|
||||||||
Op-ed: 32kbps will become the norm for DAB+ |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Retford
Posts: 20,450
|
Op-ed: 32kbps will become the norm for DAB+
I suspect many who see the title of this thread will go "well... duh!" in their collective cynicism. But reading an interesting piece on the challenges to get Jazz FM on national DAB+ with just 32kbps with spectral band replication and parametric stereo turned up in my inbox tonight, has made me think this is going to be the case:
http://www.radiomagonline.com/blogentry/1288 Reading through the rationale for the focus on which audiences to target and which can be advised to listen elsewhere, the article specifically suggests Jazz FM's national DAB+ service is aimed at those who listen via portable sets, personal sets and in cars (the latter two where stereo is going to be noticed) - those of us who listen via Hi-Fi sets, home cinema systems and high end headphones won't be the audience for DAB+. Now, I always suggested that DAB+ should be a balance between cost and audio quality and whilst there are a few cases where this has happened on the small scale multiplexes, I have the feeling that on the multiplexes 32kbps, if you're lucky maybe 40-48kbps, will become the norm, much to the frustration of those who want better audio quality who'll be told to go to the Internet with the ISP/mobile data costs that entails. The more I see the rationale for using 32kbps, the more I think this was not down to lack of space but a deliberate action to maximise choice and minimise financial risk if a station fails. We can hope for encoding improvements over time to improve sound quality at low bitrates and only hope that those improvements don't result in lower bitrates (though looking at DAB, I won't hold out for that). |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Posts: 147
|
Quote:
The more I see the rationale for using 32kbps, the more I think this was not down to lack of space but a deliberate action to maximise choice and minimise financial risk if a station fails.
. You can understand why stations are reluctant to spend £4k p/month on DAB. They are even more reluctant to spend £4k p/month on DAB+ when there are no figures for how much of DAB listening is done on DAB+ (vs DAB). Broadcasters are opting for 56k and 80k mono DAB in preference to 48k stereo DAB+ which is counter-intuitive - as space on a multiplex is sold on capacity units. This makes no sense - from either a commercial or qualitative perspective. So why? Well, the big station owners don't really care because they are either co-owners of the multiplex or have a 'cosy' pre-existing (FM) relationship with the owner of the multiplex. And so long as Ofcom stands by and allows these legacy broadcasters to fill there own multiplexes with extensions of brand extensions then they will happily take as much DAB mono bandwidth as is required to exclude new stations from joining the 'digital revolution'. Why would they care when they are able to use their privilege buying power to stagnate the digital market. Wherever you look these days, it's all about content not platform. As a platform, DAB/DAB+ would have grown much faster if it had delivered new, exciting, different, original, content. Not regurgitated the same old, tired, tried, tested, stale, BBC local and commercial schlock. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,436
|
You're hopelessly optimistic !
It'll only be 24kbit/s. That's all right - Union JACK says so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,860
|
The problem is that SDL is restricted coverage compared to D1, then even more restricted if you are on DAB+.
I suspect Union Jack is probably close on listening figures to some of the other DAB+ plus stations ..yet on even lower costs. It certainly sounds different but in the car its listenable ..just seems a strange offering of a station. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 557
|
Quote:
The more I see the rationale for using 32kbps, the more I think this was not down to lack of space but a deliberate action to maximise choice and minimise financial risk if a station fails.
SDL - wanted a certain number of stations on the platform and specified the available kilobits. It then added another station with what was left. Locals - (generally) the locals have more room and it's up to the station's themselves how much capacity they want. For MuxCo, there is a ratecard for DAB and DAB+ based on capacity used and it's up to the stations to decide how much they want to take. We have no view about what people use. We would rather they used the most kbits they could afford! Quote:
Broadcasters are opting for 56k and 80k mono DAB in preference to 48k stereo DAB+ which is counter-intuitive - as space on a multiplex is sold on capacity units. This makes no sense - from either a commercial or qualitative perspective. So why?
If a station goes DAB+ it's restricting it's available audience by perhaps, generously, half. So, if your aim is to reach the most people, then you would chose to go original flavour DAB at the lower bitrate. If less cost is more important than more audience, then you would go for a low bitrate DAB+ signal. People don't go for a higher bitrate DAB+ signal, because if you have the money, you're better off going for a lower bit rate DAB service as this reaches more people. The downside of sounding poorer is less than the downside of reaching fewer people. That's the nub of the issue. Quote:
And so long as Ofcom stands by and allows these legacy broadcasters to fill there own multiplexes with extensions of brand extensions then they will happily take as much DAB mono bandwidth as is required to exclude new stations from joining the 'digital revolution'. .
There is a bit of squeeze on the Bauer multiplexes in bigger cities since the retiring of the regional multiplexes. So, perhaps, at a push, six or seven multiplexes, if you're paranoid, could be holding new choice to ransom. Quote:
Wherever you look these days, it's all about content not platform. As a platform, DAB/DAB+ would have grown much faster if it had delivered new, exciting, different, original, content. Not regurgitated the same old, tired, tried, tested, stale, BBC local and commercial schlock.
Almost all of them are presenter-led with significant content. Less than a handful are just music jukeboxes. The reason that we have so many stations, that can afford to actually employ people to make the content, is that DAB reaches enough people for commercial stations to build a business, and for the BBC to provide value to licence fee payers. How many of these stations would be able to exist if they were internet or DTV only? How many stations that aren't on DAB are able to invest any real money in the product that comes out of the speakers. It make me so grumpy that you try and point to conspiracies of access or bitrates. Bung a postcode into the postcode checker, look at the results, and think about the content on each of those radio stations. Go and look up their audience figures on the RAJAR website and think about the volume of people that are clearly getting a better individual radio experience by catering for their tastes and interests. Then go off and count the stations who also provide a higher audio quality listening experience on IP platforms where they're able to do it as well. With the BBC and Commercial Radio you have some of the broadest and most high quality radio output in the world. It's also one of the healthiest radio markets for listening. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Selby
Posts: 484
|
Quote:
You're hopelessly optimistic !
It'll only be 24kbit/s. That's all right - Union JACK says so. ![]() I don't think Jack has ever commented on whether it would have taken more if space was available. |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 175
|
It'll be interesting to see what bit rate the BBC broadcast at if and when they adopt DAB+
I would imagine Radio 3 will be 96 kbps or higher, and the other main music networks along with Radio 4 at 48 or 56 kbps. Can't see the BBC dropping to 32 or 24 kbps. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Laguja, Estonia
Posts: 1,143
|
So the consensus is that the UK digital radio is doomed to sound like rubbish due to listeners with legacy equipment, and anyone looking for higher audio quality should turn to the Auntie?
Given that other countries are already dropping legacy DAB services(Germany, Switzerland, Norway will be doing it next year), there needs to be a line drawn in the sand at one point. That one can no longer stop slacking off and it is time for an upgrade, especially as the prices of DAB+ receivers 1) have gotten lower, 2) have become more widely available, mileage may vary of course in the UK due to cheapskate manufacturers trying to save on AAC licensing fees. When I stayed in the UK for a week this January, I almost exclusively used DAB. But I stayed away from stations that were lower bitrate, including the whole D1 National multiplex. If I wanted glorious mono sound like it was 1955, I'd rather listen to the medium wave. |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
The problem is that SDL is restricted coverage compared to D1, then even more restricted if you are on DAB+.
I suspect Union Jack is probably close on listening figures to some of the other DAB+ plus stations ..yet on even lower costs. It certainly sounds different but in the car its listenable ..just seems a strange offering of a station. Someone further up said that low bitrate DAB+ stations are aimed at in car or portable radios and not hi-fi setups. A lot of cars now have quite high end speakers, and lots of speakers too. Even in my Focus Titanium, which is a nice but not super expensive car there's a good sound system. Lots of speakers. You just can't get away with listening to the low bitrate or mono stations they sound awful! In my work vehicle which has cheap speakers, no problem! |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Retford
Posts: 20,450
|
Quote:
It'll be interesting to see what bit rate the BBC broadcast at if and when they adopt DAB+
I would imagine Radio 3 will be 96 kbps or higher, and the other main music networks along with Radio 4 at 48 or 56 kbps. Can't see the BBC dropping to 32 or 24 kbps. As with the commercial sector, the BBC has to be mindful of those who can't get DAB+ services, but for different reasons. |
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Retford
Posts: 20,450
|
Quote:
It depends on the car! I've said this all along.
Someone further up said that low bitrate DAB+ stations are aimed at in car or portable radios and not hi-fi setups. A lot of cars now have quite high end speakers, and lots of speakers too. Even in my Focus Titanium, which is a nice but not super expensive car there's a good sound system. Lots of speakers. You just can't get away with listening to the low bitrate or mono stations they sound awful! In my work vehicle which has cheap speakers, no problem! DAB+ is being sold for the masses, not the classes (or audiophiles in this case) who care far more about choice, stations who care about cost and multiplex operators who care about financial security and promoting that choice. |
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Neath
Posts: 2,468
|
Quote:
So the consensus is that the UK digital radio is doomed to sound like rubbish due to listeners with legacy equipment, and anyone looking for higher audio quality should turn to the Auntie?
When I was younger, I was an Audiophile, but would never listen to the radio for high quality sound, I'd search other means such as vinyl, SACD, DVD-A. If you're an Audiophile, radio has never been a good place to listen! Mark |
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hove (right by the sea)
Posts: 720
|
The only reason that 32kbs was chosen was because sound digital specified that was the maximum bit rate allowed for DAB+. If you read both jazz and sound digitals FAQ, it states that would have liked larger.
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: S/where between Edinb. & Wick
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
So the consensus is that the UK digital radio is doomed to sound like rubbish due to listeners with legacy equipment, and anyone looking for higher audio quality should turn to the Auntie?
. DAB + might have brought evolution in technology, but it hasn't been accompanied by evolution in regulation. There is no reason to believe that the race to the bottom for bit rates on DAB will not be repeated on DAB+ Having been deceived with promises of CD quality sound which resulted in a dial-full of mono stations once, is it not both disrespectful of and insulting to the intelligence of consumers to expect them to fall for the same ruse again? The position of the regulator appears to be that audio quality can fall as low as the market will bear. Unless there is a mass change in listening habits with advertising revenue lost through audience loss as a consequence of poor audio, we will be dependent on the regulator's appetite to uphold standards; Ofcom's appetite appears satisfied with junk food. Blaming early DAB enthusiasts who were the first to buy their sets on the promise of high quality audio for the current state of digital radio is misdirected, and it is unfair to obligate them to make the same mistake twice! |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
|
Quote:
When I was younger, I was an Audiophile, but would never listen to the radio for high quality sound, I'd search other means such as vinyl, SACD, DVD-A. If you're an Audiophile, radio has never been a good place to listen! Mark This is what concerns me most. I'm not a serious audiophile but I notice when sound quality is lower than it should be. Radio used to work on the principle that the audio was good quality when it reached your radio and it was up to you whether you bought a good system to hear it at its best, or a cheap transistor that just about did the job. But now, with highly processed audio on FM and highly compressed audio on DAB, you no longer have the option to hear it the way it should sound. Unless you start afresh, buying wifi tuners and radios to replace your FM and DAB sets, and that's a very big ask. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex / Surrey, UK.
Posts: 861
|
Quote:
The rationale being, DAB+ at low bitrates is for those with cheap speakers (that's the opinion of Jazz FM's engineer which I linked to in the OP), those with more expensive speakers could also afford mobile data for a higher streaming bitrate in their car.
DAB+ is being sold for the masses, not the classes (or audiophiles in this case) who care far more about choice, stations who care about cost and multiplex operators who care about financial security and promoting that choice. RadioPlayer app isn't too bad but they restrict the bitrate over mobile networks (even with the higher bitrate toggle on) and often it doesn't sound any better than DAB. Sometimes worse - e.g. Absolute. TuneIn is just awful. Buggy, difficult to navigate, no favourites via CarPlay. Orange Radio is lacking. Not any other choice for CarPlay. Sure, I could have bought in to Android and Android Auto instead but the UX of that was even worse in my testing. Then there's the problem of the connection dropping out all the time. I can get 4G for the majority of my commute but a couple of spots where it drops down to Edge or legacy Orange 3G, or even no signal at all. Changing channels is much more of a pain, even with steering wheel controls. OR: I could use DAB and be able to switch stations easily by the radio, steering wheel or even voice control. I don't get drop-outs and understand service areas. Yes, the bitrate is not great on some stations and mono does grate, as well as low bitrate DAB+ but having tried streaming many times on my way to work, I just keep switching back to technology That Just Works. I want to concentrate on the driving not work out why the audio has cut out again or go through a rigmarole of switching stations. Especially when streaming doesn't sound much better in many cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,475
|
Quote:
DAB + might have brought evolution in technology, but it hasn't been accompanied by evolution in regulation.
There is no reason to believe that the race to the bottom for bit rates on DAB will not be repeated on DAB+ Having been deceived with promises of CD quality sound which resulted in a dial-full of mono stations once, is it not both disrespectful of and insulting to the intelligence of consumers to expect them to fall for the same ruse again? The position of the regulator appears to be that audio quality can fall as low as the market will bear. Unless there is a mass change in listening habits with advertising revenue lost through audience loss as a consequence of poor audio, we will be dependent on the regulator's appetite to uphold standards; Ofcom's appetite appears satisfied with junk food. Blaming early DAB enthusiasts who were the first to buy their sets on the promise of high quality audio for the current state of digital radio is misdirected, and it is unfair to obligate them to make the same mistake twice! If Ofcom over-regulates on bit rate we will just end up with half-empty national multiplexes (Digital 1 still isn't full today ) as the specialist music stations will find it too expensive. That doesn't benefit listeners. Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to the commercial DAB stations, and higher quality is available online. For the record Fraunhofer describe the sound quality of 24k-32k AAC v2 as "good quality audio" .on their website |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,727
|
Quote:
The rationale being, DAB+ at low bitrates is for those with cheap speakers (that's the opinion of Jazz FM's engineer which I linked to in the OP), those with more expensive speakers could also afford mobile data for a higher streaming bitrate in their car.
I wouldn't bother streaming a UK station as I just don't feel the 3G/4G coverage is anywhere near as good as DAB coverage, even on EE. As someone has mentioned above, the BBC iPlayer Radio app is good but TuneIn isn't. Basic things like I've got TuneIn Pro and I can't find a way of setting the high bitrate version of a station as a preset. I can set the station as a preset, but every time I select it, the 32kbps version starts streaming and then I have to go in and choose the 128kbps version. Not a good experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 252
|
Quote:
The issue is that you cannot force stations to pay for DAB slots. I would prefer to have Jazz FM at 32k (which is probably the most they can afford) rather than not have them on DAB at all.
I'm especially excited about the mini-muxes. The way the broadcasts in Manchester and Portsmouth in particular have allowed a huge range of new entrants onto the broadcast spectrum is fantastic - I'm all for seeing an expansion of this into other markets. I believe Manchester is so popular that it now has a waiting list, and its transmissions are predominantly DAB+. It makes it possible for niche stations that are never going to achieve a mass audience to access the same dial as the big players, and could be the difference between broadcast success and internet obscurity and closure for many startups. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: West Sussex / Surrey, UK.
Posts: 861
|
Quote:
I'm especially excited about the mini-muxes. The way the broadcasts in Manchester and Portsmouth in particular have allowed a huge range of new entrants onto the broadcast spectrum is fantastic.
The local muxes are generally half full, very expensive but have super robust coverage (although too much for local stations in some respects). |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 13,572
|
Quote:
Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to the commercial DAB stations, and higher quality is available online.
For the record Fraunhofer describe the sound quality of 24k-32k AAC v2 as "good quality audio" .on their website |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 13,572
|
Quote:
Locals - (generally) the locals have more room and it's up to the station's themselves how much capacity they want. For MuxCo, there is a ratecard for DAB and DAB+ based on capacity used and it's up to the stations to decide how much they want to take.
We have no view about what people use. We would rather they used the most kbits they could afford! |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stoke Prior, Leominster, Hfds
Posts: 1,399
|
As I've said before, this is yet another example of the UK radio industry shooting itself in the foot. The public deserve to be able to buy their ALDI Special Buy radio alarm or Roberts digital radio or radio in their Ford Focus, and for it to be able to receive digital radio stations - end of story. No having to understand that there are two types of digital transmission, or that different radios may or may not decode those stations, or that the reason some digital stations are missing is because they have a DAB radio not a DAB+ one.
DAB+ decoding has been available on Frontier Silicon hardware since 2010 in Australia, when the same hardware in the UK won't decode it thanks to lack of firmware availability or lack of correct licensing by at least one major radio assembler. The public have enough harassment in their lives thanks to "politicians" etc without the radio industry expecting them to understand yet another complicated sob story. I feel sorry for mattd that he is there providing any and every alternative to programme providers, who are so wound up in decisions only of any relevance to themselves, and of no technical interest to the public outside the industry itself or forums like this. All of this mess is entirely of the radio industry's own making - and it is now up to them to sort it out in a clear, straightforward and understandable way - but they need to sort it out once and for all and let things move forward unhindered. Perhaps this is expecting a miracle ? For the couple of people who are with EE, last time that I renewed my wireless broadband contract with them a few months back, I had a pleasant surprise. EE have a scheme that loyal customers buying their plans for the full contract term, get extra data allowance as a reward. I was on 15 gigabytes a month for £20 for a 2-year contract, and for renewing the contract was upped to 32 gigabytes at no extra cost ! I try very hard to use that amount, which is not easy when I have absolutely NO desire to watch live TV on the internet - it means a lot of audio streaming, which I have to say is very reliable. So stick with your contracts to the end, and see what extra data that EE offer you to renew... |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 8,079
|
Quote:
. If you're an Audiophile, radio has never been a good place to listen!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Retford
Posts: 20,450
|
Quote:
OR: I could use DAB and be able to switch stations easily by the radio, steering wheel or even voice control. I don't get drop-outs and understand service areas.
Yes, the bitrate is not great on some stations and mono does grate, as well as low bitrate DAB+ but having tried streaming many times on my way to work, I just keep switching back to technology That Just Works. I want to concentrate on the driving not work out why the audio has cut out again or go through a rigmarole of switching stations. Especially when streaming doesn't sound much better in many cases. |
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:46.



