Talk:Digital radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Alan Partridge[edit]

It may amuse UK readers to know that the opening paragraph of this page was quoted almost in its entirety in I, Partridge: We Need to Talk About Alan, with Partridge passing it off as his own knowledge of the subject. 90.218.193.110 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

  • Seems to me this article would serve better as a disambiguation page. --Brad101 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

hi I want informtion about radio digital with capacity (4*2 mb/s)-band (15,18,23,38,)GHZ

Please take questions to the Reference Desk. -Patstuarttalk|edits 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

USA Section[edit]

This section is absolutely enormous, and completely full of very, very specific technical information. I doubt that this is of use, or interest to users researching digital radio. --Brideshead 22:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It may also be copyright infringement. A large chunk duplicates text found at http://www.ibiquity.com/broadcasters/us_regulatory/nrsc_standard_and_test_program --Shantavira 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Analog shut off [?][edit]

Has any date been announced for a shut-off of analog radio, just as there has been for analog cellular phones (2008 in the USA), and analog television (2009 in the USA)? There doesn't seem to be much talk about it at present.Pine 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is plenty of talks nowadays, especially in Europe [MariusG].

"Digital audio broadcasting" is not synonym to Eureka 147, but DAB has always been = Eureka 147.[edit]

The article lead says "The acronym DAB (Digital Audio Broadcasting) has been used to identify the generic technology of digital audio broadcasting, although now it has become synonymous with the Eureka 147 standard." Any source supporting this?

The claim that DAB now has become synonymous with Eureka 147 is wrong, since Eureka is the oldest commercial digital audio broadcasting standard, and has always been named DAB.

When searching in Google, "Digital audio broadcasting systems" (582 hits), "Digital audio broadcasting solutions" normally includes other systems than Eureka 147, while the acrynym DAB only refers to Eureka. For example, the famous research institute Fraunhofer IIS [1] says that "Fraunhofer IIS contributes to nearly all major digital audio broadcasting systems: EU 147 DAB, WorldSpace, XM Radio, Digital Radio Mondiale and DVB-H".

Mange01 (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Digital radio[edit]

"Digital" means "of/from the finger". Where does that name come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.207.81 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See Digital. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As a non-technical person I went to this page to learn something about digital radio, and have learnt virtually nothing. It is a mix of massive high-level technical discussion plus what reads like marketing garbage - "...digital broadcasting offers many potential benefits....", etc. Nowhere does it tell me what any of these potential benefits might be, nor does it mention any negatives at all. It offers nothing to the ordinary consumer or enquirer. Roblowe48 (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of digital radio?[edit]

The above post was by me in an earlier incarnation. I am referring back to it now in the hope that an editor with the ability to write in a somewhat less technical mode may see this in his or her watchlist and respond accordingly. While the purely technical information is no doubt useful to some readers, a Wikipedia entry for a topic like this should also include something useful for the non-technical reader. In particular, exactly why would I want to buy one of the digital radios the retailers are now telling me I must get? What ARE the advantages for the listener/purchaser? What are the disadvantages? HiLo48 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody ever look here?[edit]

The vast majority of editors of this article are proving themselves to be technically literate but socially illiterate nerds. None seems to have looked here in over two years. There are now three pleas (four with this one) to get some non-technical material into the article. Firstly, good editors should look at Talk pages. Secondly, good technical writers can explain a new discipline to lay people. Anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: The nerds are still winning, and no non-nerd is any the wiser. Will the geeks ever wake up? HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

HEY GEEKS! Anyone willing to try to explain yet? HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Time for drastic action. Since no-one else ever seems to look here, I'll create an empty section in the article seeking information on the advantages of digital radio. It should at least get some attention, unlike this page. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Too drastic my friend - there is no point having an empty section in an encyclopedia. Also, if you have a section on advantages, there should be a balanced section on the disadvantages. Basically, as I see it, (from a UK perspective) the advantages are: ability to receive data, text etc. as well as audio (actually, analogue can do that too, with RDS), easy tuning - by name rather than frequency, less bandwidth used. Disadvantages: cost of user equipment, lack of in-car DAB radios, excessive power consumption, questionable audio quality. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Lynbarn for at least responding. That's something I've been trying to achieve here since 1st August last year! (It has been that long, now I check properly on my editing history above.) You're the first person to actually provide something more than "...digital broadcasting offers many potential benefits....". Trouble is, there's still nothing in the article. Just a mass of technical jargon from geeky aficionados. And I'll repeat my original point which was that "As a non-technical person I went to this page to learn something about digital radio, and have learnt virtually nothing." I am not qualified to add the right content. Are you? Oh, and I agree with you that advantages need to be balanced with disadvantages. Maybe one obvious disadvantage is that digital radio is surrounded by technical hype, but nothing concrete for discerning shoppers, and hardly anyone capable of discussing it at a non-technical level. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
HiLo48, If you haven't already, you may want to take a look at Digital Audio Broadcasting, which does include a criticisms section covering some aspects you are looking for, specifically for DAB, and is linked to from this article. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The main problem with this article is that it covers two different meanings of digital radio. Most of the article (especially the introduction) is about the oldest and most technical definition, meaning wireless digital transmission techniques, with early application to for example amateur radio, but also 2G cell phones, DECT wireless phones, etc. The second and most common meaning today is digital radio/audio broadcasting technquest, for example the Digital Audio Broadcasting system.
I see four options:
1. Split it into two articles, e.g. digital radio communication (or digital wireless communication) and digital radio broadcasting. However, since so few authors are interested in contributing here, I am afraid that splitting the article might not help.
2. Extend the digital audio broadcasting article to cover other systems than the DAB/Eureka system, and move that material there. It has been discussed before, and I believe one person was very much against this suggestions.
3. Move material from this article to e.g. a digital transmission section of the wireless communication article or to a wireless section of the digital communications article, and only leave the broadcasting issues here.
4. Continue the current approach, but somehow clarify the two meanings.
One reason for the lack of interest in contributing to the article is that most (or all?) digital radio broadcasting standards have been commercial failures. That should be clear from the articles, but I have no source for it.
Mange01 (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I like idea 3, plus move this article to digital radio broadcasting to clarify its scope. Back when I worked on "digital radios" it was digital implementations of radio modulators and demodulators, whether the signal was digital or not. The term has too much scope to be a good article title. Dicklyon (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Good suggestion! Who has time to address this issue?
What should happen to the old digital radio page? Should it be a disambiguation page refering to both these articles?
My impression is that most modern books about digital radio refer to the more narrow broadcasting meaning of the word, but I also have found a couple of recent books on Digital radio that have similar digital wireless transmission technology in mind that you were once dealing with. Mange01 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
For a DAB/DMB/HD Radio person like me, the mixing with ZigBee and GSM looks like a big mess. I totally agree that we should leave the infotainment broadcasting (DAB/DMB/HD Radio, etc.) issues in one place, and move all the others to different sections. I'll be gladly take care of the radio broadcasting part, which I feel confortable with, but I'd like someone to cooperate with the other parts. Anyone?----Marius 21:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Marius. It's good to have someone else showing an interest in this topic. I am not a digital radio aficionado, and came here trying to learn something about it because my local radio stations were telling how digital radio was all the go, and how I should upgrade to digital radio. Of course, this all costs the consumer money, and the question in my mind was why upgrade? I won't do it just because some commercial advertiser tells me I should. That's when I found that the article was totally technical and left me none the wiser about what benefits there were for me as the mortal consumer, AND the guy who ends up paying. The article desperately needs an "Advantages to the consumer" section, or similar, right near the start. I can't write it, because nobody has told me what they are yet. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point, HiLo48. The next weekend I will develop on this. --Marius 20:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariusG (talkcontribs)

Digital Radio Oceane[edit]

I did a search on Google and there seems that Digital Radio Oceane does not belong to here. Waiting for some remarks, otherwise I suggest to delete its mentioning.----Marius 21:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Intel builds first actually digital radio[edit]

Well, not quite.

http://www.reghardware.com/2012/09/13/idf_2012_intel_builds_digital_rf_chip/ Analog hasn't been totally eliminated - a few components still need to be rendered in analog circuitry. But by replacing the vast majority of analog elements with digital versions, the radio is able to take advantage of silicon process technology in a way analog can't. Intel is working on converting as many of the remaining analog elements as feasible, it said.

So mention it now, or when it goes analog free? Hcobb (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Digital radio/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* As a layperson, I was hoping to find a simple explanation of how digital radio works, and what it's applications are. I think the article is aimed at people with a fairly high technical competence. 81.179.113.215 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Digital radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)