No DAB reception in cars near BBC Television Centre!

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:51:30 +0100, Silk wrote:

DAB reception is flawless in all but the most remote of locations with a
decent in-car setup. This is a simple fact, whether you like it or not.

Please define 'most remote of locations'.
--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

Silk wrote:


DAB reception is flawless in all but the most remote of locations with a
decent in-car setup. This is a simple fact, whether you like it or not.

Who cares if a jogger can't pick up a signal using the headphone cable
as an aerial?

The jogger might care, if he wants to get good reception, but he doesn't
want to attach a whip aerial to the top of his head.

The headphone lead usually works perfectly antiquately for FM personal
stereos. Presumably they must have considered the less then perfect
receivers when they designed the FM transmissions. So what is wrong with
having DAB that works on less then perfect receivers.

Richard E.

Alan White wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:51:30 +0100, Silk wrote:

DAB reception is flawless in all but the most remote of locations with a
decent in-car setup. This is a simple fact, whether you like it or not.

Please define 'most remote of locations'.

Some where away from a large town or an important main road.
At least that was my experience with DAB.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Hwh wrote:
As a general principle, just screwing up the power of a network is a
most inefficient method of in-filling holes in coverage. That's why we
have for example 1100 UHF TV relay sites.
That's because the holes can be deep. Sometimes they are 30dB deep, and raw
power can't overcome that.

Exactly. Just turning up the power is pointless.
Then why do they use 250 kW for main FM broadcast stations?

Presumably that's the level needed to provide adequate signal over the intended
coverage area. It's nothing to do with filling in 30dB holes. I'm sure you can
work out what 250kW+30dB would be.

At least using a digital system you are able to provide SFN gap-fillers.
The 30 dB holes will be there whether you use 100 Watts or 10 kW.
Still I think that using high power could extend the intended coverage
area under certain conditions.

gr, hwh

lid wrote:
But I am responding to the suggestion that DAB coverage can be
substantially improved by simply upping the power and tilting the
beam. As others have said this cannot fill in coverage holes which
will be many dB down. For these areas you either build relay sites or
provide an alternative service such as cable or satellite - and these
are inappropriate for a service like DAB which is intended for mobile
or portable reception.

But that would only prove the fact that you would need a lot of
transmitters to provide national coverage, perhaps even as much as are
in operation for analog TV, but certainly many more than national FM
uses. This would be very expensive.

I also wanted to make the point that you cannot de-couple the service
range of a transmitter from its interference range.

I get it.

gr, hwh

Alan White wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:51:30 +0100, Silk wrote:

DAB reception is flawless in all but the most remote of locations with a
decent in-car setup. This is a simple fact, whether you like it or not.

Please define 'most remote of locations'.

In the area I travel in (bearing in mind I do a lot of travelling -
around 1,000 miles a week), the areas are very few and far between.
Mainly confined to rural Mid Wales and a few valleys in Devon and
Cornwall. I've never lost reception on any major trunk roads or
motorways, or any major towns and cities and the countryside that
connects them.

In fact, in the light of the winging on this group, I think most people
would be very surprised at how good DAB coverage is in the UK.

Richard Evans wrote:

The headphone lead usually works perfectly antiquately for FM personal
stereos.

They are complete crap in all but the best reception areas. FM isn't
magic you know.

Presumably they must have considered the less then perfect
receivers when they designed the FM transmissions. So what is wrong with
having DAB that works on less then perfect receivers.

It does. It's completely immune to audible multipath distortion, which
is a major bonus, especially on speech radio.

You lot are so anti-DAB it's bordering on a kind of religious
fundamentalism. The reality is it has strengths as well as weaknesses.

"Richard Evans" wrote in message
...
Silk wrote:


DAB reception is flawless in all but the most remote of locations with a
decent in-car setup. This is a simple fact, whether you like it or not.

Who cares if a jogger can't pick up a signal using the headphone cable as
an aerial?

The jogger might care, if he wants to get good reception, but he doesn't
want to attach a whip aerial to the top of his head.
Joggers already look absurd, so an aerial on the head wouldn't detract.

Bill

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Richard Evans wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
We can safely ignore everything you say about in-car DAB reception
from now, Plow********, because virtually everyone else will have a
DAB in-car installation that's worse than yours...
We can safely assume you have no desire to learn about mobile DAB
reception. Have you even got a car?

I think the point is that broadcast systems are normally designed to
work for the vast majority of receiving equipment, not just for the best
equipment.

My point was that just throwing a DAB radio into a car as a replacement
for a factory fit AM/FM one is unlikely to work properly. With a properly
engineered installation, round London, DAB gives better car reception than
FM - as well it might since this is what it was developed for. Not that
the anti-DAB evangelist seems to worry about poor FM reception that might
effect others either.

You're wasting your time with them. I've had a decent DAB setup with a
proper aerial in the car for 3 years now and the reception is very good
indeed. I've certainly never lost reception in a built up area, which is
more than can be said of FM where multipath can make R4 virtually
unlistenable in comparison.

I've given an honest account of its performance over this time, but I'm
practically called a liar.

Bill Wright wrote:

It'll be the same as everything else. It'll start off with car makers and
car radio firms fitting DAB radios and just fudging the aerial issue --
doing the easiest in each case. Together with the fact that the DAB TX build
is only half done this will mean that DAB will get even more of a reputation
for poor reception than it has now.

In the areas where most people live and drive, DAB reception is already
has pretty much 100% coverage and is more robust than FM. Most people
will probably see it as an improvement, if they notice at all.

I know this because I have something you're always banging on about,
experience.