More DAB (including one DAB+ channel)

[OldTechie]

Ofcom announcement: http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/dab-award/
Aquiva announcement: http://www.arqiva.com/news/press-rel...-radio-licence

No obvious effect on Radio 3 that I can see.

[Gordon]

This is a new commercial national multiplex [ie an SFN] with some shuffling to include services already on the first commercial one [D1]. The new D2 Mux is using spectrum already there so the BBC national multiplex carrying R3 is not affected at all. The D2 promoters have promised some DAB+ so that the receivers with the Tick mark being sold now will come in useful - eventually. Getting the BBC changed over to offer some DAB+ on their mux - eg R3 - isn't impossible, they don't seem to have the will partly because many old receivers will not have DAB+ in them - and that's a long story - so they would have to use scarce spectrum to transmit both DAB and DAB+ versions.

However don't hold your breath - what matters to OfCom and the operators is the number of licences they can offer and that means more services at low bit rate. DAB+ simply means the same service at a lower bit rate not better quality.

[Dave2002]

This is a new commercial national multiplex [ie an SFN] with some shuffling to include services already on the first commercial one [D1]. The new D2 Mux is using spectrum already there so the BBC national multiplex carrying R3 is not affected at all. The D2 promoters have promised some DAB+ so that the receivers with the Tick mark being sold now will come in useful - eventually. Getting the BBC changed over to offer some DAB+ on their mux - eg R3 - isn't impossible, they don't seem to have the will partly because many old receivers will not have DAB+ in them - and that's a long story - so they would have to use scarce spectrum to transmit both DAB and DAB+ versions.

However don't hold your breath - what matters to OfCom and the operators is the number of licences they can offer and that means more services at low bit rate. DAB+ simply means the same service at a lower bit rate not better quality.

Re DAB+ not offering better quality I don't think that's quite true. For the same bit rate it arguably offers a better perceived quality than DAB - at least at low bit rates. I'm not sure if it gives a perceived better quality at higher bit rates. Of course it still uses lossy codecs, so compared with the best uncompressed audio it will be relatively poorer, and "better" would only refer to comparisons with other, already compromised compressed audio channels.

There is a possible migration path to better quaity on some stations by having a mix of DAB and DAB+ on multiplexes, though as you have noted it's unlikely to happen due to the desire of operators to have more services rather than better ones. It seems unlikely now that high quality audio will ever come to wireless broadcast channels. Getting even to the level of the current online HD service on a wireless broadcast channel via DAB or sons of DAB would be challenging and difficult in the current competitive environment, and CD quality or better is just not going to happen. The Negroponte shift does seem to be kicking in at last.

[Gordon]

....Re DAB+ not offering better quality I don't think that's quite true. For the same bit rate it arguably offers a better perceived quality than DAB - at least at low bit rates. I'm not sure if it gives a perceived better quality at higher bit rates.....

I think I didn't explain myself well. What I meant was that instead of using the better performance of DAB+ than DAB at a given lowish bit rate to offer consumers that perceived quality improvement at the same bit rate the operators will want to regain the saved capacity to offer more services. The mass radio market is not HiFi and never was and so it's about more choice not better quality. DAB+ can deliver both [up to a point] but doing it is unpalatable to the industry especially the receiver manufacturers [you know who they are] who have been dead against DAB+ from the start. It will take a minor miracle to get audiophile performance from broadcast radio.

It is of course the case for lossy codecs that as the bit rate is increased the performances get to be asymptotic.

[Dave2002]

Gordon

I absolutely agree with your latest msg (#4). Not only will audio quality not increase, but I expect that more content drivel will be provided over more stations - mostly adverts but with just a smidgin of minimal content. Perhaps that is really too pessimistic, but I'm not convinced it couldn't happen.

[Anastasius]

.... more choice not better quality......

Choice that survey after survey have shown very few people want.

[MrGongGong]

Choice that survey after survey have shown very few people want.

That seems to matter very little these days as CHOICE is all that counts

If you take a look in the microphone cupboards at Maida Vale it's obvious what quality things are recorded at.....

[Dave2002]

That seems to matter very little these days as CHOICE is all that counts

If you take a look in the microphone cupboards at Maida Vale it's obvious what quality things are recorded at.....

Do I take it that you don't like the microphones in the cupboard, or is that where they keep the good ones for safety, and use cheap ones in the studios and on location?

[MrGongGong]

Do I take it that you don't like the microphones in the cupboard, or is that where they keep the good ones for safety, and use cheap ones in the studios and on location?

Last time they let me help myself the cheapest one in there was a Neumann U87
they have some rather lovely kit indeed

[Dave2002]

Last time they let me help myself the cheapest one in there was a Neumann U87
they have some rather lovely kit indeed

So is your point that they do make good recordings, but mess them up later in the chain? For example by transmitting using rather poor lossy codecs over some channels.

Perhaps if austerity kicks in hard they'll be forced to use cheap consumer mics (iPads?) if the government allows them to continue at all, though I think the new one owes the BBC for its not always completely unbiased reporting, which I don't think hindered them much - but that's OT for this thread.

[MrGongGong]

So is your point that they do make good recordings, but mess them up later in the chain? For example by transmitting using rather poor lossy codecs over some channels.

I don't listen to DAB very much but having been to these places am pretty certain that the initial quality is very high.

[Dave2002]

I don't listen to DAB very much but having been to these places am pretty certain that the initial quality is very high.

In fairness, that has been my impression too. I did go to one recording session where a speech mic was faulty, and they stopped and waited until they sorted that out. I have also been to R4 sessions which seemed to go well, but apparently there were "popping Ps" and a few other problems, so the participants were asked to repeat some of their words. Quality control at source does seem (or at least did) to be rather good.