A discussion on digital radio technology

L1011 · 05-01-2006 12:27PM

There is a payoff that has to be made between "old technology" and not legging it like crazy after a moving target

There is no DABv2 yet. Even when there is, it'll take an AGE before theres even affordable radios for it, a lot longer for cheap ones. It won't help for prices in Ireland that the UK isn't using them.

RTE aren't going to get into that cycle of chasing tech. They have to actually settle on something, and Eureka-147 based DAB is whats here and now. They can't forever be waiting for something else.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 12:33PM

watty wrote:

The variant of MPEG4 best suited for radio transmission is not quite the same as MPEG4 computer files. The chips are only out last month to the setbox makers, so any MPEG4 in French DTT must be an earlier type.

Yes, the MPEG-4 computer files I assume you're talking about are SP (Simple Profile), whereas the new digital TV launches will be using the H.264/AVC video codec -- the chips have been available for a few months now though.

Since the chips are only released now, the opertunity is for new DTT systems to be all MPEG4. Obviously older DTT will all be MPEG2.

H.264 will be used for all the new HDTV launches, and probably for new DTT systems.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 12:41PM

Northern Correspondent wrote:

You are the one who was trying to put words into my mouth. You are trying to make people to agree with what you think without allowing the right to disagree.

Basically, I saw someone mention this forum so I had a look at it. I read the thread about DAB and found myself getting slagged off "behind my back" by a few people including yourself. I decided to answer some criticisms of myself, but at no point have I put words into anybody's mouth and nor have I tried to make people agree with me or disallowed them their right to disagree.

I argue my case strongly, i.e. I debate and put my side across strongly. Also, as I've seen you acknowledge, I know my stuff on this subject. But none of this amounts to making people agree with me or anything else you've just accused me of.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 12:58PM

Northern Correspondent wrote:

Personally I do not see the point in adopting a DAB v2 where the only major change is adopting AAC as the audio codec. It's a bit like adding 256MB of RAM onto a 486 PC, sure it'll do good but really what's the point? The extra memory will not make up for the shortfalls of the PC in the same way that AAC will not make up for the lack of transmission flexibility that is inherient with DAB.

The change from DABv1 to DABv2 is simply the following:

1. change from MP2 to AAC/AAC+ codecs
2. use RS FEC coding to improve spectral efficiency
3. use MPEG-4 Error Resilience techniques to improve spectral efficiency

AAC is twice as efficient as MP2, and AAC+ is about 3-3.5 times as efficient as MP2.

The RS FEC coding and error resilience techniques allows an increase in spectral efficiency of approximately 30 - 40%.

Basically, you multiply the difference in audio coding efficiency by the increase in the spectral efficiency, and the overall increase in efficiency is about 2.5 to 4.5, depending on whether you use high or low audio quality -- the lower audio quality used the greater the improvement.

That is absolutely nothing like adding 256MB of RAM to a 486 PC. It's more like changing from a 386 to a Pentium II/III.

You seem to suggest that DAB is a 486 PC because it uses wide bandwidth multiplexes, but so long as it's combined with using DRM/DRM+ then the local station problem is solved.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 01:13PM

watty wrote:

There is no point to DAB v2 and I would be surprised if many adopt it. Exsiting receivers can't use it. If you are going to need new receivers then DVB-h and DRM (and Eutelsat's scheme to recycle inclined orbit TV satellites as mobile Radio ) all make more sense.

Think about why DABv2 is going to happen. They've decided that it's time to update the system because DABv1 is getting slated and countries are deciding against using it in favour of more efficient systems, so updating to DABv2 will make it far more likely that countries will decide to adopt it.

Also, there's threats from newer and better systems like DVB-H, but DABv2 closes the vast majority of the efficiency gap between DABv1 and DVB-H.

I think that once the new standards are released we'll see most countries choosing to use DABv2 and/or DRM+.

DRM may bring a resurgence in MW, LW & SW listening with easy tuning and clear signals. But not a medium for Local Radio, more for National and International networks.

I think DRM+ is perfectly suited to local radio.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 01:38PM

MYOB wrote:

There is a payoff that has to be made between "old technology" and not legging it like crazy after a moving target

It's not a moving target: DABv2 will be a new stable set of DAB standards.

You've got to think about how much more of an improvement is possible after DABv2:

DABv2 will be able to use the AAC/AAC+ codecs, and AAC+ is the most efficient audio codec in existence and provides pretty good audio quality even at bit rates as low as 48kbps. How much lower in bit rate can they go?

The new FEC coding significantly improves upon the current FEC coding, and without changing the modulation from QPSK to 16-QAM (which I'm pretty certain they won't do, because it would require far too much changes to the current specs) there's very little benefit that can be had from changing to newer more powerful FEC coding.

Basically, changing from DABv1 to DABv2 hugely improves the efficiency of the system and leaves very little future improvements in efficiency possible, so DABv2 won't need to be updated.

There is no DABv2 yet. Even when there is, it'll take an AGE before theres even affordable radios for it, a lot longer for cheap ones. It won't help for prices in Ireland that the UK isn't using them.

DABv2 receivers could be available very quickly, and Ofcom are encouraging the UK manufacturers to make their DAB modules v2-enabled so that the UK can migrate to v2 when the vast majority of receivers are v2-enabled.

Frontier-Silicon and Radioscape, who probably make 95%+ of all DAB modules have both already designed DMB modules, and DABv2 is very similar to DMB, and their receivers are all software-based, so it's simply a matter of modifying existing software.

RTE aren't going to get into that cycle of chasing tech. They have to actually settle on something, and Eureka-147 based DAB is whats here and now. They can't forever be waiting for something else.

RTE are only testing DAB at the moment, so if they actually decide to go with DABv1 when v2 standards are available and receivers will be ready either before they commercially launch or very shortly afterwards that would be a major mistake. It's like the UK choosing to use 2K DVB-T: they could have waited a few months and used 8K, but they didn't and now we're seriously hampered by having a full 2K DTT network.

It's ridiculous to take ultra-short-term reasons into consideration when whichever standard you decide to adopt is going to be around for decades.

L1011 · 05-01-2006 03:17PM

digitalradiotec wrote:

DABv2 will be able to use the AAC/AAC+ codecs, and AAC+ is the most efficient audio codec in existence and provides pretty good audio quality even at bit rates as low as 48kbps. How much lower in bit rate can they go?

Look back on saying that in 5 years time. Particularly for speech-oriented services, e.g. Radio 4, 12kbps Speex or similar is entirely possible in the future. But, by then, you'll be pushing another not-yet-finalised standard while the rest of the world continues to either deploy or entirely ignore DABv1 and nothing else.

DABv2 receivers could be available very quickly, and Ofcom are encouraging the UK manufacturers to make their DAB modules v2-enabled so that the UK can migrate to v2 when the vast majority of receivers are v2-enabled.

Could. But won't. AAC requires licences. Expensive licences. And expensive chips. No radio maker is going to support it when theres no signals to receive, as it going to add probably £35-45 to EACH receiver.

It's ridiculous to take ultra-short-term reasons into consideration when whichever standard you decide to adopt is going to be around for decades.

When "ultra-short-term" means probably ten years here - you seem incapable of being realistic about timings on DABv2 deployments - I'd rather take a system thats proven working, and despite your protests, will be unnoticably different at 192Kbps from FM to 99.5% of people - than continually wait and continue to be left in a country thats using 60-90 year old transmission technology.

I'd have taken a 1998-era DTT system over barely being able to get RTE 1 & 2 on UHF less than 3 miles from the capital city, thanks.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 04:22PM

Speech codecs: MPEG-4 already has very low bit rate speech codecs which will probably be included in DABv2 -- they're included in DRM now.

AAC requires licences that cost £35 - £40 for each receiver?????? I'll help you:

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/license.terms.html

DABv2 receivers not ready for 10 years? What a joke.

"unnoticably different at 192Kbps from FM to 99.5% of people"? I take it you've never heard Radios 1-4 on Freeview?

Unless you can come up with points that are even close to reality I don't see the point in wasting my time replying to you.

L1011 · 05-01-2006 04:31PM

digitalradiotec wrote:

AAC requires licences that cost £35 - £40 for each receiver?????? I'll help you:

Licencing PLUS the additional costs of adding the technology to decoder chips, particularly as its very new. Yes, the licencing is "cheap" - not when compared to MPEG 1 licencing fees, though, but decoder chips, or writing low-power capable software decoders (which have far higher licence fees than hardware ones) - are not.

DABv2 receivers not ready for 10 years? What a joke.

No indication anyones going to make them -at all- right now. Additionally, even if a few, highly expensive ones come out within 2-3 years, its not like theres going to be cheap mass-market ones for quite some time, due to there not being any services. And commercial broadcasters have even less chance of justifying going on-air when theres little to no receiver technology out there, and so the circle continues...

"unnoticably different at 192Kbps from FM to 99.5% of people"? I take it you've never heard Radios 1-4 on Freeview?

No, I don't live in the UK now, do I?

Unless you can come up with points that are even close to reality I don't see the point in wasting my time replying to you.

You're the one that living in a world of fantasy, matey. The world isn't going to stop just to wait for a technology thats "around the corner", but you won't accept that. You've been displaced from reality this entire thread, and with most posts to your site. Yes, you absolutely hate DAB. We don't care.

watty · 05-01-2006 04:52PM

Anyone else have a sense of Deja Vu about Mr. DigitalRadioTech?

His posts are very similar to a guy that got banned for getting tiresome on MediaUK forums a few years back.

Yes: DAB isn't great. But you can buy a receiver. Who knows it may never happen here due to opposition from Commercial local stations and lack of RTE finance. Given how long Band III TV is lasting past its original sell by date I don't think anyone is going to even set a date for VHF-FM Radio shut down.

Yes: DRM is real and cheap and is going to happen in Ireland. HF transmissions already on air.
Yes: DVB-h receivers are practically going to be free with 3G phones and possibly with GSM/GPRS phones too.
Yes: DVB HD using MPEG4 is real and you can since last month buy a real receiver.

No: DABv2 is not a good idea. Receivers don't exist and it is practically obsolete (by DRM and DVB-h deployment) before launch.

DRM+ may never appear.

DigitalRadioTech
Critizing long standing posters and repeating the same posts points in a long winded fashion again and again doesn't help your arguement.

We keep this a nice friendly forum by ruthlessly banning troublemakers.

Hower a lively debate with valuable technical contributions is always welcome

rlogue · 05-01-2006 04:55PM

Still no update on his news page.

Digitalradiotec, I put it to you that you're purely here for a scrap - you hate DAB - we can see that from your own site - and you won't face criticism without spamming forums and causing arguments.

You're entitled to your own opinions but you have no right to come into this forum looking for aggro.

L1011 · 05-01-2006 05:27PM

He's also forgetting one crucial factor in RTE going DAB:

They've had the damn kit for YEARS! 1998/1999 would be a good guess. They had two DAB tx's at Three Rock in 1999 anyway, I'm guess thats now one at CC and one at 3R. They may never extend the service beyond this.

But they own the kit. They have the frequencies. Why the hell not use the kit? Doesn't prevent them moving to another technology in the future, particularly as the ones he's wibbling on about don't exist in the market yet.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 07:31PM

MYOB wrote:

Licencing PLUS the additional costs of adding the technology to decoder chips, particularly as its very new. Yes, the licencing is "cheap" - not when compared to MPEG 1 licencing fees, though, but decoder chips, or writing low-power capable software decoders (which have far higher licence fees than hardware ones) - are not.

Ofcom said that they want the UK manufacturers to make DAB radios for the UK market that can receive DABv1 or DABv2, and as I've explained before, the 2 DAB module companies have already designed DMB modules, and DMB is almost identical to DABv2, so the software is effectively already written.

The cost will be the same, because the mass market receivers will be able to receive both standards.

No indication anyones going to make them -at all- right now. Additionally, even if a few, highly expensive ones come out within 2-3 years, its not like theres going to be cheap mass-market ones for quite some time, due to there not being any services. And commercial broadcasters have even less chance of justifying going on-air when theres little to no receiver technology out there, and so the circle continues...

Ireland is a long way from launching a commercial service, so I don't see why you're in a rush.

You're the one that living in a world of fantasy, matey. The world isn't going to stop just to wait for a technology thats "around the corner", but you won't accept that. You've been displaced from reality this entire thread, and with most posts to your site. Yes, you absolutely hate DAB. We don't care.

So, I'm the one that doesn't know what he's talking about then? So Ofcom must be living in cloud cuckoo land as well, because this is what they said about DABv2 in a recent document:

"4.85 However, Ofcom is aware that some other countries, which
currently have no DAB services or where set sales have been minimal, are considering adopting the new standard.
4.86 These developments mean that receivers may be developed for the
international market which can receive both the existing MPEG 2 services and any new AAC MPEG 4 services (together with DRM, as discussed below). Ofcom would welcome this development and encourages the radio industry to work with manufacturers to develop and market such radios as standard.
4.87 Such a development could mean that, a number of years from now,
when the vast majority of radios in the market can receive both MPEG 2 and AAC MPEG 4 services, multiplexes in the UK may be able to make use of AAC, thus further enhancing spectrum efficiency, allowing the provision of additional services to increase listener choice."

L1011 · 05-01-2006 07:41PM

Not only is the current DAB testing carrying one fully commercial station, RTE stations are semi-commercial, and 2FM in fact is entirely commercial but RTE owned. They also need to justify expenditure of licence fees, so that pretty much leaves them in the same state as a commercial broadcaster

You may know what you're talking about, but so do most trolls. You hate DAB, and using a few select phrases - three subsections from what is clearly a large Ofcom document - to back yourself up, is generally indicative of trolling.

The listeners at large do not give a damn about the sound quality - look at the amount of listeners that AM stations have to this day in the UK. They definately don't give a damn when the difference is basically imperceivable, even if you like convincing yourself that they do.

watty · 05-01-2006 07:44PM

Some would question Ofcom's wisdom rather than using them to backup an argument!

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 08:02PM

watty wrote:

No: DABv2 is not a good idea. Receivers don't exist and it is practically obsolete (by DRM and DVB-h deployment) before launch.

DRM+ may never appear.

DigitalRadioTech
Critizing long standing posters and repeating the same posts points in a long winded fashion again and again doesn't help your arguement.

We keep this a nice friendly forum by ruthlessly banning troublemakers.

Hower a lively debate with valuable technical contributions is always welcome

I have no doubt that DABv2 and/or DRM+ will become the main digital radio standards around the world. I know DABv2 will happen because I've spoken to DAB design companies about them, and it's been mentioned by Ofcom, the Australian government, other DAB broadcasters around the world and so on.

Work on extending DRM to become DRM+ is already underway and I only enquired about it last week, and someone working on DRM+ gave a brief progress report on it.

As for criticising other posters, the only reason I posted on this thread was because I saw people completely slagging me and my website off. I was not and am not looking for an argument, but I wanted to answer some of the points about my website.

And if you actually read this thread from start to finish from an impartial perspective you'd find that I'm the one getting stick from all sides and the only thing I've said in return was to tell someone to write points that have some validity, which was mild in comparison to what I've had to put up with so far.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 08:06PM

rlogue wrote:

Still no update on his news page.

Digitalradiotec, I put it to you that you're purely here for a scrap - you hate DAB - we can see that from your own site - and you won't face criticism without spamming forums and causing arguments.

You're entitled to your own opinions but you have no right to come into this forum looking for aggro.

Is there some important news that I've left off my website? If there is, please let me know. I've written an article about Ofcom saying that the UK should adopt DABv2 but haven't updated my home page yet, but I can't think of any other important digital radio news.

And no, I'm definitely not looking for a scrap, although by the looks of it a lot of other posters on this forum are looking for a scrap with me.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 08:28PM

MYOB wrote:

You may know what you're talking about, but so do most trolls. You hate DAB, and using a few select phrases - three subsections from what is clearly a large Ofcom document - to back yourself up, is generally indicative of trolling.

Those paragraphs speak for themselves irrespective of the length of the Ofcom document. The numbers at the start of each paragraph are the paragraph numbers, so you can see that they're consecutive, so it's not like I've cut and paste things to suit my argument.

BTW, trolls are people that start arguments purely to wind other people up, but if you look at this thread from start to finish you'd see that I posted on this thread AFTER me and my website had been referred to by other people, and since then all I've been doing is REPLYING to other people's posts.

The listeners at large do not give a damn about the sound quality - look at the amount of listeners that AM stations have to this day in the UK. They definately don't give a damn when the difference is basically imperceivable, even if you like convincing yourself that they do.

In a MORI market research survey 63% of analogue radio listeners said that the main advantage of digital radio was that it provides better audio quality, compared to only 21% of people saying that the main advantage was that it provided extra stations.

The same thing happened in a WorldDAB survey of 5000 people across Europe back in 1997 and the same thing happened in Australia last year -- better audio quality is ALWAYS the main reason why people want digital radio, and it's only radio anoraks that care about the number of stations available.

L1011 · 05-01-2006 08:44PM

...and the fact that those people said that audio quality is what attracted them shows that what they wanted to get away from was either AM or FM poor quality signals, e.g. clarity over perceived "richness". It many only be radio geeks that want more channels, but its only audio geeks who can notice a "richness" difference between high bitrate mp2 and clear FM.

Again, you're taking figures that quite clearly mean one thing - they can't answer on the advantages if they don't have a damn DAB radion - and applying them to something else. From the reports on here, people are getting clear DAB in areas where FM reception can be quite poor.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 08:48PM

MYOB wrote:

He's also forgetting one crucial factor in RTE going DAB:

They've had the damn kit for YEARS! 1998/1999 would be a good guess. They had two DAB tx's at Three Rock in 1999 anyway, I'm guess thats now one at CC and one at 3R. They may never extend the service beyond this.

But they own the kit. They have the frequencies. Why the hell not use the kit? Doesn't prevent them moving to another technology in the future, particularly as the ones he's wibbling on about don't exist in the market yet.

I take it you're not aware that DABv2 uses THE SAME transmitters as DABv1? That is, they would still use all the equipment they've got already.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 08:53PM

watty wrote:

Some would question Ofcom's wisdom rather than using them to backup an argument!

I usually disagree with what Ofcom has to say, but on this subject I totally agree with them. There's only the UK and Denmark where DAB sales have been anything more than non-existent and there's very little change on the horizon, so by the time the vast majority of countries (including Ireland) adopt a system DABv2 will be ready and the vast majority will choose DABv2. So it makes sense if UK consumers can buy DABv2-enabled receivers (they will be able to receive both v1 and v2) and then in, say, 7 - 10 years Ofcom can switch the UK over to DABv2.

It makes absolutely no sense for any country to adopt DABv1 now that v2 is on the horizon.

L1011 · 05-01-2006 09:00PM

By that logic, it made no sense for any country to adopt any television system, at -any time- because x, y or z was on the horizon.

RTE are doing DAB -NOW-. Not in two years when DABv2 kit might be available, but NOW. They've been planning adoption for 7 to 8 years. Its completely different to a country beginning to plan a digital radio strategy.

Theres absolutely no sense in you continuing to try and fight this. Go make a case to RTE or to Comreg. I presume we'll be able to hear the laughter from Montrose across most of the country.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 09:05PM

MYOB wrote:

...and the fact that those people said that audio quality is what attracted them shows that what they wanted to get away from was either AM or FM poor quality signals, e.g. clarity over perceived "richness".

The vast majority of people that haven't heard it think digital radio will provide CD-quality, because it's digital.

Again, you're taking figures that quite clearly mean one thing - they can't answer on the advantages if they don't have a damn DAB radion - and applying them to something else. From the reports on here, people are getting clear DAB in areas where FM reception can be quite poor.

After they were asked the question to spontaneously say what they viewed to be the main advantage of digital radio, they were then given a list of the benefits of digital radio, and better audio quality still came top!!!!!!

Look, MORI are a respected market research company, so I think they know what they're doing.

And BTW, I've read some of the reception reports, and I've also seen quite a few saying they get no signal or bubbling mud, but at the end of the day I've owned a DAB receiver for 4 years so I know what the reception quality is like, and I live 5 miles from the CE Manchester transmitter and reception quality is dreadful, although the other 3 muxes I can receive are okay.

Basically, if you think that DAB has rock solid reception then you obviously haven't read many UK-based radio forums. And ironically, DABv2 provides far more robust reception than DABv1!!!

L1011 · 05-01-2006 09:10PM

I have absolutely zero interest in UK based radio, so why would I read UK based radio forums? I don't live in the UK, if I for some strange reason felt compelled to listen to UK based commercial radio most of its FTA on satellite anyway.

Bubbling DAB signals are still better than what you get on some of Dublin's commercial stations.

If you want to continue flogging the dead horse - RTE are not going to move to DABv2 due to you ranting on a forum - I advise you to return to your old site. Which I see still doesn't mention the fact that RTE are now sucessfully trialling DAB, and only bothers going with anti-DAB stories.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 09:10PM

MYOB wrote:

RTE are doing DAB -NOW-. Not in two years when DABv2 kit might be available, but NOW. They've been planning adoption for 7 to 8 years. Its completely different to a country beginning to plan a digital radio strategy.

Theres absolutely no sense in you continuing to try and fight this. Go make a case to RTE or to Comreg. I presume we'll be able to hear the laughter from Montrose across most of the country.

No, RTE are not doing DAB now, they are testing DAB now. A commercial DAB launch could be 1 or 2 years away -- broadcasters tend to move pretty slowly.

And as for Comreg, they said that they wanted to "leapfrog" DAB and use mobile DVB-T instead, so I suggest you go and make the case to them rather than the other way round.

Anyway, I'm not trying to make any case to you or anybody else on this forum, because I know the facts, and most of you simply don't want to accept them.

L1011 · 05-01-2006 09:14PM

digitalradiotec wrote:

Anyway, I'm not trying to make any case to you or anybody else on this forum, because I know the facts, and most of you simply don't want to accept them.

You may know facts about the technology, which have generally been accepted as all you're spouting is bitrates and technology names, but you refuse to accept facts about the mass market, the realities of equipment manufacturing and licencing, lead times, and other such "trivial" matters when it comes to getting a standard legal and available for public use.

It will be two to three years before you will be able to walk into Dixons or Peats and buy a DABv2 radio, if they even chose to stock them. And thats a cold, hard reality that you seem to seem to ingore.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 09:14PM

MYOB wrote:

I have absolutely zero interest in UK based radio, so why would I read UK based radio forums? I don't live in the UK, if I for some strange reason felt compelled to listen to UK based commercial radio most of its FTA on satellite anyway.

Bubbling DAB signals are still better than what you get on some of Dublin's commercial stations.

If you want to continue flogging the dead horse - RTE are not going to move to DABv2 due to you ranting on a forum - I advise you to return to your old site. Which I see still doesn't mention the fact that RTE are now sucessfully trialling DAB, and only bothers going with anti-DAB stories.

Believe me, bubbling DAB signals are miles, miles worse than hissy FM. You know, it's your right to disagree with some of the things I say, but at the end of the day I've had DAB for 4 years, I've had a website about digital radio for 3.75 years and I've been posting on digital radio newsgroups and forums for 4 years, so you can't really lecture me about DAB reception quality -- some people do get strong signals, and I do on 3 of the 4 muxes, but a hell of a lot of people don't get good reception.

digitalradiotec · 05-01-2006 09:24PM

MYOB wrote:

You may know facts about the technology, which have generally been accepted as all you're spouting is bitrates and technology names, but you refuse to accept facts about the mass market, the realities of equipment manufacturing and licencing, lead times, and other such "trivial" matters when it comes to getting a standard legal and available for public use.

It will be two to three years before you will be able to walk into Dixons or Peats and buy a DABv2 radio, if they even chose to stock them. And thats a cold, hard reality that you seem to seem to ingore.

Look, you've tried to accuse me of not living in reality and such like on this thread due to what I've said about technology issues, and now you're just trying to make these out as being irrelevant because I've been shown to be right.

As for the mass market, I know that most people accept the audio quality of DAB on small portable radios. Big deal. I also accept that the general public is extremely naive and trust the broadcasters. But what I am absolutely 100% certain of is that if they knew the truth about what the BBC has done with the audio quality then many, many, many people would be very annoyed with the BBC.

On the subject of when DABv2 receivers will be in the shops, as I've had to say many times now, Frontier-Silicon and Radioscape have already designed DMB modules and DABv2 is virtually identical to DMB, so it really would require only tiny changes to the software of EXISTING modules before they were ready to be included in products, and I KNOW that all of Radioscape's modules are pin-compatible with each other, so to get DABv2 receivers into the shops literally only requires loading new software onto existing modules and putting these modules into EXISTING radios.

DABv2 receivers could be in the shops as little as a few months after the new standards have been released, if that -- which is just a tad shorter than your 10 years estimate, don't you think?

L1011 · 05-01-2006 09:30PM

Could. Your favourite word. They "could" be in shops, broadcaster xyz "could" use this.

They won't. Simple as that. Look at any other sector of any technology based industry and how long it takes to get a new standard onto hardware when theres no (signals|software) to support it

You can still get Mt. Ranier-incompatible CD-RW's, because no major OS supports Mt. Ranier. That standard is oh, ten years old and was seen as a "great improvement" on the previous standard, but its not supported. Its a simple, costless firmware change to support it. But its not.

With no broadcasters committed to DABv2, and none likely to, its going to be exactly the same.

david23 · 05-01-2006 09:42PM

digitalradiotec wrote:

No, RTE are not doing DAB now, they are testing DAB now. A commercial DAB launch could be 1 or 2 years away -- broadcasters tend to move pretty slowly.

There seems to be some confusion here. In this article RTE's head of operations says "this could very soon be all over the country". He goes on to talk about DAB-only content being launched on the multiplex in September 2006, so it doesn't appear from this that they will be pulling the plug after 3 months. Have you read something different?

http://www.radiowaves.fm/newsstand/metro/051222.gif

A discussion on digital radio technology

Comments