Petition to stop FM being switched off

Telly converters are one
thing - telly's tend to be fixed objects in our lives. All my
radios, bar one, are portable devices

Speaking of that, are there any digital portables with
rabbit ears or wire loop aerials around yet?
Or do all our existing portables, beloved of students,
nurses, and flat dwellers have to go to landfill as
well?
Just so our crap government can sell of the spectrum,
whilst we get yet another stealth tax from the fat cat
at the top of the s**t pile.

Andy Dee wrote:

mad
So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition?

PLEASE why can't we remain British and use ENGLISH in this country....
/mad

English as she is spoke.

--
http://ale.cx/ (AIM:troffasky) )
21:27:59 up 50 days, 4:24, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.20, 0.15
A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"JN" [email protected] wrote in message
o.uk
jasee wrote:
Steve Terry wrote:
"JN" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Kráftéé wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"Alan" wrote in message

In message , DAB sounds
worse
than
FM wrote
There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched
off: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
snip
This Internet Radio sounds like the dogs b#ll#cks, how can I
receive
it in my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen to
the
radio in a car).
JN


I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g
dongle, 5 quid per month.
I've also used a 3g dongle with 3g: it's pretty crap here and also
over
vast areas of the UK (even by 3g's own map)


I was not serious about Internet Radio but some seem to believe the
Internet is the holy grail for everything no matter how impractical
(setting up laptop and mobile in my car before setting off each
morning ).


If you're refering to what I wrote about Internet radio, I'm pretty
sure I didn't mention in-car, so I didn't say it's the holy grail for
everywhere.
No, it wasn't yourself but the 3G laptop reply that I was referring to.


To have decent programmes usually requires a reasonable investment
in
talent and I don't see how tiny internet stations can achieve this
without a mass market.


Why does a radio station always need to have DJs or individual
programmes? Internet radio is excellent for people who like genres of
music that are poorly covered on bigger radio stations - and there's a
lot of different genres taht are covered poorly.
True, but it will almost certainly be a minority interest (my opinion).


As far as I can see the more stations we have the
worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm
often
seeing the same programmes on that I watched in the 1960/70's.

Most current commercial radio stations are fairly dire, usually
playing
almost continuous music or having intentionally provocative
presenters
to generate revenue from phone ins.


Commercial radio is also obviouosly profit-oriented so they play music
that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Small Internet radio
stations aren't in it for the profit, and they're in it to play the
music they like.

I believe we will still need a number large broadcasters with sufficient
resources to deliver high quality content and a robust news service.
Without these we are down to unresearched comment (you may think some of
our broadcasters are already like this). If we rely on blogs and rumour
only we will soon be burning witches again.

JN

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:37:50 +0100, Ian Smith
wrote:

jasee wrote:
Alan wrote:
In message , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote
There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/

Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
hundreds of radio stations on DAB?

Why would it do that?
How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do you want
anyway?



I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine. Better by far than
the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM
aerial. I gave my FM tuner away.

So you have a good DAB tuner. Well goody for you!

I have:
an FM tuner in the lounge
an FM radio in the kitchen
an FM radio in the dining room
an FM radio in the study
an FM radio in bedroom 1
an FM radio in bedroom 2
an FM radio in bedroom 3
an FM radio in the garage/workshop
an FM radio in the car
an FM radio in my mobile phone ##

that's 10 reasons why I don't want national channels taken off FM.

## can the power consumption of DAB receivers *ever* be reduced
sufficiently to be incorporated in a mobile phone?

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:



In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.

There is some truth in that.

Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive
higher qulaity on FM.

Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning
or not, I don't know.

I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent
sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near
hiss-free on FM.

This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me
crackly playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD
gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag
says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher.

Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher
than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever
tried it). Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to
FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.

regards, Ian

In article , Ian
Smith scribeth thus
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:



In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.

There is some truth in that.

Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive
higher qulaity on FM.

Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning
or not, I don't know.

I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent
sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near
hiss-free on FM.

This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me
crackly playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD
gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag
says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher.

Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher
than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever
tried it). Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to
FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.

regards, Ian

Blimey!, do you live next door to Dave Plowman;?..
--
Tony Sayer

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
o.uk
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:



In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.

There is some truth in that.


You said that you receive hissy FM even with a good aerial - that's
basically the definition of crap FM reception quality.


Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who
has
reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive
higher qulaity on FM.

Well, most people don't agree with you.


Sorry, what I said there is fact.


Whether they are discerning
or not, I don't know.

I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent
sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near
hiss-free on FM.


The quality of your hi-fi system doesn't have any bearing on your
reception quality - that's all to do with signal strength (and if
you've got a decent aerial, which you said you have).


This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion.


Loads of people say that, but it's actually nothing like the CD vs
vinyl discussion - both of those deliver high quality, whereas DAB
doesn't deliver high quality but FM does.


Vinyl have me
crackly playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD
gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag
says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher.


I'm not commenting on this because it's a completely different
argument.


Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher
than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever
tried it).


Yeah, that's for YOU. But for anybody with good reception quality on
both DAB and FM the quality on FM is better. Basically, if you
understood the technologies that are used then FM basically can't be
worse than DAB.


Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to
FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.


Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's
in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have
stereo than mono.



--
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

"JN" [email protected] wrote in message

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"JN" [email protected] wrote in message
o.uk
jasee wrote:
Steve Terry wrote:
"JN" [email protected] wrote in message
...
Kráftéé wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"Alan" wrote in message

In message , DAB sounds
worse
than
FM wrote
There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being
switched
off: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
snip
This Internet Radio sounds like the dogs b#ll#cks, how can I
receive
it in my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen
to
the
radio in a car).
JN


I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g
dongle, 5 quid per month.
I've also used a 3g dongle with 3g: it's pretty crap here and
also
over
vast areas of the UK (even by 3g's own map)


I was not serious about Internet Radio but some seem to believe
the
Internet is the holy grail for everything no matter how
impractical
(setting up laptop and mobile in my car before setting off each
morning ).


If you're refering to what I wrote about Internet radio, I'm pretty
sure I didn't mention in-car, so I didn't say it's the holy grail
for
everywhere.
No, it wasn't yourself but the 3G laptop reply that I was referring
to.


To have decent programmes usually requires a reasonable investment
in
talent and I don't see how tiny internet stations can achieve this
without a mass market.


Why does a radio station always need to have DJs or individual
programmes? Internet radio is excellent for people who like genres
of
music that are poorly covered on bigger radio stations - and
there's a
lot of different genres taht are covered poorly.
True, but it will almost certainly be a minority interest (my
opinion).


Only because the BBC doesn't want anybody to know about what's
available, because there's a conflict of interest between the BBC
promoting digital radio and them actually promoting the kind of
Internet radio that they're opposed to because if a lot of people
listened to it the BBC would lose listeners.


As far as I can see the more stations we have the
worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm
often
seeing the same programmes on that I watched in the 1960/70's.

Most current commercial radio stations are fairly dire, usually
playing
almost continuous music or having intentionally provocative
presenters
to generate revenue from phone ins.


Commercial radio is also obviouosly profit-oriented so they play
music
that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Small Internet radio
stations aren't in it for the profit, and they're in it to play the
music they like.

I believe we will still need a number large broadcasters with
sufficient
resources to deliver high quality content and a robust news service.


We'll have that anyway even if it means consolidation between
commercial broadcasters.


Without these we are down to unresearched comment (you may think
some of
our broadcasters are already like this). If we rely on blogs and
rumour
only we will soon be burning witches again.


Radio is in steep decline, but it'll never get as bad as only having
to rely on blogs.



--
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

In message
"Jimbo GM4DHJ ...." wrote:

I like big rubber duckies .....

It figures.

Dave

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:10:39 -0700 (PDT), BobC wrote:

You hope... The Beeb currently quote 86% of UK population covered
for
DAB with plans to 90%. Not that is "UK population" not land mass.
Anyone have the figures for the coverage of the national networks
on
FM?

ISTR it's about 96% of the UK population (for BBC R1-4),

And there are notable holes in FM coverage at that level.

Classic FM is 85-90% ish I think.

And Classic FM can be poor over quite large areas.

DAB certainly hasn't reached our area yet, and it seems no concrete
plans for it in the near future. Presumably they'll have to START it in
our area before they can consider switching FM off.

One would hope so. No DAB here either, at least not with the bit of
damp string supplied with the mini-hifi set. No problem with R1-4,
Classic FM or Radio Scotland. The two regional stations CFM and
R.Cumbria aren't so good.

--
Cheers
Dave.