29 replies to this topic

[alanh]

Keystone
Also look at the Utube link

AlanH

[jaydenillman]

alanh, on Sep 13 2011, 08:17 PM, said:

Keystone
Also look at the Utube link

AlanH

AlanH,

Mein Deutsch sprechen ist nicht gut, und nicht verstehen es.

Übersetzen für mich bitte.

Ich wurden Deutsch nur für ein Jahr lernen.

jaydenillman

[MLXXX]

alanh, on Sep 13 2011, 08:47 PM, said:

Also look at the Utube link

Alanh did type "look". The YouTube title is DAB+ auf dem iPhone und iPad.

[alanh]

I did say look, not listen. Just to show you what the adaptor looks like

AlanH

[jaydenillman]

alanh, on Sep 14 2011, 01:37 AM, said:

I did say look, not listen. Just to show you what the adaptor looks like

AlanH

I know.

Also with more broadcasters doing the radio on the iPhones anyway through the internet, I can't see this being of much use. (apart from people with low data plans and no wifi)

[alanh]

Jay,
Most mobile devices have FM radios so what is the difference. There is a big argument in the USA at the moment because the phone companies are preventing the included FM radios from being enabled for their own commercial gain. Since they have had a number of national disasters, the phone companies are getting pressure to enable the FM radio in the phones for emergency messaging. So the phone companies response is to invent a "broadcast" emergency messaging system.

Remember also that digital radio can also transmit text, slideshows and moving images now. These adaptors can feed this data into the display. High powered digital radio will reach more locations than the phone systems particularly when you get out of the major cities.

AlanH

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on Sep 15 2011, 12:53 AM, said:

Jay,
Most mobile devices have FM radios so what is the difference. There is a big argument in the USA at the moment because the phone companies are preventing the included FM radios from being enabled for their own commercial gain. Since they have had a number of national disasters, the phone companies are getting pressure to enable the FM radio in the phones for emergency messaging. So the phone companies response is to invent a "broadcast" emergency messaging system.

Remember also that digital radio can also transmit text, slideshows and moving images now. These adaptors can feed this data into the display. High powered digital radio will reach more locations than the phone systems particularly when you get out of the major cities.

AlanH

A push message from a cell tower is far more reliable than FM radio, so I'd side with the phone companies. Likewise I doubt there are many areas where a digital radio would be sufficient for mobile usage without an external antenna - the headphone as an antenna solution in current phones is hardly going to work for DAB+.

[alanh]

Gofor moe,
The earphone lead is just as sensitive for DAB+ as it is for FM because most of its length is vertical as is the transmitting antenna. In fact virtually all FM transmitters have vertical and horizontally polarised antennas, so half of the power is not as well received by a vertical earphone cord. The length of the cable more closely resembles the halve wavelength of DAB+ reception than it does to FM.

I said digital radio so as to include not only DAB+ but also DRM+ and DRM30.

It costs radio stations more to service each listener using the phone system/internet than to use their transmitters which are designed to broadcast rather than to service individually each listener.

As far as range goes, check the new maps on the www.abc.net.au/reception digital radio website. Geelong is not included in Melbourne.

AlanH

[GoForMoe]

Quote

I said digital radio so as to include not only DAB+ but also DRM+ and DRM30.

And the thread is discussing a DAB+ adaptor.

Quote

It costs radio stations more to service each listener using the phone system/internet than to use their transmitters which are designed to broadcast rather than to service individually each listener.

Not when implemented correctly with multicast.

Quote

As far as range goes, check the new maps on the www.abc.net.au/reception digital radio website. Geelong is not included in Melbourne.

Now you've established Geelong isn't in Melbourne, look at how much of the licence area isn't covered. Then, consider how coverage maps focus on fixed reception, then consider you're using a headphone cable to try and receive the channels, then consider how digital doesn't degrade as gracefully as FM/AM when in lower reception areas and think about just how practical mobile phone digital radio is.

There may be some who get good reception on digital on a mobile phone - but I certainly wouldn't be relying on it with current coverage levels and certainly not in the case of an emergency broadcast. FM is added to phones as it is a small cost and most of the time delivers a useful service. Digital Radio is much harder to justify in that situation, not to mention the battery usage and codec licensing cost.

[alanh]

Goe for Moe,
From the recent fires, it should be noted that most phone repeaters in fire prone areas are on the tops of hills to get maximum coverage. However hot air rises making these sites most likely to be burnt down or the power line feeding it is burnt down. FM radio was proven to be the best alerting system. It is not bothered by busy phone traffic, and generally a separate battery operated radio is used. This leaves the phone battery used for outgoing critical calls.

No phones are capable of AM reception, FM radio does not gradually degrade, it has a cliff like digital. As soon as the reception strength is below the limiting in the receiver, either the hiss makes reception unusable or a mute circuit operates.

What proof do you have that the earphone lead does not work, I have a very small DAB+ receiver which uses the earphone lead for the antenna. Its an I river product.

The latest chips have substantially reduced power consumption, phones etc using MP4 already have the AAC+V2 decompressor.

In regional areas is DRM+ is used the frequency will be a third of DAB+ or half FM, and without the interference problems with analog TV very high power can be used.

AlanH

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on Sep 15 2011, 02:21 PM, said:

Goe for Moe,
From the recent fires, it should be noted that most phone repeaters in fire prone areas are on the tops of hills to get maximum coverage. However hot air rises making these sites most likely to be burnt down or the power line feeding it is burnt down. FM radio was proven to be the best alerting system. It is not bothered by busy phone traffic, and generally a separate battery operated radio is used. This leaves the phone battery used for outgoing critical calls.

So if you'd not use an FM radio in a phone to save battery, you'd never use a digital radio for that situation.

Quote

No phones are capable of AM reception

Didn't we do this already?

Quote

FM radio does not gradually degrade, it has a cliff like digital. As soon as the reception strength is below the limiting in the receiver, either the hiss makes reception unusable or a mute circuit operates.

Yes it does, when you are near the so called 'FM Cliff' you can still make out program content, it's up to your ears as to how much 'hiss' you're happy with, a mute circuit is a design decision, it is just like complaining that analogue TV is bad for fringe reception because some TVs have a blue back option - I have one radio with a mute circuit and it's in a DAB+ device.

It comes down to the simple fact, if you get 'some' FM you get some FM, if you get 'some' digital you either get a perfect signal or you get nothing. For emergency situations (and I dare say typical usage of radio) I would vastly prefer a less than perfect FM signal to the luck of the draw with digital.

Quote

What proof do you have that the earphone lead does not work

That my phone's^ FM reception is crap, and that using logic, digital radio would be worse.

Quote

I have a very small DAB+ receiver which uses the earphone lead for the antenna. Its an I river product.

Prove it yourself then. Compare places where you can get an FM station with the same for the DAB equivalent using the earphones.

Quote

The latest chips have substantially reduced power consumption, phones etc using MP4 already have the AAC+V2 decompressor.

Reduced yes, but still many multiples of FM/AM usage. Lots of phones also don't have AAC+ - especially non 'smart' phones, the ones most commonly seen with FM. Every* dumb phone has FM, my current 'smart' phone doesn't.

Quote

In regional areas is DRM+ is used the frequency will be a third of DAB+ or half FM, and without the interference problems with analog TV very high power can be used.

That's assuming that DRM+ will be used. I've explained in the past why I don't hold out hope of that.


* Not literally.
^ Talking about two different phones. My Zune exhibits the same problem.

[dbrmuz]

alanh, on Sep 15 2011, 02:21 PM, said:

Goe for Moe,
From the recent fires, it should be noted that most phone repeaters in fire prone areas are on the tops of hills to get maximum coverage. However hot air rises making these sites most likely to be burnt down or the power line feeding it is burnt down. FM radio was proven to be the best alerting system. It is not bothered by busy phone traffic, and generally a separate battery operated radio is used. This leaves the phone battery used for outgoing critical calls.

No phones are capable of AM reception, FM radio does not gradually degrade, it has a cliff like digital. As soon as the reception strength is below the limiting in the receiver, either the hiss makes reception unusable or a mute circuit operates.

What proof do you have that the earphone lead does not work, I have a very small DAB+ receiver which uses the earphone lead for the antenna. Its an I river product.

The latest chips have substantially reduced power consumption, phones etc using MP4 already have the AAC+V2 decompressor.

In regional areas is DRM+ is used the frequency will be a third of DAB+ or half FM, and without the interference problems with analog TV very high power can be used.

AlanH

I haven't been here for months-flat out stupid posts like this are a large part of why.Thanks to go for moe for pointing out your idiocy.

[alanh]

Goe for moe
"A push message from a cell tower is far more reliable than FM radio, so I'd side with the phone companies." Your post 10:02 today

Firstly lots of Americans do not wish to listen to radio for paying for phone time, particularly when most phones etc have FM capability already. This should be viewed for what it is, the American phone companies forcing more profits.

"From the recent fires, it should be noted that most phone repeaters in fire prone areas are on the tops of hills to get maximum coverage. However hot air rises making these sites most likely to be burnt down or the power line feeding it is burnt down. FM radio was proven to be the best alerting system. It is not bothered by busy phone traffic, and generally a separate battery operated radio is used. This leaves the phone battery used for outgoing critical calls."

My response to say to agree that the phone companies is unwise for fires. In addition, during the simulaneous Queensland floods, Broadcast Australia took an emergency FM transmitter to the flood zone for broadcasting emergency messages. So moving an FM or a DAB+ transmitter in to the centre of the affected area overcomes all your coverage area concerns. Similarly for FM and Digital Cliffs.

It is not in the financial interests of the phone companies to use a broadcast mode, when they can make more money charging each user for individual coverage.
It costs radio stations more to service each listener using the phone system/internet than to use their transmitters which are designed to broadcast rather than to service individually each listener.

"Not when implemented correctly with multicast." This has been brought up before, It is cheaper for a broadcaster to use their own transmitter than to pay a phone company to use multicast. This information came from an infrastructure provider who provides broadcast transmission and mobile phone networking using real costs

Melbourne coverage area map
"Urban Coverage
Good reception for good quality fixed or portable receivers, indoors and outdoors.
Suburban Coverage
Moderate indoor reception on fixed or portable radios, but good in car or outdoor reception.
Rural Coverage
Difficult reception indoors. Possible outdoor or in car reception. This area provides coverage highly dependent on geographic location. Good reception may be had in high locations on radios with exter..."
Selective quoting changes the meaning of the original quote.

"That my phone's^ FM reception is crap, and that using logic, digital radio would be worse." Where is the logic coming from for this conclusion. If your phone's FM reception is crap, Melbourne FM radios are also not supposed to cover Geelong, what about your local Geelong commercial stations? If the FM reception is crap, it is also likely that the DAB+ reception will be better for the same power levels used at the same transmitting antenna location.

I note that the FM coverage in Melbourne is not as good as you claim, as 3FOX and 3MMM have low powered on channel FM retransmitters on Rialto Towers 525 Collins Street MELBOURNE. This all Melbourne commercial FM stations are 56 kW_erp each compared to DAB+ at 50 kW_erp. They also have an onchannel repeater on 101 Collins Street MELBOURNE.

"There may be some who get good reception on digital on a mobile phone - but I certainly wouldn't be relying on it with current coverage levels and certainly not in the case of an emergency broadcast. FM is added to phones as it is a small cost and most of the time delivers a useful service. Digital Radio is much harder to justify in that situation, not to mention the battery usage and codec licensing cost. " So what is the price of this adaptor, the ITablet etc already have to pay the codec licencing cost. What current is drawn by this single chip? You cannot use past experience on new technology products. This is a developing area. This chip is designed in Korea, not UK.

"Reduced yes, but still many multiples of FM/AM usage. Lots of phones also don't have AAC+ - especially non 'smart' phones, the ones most commonly seen with FM. Every* dumb phone has FM, my current 'smart' phone doesn't."

So for Go for moe,
Don't buy one of these adaptors until;
a. you get a smart phone for which it is designed. For example this chip was designed for smart phones of Apple and those useing Android Operating systems. Non-smart phone do not use these operating systems and so are inelegible.
b. You are located in the coverage of a DAB+ transmitter.

AlanH

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on Sep 15 2011, 07:22 PM, said:

Firstly lots of Americans do not wish to listen to radio for paying for phone time, particularly when most phones etc have FM capability already. This should be viewed for what it is, the American phone companies forcing more profits.

You raised the point of emergency broadcasting. The fact that a text message service was implemented after the Black Saturday bushfires shows that cell tower push messages are a very valuable emergency service tool, and if faced with a decision between FM radio and a text message in that situation, I'd go with a text message.

Yes you could indeed make the point that carriers are pushing internet radio as a way to make data fees - but you could also argue that users are making a deliberate choice to use streaming music applications. Considering the US has a market for subscription radio, paying data fees for internet streaming on a mobile is very similar.

Quote

My response to say to agree that the phone companies is unwise for fires. In addition, during the simulaneous Queensland floods, Broadcast Australia took an emergency FM transmitter to the flood zone for broadcasting emergency messages. So moving an FM or a DAB+ transmitter in to the centre of the affected area overcomes all your coverage area concerns. Similarly for FM and Digital Cliffs.

And FM is entirely suitable for that (they also used Longwave) - as those in fringe areas could likely still get some of that emergency transmitter, far longer than a DAB+ transmission would last.

Quote

It is not in the financial interests of the phone companies to use a broadcast mode, when they can make more money charging each user for individual coverage.

Which is a flaw in pricing, not technology. Likewise it is a cost for the consumer not the station.

Quote

This has been brought up before, It is cheaper for a broadcaster to use their own transmitter than to pay a phone company to use multicast. This information came from an infrastructure provider who provides broadcast transmission and mobile phone networking using real costs

Now think about a mobile situation - a) You have a middling to fringe FM signal, you have a near-cliff DAB signal or c) you have a mobile data connection. Which of these provides a more stable listening experience? FM will fade a bit but be listenable for the most part, DAB would either be perfect or drop out and mobile data would be perfect unless there's bandwidth congestion (which would be elevated with the sensible use of multicast).

Quote

Selective quoting changes the meaning of the original quote.

I've quoted all of your post in full, save for where I remove your own quotes of others or material I'm not responding to. Likewise, compare practical with real. Portable != Mobile. 'Portable' reception means you can get it with a portable/outdoor radio, but mobile reception implies you are mobile (moving), and thus is more difficult with a weaker antenna.

Quote

Where is the logic coming from for this conclusion. If your phone's FM reception is crap, Melbourne FM radios are also not supposed to cover Geelong, what about your local Geelong commercial stations? If the FM reception is crap, it is also likely that the DAB+ reception will be better for the same power levels used at the same transmitting antenna location.

If you get bad FM you get something intelligible, if you get bad DAB you don't. For arguments sake I was listening to Triple J, a Melbourne station that is supposed to cover Geelong (I've also made no claims of portable DAB+ reception, but that's something you could provide data on but choose not to). A comparison to the local commercial station isn't fair as I'm only a few KM from the towers and thus have a fairly overloaded signal of them (a problem also possible on DAB+).

Again, if you have good reception, DAB+ reception is better, but the characteristics of the digital cliff as opposed to the gradual drop of FM, make FM a much better option in a portable situation, where you aren't always able to get a stable position for reception, a problem made worse by headphone based antennas. A true 'portable' will have a whip antenna.

Quote

I note that the FM coverage in Melbourne is not as good as you claim, as 3FOX and 3MMM have low powered on channel FM retransmitters on Rialto Towers 525 Collins Street MELBOURNE. This all Melbourne commercial FM stations are 56 kW_erp each compared to DAB+ at 50 kW_erp. They also have an onchannel repeater on 101 Collins Street MELBOURNE.

By that metric DAB+ should be far better, after all digital uses 1/4 of the power of analogue right?

Quote

So what is the price of this adaptor, the ITablet etc already have to pay the codec licencing cost. What current is drawn by this single chip? You cannot use past experience on new technology products. This is a developing area. This chip is designed in Korea, not UK.

Is it more expensive than an FM demodulator? Yes. Will it draw more power? Yes. I can prove it, but the documents are not public and require a subscription to a particular journal.

Quote

So for Go for moe,
Don't buy one of these adaptors until;
a. you get a smart phone for which it is designed. For example this chip was designed for smart phones of Apple and those useing Android Operating systems. Non-smart phone do not use these operating systems and so are inelegible.
b. You are located in the coverage of a DAB+ transmitter.

It's not about whether I'd purchase it - I'm arguing that mobile phone based solutions are inherently flawed, and extremely unlikely to replace or be put along side FM. With advances in data connections, you can do without FM as well.

The other argument is over emergency services. I have an 'emergency' phone in the house, it is an older generation Nokia with an FM radio and Telstra 2G sim. I certainly wouldn't be putting DAB+ in the mix, even if I did live in an official coverage area.

When's the last time you listened to radio on a phone anyway?

[jaydenillman]

GoForMoe, on Sep 15 2011, 07:34 PM, said:

You raised the point of emergency broadcasting. The fact that a text message service was implemented after the Black Saturday bushfires shows that cell tower push messages are a very valuable emergency service tool, and if faced with a decision between FM radio and a text message in that situation, I'd go with a text message.

Good thing about a text message is that if the tower goes down, (assuming you don't delete them) you still have all the messages containing possibly vital information. If an FM tower goes down you have zip.

Also about the FM vs DAB reception, in Kadina I got no digital on my little Bush portable radio but got almost crystal clear FM Triple J from Adelaide on the same device. I also got near perfect reception on my cheap-as $20 generic phone on the same frequency.

Unrelated edit: As for streaming, you could, if connected to WiFi and with Internode for your internet, use the unmetered streams and listen to some ABC Radio for free. (also seems to include some community stations and the DMG owned ones)

Edited by jaydenillman, 16 September 2011 - 12:07 AM.

[alanh]

Go for moe,
It is not up to you to decide the method used for emergency communications, but the services. A community FM station in the Kinglake area was the hero in getting the message out.

Subscription radio is only just keeping its head above water, the pay radio satellite servicein Canada has closed down.  Two of the 3 subscription pay radio services have closed. Digital radio systems of HD radio and DAB ate using tagging so you can push a button on the car radio for example and it will download the tune which is playing from itunes. This obviously obviously a method of selling, music, they dont say much about having enough memory in the radio to allow you copy that tune from within the radio onto a memory stick etc.


"And FM is entirely suitable for that (they also used Longwave) - as those in fringe areas could likely still get some of that emergency transmitter, far longer than a DAB+ transmission would last." Does not make sense. Just because you cannot get either DAB+ or FM stereo properly in Geelong is not a model for the rest of the country. As far as emergency transmissions go, most of those will be in regional or remote areas. The decision of digital transmission is yet to be made. In Capital cities there is enough duplication to use existing FM/DAB+ transmitters as was done in Brisbane. The ABC swapped ABC FM program to Brisbane local radio, incase the AM transmitter was flooded.

Long wave has never been used in Australia for broadcasting and as a result there is no public receivers. Long Wave has only been used in Europe.

"Which is a flaw in pricing, not technology. Likewise it is a cost for the consumer not the station." It is a technology question because broadcast transmitters cover a much larger area with much less infrastructure, which costs. In addition why would you pay for coverage you can get for free. There is no major broadcaster who has switched off their transmitter to go to either internet or phone distribution. These methods are used by people outside the coverage area or those who want to listen to an AM broadcaster on a smart mobile. The broadcasters would rather control the bit rate rather than let a phone company reduce it so they can sell the spare data capacity at a higher price. After all music programs require a higher bit rate than phone calls.

"Now think about a mobile situation - a) You have a middling to fringe FM signal,  you have a near-cliff DAB signal or c) you have a mobile data connection. Which of these provides a more stable listening experience? FM will fade a bit but be listenable for the most part, DAB would either be perfect or drop out and mobile data would be perfect unless there's bandwidth congestion (which would be elevated with the sensible use of multicast)."

Whilst the real world produces an end of the coverage area there will always be an effect between a signal and no coverage. This also applies to mobile phones where you are too far from a cell. You can keep on going on about multicast but no one wants to use it. Where is it in use now?

Motion does not affect either FM or DAB+ unless you are doing more than 200 km/h due to Doppler changing the frequency of the signal. The quote you omitted "portable" which does not include vehicles. The map shows that car reception with a car antenna will work over the whole coloured area of the map.

You can see in Melbourne the transmitted power is virtually equal.  Remember as well that 3ABC FM, 3JJJ, and 3SBS FM are all double the power of their commercial partners on Mt Dandenong. It is Digital TV where the power is a quarter of analog TV video which is modified version of AM. Remember also that in Melbourne the total radiated power of DAB+ is 150 kW_erp where as for the FM 692 kW_erp and this does not include any community broadcasters some of which are also 56 kW each. Also excluded is 210 kW of ABC AM transmissions. Not included is the extra programs which would normally have to have another high powered FM transmitter. So a conversion to digital will result in a considerable drop in operating cost.

You cannot compare your reception of DAB+ and JJJ because JJJ is double the power of the DAB+ transmitter containing JJJ program. Receiver overload is a characteristic of receiver design and can occur in any receiver including FM, AM, analog and digital TV.

FM is analog, as is AM, DAB+ is digital as is DVB-T

What is the name of this journal subscription?

What does it matter when I last listened to FM radio on the phone, I have done it in the past and can do it any time I like.

I expect all your complaints will disappear when Geelong eventually get digital radio whether it is DAB+ or DRM+. Either way you will get reliable reception.


AlanH

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on Sep 16 2011, 12:43 AM, said:

Go for moe,
It is not up to you to decide the method used for emergency communications, but the services. A community FM station in the Kinglake area was the hero in getting the message out.

You seem not to understand the point of a discussion thread.

Quote

Subscription radio is only just keeping its head above water, the pay radio satellite servicein Canada has closed down.  Two of the 3 subscription pay radio services have closed.

If the Foxtel-Austar merger goes ahead there will be one provider of mainstream pay satellite TV- does that mean the model is dying? No. It means the industry is consolidating, to match the extremely consolidated terrestrial market.

Quote

Digital radio systems of HD radio and DAB ate using tagging so you can push a button on the car radio for example and it will download the tune which is playing from itunes. This obviously obviously a method of selling, music, they dont say much about having enough memory in the radio to allow you copy that tune from within the radio onto a memory stick etc.

As do radio station smartphone apps and all such systems rely on internet based services. Last time I wanted to 'tag' a song from FM I just pulled out my phone and used Shazam.

Quote

Does not make sense. Just because you cannot get either DAB+ or FM stereo properly in Geelong is not a model for the rest of the country.

I have been outside Geelong you know. I'm well and truely aware of the limitations of DAB+ in my area and have expressly said that I am not drawing a conclusion from those. Rather, the digital cliff characteristics mean that the listening experience on a small scale portable, particularly in a moving mobile situation on a small headphone lead, are poor.

Quote

As far as emergency transmissions go, most of those will be in regional or remote areas. The decision of digital transmission is yet to be made. In Capital cities there is enough duplication to use existing FM/DAB+ transmitters as was done in Brisbane. The ABC swapped ABC FM program to Brisbane local radio, incase the AM transmitter was flooded.

Yes, the first preference in emergency situations is to get coverage and to get a signal that can be received in a variety of conditions. The Classic FM broadcast fits that perfectly as a very high power wide area FM station. DAB+ in Brisbane has severely limited coverage paths to protect Wide Bay DTV.

Quote

Long wave has never been used in Australia for broadcasting and as a result there is no public receivers. Long Wave has only been used in Europe.

Neither has DRM30. Your point?

Quote

It is a technology question because broadcast transmitters cover a much larger area with much less infrastructure, which costs. In addition why would you pay for coverage you can get for free. There is no major broadcaster who has switched off their transmitter to go to either internet or phone distribution. These methods are used by people outside the coverage area or those who want to listen to an AM broadcaster on a smart mobile. The broadcasters would rather control the bit rate rather than let a phone company reduce it so they can sell the spare data capacity at a higher price. After all music programs require a higher bit rate than phone calls.

You also have to pay for the simulcast on digital radio. There is no major broadcaster who has switched off an AM/FM transmitter to go to fully digital radio. Quite rightly because FM/AM are still the best choices all round for radio reception.

Continued in next post.

[GoForMoe]

Quote

Whilst the real world produces an end of the coverage area there will always be an effect etween a signal and no coverage. This also applies to mobile phones where you are too far from a cell. You can keep on going on about multicast but no one wants to use it. Where is it in use now?

Multicast doesn't impact the listener, they still are listening to the same stream in the same quality regardless.

Quote

Motion does not affect either FM or DAB+ unless you are doing more than 200 km/h due to Doppler changing the frequency of the signal. The quote you omitted "portable" which does not include vehicles. The map shows that car reception with a car antenna will work over the whole coloured area of the map.

I was talking about 'motion' as in not sitting still. Try listening to FM/DAB at a football ground, you might move slightly and be out of reception. If you're in a vehicle you usually have a much better antenna than a headphone cable. Real world Alan, not coverage maps.

Quote

You cannot compare your reception of DAB+ and JJJ because JJJ is double the power of the DAB+ transmitter containing JJJ program. Receiver overload is a characteristic of receiver design and can occur in any receiver including FM, AM, analog and digital TV.

I never compared my FM reception to DAB. It was an observation of practical usage of a reasonable distance FM receiver within a licence area. On a fixed radio I can get JJJ fine, I can also get DAB+ fine, but the issue is comparing that coverage with what you get in a typical mobile situation of using a headphone cable as an antenna. There is a lot of signal loss in that case, and in my experience, I can move the receiver a few centimetres and go from bad signal to perfect signal. With digital radio cliff characteristics, such variance in real world reception (not my personal reception, I'm not in a licence area so am not commenting on personal reception)  means bouncing on and off digital lock and dissatisfying reception.

Quote

FM is analog, as is AM, DAB+ is digital as is DVB-T

Derp.

Quote

What is the name of this journal subscription?

My sources won't allow me to disclose that.

Quote

What does it matter when I last listened to FM radio on the phone, I have done it in the past and can do it any time I like.

I'm interested in whether anyone actually uses FM on a phone long enough to contemplate paying extra for a DAB+ adaptor.

Quote

I expect all your complaints will disappear when Geelong eventually get digital radio whether it is DAB+ or DRM+. Either way you will get reliable reception.

No they won't. My complaints are about an inefficient simulcast, a wasteful use of spectrum and practical limitations to mobile radio reception. Yes, if you're right next to a tower of any sort you will get a good signal, same with FM, same with a 3G data connection.












/unnecessary whitespace.

[jaydenillman]

alanh, on Sep 16 2011, 12:13 AM, said:

You cannot compare your reception of DAB+ and JJJ because JJJ is double the power of the DAB+ transmitter containing JJJ program.

It doesn't say that in the ACMA stations book, 50kW for the ABC Digital Transponder in Adelaide as opposed to 32kW for 5JJJ.
But then again, they might've been broadcasting digital at a lower power at the exact same time as I was trying listen.

[alanh]

Go for moe,
"Multicast doesn't impact the listener, they still are listening to the same stream in the same quality regardless." You avoided my statement. Which programs and telecom company is doing this?  What data rate are they using? Is it the same as the broadcasters original? What compression type are they using? Some telecom companies only cover the most profitable areas, so you can get outside the coverage area, with the same digital muting occuring.

As far as listening to the footie at the ground goes, it depends on which one it is. The Cats home ground is not in the coverage area of the DAB+ transmissions. The maps are fine, they show that most of the Metropolitan area west of the CBD is not suitable for portable reception. It justifies another on channel repeater in the western suburbs and conversion of Geelong from FM to digital radio.

I don't believe you cannot name a journal, I can see you cannot quote the content.

How much do you believe this adaptor to cost? The are used extensively in Korea and will soon to be used in South Africa. This is because the Koreans are transmitting DMB which is hand held TV at the same standard as DAB+. It is very popular in Korea.

"No they won't. My complaints are about an inefficient simulcast, a wasteful use of spectrum and practical limitations to mobile radio reception. Yes, if you're right next to a tower of any sort you will get a good signal, same with FM, same with a 3G data connection."

I was talking about you. There is no waste of spectrum, because of the use of SFN. The 3G has huge demand on it for phone and data between for two way communications. That's why they will pay billions for 694 - 820 MHz band as they have in the USA.

Jay,
I was talking specifically for the Mt Dandenong transmitters for Melbourne.

In your case when FM started in Adelaide there was power limitations because of channel 3 analog TV transmitter in Loxton and the channel 4 transmitter in Pt Pirie.Both of these transmitters have been switched off.

ABC/SBS FM transmitters as you say are 32 kW and commercials are 20 kW. In all cases there is a translator on 77 Grenfell St, Adelaide city to provide reception in the foothills. I also not that the FM transmitting antennas do not radiate to the east, where as the DAB+ is omnidirectional.

So clearly there is insufficient power for total Adelaide coverage from Mt Lofty. DAB+ transmitters are 50 kW each making them more powerful. There is no DAB+ on channel repeater in Grenfell St. It may well be justified.

AlanH

[GoForMoe]

alanh, on Sep 16 2011, 01:04 PM, said:

Go for moe,
"Multicast doesn't impact the listener, they still are listening to the same stream in the same quality regardless." You avoided my statement. Which programs and telecom company is doing this?  What data rate are they using? Is it the same as the broadcasters original? What compression type are they using? Some telecom companies only cover the most profitable areas, so you can get outside the coverage area, with the same digital muting occuring.

Internode, iiNet and others are using multicast for IPTV through Fetch. It wouldn't be difficult (and might already have happened) expanding that to their provided radio streams.

Again though, a non-multicast internet radio stream behaves the same way to a consumer. It makes cost sense to move anything possible of being multicast to multicast, but that's something for the phone networks to bare.

Quote

The maps are fine, they show that most of the Metropolitan area west of the CBD is not suitable for portable reception.

As in, most of the licence area cannot use this device - quite different from you just complaining that I'm outside a licence area.

Quote

How much do you believe this adaptor to cost? The are used extensively in Korea and will soon to be used in South Africa. This is because the Koreans are transmitting DMB which is hand held TV at the same standard as DAB+. It is very popular in Korea.

Something non negligible - the base price for a USB receiver is about $15-20 so it would be similar. An FM receiver is a $2-4 component in a phone, this will never be.

Quote

I was talking about you. There is no waste of spectrum, because of the use of SFN. The 3G has huge demand on it for phone and data between for two way communications. That's why they will pay billions for 694 - 820 MHz band as they have in the USA.

There's no way to make an SFN that will avoid the wastefulness of a whole DAB+ frequency block for the 4 eligible stations in Geelong.

[MLXXX]

alanh, on Sep 16 2011, 12:43 AM, said:

As far as emergency transmissions go, most of those will be in regional or remote areas. The decision of digital transmission is yet to be made. In Capital cities there is enough duplication to use existing FM/DAB+ transmitters as was done in Brisbane. The ABC swapped ABC FM program to Brisbane local radio, incase the AM transmitter was flooded.

I won't get involved in the many issues raised in this thread (a lot of which I think have been discussed before!).

I'll just mention that the decision of the ABC during the flood in Brisbane earlier this year to relay an AM service on ABC Classic FM may possibly have been done in part as a precautionary measure in case of power or other failure at the AM transmitter site at Bald Hills. However the actual risk of flood waters reaching a height that would disable the transmitters at that site is remote. The site is near a tidal river that is broad and nearing its estuary: flood waters drain readily to the sea.

Edited by MLXXX, 17 September 2011 - 12:18 AM.

[jaydenillman]

alanh, on Sep 16 2011, 12:34 PM, said:

So clearly there is insufficient power for total Adelaide coverage from Mt Lofty. DAB+ transmitters are 50 kW each making them more powerful. There is no DAB+ on channel repeater in Grenfell St. It may well be justified.

AlanH

I never understood why we have the foothills repeaters, the signal is always there but I've never, ever had to use it. And I'm more familiar with the Lofty frequencies, so I usually use them.

[alanh]

MLXXX,
I have seen the base insulator on the Bald Hills transmitter recently, and it is not far above the ground and there is thousands of Volts between the tower and the ground. Not only that the transmitter building is also at ground level. Pity the new ABC studio site was flooded. This has all been discussed previously.

The point is that there is plenty of FM receivers and any DAB+ receivers can receive the warnings, if the AM transmitter site is flooded.

AlanH

Edited by alanh, 17 September 2011 - 01:22 AM.

[GlennP]

alanh, on Sep 17 2011, 01:19 AM, said:

MLXXX,
I have seen the base insulator on the Bald Hills transmitter recently, and it is not far above the ground and there is thousands of Volts between the tower and the ground. Not only that the transmitter building is also at ground level. Pity the new ABC studio site was flooded. This has all been discussed previously.

The point is that there is plenty of FM receivers and any DAB+ receivers can receive the warnings, if the AM transmitter site is flooded.

AlanH

This is a rhetorical question so you don't have to answer, but why do you think the Bald Hills mast insulator is only just above ground?

I was out at the Bald Hills site in June, & can say while it's a flat area, it's unlikely to be flooded to a devastating level to take out the TX's. I have some photo's of the site, & yes the mast insulators (on all masts, not just the large main one of 612 ABC Brisbane), are low to the ground & the transmitter building is at ground level but on a small hill. This is because the likelihood of flood waters rising above this level & shorting the mast to Earth are very low to nil, engineers from the ABC or otherwise, wouldn't have built them like this if the possibility was even remotely likely to happen. I have AM radio masts near me built on flood plains, & 1 on the shores of a lake, all these are built with 2 story transmitter buildings or built on a hill, & the mast insulators are built on a base 2 meters+ high, (have photo's of them too). If the likelihood or risk of flood waters shorting out the mast across the insulator is high, they will be built to levels above the reasonable risk height. Take a look on Google Maps if you don't understand the flood risk at Bald Hills, it's surrounded by reasonably new housing estates, checkout the North side of the TX site, (search for Bracken Ridge Rd if you don't know exactly where the site is), you'll see all the houses are built at ground level, obviously very low risk of flooding.

Edited by GlennP, 17 September 2011 - 09:45 AM.