FM to DAB. Why?

[shooter]

I'm interested to know why we are fazing out the FM signal for an inferior DAB signal.

DAB is bassed on MPEG Layer 2 which is a virtually obsolete compression dating back some 10 years.
DAB has signal problems like FM so apart from the user features available on DAB why are the government pushing this format?
DAB in the UK is disappointing and probably lower, on average, than a good FM signal.
If were looking to change the way we listen to the radio why are we going in a backwards direction when it comes to quality of sound?
As radio is a listening not visual pleasure then surely sticking with analog FM is better than MPEG Layer 2.

Why is this happening?

 

[chebby]

You answered it already. It is a Government requirement.

http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/5631.aspx/

You can download the reports here.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Plus DAB lets you cram more stations into a given space on the available spectrum, meaning chunks of the spectrum can be flogged off to benefit the Treasury.

 

[Anonymous]

Because DAB technology allows for far more radio stations, without them interfering with each other.

It's not like DAB has poorer sound quality than FM anyway. FM is rubbish, soundwise; very far from what we expect from CD's, or even vinyl.

Most DAB stations so far has chosen to send bad quality audio -- but most FM stations actually use the same kind of degraded material: compressed music files rather than full CD quality. With FM's limited frequency and dynamic ranges, the result is worse than the same material via DAB.

Take the time to listen to a good quality DAB station through a decent DAC and a good hi-fi system, and you'll find it's much better than the average FM station.

 

[chebby]

Fahnsen:Because DAB technology allows for far more radio stations, without them interfering with each other.
It's not like DAB has poorer sound quality than FM anyway. FM is rubbish, soundwise; very far from what we expect from CD's, or even vinyl.

Are you talking from the position of where you are in Norway, or from the point of view of UK BBC FM/DAB broadcasting?

I can assure you that here (with a good strong FM/DAB reception and a decent tuner and appropriate roof aerials) the situation is entirely different.

Freeview radio and BBC internet radio (live or iPlayer) is superior to DAB and FM superior to both.

I cannot speak for areas where there is 'marginal' reception so maybe (where you are) your experience is different.

 

[manicm]

Fahnsen:

Because DAB technology allows for far more radio stations, without them interfering with each other.

It's not like DAB has poorer sound quality than FM anyway. FM is rubbish, soundwise; very far from what we expect from CD's, or even vinyl.

Most DAB stations so far has chosen to send bad quality audio -- but most FM stations actually use the same kind of degraded material: compressed music files rather than full CD quality. With FM's limited frequency and dynamic ranges, the result is worse than the same material via DAB.

Take the time to listen to a good quality DAB station through a decent DAC and a good hi-fi system, and you'll find it's much better than the average FM station.

So, in Your Very Humble Opinion, FM is rubbish?? You must have a very poor tuner or reception or rapidly failing hearing to make such a blanket and uninformed statement.

A FM station with good reception can give a CD playing the same song a fatal run for its money.

Sorry Fahsen but you're thumb-sucking here.

 

[matthewpiano]

I like FM. I like the sound quality and I also (perhaps sadly) like using an old-fashioned dial to find a station.

I actually don't see success being achieved any time soon with radio switch-over. A lot has to change in terms of in-car units for a start.

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:A FM station with good reception can give a CD playing the same song a fatal run for its money.

'Analog' is better than 'digital', and I'd rather build a Morris Minor replica than buying a new car...

Start checking out the specs for FM -- frequency range, dynamics range, distortion, noise etc. Neither good reception nor the world's best tuner will help when parts of the picture is never sent and what's sent is distorted.

It's a fact that many people prefer the sound of old style equipment to that of more modern equipment. But that has nothing to do with "sound quality" in the technical sense of the word. It's more about 'colouring' the sound.

 

[chebby]

Fahnsen:It's a fact that many people prefer the sound of old style equipment to that of more modern equipment. But that has nothing to do with "sound quality" in the technical sense of the word. It's more about 'colouring' the sound.

http://www.duo.uio.no/publ/informatikk/2007/52348/SHolm-350.pdf

 

[Andrew Everard]

Not all digital is equal, just as not all analogue is the same. Both audio formats offer a range of qualities, and it so happens that in the UK DAB is pretty horrid, and FM (at least with a good aerial, tuner and system, and given a strong signal) can sound a lot better than the low-bitrate DAB we have to endure.

Just because something is digital, it isn't better than analogue. Or indeed vice versa.

 

[shooter]

Okay i've read through the Digital Britain Report and i understand the need for more space for more stations but why bass the whole 'movement' on an outdated format know body uses?
Why not base is on a format that is of better quality than the MPEG layer 2, some format that will outperform FM.

 

[matthewpiano]

Hmmm.. The BBC are really making a good case for finding space for more stations by closing down 6Music and the Asian Network.

It is like TV. It might be great to have all the stations in theory, but in practise it simply results in more 2nd (or even 3rd) rate programming.

 

[Andrew Everard]

What, and tell all those voters that not only will their FM radios be obsolete, but all those new whizzy DAB tuners they've been buying are about to become landfill too? With an election in the offing?

And anyway, where's the fun in flogging off one of the few assets you have left before you start trying to work out a way to sell the air we breathe to foreign investors, when in order to do so you have to spend a fortune upgrading the existing transmission network to handle a new format?

Not many votes in better sound quality, now is there?

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:http://www.duo.uio.no/publ/informatikk/2007/52348/SHolm-350.pdf

What this report says, is that 128kbps DAB broadcasts have poorer sound quality than 192kbps or higher DAB broadcasts, or good quality FM broadcasts.

As far as I can see, it doesn't compares any kind of FM sound quality to high quality DAB. Actually, the scientist states that he doesn't think that DAB is designed with lower quality than FM.

As Mr Everard says, there's different quality standards in both digital and analog. Comparing low bitrate DAB to an ideal FM quality that is hardly ever heard, is not really relevant.

 

[Andrew Everard]

But then at the moment, IIRC, BBC Radios 1 and 2 run at 128kbps, Radio 3 160 or 192, and Radio 4 160 or 80. Hardly surprising that good FM can sound better.

 

[chebby]

Fahnsen:Comparing low bitrate DAB to an ideal FM quality that is hardly ever heard, is not really relevant.

It is relevant if 'low bitrate DAB' is all that you are offered as an alternative.

I have compared higher bitrate Radio 3 and Radio 4 DAB with the equivalent broadcast on Freeview and on BBC iPlayer (AAC) and DAB fails in comparison with those two media also.

I am not just comparing 'ideal FM'* with DAB, and this is not a digital vs analogue argument (much as you would like it to be, and try to portray it as such).

This is an argument about quality of delivery. (And yes I know the BBC use WAV digital as source whatever the destination media or broadcast delivery medium might be, so lets leave that out too.)

* DAB, Freeview radio and FM in our area all come from the same transmitter tower and all have good clean, strong reception here, so there is no problem affecting any of them. They are all about as 'ideal' as each other.

 

[shooter]

Apparently along with the UK Denmark are the flag bearers of DAB radio with about a third of household's receiving DAB.
Norway is next with around 15% then Switzerland with 4% and Germany with 2%.
Denmark has decided to ditch DAB for DAB+ this year. I could imagine this could be quite embarrassing for the UK radio broadcaster's as the UK will be the only flag bearer for an outdated audio codec?
DAB supports MP2.
DAB+ supports AAC+,AAC and MP2.
The thing is DAB+ can run along side DAB. It wont take up additional bandwidth as long as DAB is reduced to mono.
This mean's all UK listeners to DAB can still use their listening device's whilst moving to DAB+.
This has to be the way forward and i think the quicker the government makes this decision the better for us the UK listener.

 

[chebby]

shooter69:This has to be the way forward and i think the quicker the government makes this decision the better for us the UK listener.

Yes that is likely to happen!

Most of the Digital Britain Report reads like it was witten by someone dropped out of a time warp from the 1970s. So the adoption of a 1980s DAB standard for the forseeable future is not at all suprising and probably seems like really 'hot' science to most politicians.

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:
Fahnsen:Comparing low bitrate DAB to an ideal FM quality that is hardly ever heard, is not really relevant.

It is relevant if 'low bitrate DAB' is all that you are offered as an alternative.

But then it's a question of the quality delivered; not about the format delivering it. Also for FM; the BBC might use WAV, but most local FM stations use MP3 these days.

The starting point for this thread was the assumption that DAB, as such, means worse sound quality than FM, as such. Which is a classic statement in the analogue vs digital debate that seems to infect almost any 'serious' hi-fi debate. And it was followed (of course) by the well-known (though still absurd) statement that an FM broadcast received by a good tuner would outperform a CD player.

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:the adoption of a 1980s DAB standard for the forseeable future is not at all suprising and probably seems like really 'hot' science to most politicians.

It certainly is, compared to the 1910/20s FM technology...

 

[chebby]

Neatly ignoring the fact that I compared DAB with other digital 'delivery' media like Freeview radio and Internet radio and that it fails to match their standards also.

Yes Fahnsen. No matter what people say, you try to bend it back to an Analogue vs Digital argument.

My argument is that DAB - as delivered here and now, in the UK - is terrible even when reception is optimal and even in comparison to other digital media (of similar bitrate) let alone FM.

 

[shooter]

Your right Fahnsen the original thread was all about the quality of audible sound the UK receives from broadcasters.
DAB in the UK is good at best with the majority being poor.
I wanted to know why the UK is embracing this format when there is better to be had.

 

[Andrew Everard]

shooter69:I wanted to know why the UK is embracing this format when there is better to be had.

Money.

 

[Anonymous]

it will be a crying shame when the powers who be, decide to switch FM off and embrace DAB. FM can sound very good indeed.

I am sure it is down to money as Mr Everard says. Common sense goes out of the window yet again!