3 ms·

In theory, yes[0], but DAB in the UK at least is tending towards low bitrate, and often mono, streams -- see, e.g., https://www.astra2sat.com/radio/uk-digital-r

In theory, yes[0], but DAB in the UK at least is tending towards low bitrate, and often mono, streams -- see, e.g., https://www.astra2sat.com/radio/uk-digital-radio-bitrates/ https://www.astra2sat.com/radio/uk-digital-radio-bitrates/ [0] Personally I find FM preferable to HE-AAC, but it's just a different set of trade-offs, not necessarily better.

tinus_hn 9y ago
Obviously there is a trade off, either you get a large amount of low quality streams or a few high quality streams. You can do the same thing with FM, if you only allow stations to transmit mono audio you can fit more. I don’t know how many channels you get in the UK on FM vs. on DAB+ but it seems like the list of digital stations in that link is longer than would be possible using FM. This all doesn’t change the fact that DAB+ uses the spectrum much more effectively. Of course, on low bitrates you can learn to hear the artifacts. Just as you can hear the distortions in FM. But you need less spectrum for a stream where you can’t hear the artifacts. There isn’t some big conspiracy selling you digital radio, it’s just better.
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  In the UK there was something of a "conspiracy" (misselling is probably more like it) in that initially DAB was presented as high quality, giving a big reason to buy in, but it was quickly downgraded in quality once momentum had built for the change. My impression is a simple radio set is now about 4 times what it was before DAB, not sure where that fits in ...
  - stordoff 9y ago
    Unless I'm misremembering, similar happened with Freeview. At launch, most channels broadcast at 720x576. Now, most are broadcast at 544x576.
  - tinus_hn 9y ago
    The conspiracy, if you want to see it that way, is not about selling you the devices but in dividing the spectrum differently so they have space for more stations to sell. An FM station uses some specified amount of spectrum and the government can sell that space for the amount of money one station is willing to pay. If you can change the system so more stations fit in the same amount of spectrum, they get the amount all these stations together are willing to pay. So they get more money with DAB. And it looks modern with more features to boot! You can just solder an FM radio yourself from generic components and some wire while a DAB radio requires a processor, which is obviously going to be more expensive. I think all of the patents expired though so I don't think someone is becoming rich by licensing the technology. At least the patents on the audio codec have expired.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      >not about selling you the devices but in dividing the spectrum differently // The point there is that initially it was hard to sell DAB in the UK because FM is pretty good, and very cheap. So people could only be convinced to buy DAB because the channel width allowed much higher quality. My recollection is that once momentum built on purchases then channel width was changed, making the perceived quality similar .. but now radio sets cost a lot more. The additional features don't really do anything for me, the only effective change for me is that it takes much longer to tune to a new station. The cost of the DAB processor can't really be so much, the quality increase allowed prices to be anchored high; cheapest DAB is still 4x FM price, I can't see that being all tech costs.
      - tinus_hn 9y ago
        You can’t sell spectrum to broadcasting if the listeners don’t have receivers. You can buy DAB (and DAB+) receivers directly from China if you want. They’re still more expensive than FM receivers but then you can be sure there is no shady conspiracy in your own country profiteering. In fact, if you want you can buy a SDR device which gives you the data an antenna would receive, and do the rest in software (both FM and DAB decoding).
- stordoff 9y ago
  There's certainly more on DAB, though outside of London there's possibly less of a difference than you might expect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_the_... My point wasn't really that FM is better per se though (it clearly isn't, as even high bitrate stereo streams would be a better use of the spectrum), rather that I don't see it as "clinging to obsolete technology" on the user side. It is just, IMO, the better user experience as it currently stands in the UK - I don't think you need to learn to hear the artifacts in 80-128Kbps MP2 streams, as they are often fairly obvious (note that adoption of DAB+ in the UK is virtually nil, and there are no plans to migrate from DAB to DAB+). I think it's somewhat telling that the industry describe it as a "sound quality upgrade for _AM_ stations" (my emphasis, per http://www.ukdigitalradio.com/advice/thebasics/ http://www.ukdigitalradio.com/advice/thebasics/).

tinus_hn 9y ago

Obviously there is a trade off, either you get a large amount of low quality streams or a few high quality streams. You can do the same thing with FM, if you only allow stations to transmit mono audio you can fit more. I don’t know how many channels you get in the UK on FM vs. on DAB+ but it seems like the list of digital stations in that link is longer than would be possible using FM. This all doesn’t change the fact that DAB+ uses the spectrum much more effectively. Of course, on low bitrates you can learn to hear the artifacts. Just as you can hear the distortions in FM. But you need less spectrum for a stream where you can’t hear the artifacts. There isn’t some big conspiracy selling you digital radio, it’s just better.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
In the UK there was something of a "conspiracy" (misselling is probably more like it) in that initially DAB was presented as high quality, giving a big reason to buy in, but it was quickly downgraded in quality once momentum had built for the change. My impression is a simple radio set is now about 4 times what it was before DAB, not sure where that fits in ...
- stordoff 9y ago
  Unless I'm misremembering, similar happened with Freeview. At launch, most channels broadcast at 720x576. Now, most are broadcast at 544x576.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  The conspiracy, if you want to see it that way, is not about selling you the devices but in dividing the spectrum differently so they have space for more stations to sell. An FM station uses some specified amount of spectrum and the government can sell that space for the amount of money one station is willing to pay. If you can change the system so more stations fit in the same amount of spectrum, they get the amount all these stations together are willing to pay. So they get more money with DAB. And it looks modern with more features to boot! You can just solder an FM radio yourself from generic components and some wire while a DAB radio requires a processor, which is obviously going to be more expensive. I think all of the patents expired though so I don't think someone is becoming rich by licensing the technology. At least the patents on the audio codec have expired.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    >not about selling you the devices but in dividing the spectrum differently // The point there is that initially it was hard to sell DAB in the UK because FM is pretty good, and very cheap. So people could only be convinced to buy DAB because the channel width allowed much higher quality. My recollection is that once momentum built on purchases then channel width was changed, making the perceived quality similar .. but now radio sets cost a lot more. The additional features don't really do anything for me, the only effective change for me is that it takes much longer to tune to a new station. The cost of the DAB processor can't really be so much, the quality increase allowed prices to be anchored high; cheapest DAB is still 4x FM price, I can't see that being all tech costs.
    - tinus_hn 9y ago
      You can’t sell spectrum to broadcasting if the listeners don’t have receivers. You can buy DAB (and DAB+) receivers directly from China if you want. They’re still more expensive than FM receivers but then you can be sure there is no shady conspiracy in your own country profiteering. In fact, if you want you can buy a SDR device which gives you the data an antenna would receive, and do the rest in software (both FM and DAB decoding).
stordoff 9y ago
There's certainly more on DAB, though outside of London there's possibly less of a difference than you might expect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_the_... My point wasn't really that FM is better per se though (it clearly isn't, as even high bitrate stereo streams would be a better use of the spectrum), rather that I don't see it as "clinging to obsolete technology" on the user side. It is just, IMO, the better user experience as it currently stands in the UK - I don't think you need to learn to hear the artifacts in 80-128Kbps MP2 streams, as they are often fairly obvious (note that adoption of DAB+ in the UK is virtually nil, and there are no plans to migrate from DAB to DAB+). I think it's somewhat telling that the industry describe it as a "sound quality upgrade for _AM_ stations" (my emphasis, per http://www.ukdigitalradio.com/advice/thebasics/ http://www.ukdigitalradio.com/advice/thebasics/).