I really dislike digital audio broadcasts. They have a higher quality, but the lag associated with changing channels (I change between preset channels a lot) makes it really annoying. Also when driving between cities, I can get FM stations for a lot longer distance than the digital ones.
The nice thing about analog is that signals may get weaker but they don’t just go away as easily so you hear continuous music, etc.
Digital can be maddening because it alternates between crystal-clear and OFF, which ultimately I think is worse. Some streaming services will also decide to auto-next-song after the slightest glitch which is annoying too.
We have regressed on so many audio-related fronts. Our phone conversations may have far better sound today than they used to, but anyone who remembers true analog telephony knows what we have left behind in terms of synchronicity and natural flow of dialogue.
This isn't even an audio thing. With a classic television, you can crank the channel dial and (along with the instant audio output) see a stable frame within 5-20 frames of vsync (so like 300ms or so worst case).
My TV at home can't switch an input (e.g. between two HDMI inputs) faster than about 3-4 seconds. No, I don't know why either. It's actually much worse if the device being switched away from is a Chromecast. Don't know why there either.
Plus, when they cut out it's actual silence. When FM cuts out it's a little bit of a fade in or static or fade out. Sure both are bad but there's just something about the silence during a digital broadcast interference that is just horrible.
The quality is not guaranteed. Many of the DAB stations in the UK are broadcast at such a low bitrate they are noticeably lower quality than good quality FM reception.
My mom just switched from DirectTV to Comcast (...) and one of the "hilarious" parts of the Comcast (X1) experience is their "Changing channel to N..." interstitial when you try to change to another channel.
That's how it is sold indeed, but not entirely true. There is definitely a better signal to noise ratio, but the sample rate is pretty bad which makes the quality lower than normal FM. It's only a 128kbs MP3/AAC stream!
It's only because people don't hear noise anymore they think the quality is better. Analog FM is by the way much more robust too as a signal.
A shame the government forces people to invest in lower quality qear..
This bothers me a lot, but strangely, traversing a menu on my Roku to select a station (or youtube video or whatever) does not bother me. If the radio had a menu I could quickly traverse that showed station information and perhaps some kind of preview, then I might be OK with this latency.
On the other hand, having to look a menu while driving car is not good.
I don't even think it sounds very good, at least the US HD Radio implementation. Most channels have dialed the bitrate way down so they can jam in subchannels of useless stuff like weather and the audio sounds horrible, worse than analog FM.
I'm not going to take a position on whether DAB is worth it, however:
> ...the lag associated with changing channels...
It seems like this is mostly the fault of the receiver, to me it doesn't seem like there's any reason that the receiver can't just have several filters (tuned to adjacent or saved channels) and demodulators running, so that you can tune instantly to them.
I think the bigger problem with DAB, to my eyes, is codec selection and graceful degradation.
Driving long distances I get continuous mobile coverage but radio is non-existent in many places. I can now stream Spotify on a 5 hour drive with no interruptions.
Agreed. To me radio is not for _listening_ to music, which is next to impossible due to constant advertising interruptions, shortened tracks etc (there are online streaming stations for that), so getting very good audio quality instead of good doesn't mean much, while being able to sustain partial loss of signal and switch faster from one station to another is much more important to me.
I lament the loss of AM too. I used to get broadcasts from over 500km away. And the sound quality was such that it stayed in the background rather than intrude on conversation.
XM Radio quality was embarrassingly bad. Quantized robot talk. and their sales were so relentlessly annoying trying to upsell my free trial for my new car.
I remember the signal as being super crappie for anything not pop music or talk. Out was particularly bad if anybody clapped: it sounded like you are blowing into a piece of aluminum foil.
The solution is to kill radio and use the signal to increase internet access, then everybody can hear what they want.
My main issue with deprecating FM in favour of digital radio is its use for emergency broadcasts or in war. Not because of the protocol itself, but because of adoption: almost everyone has a working FM radio available, but few people buy dedicated radios that support digital radio. I would guess that new cars is the main source of compatible receivers.
Norway has a nationwide network of warning sirens that was built out during the cold war and that is tested regularly that could be used to convey a wider range of critical messages without the need for a radio receiver (during my childhood we heard these very regularly, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the test frequency was reduced significantly and now they're only tested twice a year).
However with the rise of the internet and decline of the printed phone book, which used to be distributed to absolutely every household, and that listed the (small) set of warning patterns the sirens would use (that included e.g. warning about air raids), they've now reduced it to only one signal to avoid depending on people to remember them:
"Important message - listen to radio"
...
I wonder how exactly they'll resolve that with a diminishing proportion of the population having "radio" that's independent of internet access being up.
This was true a decade ago. After several moves, I no longer have VHS player, Floppy disk drives, CRT, or radio. The only am/fm raidios are in our cars. If anything AM should be kept on, as you can broadcast farther on lower power or we should get younger generations into ham radio.
For uses like that AM on the regular MW band (530 to 1600 KHz) is much better. FM receivers are relatively complicated compared to AM receivers, require more and more complex parts and in general are a lot harder to put together without substantial skill. Then, finally, the range of FM transmitters is limited and during war you'd want to stay in touch with 'the free world' as much as possible which quite likely is substantially over the horizon.
It seems like that use case is being taken over by cell phones, which the government can mass-message in an emergency. Of course, that requires a lot more infrastructure that could potentially get taken out by that same emergency.
FM is just a mode of modulation. A general purpose receiving radio can have multiple modes (AM, FM, WFM, SSB, digital, etc.). I would not worry about receivers dropping support for FM.
It's a similar debate as when we north americans decided to switch to DTTV [1]. Many people disliked that; they had to buy a box for their old TV and it was more complicated to use, etc...
Digital radio [2] has it's advantages. For once, it's more efficient in it's use of the spectrum. In many densely populated towns, there is no (or not many) more spectrum left for new broadcasters.
It's a matter of time, and people will adapt and forget they "hated it and doesn't want to change".
Just as a point of clarification, people didn't have to buy boxes to make their old NTSC televisions work with ATSC. The gub'mint gave them away for free through distributors like Radio Shack, and even via mail. You only had to pay for a box if you waited something like five years after the program began, when it was all over.
One difference is that most TVs are big, bulky appliances that could be cheaply retrofitted to the new technology. Sure, portable analog TVs existed but didn't really take off.
If FM is turned off, every single pre-digital clock radio, portable radio, integrated FM cellphone radio, car radio and boombox suddenly stops working and needs replacing. There's no government program to hand out vouchers to replace my boombox; I just have to junk it and buy another.
If DAB is so great, why does hardly anyone in the US bother with it? Unlike DTTV, it's broadcast alongside regular FM, so people can go out and buy a digital receiver any time they like. But they don't, because they have a perfectly good clock radio already and don't see a benefit.
I agree. Also I heard on one of my local repeaters the other day that ham radio operators were protesting TV before TV went mainstream (1930s?). It was funny to think about that.
The TV transition benefited from the conversion to flat screen that happened at approximately the same time. Increased resolution was also a huge draw. None of that applies in the case of digital radio.
> DAB is more efficient in its use of spectrum than analogue FM radio, and thus may offer more radio services for the same given bandwidth. DAB is more robust with regard to noise and multipath fading for mobile listening,[3] since DAB reception quality first degrades rapidly when the signal strength falls below a critical threshold, whereas FM reception quality degrades slowly with the decreasing signal.
I love listening to analog radio on my (now oldschool) iPod Nano 6th generation, just enough technology to bring something new with featuring live-pause so you can pause the radio.
I don't see why this was really necessary. It strikes me as the same move the cable companies made, which was more for their benefit than the consumer.
Digital takes up less bandwidth per channel than FM. This allows the government to resell the frequency allocations. This is what happened with analog broadcast TV in the US.
Norway switching of FM is one of the most stupid political decisions made in the country in decades. And for God's sake, let's not let politicians make technology decisions ever again.
Is it easy to find free (as in freedom) DAB receivers?. Analog radio circuits are easy to examine, but I suspect that DAB receivers must be impossible to examine thoroughly for obvious reasons. There might be some security concerns because of it. What have the Norwegian authorities said about that?.
[+] [-] chomp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makecheck|8 years ago|reply
Digital can be maddening because it alternates between crystal-clear and OFF, which ultimately I think is worse. Some streaming services will also decide to auto-next-song after the slightest glitch which is annoying too.
[+] [-] interfixus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajross|8 years ago|reply
This isn't even an audio thing. With a classic television, you can crank the channel dial and (along with the instant audio output) see a stable frame within 5-20 frames of vsync (so like 300ms or so worst case).
My TV at home can't switch an input (e.g. between two HDMI inputs) faster than about 3-4 seconds. No, I don't know why either. It's actually much worse if the device being switched away from is a Chromecast. Don't know why there either.
[+] [-] zodPod|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cup-of-tea|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjwii|8 years ago|reply
That's how it is sold indeed, but not entirely true. There is definitely a better signal to noise ratio, but the sample rate is pretty bad which makes the quality lower than normal FM. It's only a 128kbs MP3/AAC stream!
It's only because people don't hear noise anymore they think the quality is better. Analog FM is by the way much more robust too as a signal.
A shame the government forces people to invest in lower quality qear..
[+] [-] jhallenworld|8 years ago|reply
On the other hand, having to look a menu while driving car is not good.
[+] [-] icebraining|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TylerE|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cooper12|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|8 years ago|reply
> ...the lag associated with changing channels...
It seems like this is mostly the fault of the receiver, to me it doesn't seem like there's any reason that the receiver can't just have several filters (tuned to adjacent or saved channels) and demodulators running, so that you can tune instantly to them.
I think the bigger problem with DAB, to my eyes, is codec selection and graceful degradation.
[+] [-] wvenable|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] squarefoot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emmelaich|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Waterluvian|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] all_blue_chucks|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|8 years ago|reply
The solution is to kill radio and use the signal to increase internet access, then everybody can hear what they want.
[+] [-] agumonkey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] htgb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidarh|8 years ago|reply
However with the rise of the internet and decline of the printed phone book, which used to be distributed to absolutely every household, and that listed the (small) set of warning patterns the sirens would use (that included e.g. warning about air raids), they've now reduced it to only one signal to avoid depending on people to remember them:
"Important message - listen to radio"
...
I wonder how exactly they'll resolve that with a diminishing proportion of the population having "radio" that's independent of internet access being up.
[+] [-] mey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maneesh|8 years ago|reply
No one I know does.
[+] [-] mikeash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w8rbt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lb1lf|8 years ago|reply
The station in question ceased broadcasting at midnight, by the way, after having been threatened with stiff fines.
NRK (PBS/CBC equivalent) has lost 1/5 of its listeners after the transition to DAB. Tough luck.
[+] [-] alfla|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geforce|8 years ago|reply
Digital radio [2] has it's advantages. For once, it's more efficient in it's use of the spectrum. In many densely populated towns, there is no (or not many) more spectrum left for new broadcasters.
It's a matter of time, and people will adapt and forget they "hated it and doesn't want to change".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_terrestrial_television
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_radio
[+] [-] reaperducer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roywiggins|8 years ago|reply
If FM is turned off, every single pre-digital clock radio, portable radio, integrated FM cellphone radio, car radio and boombox suddenly stops working and needs replacing. There's no government program to hand out vouchers to replace my boombox; I just have to junk it and buy another.
If DAB is so great, why does hardly anyone in the US bother with it? Unlike DTTV, it's broadcast alongside regular FM, so people can go out and buy a digital receiver any time they like. But they don't, because they have a perfectly good clock radio already and don't see a benefit.
[+] [-] mallaidh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themodelplumber|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mark-r|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulie_a|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phantom_oracle|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio_broadcasting
> DAB is more efficient in its use of spectrum than analogue FM radio, and thus may offer more radio services for the same given bandwidth. DAB is more robust with regard to noise and multipath fading for mobile listening,[3] since DAB reception quality first degrades rapidly when the signal strength falls below a critical threshold, whereas FM reception quality degrades slowly with the decreasing signal.
[+] [-] dspig|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kawsper|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevekemp|8 years ago|reply
Of course I'm making an IoT radio, which can be controlled via my PC, mobile, or via buttons. But it still counts as old-school! ;)
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdelbarba|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bogomipz|8 years ago|reply
Could someone explain the economics of how switching from FM to DAB saves Noway money?
[+] [-] number_six|8 years ago|reply
http://www.adultswim.com/videos/sealab-2021/howlin-mad-murph...
[+] [-] royandre|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joefarish|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Faaak|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhallenworld|8 years ago|reply
Check out this video for the end of 100.3 FM "The Sound" in LA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4uj2kBdfP8
(look at the video description for related links, also the final moments of The Sound is at the end of the video).
[+] [-] lexxed|8 years ago|reply