Robust reception on my car journeys (and also on some train journeys provided I use a portable radio with a telescopic whip) is the main reasons why I prefer DAB to FM/AM. Certainly in Scotland, in-car reception with a proper antenna fixed to the car’s bodywork gives rock-solid reception almost everywhere for national and local multiplexes and even gives surprising results for neighbouring local multiplexes.

I live in Melbourne, and have had a DAB+ radio for 2 years (now have 3 scattered about the house. Love the clarity of the AM stations, love the popup ABC stations, but especially love ‘SBS6’ which relays the BBC World Service 24 hrs a day…

If I was a real person, I would have given up on DAB long ago.

But because I want DAB to work, I keep putting up with the inferior reception, constant cutting out and mono music stations, if only to hear how my own work sounds “in the mix” on-air.

At home, DAB reception is only possible if the radio is on the window ledge, in the car the main issue, apart from reception, is the displaying of a radio station which is unavailable. Anyone who tunes around will find this annoying.

If a station is no longer available due to driving outside the coverage area, remove it from the display. Simple?

I’d contribute my experiences with real-people using DAB but I’m yet to encounter any!

They do have DAB+ compared to the DAB we use. Hence they would be listening to audio that has the more efficient HE-AAC and better error correction (which will give you a better coverage). The only thing is that it is not backwards compatible with the older DAB sets.

The good thing is that newer sets can receive both DAB and DAB+. So if we do change to DAB+ not all of us will be left in the dark.

The coverage improvement is almost negligible from the error correction, though on a properly built receiver it does cope better with areas of poor reception, and you get no bubbling mud. The above examples, however, have nothing to do with any differences between DAB and DAB+.

drawbacks to DAB+ here are – metro only coverage (sheer size of country will slow down rollout); which in turn leads to limited implementation in cars. But you can’t fault the content, which has improved now that community stations have moved onto the multiplexes. Best digital radio side-effect? My DAB+ clock-radio self-corrects its time! Pedants corner? – stations IDing themselves as ‘on radio, online, on digital’. It’s ALL radio!

My Mum still listens to Classic on FM because it “sounds better.”

I’m not a fan of DAB at all. I think it could work if we adopted DAB+, sorted out coverage issues and introduced a minimum bitrate threshold of 64k in AAC or 128k in MP2 and made stereo mandatory for non-music stations.

But while music stations are broadcasting at 64k Mono MP2, the audio sounds like it’s being played underwater, and stations I want to listen to don’t even broadcast on DAB, I just don’t see a future for DAB and I believe FM will remain king for some time.

In London, the DAB muxes are robust, which has enabled me to listen with no real issues since 2003.

It’s main selling point for me is that I can listen interference free from illegal broadcasters to FM stations, plus niche formats such as Absolute 80s.

Mono is also an issue for me, although modern encoders have made the 64k MP2 experience more tolerable.

Hi James, interesting post, just a niggle though.

“two people I met spoke about their DAB radio” ... “One person, in Brisbane, uses his DAB radio” ... etc

Considering this is posted on a UK based website, it’s important to clarify that Australia is using DAB+, not DAB.

You came to Canberra? I had the kettle on, ready! ;)

Why is it important, Richard? Just curious. What difference does it make?

I’m in Canberra trialling the DAB+ platform, which if successful will roll out across the rest of Australia. We are not trialling DAB, DRM or any other platform.

Yes, got that. But there is no difference between DAB+ and DAB, save a more efficient codec and slightly improved error correction, neither of which are relevant. (The more efficient codec makes no difference to sound quality since you run at much lower bitrates, and the error correction has little benefit in the real world).

The Eureka 147 family works the same for consumers whether it is DAB or DAB+ – indeed the radio is the same. In the context of this post, it is irrelevant, hence why I used the moniker “DAB” to make it relevant to a UK audience. Fights between version numbers of technology are hardly helpful in this case, and would be confusing here.

Incidentally: you are trialling it in Canberra, but it is commercially live in many Australian capital cities: and if you roll DAB+ across “the rest of Australia” then I will eat my hat, your hat, and the hat of three of your friends. You may well roll it out in other cities (the Gold Coast and Port Mac spring to mind) but the way DAB+ works means that it is highly unlikely to roll out to smaller communities in the same way as FM (or AM come to that).

For sure. It may just interest Media UK users that it’s not DAB as they know it, ie 64k mono mp2

Perhaps we can talk about DAB+ error correction some other time (a loaded topic).

I should clarify that I’m not suggesting DAB (or all UK DAB broadcasters) are using 64k mono mp2, just distinguishing a UK example of “DAB” as noted by James Martins comment.

It all depends on what sample rate they use. For example some studios use ISDN at 16KHz sample rate at 64kbps per channel and I think that is using mp2 compression. That sounds perfectly fine for speech.

Here in the East Midlands I get good DAB reception on all my old favourite channels (Radio 3 on FM used to be poor) but the big pluses are access to the extra ones. At first it was discovering all the old treasure on Radio 7(4 extra) but lately 6Music tends to be my daytime background.
It’s just so convenient to be able to get Test Match Special or NFL live commentary on R5LSX at the touch of a pre-set rather than fiddling with LW or American Forces Network on MW.
And when you add in the ability to pause live radio and timeshift programmes on my Evoke3 set then for me DAB is pretty close to perfection.

I wasn’t shopping for a new set. I adopted digital radio because I was so impressed with digital TV’s additional content (in Melbourne) and didn’t want to miss out with radio. Starting off with a portable model I could take to work, I found the offerings of several DAB exclusive stations such a treat I replaced my home hi-fi tuner and bought a set for each of my daughters.

Here I hit a stumbling block. I was unable to whip up the same level of enthusiasm amongst my children or workmates of their age. On the majority they already liked what they heard. It’s just that they seemed to be enjoying their music via radio far less than I did when I was that age. I guess the ease of downloading then creating a playlist as opposed to the effort of waiting for a song to be aired then hitting the cassette record button may be a factor. I’m not too sure. Two relatives closer to my age were won over however their solution was simply to grab the appropriate iPhone app which means they have no plans to purchase a receiver. Maybe this means the radio industry isn’t to blame for the slow take-up.

Reports from real people:

My parents bought DAB specifically when GCap’s theJazz launched, and were disappointed when first that station, then Our Kind of Music, ceased broadcasting. (As jazz purists, they’re less enthused by Jazz FM – “jazzy rather than jazz”, apparently!). My dad appreciates that the timer on their central heating doesn’t periodically cause interference on DAB as it does on FM when he listens to jazz on radio 3.

My own generation (40-ish) seemed to be getting on just fine without DAB – even though I’ve used it for the best part of a decade – with the exception of a couple of friends who’d heard about and sought out Planet Rock. But in the last six months I’ve heard several friends, unprompted, raving about both Absolute 80s and 6 Music, though I guess they may not access either via DAB.

My kids like Capital on FM, although my sons listen to DAB to hear football commentaries after dark, rather than suffering night-time medium wave.

I got my Pure Evoke 1 (that I won via a competition on radio – cant remember what station now, but think it was Smooth!)

I listen to DAB for a clear listen to Swansea Sound or Gold Wales, also BBC Radio Devon and to hear Pirate FM again

I do sometimes move across to Smooth Radio or Smooth 70s

Another ‘real’ person update.

My mother purchased an Asda personal DAB radio just before Christmas to listen to French Radio London, however when they axed the Paris Chanson show (40s and 50s French songs) she’s hardly used it since.

I’m clearly not a real person – I’m on mediauk, but anyway…

DAB is in many ways a bit rubbish in the UK, however I do have it in car via an aftermarket JVC head unit, a JVC DAB addon box (literally just a box, headunit does the UI), and a Psion Wavefinder external aerial rammed against the parcel shelf.

It’s amazingly pretty robust signal wise, and national stations are never a problem. Locally, at home I get both regional and local stations, and its very usable.

The main problem with DAB is still fringe reception. On FM if I’m listening to a particular show or story, I’ll happily listen to a god awful signal just to hear the end of it. With DAB, it just frustrates the hell out of you til you switch off.

Killer DAB features for me are simple: 5 live without the MW reception, and in the past Traffic Radio. I appreciate the many flaws it had, but in car, it was an easy non-distracting way to get updates.

——

In my job we often use hire cars. I picked up a new focus last night for the boss, and quickly realised it had DAB installed. I thought I’d helpfully switch it to 5 live on digital (in some ways to prove how 5 live on DAB is great). What an effort. Terrible confusing UI, and it took 5 minutes to switch to the right station. I’m the geek who has to go fix the parents VCR/DVD/Bluray etc. I love tech stuff, and I don’t need manuals – but I really struggled.

My question, without wanting to go too off topic, is whether DAB is simple enough for ‘real people’ and how we can make it better. Pure seem to just have a big long list of stations, and generally I’d say thats better. Sorry for the rant!

Hmm can we not currently edit posts?

Just wanted to add TMS as a killer feature for digital! Along with the current scores on digital radio text.

Reception of fringe multiplexes does often tend to be better than the FM equivalents if you have a proper DAB aerial on your car, such as a magmount or one fixed to the bodywork of your car.

All too often I see people complaining about rubbish DAB reception in the car, only to find that they are using an inadequate antenna. The physics is simple, just like the FM aerial being fixed to your car’s bodywork to enhance the reception, so does the DAB aerial need to be.

While you are correct, I think you’ve missed the point Arthur.

I appreciate I ‘shouldn’t’ be listening, or I’m out of area or whatever. But take for example Northampton. Rather than listen to heart (no hate, just personal taste), I’ll happily listen to a crap 105.4 Capital signal, or maybe Gem 106. It fades, its crackly, but if you don’t mind it, its listenable.

With DAB, by its nature its on or off, there is no ‘bit crap’ phase. It’s on/off/on/off and unlistenable.

You’ve reminded me of another ‘sort of real’ story – I used to have an old Astra with a vertical aerial on the rear wing. It gave stupidly good reception and around the North Midlands/South Yorkshire area gave me a full UK band of multiplexes.

So I don’t disagree with you at all, but the point I was making was that you can’t really stretch DAB coverage.

Hmm can we not currently edit posts?

Your wish, my command, etc: we’ve just added this functionality

Thanks James :)

...and edited just for the sake of it!

I do like DAB but it’s the way they’ve used it here. They’ve could commissioned an extra multiplex and give each stations more bandwidth. I.e. more stations at 192kbps rather than the average 128-112kbps per music station.

Excellent, the bitrate conversation – it never fails to surface.

Peter – do you have any evidence that bitrate – or audio quality – matters to real people?

Here’s evidence it doesn’t , here’s more evidence it doesn’t , and more evidence was evident from the youth I saw (in Geneva today) who was playing some unpleasant dance music quite loud on his mobile phone.

While I’m not a techie and usually try not to get involved with such discussions, James’s comment above about the youth in Geneva does make me wonder how many people who moan about DAB bitrates and audio quality are also quite happy to listen to music on (compressed) mp3 files via those little ear-bud earphones.

Hardly hi-fi quality I would have thought. Just saying like.

They are/were both MW stations plus one is talk based station. Plus you just given me figures that include every platform. I’m more talking about FM to DAB is a step down in quality.

Let’s go to the television industry where they have brought in high definition television. You can say that is a step up in quality.

Not to mention roughtly half of Freeview services (TV and Radio) are running their audio at 192kbps or more.

I am totally unconvinced by DAB and remember some radio bunfight, at least 10 years ago, where Quentin Howard was selling the virtue of it. His employer had invested heavily in it, too. I just felt then, as I do now, it was the Emperor’s “new clothes”. Reception is generally bad. I bought a DAB radio for the car when I lived on the mainland and remember driving Jason Bryant around to let him hear car reception. We turned it off. It was poor, with a fitted aerial. Why on earth would someone , who isn’t in the industry,want this technology for an old-fashioned medium like radio? Irrespective of any audio quality issues, DAB adds nothing for an average punter. Sky had the footy and movies to drive-take up. And one Asian DAB service operator was very smart in making ‘target tuner’-like fixed frequency receivers which he sold to would-be punters. Clever. But there just isn’t mass-appeal unique content there on DAB. Any any one who has tried- Chill, Passion for the Planet etc has also needed, wisely, the net to extend their service.

Radio people should understand that whoever is Steve Jobs’ successor will drive what happens next and radio should arrange carriage on that mass-appeal cool, added-value platform. Whether it is 4G or whatever. DAB, used only for radio ain’t going to take off in the long-run in a convergence world. It is too limited. A box that just gets radio. What for? An aside, for use when people harp on about the take-up of DAB sets: I asked 3 friends who had the pure DAB sets why they had them. They said they liked the stylish look of a wooden radio. Nowt to do with the technology. Just aesthetics!

I am increasingly thinking that most of the technical arguments are irrelevant. Questions of quality and bitrate don’t matter to real listeners. Questions of reception do matter… but only if you have problems in your area. Some areas have poor FM, some have poor DAB, swings and roundabouts. Questions of UI, price and power consumption… all will be solved in time.

As I see it, if someone is happy listening to their favourite FM station on their FM-only radio, then they will continue to do so. If they happen to need a new radio (because their old one breaks, is lost or looks rubbish in the living room), they will most likely buy one with FM/DAB/DAB+. The only way they will actively buy a new DAB radio for any other reason is… content. I.e. if DAB can offer some content they desire which they cannot get elsewhere (or, in the case of AM, can get, but in very poor quality).

Perfect ‘real world’ example: My mum. She listens to Heart, nothing else. On the FM radios in her car and house she listens on FM… on the swanky new hi-fi in her living room she listens on DAB, because that is the way she first figured out to listen to Heart on the thing. She is not the kind of listener who will really think about what medium she is listening by… as long as she can get Heart on it, that is all that matters.

Another real world example: one of my ex-housemates. He bought a DAB set, not because of bitrates or reception or anything else like that. He bought it so he could listen to 6-music in the kitchen. My old boss had DAB in his car just so he could listen to BBC Radio 7 (now 4extra).

The real question is that does digital radio have any advantage over FM apart from extra stations available for the listener? Not really. We must not forget that it is not as easy to convert people over to digital radio as it is with digital television. If they were confident as they were with television they’ve would have stopped giving out 5 year community radio licences years ago.

I bought my DAB radios for the choice of stations and for BBC 7, now 4 Extra and 5Live Sports Xtra. But it is reception that for man is the main issue. Listen to Feedback on radio 4 whenever DAB is featured and it is reception that comes out on top all the time. Why are the DAB transmitters at such low power? Surely it can’t all be because of that bit of land across the North Sea called Europe? Untl reception is made more robust and reliable, then DB will continue to attract negative comments from users.

Why are the DAB transmitters at such low power?

“You what, mate, you’d like to buy some DAB transmission off us? Right. Well, let’s give you some kind of quote then, eh? Right. We’ll be back in a tick, mate, just going to run up some numbers for ya.”

(Realises that DAB allows up to 20 channels on one transmitter, so individual radio stations could pay 20 times less transmission if DAB takes hold).

“RIght, mate, we’ve got some figures for ya. Thing is, you need eight transmitters to cover London, y’know, not just one? Why? Technical reasons, mate. We’re the transmission provider, innit? We know how these bloody things work. Yeah. So, er – how about this figure? Yeah? I know it’s more than an FM transmitter even for your share of the multiplex, but we’ve got eight transmitters to run, that’s why. Why? Technical reasons, mate, we’ve gone over this before. So, are you going to sign on the dotted line or what?”

“Oh, you’ll go somewhere else, will you? What, like our main competitor who we’ve bought, so we’re effectively one big monopoly? Good luck with that, sunshine. Yeah, sign here.”

Cough.

You could say that DAB is less failsafe than FM i.e. if you have a fault with one DAB transmitter you may loose 20 radio stations where as if you have a fault with one FM transmitter you just loose one.

You may say it will be cheaper but it still isn’t. You still have independent single station companies using FM. Even large groups like this still don’t think DAB is the best bet – like this one

Peter, that’s a link to UKRD. And, as I blogged a while ago :

18 – the number of stations that UKRD own
17 – the number that are not broadcasting on DAB
17 – reasons why UKRD are slagging off DAB
0 – other reasons

Of course UKRD don’t want DAB to happen – because they’d be screwed if it took off and made their FM stations irrelevant. But try not to believe the hype from a company who sees the juggernaut of ever-rising DAB consumption like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

The problem is that you a lot of independent single station companies compared to the television industry. Not all of them want the same coverage area or share a transmitter.

You would say that they could set up their own transmitter, but can you see a frequency on Band III ~1.5MHz wide being in use for one 1136kbps station or even 2 – 568kbps stations? or even leave 944-752kbps empty if go with 192kbps each? Probably not.