| BBC should switch to using DAB+ within the next few years6th September 2008 This is one of a series of articles written in response to recommendations made in an interim report by the Digital Radio Working Group (DRWG), which is a government "taskfoce" set up to look into why digital radio is selling far slower than the broadcasters had hoped. The DRWG has recommended that FM be swiched off by 2020 and that "DAB" be the main digital radio platform going forward. The commercial radio broadcasters will want to start using DAB+ as soon as a sufficiently high number of DAB+ receivers have been sold, but I think it's also important that the BBC should commit to switching its stations over to using DAB+ once the vast majority of all digital radios in the UK support DAB+. For reasons I'll discuss below, it won't take all that long before DAB+ receivers do form the vast majority of all digital radio receivers, so the BBC should commit to switching its stations over to DAB+ once a certain percentage of all receivers support the new standard. DAB+ is the only way that the BBC would be able to provide its stations at high quality on the "DAB" platform. The audio quality of the BBC's stations on DAB will always be poor, because the BBC is using bit rate levels that are far too low to provide good quality with DAB's MP2 audio codec, and the BBC's national DAB multiplex is completely full, so the BBC can't increase the bit rate levels its stations are using. If you'd like to see the BBC switch its stations over to DAB+, I would urge you to send an email or message to one of the people or organisations mentioned on here.
DAB+ receivers will form the vast majority of all receivers within the next few yearsThe following graph shows an estimate of the number of DAB and DAB+ receivers in the UK over the coming years assuming that the DRWG's (Digital Radio Working Group) recommendation that all digital radio receivers should support DAB and DAB+ is acted upon. This is a reasonable assumption, because Pure Digital plans to only sell DAB+-capable receivers by next year; other manufacturers are making their receivers capable of receiving DAB+ in time for Australia and a number of other countries starting to use DAB+ next year; and Frontier-Silicon, the market leading DAB receiver module company, has released a new DAB+ module that can be slotted into existing DAB receiver models without requiring any redesign work.
The assumptions used to create the graph above are that DAB sales grow at a constant level between now and 2020 such that the number of receivers reaches the 120 - 150 million level, which is Ofcom's estimate of the number of FM devices that are currently in-use in the UK; and that the number of DAB receivers will fall as people replace older sets with newer ones.
The commercial radio broadcasters will want to use DAB+ as soon as possible, because DAB+ will allow them to make more profit (any profit would be better than what they're making on DAB at the moment), as the transmission costs on DAB+ are two to three times lower (the sky-high transmission costs on DAB were one of the main reasons why so many national DAB stations closed down earlier this year), and it'll allow them to launch new stations, which will provide extra revenue. However, the BBC's national stations alone account for almost half of all UK radio listening, and people tend to care more about the audio quality of the BBC's national stations than they do about the quality of commercial stations. But the graph above shows that it wouldn't take long before DAB+ receivers would form the vast majority of all digital radio receivers in the UK, so the BBC would be able to switch over to using DAB+ once that happens.
DAB provides low audio quality — the BBC deceived usThe BBC held a public consultation in 2000 for its plans to launch five new digital radio stations. However, in that one and only instance when the BBC consulted with the public on its BBC's plans for digital radio, the BBC deliberately chose to withhold the fact that the audio quality of Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4 on DAB would be drastically degraded as a result of those five new digital stations being added to the BBC's national DAB multiplex. The effect that the launch of the new digital stations had on the audio quality of Radios 1 - 4 is shown in the table below:
* When the part-time station Radio 5 Sports Extra goes on-air, Radio 3 is reduced to 160 kbps in the daytime up to 5pm, or Radio 4 is reduced to 80 kbps mono when Radio 5 Sports Extra is transmitting after 5pm
The reason why the BBC chose not to let the public to know about the reduction in audio quality on Radios 1-4 was that the public would obviously have been opposed to their plans if they had known the truth, because nobody in their right mind would want the quality of the stations that they listen to day-in day-out to be massively degraded due to the addition of a number of stations that they wouldn't listen to. And if the public had opposed the BBC's plans, that would have jeopardised their plans to launch all five new digital stations. As the BBC deliberately withheld a piece of information from the public that was of fundamental importance to the way the public would have responded, the BBC blatantly deceived the public in that consultation. As it transpired, the percentage of people who were in favour of the stations launching was as follows:
I'd hardly call that a ringing endorsement of the BBC's plans, yet all five stations were launched anyway. But the BBC cries: "Oh, but the public is in sheer ecstasy over the additional choice that DAB provides, and it was the BBC launching new stations that drove people to buy DAB". Not wanting to shatter their Fantasy Island adventure or anything, but have they actually looked at which BBC stations people actually listen to? The figure below shows the percentage of BBC listening hours (on all platforms) for Radios 1-5 plus the World Service, i.e. the stations that were already transmitting on the BBC's national DAB multiplex, and the listening hours for the five new stations that were added in 2002:
The new stations aren't doing awfully well, are they? And they were launched six years ago now, and the BBC has lavished twenty high-impact TV advertising campaigns on promoting its new stations on DAB (which I worked out would have cost around £163 million if the BBC had to pay for these adverts to be shown on commercial TV — that works out at £23.29 per DAB radio sold to date, which is far more profit than a manufacturer makes on a DAB radio). I've got nothing against the BBC's new stations, but I'm afraid that the BBC's national DAB multiplex is not and never has been the right home for at least some of them. No-one would have batted an eyelid if some of the stations had gone on local or regional DAB multiplexes, as well as being carried on the digital TV platforms and the Internet. But they're now almost certainly there to stay, and the quality of the vast majority of BBC DAB listening will continue to be massively degraded because of them — until the BBC switches to using DAB+.
The vast majority of people want DAB+ to be used ASAPThe following figures show the results of two polls conducted on this website:
In the first poll, 91% of people wanted higher audio quality to be provided on DAB, which is exactly what using DAB+ would allow. In the second poll, 86% of people wanted DAB+ to be used within the next five years or sooner, and the vast majority of those people wanted DAB+ to be used as soon as possible. It's human nature that people want things to get better, so it's common sense that people would want the audio quality to be vastly improved, and that's exactly what DAB+ enables. So I think these polls would accurately represent what the general public would think as a whole about the issue of using DAB+ — that's assuming that the public knew about DAB+ and the benefits it provides, because the vast majority of people actually still don't know what it is due to the broadcasters trying to stop information about DAB+ leaking out to the public, which is because they've been petrified that people would stop buying the non-upgradeable DAB radios that are in the shops if they knew that it would be used in future.
DAB+ radios will become dirt cheapThe following graphs shows the minimum price of DAB portable radios using actual figures of £100 and £25, which were/are the lowest prices of DAB radios in 2002 and 2008 respectively. The graphs assume that the price has dropped at a constant rate over that period, and they show what the price would fall to if this constant rate continues over the next few years:
As the price of DAB+ receivers falls, it obviously becomes cheaper for people to replace DAB-only receivers with DAB+ models, and people are also able to trade-up from basic models to receivers that offer more features. For example, the following list shows some of the benefits that newer DAB+ receivers provide compared to basic DAB radios:
Also, support for the following features will become more commonplace and affordable:
When Freeview launched in September 2002, Ofcom said that there were over 1 million OnDigital/ITV Digital set-top boxes left in the market. By 2005, Ofcom said that that number had fallen to just 300,000, even though On/ITV Digital set-top boxes could receive all of the TV channels and radio stations that were broadcasting on Freeview — people simply replaced older boxes with newer ones. In the first graph on this page, which showed the number of DAB and DAB+ receivers in the UK, I actually used a far slower rate of decline in the number of DAB-only receivers than the rate at which the number of On/ITV Digital boxes fell by. However, as newer DAB+ models will continue to fall in price, as well as them offering significant benefits over DAB-only receivers, it's entirely possible that we could see the same rate of decline for DAB-only receivers, especially once the minimum price of DAB+ portable radios falls to around £10.
The audio quality on the BBC TV channels is far higher than on Radios 1-4 on DABThe following table shows the bit rate levels the BBC is using for the audio on its TV channels. The audio on digital TV channels uses the MP2 audio codec, which is the same codec used for radio stations on DAB, so the audio quality on the BBC TV channels versus that of the radio stations on DAB is simply down to the differences in bit rate level used. TV channels also mainly carry speech, which is easier to encode than music, because music has a wider audio bandwidth than speech, and radio stations tend to compress the dynamic range of music, which makes it even harder to compress. This actually means that the TV audio channels should by rights be using lower bit rates than the BBC's music radio stations on DAB, and yet the BBC is using bit rates for its main TV channels that are twice as high as for Radios 1 and 2, and they're significantly higher than the bit rate used for Radio 3.
The BBC was happy to allow a large number of Freeview receivers to be made obsoleteThe BBC is the main player in Freeview, and there has recently been a transmitter upgrade that has rendered a large number of Freeview receivers obsolete. So if the BBC is willing to make large numbers of Freeview receivers obsolete, it would be totally hypocritical if they delayed switching over to DAB+ just because a very small percentage of DAB receivers still in-use weren't able to receive it. Furthermore, the transmitter upgrade on Freeview didn't even provide any enhancement to the service for Freeview owners whose set-top boxes weren't affected by the transmitter upgrade, whereas the BBC switching its stations from DAB to DAB+ would benefit the vast majority of digital radio owners, because the audio quality would be vastly improved.
Overall, the vast majority of people would want the BBC
to use DAB+, and the cost of DAB+ radios will be as cheap as chips
(possibly literally the way food prices are going) in future, so the
BBC shouldn't continue using DAB just because a few Victor Meldrew
type characters might yell "I dooon't belieeeve it" when they find
out they're going to have to spend £8.37 on a new DAB+ radio to
replace the DAB radio they've been using for years and which they
were considering replacing anyway because some of the buttons had
stopped working. Comments
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Digg
del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Stumbleupon
Slashdot
Poor DAB audio quality
I purchaed a new Cambridge audio DAB & F.M receiver this week and the DAB audio quality is nothing short of terrible in terms of hi-fi audio quality.
As my receiver can receive both DAB & F.M broadcasts I can tune both sections into the same station & switch between the DAB and F.M broadcast, suffice to say that the F.M broadcast is considerably superior.
This was a big suprise to me until I found your article via google.
After reading your article I do feel that we have all been duped by the BBC & I am very dissapointed.
Pure One Elite DAB
I live in wales, so the Hills can cause signal blockage, but it is annoying that of the 29 Stations the radio can tune, only around half of them give an acceptable quality of output and usually with a max of 3 signal bars showing out of the max available.
Pure states in the instruction manual that it fully intends it's radios to be capable of being upgraded to DAB+ and there is a USB socket in the side to allow for this. I guess they will make some sort of anouncement to the current users of their radios, as to when and how they can upgrade their existing radios, but Pure does not guarantee in the statement, that they will honour this, it just say 'fully intends' so I hope that in 2010 when my radio will barely be 18 months old, that I don't end up having to have to pay out for a 'DAB+ ready' radio, when I already have one, albeit, pre-DAB+ at the moment.
Ok, they may be 'Cheap as Chips' by then, but why should I have to effectively pay twice in 2 years, just because the service providers have not got their act together?!
I won't be happy with 'Pure' if I can't upgrade, but then they might advise it is not possible and perhaps will not have any choice, but to buy another?
Reminds me of the VHS Betamax Video recorder debate, a few decades ago!!
The issue myself and lots of other people have about the audio quality on DAB is not to do with reception quality, it is the actual audio quality of the transmissions themselves, and the poor quality is caused by the use of insufficient bit rate levels being used with the MP2 audio codec, which is the codec that's used on DAB.
What you seem to be calling unacceptable quality seems likely to be caused by poor reception quality, i.e. you hear a bubbling mud sound superimposed on the audio, or the signal drops out occasionally.
The poor audio quality on DAB isn't really a problem on small portable DAB radios, because they're incapable of reproducing hi-fi sound anyway. If you listen to DAB on a more capable receiver though, such as on a hi-fi system (it doesn't have to be an expensive one - the poor quality on DAB will be apparent on all but the cheapest £50-from-Argos type micro systems), the sound quality is muffled and it just sounds plain nasty a lot of the time on music stations.
On the subject of DAB+, I think Pure will keep to its word of providing a software upgrade to DAB+. Pure only exists as a manufacturer of "DAB" receivers, and it's built up a good reputation for that, but if it didn't honour providing a software upgrade to DAB+ it would piss off a hell of a lot of people, and it would lose its good reputation overnight.
Quantity for quality
In Denmark we have 2 DAB channels with classical music 160 kbit/sec!!
I consider it at stab in the back to those who try to make young people interested in classical music.
Frank Zappas "We are only in it for the money" are more true today than ever.
The same philosophy has turned the mobile phone quality into a joke.
The BBC wouldn't be allowed by the government to launch lots more stations, and the commercial radio broadcasters would be vehemently opposed to the BBC launching any new stations, so apart from any new data services, which don't consume much bandwidth anyway, switching from DAB to DAB+ would pretty much consist of the BBC switching from using the MP2 codec to AAC at about the same bit rate levels. And that would lead to a very large improvement in audio quality.
In Denmark, although 160 kbps AAC might not be perfect, it should IMO sound very good - and it would be far, far better than the 160 kbps MP2 you're getting now.
DAB+