Re: FAO Doug MacD - Europe is richer than US

<boltar2003@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:havj0r$anv$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:39:33 +0100
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<boltar2003@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hamue3$5ke$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:30:35 +0100
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It was a legitimate point, you just got caught out because it
proves
that
improved tech doesn't necessarily give rise to improved quality.


It was not a legitimate point at all - it was completely
irrelevant
to
what was being discussed. Spectral efficiency affects DIGITAL
broadcasting systems in that the more efficient a system is the
cheaper channels are to transmit, which reduces the chances that
broadcasters will choose to reduce the quality in order to save
money.

FM is unaffected by cost versus quality trade-offs, therefore your
point was totally irrelevant.

Wtf are you talking about? Have you never heard of narrow band FM?
Try
listening to the quality on an FM walkie talkie and compare it to
FM
radio.


This is a group about radio, not walkie frigging talkies.

Yes , thats right , radio. In case you hadn't noticed walkie talkies
are
radio devices too.

Oh sorry , you though this was alt.radio.broadcast.digital?


I would suggest that about 99.99% of on-topic posts about radio on
this NG are about broadcast radio. Trust Boltar to suggest that walkie
frigging talkies are also on-topic!!


Which is most likely:

(a) high audio quality is delivered when it costs £10,000 per annum
to
deliver it, or
(b) high audio quaity is delivered when it costs £100,000 per annum
to
deliver it

You suggest that there's no difference in likelihood between (a) and
(b), which is idiotic.

So why the expensive running costs if the bandwidth is free? The
cost of
the equipment is a one off and electricity costs can't be that
extortionate.


It is very expensive to build the transmitter network in the first
place, and that network needs to be operated and maintained on a
continuous basis. DAB multiplexer hardware will also sell in very low
quantities, and because of that the manufacturers will want to
maximise the price they charge in order to make it worth their while
producing it in the first place, so such equipment won't be cheap.

There are also other networks that are operated by the multiplex
operator, which is included in the cost of carriage on DAB, such as
the collection (getting audio from the radio stations to the
multiplexer) and distribution networks (distributing the bitstreams to
the transmitters). The multiplex operators also apparently pay for and
install the audio encoders.

So there's a lot more to pay for than your description of it being
"equipment is a one off and electricity costs [are cheap]".

The vast majority of the cost of transmistting a DAB multiplex are
"fixed costs" (i.e. costs that are independent of the number of radio
stations being carried - e.g. the cost of building the tranmsitter
network itself is considered as being a fixed cost, and the amount
accounted for will be calculated by depreciating the hardware and
building costs over the course of its useful life).

The only "variable costs" (i.e. costs that depend on the number of
stations being carried on the multiplex) would be for things like data
network costs (which are very low nowadays) for getting the audio from
the radio stations to the multiplex offices, and you'd need one
encoder per station.

The vast majority of the overall costs will be fixed costs, so you can
approximate the transmission cost per station as being the overall
annual cost divided by the number of stations that are carried.
Therefore, if you can increase the efficiency of the multiplex by a
factor of X, that reduces the transmission cost per station by a
factor of X as well.

This is why it is preposterous to suggest that the technology that DAB
uses has nothing to do with the transmission costs - the reality is
that the transmission costs per station are *defined by* the
technologies used, because the transmission costs per station are
inversely proportional to the efficiency of the system.



--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: hd radio
    ... I really don't know why I bother replying to you or your ilk, because it should be so incredibly obvious that the transmission costs will be highly dependent on the bit rate used. ... If a DAB multiplex costs £900,000 per annum to transmit in total, if the multiplex operator can fit 9 stations at 128 kbps on the multiplex then ignoring profit the cost would be £100,000 per station per annum. ... If instead of carrying 9 x 128 kbps stereo stations the multiplex carried 18 x 64 kbps mono stations then the transmission costs per station would be £50,000. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: The FCC needs to increase power for HD Radio from 1 to 10%
    ... No doubt this is the major reason that nearly all the FM stations in the U.S. are very enthusiastic about digital radio. ... The big plus of the IBOC HD Radio system is that it was a cooperative effort between broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, semiconductor makers, and the government, with everyone having buy-in on both the concept and the technical details. ... Unlike the digital radio system in the U.K., where smaller stations are up in arms over being excluded from the digital system, with HD Radio all the stations, large and small, have a clear migration path that costs them very little to implement because they already own the spectrum. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Petition to stop FM being switched off
    ... Quite well they work in the commercial radio industry. ... National transmission costs especially digital ones are expensive ... Nope it will be very expensive to run a MUX if it wasn't Global would be ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: Republic of Mike Terry
    ... that advertises DAB as providing "superb digital quality sound" etc etc? ... And the fact that the BBC Digital Radio department and the DRDB "banned" ... Data links to the transmitters ... Staff costs of multiplex operator ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: hd radio
    ... I calculated based on real advertising costs on ITV that the BBC's ... Something like 9.5m DAB radios have been sold to date, ... the average profit made on a DAB radio, so UK DAB should by rights ...
    (uk.rec.audio)