DAB Radios now available at Argos (in store) for under £20, but be quick!

steve_green_3

giuliasaab wrote: »

Several points here.
My guess is that freeview radio is better than DAB because it's got a socking great aerial in the loft. DAB radio only has a little stick.

As I've said before, the BBC radio stations on Freeview sound better than they do on DAB due to the bit rate (i.e. data rate) levels that the BBC uses for their stations on Freeview being higher than they use for their stations on DAB.

DAB and Freeview are both digital systems, so if you have reasonable reception quality then you're basically hearing the stations at the quality at which they were broadcast, and the size of the aerial only comes into it if you don't have good reception quality.

L.S.D.

steve_green wrote: »

No, we don't need our ears testing, I'm afraid.

What kind of DAB receiver do you own? The vast majority of DAB receivers are small portable radios, so it's a good bet that that's what you own, but claiming that DAB sounds just as good as FM on a small portable radio is like saying that HDTV looks no better than standard-definition TV because you're watching it on a standard-definition 14" portable set!

DAB does sound worse than FM, it's a fact, so long as you get reasonable reception quality on FM. Sorry.

First I've been into Hi Fi for over 30 years so I know a thing or two about good & BAD sound quality. I own a Pure one Dab radio that at one time I put on two hi fi speakers & the sound was extremely good, as good or better than FM or the AM that some of the channels broadcast on. I also have a Pure DMX 50 mini hi fi in the kitchen that also has the old fashioned FM, yes believe it or not FM preceded mp3, mp2 & Freeview. If the sound was no good I WOULD NOT have bought it. I also have a top notch Hi Fi system in the Lounge. If you don't like DAB for some biased reason then don't come on any forums saying the sound is no good (or words to that effect) when for most people they are happier with DAB than FM. Yes the bit rate could have been higher but having said that I often record my DVDs in MP3 at 96 kbps if I use my small MP3 player & I bet you would not notice the difference on that either, no one else has when I did blind tests on them. DAB is not just very good but better than most people need.

steve_green_3

L.S.D. wrote: »

First I've been into Hi Fi for over 30 years so I know a thing or two about good & BAD sound quality.

I write reviews of radios and tuners for a hi-fi magazine, so I think I can differentiate between good and bad sound quality, thanks.

I own a Pure one Dab radio that at one time I put on two hi fi speakers & the sound was extremely good, as good or better than FM or the AM that some of the channels broadcast on.

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. The only station that you could possibly say that sounds as good on DAB as it does on FM is Radio 3, which is the only radio station on DAB in the UK that uses a bit rate level as high as 192 kbps. 98% of stereo stations on DAB use 128 kbps, which is a joke, quite frankly.

I also have a Pure DMX 50 mini hi fi in the kitchen that also has the old fashioned FM, yes believe it or not FM preceded mp3, mp2 & Freeview.

Call FM old-fashioned if you want, but it still outclasses DAB in terms of sound quality.

If the sound was no good I WOULD NOT have bought it. I also have a top notch Hi Fi system in the Lounge. If you don't like DAB for some biased reason then don't come on any forums with downright lies.

There's no bias here, I'm dealing with simple technological facts. For example, the sound quality that 128 kbps MP2 provides in the following blind listening test was classified as being "Annoying" (the curve for MP2 is labelled 'LII', because MP2's official name is MPEG Audio Layer 2 - just as MP3 is MPEG Audio Layer 3):

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/bitrate_vs_quality.htm

Yes the bit rate could have been higher but having said that I often record my DVDs in MP3 at 96 kbps if I use my small MP3 player & I bet you would not notice the difference on that either, no one else has when I did blind tests on them. DAB is not just very good but better than most people need.

We're not talking about MP3 here, we're talking about MP2, and MP2 was designed to be used at 192 kbps, not at 128 kbps which is the bit rate that 98% of stereo stations are using on DAB.

Tell me this, why does the BBC use a bit rate of 256 kbps MP2 for the audio streams of BBC1, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 if 128 kbps provided good enough quality? Surely if the quality really were as good as you say then they would be simply wasting half of the bit rate because you're claiming that no-one could tell the difference.

Out of all the TV channels on Freeview only Film4 (160 kbps) uses a bit rate level lower than 192 kbps MP2 for the audio streams. Why is that if 128 kbps MP2 were as good as you claim?

L.S.D.

steve_green wrote: »

I write reviews of radios and tuners for a hi-fi magazine, so I think I can differentiate between good and bad sound quality, thanks.

You really must tell us the name of the Hi Fi Magazine & I for one will avoid buying it like the plague.

Your the type that seeing on paper that a bumble bee can't fly will broadcast to the world that a bumble bee can't fly. look around you, They do fly.

MSE_Martin

PLEASE STOP THE BICKERING!

Folks - you're allowed to disagree. That's the point of a forum - but there's no need to call each other names. People can make their own mind up.

Martin

stamford

MSE_Martin wrote: »

PLEASE STOP THE BICKERING!

Folks - you're allowed to disagree. That's the point of a forum - but there's no need to call each other names. People can make their own mind up.

Martin

It's only a cheap radio for gawds sake !

madfrenchgirl

Errrm, As I previously said: it depends on what you are looking for!

You sound like a proper tekkie in the matter! But let me remind you that some people out there do not have the same priorities: I have an entire house to redecorate and rewire before I can even think about getting a huge hi-fi system with whatever new sound dynamics on it.

This Micro system is the closest I am going to get to the fancy stuff for the time being and it does its job very well (even to someone who is in a band!). I could not bear to have the stupid little cheap portable ones with one integrated speaker!

As for the reception and sound quality issue: I can still hear the difference between FM and DAB, and DAB sounds better to me. In all fairness, I do not care much about the tekkie stuff. I am better off on all front for having a DAB radio: i get to choose the radio station I listen to (I am not forced to listen to stupid commercial trites who insults their listeners, put too many adverts on and talk on top of the songs), on a "decent" system (which enables me to appreciate John Entwistle's bass lines instead of trying to guess what they are) and wiht no hiss or fuzz (the place where I grew up was in a slight oh so slight deep, could not receive any type of FM signal).

All in all, I think most of the common folks (like me) would be happy with DAB, tis all.

steve_green wrote: »

I can't believe that you're claiming that it's all about the quality of your system when you've just said that your midi system only cost you £70. £70 for a hi-fi system is right at the absolute bottom of the price range, so I'm afraid that your system is bound to sound significantly worse than hi-fi systems that cost a few hundred pounds.

The sound quality issue has nothing to do with your reception quality. The problem with the sound quality is that the radio stations are actually broadcast at poor quality, so even if you have perfect DAB reception quality the sound will still be poor.

steve_green_3

@ L.S.D: And I think the magazine I write for can live without you buying it, too.

But considering the kind of vitriolic responses I've been getting from you (so far you've called me a liar and that I'm biased against DAB and you've accused me of needing to get my ears syringed - they're all libellous considering the work I do), I'd prefer not to bring the magazine I write for into this, although if you look through all the hi-fi mags in WH Smiths you will find at least one article by me and a picture that you can cut out, put on a dart board and throw darts at, or draw horns to make me look like a devil, or put a false moustache and rotting teach - anything you like really, it's your call.

sheppertonsound_2

As a professional broadcast sound engineer, I cannot believe that the U.K. public is being duped into thinking that DAB radio is an improvement over analogue.

Firstly, the ONLY program on DAB with a frequency response (in the form of bandwidth) as good as analogue FM is BBC Radio 3. All others are companded in such a way as to remove all low level treble response, and much 'detail' from the sound. It may be acceptable for jogging, or on a bus or train, but forget it for 'serious' listening.

Additionally, as with digital TV reception, a much stronger aerial signal is required with digital, relative to analogue, in order to obtain acceptable reception - without digital artifacts, drop-outs, etc. This is a particular problem with portable DAB radios, where the built-in telescopic aerial is, normally, entirely inadequate for the purpose (depending on how far away you are from the transmitter).

Add to this that, certainly, my favourite radio stations (like BBC Southern Counties Radio and BBC Radio Devon) are NOT available on DAB, and one realises that this is all being done so that the government can sell off the released radio 'spectrum' to the highest bidder (mobile phone companies, etc?).

I always recommend those who ask me which DAB radio to purchase to save their money, or, if they really must have DAB (for "thejazz" which is the only program, in my opinion, which it distributes that is unavailable on FM), they must ensure that the same receiver can still receive FM. All of those who have taken my advice agree that in a very short period of time, they ONLY use FM now.

Rather than buy any cheap DAB portable radio, think very carefully about the option of acquiring a DAB receiver to connect to your Hi-Fi system, thus obtaining the advantages of your system's better quality amplifier, loudspeakers, etc. For under £30 (+ P&P) on the internet one can obtain a Genus DU1 adapter which has both twin phono or digital/optical outputs. IT is nothing like perfect, but, at the price, it is excellent value for money.

Happy listening - to FM, of course!

rsykes2000

Idiophreak wrote: »

Err...not knowing much about these things...if I wouldn't be able to tell the difference, why would I pay £20 for a dab radio when I already have an FM one?

Just for the extra channels?

For the extra channels and (for me) the improvement in sound quality over MW - I listen to Radio 5 mainly and don't have a decent MW aerial so the huge improvement in sound quality is very welcome.