On reflection, I suspect this is correct.
The better solution is to move away from DAB to online delivery, which
is what they are encouraging anyway. I'm looking at a Ruark R1S Smart
Radio to replace my bedside radio. (It's a bit expensive but I have
the bonus of a John Lewis voucher to use). My car at the moment is
FM/AM only.
On 06/10/2025 11:53, Scott wrote:
On reflection, I suspect this is correct.
The better solution is to move away from DAB to online delivery, which
is what they are encouraging anyway. I'm looking at a Ruark R1S Smart
Radio to replace my bedside radio. (It's a bit expensive but I have
the bonus of a John Lewis voucher to use). My car at the moment is
FM/AM only.
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
On 06/10/2025 11:53, Scott wrote:
On reflection, I suspect this is correct.
The better solution is to move away from DAB to online delivery, which
is what they are encouraging anyway. I'm looking at a Ruark R1S Smart
Radio to replace my bedside radio. (It's a bit expensive but I have
the bonus of a John Lewis voucher to use). My car at the moment is
FM/AM only.
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
On 05/06/2026 16:06, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:53, Scott wrote:Not for those of us still using radios which can't decode DAB+.
On reflection, I suspect this is correct.
The better solution is to move away from DAB to online delivery, which
is what they are encouraging anyway. I'm looking at a Ruark R1S Smart
Radio to replace my bedside radio. (It's a bit expensive but I have
the bonus of a John Lewis voucher to use). My car at the moment is
FM/AM only.
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
Brian Gregory wrote:My home radios only have DAB, not DAB+ they've been retired in favour of multi-room internet streaming, there's an analogue radio somewhere and
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
Not for those of us still using radios which can't decode DAB+.
Buy a new radio? There comes a point where an old broadcasting technology should not be maintained simply to keep ancient receivers running,
especially when it is to the detriment of a far greater number of users
with modern receivers. I guess the difficulty is deciding when that point
has come. You can buy a DAB+ receiver for -u25 these days.
My home radios only have DAB, not DAB+ they've been retired in favour of multi-room internet streaming, there's an analogue radio somewhere and
maybe some batteries for it.
My current and previous cars came with DAB+ as standard, the one before
that I had to specify DAB in order to not just have AM/FM.
I don't often stream radio in the car, but I do regularly stream music rather than playing from SD-CARD, as I used to.
DAB could disappear as far as I'm concerned ...
I tend to listen to radio much of the time in the car
though Radio seemHad a 32GB SD-CARD in previous car (or rather two that I could swap
to be trying to drive me away with the choice of some presenters -
funny, we used to have people like Wogan with great voices for radio but
now many with really irritating voices.
Otherwise I have a memory stick I can select - latest cars now tend to
use USB-C so waiting for an adaptor to USB-A to use in new car. Previous
car had choice of USB-C and a memory card.
Otherwise I have a memory stick I can select - latest cars now tend to
use USB-C so waiting for an adaptor to USB-A to use in new car. Previous
car had choice of USB-C and a memory card.
John Williamson wrote:
The system works in any of the many vehicles I drive
Are you still driving for a living, John?
On 06/06/2026 12:23, Tweed wrote:
Buy a new radio? There comes a point where an old broadcasting technologyIf the old ones still do the job, why force everyone to replace them?
should not be maintained simply to keep ancient receivers running,
especially when it is to the detriment of a far greater number of users
with modern receivers. I guess the difficulty is deciding when that point
has come. You can buy a DAB+ receiver for -u25 these days.
In almost all reproduction chains outside a studio, the speaker (And
room acoustics) is the major limitation on reproduction quality, so no matter how much better the waveform is when it leaves the decoder, there
is no difference to the perceived quality of the audio. A cheap DAB+
radio sounds no better than a cheap DAB or ( Or a cheap FM one for most listeners), and the improvement of either over AM on a portable radio is marginal anyway. Digital bandwidth squeezing sees to that. I have been
using the same cheap FM radio alarm for a decade now, it sounds as good
as a cheap DAB one, and works off a pair of AA batteries for a month.
The DAB ones I see for sale are larger, cost more and need either 4 batteries every couple of weeks or a mains supply.
The only advantage to using DAB+ is that for the same perceived quality through a decent speaker system, more channels can be squeezed into the
same carrier bandwidth, and given that the pool of competent staff in
the chain between writer and listener is limited by factors ranging from training to finance, that leads to an average decrease in production quality. (If I want a variety of music, then an MP3 player or online
service is better, as I can select the music that I or those I am with
want to hear, and there are no adverts.) We are already at the stage on
most commercial broadcasting outlets, be they video or audio, where the
best production and sound quality is in the adverts.
On digital TV, there are very few channels out of the hundred or more available at most locations producing original programming 24/7, and
most of what *is* being produced is talking heads. Most of the Freeview channels seem to have a playlist of about 300 programmes on their hard drives, so have to repeat the playlist every few weeks. Even the
programme announcements are repeated off a hard drive. (Sky Mix only
update the announcements about once a month.) As one example, what
occupied 9 seasons of 'Allo, 'Allo when originally broadcast once a week
is now being played twice a day on a daily session over a week or two,
two or three times a year. I am getting bored with the Star Trek repeats
as I am now word perfect on most episodes of all the series.
Sorry, rant over, normal services can now be resumed. :-)
-
Tciao for Now!
John.
On 06/06/2026 15:29, Tweed wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:What they put on their Multiplex is their decision, so they could get
On 06/06/2026 12:23, Tweed wrote:DAB+ allows the BBC to put more stations on their MUX. IrCOm not in the
Buy a new radio? There comes a point where an old broadcasting technology >>>> should not be maintained simply to keep ancient receivers running,If the old ones still do the job, why force everyone to replace them?
especially when it is to the detriment of a far greater number of users >>>> with modern receivers. I guess the difficulty is deciding when that point >>>> has come. You can buy a DAB+ receiver for -u25 these days.
In almost all reproduction chains outside a studio, the speaker (And
room acoustics) is the major limitation on reproduction quality, so no
matter how much better the waveform is when it leaves the decoder, there >>> is no difference to the perceived quality of the audio. A cheap DAB+
radio sounds no better than a cheap DAB or ( Or a cheap FM one for most >>> listeners), and the improvement of either over AM on a portable radio is >>> marginal anyway. Digital bandwidth squeezing sees to that. I have been
using the same cheap FM radio alarm for a decade now, it sounds as good
as a cheap DAB one, and works off a pair of AA batteries for a month.
The DAB ones I see for sale are larger, cost more and need either 4
batteries every couple of weeks or a mains supply.
The only advantage to using DAB+ is that for the same perceived quality
through a decent speaker system, more channels can be squeezed into the
same carrier bandwidth, and given that the pool of competent staff in
the chain between writer and listener is limited by factors ranging from >>> training to finance, that leads to an average decrease in production
quality. (If I want a variety of music, then an MP3 player or online
service is better, as I can select the music that I or those I am with
want to hear, and there are no adverts.) We are already at the stage on
most commercial broadcasting outlets, be they video or audio, where the
best production and sound quality is in the adverts.
On digital TV, there are very few channels out of the hundred or more
available at most locations producing original programming 24/7, and
most of what *is* being produced is talking heads. Most of the Freeview
channels seem to have a playlist of about 300 programmes on their hard
drives, so have to repeat the playlist every few weeks. Even the
programme announcements are repeated off a hard drive. (Sky Mix only
update the announcements about once a month.) As one example, what
occupied 9 seasons of 'Allo, 'Allo when originally broadcast once a week >>> is now being played twice a day on a daily session over a week or two,
two or three times a year. I am getting bored with the Star Trek repeats >>> as I am now word perfect on most episodes of all the series.
Sorry, rant over, normal services can now be resumed. :-)
-
Tciao for Now!
John.
slightest bit interested in sport, but I can see the benefit in allowing
multiple commentaries. The BBC carries a lot of stuff that the commercial
outfits arenrCOt interested in.
rid of some of the niche music stations (Radio 3 Unwind?)and substitute sports commentaries? I prefer online or locally stored music anyway.
Why should they deprive the audience of niche music stations to placate
those who are too tight to replace an outdated receiver. Everyone appears
to want a BBC that only serves their own personal interests and political viewpoint, with little regard for anyone else. I have no interest in the output of Radio 3, but IrCOm pleased that it exists.
What they put on their Multiplex is their decision, so they could get
rid of some of the niche music stations (Radio 3 Unwind?)and substitute sports commentaries?
At what point should DAB be abandoned in favour of DAB+? Should it be kept until the last pensioner who owns a DAB receiver dies? Or perhaps it should be kept going beyond that because the receiver has been passed down to the offspring. Likewise with SD tv broadcasts. Should they be kept going until the last ancient bedroom TV dies? Where do you draw the line and abandon an obsolete technology?
On 06/06/2026 12:40, Andy Burns wrote:
My home radios only have DAB, not DAB+ they've been retired in favour
of multi-room internet streaming, there's an analogue radio somewhere
and maybe some batteries for it.
My current and previous cars came with DAB+ as standard, the one
before that I had to specify DAB in order to not just have AM/FM.
I don't often stream radio in the car, but I do regularly stream music
rather than playing from SD-CARD, as I used to.
DAB could disappear as far as I'm concerned ...
I tend to listen to radio much of the time in the car though Radio seem
to be trying to drive me away with the choice of some presenters -
funny, we used to have people like Wogan with great voices for radio but
now many with really irritating voices.
Otherwise I have a memory stick I can select - latest cars now tend to
use USB-C so waiting for an adaptor to USB-A to use in new car. Previous
car had choice of USB-C and a memory card.
JMB99 wrote:
I tend to listen to radio much of the time in the car
Mostly I listen to Times Radio, using DAB+ in the car but TuneIn at home
on Google Home devices (some with external speakers).
though Radio seem to be trying to drive me away with the choice ofHad a 32GB SD-CARD in previous car (or rather two that I could swap
some presenters - funny, we used to have people like Wogan with great
voices for radio but now many with really irritating voices.
Otherwise I have a memory stick I can select - latest cars now tend to
use USB-C so waiting for an adaptor to USB-A to use in new car.
Previous car had choice of USB-C and a memory card.
over) slot was tucked away within glove box, current car has no slot
(why on earth not?) it does have a USB-C port, but it's on centre
console where it would be quite vulnerable to knocking/damage, unless I specificall buy a tiny one, but -u45 each, certainly not going to buy two
-a<https://amazon.co.uk/SanDisk/dp/B0FS86V4XW>
John Williamson wrote:
How about fifteen quid for 64GB?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/USB-C-Flash-Waterproof-Memory-Storage-Type-
C-64G/dp/B0FMXSSR4J/ref=sr_1_10
Thanks for looking, I'd seen that and similar ones, but reviews aren't
good and the other sizes are flagged as frequently returned item ...
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 16:11, Tweed wrote:
Why should they deprive the audience of niche music stations to placateI say again... Why force anyone to replace an older receiver that still
those who are too tight to replace an outdated receiver. Everyone appears >>> to want a BBC that only serves their own personal interests and political >>> viewpoint, with little regard for anyone else. I have no interest in the >>> output of Radio 3, but IrCOm pleased that it exists.
makes sound as good as anything that can be bought now? The only people
who would benefit are the makers and those who are paid to recycle the
old ones. (Sorry, forgot the advertisers, who can use the extra
channels to pump out more adverts) To take the sports commentaries
mentioned up thread a bit as an example, why not put those on line, as
mobile broadband now has coverage as good as or better than DAB+? For a
football club, for instance,it costs very little to put a live stream
from a commentator onto their website. The same applies for any other
sport. For voice quality audio, the required bandwidth all through the
chain is very low, so a good signal is not required at the receiving
end. It would even be practical for someone in the crowd to listen to
the live commentary on their phone via an earbud, and more people now
carry a phone round with them than a radio.
By the way, some football clubs in the UK already run a restricted
licence station on match days to transmit commentaries locally, so
adding an internet feed to a website is trivial.
At what point should DAB be abandoned in favour of DAB+? Should it be kept until the last pensioner who owns a DAB receiver dies? Or perhaps it should be kept going beyond that because the receiver has been passed down to the offspring. Likewise with SD tv broadcasts. Should they be kept going until the last ancient bedroom TV dies? Where do you draw the line and abandon an obsolete technology?
On 06/06/2026 17:11, Tweed wrote:
At what point should DAB be abandoned in favour of DAB+? Should it be
kept
until the last pensioner who owns a DAB receiver dies? Or perhaps it
should
be kept going beyond that because the receiver has been passed down to
the
offspring. Likewise with SD tv broadcasts. Should they be kept going
until
the last ancient bedroom TV dies? Where do you draw the line and
abandon an
obsolete technology?
I wonder if he has scrapped his 405 line TV yet!
JMB99 wrote:
I tend to listen to radio much of the time in the car
Mostly I listen to Times Radio, using DAB+ in the car but TuneIn at home
on Google Home devices (some with external speakers).
though Radio seem to be trying to drive me away with the choice ofHad a 32GB SD-CARD in previous car (or rather two that I could swap
some presenters - funny, we used to have people like Wogan with great
voices for radio but now many with really irritating voices.
Otherwise I have a memory stick I can select - latest cars now tend to
use USB-C so waiting for an adaptor to USB-A to use in new car.
Previous car had choice of USB-C and a memory card.
over) slot was tucked away within glove box, current car has no slot
(why on earth not?) it does have a USB-C port, but it's on centre
console where it would be quite vulnerable to knocking/damage, unless I specificall buy a tiny one, but -u45 each, certainly not going to buy two
-a<https://amazon.co.uk/SanDisk/dp/B0FS86V4XW>
On 06/06/2026 17:11, Tweed wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:Why does DAB need to be abandoned? Apart from more channels, what
On 06/06/2026 16:11, Tweed wrote:
Why should they deprive the audience of niche music stations to placate >>>> those who are too tight to replace an outdated receiver. Everyone appears >>>> to want a BBC that only serves their own personal interests and political >>>> viewpoint, with little regard for anyone else. I have no interest in the >>>> output of Radio 3, but IrCOm pleased that it exists.I say again... Why force anyone to replace an older receiver that still
makes sound as good as anything that can be bought now? The only people
who would benefit are the makers and those who are paid to recycle the
old ones. (Sorry, forgot the advertisers, who can use the extra
channels to pump out more adverts) To take the sports commentaries
mentioned up thread a bit as an example, why not put those on line, as
mobile broadband now has coverage as good as or better than DAB+? For a
football club, for instance,it costs very little to put a live stream
from a commentator onto their website. The same applies for any other
sport. For voice quality audio, the required bandwidth all through the
chain is very low, so a good signal is not required at the receiving
end. It would even be practical for someone in the crowd to listen to
the live commentary on their phone via an earbud, and more people now
carry a phone round with them than a radio.
By the way, some football clubs in the UK already run a restricted
licence station on match days to transmit commentaries locally, so
adding an internet feed to a website is trivial.
At what point should DAB be abandoned in favour of DAB+? Should it be kept >> until the last pensioner who owns a DAB receiver dies? Or perhaps it should >> be kept going beyond that because the receiver has been passed down to the >> offspring. Likewise with SD tv broadcasts. Should they be kept going until >> the last ancient bedroom TV dies? Where do you draw the line and abandon an >> obsolete technology?
benefit does it offer the listener? Can I tell it to skip the adverts?
Can it carry graphics to display on the radio?
https://www.staples.co.uk/computing-webcams-printers/computing-storage- and-memory/flash-drives/verbatim-store-n-stay-nano-usb-3-0-64gb-flash- drive-98711If they did a type-C version, that'd be great.
-u18.11 (plus postage). Teeny 64 GB flash drive.
DAB+ allows the BBC to carry more programming on its MUX. You might not be interested but others are.
On 06/06/2026 18:11, Tweed wrote:
DAB+ allows the BBC to carry more programming on its MUX. You mightWho is demanding these extra channels, what will they carry and how
not be
interested but others are.
will, they be funded?
Who is demanding these extra channels, what will they carry and how
will, they be funded?
On 06/06/2026 19:30, John Williamson wrote:
Who is demanding these extra channels, what will they carry and how
will, they be funded?
You would prefer to go back to just the Home Service?
The BBC is already having trouble filling the airtime on their existing channels.
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
On 06/06/2026 21:39, John Williamson wrote:
The BBC is already having trouble filling the airtime on their
existing channels.
They are filling, using repeats.
I am watching a repeated programme at the moment, I have not seen before
so glad to have chance to watch it.
HISTORY DOCUMENTARY: Three Days in June: The Story of the D-Day Forecast
On: 5SELECT
Date: Saturday 6th June 2026 (59 minutes left)
Time: 22:55 to 00:05 (1 hour and 10 minutes long)
On 06/06/2026 21:39, John Williamson wrote:
The BBC is already having trouble filling the airtime on their existing
channels.
They are filling, using repeats.
I am watching a repeated programme at the moment, I have not seen before
so glad to have chance to watch it.
I don't understand what some people want.
Do they expect someone to run a service where every programme is
original and not repeated. Even the commercial broadcasters and >subscription services, with their much bigger budgets, cannot afford that.
I often intentionally watch repeated programmes that I have seen before
and often enjoy them again.
I know we can watch iPlayer, and presume commercial stations have >equivalents, but mainly watch the mainstream channels including repeated >programmes.
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 23:06:32 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 21:39, John Williamson wrote:Surely repeats are better handled by an online library rather than
The BBC is already having trouble filling the airtime on their existing >>> channels.
They are filling, using repeats.
I am watching a repeated programme at the moment, I have not seen before
so glad to have chance to watch it.
linear TV and radio channels, then you can watch what you want when
you want? Also, I don't see why back-catalogue should be paid for by
the licence fee. Why not make this chargeable as an extra service.
Rather than Radio Four Extra, why not put all the programmes on BBC
Sounds and charge a small fee on a pay-per-listen basis?
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 05/06/2026 16:06, Brian Gregory wrote:Buy a new radio? There comes a point where an old broadcasting technology should not be maintained simply to keep ancient receivers running,
On 06/10/2025 11:53, Scott wrote:Not for those of us still using radios which can't decode DAB+.
On reflection, I suspect this is correct.
The better solution is to move away from DAB to online delivery, which >>>> is what they are encouraging anyway. I'm looking at a Ruark R1S Smart
Radio to replace my bedside radio. (It's a bit expensive but I have
the bonus of a John Lewis voucher to use). My car at the moment is
FM/AM only.
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
especially when it is to the detriment of a far greater number of users
with modern receivers. I guess the difficulty is deciding when that point
has come. You can buy a DAB+ receiver for -u25 these days.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 23:06:32 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:Repeats on linear TV exposes you to programmes you might never have >considered watching. iPlayer means you have to go actively hunting for >something. BBC4 is excellent for this purpose.
On 06/06/2026 21:39, John Williamson wrote:Surely repeats are better handled by an online library rather than
The BBC is already having trouble filling the airtime on their existing >>>> channels.
They are filling, using repeats.
I am watching a repeated programme at the moment, I have not seen before >>> so glad to have chance to watch it.
linear TV and radio channels, then you can watch what you want when
you want? Also, I don't see why back-catalogue should be paid for by
the licence fee. Why not make this chargeable as an extra service.
Rather than Radio Four Extra, why not put all the programmes on BBC
Sounds and charge a small fee on a pay-per-listen basis?
On 06/06/2026 12:23, Tweed wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:Yes, we could do that. But we've got two radios that work perfectly on
On 05/06/2026 16:06, Brian Gregory wrote:Buy a new radio? There comes a point where an old broadcasting technology
On 06/10/2025 11:53, Scott wrote:Not for those of us still using radios which can't decode DAB+.
On reflection, I suspect this is correct.
The better solution is to move away from DAB to online delivery, which >>>>> is what they are encouraging anyway. I'm looking at a Ruark R1S Smart >>>>> Radio to replace my bedside radio. (It's a bit expensive but I have
the bonus of a John Lewis voucher to use). My car at the moment is
FM/AM only.
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
should not be maintained simply to keep ancient receivers running,
especially when it is to the detriment of a far greater number of users
with modern receivers. I guess the difficulty is deciding when that point
has come. You can buy a DAB+ receiver for u25 these days.
DAB and which can't be much more than a decade old. It seems a pity to
send them to the already overburdened junk heap just because the
authorities every 10 years or so invent a new standard AND make it >incompatible with older technology.
Getting rid of long wave AM I can understand, as it is pretty much
unchanged for a century and hardly anyone uses it any more, but getting
rid of DAB just because DAB+ is available and it's just a little bit
more efficient in bandwidth? I'm not convinced that's a good move.
Rather than Radio Four Extra, why not put all the programmes on BBC
Sounds and charge a small fee on a pay-per-listen basis?
Can online platforms not do much the same by recommending programmes
in a more targeted way than what happens to be on the TV at the time? Incidentally, when a programme is repeated do the performers receive a 'repeat fee' as in the past?
Getting rid of long wave AM I can understand, as it is pretty much
unchanged for a century and hardly anyone uses it any more, but getting
rid of DAB just because DAB+ is available and it's just a little bit
more efficient in bandwidth?-a-a I'm not convinced that's a good move.
It always surprises me that people are happy to buy expensive new
television sets but won't pay for a new radio, which is cheap in
comparison.
Clive Page wrote:
getting rid of DAB just because DAB+ is available and it's just a
little bit more efficient in bandwidth?-a-a I'm not convinced that's a
good move.
Can't they mix DAB and DAB+ on the same multiplex?
So maintain a basic service in DAB.
Then use SanDisk Ultra - you'll have no problem with them.
Anything resembling a 'normal' USB stick will fit, but be too
susceptible to getting knocked and damaging the stick or the socket.
The car has multiple USB sockets (on the centre console, in the centre storage bin, for the back seats, in the boot) but only one has a data connection, the rest are just power.
On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 09:03:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026 23:06:32 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:Repeats on linear TV exposes you to programmes you might never have
On 06/06/2026 21:39, John Williamson wrote:Surely repeats are better handled by an online library rather than
The BBC is already having trouble filling the airtime on their existing >>>>> channels.
They are filling, using repeats.
I am watching a repeated programme at the moment, I have not seen before >>>> so glad to have chance to watch it.
linear TV and radio channels, then you can watch what you want when
you want? Also, I don't see why back-catalogue should be paid for by
the licence fee. Why not make this chargeable as an extra service.
Rather than Radio Four Extra, why not put all the programmes on BBC
Sounds and charge a small fee on a pay-per-listen basis?
considered watching. iPlayer means you have to go actively hunting for
something. BBC4 is excellent for this purpose.
Can online platforms not do much the same by recommending programmes
in a more targeted way than what happens to be on the TV at the time? Incidentally, when a programme is repeated do the performers receive a 'repeat fee' as in the past?
Repeats on linear TV exposes you to programmes you might never have considered watching. iPlayer means you have to go actively hunting for something. BBC4 is excellent for this purpose.
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 15:29, Tweed wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:What they put on their Multiplex is their decision, so they could get
On 06/06/2026 12:23, Tweed wrote:DAB+ allows the BBC to put more stations on their MUX. IrCOm not in the
Buy a new radio? There comes a point where an old broadcasting technology >>>>> should not be maintained simply to keep ancient receivers running,If the old ones still do the job, why force everyone to replace them? >>>> In almost all reproduction chains outside a studio, the speaker (And
especially when it is to the detriment of a far greater number of users >>>>> with modern receivers. I guess the difficulty is deciding when that point >>>>> has come. You can buy a DAB+ receiver for -u25 these days.
room acoustics) is the major limitation on reproduction quality, so no >>>> matter how much better the waveform is when it leaves the decoder, there >>>> is no difference to the perceived quality of the audio. A cheap DAB+
radio sounds no better than a cheap DAB or ( Or a cheap FM one for most >>>> listeners), and the improvement of either over AM on a portable radio is >>>> marginal anyway. Digital bandwidth squeezing sees to that. I have been >>>> using the same cheap FM radio alarm for a decade now, it sounds as good >>>> as a cheap DAB one, and works off a pair of AA batteries for a month.
The DAB ones I see for sale are larger, cost more and need either 4
batteries every couple of weeks or a mains supply.
The only advantage to using DAB+ is that for the same perceived quality >>>> through a decent speaker system, more channels can be squeezed into the >>>> same carrier bandwidth, and given that the pool of competent staff in
the chain between writer and listener is limited by factors ranging from >>>> training to finance, that leads to an average decrease in production
quality. (If I want a variety of music, then an MP3 player or online
service is better, as I can select the music that I or those I am with >>>> want to hear, and there are no adverts.) We are already at the stage on >>>> most commercial broadcasting outlets, be they video or audio, where the >>>> best production and sound quality is in the adverts.
On digital TV, there are very few channels out of the hundred or more
available at most locations producing original programming 24/7, and
most of what *is* being produced is talking heads. Most of the Freeview >>>> channels seem to have a playlist of about 300 programmes on their hard >>>> drives, so have to repeat the playlist every few weeks. Even the
programme announcements are repeated off a hard drive. (Sky Mix only
update the announcements about once a month.) As one example, what
occupied 9 seasons of 'Allo, 'Allo when originally broadcast once a week >>>> is now being played twice a day on a daily session over a week or two, >>>> two or three times a year. I am getting bored with the Star Trek repeats >>>> as I am now word perfect on most episodes of all the series.
Sorry, rant over, normal services can now be resumed. :-)
-
Tciao for Now!
John.
slightest bit interested in sport, but I can see the benefit in allowing >>> multiple commentaries. The BBC carries a lot of stuff that the commercial >>> outfits arenrCOt interested in.
rid of some of the niche music stations (Radio 3 Unwind?)and substitute
sports commentaries? I prefer online or locally stored music anyway.
Why should they deprive the audience of niche music stations to placate
those who are too tight to replace an outdated receiver. Everyone appears
to want a BBC that only serves their own personal interests and political viewpoint, with little regard for anyone else. I have no interest in the output of Radio 3, but IrCOm pleased that it exists.
On 07/06/2026 09:47, Scott wrote:
Rather than Radio Four Extra, why not put all the programmes on BBC
Sounds and charge a small fee on a pay-per-listen basis?
Because the BBC is providing a *service* to it listeners and viewers.
I presume you want all libraries, museum, schools, hospitals etc to only >accessible for a subscription.
I would think subscriptions systems soak up a lot of the income in
operating costs and particularly security.
You can guarantee that if the BBC went subscription only then there
would be lots information posted about how get around the subscription.
As mentioned, people get exposed to lots of content they might never see
if it was only subscriber access. Look at the way the WWW has gone, you >used to able look up news item in local and national newspapers but just >about all are behind paywalls so the numbers of must have dropped >dramatically. Many times a day I click on a news story and find it is >behind a paywall so leave. I could often access through library
services like Pressreader but rarely bother.
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 16:11, Tweed wrote:
Why should they deprive the audience of niche music stations to placateI say again... Why force anyone to replace an older receiver that still
those who are too tight to replace an outdated receiver. Everyone appears >>> to want a BBC that only serves their own personal interests and political >>> viewpoint, with little regard for anyone else. I have no interest in the >>> output of Radio 3, but IrCOm pleased that it exists.
makes sound as good as anything that can be bought now? The only people
who would benefit are the makers and those who are paid to recycle the
old ones. (Sorry, forgot the advertisers, who can use the extra
channels to pump out more adverts) To take the sports commentaries
mentioned up thread a bit as an example, why not put those on line, as
mobile broadband now has coverage as good as or better than DAB+? For a
football club, for instance,it costs very little to put a live stream
from a commentator onto their website. The same applies for any other
sport. For voice quality audio, the required bandwidth all through the
chain is very low, so a good signal is not required at the receiving
end. It would even be practical for someone in the crowd to listen to
the live commentary on their phone via an earbud, and more people now
carry a phone round with them than a radio.
By the way, some football clubs in the UK already run a restricted
licence station on match days to transmit commentaries locally, so
adding an internet feed to a website is trivial.
At what point should DAB be abandoned in favour of DAB+? Should it be kept until the last pensioner who owns a DAB receiver dies? Or perhaps it should be kept going beyond that because the receiver has been passed down to the offspring. Likewise with SD tv broadcasts. Should they be kept going until the last ancient bedroom TV dies? Where do you draw the line and abandon an obsolete technology?
FM radio must have been going for about 75 years and hasn't quite been superseded.
a former BBC Director General, in his autobiography, wrote "The British Public are the greatest connoisseurs of the obsolete in the world."
Nothing has changed in the 50 years since he wrote that.
On 06/06/2026 17:11, Tweed wrote:
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:Those are good questions, though your way of phrasing them may reveal
On 06/06/2026 16:11, Tweed wrote:
Why should they deprive the audience of niche music stations to placate >>>> those who are too tight to replace an outdated receiver. Everyone appears >>>> to want a BBC that only serves their own personal interests and political >>>> viewpoint, with little regard for anyone else. I have no interest in the >>>> output of Radio 3, but IrCOm pleased that it exists.I say again... Why force anyone to replace an older receiver that still
makes sound as good as anything that can be bought now? The only people
who would benefit are the makers and those who are paid to recycle the
old ones. (Sorry, forgot the advertisers, who can use the extra
channels to pump out more adverts) To take the sports commentaries
mentioned up thread a bit as an example, why not put those on line, as
mobile broadband now has coverage as good as or better than DAB+? For a
football club, for instance,it costs very little to put a live stream
from a commentator onto their website. The same applies for any other
sport. For voice quality audio, the required bandwidth all through the
chain is very low, so a good signal is not required at the receiving
end. It would even be practical for someone in the crowd to listen to
the live commentary on their phone via an earbud, and more people now
carry a phone round with them than a radio.
By the way, some football clubs in the UK already run a restricted
licence station on match days to transmit commentaries locally, so
adding an internet feed to a website is trivial.
At what point should DAB be abandoned in favour of DAB+? Should it be kept >> until the last pensioner who owns a DAB receiver dies? Or perhaps it should >> be kept going beyond that because the receiver has been passed down to the >> offspring. Likewise with SD tv broadcasts. Should they be kept going until >> the last ancient bedroom TV dies? Where do you draw the line and abandon an >> obsolete technology?
your own opinions on the matter.
Previous practice has been to keep standards for quite a long time. AM radio is only being abandoned around now after a lifetime of about 100 years. 405 line television lasted about 50 years. FM radio must have
been going for about 75 years and hasn't quite been superseded.
If you get rid of relatively recent standards like DAB then an awful lot
of working radios will simply be sent to landfill. Does that not
concern you at all?
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:[]
If you get rid of relatively recent standards like DAB then an awful lot
of working radios will simply be sent to landfill. Does that not
concern you at all?
Several points: my points were made with hyperbole to emphasise the point. Your equipment will go to landfill (or perhaps recycling) eventually. Why does delaying that improve things?
The standards you list have been kept going because they arenrCOt/were not kept going to the detriment of other services. Nobody had/has a significant need of the spectrum they use(d). DAB does broadcast to detriment of DAB+
and the efficient use of the BBC MUX in particular. Digital technology
moves on more quickly, ie becomes obsolete faster, than previous analogue systems. 3G mobile phone handsets didnrCOt have much of a lifespan. Would you be arguing for the retention of 3G to the detriment of 4/5G spectrum simply to avoid sending 3G handsets to landfill?
On 2026/6/8 7:13:41, Tweed wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:[]
If you get rid of relatively recent standards like DAB then an awful lot >>> of working radios will simply be sent to landfill. Does that not
concern you at all?
Several points: my points were made with hyperbole to emphasise the point. >> Your equipment will go to landfill (or perhaps recycling) eventually. Why
does delaying that improve things?
So as soon as you buy something, you take it to landfill?!?
At the time of the German hyperinflation (1920s IIRR), some banks were sending the newly-received notes directly to pulping. Not, surely, a
good scenario.
The standards you list have been kept going because they arenrCOt/were not >> kept going to the detriment of other services. Nobody had/has a significant >> need of the spectrum they use(d). DAB does broadcast to detriment of DAB+
and the efficient use of the BBC MUX in particular. Digital technology
You do have an arguably good point there. It's just a matter of how long equipment should remain usable; people will never agree.
moves on more quickly, ie becomes obsolete faster, than previous analogueI believe 2G still works, for now.
systems. 3G mobile phone handsets didnrCOt have much of a lifespan. Would you
be arguing for the retention of 3G to the detriment of 4/5G spectrum simply >> to avoid sending 3G handsets to landfill?
On 05/06/2026 16:06, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 06/10/2025 11:53, Scott wrote:Not for those of us still using radios which can't decode DAB+.
On reflection, I suspect this is correct.
The better solution is to move away from DAB to online delivery, which
is what they are encouraging anyway. I'm looking at a Ruark R1S Smart
Radio to replace my bedside radio. (It's a bit expensive but I have
the bonus of a John Lewis voucher to use). My car at the moment is
FM/AM only.
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
DAB+ allows the BBC to put more stations on their MUX. IrCOm not in the slightest bit interested in sport, but I can see the benefit in allowing multiple commentaries. The BBC carries a lot of stuff that the commercial outfits arenrCOt interested in.
If you get rid of relatively recent standards like DAB then an awful lot
of working radios will simply be sent to landfill.-a Does that not
concern you at all?
On 2026/6/5 16:6:10, Brian Gregory wrote:
[]
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.Help who, exactly? It would certainly hinder, rather than help, a lot of people.
On 07/06/2026 21:52, Clive Page wrote:
If you get rid of relatively recent standards like DAB then an awful lot
of working radios will simply be sent to landfill.a Does that not
concern you at all?
It's pretty criminal the way manufacturers were allowed to sell DAB/DAB+ >radios with non-upgradable DAB only firmware even when they were selling
the same radio but with DAB+ firmware in Europe.
Just moving the whole of BBC radio from DAB to DAB+ would help a lot.
JMB99 wrote:
I tend to listen to radio much of the time in the car
Mostly I listen to Times Radio, using DAB+ in the car but TuneIn at home
on Google Home devices (some with external speakers).
though Radio seem to be trying to drive me away with the choice ofHad a 32GB SD-CARD in previous car (or rather two that I could swap
some presenters - funny, we used to have people like Wogan with great
voices for radio but now many with really irritating voices.
Otherwise I have a memory stick I can select - latest cars now tend to
use USB-C so waiting for an adaptor to USB-A to use in new car.
Previous car had choice of USB-C and a memory card.
over) slot was tucked away within glove box, current car has no slot
(why on earth not?) it does have a USB-C port, but it's on centre
console where it would be quite vulnerable to knocking/damage, unless I specificall buy a tiny one, but -u45 each, certainly not going to buy two
<https://amazon.co.uk/SanDisk/dp/B0FS86V4XW>
How about fifteen quid for 64GB?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/USB-C-Flash-Waterproof-Memory-Storage-Type- C-64G/dp/B0FMXSSR4J/ref=sr_1_10
The system works in any of the many vehicles I drive
John Williamson wrote:
How about fifteen quid for 64GB?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/USB-C-Flash-Waterproof-Memory-Storage-Type-
C-64G/dp/B0FMXSSR4J/ref=sr_1_10
Thanks for looking, I'd seen that and similar ones, but reviews aren't
good and the other sizes are flagged as frequently returned item ...
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 06/06/2026 12:23, Tweed wrote:DAB+ allows the BBC to put more stations on their MUX. IrCOm not in the slightest bit interested in sport, but I can see the benefit in allowing multiple commentaries. The BBC carries a lot of stuff that the commercial outfits arenrCOt interested in.
Buy a new radio? There comes a point where an old broadcasting technology >>> should not be maintained simply to keep ancient receivers running,If the old ones still do the job, why force everyone to replace them?
especially when it is to the detriment of a far greater number of users
with modern receivers. I guess the difficulty is deciding when that point >>> has come. You can buy a DAB+ receiver for -u25 these days.
In almost all reproduction chains outside a studio, the speaker (And
room acoustics) is the major limitation on reproduction quality, so no
matter how much better the waveform is when it leaves the decoder, there
is no difference to the perceived quality of the audio. A cheap DAB+
radio sounds no better than a cheap DAB or ( Or a cheap FM one for most
listeners), and the improvement of either over AM on a portable radio is
marginal anyway. Digital bandwidth squeezing sees to that. I have been
using the same cheap FM radio alarm for a decade now, it sounds as good
as a cheap DAB one, and works off a pair of AA batteries for a month.
The DAB ones I see for sale are larger, cost more and need either 4
batteries every couple of weeks or a mains supply.
The only advantage to using DAB+ is that for the same perceived quality
through a decent speaker system, more channels can be squeezed into the
same carrier bandwidth, and given that the pool of competent staff in
the chain between writer and listener is limited by factors ranging from
training to finance, that leads to an average decrease in production
quality. (If I want a variety of music, then an MP3 player or online
service is better, as I can select the music that I or those I am with
want to hear, and there are no adverts.) We are already at the stage on
most commercial broadcasting outlets, be they video or audio, where the
best production and sound quality is in the adverts.
On digital TV, there are very few channels out of the hundred or more
available at most locations producing original programming 24/7, and
most of what *is* being produced is talking heads. Most of the Freeview
channels seem to have a playlist of about 300 programmes on their hard
drives, so have to repeat the playlist every few weeks. Even the
programme announcements are repeated off a hard drive. (Sky Mix only
update the announcements about once a month.) As one example, what
occupied 9 seasons of 'Allo, 'Allo when originally broadcast once a week
is now being played twice a day on a daily session over a week or two,
two or three times a year. I am getting bored with the Star Trek repeats
as I am now word perfect on most episodes of all the series.
Sorry, rant over, normal services can now be resumed. :-)
-
Tciao for Now!
John.
On 06/06/2026 16:11, Tweed wrote:
Why should they deprive the audience of niche music stations to placateI say again... Why force anyone to replace an older receiver that still makes sound as good as anything that can be bought now? The only people
those who are too tight to replace an outdated receiver. Everyone appears
to want a BBC that only serves their own personal interests and political
viewpoint, with little regard for anyone else. I have no interest in the
output of Radio 3, but IrCOm pleased that it exists.
who would benefit are the makers and those who are paid to recycle the
old ones. (Sorry, forgot the advertisers, who can use the extra
channels to pump out more adverts) To take the sports commentaries
mentioned up thread a bit as an example, why not put those on line, as mobile broadband now has coverage as good as or better than DAB+? For a football club, for instance,it costs very little to put a live stream
from a commentator onto their website. The same applies for any other
sport. For voice quality audio, the required bandwidth all through the
chain is very low, so a good signal is not required at the receiving
end. It would even be practical for someone in the crowd to listen to
the live commentary on their phone via an earbud, and more people now
carry a phone round with them than a radio.
By the way, some football clubs in the UK already run a restricted
licence station on match days to transmit commentaries locally, so
adding an internet feed to a website is trivial.
Had a 32GB SD-CARD in previous car (or rather two that I could swap
over) slot was tucked away within glove box, current car has no slot
(why on earth not?) it does have a USB-C port, but it's on centre
console where it would be quite vulnerable to knocking/damage, unless I specificall buy a tiny one, but -u45 each, certainly not going to buy two
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 05:11:30 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,353 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (1,590K bytes) |
| Messages: | 291,525 |