The Ten Myths of DAB

[Flosshilde]

I'll take or leave DAB when it's finally rolled-out, which it will be.

I thought that was the point of the argument - once DAB is 'finally rolled-out' (by which I assume that you mean once it's reached enough coverage for FM to be switched off) you won't have any choice but to 'take it'.

[amateur51]

I thought that was the point of the argument - once DAB is 'finally rolled-out' (by which I assume that you mean once it's reached enough coverage for FM to be switched off) you won't have any choice but to 'take it'.

Spot on, Flossie

I've got no problem with DAB being available for those who want it/need it but I don't want a monoculture

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I thought that was the point of the argument - once DAB is 'finally rolled-out' (by which I assume that you mean once it's reached enough coverage for FM to be switched off) you won't have any choice but to 'take it'.

No, I'll choose to not take it, but to listen via Freeview or internet HD. DAB might have been interesting if we were rolling out DAB+, but we're not. It might have been sensible to attempt to negotiate for this to happen, but instead it seems the anti DAB campaign has been entirely negative and confrontational (calling the keyholders liars, for example) - and because of that, unproductive.

[mangerton]

........ it seems the anti DAB campaign has been entirely negative and confrontational (calling the keyholders liars, for example)

Well, to begin with, they said DAB offered "CD quality". They were told that was a lie, so that particular lie was stopped.

[Flosshilde]

No, I'll chose to not take it, but to listen via Freeview or internet HD.

Well, you could do that anyway. But you seem to be so excessively pro-DAB, & then say "DAB might have been interesting if we were rolling out DAB+", which suggests that you actually don't think much of what is being rolled out. Which seems to be a bit confused.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Well, you could do that anyway. But you seem to be so excessively pro-DAB, & then say "DAB might have been interesting if we were rolling out DAB+", which suggests that you actually don't think much of what is being rolled out. Which seems to be a bit confused.

My apparent enthusiasm for DAB is your confusion. I'd already adopted DTT (before the official switchover) years before DAB reached us. I ditched FM (2002) when I got DTT and 'good-riddance'. The present DAB offering will give me no improvement whatsoever.

I would have been far more enthusiastic if there was a prospect of DAB+. The DAB system is fine, just a disappointment. DAB will be out-of-step with digital radio development abroad. It may well provide better reception while on the move, but I'm quite happy to wait until I have a car fitted with a DAB radio.

The NIMBY-like 'keep FM going' campaign, in the face of obvious determination to roll-out DAB has been wrongly directed. The Myths site is an obvious example. I thought Steve Green at DigitalRadioTech was on the right lines until that went all-out for retaining FM instead of pushing for DAB+.

If you need to place people in boxes, put me 'hate FM'.

[Gordon]

No, I'll chose to not take it, but to listen via Freeview or internet HD. DAB might have been interesting if we were rolling out DAB+, but we're not.

I think AIC has it in one. As far as government is concerned if you don't like DAB you have digital alternatives, they are limited as far as audiophiles go [eg BBC HD] especially for the local music stations who presumably stream [All use Radioplayer?] but not at HD [do they stream in stereo even of their DAB is Mono?].

Neither government nor licensed broadcasters have any mandate whatever to serve the special needs of audiophiles. Since the proliferation of channels made possible through the spectral efficiency of digital systems [DAB and Freeview] revenue and offering "choice" has been more important than content quality. It "works" much better in Freeview than in DAB. Those opposing the set up of the BBC in 1926 must be cheering in their graves.

The minimum receiver specifications [more or less finished and ready to go] to be applied for switchover require that all receivers sold with a Tick MUST have DAB+ installed ready to go. No one in the UK is going to broadcast in DAB+ [they say, anyway where's the spectrum coming from] but it will be there if needed in say 2050. [tongue firmly in cheek just to avoid doubt]. The receiver industry fought this tooth and nail until the Minister made the decision a couple of years ago and now they say they can do it after all. BTW another thing the receiver industry has fought tooth and nail is making the coding/decoding delay the same on all models - that is still the position. They say it is too complicated [it isn't trivial] and costly, as they aways do with anything they don't want to do.

Assuming DAB+ did happen - say on 1 multiplex - what do you think government will do with the capacity?

It might have been sensible to attempt to negotiate for this to happen, but instead it seems the anti DAB campaign has been entirely negative and confrontational (calling the keyholders liars, for example) - and because of that, unproductive.

That is it in one again. For years the NO camp has gnashed its teeth in holes and corners on web sites and message boards like barrack room lawyers, particularly the audiophiles and techies. There has been the odd newspaper article and the odd interview on the radio. Some of the techies seem to think that there are magic wands that can wipe away the past - we should drop DAB like a hot brick and just replace it overnight with the latest Whizzo technology. The next week there will be another, newer, better Whizzo Mk2 to replace that. We are where we are. Even within the industry the gainsayers [Goddard, Rogers et al, they've gone quiet lately?] have stated their case, complained to reglators, been to HoL Select hearings to voice their objections BUT NO ONE has co-ordinated this anti-FMSO position and put together a coherent plan to fight the switchoff of FM. Government has the DR Action Plan in which there are deep sceptics who have done much to moderate any excesses but will not stop the progress of government policy. There are issues that might bring the public onto the streets - this isn't one of them.

Anyone who really does not want FM switched off will have to organise a nationwide campaign to focus public opinion [guess how far the great British Apathetic Public will support that] and get the newspapers solidly behind you [what is their interest in this issue?] or get access to government [How? your local MP, what will you tell him, how will he/she get motivated by this issue?] or lobby some stakeholder group already in the DRAP etc etc.

All of that means putting your hands in your pockets to support activists. It also means having a very clear, coherent set of arguments - the 10 Myths as expressed on the web site will not do - and a channel to communicate them. You need the equivalent of a CBA for FM and that means expert professional advice. How much would you contribute to a Save FM Campaign? Don't tell me you should'nt have to do it because you are licence fee payers [radio listeners aren't, or perhaps you are if you listen via Freeview on a TV] or tax payers because standing back on your dignity and huffing won't wash. If you love FM then you'll have to fight for it. You've had years to prepare, opportunities to repond to consultations, now you've got about 9 months left.

There is one thing you can do: Pray. That

The listening figures don't materialise and so spins the process out indefinitely, and
The DAB/FM coverage matching [whatever that is - think about it, what do you think equivalence actually means?] doesn't happen and also spins it out.

PS: claiming that DAB was CD quality isn't a lie. To some people the comaprison is valid. It's too subjective an issue to be certain about and so "truth" or "lie" doesn't enter the argument.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

My recollection was 'near CD quality', and that was when DAB R3 ran at 256 kbps. If DAB got back to 256 kbps I might just be tempted to invoke the DAB section of my AV amp.

[Flosshilde]

My apparent enthusiasm for DAB is your confusion.

Possibly I got you confused with the other 'An_Inspector_Calls' who posted on this thread.

I'd already adopted DTT (before the official switchover) years before DAB reached us. I ditched FM (2002) when I got DTT and 'good-riddance'.

The problem with listening via the internet is that adequate broadband service is very patchy (possibly even more than DAB coverage) & it can be subject to frequent interruptions. I'd rather not have to listen to the Ring in 5-minute installments

[Nick_G]

I think AIC has it in one. As far as government is concerned if you don't like DAB you have digital alternatives, they are limited as far as audiophiles go [eg BBC HD] especially for the local music stations who presumably stream [All use Radioplayer?] but not at HD [do they stream in stereo even of their DAB is Mono?].

Neither government nor licensed broadcasters have any mandate whatever to serve the special needs of audiophiles. Since the proliferation of channels made possible through the spectral efficiency of digital systems [DAB and Freeview] revenue and offering "choice" has been more important than content quality. It "works" much better in Freeview than in DAB. Those opposing the set up of the BBC in 1926 must be cheering in their graves.

The minimum receiver specifications [more or less finished and ready to go] to be applied for switchover require that all receivers sold with a Tick MUST have DAB+ installed ready to go. No one in the UK is going to broadcast in DAB+ [they say, anyway where's the spectrum coming from] but it will be there if needed in say 2050. [tongue firmly in cheek just to avoid doubt]. The receiver industry fought this tooth and nail until the Minister made the decision a couple of years ago and now they say they can do it after all. BTW another thing the receiver industry has fought tooth and nail is making the coding/decoding delay the same on all models - that is still the position. They say it is too complicated [it isn't trivial] and costly, as they aways do with anything they don't want to do.

Assuming DAB+ did happen - say on 1 multiplex - what do you think government will do with the capacity?



That is it in one again. For years the NO camp has gnashed its teeth in holes and corners on web sites and message boards like barrack room lawyers, particularly the audiophiles and techies. There has been the odd newspaper article and the odd interview on the radio. Some of the techies seem to think that there are magic wands that can wipe away the past - we should drop DAB like a hot brick and just replace it overnight with the latest Whizzo technology. The next week there will be another, newer, better Whizzo Mk2 to replace that. We are where we are. Even within the industry the gainsayers [Goddard, Rogers et al, they've gone quiet lately?] have stated their case, complained to reglators, been to HoL Select hearings to voice their objections BUT NO ONE has co-ordinated this anti-FMSO position and put together a coherent plan to fight the switchoff of FM. Government has the DR Action Plan in which there are deep sceptics who have done much to moderate any excesses but will not stop the progress of government policy. There are issues that might bring the public onto the streets - this isn't one of them.

Anyone who really does not want FM switched off will have to organise a nationwide campaign to focus public opinion [guess how far the great British Apathetic Public will support that] and get the newspapers solidly behind you [what is their interest in this issue?] or get access to government [How? your local MP, what will you tell him, how will he/she get motivated by this issue?] or lobby some stakeholder group already in the DRAP etc etc.

All of that means putting your hands in your pockets to support activists. It also means having a very clear, coherent set of arguments - the 10 Myths as expressed on the web site will not do - and a channel to communicate them. You need the equivalent of a CBA for FM and that means expert professional advice. How much would you contribute to a Save FM Campaign? Don't tell me you should'nt have to do it because you are licence fee payers [radio listeners aren't, or perhaps you are if you listen via Freeview on a TV] or tax payers because standing back on your dignity and huffing won't wash. If you love FM then you'll have to fight for it. You've had years to prepare, opportunities to repond to consultations, now you've got about 9 months left.

There is one thing you can do: Pray. That

The listening figures don't materialise and so spins the process out indefinitely, and
The DAB/FM coverage matching [whatever that is - think about it, what do you think equivalence actually means?] doesn't happen and also spins it out.

PS: claiming that DAB was CD quality isn't a lie. To some people the comaprison is valid. It's too subjective an issue to be certain about and so "truth" or "lie" doesn't enter the argument.

Well, a DAB stream has a lot less data in it than a CD one, so technically, DAB is not CD quality. Anyone saying it is is therefore lying. Whether you can hear the difference or not is subjective though. It depends on so many things.

The thing that bugs me about all this is the fact that sales of DAB sets have been flat for several years, only about 30% of people in the Ofcom survey said that they would buy a set, and the amount of negative, sometimes angry comments left regarding news articles on DAB, suggests to me that the public are not impressed. Then you get the likes of Ford Ennals coming out with gems like "digital quality sound" and "people love digital radio". The former is meaningless marketing BS, and the latter means that, well, at least one person really likes digital radio. What does he mean by digital radio? Does he just mean DAB, or all digital platforms? The marketing campaigns have been confusing and lacking clarity & direction. I wonder why?

It would also be interesting to know how they got some of the figures for each platform. I don't believe the figures for internet listening, as it only includes live streams from UK stations. That is not how this platform is consumed. The real figure would surely be higher. And speaking of the internet, what about other forms of listening in the future like 4G with multi-casting? All this DAB malarkey is being funded by the license-fee payer. Without the BBC pushing it, DAB would be dead and buried. It's this colossal waste of money on something that is clearly unpopular with the public which is wrong, as well as the too-many-examples of how did they reach those figures, and the whole thing needs a deep investigation. Isn't it interesting that the industry publish the figures for the reach of digital platforms, but not for analogue? Not to mention how much this protracted process has cost the radio industry. I really can't see the benefits for the license fee payer. That is the criteria by which this money is to be spent isn't it, according to the BBC Trust?

Gordon, your mention of a CBA for FM is logical - to make the right decision surely we need to see it from both sides, especially if the switchover process to DAB is a failure. It could well be for the reasons I've outlined above: that the money runs out, or the listener base doesn't grow fast enough, or cheaper, faster, more efficient IP-based solutions make DAB obsolete. There will be a switchover eventually, but I'm not convinced it'll be DAB that takes precedent. So what would cost more, recklessly pushing ahead with the switchover or maintaining the FM transmission network for the next 30 years if the decision for switchover is delayed or postponed?

Regards,
Nick

[amateur51]

I don't know if this is pertinent (it would seem to me that it is, but what do I know?)

Sony Award-winning Gaydar Radio has stopped broadcasting after 11 years.The station, which had 750,000 listeners per month, was launched in 2001 as a service aimed at the gay community.

Owner QSoft Consulting blamed the cost of investing in digital audio broadcasting (DAB) for its closure

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20944294

[Bryn]

My recollection was 'near CD quality', and that was when DAB R3 ran at 256 kbps. If DAB got back to 256 kbps I might just be tempted to invoke the DAB section of my AV amp.

Hmm, when was it that DAB ran at 256kbps? I was a fairly early adopter, but I only recall the four BBC national channels, 1, 2, 3 and 4 at 192kbps each. I still have 192kbps mp2 from Radio 1 somewhere, (a Cinematic Orchestra gig). The one Christmas the Beeb gave us something heading towards telephone quality audio for 1, 2, and 4, then bit by bit[sic] added several new channels.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Well, a DAB stream has a lot less data in it than a CD one, so technically, DAB is not CD quality. Anyone saying it is is therefore lying.

How about putting it that 'they're mistaken'?

[Gordon]

Well, a DAB stream has a lot less data in it than a CD one, so technically, DAB is not CD quality. Anyone saying it is is therefore lying. Whether you can hear the difference or not is subjective though. It depends on so many things.

You misunderstand how DAB works. What is "data"? If you mean bits in a second for a stereo pair then of course there are fewer, that's the whole point of it. It is not that simple and using words like truth and lie are inappropriate. All lossy compression algorithms produce approximations to the original sound or video. They differ basically in how well they get at what "data" the ear needs most and preserves it such that a decoder can reconstruct from that reduced "data" an adequate reconstruction. If the algorithm is advanced [ie complex] and its implementation is good the results will produce tolerable approximations at low data rates. You can always make a good algorithm bad. Different people will choose different points at which they will accept a given approximation for a given algorithm, especially if they don't listen on the same equipment in the same environment. There are no absolutes only opinions and hence no truth or lies, just preferences.

The thing that bugs me about all this is the fact that sales of DAB sets have been flat for several years, only about 30% of people in the Ofcom survey said that they would buy a set, and the amount of negative, sometimes angry comments left regarding news articles on DAB, suggests to me that the public are not impressed. Then you get the likes of Ford Ennals coming out with gems like "digital quality sound" and "people love digital radio". The former is meaningless marketing BS, and the latter means that, well, at least one person really likes digital radio. What does he mean by digital radio? Does he just mean DAB, or all digital platforms? The marketing campaigns have been confusing and lacking clarity & direction. I wonder why?

I'm no apologist for DAB. From memory DAB sets are selling at a steady rate of around 2 million or so per annum [late 2010-late 2012] so that's 6 million people spending money. No one forced them into it. I don't call that failure, neither is it runaway success but I bet the receiver manufacturers and retailers are quite happy with the revenues [6 million sets at say £45 [about the "Willingness to Pay" value] apiece = £90 millionpa. Why are they in the business if it is so bad? Why do people keep buying them if the service is so bad? About 14+ million people to date have been impressed enough and bought DAB sets. Ennals is a marketeer and an enthusiast. Anyone who listens to marketing needs to adjust their ears to the language. I don't expect him to say DAB is terrible any more than I expect Steve Green to say it's wonderful, they are both expressing opinions that they believe in. The two quotes you give are meaningless anyway; what on earth does "digital quality sound" mean? "People love digital radio" - well actually some people do, but you don't.

It would also be interesting to know how they got some of the figures for each platform. I don't believe the figures for internet listening, as it only includes live streams from UK stations. That is not how this platform is consumed. The real figure would surely be higher.

So you don't believe the figures - prove it then. Go spend some money on a survey. RAJAR produces the results they are paid to. Join RAJAR and ask them how they do it.

And speaking of the internet, what about other forms of listening in the future like 4G with multi-casting? All this DAB malarkey is being funded by the license-fee payer. Without the BBC pushing it, DAB would be dead and buried. It's this colossal waste of money on something that is clearly unpopular with the public......

How so? 14+ milion people have a DAB radio. What level of sales and listening makes it "unpopular". You are doing what the hypers on both sides are doing - asserting opinions without producing sufficient evidence and making clear your criteria. And "Colossal"?? out of the BBC annual revenue from the licence fee of over 3.5Billion what proportion is DAB? I agree that whatever proportion it is, it should be justified, but "colossal" is not the word I'd apply. What is the budget for certain "talent" used on TV?

A number of people assert that 4G will solve a lot of problems through "multicast". Multicast does not equal Broadcast. Multicast is constrained within the capacity and service demand limits placed on the 4G system. Like any IP based delivery mechanism if you load a 4G system with enough streaming demand it will fall over. It's down to traffic management.

.....which is wrong, as well as the too-many-examples of how did they reach those figures, and the whole thing needs a deep investigation.

So will you do it? The industry has put its hand in its pocket and commissioned the work and believes [rightly or wrongly] that that money is well spent. If you believe they are wrong or misleading then produce the evidence.

Isn't it interesting that the industry publish the figures for the reach of digital platforms, but not for analogue? Not to mention how much this protracted process has cost the radio industry. I really can't see the benefits for the license fee payer. That is the criteria by which this money is to be spent isn't it, according to the BBC Trust?

If the BBC did not accept the basis of the RAJAR system they would not use it. RAJAR produce more data than is published, and that which isn't [mostly detail] stays with the people who pay for it. The question here is what degree of open-ness does the BBC have? Ask the Trust, there is a process to do that.

Gordon, your mention of a CBA for FM is logical - to make the right decision surely we need to see it from both sides, especially if the switchover process to DAB is a failure. It could well be for the reasons I've outlined above: that the money runs out, or the listener base doesn't grow fast enough, or cheaper, faster, more efficient IP-based solutions make DAB obsolete. There will be a switchover eventually, but I'm not convinced it'll be DAB that takes precedent. So what would cost more, recklessly pushing ahead with the switchover or maintaining the FM transmission network for the next 30 years if the decision for switchover is delayed or postponed?

Any of those things may come about and one would hope that a CBA would take them into account as best it can. No one has a crystal ball but everyone can see spectres hiding behind every bush. So, if you have all those doubts go away and do your own CBA and see what it tells you. Make sure that you know why you are doing it - are you trying to prove a point or are you after the "truth".

Similarly, when the official CBA eventually comes out will it reveal a "truth" or will it just prove the point. How many people are going to say it's rigged before they read a word of it?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Similarly, when the official CBA eventually comes out will it reveal a "truth" or will it just prove the point. How many people are going to say it's rigged before they read a word of it?

A fair point, though experience often breeds cynicism.