DAB Satisfaction survey - DAB users only.

nedmundo

Active Member
OK, well we've all read and/or taken part in the (sometimes heated) Pro/Con debates recently. So, what I want to try and achieve is a consensus on:

Based on you own experiences, does the DAB sound quality adversely affect its fitness for purpose?

I think each reply should start with a clear Yes or No at the beginning to allow easy totalling up. If you want to justify your answer, for the benefit of others, then please feel free. Also, please feel free to include listening equipment so we can get an overall picture of which tuners are most (or least) satisfactory.

To try and keep it scientific (as much as possible - anyway), it needs to be answered by DAB users - past and present.

Maybe then, we can put this whole issue to rest and get on with advice and general banter etc.

:thumbsup:
In pursuit of peace in cyberspace!
 

dmpoole

Novice Member
nedmundo said:
Based on you own experiences, does the DAB sound quality adversely affect its fitness for purpose?
No.
I work in a factory where there is a lot of noise and even though I agree with digitalradiotec's quality arguments, it does sound better than FM for some reason.
Whether this is because we are now listening to better music stations than Radio 1 or local tin pot radio is another matter. Planet Rock is on 90% of the time with a bit of time given to Virgin and 5 live.
There is about 20+ people listening to this Pure DAB radio going through a 100 watt amp and every person agrees it is better (even though i've told them it isn't).
 
I'm ecstatic about the audio quality on DAB. The audio quality is higher than DVD-Audio level, and when people talk about audio quality they usually talk about height, like it's high quality or it's low quality, well, I'd say the audio quality on DAB would be so high that a measure to measure its height would reach the moon and it would take someone several days to shin up the wooden measuring stick to get to the top to see how high the quality actually is, it's that high.

No, actually, on second thoughts, I think it's low, very, very low, in fact it's so low it's lower than the lowest limbo pole that has ever been limboed under, and that's very, very low indeed.

Or is it just average, very, very average - as average as an average man in an average street in an average town?

I don't know, I just can't seem to make my mind up today.
 

nedmundo

Active Member
A straight yes or no will do fine.
 
I'm obviously not taking part in this farcical thread, which you only started to try and score points against those of us that are disgusted by the fact that DAB sounds miles worse than FM, because you know that there's more people on here that will say that they accept it, so you will successfully score your points, even though you have admitted that DAB sounds worse than FM.

I'd also urge everybody else that's dissatisfied with the audio quality on DAB not to take part in this farcical thread.
 

nedmundo

Active Member
DRT -this isn't intended to score points. It's meant to form a reference and conclusion over the entire topic thats been discussed in recent weeks/months. If you were that confident in your opinions, you wouldn't be trying to get people to boycott it. This could, of course skew the results - not a very scientific thing to do, especially from someone who relies on so much science!

Your opinion matters, +ve or -ve - please vote!
 

neilmcl

Well-known Member
I have a Pure One radio which I use for the Kitchen and I'm more than happy with it for what it is. I wouldn't say it sounds miles worse than FM nor would I say its the best thing to happen to radio in recent times either, but then again I'm not one for making such generalist comments like that. It suits its purpose for which it was purchased, simple as.
 

3T3L1

Active Member
digitalradiotec said:
I'm obviously not taking part in this farcical thread, .
Then don't.

Yes DAB is good enough for me.

In my situation (working in a lab where AM reception is rubbish and at home where we can't get Virgin on FM), DAB is of acceptable quality.

Having said that I got a free DAB, and as someone who doesn't like radio enough to buy a DAB, you need to take this into account.

The cost of a DAB compared to an FM/AM tuner would seriously put me off if I had to buy one.

Though as this forum is regarding acceptableness of DAB, I have to answer that yes, for me, the quality is good enough for what I want.
 
nedmundo said:
DRT -this isn't intended to score points.
Of course it is, because if you thought more people would say that they're dissatisfied with the sound quality you definitely would not have started the thread, and it is therefore definitely solely meant to try and score points against and wind up those of us that are very dissatisfied with the sound quality.


It's meant to form a reference and conclusion over the entire topic thats been discussed in recent weeks/months.
All this thread would show is the number of people that are on each side. It would actually conclude nothing, because you know full well that there are more people on here that accept the audio quality than dislike it, which is why you started the thread, so all you will achieve is to wind up those of us that don't like it.

If you were that confident in your opinions,
Confident in my opinions? My opinions are 100% rock solid. What have they got to do with this thread? DAB sounds miles worse than FM. You even admitted this yourself.

Will most of the general public accept DAB - is that what you want me to answer? Yes, they will accept it - the general public doesn't understand digital technology virtually at all and they think that the BBC et al are providing DAB at as good a level of audio quality as is possible, they will never have a clue about what's actually gone on behind the scenes on DAB. The general public has been conditioned - you could say brainwashed - into thinking that digital is better than analogue (I'm talking in general here, not specifically about radio), and they simply won't even compare DAB to FM, they will just start using DAB straight away.

So, if that's what you wanted to hear, I've said it. But I've never denied this. My issue is whether it is acceptable that the general public is being conned, and the only way to find out is to tell them that the audio quality on DAB is worse than on FM and then ask them if that's acceptable.

Now, if you asked 100 people at random walking through a city centre whether DAB should sound:

(a) CD-quality
(b) better than FM
(c) same as FM
(d) worse than FM
(e) a lot worse than FM
(f) MW-quality

What do you think they'd say? How many would say (e) or (f)? 1 person, 2 people? Nobody?

In fact, this thread in itself that merely asks "is DAB acceptable", I mean, it's a bit like asking if HDTV doesn't materialise will they keep watching standard definition TV or not? Of course they will.

you wouldn't be trying to get people to boycott it. This could, of course skew the results - not a very scientific thing to do, especially from someone who relies on so much science!
This "survey" can't hope to be scientific, because all it would do is to provide the views of a few people on an Internet forum who either like DAB or don't like DAB.

Your opinion matters, +ve or -ve - please vote!
No, this thread is solely meant to wind those of us up that are very disappointed by the audio quality on DAB, so I would urge everybody who is also dissatisfied to boycott this thread.
 

3T3L1

Active Member
digitalradiotec said:
I'm obviously not taking part in this farcical thread
Why are you still doing so then?

This is becoming tiresome - not only do you turn every argument into a long rant about DAB audio quality and how the government have screwed up, but you have been warned about doing so a number of times.

Please, as someone who appreciates your arguments in moderation, when relevant, and has learnt a lot about DAB from this forum, can you tone it down?

Anyone can see that you're not a fan of DAB, and anyone who is searching the forum will see the "con" side of DAB very quickly from your posts, and can then go to your website if they wish to learn more.

Ramming it down people's throats only makes you look, IMO, like a zealot with nothing better to do. Which I'd like to hope you have.
 

Ian J

Banned
Whilst healthy discussion is the backbone of every forum our friend digitalradiotec seems to want to pursue his anti DAB agenda in every thread.

He has been warned both to give us a rest from his daily propaganda war and also that his signature breaks the forum rules but having chosen to ignore both warnings it would seem that the only way to give everyone a rest is to part company with him.

This sort of decision is never taken lightly but there is a big difference between posting one's views and being obsessed and it seems that our friend's posts come into the latter category.
 

dmpoole

Novice Member
It seems that you are totally missing the point digitalradiotec.
We the public are being force fed plasma TV's, LCD TV's, MP3 players and countless other 'digital' products that are worse than their old analogue counterparts. Hell, even my old analogue push button timer is better than a digital one I've just bought. I've worked in the consumer industry for over 25 years and 'Mrs Smith' (as the public is known) doesn't give a toss. They will happily put their £50 DAB radio on their kitchen shelf or bedroom shelf and enjoy the wonderful alternative programming that DAB as to offer.
Is it acceptable that we should put up with crap quality? - hell no but Mrs Smith doesn't care.
Everybody on these forums believe what you say but nobody cares because the majority of people will listen to DAB in none hifi sound places. If kids are willing to listen to MP3 through their speakers on their phones then DAB is awesome.
You are 1000000% right but nobody cares except you and a few others.
 

Cable Monkey

Novice Member
Yes.
For me DAB is in direct competition to the tuner on my Denon receiver. I live a fair distance from the transmitter and many of the (minority interest) channels I would listen to on DAB have poor reception. In direct comparisons between those I can get on both, FM wins. DAB only comes on when it transmits something of interest I can't get elswhere easily.
 

KJ Palmer

Novice Member
No - ie the DAB's OK for me. Well, DAB reception is better than FM for me at home - and no special aerials. Obviously that doesn't go for everyone.

I wouldn't mind keeping both DAB and FM, as ultimately FM would seem to be better quality with a decent setup. I use a Pure 701ES deck and Roberts Gemini DAB/FM radio (with DAB on mostly) and listen to Radio3, Classic FM and LBC talk radio.
 

derekhunter

Standard Member
No - DAB is very good for me listening to BBC Radio 4, and I find it much better than the low level hiss I get on FM.

However, I have been having trouble wth my Bush TR2003 using DAB, possibly due to the recent hot weather, with it often getting high signal errors and then "Station not available". Turning off and a good hit fixes it eventually. I am thinking of replacing it with a Roberts RD20 (not the RD27 which has pause plus but half the number of presets and much higher power consumption/lower battery life).
 
P

Possum Pants

Guest
Yes DAB is good for me. I have an Evoke-1XT and it sits in the kitchen on the fridge and is good.

Now if I wanted hi fi audio – then I wouldn’t use a radio in the first place – so I’m wary of ‘audio quality’ bleatings on these forums. The Evoke-1XT is a small box radio. The form factor of the radio (small 3” mono speaker\ small wooden box\ insignificant amp) means it makes no difference to me if it’s DAB or FM - so I went for the extra stations instead. DAB wins hands down for me in this case. No discussion – no rantings – no debate (Steve ;) )

:thumbsup:
 
J

Jules1975

Guest
No, I am very happy with DAB both at home (Pure Evoke 1) and on the move (Perstel DR301).

Proviso - I don't listen to music radio, only sport so am comparing the sound quality and range of stations to mw/lw not FM.
 
K

KJ_Palmer

Guest
No. DAB's been good for me too, although I'm aware it has its shortcomings. But then again so do others. I'm happy to stick with DAB, as long as the quality doesn't get any worse.
 

tapzilla2k

Distinguished Member
I've found DAB to be pretty useful for what it is. I'm not that fussed over sound quality, as long as there is no hissing or digital break up then it's fine by me.
 

AMc

Distinguished Member
nedmundo said:
Based on you own experiences, does the DAB sound quality adversely affect its fitness for purpose?
No, I have An Acoustic Solutions FM/DAB tuner on my main system and a Teac CRH250 FM/DAB tuner in the kitchen. I can't honestly tell which is in which mode most of the time. The Acoustic solutions tuner is much louder in FM (through the optical digital out?) which makes comparison a little harder but at comparable levels they aren't easy to tell apart.
The big difference is that my local FM reception is continually blasted off the air by pirates making FM a hit/miss affair. That's using a roof top aerial or the pieces of string attached to the back. DAB by contrast isn't overwhelmed by DrugDealingFM so it's streets ahead in my...street!

P.S. Why isn't this a vote thread?
 

mb23

Novice Member
For me I like the extra stations but the sound quality on music stations is inadequate and not what you would expect from a 21st Century radio system.

The answer is to retain Eureka 147 DAB (and carry on building the transmitters and advertising DAB licences) but to join with other countries to facilitate the production of MPEG4 AAC+ enabled devices so that eventually the UK can switch over to the new codec and enjoy the benefits of improved sound quality and even more stations on DAB than we have now.
 

nedmundo

Active Member
Thanks for all the replies folks - keep it going.

BTW, there are 2 reasons why this isn't a Vote thread.
1. I don't know how to do one!
2. The extra details people are putting in hopefully make this thread more useful than a plain voting thread.
 

Rezillo

Active Member
I've got a number of DAB receivers dotted around the house, and at one time was feeding one through a fairly substantial hifi. I've given up on listening via the hifi because as bit rates have gone down, the effect on sound quality is all too obvious. I use a Sky box instead. Through portables, though, DAB has been sounding ok and with so many stations on DAB not available here on AM or FM or fading to nothing on AM in the evening, I've been reasonably happy. Yes, you can feed better quality sat and dtt stations round the house but it's no substitute for having a box in front of you to tune in.

However, the cranking down on bit rates has had its effect on even the portables. It's still not too bad but it is evident, mainly because the effect is particularly annoying through being harsh and gritty. Headphone listening at night in bed is even more revealing. I don't know how people listen to Oneword - it sounds like it uses a telephone at the bottom of a well. It's a shame because some of the portable receivers are capable of sounding very good indeed.

So, I still use DAB but I've wasted money on good quality boxes that can't give of their best.
 

AMc

Distinguished Member
nedmundo said:
BTW, there are 2 reasons why this isn't a Vote thread.
1. I don't know how to do one!
Not sure if you can retrospectively edit the thread to add a poll?

When you start the thread choose the options at the very bottom
Post a Poll
Yes, post a poll with this thread
nedmundo said:
2. The extra details people are putting in hopefully make this thread more useful than a plain voting thread.
You can also post in a poll thread - it just adds the option to vote or view but as there is no requirement to vote AND post it could be less informative.
 

Krobar

Active Member
Possum Pants said:
Now if I wanted hi fi audio – then I wouldn’t use a radio in the first place – so I’m wary of ‘audio quality’ bleatings on these forums.

:thumbsup:
The above pretty much applies to me too. I have a DAB module fitted to an Integra Research RDC-7.1 (A fairly high end Prepro) but it is used to for back ground listening and whilst I exercise (Which is pretty much all I use radio for at home) and hence the better selection of stations and reception in my area makes it very much fit for purpose.

I have a lossless audio jukebox, DVD-A and SACD for my hi-fi listening.
 

stevedster

Novice Member
To be honest I am happy with it, better choice of channels etc. I do however only listen to the radio either in bed or in the kitchen so only use portables.
 

ad47uk

Novice Member
Yes. I think some people are getting confused with the questron here and saying no when they mean yes and vice-versa.

I Myself have got a RED Dab radio which I got from Sainsbury's at a cheap price because it did not have a box. I must admit that I was never going to have a DAB radio and then I heard Primetime on Dsat and I found out it was on DAB. That was the only reason I got DAB. Now that Primetime have gone, the DAB radio have been put in a cupboard and I doubt it will ever be used again.

The sound quality compared to FM is awful and it is not the radio that is the problem as the FM part is fine. A mate of mine have a Hi-fi with DAB and FM and he only used the DAB once and after listening to it myself I can see why, DAB is not HI-FI quality, so what is the point in having this new technology which is awful?
 

mb23

Novice Member
Unfortunately quality isn't the overriding factor these days.

DTT picture quality is worse than analogue TV but you won't be able to watch analogue TV soon. It's all about consumer choice apparently.

Of course radio has to go digital but we should be looking to use AAC+ with Eureka 147 DAB (as other major countries are). This would improve choice and quality.
 

ad47uk

Novice Member
mb23 said:
Unfortunately quality isn't the overriding factor these days.

DTT picture quality is worse than analogue TV but you won't be able to watch analogue TV soon. It's all about consumer choice apparently.

Of course radio has to go digital but we should be looking to use AAC+ with Eureka 147 DAB (as other major countries are). This would improve choice and quality.

Quality is the over riding factor for me. The reason why we are being forced onto digital T.V is because of greed, the government wants money from the sale of the frequencies and no one is going to stop that happening and I think a lot of people don't know what quality is after all you look at how some people got their T.V set up.

I think once T.v goes digital and we have no analogue, I will give up watching and just watch DVD's

Why do radio have to go digital? people have already paid out for DAB they are not going to pay out again for another system. I think FM will be with us for many years as there is not the space on DAB to place all the stations on AM and FM.
I can see where the quality is better on Dab for stations like Talk Sport which is on AM, but changing from FM to Dab is stupid, just like changing from analogue t.V to digital.

I have got Freeview, but I mostly watch analogue, think goodness that we are going to be one of the last to change over, with any luck the change over will go wrong and the government will have a delay.

DAB will not take over FM. No digital music system is as good as analogue, it is impossible to be so, CD may be nice and crackle free, but it is not analogue it is artificial.

Sorry but analogue wins in most things.


]
 

Trending threads

Latest news

Disney+ subscribers experience launch day technical jitters
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Netflix to stop supporting older Samsung TVs in December
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Kanto launches TUK active wireless speaker in UK
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Elipson launches new Planet W35 speaker
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 11th November 2019
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Latest threads

Top Bottom