Home » Audio » Source » digital radio vs analog radio
digital radio vs analog radio [message #14449] Fri, 19 October 2007 09:48 Go to next message
Gilipsie is currently offline  Gilipsie
Messages: 77
Registered: May 2009
Viscount
Why is DAB better than FM/AM. I know that Fm/Am radio signals are analogue.But what makes DAB much more appealing?

Re: digital radio vs analog radio [message #14451 is a reply to message #14449] Tue, 23 October 2007 08:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wayne Parham is currently offline  Wayne Parham
Messages: 18793
Registered: January 2001
Illuminati (33rd Degree)

There are pros and cons of digital audio verses analog. Some prefer digital formats, others will have nothing of it. Above that, there are differences in the format that have to do with logistics and other "outside" issues like that. With broadcast radio, you need a lot of equipment and support, and with that comes organizations that have the backbone to support it. With internet radio, all you need is a computer, so there are more niche market and micro-market stations there, sort of like college stations and even pirate stations of the past.


Re: digital radio vs analog radio [message #14454 is a reply to message #14451] Thu, 25 October 2007 11:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bob Brines is currently offline  Bob Brines
Messages: 186
Registered: May 2009
Location: Hot Springs Village, AR
Master
I personally don't hold much hope for digital radio. When the full bandwidth is used for a single channel, the results may not be CD quality, but probably close. Hopefully, the all classical and jazz stations will do this. Unfortunately, multiple channels can be multiplexed on a single station, each channel taking a slice of the bandwidth. Most stations will give you channels that are no better than 64K MP3, maybe worse. That may be OK for background music and what passes for pop music these days, but will be impossible to listen to on decent equipment.

Sorry for raining on the parade.

Bob

Re: digital radio vs analog radio [message #14455 is a reply to message #14454] Thu, 25 October 2007 13:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wayne Parham is currently offline  Wayne Parham
Messages: 18793
Registered: January 2001
Illuminati (33rd Degree)

I've always winced at VoIP/SIP technology. It's a mis-match at best. IP is designed to be robust, and to this end, data streams are packetized and sent in chunks. They don't have to take the same path to their destination and don't have to arrive in order or even close to the same time. So to send a real-time analog signal across IP means you can't be sure of quality. It's just a bad idea, in my opinion. At least where quality is sought, it's bad.

That said, it is becoming very popular. It usually works pretty well. The occasional dropout probably isn't any worse than dropouts from bad reception over the airwaves. Still, I have a hard time accepting SIP because of the technical mis-match.

There's another thing that bugs me. As some of you know, I've worked in computers and communications over most of my career. The last decade or so, I've done computer work at large telecommunications companies. I've worked small shops and large, with some of the brightest minds in the industry from IBM, Lucent (former Bell Labs) and MCI/Worldcom (now Verizon). These guys are movers and shakers, and I've been blessed to work with them. Some of the smartest guys I know are in these fields.

My whole career, I've known that one day we would have a single unified information technology conglomerate. It was easy for me to see in 1980 that one day, voice telephone, data and video would all move over the same data channels. I've been able to work on many of these core technologies in the past 25+ years, gradually putting them together into one huge network.

Three early players emerged. First was the telephone companies, with their well-established network evolved over 100 years of hanging telephone lines between switches and terminations. Second was the Arpanet, the TCP/IP protocol. It came about in the mid-1960's, but the general public was really unaware of it until 1990 or so. The third was the satellite and cable television companies. They started wiring up households in the 1980's.

The video networks could actually be broadened to include broadcast television, starting in the 1940's, I suppose. Every country had broadcast television networks. But the real video networking "race" started taking hold in the 1980's. This is when the three types of networks started growing towards an eventual competition of technologies.

Each technology has its own strengths. The most robust is the tip/ring telephone phone system we've had for years. Think about it. You can have a storm that knocks out power and you still have telephone service. It's probably the most reliable system we have. Batteries keep power on the lines even if the power grid is knocked off. It is pretty incredible, really, in that even though there are millions of miles of telephone lines, lightning rarely knocks out the service.

Next is probably the Arpanet. It is designed to be robust, to be able to route digital data packets around dead spots in a network. It relies on multiple data paths to provide redundancy. As long as there is some kind of interconnection, data gets through. There are millions of spaghetti-like paths around the country, so it's a pretty sure bet that packets will reach their destination.

Last is the cable and satellite companies. They don't have as robust a network because they were originally setup to be an entertainment service, not a mission critical five-nines kind of deal. But it is still an investment, and when you look at the totality of broadcast video, the network television stations and programs and all the systems required to bring them to their audiences, you're looking at a pretty massive deployment of stuff.

Of these technologies, the phone company has the largest investment of hardware. There's 100 years worth of lines and switches and what-not that the phone companies have developed and installed. The cable companies and broadcast networks have also invested a fair amount of hardware. But the Arpanet really rides on top of these technologies. Not much investment was required to bring about the internet. That's a good thing, because it leverages existing technologies and creates a robust system on top of them.

That brings me to my point. When I see a phone company like "Vonage" spring up and sell VoIP phone service, I can't help but think of them as a "Johnny come lately" or a "hanger on". They ride on the coattails of organizations that built the world. When I see an internet video broadcast become popular, I think the same thing.

So I'm of two minds. These little IP start-ups are a good thing. They move forward in a productive way. And I'm not a guy that generally hangs on to the big corporate America as the best thing that ever happened. I don't see them as an evil empire either, but I sure as hell hate Microsoft Vista. That's another story. I just don't much care for the little start-ups 'cause they didn't have to do much for the technologies that buttress them.

Still, we put an internet radio station together a year ago. So we did it too. ART Radio is a lot of fun, and when you listen, you know you're hearing the same thing everybody else is listening to on ART. Let's us all have a little background music while we work. I don't think it is suitable source for high-end evaluation, but it is fun.

Re: digital radio vs analog radio [message #14466 is a reply to message #14455] Sat, 22 March 2008 23:36 Go to previous message
granch is currently offline  granch
Messages: 118
Registered: May 2009
Viscount
AHA! I always wondered why we tended to view many things alike. Now I know. As a retired BTL dept head (1987) I vass dere Charlie when most of that good stuff was a building. In fact I am the individual who persuaded the AT&T management to develop PCM as the T1 carrier system. That was in late 1954. Corporate espionage quickly spread the word and the rest of the biggies got their old investigations of digital off the shelf, blew the dust off of them, and started hacking too. The original invention dated back to the 30's but was largely ignored except for some classified work during the war. Reason: thought to be expensive and unnecessary. My contribution was to explain how they could save buckets of money with "digital". "Why didn't you tell us this before?" was the reaction from upper management. No one had thought of doing that. I did it because I had been asked to see if PCM could help reduce the cost of short range transmission in congested areas like central cities. The answer was a resounding Yes! Hence, the digital age-Dick

Previous Topic: Sony CD won't play in older Aiwa stereo
Next Topic: Sanyo ST 28D
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Dec 21 08:31:49 CST 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Miller Audio
Miller Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest