6 ms·
Almost nobody does. There is just no advantage in switching to digital radio, and most likely there never be.
by ElephantsMyAnus 5y ago
Almost nobody does. There is just no advantage in switching to digital radio, and most likely there never be.
- emteycz 5y agoYou've never heard it, I suppose? It's not like it's a must, I agree, but it's definitely a big improvement.
- jhoechtl 5y agoI did hear ot, I have it and its a dead birth. Not worth the investment. Instead of classic FM broadcast DAB+ might be aside a while next to FM and.then give way to internet radio.
- emteycz 5y agoNo FM radio was able to stream my favorite songs without cutting off a lot of important tones. That problem is gone with digital, my speakers became the limiting factor.
- ElephantsMyAnus 5y agoAbsolutely not. While FM has a bit lower bandwith than healthy ears, digital adds fake high frequencies. There is just no way to cram enough data in the same signal to make digital any better.
- skyde 5y agoeven with AAC compression ?
- ElephantsMyAnus 5y agoI guess no, or it is barely worth it. The thing is that FM is very robust. It only needs to be a little bit stronger than competing signals, which doesn't really give much room for data, considering that the typical bandwith is 150kHz or even less in some countries. Which means you could cram in some 150-200kbps before the reception becomes clearly worse, or you need more power than for FM.
- tinus_hn 5y agoThe obvious advantage is that more channels fit in the same frequency range. More channels is more money.
- ElephantsMyAnus 5y agoYes, you can do that, but the sound quality is very poor.
- tinus_hn 5y agoNo, the sound quality is actually very good, it’s digital and it’s better than mp3 that people listen to all the time. But you can also make the sound quality poor and fit even more channels. But the important point is that normal people don’t care and they are the target audience.
- ElephantsMyAnus 5y agoDigital doesn't imply good. It isn't better than MP3, it's typically 80kbps or less. 48 is not uncommon. It's no better than AM, it's only made sound superficially good with fake high frequencies and often fake stereo. But it's bad. There is just no way to fit that much data into the same channel. You would have to blast it with MW strong transmitters, which would make it much more expensive. Analog radio is efficient, and there never was such a dearth of channels like with TV. It would be easy to pack in more channels, FM was chosen for quality.
- tinus_hn 5y agoObviously digital compression means more data fits in the same channel, for audio an order of magnitude with transparent quality. Nobody cares that the stereo is fake, it’s for radio stations playing mp3 files that have ‘fake stereo’ to begin with. If you really want to believe that there is some conspiracy going in to change from analog to digital radio with worse results, to force people to buy new stuff, or for whatever reason, go ahead. But it’s not true. The reality is that with DAB+ more stations fit with good quality. Perhaps not good enough for ‘discerning ears’ like yours but clearly good enough for the general public.