Boarders may wish to have a look at this OfCom report for 2016 on Digital Radio published yesterday. It seems that several areas of the UK including London have met the conditions for switchover. Overall listening is about 45% but the criterion is set at 50% which DRUK think may be met nationally by the end of 2017 or soon after. It is noted that reception issues still exist in some areas.
-
-
The one condition that is not being met is audio quality - seemingly unimportant to the OfCommites. -
Well if they aren't overly concerned about reception problems then the audio quality is hardly going to be high up the agenda....Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View Post
I have tried at various times, first on a borrowed radio and then on a portable I bought(originally as a kitchen radio) but wasn't impressed. According to the map I consulted my area is a bit iffy and certainly that seemed to be borne out by the inconsistent signal. In the end I got fed up of trying to move the aerial/radio around to try and get something worth listening to. Probably ought to try again and see if things have improved in the last year or so, if only because it's not always convenient(or neighbourly) to turn the sound up and leave the kitchen door open to hear programmes that clash with domestic duties.Comment
-
In all seriousness, can I recommend a Bluetooth enabled DAC (which can be had for a song) and then stream Radio 3 via your smartphone or tablet through the hifi (or wireless speakers for listening in the kitchen etc). The sound quality is excellent; drop outs are minimal.; satisfaction guaranteed as you listen to Radio 3 at 320kbps. All you need is Wifi or a 4G service. Not only that but the iplayer App enables one to play any of the last month's broadcasts at a moment's notice. Certain presenters' annoying intrusions can therefore be FF'd without obtruding on one's mood of serene enjoyment of the music.
I seriously think that technology has moved on so far in the last few years that the whole FM/DAB debate is largely irrelevant, as there are now other technologies which provide superior audio quality to either, at relatively little outlay.Comment
-
Thank you for those suggestions which I have noted for discussion with my son. The wireless speakers for the kitchen certainly sounds like a good alternative to a separate radio.As I've mentioned elsewhere I do need to replace my sound system, but as I'm so far behind the times it will involve quite a lot of thought - and a lot of getting used to! I do not have smartphone, tablet, WiFi or 4G, and the hifi doesn't have any compatible connections -jack plugs for turntable and CD player and bits of wire clipped to connectors for the speakers......Originally posted by Sir Velo View Post
I'm not inherently anti-technology and progress it's just that I'm not into gadgets and I've not a need for smartphone etc., but it does rather look as if my wish to listen to R3 output might be the driver to close some of that 30 year gap( existing sound system purchased 1986, CD player updated early 21st century)!Comment
-
My advice would be to go for it! You'll be surprised how quickly you catch up on any perceived technology gap.Originally posted by oddoneout View Post
I've just been at a presentation by an IT expert in which he outlined a future where the smartphone will shortly replace the laptop as everyone's main computer. Obviously, screen size is an issue and therefore they will still need to be plugged into monitors for work purposes, but basically the technology is there for everything to be done via something which fits in your pocket!
Bluetooth is a useful technology and a great one for connecting discrete devices in one's home. As I said, the BBC iplayer app can connect with your HiFi via a Bluetooth enabled DAC and an optical jack into the amp. Of course, this does rely on having a decent broadband set up and Wifi for additional convenience, but for as little as £30-£40 a month, one that's proving its worth. Wireless enabled portable speakers likewise can be had for £100 or so and can be connected up to your music library as well as streaming radio and other content.Comment
-
I've not looked at the documents mentioned in msg 1, but surely the big issues relate to mobile use. In some high density areas, where there are high levels of technology take up, many people have now perhaps given up on broadcast media, or at least use them less. Much TV is now supplied via internet, and radio can be done in a similar way. Devices such as Now TV, Chromecast and Chromecast audio have demonstrated that it is feasible to get at least moderately good TV and audio via the internet.
However, this doesn't help many of the population who either don't use internet, or can't afford to pay for it, or are in areas where the internet/broadband services are still very poor - and there are many of those.
Also, mobile users are still using FM surely. Last time I tried to do a check (by taking a DAB set out in a car) I was surprised that I was able to get get reception on DAB in some areas where I wasn't expecting it, but overall I doubt that many car owners are going to have a DAB set in cars, or pay for an adapter. I also think that there are still parts of these isles where DAB reception is poor - though it may be that FM reception is also poor in those areas, so the planners/developers can argue that there's no significant reason to keep FM in preference to DAB!
The physical size of the UK probably doesn't justify the use of satellite for radio, which makes sense in some parts of the world. I'm unaware of moves towards delivery of radio over 3G/4G networks at present - though such networks would seem to offer some advantages for some - but again only in really high density areas. Even 3G coverage in parts of London is not good, so country wide that doesn't seem a particularly good option.
The UK's continuing support for DAB is arguably a good thing, though surely there should be plans to gradually shift to DAB+ or one of the other more efficient variants, for the benefit of mobile users. Quality (both TV and radio) may ultimately be best delivered by the internet - but right now there are major problems with that for users in many areas where internet connectivity is poor.
It does seem that the so-called Negroponte shift does seem at last to be happening in the UK, though whether it is overall a good thing is still too early to say.Comment
-
I live in one of the less than ideal parts of the country(mentioned by Dave2002) although I think that's offset by being in a reasonably sized town(I don't know as my usage doesn't really make demands that are affected by speed etc), but a more relevant constraint is the cost factor. I currently pay about £7 pm for a basic broadband service which is all I need, so a bit of a gap!Of course, this does rely on having a decent broadband set up and Wifi for additional convenience, but for as little as £30-£40 a month,Comment
-
Indeed, it is too easy for some of us in supposedly affluent areas to imagine that paying upwards of £25 per month for various services, such as TV, all you can eat mobile phones, broadband and internet is going to be universally acceptable. That's before any add ons such as Sky TV or pay to view films are added in. My father in law used to be resistant to converting to broadband, but he did use the internet slightly - for email, and for the vicar to send him the weekly readings for the local church, and he thought that £5 per month was a reasonable amount to pay for what he had - which then was simply dial up. That was of course some while ago, but there are still many people who don't have, or don't want to have, or just can't afford to have "fancy" media and broadband packages. We have high speed broadband because I used to have a job which was much easier with access to broadband and the internet generally, and now we are with BT and also have some TV services. We are fortunate, both to have this, and also to be able to afford it, and although our package is a lot cheaper than Sky, there are still many in the country at large who might consider such a level of service extravagant.Originally posted by oddoneout View Post
I don't know what £7 per month buys nowadays, but i rather doubt that it buys a service capable of supplying TV on demand at high quality, though it might manage radio.Comment
-
You're right about the TV, but as that's not needed there's no point in paying for it. Don't know about the radio - I have listened to various bits and pieces without trouble but only via the PC, so not something I make a habit of, and therefore don't know the limits.I don't know what £7 per month buys nowadays, but i rather doubt that it buys a service capable of supplying TV on demand at high quality, though it might manage radio.
Unfortunately, as the assumption is that 'everyone' is using(or being convinced that they need) all the various things that can be delivered via broadband and therefore requires the more expensive 'inclusive' broadband packages, I think the basic ones will be phased out before too long.Comment
Comment