5 ms·

My very basic understanding is that most regular DAB (not DAB+) is inferior in audio quality compared to FM? Also, and I don't know how much it has decided the

My very basic understanding is that most regular DAB (not DAB+) is inferior in audio quality compared to FM? Also, and I don't know how much it has decided their design decisions, but Teenage Engineering is Swedish based, and here DAB hasn't really become a thing. It's been, more or less, in a "trial" state since 1995, not covering the whole country and steps to upgrade to DAB+ and replacing FM canceled a few years ago.

sp332 6y ago
My very basic understanding is that most regular DAB (not DAB+) is inferior in audio quality compared to FM? Broadcasters can divide the ~1,000 kbit/s into many channels, usually 9-12. It's rare for a single channel to get more than 128 kbit/s, so a strong FM signal might sound better.
076ae80a-3c97-4 6y ago
Techmoan did a great video covering why DAB is surprisingly crappy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27w3quNTP84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27w3quNTP84
ricardobeat 6y ago
At least in the Netherlands, DAB sounds a lot better than FM, there is a massive difference in quality and sound stage.
pjc50 6y ago
Yeah I think it was a combination of a technical decision to keep the CPU power requirements down and a political decision to not give people high enough quality for piracy. "Home taping is killing music" and all that.
gertrunde 6y ago
Yeah... DAB can be good, if the station chooses to transmit at a higher bit rate (which can range from 64kbit mono to 192kbit stereo at least), and signal strength is unfortunately a significant factor. In the UK, the BBC stations tend to be pretty solid, the commercial stations can be somewhat bad, although a lot of the commercial music stations seem to have shifted to DAB+ (predominantly 40 kbit/s DAB+ Stereo HE-AAC v2 apparently - presumably to fit more stations in, ~10 on the BBC ensemble vs ~20 on the commercial "National 1" ensemble).[1] [1 - http://www.wohnort.org/dab/uknat.html http://www.wohnort.org/dab/uknat.html]

sp332 6y ago

My very basic understanding is that most regular DAB (not DAB+) is inferior in audio quality compared to FM? Broadcasters can divide the ~1,000 kbit/s into many channels, usually 9-12. It's rare for a single channel to get more than 128 kbit/s, so a strong FM signal might sound better.

076ae80a-3c97-4 6y ago

Techmoan did a great video covering why DAB is surprisingly crappy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27w3quNTP84 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27w3quNTP84

ricardobeat 6y ago

At least in the Netherlands, DAB sounds a lot better than FM, there is a massive difference in quality and sound stage.

pjc50 6y ago

Yeah I think it was a combination of a technical decision to keep the CPU power requirements down and a political decision to not give people high enough quality for piracy. "Home taping is killing music" and all that.

gertrunde 6y ago

Yeah... DAB can be good, if the station chooses to transmit at a higher bit rate (which can range from 64kbit mono to 192kbit stereo at least), and signal strength is unfortunately a significant factor. In the UK, the BBC stations tend to be pretty solid, the commercial stations can be somewhat bad, although a lot of the commercial music stations seem to have shifted to DAB+ (predominantly 40 kbit/s DAB+ Stereo HE-AAC v2 apparently - presumably to fit more stations in, ~10 on the BBC ensemble vs ~20 on the commercial "National 1" ensemble).[1] [1 - http://www.wohnort.org/dab/uknat.html http://www.wohnort.org/dab/uknat.html]