The Ten Myths of DAB

[amateur51]

Not much use for portable listening, however, and pocket DAB devices still, despite improvements in energy management, remains very heavy on batteries compared to FM.

[amateur51]

Not to mention many households having several radios which would have to be replaced.

[amateur51]

"NIMBY-like" dear, not the same thing at all.

Bryn: Myth 11 then. Funny you can now get DAB radios running on AAA cells

For how long on average, maestro? A week? A fortnight? A month? No, I thought not

[Bryn]

The best power consumption I have seen quoted as reliable is 7 hours of DAB listening via in-ear phones from an 800mAh battery. Not exactly impressive compared to FM.

[amateur51]

The best power consumption I have seen quoted as reliable is 7 hours of DAB listening via in-ear phones from an 800mAh battery. Not exactly impressive compared to FM.

I keep my FM radio on all night in bed very quietly - seven hours will last me one day then - pathetic

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

"NIMBY-like" dear, not the same thing at all.

Just who is your paymaster? It sounds incredibly like David Cameron.

Let's see. What kind of radios continue to sell in the greater quantities by a considerable margin?

[David-G]

Interesting points, Andrew, and you are always very welcome to post.

Regarding your proposal, I'm not convinced of the benefit per se. Surely a better bit-rate etc is only going to be of interest to a relatively small number of listeners...those who are listening in a static environment? I can't conceive that anyone would hear the difference on a kitchen table radio of the increased bit rate ( a fact that Jack Scofield picked up on in his article for the Guardian in response to the Ofcom questionnaire they sent out asking people to tell the difference or if they preferred the sound of DAB vs FM...)..it's in Myth 1 on that website.

So assuming that my assumption is correct then aren't these people already served with excellent bit rates such as the Radio 3HD feed?

The answer is NO, because only a minority of people listen through their computer. And even those that do often have problems with drop-out. I would fully support Andrew's proposal.

And I would particularly support his suggestion that "The manufacturers should also be encouraged (forced?) to introduce a user-adjustable variable delay so that all sets within a household may be synchronised."!

[Resurrection Man]

The answer is NO, because only a minority of people listen through their computer. And even those that do often have problems with drop-out. I would fully support Andrew's proposal.

And I would particularly support his suggestion that "The manufacturers should also be encouraged (forced?) to introduce a user-adjustable variable delay so that all sets within a household may be synchronised."!

I take your point, David. On reflection they do make a lot of sense. Nothing wrong with improving DAB. Nothing wrong at all.

But still no need to switch off FM.

It's interesting when you dig a little deeper to see just how desperate they are to try and 'prove' the cost Benefit Analysis case. From the first CBA done by PwC where they glibly quoted a benefit to consumers of £780 million...with no figures to substantiate that. In fact, they originally stifled publication of that CBA as it was so bad.

So they are having another go....see the other http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...ight=switchoff and here http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...ight=switchoff This time they are trying the concept of WTP (Willingness To Pay) which in itself is a reasonable approach.....only the questions are so biased in favour of DAB and in some places out and out lies.

[teamsaint]

"NIMBY-like" dear, not the same thing at all.

Bryn: Myth 11 then. Funny you can now get DAB radios running on AAA cells

Teamsaint: Or poor FM reception for that matter.

But there is the DAB alternative. The BBC aren't threatening to end that, are they?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It's interesting when you dig a little deeper to see just how desperate they are to try and 'prove' the cost Benefit Analysis case. From the first CBA done by PwC where they glibly quoted a benefit to consumers of £780 million...with no figures to substantiate that. In fact, they originally stifled publication of that CBA as it was so bad.

The PWC report covers the derivation of the £780m figure in section 6.4 which runs from pages 39 to 44 and reveals the source and size of the individual benefits making up the £780m. The PWC report also discusses the concept of willingness to pay.

[anotherbob]

However..........I have no great desire to listen to this HD feed on small computer speakers or earphones while sitting on a relatively uncomfortable chair when I have an excellent hifi system and a comfortable armchair. If someone can tell me how to combine the feed and my hifi I should be delighted. I can of course listen to radio from my TV cable box, but the bit rate is not as good as the HD feed.

I use a Logitech Squeezebox Touch linked to my hi-fi, and AFAIK my Radio 3 stream is 320k AAC. I use the 3rd. Party Plugin "BBC RADIO" which also enables Listen Again content with full transport facility.
(I suspect this "thread within a thread" belongs elsewhere but this is where the question was asked.)
The TOUCH is now discontinued by Logitech but there are still new ones to be had and plenty of good used examples. Since it was discontinued the price has increased and the typical price for a mint used example is between £200 and £250 on eBay. Logitech has reassured owners of their continued support. You can see their statement in this article.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57519226-221/logitech-leaves-squeezebox-fans-wondering-whats-next/

The developer of the BBC RADIO plugin is a regular and extremely helpful contributor to the Logitech Squeezebox forums and he has posted that the Radio 3 stream provided on his plugin is 320k AAC

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?97773-BBC-Radio-3-HD-on-BBC-Radio-Applet-Not-connecting

It is worth noting that a 320k stream will use a lot of Mbps and if your broadband "deal" is capped this might be a problem. Also I assume that poor broadband speeds might cause dropouts and buffering. My speed is typically 7-8 MBps and I only experience buffering if I am making other significant demands of my service while listening..

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The best power consumption I have seen quoted as reliable is 7 hours of DAB listening via in-ear phones from an 800mAh battery. Not exactly impressive compared to FM.

How right you are. I have exactly the same problem with my battery laptops, iPods, mobile phones. The battery-powered oven is well-nigh useless. It's about time there was a solution to all this.

PWC mention this in their report (2009):
"An argument against the use of DAB radio relative to traditional analogue radio is the higher energy requirement of a standard DAB set. Our data research and consultation with stakeholders revealed that an “average” DAB radio could use more than twice the amount of energy than an analogue radio when active, and five times greater when on standby. However, the most energy efficient DAB radios have become comparable in terms of energy usage. The Energy Saving Trust has a series of DAB radios (currently 7 models) that are recognised as Energy Saving Recommended, which use around 75% less electricity annually than a standard DAB radio."

and in figure 25 quote DAB (ecological) using 2 W against analogue 3W (and the same power on standby). They're obviously lying.

Which! mention much the same. On the Pure Elan II test they said "We tried the radio with alkaline batteries and got more than 40 hours of listening from one set whether listening to DAB or FM." They're obviously lying

[amateur51]

How right you are. I have exactly the same problem with my battery laptops, iPods, mobile phones. The battery-powered oven is well-nigh useless. It's about time there was a solution to all this.

PWC mention this in their report (2009):
"An argument against the use of DAB radio relative to traditional analogue radio is the higher energy requirement of a standard DAB set. Our data research and consultation with stakeholders revealed that an “average” DAB radio could use more than twice the amount of energy than an analogue radio when active, and five times greater when on standby. However, the most energy efficient DAB radios have become comparable in terms of energy usage. The Energy Saving Trust has a series of DAB radios (currently 7 models) that are recognised as Energy Saving Recommended, which use around 75% less electricity annually than a standard DAB radio."

and in figure 25 quote DAB (ecological) using 2 W against analogue 3W (and the same power on standby). They're obviously lying.

Which! mention much the same. On the Pure Elan II test they said "We tried the radio with alkaline batteries and got more than 40 hours of listening from one set whether listening to DAB or FM." They're obviously lying

Well I've checked the Energy Saving Trust website in search of the information mentioned by PWC above and I can't find it. EST also does not give examples of the DAB radios that meet its criteria - how useful is that?!

[Resurrection Man]

I like the phrase "which use around 75% less electricity annually than a standard DAB radio." But they don't say what the comparison is between a standard DAB radio and an FM transistor. I wonder why.

As an aside, from the PwC Cost Benefit Analysis which the Government tried to bury....

“The results suggest that there are relatively few up-sides to the estimates, and several significant downside risks. … The results suggest that there is a very long pay-back from the Digital Radio Working Group [DRWG] policy ‘investment’ – the Net Present Value [NPV] turns positive after 2026. This result assumes that the existing multiplex licences are extended to 2030, as per the DRWG recommendations. Without the licence extension or any other policy instruments that provide clarity on the long term future of commercial radio, the industry and consumers may fail to see the benefits of digital radio over the longer term. Our analysis suggests that the NPV is negative should either of these two proposals not be implemented.” [emphasis added]

[Gordon]

I've arrived at this thread rather late and am intrigued by the 10 Myths. A couple of comments because to repond in full would take time I don't have.

I'm not convinced that "Myth" is the right word to describe objections to the switchover proposition. DAB is a fact not a myth. To some people it may have deficiencies and its claimed benefits may not convince everyone but those deficiencies and benefits are real enough to some people so can't be mythical. What the author really wants is to keep FM - so why not say so, be positive about the thing you want not negative about the thing you don't. Surprising in an author who seems to be from a marketing background. 10 Good Reasons for keeping FM?

Some of the listed Myths raise genuine issues but others, as stated and argued, simply do not convince. Myth 10 is a non issue. Government/industry [whoever the bad guys are] are quite clear that the intention is to turn off FM as we know it. No hype, no equivocation, no smoke, no mirrors. Weasel words yes, but surely no one is fooled for one second by that.

I'm no fan of switchover as it is proposed [see previous threads on the subject] but I do wonder if whoever compiled these 10 consulted with others because there are several statements/claims that don't help the case against switchover and could easily have been avoided and made more rigorous with some advice prior to publication. In some instances the arguments flirt with hype themsleves, the author falling into the very trap he/she accuses government et al of.

All in all there is only 1 "myth" [if you insist on using the word]: That switchover/switchoff is justified. That justification is ultimately vested in the CBA - all the other issues fold into it as contributing elements and will run counter to one another. The criteria for switchover may be wrong but are clear, they are not mythical. The CBA in this case is far from trivial but it has to be robust and transparent - whichever way it falls. The inadequacies of the 4 year old PWC made that point very clear [so carping on about it is a waste of time] and it is obvious to everyone including government that a bomb proof CBA is going to be very hard to deliver BUT pressure must be maintained on government to do so. The promised date of publication has slipped throughout 2012 and is still "imminent". The Minister is supposed to be making a statement in the autumn in which he is expected to announce a date for switchover and to do that one would have thought that a sound CBA justifying a decision should be in place by then.

So, if anyone really does want a campaign to deal with the switchover issue they have a few months in which to get an act together and be ready to launch a counter statement in the autumn. It had better be good, in fact it may have to be as good as a CBA.