23 replies to this topic

[GoForMoe]

The CBAA - the lobby group for the community radio sector - are saying that the funding they got to go digital is not sufficient for their costs and they could be forced to stop broadcasting if funding isn't increased, and that's just for the capital cities - let alone future regional services.

Details here http://radiotoday.co...re-at-risk.html

I'd personally argue it's commercial radio not the government who should fund them - the bad choice of DAB+ that forces up the costs of broadcasting (compared to other digital radio technologies) just because the commercial radio stations wanted the scarce spectrum situation to continue on a new platform doesn't mean the Government needs to invest in a flop.

We have enough government funded broadcasting - the community stations should make their own decision as to the importance of DAB to their listener base, not just demand money to cover a new technology. They all stream on the web just fine - so I don't know where these millions in ongoing costs are coming from if it isn't the commercial stations charging carriage costs to profiteer from the government funding in the first place.

[Digital Penetration]

GoForMoe, on 20 February 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

We have enough government funded broadcasting - the community stations should make their own decision as to the importance of DAB to their listener base, not just demand money to cover a new technology. They all stream on the web just fine - so I don't know where these millions in ongoing costs are coming from if it isn't the commercial stations charging carriage costs to profiteer from the government funding in the first place.

I also don't see the point of community radio going to DAB+, unless the community radio station is stuck on a crummy medium wave band frequency. I'd like to see 1RPH get on the DAB+ test here in Canberra, for example, instead of the plethora of tape loops we get. But I have yet to see a DAB+ radio without an FM section (do any even exist?), so why bother going DAB+ if you transmit FM? Internet streaming is probably a better choice.

[alanh]

Digital Penetration,
In Canberra alone 91.1 1CMS, 91.9 1WAY, 92.7 1ART, 98.3XXR and 89.5 VFM are all FM community stations. All but VFM are the same power as the commercial FM stations.

All city wide community stations in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth are available on DAB+ and FM. Some community stations have taken the initiative and made their DAB+ programs different to their FM programs most however are simulcasts. Some community stations do not even mention that they are also transmitting on digital radio.

City wide community stations should stay on DAB+ so that the coverage area matches all other broadcasters in that licence area.

For citywide community stations high power FM is quite expensive to run so taking a quite small proportion of the transmission  costs of the commercial DAB+ transmission is actually cheaper. It is the simulcasting which is causing the cost blow out. There will come a time when enough of the audience is digital radio equipped that the FM and AM transmitters can be switched off making transmission much cheaper.

What has not been addressed is the smaller low powered community stations particularly those in the country and those serving a small part of a city licence area. These need to be given either a DRM+ or a DRM30 allocation where their transmission power can be reduced by at least a quarter. This however is a way off.

Streaming will not get community radio an audience because the audience has to pay for the privilige directly.

Alanh

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on 21 February 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

Digital Penetration,
In Canberra alone 91.1 1CMS, 91.9 1WAY, 92.7 1ART, 98.3XXR and 89.5 VFM are all FM community stations. All but VFM are the same power as the commercial FM stations.

Hence pointing out 1RPH. AM radio to DAB+ is one of the only cases of an absolutely clear quality improvement that justifies the investment.

Quote

Some community stations do not even mention that they are also transmitting on digital radio.

The commercials rarely do either - because no one cares.

Quote

City wide community stations should stay on DAB+ so that the coverage area matches all other broadcasters in that licence area.

So are you donating money to them to do it?

Quote

Some community stations have taken the initiative and made their DAB+ programs different to their FM programs most however are simulcasts.

Quote

It is the simulcasting which is causing the cost blow out.

Herein lies the major issue with DAB+ - you need to drive takeup with unique programming because you can't compete on sound quality (except with AM) - but to make it financially viable you need to remove the analogue 'simulcast', which then means you'd have to remove the alternate programming to be able to broadcast in the spectrum available to community stations - Perth especially is a near impossibility in this regard. So do you lure people in to digital radio with services that can't continue after an AM/FM switchoff, or do you simulcast knowing that it is all you'll be able to do long term.

Amusingly however, the two stations with non-simulcast programming in Melbourne are Vision Australia Radio - who are on AM and thus should have done an AM simulcast and Light FM who did a funding drive to cover the costs.

Obviously if digital radio reached a critical mass then the community stations could cut across with a short simulcast like community television did - but it certainly isn't viable, nor a justifiable taxpayer expense, to prop the sector up for what would at least be a 10-20 year proposition, if ever.

Quote

This however is a way off.

So how do you pay for it in the mean time? That's the point of this thread and what the CBAA are trying to draw attention to - they can't keep up digital radio now - obviously the math gets better as takeup increases, but because you are correct that simulcasting is the cost issue - then you need to find a way to make it affordable to keep things going in the interim. Taxpayer handouts for all community stations when they've propped themselves up fine in the past is not justifiable. There's plenty of aspirant broadcasters that could probably make things work, indeed digital radio should probably be reserved for new community broadcasters who didn't get FM spectrum.

Quote

Streaming will not get community radio an audience because the audience has to pay for the privilige directly.

And many community stations offer high bitrate streams as a subscriber bonus to encourage station contributions - community radio listeners are more likely to pay for getting the content they want.

Edited by GoForMoe, 21 February 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[alanh]

Go for moe,
The usual load of rubbish
You rave on about quality of sound, the quality of the sound from the community broadcasters in Perth on FM is indistinguishable from that on DAB+. Some broadcasters feed their DAB+ modulators with processed audio which sounds terrible, as I found in Brisbane recently. Program content is much more likely to drive sales of receivers and listening time than technical quality provided it is no worse.

As far as CBAA goes, an election is coming and they want a grant. Transmission costs are not the major cost in running a radio station.

So what proportion of the high powered community stations have their listeners use the internet when they are in the local licence area?

AlanH

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on 21 February 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Go for moe,
The usual load of rubbish

Well by all means respond to all of my points instead of just calling it rubbish. Or go silent and show your normal pattern of behaviour on this site.

Quote

You rave on about quality of sound, the quality of the sound from the community broadcasters in Perth on FM is indistinguishable from that on DAB+. Some broadcasters feed their DAB+ modulators with processed audio which sounds terrible, as I found in Brisbane recently. Program content is much more likely to drive sales of receivers and listening time than technical quality provided it is no worse.

Can you seriously not tell the difference between a station like 96fm on digital and stations like Capital Digital or InfoRadio? Independent listening tests put DAB+ at 48kbps on par with FM (which I disagree with) and some community stations operate below that - it's not enough to replace FM. You need to be a significant improvement to get people to replace their receivers, not just barely on par in an ideal listening environment.

Besides, regardless of your views on sound quality, you totally fail to address the wider point - if different content is the driver of digital listening, then you need to be able to fit both that different content and the existing AM/FM content within the spectrum currently allocated to a single service to be able to switch analogue off.

Quote

As far as CBAA goes, an election is coming and they want a grant. Transmission costs are not the major cost in running a radio station.

So those stations are just lying about their costs? Where are the other major costs for community broadcasters?

Quote

So what proportion of the high powered community stations have their listeners use the internet when they are in the local licence area?

Ask them.

[alanh]

Goformoe,
Have you listened to these stations in Perth, and not on line?

The city wide community stations, high powered FM transmitters cost a lot more than sharing  a small proportion of a DAB+ transmitters.

The major costs are labour, premises costs, training costs, program purchases and studio equipment. Whilst community stations use volunteers, they also have paid staff in the bigger stations

Alanh

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on 21 February 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Goformoe,
Have you listened to these stations in Perth, and not on line?

I've listened to DAB+ at similar bitrates locally. I've also read feedback from other Perth members on the sound quality - ones likely to have better hearing than you.

Post a sample of it in comparison to FM if you want to disprove my point - you can do it in a single blind way by alternating between audio sources and uploading in a lossless format. You won't of course.

Quote

The city wide community stations, high powered FM transmitters cost a lot more than sharing  a small proportion of a DAB+ transmitters.

But while they have to pay for both, they can only justify the one with more listeners. The per listener cost of DAB+ transmission would be far higher than FM. And again, you can't reach the critical mass of listeners without new content, and you can't have new content because the spectrum is full, and if you don't simulcast then DAB+ isn't a replacement technology so you can't afford to do both, so you can't reach critical mass...

Quote

The major costs are labour, premises costs, training costs, program purchases and studio equipment. Whilst community stations use volunteers, they also have paid staff in the bigger stations

And the larger stations can afford DAB+ simulcasting; the smaller ones that are already right at the edge are those who are threatened financially by the added cost of DAB+. It's a very large shortfall for some of the stations and a blip for others.

[holdencaulfield2007]

Any discussion about DAB+ inevitably turns negative which I find disappointing. There has been some mention of a lack of unique programming which is hampering a take up of DAB+ by the "great unwashed masses". Am i totally missing the point here? I listen to DAB+ at home and also my workplace. Whilst working away I listen to many digital only stations in Melbourne. ABC Country, ABC Jazz, Kool, Koffee,Aussie,Buddha and many others most of which offer content not available on AM or FM. How much more unique does it have to be before there is any concession that DAB+ is worthwhile. Or is the standard response going to be bleating about low bit rates, no one listening, not as good as FM, so on and so forth? BTW I don't care whether you can listen to all this stuff on the internet, it is just not convenient for me as I do not sit in front of a computer in an office all day long.

[GoForMoe]

holdencaulfield2007, on 21 February 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

Any discussion about DAB+ inevitably turns negative which I find disappointing. There has been some mention of a lack of unique programming which is hampering a take up of DAB+ by the "great unwashed masses". Am i totally missing the point here? I listen to DAB+ at home and also my workplace. Whilst working away I listen to many digital only stations in Melbourne. ABC Country, ABC Jazz, Kool, Koffee,Aussie,Buddha and many others most of which offer content not available on AM or FM. How much more unique does it have to be before there is any concession that DAB+ is worthwhile. Or is the standard response going to be bleating about low bit rates, no one listening, not as good as FM, so on and so forth? BTW I don't care whether you can listen to all this stuff on the internet, it is just not convenient for me as I do not sit in front of a computer in an office all day long.

The community stations don't have the luxury to offer extra content not on AM/FM and continue to provide their current services - which creates the problem the linked article is referring to - they can't afford to do both their current analogue broadcasts and DAB+. Is DAB+ worthwhile enough to subsidise it by millions each year to keep community radio on it is the question.

Something needs to be a significant improvement to get people to move to it - the extra channels did it for digital TV - but when there's very little compelling new content (I quite like Koool and Aussie, but there's a bunch of overseas stations I prefer) and poor or just equivalent sound, so there's not a quality driver to uptake like HD was for TV. I find AM/FM satisfactory in the car - and everywhere else I'll usually have an internet connection. I don't own a WiFi enabled radio, but if I listened to radio a lot more (I prefer just putting my own music collection on) it would certainly be my preference, something I also occasionally do in the car.

My biggest issue is that there was another option besides DAB+ for digital radio that would have solved many of the bandwidth issues we have with it now - given us both improved sound and more choice. So now we're stuck with something that's already over capacity in some areas and no way to improve things.

[alanh]

Goformoe,
Firstly there is one DAB+ transmitter carrying 7 commercial stations and the other two channels on the transmitter are spread between the high powered community stations. So in Perth and Adelaide this is all the high powered community stations.

In Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane half the community stations share a DAB+ transmitter with 7 commercial stations.

The DAB+ transmitter is very similar to a DTV transmitter. Your many millions of dollars shows your ignorance. Even transmitting TV at the same power is well less than a million.

How can you compare the online and DAB+ signals when the compression systems are different. You have to hear them as they are transmitted. FM also alters the signal because of pre-emphasis.

This means that if the FM signal contains high volume high frequencies they are easily distorted but the lower frequencies are not.

Another with "golden" ears. Try double blind comparisons where you do not know the source of the sound. If you are happy with the mono, lack of high frequency sound in AM then I prove my point.

AlanH

Edited by alanh, 22 February 2013 - 11:23 AM.

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on 22 February 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

Goformoe,
Firstly there is one DAB+ transmitter carrying 7 commercial stations and the other two channels on the transmitter are spread between the high powered community stations. So in Perth and Adelaide this is all the high powered community stations.

And Perth have the same number of community stations as Brisbane who split theirs over two multiplexes.

Quote

The DAB+ transmitter is very similar to a DTV transmitter. Your many millions of dollars shows your ignorance. Even transmitting TV at the same power is well less than a million.

They aren't my figures - they are the CBAA's figures. Again, complain to them and tell them that they can afford it and it isn't a cost issue if you believe that - I'm just pointing everyone to their campaign. I wouldn't call the CBAA ignorant of their own costs.

Quote

How can you compare the online and DAB+ signals when the compression systems are different.

No they aren't, you can stream the exact DAB+ audio stream - it's just a regular HE-AACv2 - which is perfectly possible to stream.

Quote

You have to hear them as they are transmitted. FM also alters the signal because of pre-emphasis.

So both formats can't be perfectly reproduced (there's $10000 FM tuners you could use that would change things, different cabling, power plugs...) - if you record in a lossless format the FM and DAB+ output from the same receiver it is a valid enough comparison for regular listening.

You've still not commented on the digital to digital comparison - so I'll present it again - can you seriously not tell the difference between a station like 96fm on digital and stations like Capital Digital or InfoRadio?

Quote

This means that if the FM signal contains high volume high frequencies they are easily distorted but the lower frequencies are not.

And when you have a low bitrate then you have to cut out extra portions of the audio in order to compress to that degree.

Quote

Another with "golden" ears.

If being able to tell between 48kbps AAC and FM counts as 'golden' then yes. You have mentioned in the past your age - humans lose hearing range as they age. You may well be unable to hear the difference at your age - hence me asking for a digital to digital comparison to identify your general ability to compare sound quality.

Quote

Try double blind comparisons where you do not know the source of the sound. If you are happy with the mono, lack of high frequency sound in AM then I prove my point.

"Post a sample of it in comparison to FM if you want to disprove my point - you can do it in a single blind way by alternating between audio sources and uploading in a lossless format."

You're in a position to supply comparative audio - I am not (though would do likewise for the Melbourne stations if you do it for Perth).

In a car situation where I have engine noise and often a fan going, then AM is often sufficient - besides, the station I listen to on AM is NewsRadio, whose Parliamentary broadcasts that I want to listen to are not available on DAB+ because the ABC put alternate programming on NewsRadio on DAB+ but don't offer the replaced programming anywhere. I can occasionally get NewsRadio on FM from Ballarat, which sounds far superior, but I'll take AM over not being able to listen at all.

[matturn]

GoForMoe, on 21 February 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

So do you lure people in to digital radio with services that can't continue after an AM/FM switchoff, or do you simulcast knowing that it is all you'll be able to do long term.

There won't be an AM/FM switchoff. It would annoy far too many people too much, and would mean that people would have much poorer access to telecommunciations during long blackouts.

This said, much of the currently AM allocated spectrum may end up being used for digital transmission, but if this occured I would wager on a few high powered analog stations remaining, carrying ABC Local Radio.

[matturn]

GoForMoe, on 22 February 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

In a car situation where I have engine noise and often a fan going, then AM is often sufficient - besides, the station I listen to on AM is NewsRadio, whose Parliamentary broadcasts that I want to listen to are not available on DAB+ because the ABC put alternate programming on NewsRadio on DAB+ but don't offer the replaced programming anywhere.

I too have wondered about this. Given that the ABC has so many online streams, including two that are *always* either a test tone or a simulcast of another feed, it is very strange that they do not offer a dedicated NewsRadio Parliament feed online, if not on DAB+ as well.

[MLXXX]

GoForMoe, on 22 February 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Quote

How can you compare the online and DAB+ signals when the compression systems are different.

No they aren't, you can stream the exact DAB+ audio stream - it's just a regular HE-AACv2 - which is perfectly possible to stream.

Quote

You have to hear them as they are transmitted. FM also alters the signal because of pre-emphasis.

So both formats can't be perfectly reproduced (there's $10000 FM tuners you could use that would change things, different cabling, power plugs...) - if you record in a lossless format the FM and DAB+ output from the same receiver it is a valid enough comparison for regular listening.

You've still not commented on the digital to digital comparison - so I'll present it again - can you seriously not tell the difference between a station like 96fm on digital and stations like Capital Digital or InfoRadio?

Good points, GoForMoe.

I note that alanh has fallen silent.

[GoForMoe]

matturn, on 09 March 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

There won't be an AM/FM switchoff. It would annoy far too many people too much, and would mean that people would have much poorer access to telecommunciations during long blackouts.

I completely agree, I think digital is basically a supplementary technology and at best an AM replacement. However the argument for government spending on giving community stations access to DAB+ spectrum is one that is presumably predicated on the concept of a switchoff, because as if they weren't simulcasting analogue and digital then their costs would be lower. If we fund community digital further without a switchoff plan we are adding an endless financial lifeline - which is why I think it's an important issue for the community stations but not one the Government needs to address this far away.

[holdencaulfield2007]

GoForMoe, on 09 March 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

I completely agree, I think digital is basically a supplementary technology and at best an AM replacement. However the argument for government spending on giving community stations access to DAB+ spectrum is one that is presumably predicated on the concept of a switchoff, because as if they weren't simulcasting analogue and digital then their costs would be lower. If we fund community digital further without a switchoff plan we are adding an endless financial lifeline - which is why I think it's an important issue for the community stations but not one the Government needs to address this far away.

Good point about DAB+ being an AM band replacement. There is a dramatic improvement in SQ when an AM station also broadcasts in digital. For that alone it is worthwhile but I understand the concern about the cost. I have never seen a firm timetable about a switch off for AM or FM so I am not certain that it will happen in my lifetime. I really do not have a problem with all 3 running continuously as I have stated previously in this thread that there are plenty of stations which are unique to DAB+ which offer alternative content to that which is available on AM or FM.

[GoForMoe]

holdencaulfield2007, on 09 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

I really do not have a problem with all 3 running continuously as I have stated previously in this thread that there are plenty of stations which are unique to DAB+ which offer alternative content to that which is available on AM or FM.

I agree, it's fine having all three, but the main point of this thread is that for the community stations, running digital in addition to their existing broadcasts is at a prohibitive cost to them. They want the government to fund them seemingly indefinitely for a technology that is a nice bonus, but not an absolute essential. I'd be quite fine if the AM stations simulcast on digital and the FM stations ran alternate programming - with the commercial stations picking up the bill - but we've got none of that in practice.

[holdencaulfield2007]

GoForMoe, on 09 March 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

I agree, it's fine having all three, but the main point of this thread is that for the community stations, running digital in addition to their existing broadcasts is at a prohibitive cost to them. They want the government to fund them seemingly indefinitely for a technology that is a nice bonus, but not an absolute essential. I'd be quite fine if the AM stations simulcast on digital and the FM stations ran alternate programming - with the commercial stations picking up the bill - but we've got none of that in practice.

Yes it could be a problem for the smaller community stations. I suspect that stations like RRR and PBS in Melbourne would probably be able to call on their large subscriber bases but not so for your local suburban grass roots stations.

[Dork(original)]

Please take 30 seconds to sign this petition

http://committocommunityradio.org.au/
Paul.

[GoForMoe]

Quote

SBS and ABC Radio have received small increases in funding for digital radio transmission, while money for the community sector is nowhere to be found in tonight's federal budget.
CBAA President Adrian Basso says the government has "jeopardised" the future of community digital radio: “This is a disappointing outcome for all the communities who rely on community radio to provide the information, opinion and music commercial stations and the national broadcasters can't or don't.”
The community sector will now consult with its members and is seriously contemplating turning off services or networking nationally.

http://www.radioinfo.com.au/news/12500

However, radio services on VAST have gotten funding:

Quote

The Government is also providing $2.7 million over four years to help communities in regional and remote Australia access an increased range of radio services on the Viewer Access Satellite Television (VAST) service.

“The VAST service is being deployed across Australia to provide digital television and radio services in remote and regional areas, replacing the Aurora satellite platform, which will cease transmission at the end of 2013,” Senator Conroy said.

[McDigital]

G'day,

After reading through this thread, it has come to my attention that we're comparing Pears with Apples

Have a listen to FM here in Melbourne, it has a more wider Stereo sound, than what DAB offers, that's mainly due to bitrates

Also, in alanh's post from February, 89.5 Valley FM is licenced for Tuggeranong, so that is like a sub-metro station elsewhere. You can't put that in the same category as the other community stations in Canberra, but 1RPH can definately be grouped in that list

Also, with digital, some stations seem to be Mono, like ABC Grandstand and News Radio, yet RN and Local ABC stations are Stereo. Which is nice, but they're cramming more stations into tiny spaces, which makes it sound awlful. Try listening to Magic 1278 or The Buckle, the most dreadful sounding stations I've heard, and they STILL haven't fixed it, yet I've alerted them awhile back now. (Filters apparently, according to them)

Community stations, sound pretty good though

[Ron12]

I listened to The Buckle today and the sound wasn't that high quality, yet the bitrate is 64 Kbit/s which should produce a better result than what I heard.  Not sure if it was the station or the source material (they were playing a recorded program about a swinger).

One thing you should note is that what the ABC does regarding bitrates and stereo/mono does not affect what the commercial stations sound like as they are on different multiplexes (except Canberra/Darwin I believe).  However, you have 3AW in Melbourne with 80 Kbps and 3AW+ at 48 Kbps which is just another copy of 3AW so I guess some commercial bandwidth could be used more efficiently.

[McDigital]

G'day Ron12,

I realise this point, I think Fairfax are filtering theirs a bit too much, when it first started, The Buckle sounded as good as 3MP does. Just can't tell those people at Fairfax to fix it apparently, because everyone thinks it sounds "perfect"

I heard from elsewhere, that 3AW+ was made, at less quality than their original station at 80kbps, because someone rang up (more than one person I presume) to say the quality of it isn't the same as AM radio (which is the whole point of Digital) so they made 3AW+