egafd.com

Overrated! You get the same level of sound quality via FM which is available in ALL areas.

I jumped on the DAB bandwagon a long time ago with a Pure DRX-701ES and I must say I have used it almost every day since.
I still have a good quality analogue tuner looped through it for all the local news/radio stations, but living out in the sticks, I can pick up my favourite stations like Heart and Magic (yes...I'm an old fart) much better with DAB.

Being an audiophile, I still don't think you could ever beat a decent analogue tuner with a good signal though. Trouble is, as someone has already mentioned, in a few years you'll only have the choice of digital radio.

Reel Worlds wrote:


> Being an audiophile, I still don't think you could ever beat a
> decent analogue tuner with a good signal though.
>
>

What about if DAB was delivered at the quality its capable of, though? Would it compare then? As I said previously, we've sacrificed quality for quantity, whereas other countries are broadcasting in 256kbs CD quality.

Peter wrote:

> What about if DAB was delivered at the quality its capable of,
> though? Would it compare then? As I said previously, we've
> sacrificed quality for quantity, whereas other countries are
> broadcasting in 256kbs CD quality.


Hi Peter.

It's not just the case of kbs. The sampling frequency of digital radio follows the CD medium: 44.1 kHz.
In frank terms the frequency range of digital radio (like CD) is capped, unlike analogue radio.

In a way it brings back the old debate why vinyl always sounded better than CD's.

But 'capped' and 'limited to' should not be confused. The digital frequency of a cd is pretty much limited to 44.1 kHz and 16bit because raising the frequency would raise the sample rate and thus the file size which would mean less than the average 75-80 mins of audio per cd.

A dvd can hold 75 mins of audio with a frequency of 192kHz and -I think- 24bit and so the only reason digital radio couldn't broadcast at a higher frequency would indeed be restricted by bandwidth or media it's held on. Theoretically we can capture digital signals at frequencies that would make the difference between it and analogue indiscernible using human hearing. I suppose the only thing holding this back is the costs of media to hold it and hardware to capture/convert it; such things will be overcome given time, I'm sure.

Vinyl, for it's sound quality and manufacturing costs, is king right now, though.

Hi Sam.

As you stated, you'd need a complete new hi-fi set-up (or firmware updates where allowed) to make use of higher frequencies, so I still think it's pretty safe to say it is capped and limited to a certain standard at the moment.

I personally can tell the difference between the current compressed digital signal and a half decent analogue one and I know theoretically we can capture digital signals at frequencies that would make the difference between it and analogue indiscernible using human hearing, you’re probably looking at these changes to be some years off at the moment.
Not just because of development and hardware costs, but because new standards would confuse potential customers from buying any existing DAB hardware or the new updated radios.

Perhaps one way around it would be to ‘piggy back’ a second higher rated frequency channel on top of the existing ones when the analogue radio signal is turned off. This way a new generation DAB could use the new signal while original digital radio could use the first until it was phased out.

I don't know how far off higher frequency audio is, RW, but as always if there's money to be made from selling it, it will become available. Like I said: dvd can already hold 75 mins of audio at 192kHz and 24bit and people are already starting to sell albums on dvd (at a higher cost, of course). DVD players are as cheap as cd players these days so putting them in the next hi-fi systems can't be too hard. After a little google I found that the amplifiers would have to be upgraded too. Most current digital-analogue converters only output upto 96kHz/24bit to the speakers. Still better than a cd's 44.1kHz but only half the frequency of the dvd recording.

Recording studios wouldn't record their masters at just 44.1kHz so I'm guessing there's a whole catalogue of higher frequency music out there, along with a bunch of entrepreneurial types just waiting for the market to take an interest, in which we can listen to.

Getting back to DAB, it only takes a few stations to experiment with 192kHz broadcasts, and listening figures rising, for advertisers to jump to it too. With advertising comes money and then all the other radio stations will follow. It all comes down to demand and profit I suppose, and if there's enough of both well get whatever fucking frequency we want !happy!

Hi Sam.

It’s a common misconception that all DVD players can play DVD Audio discs as they cannot. This is one of the reasons for their apparent failure to catch on.

You’re right about recording studios not recording their masters at just 44.1kHz, there’s a massive back catalogue of SACD’s on the shelf gathering dust to highlight that fact, plus also the fact that old analogue masters can also be converted.

I think it’ll take a bit more experiment with 192kHz broadcasts for listening figures rising and advertisers to jump in as it has been a hard slog for even standard DAB to be taken up. People are often cautious of new technology, even if it does often out perform anything previous.

What about this rumour that DAB2 (or some second generation DAB system) is going to be launched and will make DAB radios obsolete? That can't be doing much for the current take up rate.

I agree. Some people are wary of new technology. I remember my dad saying he'd never need a dvd player while ever vhs was around, and laughed at cars with power steering! If it's marked correctly we'll take it on board.

As for DVD players playing DVD audio disks: to be fair I never said they could. I just said that DVD media can store 75 mins of 192kHz audio.