2 ms·

> unless there is a real compelling and complete replacement already cheap and widely available. "Thursday, the Ministry of Culture announced a national FM-swi

• learnstats2 12y ago
  As discussed further in the comments below: DAB typically serves minimal quality (is bandwidth inefficient), often picks up interference from LEDs/modern lightbulbs/low voltage circuits, and receivers are costly, people don't have them, and they use significantly more power than FM.
  • gpvos 12y ago
    Interesting. One of the claimed advantages of DAB(+) is that the transmitters use less power. But if that happens by offloading the energy use onto the receivers, that may not be a wise choice.
  • semi-extrinsic 12y ago
    The worst thing about DAB is how stupid the DAB manufacturers have been prioritizing. 95% of all DAB radios you can buy are $50 plastic piece-of-shit-speakers stuff that you have in your kitchen or bathroom. Even if DAB(+) were to offer better sound quality than FM, you wouldn't be able to discern it. Adding insult to injury, a radio in a fixed location with good wifi coverage doesn't need any of the technical innovations in DAB wrt. elimination of multipath interference etc.