Turning off the FM signal

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I think the relaxation of the criteria for switchover at 50 % of users on digital rather than DAB is perfectly rational. I haven't got a DAB receiver, never will unless future cars have them. I haven't got an FM receiver because after 30 years of chasing ever better receivers, aerials as big as a bed all for the sake of music with birdy accompaniment, I gave up. I've listened via Freeview for the last ten years. Yes, I know all about the grating string tones of mp2, but rather that than compressed, plum-pudding-sound, hissy FM. And now there's the HD stream.

All that's needed to make ordinary DAB sound more than reasonable for music broadcasts is the bit rate changing from 192 kbps to 256 kbps. Park the cynicism and campaign for that instead. That's a battle you might win.

As for DAB coverage, I believe those that tell me they're making strenuous efforts to improve coverage. They're making a much better fist of the coverage assessment now than they did for FM. FM was assessed with outside roof aerials at a decent height above ground level; DAB (I believe) is for internal receivers on a coat hanger. Why the blind faith? Well look at the improvement in DAB coverage over the years.

On longwave (is there a threat) I do hope we have the sense to keep 198 kHz as a national broadcast frequency; as an emergency broadcast this could be invaluable. It gets everywhere, even underground!

[Resurrection Man]

I think the relaxation of the criteria for switchover at 50 % of users on digital rather than DAB is perfectly rational. .....

I don't agree with that point of view. If you look at the actual activity of listening to the radio, listening via some sort of digital feed such as the internet or Freeview is a totally different activity to picking up a transistor radio and walking into the garden with it. DAB and FM are alike in that respect (OK...I know you could get a wifi portable gizmo to give you that capability plus endless wifi repeaters to get right down to the bottom of a very very long garden). Both support a convenient portable method of listening to the radio. Therefore any criteria should compare like with like.

The difference in quality between bitrates of 192kbps and 256kbps will pass the average listener by completely. That is not to detract from the fact that the poor sound quality of DAB is important.

As far as coverage is concerned, the BBC estimate that to achieve the equivalent FM coverage they will need of the order of 1000 or so transmitters at a cost of £40 million. I have the link somewhere or other to substantiate those figures. What money on them moving the goalposts on this criteria as well?

[Gordon]

Gordon..you can download it from here https://dl.dropbox.com/u/106644512/B...B%20WHP061.pdf

It was referenced in the Wiki article on DAB.

Thanks, I have that. It has not "mysteriously" disappeared, you can find it at the BBC where it always was:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper061.shtml

along with its reference 4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/rdreport_1993_11.shtml

which is not about audio coding.

[mangerton]

On longwave (is there a threat) I do hope we have the sense to keep 198 kHz as a national broadcast frequency; as an emergency broadcast this could be invaluable. It gets everywhere, even underground!

This is a most important point, and is frequently overlooked. With a few minor fill-ins, the whole country is covered by three longwave transmitters.

[Gordon]

Whatever your view of DAB is and whatever your reasons for not liking it, if you want to change the process leading to switchover or even stop it you'll have to get organised and be prepared to set up a war chest [yes, that may mean putting your hands in your pockets, your enemies are wealthy] and start agitating much more aggressively in other more visible places than this message board. You'll have to do better than petitions as well. And sound quality/audiophile arguments will get you nowhere. Why not apply to join the CEG? [just google "consumer expert group digital radio"] then you'll have direct access to the process and even to the Minister!!

A real opportunity to object was there some months ago when DCMS CBA consultation was open for comment [see posting above for link to thread on this board]. DAB is a weak consumer proposition and the CBA is also weak and so vulnerable to reasoned attack. How many of you responded to that CBA consulation?

People like Steve Green, William Rogers, Grant Goddard and others have tried within the industry [eg see House of Lords Inquiry not to mention myriad splenetic posts on various message boards like digitalradiotech - now seems to be defunct] and have failed to come up with anything that will slow switchover let alone stop it. If you think you can do better off you go and good luck!

PS: and there are no votes in DAB so forget your MP it's been tried and failed. If you want to get MPs interested in broadcasting try focusing on the mobile phone 800MHz and 700MHz threat to DTT/Freeview spectrum. The first new 4G service went live last week and in March next year the first licence for 800MHz 4G in erstwhile TV spectrum will be operational and with it some black out for some DTT receivers near 4G masts. This isssue made it to an adjournment debate last week.

[Resurrection Man]

Good points, Gordon. Definitely food for thought.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I don't agree with that point of view. If you look at the actual activity of listening to the radio, listening via some sort of digital feed such as the internet or Freeview is a totally different activity to picking up a transistor radio and walking into the garden with it. DAB and FM are alike in that respect (OK...I know you could get a wifi portable gizmo to give you that capability plus endless wifi repeaters to get right down to the bottom of a very very long garden). Both support a convenient portable method of listening to the radio. Therefore any criteria should compare like with like.

The difference in quality between bitrates of 192kbps and 256kbps will pass the average listener by completely. That is not to detract from the fact that the poor sound quality of DAB is important.

For that matter, along comes 4G, so music on the move can be done so many ways. Fighting on the platform of music in your garden hardly seems a convincing counter to the digital platform argument to me.

Maybe music quality is a minority interest but it's one repeatedly claimed as the show-stopper: 256 kbps on the old DAB standard solves that problem quickly and easily.

[Resurrection Man]

For that matter, along comes 4G, so music on the move can be done so many ways. Fighting on the platform of music in your garden hardly seems a convincing counter to the digital platform argument to me.

Maybe music quality is a minority interest but it's one repeatedly claimed as the show-stopper: 256 kbps on the old DAB standard solves that problem quickly and easily.

Just exactly what is 'the digital argument' in your view? If you can answer this question then I will admit defeat.

"Give me one benefit of DAB to the many millions of radio listeners who are perfectly happy listening on FM, perfectly happy with the quality of FM and perfectly happy with the choice of radio stations that are currently on offer and have no wish to spend money when they don't need to"

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Just exactly what is 'the digital argument' in your view? If you can answer this question then I will admit defeat.

"Give me one benefit of DAB to the many millions of radio listeners who are perfectly happy listening on FM, perfectly happy with the quality of FM and perfectly happy with the choice of radio stations that are currently on offer and have no wish to spend money when they don't need to"

I doubt you'll ever admit defeat, but points I would make are:

1. The bulk of BBC audio content is wirelessly broadcast via LW (R4 only), MW, FM, DAB, Freeview, Satellite, and now 4G; it is also distributed over the internet. That's SEVEN different broadcasts! The wireless spectrum is a finite resource and space is valuable. How much of this resource do you want? Some pruning of resource usage is required for use by other wireless users.
2. The FM transmitters are ageing, especially the masts. Any costs of a DAB replacement must be compared to the cost of maintenance of the FM system.
3. The FM system cannot be deveoped any further to improve sound quality. FM is the sound of the sixties, with poor dynamic range, poor signal to noise ratio, and considerable distortion. The digital systems offer decent sound quality now (as you say, it's already not an issue for most listeners) and can surely be developed in the future.
4. Strenuous efforts are being made to improve DAB coverage to a level that will probably far exceed that of FM. You cite the need for 1,000 DAB transmitters, but why is that when FM (another Band III service) seemingly requires just over 100? Probably because the FM coverage maps are assessed for roof-top aerials, not internal coat-hangers.

As for your biased question:
"Give me one benefit of DAB to the many millions of radio listeners who are perfectly happy listening on FM, perfectly happy with the quality of FM and perfectly happy with the choice of radio stations that are currently on offer and have no wish to spend money when they don't need to"

well I give you a question in reply:

"Give me one benefit of Freeview to the many millions of TV viewers who were perfectly happy watching analogue, perfectly happy with the quality of analogue and perfectly happy with the choice of TV stations that were currently on offer and had no wish to spend money when they don't need to". That would be the crowds tortured by the digital switchover into buying flat-screen TVs!

[AuntyKezia]

Today's edition of Feedback, R4 at 4.30 pm, is scheduled to update the "digital radio" discussion. I'll be listening intently!

[mangerton]

I doubt you'll ever admit defeat, but points I would make are:

1. The FM system cannot be deveoped any further to improve sound quality. FM is the sound of the sixties, with poor dynamic range, poor signal to noise ratio, and considerable distortion. The digital systems offer decent sound quality now (as you say, it's already not an issue for most listeners) and can surely be developed in the future.

Many people, including me, believe that FM as it was in the 60s and 70s was better than today's compressed, poor dynamic range, poor s/n ratio, version.

"Give me one benefit of Freeview to the many millions of TV viewers who were perfectly happy watching analogue, perfectly happy with the quality of analogue and perfectly happy with the choice of TV stations that were currently on offer and had no wish to spend money when they don't need to". That would be the crowds tortured by the digital switchover into buying flat-screen TVs!

That is a very good question. I agree completely with the sentiments behind it, and I don't know the answer. However, two wrongs do not make a right. At the bottom of all this mad rush to digitise is the mad rush to mammon.

[Resurrection Man]

....
As for your biased question:
"Give me one benefit of DAB to the many millions of radio listeners who are perfectly happy listening on FM, perfectly happy with the quality of FM and perfectly happy with the choice of radio stations that are currently on offer and have no wish to spend money when they don't need to"

,...

Why on earth is my question biased? It is highly relevant to many millions of people who will be affected if the FM switch off goes ahead.

In passing I will comment on one of your points...The wireless spectrum is a finite resource and space is valuable No-one has come up with ANY commercial use (other than audio) for the FM spectrum. Can you?

[mangerton]

Today's edition of Feedback, R4 at 4.30 pm, is scheduled to update the "digital radio" discussion. I'll be listening intently!

Intently? A bit cold to go camping at this time of the year. Seriously, so shall I - via my 30 year old FM tuner.

[Resurrection Man]

Today's edition of Feedback, R4 at 4.30 pm, is scheduled to update the "digital radio" discussion. I'll be listening intently!

Many thanks for that. I wonder if it is following on from Tuesday's 'Party Political Broadcast' by Ford Ennals

Edit: I see that it is already available online! (3.00 pm)

[Andrew Slater]

On longwave (is there a threat) I do hope we have the sense to keep 198 kHz as a national broadcast frequency; as an emergency broadcast this could be invaluable. It gets everywhere, even underground!

R4 long wave will be switched off when the Droitwich transmitter becomes unserviceable, i.e. when the remnant stock of transmitting valves nears exhaustion. There are no plans to replace the transmitter. This was announced last year as part of the cuts.