I find it strange that the European versions of Roberts Radios are DAB + and yet, the UK models are DAB only. Not even upgradable via a software update.
I've been saying the same thing myself i.e. that no one should even contemplate buying a DAB only radio. Why they are still being sold at this stage of the game is beyond me.
Don't they have to pay a licence fee to include DAB+?
If this is the correct link then it's pennies per device. I'd rather pay a pound or two more (with profit) for a future proof radio.
The BoM for a set retailing at around GBP30 will be somewhere south of GBP5 in volume. Very few manufacturers will exceed annual production runs of 500,000 so USD0.98 is a huge chunk of the overall BoM. Hence aacPlus not being included as standard in entry- and low/mid-level sets. On the upside, this is the public 'rate card'. Expect behind-closed-doors negotiations to slash the rack rate.
As someone else said, there have been some diverse channels such as Capital Disney, PrimeTime, OneWord, the Storm, Amazing, that were unable to attract advertising at the rates they needed to charge.
The BoM for a set retailing at around GBP30 will be somewhere south of GBP5 in volume. Very few manufacturers will exceed annual production runs of 500,000 so USD0.98 is a huge chunk of the overall BoM. Hence aacPlus not being included as standard in entry- and low/mid-level sets. On the upside, this is the public 'rate card'. Expect behind-closed-doors negotiations to slash the rack rate.
And so it is with radio. The life cycle of technology gets shorter as we go on. DAB has been around for 15 years ( Hanssolo will correct me if it's much different I'm sure... ).
It's legacy technology now by a long way.
If DAB+ can bring about a lowering of rental costs by packing more channels in to a multiplex at "kitchen table radio quality", then let's move on to that technical progression. DAB in it's original form needs to be left behind.
Digital ethernet on which the internet is based dates from the mid 70s, so under your argument should be scraped.
But both ethernet and DAB are being used by millions so are still usable.
Perhaps we should wait and see if DVB T2 lite or something else is a more cost effective transport to replace DAB, DAB+, DRM, ethernet, etc radio?
However looks the future of UK radio will be multiband, multi platform, some stations will stay on DAB, some will move to DAB+, all will stream ethernet but will not get as many listeners as current DAB, some national and medium sized AM and FM stations will reduce costs by moving digital only, some small stations will still find FM the best solution.
Bill of Materials - total cost of hardware, so excluding all manufacturing/people costs, distribution, packaging and retail margin. I've probably missed some but you get the idea.
Except that Ethernet hasn't been superseded by a new technology for local network packet delivery whilst DAB has been superseded by DAB+
But DAB+ is an enhancement to DAB with better error correction and coding, a new DAB+ station will be able to sit alongside existing DAB stations on existing DAB muxes, so there is no need for existing DAB stations to rush to change unless they want to save transmission costs with potentially losing some existing listeners with non DAB+ sets..
I hope D2 and DAB+ are used to create new stations and additional competition.
Not used as an excuse to increase audio quality from the existing networks.
Most listeners probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 96k and 128k dab.
I would prefer additional choice with new stations running average quality rather than stations I don't like and never listen to in theoretical fantastic quality.
I think it's fair to say the average non-anorak, non-Dspy poster would feel the same. I can't see consumers that happy after upgrading to a new DAB+ set only to find it has the same mundane services and an almost identical menu on the station list.
Not going to happen. People treat radio differently to TV and develop a connection to established radio stations, all of which are currently on FM and original flavour DAB. There is continuing evidence that there is no appetite for niche or original radio services on DAB, never mind via DAB+. People like the illusion of choice but don't choose it over time. The radio industry is still steadfast despite the BBC's plan to test it, to reject DAB+ permantely outright using the old 'people don't care about audio quality' and that 'mono is the new stereo' argument they have done for years.
Any D2 will be fully DAB and the status quo will continue. The only difference we will see is the degregration of sound quality. Anyone wanting decent quality sound on DAB wisely abandoned the platform a while ago.
Digital ethernet on which the internet is based dates from the mid 70s, so under your argument should be scraped.
But both ethernet and DAB are being used by millions so are still usable.
Perhaps we should wait and see if DVB T2 lite or something else is a more cost effective transport to replace DAB, DAB+, DRM, ethernet, etc radio?
However looks the future of UK radio will be multiband, multi platform, some stations will stay on DAB, some will move to DAB+, all will stream ethernet but will not get as many listeners as current DAB, some national and medium sized AM and FM stations will reduce costs by moving digital only, some small stations will still find FM the best solution.
And of course FM dates back to the 1930s and AM even earlier so better scrap as soon as possible! I can never understand the argument that DAB is dated so should be dropped but at the same time they praise even older FM. You can be sure that even if they got everyone to change to a new system then there will be something else along shortly afterwards and there will be people calling for a change to it. That is the nature of technology and fashion.
The radio industry is still steadfast despite the BBC's plan to test it, to reject DAB+ permantely outright using the old 'people don't care about audio quality' and that 'mono is the new stereo' argument they have done for years.
New albums are still being released in mono, as are audiophile reissues of old albums which, it's argued, have better sound quality in mono than in stereo. The point is that mono needs to be treated as a hi-fi format not a lo-fi money-saving option.
The radio industry is still steadfast despite the BBC's plan to test it, to reject DAB+ permantely outright using the old 'people don't care about audio quality' and that 'mono is the new stereo' argument they have done for years.
Not quite as Capital xtra launched on D1 in stereo and Smooth is going back to 128k stereo on local muxes!
UTV back in 2010 were asking for DAB+ (presumably to help get their small music stations on digital for lower cost?) http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/feb/03/utv-radio-two-tier-future
Taunton, whose company owns TalkSport and 14 local stations, attacked plans to shift national and large regional services to digital audio broadcasting (DAB) while leaving smaller local stations and community broadcasters on FM.
The UTV Radio chief executive said not enough investigation had been done of a rival technology, DAB+, which would have the capacity to transfer all stations to digital, including smaller local commercial broadcasters.
Even if they find a way to subsidise / waive / whatever the cost of the update of software to receive DAB+, I would think most listeners will have no idea how to update it.
Even if they find a way to subsidise / waive / whatever the cost of the update of software to receive DAB+, I would think most listeners will have no idea how to update it.
There'd need to be some publicity for sure. Then there would be the difficulty of communicating which radios where upgradeable and which weren't.
There'd need to be some publicity for sure. Then there would be the difficulty of communicating which radios where upgradeable and which weren't.
But I am sure the majority of owners of digital radios have never connected to their computer and would not know how to do it, however simple it might seem.
Can do Pure it as an automatic update as they do with firmware, but again many (most of them quite likely) do not have their radio connected online).
Most will not have been bought from specialist radio shops so they can't take the radio back to where they bought it.
But I am sure the majority of owners of digital radios have never connected to their computer and would not know how to do it, however simple it might seem.
Can do Pure it as an automatic update as they do with firmware, but again many (most of them quite likely) do not have their radio connected online).
Most will not have been bought from specialist radio shops so they can't take the radio back to where they bought it.
This is all a dead duck for the reasons you state. Even if DAB+ was available as an alternative and if it was in better quality (somewhat unlikely) then unless the radio selected DAB+ automatically no one would bother with it. Heaven knows how many people with Freeview HD watch channels 1 to 4 in SD because they still use the old buttons. As for the public updating their radios via a computer, what planet are you living on?
I wonder how many anti DAB and DAB+ people still prefer monochrome TVs, VHS recorders, use old Nokia mobiles that need the battery charging daily and still have Windows 95 or 98 ?
I hope D2 and DAB+ are used to create new stations and additional competition.
Not used as an excuse to increase audio quality from the existing networks.
Most listeners probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 96k and 128k dab.
I would prefer additional choice with new stations running average quality rather than stations I don't like and never listen to in theoretical fantastic quality.
I think it's fair to say the average non-anorak, non-Dspy poster would feel the same. I can't see consumers that happy after upgrading to a new DAB+ set only to find it has the same mundane services and an almost identical menu on the station list.
We've already lost quality to add choice when we DAB was introduced and FM was announced as an obsolete technology. Personally, I'd like the latest digital technology to at least match the quality of the FM technology it is replacing. Not everyone listens on a one speaker kitchen radio. Some people enjoy music played through a decent hifi system (sadly something not worth bothering with DAB).
Personally, I don't want 1000 channels of rubbish broadcast in poor quality.
We've already lost quality to add choice when we DAB was introduced and FM was announced as an obsolete technology. Personally, I'd like the latest digital technology to at least match the quality of the FM technology it is replacing. Not everyone listens on a one speaker kitchen radio. Some people enjoy music played through a decent hifi system (sadly something not worth bothering with DAB).
Personally, I don't want 1000 channels of rubbish broadcast in poor quality.
Radio 3 is a decent 192k and most DAB 128k stereo stations can still sound good (to match FM quality) on good speakers. But might be good to get R2 to increase to 160k or go DAB+ for the specialist music.
But other than to reduce loses can't see why Abs 80s was reduced to 64k mono on D1 to allow Team rock to launch, but did not lose many listeners (unless internet listening has increased ?) http://radiotoday.co.uk/2014/02/rajar-bauer-leads-with-digital-listening/
stats from the latest RAJAR results show Absolute 80s has dropped slightly from 1.20m to 1.18m, but is still up on 12 months earlier which was just under 900,000 weekly listeners. Absolute 90s posts a record high of 568k listeners.
We've already lost quality to add choice when we DAB was introduced and FM was announced as an obsolete technology. Personally, I'd like the latest digital technology to at least match the quality of the FM technology it is replacing. Not everyone listens on a one speaker kitchen radio. Some people enjoy music played through a decent hifi system (sadly something not worth bothering with DAB).
Personally, I don't want 1000 channels of rubbish broadcast in poor quality.
If everything on dab was broadcast at 192k or 160k or whatever the theoretical equivalent of FM is, there would be very little space if any for stations not already broadcasting on the FM band.
In this scenario what on earth would be the selling point to potential buyers? A retro wooden case and a menu?
I understand your reasoning for wanting better quality but I'm sure the average non-radio enthusiast would prefer greater choice and something new not available on his/her existing FM radio.
As for 1,000 stations of rubbish, personally If this was the outcome I'd prefer them to be in poor quality than good quality as I wouldn't listen.
Even if DAB+ was available as an alternative and if it was in better quality (somewhat unlikely) then unless the radio selected DAB+ automatically no one would bother with it.
It will select DAB+ automatically. DAB and DAB+ can happily co-exist even on the same mux.
What do non-DAB+ radios display when there are some DAB+ ones on the MUX?
As I recall, my Pure Highway showed the DAB+ station name and advised visiting www.pure.com to upgrade to DAB+. I had already upgraded the software but hadn't realised that the DAB+ functionality also had to be unlocked.
Comments
Don't they have to pay a licence fee to include DAB+?
If this is the correct link then it's pennies per device. I'd rather pay a pound or two more (with profit) for a future proof radio.
What is 'BoM'?
But both ethernet and DAB are being used by millions so are still usable.
Perhaps we should wait and see if DVB T2 lite or something else is a more cost effective transport to replace DAB, DAB+, DRM, ethernet, etc radio?
However looks the future of UK radio will be multiband, multi platform, some stations will stay on DAB, some will move to DAB+, all will stream ethernet but will not get as many listeners as current DAB, some national and medium sized AM and FM stations will reduce costs by moving digital only, some small stations will still find FM the best solution.
Bill of Materials - total cost of hardware, so excluding all manufacturing/people costs, distribution, packaging and retail margin. I've probably missed some but you get the idea.
Except that Ethernet hasn't been superseded by a new technology for local network packet delivery whilst DAB has been superseded by DAB+
Any D2 will be fully DAB and the status quo will continue. The only difference we will see is the degregration of sound quality. Anyone wanting decent quality sound on DAB wisely abandoned the platform a while ago.
New albums are still being released in mono, as are audiophile reissues of old albums which, it's argued, have better sound quality in mono than in stereo. The point is that mono needs to be treated as a hi-fi format not a lo-fi money-saving option.
UTV back in 2010 were asking for DAB+ (presumably to help get their small music stations on digital for lower cost?)
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/feb/03/utv-radio-two-tier-future (although DAB+ is not a rival to DAB)
There'd need to be some publicity for sure. Then there would be the difficulty of communicating which radios where upgradeable and which weren't.
But I am sure the majority of owners of digital radios have never connected to their computer and would not know how to do it, however simple it might seem.
Can do Pure it as an automatic update as they do with firmware, but again many (most of them quite likely) do not have their radio connected online).
Most will not have been bought from specialist radio shops so they can't take the radio back to where they bought it.
This is all a dead duck for the reasons you state. Even if DAB+ was available as an alternative and if it was in better quality (somewhat unlikely) then unless the radio selected DAB+ automatically no one would bother with it. Heaven knows how many people with Freeview HD watch channels 1 to 4 in SD because they still use the old buttons. As for the public updating their radios via a computer, what planet are you living on?
I wonder how many anti DAB and DAB+ people still prefer monochrome TVs, VHS recorders, use old Nokia mobiles that need the battery charging daily and still have Windows 95 or 98 ?
We've already lost quality to add choice when we DAB was introduced and FM was announced as an obsolete technology. Personally, I'd like the latest digital technology to at least match the quality of the FM technology it is replacing. Not everyone listens on a one speaker kitchen radio. Some people enjoy music played through a decent hifi system (sadly something not worth bothering with DAB).
Personally, I don't want 1000 channels of rubbish broadcast in poor quality.
But other than to reduce loses can't see why Abs 80s was reduced to 64k mono on D1 to allow Team rock to launch, but did not lose many listeners (unless internet listening has increased ?)
http://radiotoday.co.uk/2014/02/rajar-bauer-leads-with-digital-listening/
If everything on dab was broadcast at 192k or 160k or whatever the theoretical equivalent of FM is, there would be very little space if any for stations not already broadcasting on the FM band.
In this scenario what on earth would be the selling point to potential buyers? A retro wooden case and a menu?
I understand your reasoning for wanting better quality but I'm sure the average non-radio enthusiast would prefer greater choice and something new not available on his/her existing FM radio.
As for 1,000 stations of rubbish, personally If this was the outcome I'd prefer them to be in poor quality than good quality as I wouldn't listen.
What do non-DAB+ radios display when there are some DAB+ ones on the MUX?