23 replies to this topic

[ckn]

Radio 3 to be the first to launch HD broadcasts at 320kbps.

[JohnM]

Over the first 12 days of January, Radio 3 is also devoting its entire schedule to Mozart. His complete works will be broadcast in HD.

It will still sound the same though, the Stock Aitken Waterman of classical music.

[Futtocks]

Radio 3 to be the first to launch HD broadcasts at 320kbps.

Not sure what to think:
Good news: the BBC are finally improving their broadcast quality instead of telling us that everything is already perfect.
Bad news: they are telling us that 320kbps AAC is 'high definition'.

[Millman]

Not sure what to think:
Good news: the BBC are finally improving their broadcast quality instead of telling us that everything is already perfect.
Bad news: they are telling us that 320kbps AAC is 'high definition'.

Again please, for the benefit of those of us with DAB radios but with no idea what that means.

[Futtocks]

Again please, for the benefit of those of us with DAB radios but with no idea what that means.

There are various different compression methods for audio. Each has an optimum bitrate, where sound quality is generally classed as acceptable and the compression is not too obvious. MP3 is the best known, but there are other options - AAC, WMA etc.

DAB radio uses MP2, which is a pretty ancient software standard, and the lower limit of acceptability is 256kbps. Newer codecs can get away with lower bitrates, as their calculations are more sophisticated and the data removed is less audibly obvious.

No UK DAB stations use a sufficiently high bitrate, being more interested in filling their allocation of the airwaves with more stations - quantity instead of quality. Freeview Digital TV is actually a better way to listen to digital radio, in termes of sound quality, if you have a set-top box that can be plugged into the hi-fi.

BBC Online Radio uses AAC, a newer and more efficient codec, which means that 320kbps will sound pretty good, and much better than the best that MP2 or MP3 can offer. Test broadcasts have had a positive response.

But calling it 'high definition'? Nope, that term would imply a higher bitrate than CD, which is 1411kbps. The current infrastructure of the UK's internet connections would make this impractical for most households.

So I'm happy that the BBC are addressing the quality issues, but calling this 'high definition' is as misleading as when they told us that DAB offered 'CD quality' sound.

[getdownmonkeyman]

So, let me get this right. The BBC, the largest exponent of DAB in the UK, is emphasing online broadcasting over DAB?

Will this country ever get to hear DAB+?

[Millman]

So, let me get this right. The BBC, the largest exponent of DAB in the UK, is emphasing online broadcasting over DAB?

That's kind of my take on it. I'm not that amused, my broadband won't be able to handle even what is being proposed let alone anything better.

[ckn]

So, let me get this right. The BBC, the largest exponent of DAB in the UK, is emphasing online broadcasting over DAB?

Yes. Online broadcasting quality is only limited by the available bandwidth and network latency, over-the-air broadcasting will always have limits over very limited bandwidth, even with the greater efficiencies of DAB+ broadcasting. As mentioned above, commercial limitations mean that quantity beats quality every time and broadcasters will go to the minimum bit-rate possible in most cases.

Will this country ever get to hear DAB+?

Unlikely, state has no desire to fund it and the commercial market is too fragmented by over-aggressive deregulation and low-cost broadcasters soaking up all the local stations. BBC would not get the political will or backing to fund an upgrade, especially as the front page of the Mail would say "BBC to make your existing DAB radio worthless". Even then, most broadcasters would simply use the DAB+ as a way to cut back on the bitrate they put out, reducing their broadcasting costs while giving no increase in listening quality.

Anyway, when at home, why should I have to pay out for a DAB set that gets iffy connection to a limited number of stations when I have a big fat broadband pipe connected to my computer with decent sound system.

[ckn]

That's kind of my take on it. I'm not that amused, my broadband won't be able to handle even what is being proposed let alone anything better.

320kbps? Unless you're living in the highlands of Scotland, you should be able to get over 512kbps broadband and most likely you're on 2mbps or higher. I have an 8mbps broadband connection and can download interruption free data at comfortably over 4000kbps, even after all the internet headers and error checking that forms part of the internet download experience. If I pushed it I could stream maybe 10 similar 320kbps radio broadcasts without unacceptable delays.

[Millman]

320kbps? Unless you're living in the highlands of Scotland, you should be able to get over 512kbps broadband and most likely you're on 2mbps or higher. I have an 8mbps broadband connection and can download interruption free data at comfortably over 4000kbps, even after all the internet headers and error checking that forms part of the internet download experience. If I pushed it I could stream maybe 10 similar 320kbps radio broadcasts without unacceptable delays.

This is what everyone tells me. Everyone that has decent broadband, and doesn't live in the countryside. I get about 314kbps at best.

[getdownmonkeyman]

Yes. Online broadcasting quality is only limited by the available bandwidth and network latency, over-the-air broadcasting will always have limits over very limited bandwidth, even with the greater efficiencies of DAB+ broadcasting. As mentioned above, commercial limitations mean that quantity beats quality every time and broadcasters will go to the minimum bit-rate possible in most cases.

Unlikely, state has no desire to fund it and the commercial market is too fragmented by over-aggressive deregulation and low-cost broadcasters soaking up all the local stations. BBC would not get the political will or backing to fund an upgrade, especially as the front page of the Mail would say "BBC to make your existing DAB radio worthless". Even then, most broadcasters would simply use the DAB+ as a way to cut back on the bitrate they put out, reducing their broadcasting costs while giving no increase in listening quality.

Anyway, when at home, why should I have to pay out for a DAB set that gets iffy connection to a limited number of stations when I have a big fat broadband pipe connected to my computer with decent sound system.

Surely moving to a less bandwidth greedy format whilst keeping the same/similiar number of broadcasters, would enable an increase in quality? Arguably a naive stanpoint, but I am sure you appreciate where I am coming from.

I wholehertedly agree with you regarding the Daily Mail. You could probably add the Express to that, too.

I am also a listener online, but I like to listen to football commentary, something the BBC are unable to do via their online service. Further to this, I have a 24 meg line (average 17 meg), which does suffer from drop-outs when listening to the BBC, so what chance do those who have significantly less of a service have, of getting the higher bitrate? Surely the BBC has invested in it's own infrastructure to enable the increased bitrate broadcasts?

I guess it comes back to the original argument that the BBC were short-sighted in going down the DAB route, when DAB+ was very much a technology that was about to be implemented.

[Futtocks]

So, let me get this right. The BBC, the largest exponent of DAB in the UK, is emphasing online broadcasting over DAB?

Will this country ever get to hear DAB+?

The problem with DAB is that the UK were early adopters, and very few other countries have followed suit. One of the main usages of radio is in cars, and international auto manufacturers aren't bothering with DAB, which needs a different aerial setup to FM/AM.

Therefore the proposed analogue radio switch-off was always going to be a contentious issue. Thankfully Ed Vaizey (Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries) has actually listened to both sides of this argument, rather than just accepting the pro-DAB lobby's opinion as fact, which was what was going on before.

DAB+ (which would use the same codec as the BBC's internet streams) may yet happen, but it is becoming more and more unlikely. The current DAB format has proved too pricey for several commercial broadcasters, who have pulled out in recent years.

Digital radio could have been much, much better than it has turned out to be. As I listen to far more speech radio than music radio, I am pretty happy with it, as I can get the World Service and BBC7 (and RL commentary!). But what it has turned out to be is just a replacement for AM radio. DAB+ could have been a worthy successor to FM, but it looks like the future is on-line.

[getdownmonkeyman]

Futtocks, I think you are quite right, the opportunity to utilise DAB as a premium broadcast platform has passed, sadly.

Internet radio appears to be the choise du jour, although my experiences of it has been very hit and miss to say the least (iTunes and shoutcast.com being the ones I have used).

[Haloman]

We also have to remember that there is no political will for DAB or DAB+ to be rolled out throughout europe either. They are quite happy with their analogue signals. Without that happening, manufacturers will not invest as the rewards are limited to what they can get from the UK market.

This was more about Gordon Brown hoping for another massive windfall from selling of the airwave frequencies for telecoms use. Though, look at the mess that made last time. It cost the UK hundreds of thousands of telecoms jobs, from 2000 onwards as cash poor, debt laden service providers had to retrench on staff.

I was considering adding the Cambridge Audio Azur 650T to my system, but I think I might be better with a broadband wifi internet tuner instead.

[Futtocks]

We also have to remember that there is no political will for DAB or DAB+ to be rolled out throughout europe either. They are quite happy with their analogue signals.

There are alternative (non-DAB-compatible) digital radio formats that are being used or considered for use in other countries, too. So no single digital format is worth a manufacturer's while. And no country is going to change digital format, as that would mean hundreds of thousands of registered voters being forced to shell out for new hardware.

Great, innit?

Edited by Futtocks, 14 December 2010 - 01:48 PM.

[Futtocks]

I was considering adding the Cambridge Audio Azur 650T to my system, but I think I might be better with a broadband wifi internet tuner instead.

The new Logitech Touch has been getting good reviews. It is an internet radio tuner and also a player for your digital files stored on your computer/server/USB hard drive etc.

It has even had 'product of the year' nominations from publications that normally deal with stuff at least ten times the price (and usually far more).

[Haloman]

The new Logitech Touch has been getting good reviews. It is an internet radio tuner and also a player for your digital files stored on your computer/server/USB hard drive etc.

It has even had 'product of the year' nominations from publications that normally deal with stuff at least ten times the price (and usually far more).

I shall have a look at that. Ta.

[Haloman]

I've had a look at the reviews and info and you know what?

I realise that this makes me sound old, but I just can't be bothered with it all. Honestly, I'll only use it for 99.9% Radio4, occasionally Radio 3 and very occasionally Classic FM. That's it !

I think I might just stick with the cable TV feed through my amp or a budget FM/AM tuner.

42 and I've given up already.

Edited by Haloman, 14 December 2010 - 03:31 PM.

[ckn]

I've had a look at the reviews and info and you know what?

I realise that this makes me sound old, but I just can't be bothered with it all. Honestly, I'll only use it for 99.9% Radio4, occasionally Radio 3 and very occasionally Classic FM. That's it !

I think I might just stick with the cable TV feed through my amp or a budget FM/AM tuner.

42 and I've given up already.

Just out of interest, does anyone know the bitrate that satellite and cable services put their radio channels out at? Sounds reasonable quality but I'd be surprised if it's anything better than DAB quality.

[Futtocks]

Just out of interest, does anyone know the bitrate that satellite and cable services put their radio channels out at? Sounds reasonable quality but I'd be surprised if it's anything better than DAB quality.

It is normally at a higher bitrate (depending on broadcaster of course) and using a more efficient codec. The way to go, from what I've read, is to get a Sky/Virgin box with a digital output and bung the bits through a decent DAC. The results are, apparently, very good indeed.

I don't have much personal experience with satellite/cable, but even regular Freeview sounds better than DAB, when all other things are equal.