Talk:Digital Audio Broadcasting

Something is very wrong with this article

The Intro starts by slamming DAB sound quality on a quite theoretical point of view.

Also, one of the main sources is http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/worldwide_dab.htm but this site is somehow not thrustworthy. Have a look at the front page: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/

Also, one of the other sources, the Norwegian doctor Sverre Holm (http://www.duo.uio.no/sok/work.html?WORKID=52348), claims that the FM is comparable with 160kbits DAB transmissions, while the last source - David Robinson – is not available online, and also seems to have some sort of connection with the biased source

I have now removed the biased source, and adjusted the introduction a little to reflect the only reliable source, the Norwegian Sverre Holm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.121.36 (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the justification for the claim of bias? simply stating that a source is biased doesn't make it so. I could claim that the above text shows bias (in favour of low bitrate DAB, possibly from within the pro-DAB lobby.) The fact that the editor is anonymous doesn't help his case. However, I won't revert the edit at this time.

Anybody who thinks 160k MP2 sounds as good as high quality FM from a hifi tuner needs to get their hearing checked out. --Ef80 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to see that www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - just look at the banner, where it says "Join the Save FM Campaign". This website must be said to have a very concrete agenda, hence all the anti-DAB propaganda. DAB is a transmission and this Wikipedia article should point towards it advantages and disadvantages, and not be a part of a pro og anti-DAB propaganda campaign.

I prefer DAB (and look forward to DAB+) radio for my kitchen radion simply because I live in an area with limited FM broadcasts with lots of noise. As most people i have an opinion, but i have no intention on brainwashing people at wikipedia. If this places me in the pro-DAB lobby, so be it :)

I have now rewritten the intro to reflect both positive and negative aspects of DAB.

BTW: the quote on 160kbits equals FM is from the sourced material in the article84.48.121.23 (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Psion Wavefinder

This unique device did not have a screen, but did have LEDs behind a cover that changed colour depending on the device status. It is likely to be most available on eBay.

usa

it sure says something about the intelligence of the usa when someone can do a write-up on satellite radio 3.5 years ago and no one has touched it since.

USA/Digital Radio/IBOC/ISDB-T

DAB is one digital radio standard, and IBOC/ISDB/DRM/Satellite are other, different standards - why does this page about DAB talk at length about other standards, particularly IBOC and satellite, and the USA which has chosen not to adopt the DAB standard? Are these issues not covered sufficiently in the 'Digital Radio' entry, and wholly irrelevant to this page?

Yeah, Somebody should fix this... and there should be definetly be clearer difference between "DAB"-standard and Digital audio broadcasting in general.

Difference between DAB and FM

The sentence which begins "Whilst the RF medium alone is strictly analog..." is just asking for complicated misunderstandings. You can't specify a medium as being analogue or digital, it is irrelevant. Would you call a piece of paper an analogue medium ? If I draw a picture on it, maybe, but I could equally well write down a set of numbers to describe the picture.

DAB+ in Hungary

"Hungary is due to launch DAB+ stations in 2008..."

This sentence is now dated. I was not able to find any DAB+ rollout news in Hungary after a couple google searches. Anyone know the status?

UK bitrate decisions

The Sound Quality section contains the following odd statement:

The UK Government seeks to maximize licence-revenue from the available spectrum. Therefore it ‘squeezes in’ as many stations as possible.

‘Squeezing in’ techniques include:

* Minimizing the bit-rate, to the lowest level of sound-quality that listeners are willing to tolerate. :This is generally 128 kbit/s for stereo and 80 kbit/s or even 64 kbit/s for mono, although with these mono low :rates acceptable quality is achieved with speech only.

* Having few digital channels broadcasting in stereo.

These factors reduce sound-quality to the point where it is technically inferior to FM.

Maximizing Government license-revenue is not such an priority with TV, so BBC TV audio streams use a bit-rate of 256 kbit/s MP2.

The UK government doesn't decide on transmission bitrates. This is largely decided by the BBC and OFCOM, neither of which are part of the government. The audio bitrate on digital TV channels varies (many use 128k), but it takes up a very small part of the total TV signal bitrate anyway and the subject is nothing to do with DAB.

I'm inclined to remove all this, as it contributes little to the article and is really just a confused grumble about low audio bitrates. Do others agree? --Ef80 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)