DAB radio

[helen]

I heard an article on R4 about the change over from analogue to digital radio this morning. One of the big push arguments was that the transmission of analogue radio was more power hungry than digital radio transmission.
Now, I have, including my car, seven radios in my house. One of them is DAB and it uses about eight times more power than an old transistor portable. I have in my house other ways of listening to digital radio: Through the TV which uses loads more watts than the stereo and it's in the living room not the kitchen, bedroom or car or via my PC which uses loads more watts than the stereo on the kitchen counter.
Do the savings in energy from broadcasting balance the increase in demand from the UK having several power hungry DAB radios in their houses? We have to rethink our relationship with radio it would seem. What's the thinking and the science behind this?

[rsmith7]

Buy a wind turbine

[helen]

That may well be a viable option (with a charger and a battery) up there where you live RSmith but not here in Shropshire,actually, is there radio up there? Do you know what I'm talking about? The Shipping Forecast mentions your place a lot. Why? No, but seriously.....
Address the question please.

[jonjel]

I am a radio addict, mainly R4, but a few others as well. I have radio in most rooms in the house, and the workshop, and the garage, and the car. If I seriously count up I have, including clock radios 9. It could be more. I am not after brownie points. One of those is a DAB/FM which was given to me as a present. It is switched to FM becasue the DAB signal is poor.

Switching to DAB is the mantra of the radio industry, because they claim it costs a lot of money to simultaneously broadcast on FM AM and digital.

Well that is what they say, but I really fail to understand that. For each programme you have one studio and all the paraphernalia, then that signal is broadcast in a number of different ways. I can't believe that pumping the stuff out is anything like the cost of actually making the programme. If that were so then the minority stations, mainly commercial would not survive as their income is very low and only derived from some minor advertising and a bit of sponsorship. Look at the published accounts of some of them when you are particularly bored.

The industry are determined to ram this change through, and I understand they will try to do so when 50% of households have a DAB radio. Let us just hope that is a very long time coming. And since they are aiming for 50% it s hardly surprising that they will continue to pump out propaganda and fictitious statistics.

[Progenitor A]

Nov 24, 2010 13:32:17 GMT 1 helen said:

I heard an article on R4 about the change over from analogue to digital radio this morning. One of the big push arguments was that the transmission of analogue radio was more power hungry than digital radio transmission.

Do the savings in energy from broadcasting balance the increase in demand from the UK having several power hungry DAB radios in their houses? We have to rethink our relationship with radio it would seem. What's the thinking and the science behind this?

I think you have probably misinterpreted what was said.DAB requires less transmission power than FM. That means that more radio stations can be transmitted, because the inteference between stations is reduced because they are transmitting les power. It also means that a freqency can be re-used nearer to another transmitting antenna using the same frequency, thus again contributing to the an increase number of available transmited radio stations.
In fact 'power saving' is a fallacy, as , as you have indicated,receivers consume more power, and although the transmitters transmit less power, they do it less efficiently because linear amplifiers are necessary in comparison to FM's Class C power amplifiers

The main reason for the move to DAB is to release radio spectrum for other things (like broadband mobile phones)

[helen]

Thanks naymissus, but I think all this talk of power saving by the authorities is disingenuous. What are they trying to achieve with this switch over? Who does it benefit? Loads of choice....but do we need all this choice? Will we ever, in terms of broadcasting?
I have to say that since I moved from Devon to Shropshire I have Virgin tele and there are scores of tv channels most of which I don't watch; loads of radio but not our local BBC radio station; who benefits from all this stuff? It's like the junk mail I get through the door everyday.

How are the benefits for you and me balanced by the needs of the market?

[rsmith7]

"since I moved from Devon"

And you accuse me of living in the sticks!

Do you have an individual portrait of your father and your brother on the wall?

[helen]

Please RSmith, stick to the subject. Now that you've just got radio and electricity and everything up there. What do you think about the transfer of radio and tv from analogue to digital and all that entails?

[rsmith7]

Don't like digital because it neuters the sound of music (not the film).
MP3 is particularly bad.
We don't get radio up here!
Unless you count the BBC.
Blech!

[jonjel]

sikkert du får Nrwegian readio der oppe?

[rsmith7]

hver tag eine flaske

My total Norwegian

[helen]

Garbage i to språken. Jeg er imponert. gjør welsh?

[jonjel]

Nå dette blir dumt, men det gjorde meg latter Helen!

[helen]

So is RSmith. Laughed out loud Jonjel, thanks for that!

[jonjel]

Maybe his postilion has been struck by lightening....