how you've mentioned the ONLY two stations that are using 
reasonable bit rates on DAB - R4 at 128k is reasonable because speech 
is far easier to encode than music.


> but most stations are Mono
> and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.


That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest that 
music should be broadcast in mono.


>  I just
> don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my 
> kitchen or
> bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.


Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want something 
better than others should be denied it?


> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.


BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3 
streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations. The 
live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few weeks.

Why don't you check your facts first?



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4fed1c3688dave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article 
> ,
>   Whiskers  wrote:
>>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>>> isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer 
>>> resistance
>>> will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
>>> radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already 
>>> can
>>> get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>
>> As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and 
>> some
>> receivers can cope with both.
>
> I suppose some new or future ones will. As regards transmitters 
> carrying
> both the high cost of transmission is said to be one reason for some
> existing or proposed stations closing. of course this cost is mainly
> 'rental' costs - but these private companies aren't there to provide
> charity.


DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's one 
of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters. DAB+ is definitely 
going to happen, and it'll happen sooner than you think.

I saw a quote that sums up the situatino with DAB+ pretty well:

(wording from memory)
"people overestimate how much progress can be made in 1 year, but they 
underestimate how much progress can be made in 10 years"

That's spot on where DAB+ is concerned. There will be loads of DAB+ 
stations in 5 years' time.


>>  But there is now a significant number of
>> receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters 
>> are
>> likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both 
>> standards
>> at once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen 
>> to
>> it. Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new
>> DAB receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years 
>> or
>> so.
>
> Absolutely. It took long enough to get to this level of acceptance.


Irrelevant.


>> While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get
>> 'better' sound reproduction,
> but the thing is they didn't when it started


Now you're lying, because I told you what the score was in the early 
days, so repeating this is lying.


>> most people just want something 'good
>> enough' - which DAB manifestly is.
> Indeed.
>>  I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type:
>> "Varied Speech" at "128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a
>> Roberts MP23).
> Same here - and I'm using a pretty good sound system in this room. 
> The
> speakers are Chartwell LS3/5a. But we are in a minority if the vocal 
> lobby
> who only look at bitrates are to be believed.


You're also an R4 listener though, and you admitted that you don't 
listen to the pop music statinos or similar, which is wehre you get 
the shit audio quality.

Basically, both of you two are just extremely selfish people.


>>  Radio 3 probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets,
>> but most stations are Mono and many only get 80kbps and don't seem 
>> any
>> the worse for it.  I just don't expect, or even want, a 'concert 
>> hall
>> experience' in my kitchen or bedroom, or even the living-room, and
>> certainly not in the car.
>
> In an ideal world the rates would be a minimum 192 kbps for all - 
> but that
> would cost too much it seems.


They screwed up in the first place:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

So don't try to suggest that we couldn't have had good audio quality, 
because we DEFINITELY could have had it.


>> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
>
> Of course more modern codecs can use lower rates with less 
> noticeable
> degradation. But not as low as that. ;-)


The BBC is already using 128 kbps - and even 192 kbps for R3 - for a 
lot of its Internet stuff now.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4fed1c956ddave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article ,
>   Ken  wrote:
>>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>>> isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer 
>>> resistance
>>> will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
>>> radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already 
>>> can
>>> get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>>
>> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
>> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
>
> Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
> present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
> afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the 
> corner.


Plowman, DAB is DEAD in Sweden and Finland - the transmitters were 
even switched off in Finland, and most of the transmitters were 
switched off in Sweden as well when the government refused to fund it.

Now that DAB+ is available adn there's receivers and ALL DAB receivers 
are going to include support for DAB+ in the near future, there's no 
way that any country that's considering what system to use would use 
DAB. End of story.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
 scribeth thus
>In article <C69Ik.46571$I31.46303@newsfe24.ams2>,
>   ian field  wrote:
>> I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have scrapped DAB
>> because reception is so unreliable. 
>
>It's not been terribly popular anywhere as it offers little over FM for
>the majority of listeners. Indeed in the UK the bit rate is so low the
>quality can be poorer - on most stations. The other thing is battery life
>is poor on a portable receiver.
>
>It does work pretty well for mobile reception, though, like in a car, in
>reasonable signal areas - but very few makers offered DAB as OEM. And
>aftermarket units are expensive - as are decent aerials.
>

Fantastic DAB;!..
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Whiskers  scribeth thus
>On 2008-10-12, Dave Plowman (News)  wrote:
>> In article ,
>>    Ken  wrote:
>>> > I read somewhere that some Scandinavian countries have 
>>> > scrapped DAB because reception is so unreliable. 
>>>  
>>> Not true.  Old DAB is too inefficient.
>>> I think DAB+ will be the future here.
>>
>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but isn't
>> compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance will make
>> it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality radio - and for
>> those that really want it in the UK they already can get most of the same
>> stations on FreeView or Satellite.
>
>As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and some 
>receivers can cope with both.  But there is now a significant number of 
>receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters are 
>likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both standards at 
>once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen to it.  
>Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new DAB 
>receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years or so.
>
>While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get 'better' 
>sound reproduction, most people just want something 'good enough' - which 
>DAB manifestly is.  I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type: "Varied Speech" at 
>"128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a Roberts MP23).  Radio 3 
>probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets, but most stations are Mono 
>and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.  I just 
>don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my kitchen or 
>bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
>

Fine you don't ... others might..

>BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
>

-- 
Tony Sayer

On 2008-10-12, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> "Whiskers"  wrote in message
> news:slrngf3o33.jop.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net

[...]

>> but most stations are Mono
>> and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.
>
>
> That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest that 
> music should be broadcast in mono.

I suppose it's a matter of taste - as is deciding what is or isn't "music". 
My statement is factuallu correct; your opinion is differenct from mine, 
but opinions are not facts.  If a radio station wants more bits per 
second, I suppose they are able to bid for them - if they can't pay for 
more then their revenue model may not match their pretensions.  Which
could be why some of the new stations don't last long.  Or the regualtions 
about providing more 'bandwidth' are inappropriate (which is my opinion).

>>  I just
>> don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my 
>> kitchen or
>> bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
>
>
> Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want something 
> better than others should be denied it?

Who the hell are you to say that just because you want something different 
from what most people are content with, we should all spend more money?

>> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
>
>
> BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3 
> streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations. The 
> live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few weeks.
>
> Why don't you check your facts first?

I did.  The last podcast I downloaded is 'Talking Allowed" from last week, 
which is very definitely ar 64kbps - I've never seen a BBC podcast at any 
other bit rate.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

"Andy Cuffe"  wrote in message 
news:qr53f456lsc9etr32ars6bhhjmp0ohek5v@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:57:54 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm stumped. Wish I could see the thing. Unless you're doing something
>>Really Weird, it looks as if there's some Really Bad Code in the system
>>controller. I would go to the Philips site and let them know you're mad as
>>hell, and you're not going to this any more!
>>
>>PS: "Local" Scan? How is it different from a "Full" scan? Do they mean
>>scanning all the blocks? What makes any particular block "local"? 
>>Inquiring
>>minds want to know!
>>
>
> Bad designs like this seem to be normal these days.  If it works at
> all, they consider it finished and move on to the next product.  I
> doubt Philips will care since they probably had nothing to do with the
> actual design of the radio.
> Andy Cuffe

When I used to service monitors most of the Philips one's were made in 
Hungary, these days I think more and more of their stuff comes straight from 
China.

"Whiskers"  wrote in message
news:slrngf4bai.jop.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
> On 2008-10-12, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>> "Whiskers"  wrote in message
>> news:slrngf3o33.jop.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
>
> [...]
>
>>> but most stations are Mono
>>> and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.
>>
>>
>> That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest 
>> that
>> music should be broadcast in mono.
>
> I suppose it's a matter of taste


Getting facts wrong has nothing to do with taste. And on the subject 
of music being in mono, that's ridiculous, and I'm not going to waste 
my time discussing anything so ridiculous.


>- as is deciding what is or isn't
> "music".


Again, ridiculous.


> My statement is factuallu correct; your opinion is differenct
> from mine, but opinions are not facts.


No. You can't just reclassify music stations as not being music just 
because you might not like the bloody music they're playing.

I've never come across such a ridiculous way to try and squirm out of 
admiting that they're wrong.

I'd suggest that you just keep your mouth shut if you don't know what 
you're talking about. I do that, and that's why I'm very rarely wrong.


> If a radio station wants more
> bits per second, I suppose they are able to bid for them


DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality is 
as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.


> - if they can't
> pay for more then their revenue model may not match their 
> pretensions.


The balls up basically happened in the 1990s, and now the multiplexes 
are pretty much full, adn the transmissino costs are ridiculously 
expensive (that's one of the major balls ups of the DAB system).

Basically, the only way to improve quality now is to switch to DAB+. 
And it will happen, despite what unknowledgable people on the subject 
like yourself might think.


> Which could be why some of the new stations don't last long.  Or the
> regualtions about providing more 'bandwidth' are inappropriate 
> (which is
> my opinion).


Again, you haven't got a clue, have you? You don't know anything about 
"the regulations about providing more bandwidth are inappropriate". 
How is that your "opinion" when you don't even have a clue what the 
regulations are?

The reason I know you don't know what you're talking about is that I 
do know what the regulations are, and what you've just said doesn't 
make any sense.

BTW, good luck Googling for them, because the bit about audio quality 
is stuck in teh middle of a really big pdf. Happy hunting.


>>>  I just
>>> don't expect, or even want, a 'concert hall experience' in my
>>> kitchen or
>>> bedroom, or even the living-room, and certainly not in the car.
>>
>>
>> Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want 
>> something
>> better than others should be denied it?
>
> Who the hell are you to say that just because you want something 
> different
> from what most people are content with, we should all spend more 
> money?


I'm me. And I'm not being told what I want to listen to by some low 
audio quality loving tree dweller.


>>> BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
>>
>>
>> BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3
>> streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations. 
>> The
>> live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few 
>> weeks.
>>
>> Why don't you check your facts first?
>
> I did.  The last podcast I downloaded is 'Talking Allowed" from last 
> week,
> which is very definitely ar 64kbps - I've never seen a BBC podcast 
> at any
> other bit rate.


So in checking your "facts" that "BBC podcasts are 64 kbps" you 
downloaded a speech podcast, even though speech is often mono and 
speech is far easier to encode than music so music typically uses 
higher bit rates? Mm, good researching.

Try some music podcasts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/directory/




-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message
news:ByqIk.12$dN6.3@newsfe18.ams2

> DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality 
> is
> as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.


Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC 
multiplex. On the commercial multiplexes it's more about transmission 
costs being sky high.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

In article <NRoIk.47341$I31.5153@newsfe24.ams2>,
   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> > I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
> > isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer resistance
> > will make it a dead duck.


> Hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a
> giraffe.

> The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know what it
> is and what it provides.

You think people want to chuck out what they've got and buy new? You're
mad. Or perhaps you think the 'promise' of better quality will get
everyone buying it? Even more mad.

-- 
*Pride is what we have.  Vanity is what others have.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <a3pIk.47343$I31.17399@newsfe24.ams2>,
   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's one 
> of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters.

You really think Arqiva will stop charging what the market will stand? You
make it sound like it's the power consumption of the transmitters which
costs.

-- 
*Speak softly and carry a cellular phone *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <t5pIk.47344$I31.40399@newsfe24.ams2>,
   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> >> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
> >> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
> >
> > Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the
> > present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly
> > afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the 
> > corner.


> Plowman, DAB is DEAD in Sweden and Finland - the transmitters were 
> even switched off in Finland, and most of the transmitters were 
> switched off in Sweden as well when the government refused to fund it.

According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would never
start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless worm.   

> Now that DAB+ is available adn there's receivers and ALL DAB receivers 
> are going to include support for DAB+ in the near future, there's no 
> way that any country that's considering what system to use would use 
> DAB. End of story.

Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.

-- 
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <APqIk.14$dN6.10@newsfe18.ams2>,
   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> > DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality 
> > is
> > as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.


> Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC 
> multiplex.

So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higher
bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you prefer FM
anyway. Just how selfish can you get?

-- 
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4fed351fb6dave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <a3pIk.47343$I31.17399@newsfe24.ams2>,
>   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>> DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's 
>> one
>> of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters.
>
> You really think Arqiva will stop charging what the market will 
> stand? You
> make it sound like it's the power consumption of the transmitters 
> which
> costs.


Here we go again, being lectured by the Plowman on something he knows 
bugger all about.

The reason why it's 2-3 times cheaper per station on DAB+ is because 
the bit rates are 2-3 times lower, so the capacity consumed is 2-3 
times lower, so they can fit 2-3 times more stations on a multiplex, 
so the overall multiplex costs can be shared between 2-3 times as many 
stations.

Even you should be able to understand the logic of that.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4fed529a3ddave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <APqIk.14$dN6.10@newsfe18.ams2>,
>   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>> DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
>>> is
>>> as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
>
>
>> Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
>> multiplex.
>
> So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higher
> bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you prefer 
> FM
> anyway. Just how selfish can you get?


If you re-read the single sentence you've quoted, I simply said that 
the quality is shit. I didn't say anywhere that I wanted to remove 
stations so that the statinos I listen to can be at higher quality - 
you're the only person suggeseting that.

I'd be happy if the BBC simply provided its stations at high quality 
(and I'm talking properly high here) via the Internet and the digital 
TV platforms, and they must also promote the fact that the quailty is 
higher on those platforms. Then they can do whatever the fooking hell 
they like with DAB for the next few years until it's time to switch 
over to DAB+.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4fed522d9cdave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <t5pIk.47344$I31.40399@newsfe24.ams2>,
>   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>>> We would never start using the old DAB in Sweden and Finland,
>>>> that's for sure. DAB+ or something more modern is the future.
>>>
>>> Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of 
>>> the
>>> present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started 
>>> shortly
>>> afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the
>>> corner.
>
>
>> Plowman, DAB is DEAD in Sweden and Finland - the transmitters were
>> even switched off in Finland, and most of the transmitters were
>> switched off in Sweden as well when the government refused to fund 
>> it.
>
> According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would 
> never
> start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless 
> worm.


Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start using the 
old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries, which is exactly what 
I said.


>> Now that DAB+ is available adn there's receivers and ALL DAB 
>> receivers
>> are going to include support for DAB+ in the near future, there's 
>> no
>> way that any country that's considering what system to use would 
>> use
>> DAB. End of story.
>
> Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.


What on earth has that got to do with anything? You're off your 
trolley.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4fed34af90dave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <NRoIk.47341$I31.5153@newsfe24.ams2>,
>   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
>>> isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer 
>>> resistance
>>> will make it a dead duck.
>
>
>> Hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a
>> giraffe.
>
>> The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know 
>> what it
>> is and what it provides.
>
> You think people want to chuck out what they've got and buy new? 
> You're
> mad. Or perhaps you think the 'promise' of better quality will get
> everyone buying it? Even more mad.


You're viewing DAB+ as if once it starts then DAB ends on the same 
day - i.e. an abrupt changeover, like digital switchover on TV. It 
won't be anything like that. DAB+ will be phased in, and it will 
slowly take over. Remember that there are only 7 million DAB sets 
sold, and there are 120 - 150m FM devices *in-use* according to Ofcom. 
DAB+ receivers will vastly outnumber DAB-only devices within the next 
few years, and it's YOU who's mad if you think that DAB+ won't be used 
once DAB+ receivers form the majority. The economics (transmission 
cost per listener) will favour DAB+ within the next 2 years. DAB+ also 
allows stations to launch on "full" multiplexes, i.e. ones that 
couldn't carry another DAB station, such as the multiplexes in London. 
We'll see the first DAB+ statino launch in the next 3 years. Mark my 
words. Some of the fastest selling "DAB" radios at the moment are 
upgradeable to DAB+, and the number of DAB+-capable receivers has been 
ticking up since last summer. By next year all "DAB" radios in the 
shops should support DAB+ and DMB-A - all the broadcasters now want 
that to happen - see the new WorldDMB Receiver Profiles, which all 
include support for DAB+ and DMB-A.

You see, the problem is, you're spouting about things you don't 
understand again. Just keep your trap shut if you don't understand 
things, or else you embarrass yourself.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

In article <2pvIk.269$qH4.22@newsfe03.ams2>,
   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> >>> DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality
> >>> is as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
> >
> >
> >> Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
> >> multiplex.
> >
> > So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higher
> > bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you prefer 
> > FM
> > anyway. Just how selfish can you get?


> If you re-read the single sentence you've quoted, I simply said that 
> the quality is shit. I didn't say anywhere that I wanted to remove 
> stations so that the statinos I listen to can be at higher quality - 
> you're the only person suggeseting that.

You're certainly dishonest enough not to admit it openly.   

> I'd be happy if the BBC simply provided its stations at high quality 
> (and I'm talking properly high here) via the Internet and the digital 
> TV platforms, and they must also promote the fact that the quailty is 
> higher on those platforms. Then they can do whatever the fooking hell 
> they like with DAB for the next few years until it's time to switch 
> over to DAB+.

If that is truly your view why continue your crusade against all things
DAB? Haven't you really got anything better to do?

-- 
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:29:30 +0100, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
<dab.is@dead> wrote:

> Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start 
> using the old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries, 
> which is exactly what I said.

Old DAB is still experimental in Sweden.
There are only 4 transmitters running now, 
Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö and Luleå.
We need a more efficient digital radio system in Sweden 
before the population start buying receivers.
 
Digital TV in Sweden using MPEG2 now, but from 1 january 2009 
we are going to start using MPEG4 on the new channels 
and at year 2015 Sweden are not using MPEG2 any more.
The swedes have to buy new digital TV boxes.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4fed5874bbdave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <2pvIk.269$qH4.22@newsfe03.ams2>,
>   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>>>> DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio 
>>>>> quality
>>>>> is as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC
>>>> multiplex.
>>>
>>> So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have 
>>> higher
>>> bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you 
>>> prefer
>>> FM
>>> anyway. Just how selfish can you get?
>
>
>> If you re-read the single sentence you've quoted, I simply said 
>> that
>> the quality is shit. I didn't say anywhere that I wanted to remove
>> stations so that the statinos I listen to can be at higher 
>> quality -
>> you're the only person suggeseting that.
>
> You're certainly dishonest enough not to admit it openly.


This is what I wrote, because you quoted me:

"Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC 
multiplex."

Where in that sentence does it say that I want stations to be removed 
from the BBC multiplex?


>> I'd be happy if the BBC simply provided its stations at high 
>> quality
>> (and I'm talking properly high here) via the Internet and the 
>> digital
>> TV platforms, and they must also promote the fact that the quailty 
>> is
>> higher on those platforms. Then they can do whatever the fooking 
>> hell
>> they like with DAB for the next few years until it's time to switch
>> over to DAB+.
>
> If that is truly your view why continue your crusade against all 
> things
> DAB?


Because the BBC will not do the things I've described. For example, 
the BBC has got 231,000 kbps of capacity on satellite, yet they won't 
even increase the bit rates of the radio stations from 192 kbps to 256 
kbps on satellite. The BBC digital radio people have spent the last 7 
or 8 months trying to make up excuses to justify providing the live 
Internet radio streams at lower quality than the BBC listen again 
streams. And the BBC wants to continue pushing everybody on to DAB 
without informing the public that the quality is higher via the 
digital TV platforms and it will be higher via the Internet within the 
next few weeks.


> Haven't you really got anything better to do?


I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to 
mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage BBC 
resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my 
website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about the 
dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I 
haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

In article <uoDIk.944$qt6.245@newsfe28.ams2>,
   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> > Haven't you really got anything better to do?


> I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to 
> mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage BBC 
> resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my 
> website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about the 
> dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I 
> haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).

You could try getting a life...

-- 
*The older you get, the better you realize you were.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
 > "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message

 >> According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would
 >> never
 >> start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless
 >> worm.
 >
 >
 > Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start using the
 > old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries, which is exactly what
 > I said.

http://www.worlddab.org/news/document/537/The_20future_20of_20radio.pdf

(hopefully I've copied and pasted that link correctly, but I wont know
or certain until I post and then see if it works)

 >> Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.
 >
 >
 > What on earth has that got to do with anything? You're off your
 > trolley.

Neither was HDTV.
Oh hang on a minute, that doesn't have anything to do with it either.

Richard E.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <uoDIk.944$qt6.245@newsfe28.ams2>,
>    DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>> Haven't you really got anything better to do?
> 
> 
>> I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to 
>> mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage BBC 
>> resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my 
>> website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about the 
>> dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I 
>> haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).
> 
> You could try getting a life...
> 
When all else fails, resort to simple insults?

Richard E.

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4fed9264e5dave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <uoDIk.944$qt6.245@newsfe28.ams2>,
>   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>> Haven't you really got anything better to do?
>
>
>> I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to
>> mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage 
>> BBC
>> resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my
>> website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about 
>> the
>> dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I
>> haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).
>
> You could try getting a life...


Awww. I'm hurt.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

"Richard Evans"  wrote in message
news:48f325fc$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <uoDIk.944$qt6.245@newsfe28.ams2>,
>>    DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>>> Haven't you really got anything better to do?
>>
>>
>>> I've got lots of better things to do. But if the BBC is going to
>>> mislead the pubilc about digital radio and deliberately mismanage 
>>> BBC
>>> resources that the public pays for, I'm going to reveal this on my
>>> website, and I'm going to start complaining to the BBC Trust about 
>>> the
>>> dishonest way the BBC is handling digital radio (something that I
>>> haven't done in the past, but it's about time I started).
>>
>> You could try getting a life...
>>
> When all else fails, resort to simple insults?


Yep, that's the Plowman for ya.




-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

On 2008-10-12, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
> news:4fed351fb6dave@davenoise.co.uk
>> In article <a3pIk.47343$I31.17399@newsfe24.ams2>,
>>   DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>> DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's 
>>> one
>>> of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters.
>>
>> You really think Arqiva will stop charging what the market will 
>> stand? You
>> make it sound like it's the power consumption of the transmitters 
>> which
>> costs.
>
>
> Here we go again, being lectured by the Plowman on something he knows 
> bugger all about.
>
> The reason why it's 2-3 times cheaper per station on DAB+ is because 
> the bit rates are 2-3 times lower, so the capacity consumed is 2-3 
> times lower, so they can fit 2-3 times more stations on a multiplex, 
> so the overall multiplex costs can be shared between 2-3 times as many 
> stations.
>
> Even you should be able to understand the logic of that.

So 'they' squeeze 3 times as much stuff into the bandwidth to exploit the 
'better' compression algorithms now devised.  Doesn't that rather leave 
listeners with much the same 'listening quality' as we have now?  And then 
there's the question of where the twice-as-many-as-now broadcasters are 
going to come from along with how twice-as-much-as-now revenue is going to
be generated (both those being in addition to everything already in place). 
There aren't going to be three times as many listeners, are there?  Or 
three times as much stuff worth listening to?  Or three times as many hours 
in each day?

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Whiskers wrote:

> 
> So 'they' squeeze 3 times as much stuff into the bandwidth to exploit the 
> 'better' compression algorithms now devised.  Doesn't that rather leave 
> listeners with much the same 'listening quality' as we have now?  And then 
> there's the question of where the twice-as-many-as-now broadcasters are 
> going to come from along with how twice-as-much-as-now revenue is going to
> be generated (both those being in addition to everything already in place). 
> There aren't going to be three times as many listeners, are there?  Or 
> three times as much stuff worth listening to?  Or three times as many hours 
> in each day?

Or they could simply reduce costs by switch off some of the multiplexes.

In article ,
   Whiskers  wrote:
> > The reason why it's 2-3 times cheaper per station on DAB+ is because 
> > the bit rates are 2-3 times lower, so the capacity consumed is 2-3 
> > times lower, so they can fit 2-3 times more stations on a multiplex, 
> > so the overall multiplex costs can be shared between 2-3 times as many 
> > stations.
> >
> > Even you should be able to understand the logic of that.

> So 'they' squeeze 3 times as much stuff into the bandwidth to exploit
> the 'better' compression algorithms now devised.  Doesn't that rather
> leave listeners with much the same 'listening quality' as we have now? 
> And then there's the question of where the twice-as-many-as-now
> broadcasters are going to come from along with how twice-as-much-as-now
> revenue is going to be generated (both those being in addition to
> everything already in place). There aren't going to be three times as
> many listeners, are there?  Or three times as much stuff worth
> listening to?  Or three times as many hours in each day?

Indeed - a fairly well heeled consortium in the UK have just dropped plans
to launch a new group of radio stations - mainly speech based, which would
have to compete with BBC ones. For a fairly limited audience since the
majority prefer music stations and the bands are awash with those. Many of
which barely profitable.

-- 
*Succeed, in spite of management *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2008-10-13, Richard Evans  wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
>
>>> According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would
>>> never
>>> start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless
>>> worm.
>>
>>
>> Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start using the
>> old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries, which is exactly what
>> I said.
>
> http://www.worlddab.org/news/document/537/The_20future_20of_20radio.pdf
>
> (hopefully I've copied and pasted that link correctly, but I wont know
> or certain until I post and then see if it works)

[...]

Link works fine.  Interesting read, too.  

It says that Sweden currently has a DAB system limited to a few areas and
it is estimated that about 2% of the population listen to DAB in any one
week.  Uncertainty about the future of the technology has discouraged wider
adoption.  The report seems to recommend adopting Eureka 147 DAB (DAB/DAB+)
for future development.

It also summarises the digital radio position in other European countries.  
I précis this information below.  

Denmark has an established DAB network, covering 99% of the population 
(with a target of 100% by 2009) and more than 1.3 million people (23% of
the populaation) had access to a DAB receiver in Dec 2007 - ten times as 
many as two years earlier.  There are 17 channels.  Test broadcasts using
DRM started last year.

Finland has not had great success with DAB, and the only broadcaster to 
have used it has ceased for the time being.  Coverage never got to more 
than 40% of the population.  Instead, that broadcaster is using DVB-T to
reach 99% of the population, and investigation of other systems is taking 
place.

Norway has a developing DAB network covering 80% of the population with [I
think I've interpreted the text correctly] 17 channels and currently more
than half a million people (13.4% of the population) having access to DAB
receivers.  Plans are to shut down FM broadcasts when DAB coverage reaches 
100% of the population.

Great Britain was the first country in Europe to start digital radio 
broadcasts, using DAB, with regular national broadcasts starting in 1997.  
National broadcasts currently reach 85% of the population and there are 
about 400 channels.  RAJAR reported that at the start of 2008 10.8% of all 
radio listening was via DAB, almost a third of the population have access 
to a DAB receiver, and more people use DAB than all other digital 
platforms combined.  The paper is out of date in that it mentions plans 
for new multiplexes with DAB+ facilities; those plans now seem to have 
been cancelled.  Mention is made of the government's "Digital Radio 
Working Group" due to report in November with suggestions for future 
development.  Almost 7 million DAB receivers have been bought since 2001.

Germany's DAB network covers 85% of the population and there are over 180 
stations.  Market penetration has been low, though, with fewer than half a 
million receivers sold.  The regional nature of German government probably 
doesn't help co-ordinate development.  [I've noticed comments in various 
newsgroups from German residents who seem to be surprised at the easy
availability of DAB receivers in Britain; perhaps German retailers are 
also part of the reason for low market penetration?].  DAB+ pilot 
broadcasts began this year and there have been trials of DRM+.

France [being France <grin>] is going it's own way.  DAB broadcasts take 
place in a few regions, but development was halted in 2005.  Instead,