On 25/09/2023 10:26, Scott wrote:
I have written to Global Radio to ask about the bitrate when Classic
FM moves to DAB+ in 2024 but they cannot tell me at this stage. Is
there any word on 'da streets' (as Ali G would say)?
Can't you check it?
On 25/09/2023 12:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 25/09/2023 10:26, Scott wrote:
I have written to Global Radio to ask about the bitrate when Classic
FM moves to DAB+ in 2024 but they cannot tell me at this stage. Is
there any word on 'da streets' (as Ali G would say)?
Can't you check it?
No one can check it, because the transmission on DAB+ hasn't started yet.
Why worry about the bit rate (and it's not the only thing that
influences the final sound quality anyway).
If it sounds crap, don't listen, if it sounds OK carry on listening.
Simples.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:57:34 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/09/2023 12:41, JMB99 wrote:It's more out of curiosity than any real need to know. They describe
On 25/09/2023 10:26, Scott wrote:
I have written to Global Radio to ask about the bitrate when Classic
FM moves to DAB+ in 2024 but they cannot tell me at this stage. Is
there any word on 'da streets' (as Ali G would say)?
Can't you check it?
No one can check it, because the transmission on DAB+ hasn't started yet.
Why worry about the bit rate (and it's not the only thing that
influences the final sound quality anyway).
If it sounds crap, don't listen, if it sounds OK carry on listening.
Simples.
it as an improvement, which seems to me a claim that has to be
verifiable.
On 25/09/2023 10:26, Scott wrote:
I have written to Global Radio to ask about the bitrate when Classic FM
moves to DAB+ in 2024 but they cannot tell me at this stage. Is there
any word on 'da streets' (as Ali G would say)?
Can't you check it?
I have written to Global Radio to ask about the bitrate when Classic FM
moves to DAB+ in 2024 but they cannot tell me at this stage. Is there
any word on 'da streets' (as Ali G would say)?
Scott wrote:
I have written to Global Radio to ask about the bitrate when Classic
FM moves to DAB+ in 2024
Can't you check it?
I have written to Global Radio to ask about the bitrate when Classic
FM moves to DAB+ in 2024 but they cannot tell me at this stage. Is
there any word on 'da streets' (as Ali G would say)?
On 25/09/2023 12:41, JMB99 wrote:
On 25/09/2023 10:26, Scott wrote:
I have written to Global Radio to ask about the bitrate when Classic FM
moves to DAB+ in 2024 but they cannot tell me at this stage. Is there
any word on 'da streets' (as Ali G would say)?
Can't you check it?
No one can check it, because the transmission on DAB+ hasn't started yet.
Why worry about the bit rate (and it's not the only thing that influences
the final sound quality anyway).
If it sounds crap, don't listen, if it sounds OK carry on listening.
Simples.
Sorry we cannot tell you as we are all marketing men, not technicians, we >will use whatever is cheapest and nobody complains.
OK I made it up, but its paraphrasing a lot of the bullshit you get from
broadcasters these days.
Brian
Its over compressed most of the time and I tend to feel most of their shows >are voicetracked in any case.
Or it may be they consider it to be commercially sensitive to prevent competitors finding out and adjusting their own arrangements.
On 26/09/2023 14:13, Scott wrote:
Or it may be they consider it to be commercially sensitive to prevent
competitors finding out and adjusting their own arrangements.
Many years ago before retirement, I tried to get a list of offsets but was told it was commercially sensitive!
I could of course measure them using my cheap scanner.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:11:38 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry we cannot tell you as we are all marketing men, not technicians, we
will use whatever is cheapest and nobody complains.
OK I made it up, but its paraphrasing a lot of the bullshit you get from
broadcasters these days.
Brian
Or it may be they consider it to be commercially sensitive to prevent competitors finding out and adjusting their own arrangements.
How can offsets be commercially sensitive, unless you were in the business
of making jammers.
Somebody was going on about DAB plus using VBR, which I would say means
variable bit rates. That would seem to me to be a recipe for disaster on a >multiplex, as if every channel suddenly put out white noise it would run out >of bandwidth!
Also, why are so many of the talk only channels on DAB completely impossible >to listen to without fatigue. They sound gritty and flat on human voices, as >apposed to unhuman ones. grin. What I mean is that every voice you hear >sounds like its made up of tiny little bits with a watermark of low
frequency in it. Its a bit like you can get over a mobile phone just before >the signal drops out when its struggling.
Please the engineers need to actually listen, and not just keeping on
squeezing more into less.
On 26/09/2023 14:13, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:11:38 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry we cannot tell you as we are all marketing men, not technicians, we >>> will use whatever is cheapest and nobody complains.
OK I made it up, but its paraphrasing a lot of the bullshit you get from >>> broadcasters these days.
Brian
Or it may be they consider it to be commercially sensitive to prevent
competitors finding out and adjusting their own arrangements.
Particularly as arch rivals Bauer announced yesterday a large scale move
to DAB+
https://radiotoday.co.uk/2023/09/bauer-switches-national-radio-services-to-dab-and-takes-seven-extra-stations-national-on-sdl/
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 08:53:17 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
How can offsets be commercially sensitive, unless you were in the business >>of making jammers.
Somebody was going on about DAB plus using VBR, which I would say means >>variable bit rates. That would seem to me to be a recipe for disaster on a >>multiplex, as if every channel suddenly put out white noise it would run out >>of bandwidth!
Surely this is what the BBC do with R4 (128/80 kbps), R3 (192/160
kbps), R5L (80/64 kbps) to accommodate R5L Sports Extra?
Please the engineers need to actually listen, and not just keeping on >>squeezing more into less.
I would point the finger at the accountants not the engineers.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:21:11 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 26/09/2023 14:13, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:11:38 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry we cannot tell you as we are all marketing men, not technicians, we >>>> will use whatever is cheapest and nobody complains.
OK I made it up, but its paraphrasing a lot of the bullshit you get from >>>> broadcasters these days.
Brian
Or it may be they consider it to be commercially sensitive to prevent
competitors finding out and adjusting their own arrangements.
Particularly as arch rivals Bauer announced yesterday a large scale move
to DAB+
https://radiotoday.co.uk/2023/09/bauer-switches-national-radio-services-to-dab-and-takes-seven-extra-stations-national-on-sdl/
Will the BBC be next?
On 28/09/2023 15:56, Scott wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:21:11 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 26/09/2023 14:13, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:11:38 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry we cannot tell you as we are all marketing men, not technicians, we >>>>> will use whatever is cheapest and nobody complains.
OK I made it up, but its paraphrasing a lot of the bullshit you get from >>>>> broadcasters these days.
Brian
Or it may be they consider it to be commercially sensitive to prevent
competitors finding out and adjusting their own arrangements.
Particularly as arch rivals Bauer announced yesterday a large scale move >>> to DAB+
https://radiotoday.co.uk/2023/09/bauer-switches-national-radio-services-to-dab-and-takes-seven-extra-stations-national-on-sdl/
Will the BBC be next?
Unlikely, why would they move to DAB+, they are skint, and can't afford
to sustain their present services, let alone launch new ones, so why
make room for any more ?
In any case, to launch any new channels, they need to go through a
'Public Value Test' with Ofcom.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Does it cost anything? I thought it was just a tweak in the software.
The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could
be used
and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
They are not permitted to do that
On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Does it cost anything? I thought it was just a tweak in the software.
The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could
be used
.....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio-research/dab-radio
and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
They are not permitted to do that
On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Does it cost anything? I thought it was just a tweak in the software.
The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could
be used
.....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio- >research/dab-radio
and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
They are not permitted to do that
I doubt that very much. I would doubt whether DAB accounts for more[]
than about one third of listeners overall and those with non-DAB+
compatible sets would form a small proportion of that figure. Anyway,
why does that matter as the licence fee is for TV sets and it really
doesn't matter that much how many people listen to the radio?
In message <dc1ehit71iblticriff9l6dfhi9jgcroi5@4ax.com> at Fri, 29 Sep
2023 18:18:59, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]
I doubt that very much. I would doubt whether DAB accounts for more[]
than about one third of listeners overall and those with non-DAB+ >>compatible sets would form a small proportion of that figure. Anyway,
why does that matter as the licence fee is for TV sets and it really >>doesn't matter that much how many people listen to the radio?
Incorrect. The licence fee is _collected_ from people with TV sets (very >roughly speaking), but _spent_ on TV and radio (and online, and lots of
other things). They do indeed care a lot how many people listen to it -
if they could _prove_ it was zero, they could stop doing it and save
lots of money.
[]In message <dc1ehit71iblticriff9l6dfhi9jgcroi5@4ax.com> at Fri, 29 Sep
2023 18:18:59, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]
I doubt that very much. I would doubt whether DAB accounts for more
than about one third of listeners overall and those with non-DAB+ >>>compatible sets would form a small proportion of that figure. Anyway,
why does that matter as the licence fee is for TV sets and it really >>>doesn't matter that much how many people listen to the radio?
So where is the incentive to cater for the small number of people who
listen on non-DAB+ radios and are unwilling to upgrade? Do they write
more letters to the Telegraph or something?
On 29/09/2023 15:22, Mark Carver wrote:
and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
They are not permitted to do that
How is it different from leasing out space on their towers (when they
owned them)?
Not that I want any commercial stations locally!
In message <kno4seFqshjU2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 29 Sep 2023
15:22:06, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:I'm pretty sure everything from the bitstream outward is outsourced now,
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Does it cost anything? I thought it was just a tweak in the software.
The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could
be used
.....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio-
research/dab-radio
and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
They are not permitted to do that
so Arqiva or whoever would just charge less, and it would be they who
lease out the spare capacity. It would be presented as just the BBC
devising a way of being charged less, for which they would be praised.
In message <b8ofhit0p5alqk10d9n44u5v6daflssg63@4ax.com> at Sat, 30 Sep
2023 09:51:08, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]
[]In message <dc1ehit71iblticriff9l6dfhi9jgcroi5@4ax.com> at Fri, 29 Sep >>>2023 18:18:59, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]
I doubt that very much. I would doubt whether DAB accounts for more >>>>than about one third of listeners overall and those with non-DAB+ >>>>compatible sets would form a small proportion of that figure. Anyway, >>>>why does that matter as the licence fee is for TV sets and it really >>>>doesn't matter that much how many people listen to the radio?
So where is the incentive to cater for the small number of people who >>listen on non-DAB+ radios and are unwilling to upgrade? Do they write
more letters to the Telegraph or something?
I wonder if it _is_ a small number. When DAB first came out, the sets
were of course expensive (so only few bought them); then they got
cheaper, and presumably lots of people bought them, not necessarily to
get DAB, just that it became part of all but the cheapest radios. Then
DAB+ came along - initially expensive, and also not particularly
promoted by the retail industry. I suspect there are quite a lot of
non-plus sets about - especially in cars, given the British habit of
hanging on to cars longer than the manufacturers would like. It'd be >interesting to see actual figures (though these will be skewed by
whoever commissions their collection, by loading the questions).
They probably _do_ include a higher proportion of letter-writers (-:
On 29/09/2023 23:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <kno4seFqshjU2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 29 Sep 2023
15:22:06, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:I'm pretty sure everything from the bitstream outward is outsourced now,
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Does it cost anything? I thought it was just a tweak in the software. >>>> The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could
be used
.....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio- >>> research/dab-radio
and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
They are not permitted to do that
so Arqiva or whoever would just charge less, and it would be they who
lease out the spare capacity. It would be presented as just the BBC
devising a way of being charged less, for which they would be praised.
It's BBC allocated spectrum, they cannot just sub lease it.
I thought (nearly) all car radios were DAB+ for compatibility with other European markets.
Scott wrote:
I thought (nearly) all car radios were DAB+ for compatibility with other
European markets.
My present car (67 plate which came with DAB as standard) is DAB+, the >previous car (11 plate where I had to specify DAB as an option) was DAB
only.
On Mon 02/10/2023 19:00, Scott wrote:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:05:30 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 29/09/2023 23:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <kno4seFqshjU2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 29 Sep 2023
15:22:06, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:I'm pretty sure everything from the bitstream outward is outsourced now, >>>> so Arqiva or whoever would just charge less, and it would be they who
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Does it cost anything? I thought it was just a tweak in the software. >>>>>> The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could >>>>>> be used
.....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio- >>>>> research/dab-radio
and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
They are not permitted to do that
lease out the spare capacity. It would be presented as just the BBC
devising a way of being charged less, for which they would be praised.
It's BBC allocated spectrum, they cannot just sub lease it.
It didn't stop them selling the transmitters to Crown Castle (now
Arqiva). Regulations can be changed by the government as it pleases.
You imply that CC became Arqiva. Nope. CC sold the operation to National
Grid Wireless which in turn was bought by Arqiva.
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 15:05:30 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 29/09/2023 23:04, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <kno4seFqshjU2@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 29 Sep 2023
15:22:06, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 29/09/2023 14:14, Scott wrote:I'm pretty sure everything from the bitstream outward is outsourced now, >>> so Arqiva or whoever would just charge less, and it would be they who
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:08:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Does it cost anything? I thought it was just a tweak in the software. >>>>> The incentive would be to cut carriage costs as a lower bitrate could >>>>> be used
.....and lose about a third of their listeners ?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/radio- >>>> research/dab-radio
and I assume they could lease out spare capacity.
They are not permitted to do that
lease out the spare capacity. It would be presented as just the BBC
devising a way of being charged less, for which they would be praised.
It's BBC allocated spectrum, they cannot just sub lease it.
It didn't stop them selling the transmitters to Crown Castle (now
Arqiva). Regulations can be changed by the government as it pleases.
It didn't stop them selling the transmitters to Crown Castle (now
Arqiva). Regulations can be changed by the government as it pleases.
I thought (nearly) all car radios were DAB+ for compatibility with other >>> European markets.
My present car (67 plate which came with DAB as standard) is DAB+, the >>previous car (11 plate where I had to specify DAB as an option) was DAB >>only.
Could there be an upgrade option via software?
Andy Burns wrote:
My present car (67 plate which came with DAB as standard) is DAB+, the
previous car (11 plate where I had to specify DAB as an option) was DAB
only.
Could there be an upgrade option via software?
On Mon, 02 Oct 2023 20:56:10 +0100, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I thought (nearly) all car radios were DAB+ for compatibility with other >>>> European markets.
My present car (67 plate which came with DAB as standard) is DAB+, the >>>previous car (11 plate where I had to specify DAB as an option) was DAB >>>only.
Could there be an upgrade option via software?
In the same way you can upgrade an FM radio to DAB via software?
On 02/10/2023 19:00, Scott wrote:
It didn't stop them selling the transmitters to Crown Castle (now
Arqiva). Regulations can be changed by the government as it pleases.
They didn't, it went through a few stages before it became Crown Castle >International.
Woody has already clarified this. Check his post.
On 03/10/2023 09:39, Scott wrote:
Woody has already clarified this. Check his post.
I think it was initially Castle Transmission Holdings, then Castle >Transmission Ltd(?) before they could become Castle Transmission >International, not sure it went straight to Crown Castle International
(could have also been an intermediate stage).
I have a feeling that National Grid Wireless also went through a couple
of stages, before becoming National Grid Wireless.
And of course with typical corporate BS, they liked all previous names >removed. At one point they sent out loads of new professionally made
metal and plastic signs for ALL sites (even the smallest and most sites
never had signs) but forget to allocate any funds for fitting them so
most were never fitted.
On 03/10/2023 09:39, Scott wrote:
Woody has already clarified this. Check his post.
I think it was initially Castle Transmission Holdings, then Castle >Transmission Ltd(?) before they could become Castle Transmission >International, not sure it went straight to Crown Castle International
(could have also been an intermediate stage).
I have a feeling that National Grid Wireless also went through a couple
of stages, before becoming National Grid Wireless.
And of course with typical corporate BS, they liked all previous names >removed. At one point they sent out loads of new professionally made
metal and plastic signs for ALL sites (even the smallest and most sites
never had signs) but forget to allocate any funds for fitting them so
most were never fitted.
known as ntl
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 11:58:39 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 03/10/2023 09:39, Scott wrote:I take it overlaid on that there was ITA > IBA > National
Woody has already clarified this. Check his post.
I think it was initially Castle Transmission Holdings, then Castle
Transmission Ltd(?) before they could become Castle Transmission
International, not sure it went straight to Crown Castle International
(could have also been an intermediate stage).
I have a feeling that National Grid Wireless also went through a couple
of stages, before becoming National Grid Wireless.
And of course with typical corporate BS, they liked all previous names
removed. At one point they sent out loads of new professionally made
metal and plastic signs for ALL sites (even the smallest and most sites
never had signs) but forget to allocate any funds for fitting them so
most were never fitted.
Transcommunications Limited (NTL) > ..... > Arqiva?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 118:28:08 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,300 |