D
Deleted member 473
I thought single frequency on DAB was touted as a good thing, seamless listening experience when driving around.
Yes, and somebody on here tried to claim digital broadcasting and DSP made that possible, but the physics says that ain't so. The areas roughly equidistant from multiple transmitters must suffer fringing.I thought single frequency on DAB was touted as a good thing
Yes, and somebody on here tried to claim digital broadcasting and DSP made that possible, but the physics says that ain't so. The areas roughly equidistant from multiple transmitters must suffer fringing.
But maybe "single frequency" is only an approximation and it's actually "different but closely separated frequencies within one channel".
If it did, I would have adequate DAB reception along the M4. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.But it does
Correct. I have no idea if M4 DAB reception is in the too few or too many transmitters scenario. And the problem may be if it has too many (eg. due to terrain making many visible), shutting some down to make the M4 work may cause reception to be lost elsewhere. Equally if the M4 needs more transmitters, adding more may result in interference breaking reception elsewhere. It's a matter of finding the least worst compromise, and it's a complex task. If the countryside were completely flat it would probably be easier, since distance and TX power alone would determine what transmitters could be received where and we could have a nice evenly spaced grid of transmitters where power and the curvature of the earth determined which one(s) could be received where.I think Owen is saying that it does work, but not in the real world, unless you don't have enough transmitters, or perhaps too many.
That's as maybe, and I can accept that in a hill shadow there might be a problem particularly considering the frequency band in question (another reason it's a bad idea), but the M4 north of Bristol in a straight section on level ground with nothing obvious to block it from (I suppose) Mendip.I have no idea if M4 DAB reception is in the too few or too many transmitters scenario. And the problem may be if it has too many (eg. due to terrain making many visible), shutting some down to make the M4 work may cause reception to be lost elsewhere. Equally if the M4 needs more transmitters, adding more may result in interference breaking reception elsewhere.
That is clearly impossible, as any schoolchild who's seen a ripple tank can tell you.The point of designing an SFN is to avoid, by design, total destructive interference.
I don't want to listen to dogma, no. I expect arguments to be backed up with data. If you feel like making a useful contribution, cite a reference where it shows how DAB was designed to cope with a moving receiver.I won't waste my time trying to explain things to people that clearly don't want to listen.
They've probably realised that it's not that clear-cut. We've watched a few programmes on BBC1 or 2 that have been branded as BBC3 (eg. Outlaws), so they obviously know that at least some '3' content is worth putting into the ether.Wasn’t the view that the target audience don’t watch traditional tv? So why bring it back? Don’t people watch the online stuff?
It was obvious it's not that clear cut 6 years ago when BBC3 was taken off the air.They've probably realised that it's not that clear-cut. We've watched a few programmes on BBC1 or 2 that have been branded as BBC3 (eg. Outlaws), so they obviously know that at least some '3' content is worth putting into the ether.
Not if I can get it off air. The picture quality on Freeview HD is better than iPlayer, and Freeview HD has 5.1 sound for programmes that have it (apart from ITV1 HD) whereas iPlayer only supports stereo sound.Don’t people watch the online stuff?