Two digital radio stations to close

Digital radio will suffer a double blow this weekend with the closure of two
national digital stations, Oneword and Core.

GCap Media's music station Core is expected to close tomorrow, while UBC's
spoken word outfit Oneword, whose future has long been in doubt, will cease
broadcasting on Saturday.

Both stations were broadcast via digital audio broadcasting (DAB) on Digital
One, the national digital radio multiplex majority-owned by GCap.

In a dramatic scaling back of GCap's digital offerings, its digital music
station Life is also set to close while its chillout station, Chill, has
been removed from the Sky Digital platform. It continues to broadcast on
regional DAB multiplexes and online.

GCap's other digital-only stations are TheJazz and Planet Rock, which both
remain on Digital One. TheJazz, which has just celebrated its first
birthday, has upped its capacity on Digital One and now broadcasts in
stereo.

Oneword, which was launched by UBC in 2000, was part-owned with Channel 4
until the broadcaster sold its 51% stake, bought for £1 million in 2005,
back to UBC for £1 in the run-up to Christmas.

UBC, as the sole shareholder, will close the station, which plays a mixture
of books, comedy, drama and reviews, on Saturday.

Oneword had 151,000 listeners in the third quarter of last year, according
to the latest Rajar figures, but its prospects suffered a serious blow after
the BBC launched its own spoken word digital station, BBC7.

"Unfortunately Oneword will no longer be broadcasting from Saturday January
12," said a statement on the Oneword website.

"We are genuinely grateful to all our listeners for their loyal and
continued support over the last eight years. We wish you a very happy 2008."

GCap's Core, which launched in 1999, became a jukebox music station in March
last year when it took its presenters off air. It had 122,000 listeners in
the third quarter of last year.

Digital One is in negotiation with a number of potential operators about
filling the vacant berths on the national multiplex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jan/10/commercialradio.gcapmedia?gusrc=rss&feed=media

I thought the sound of Oneword was gratingly bad. It might have been
quite good to listen to as a bedtime story but I think I would have
found it too irritating.

Core was just low quality mono rubbish so I wouldn't bother with it
either.

Maybe they could reduce the number of stations, improve the quality
and then maybe they would get more listeners and advertising revenue.

People must be noticing by now that an iPod sounds better than a DAB
radio and listen to that instead though personally I try to listen to
the radio to try to broaden my tastes and would do so more if the
sound quality was better.

End of rant.

My experience is quite the opposite to your assumption....dont forget
a huge chunk of radio listening is still done on dodgy little mono
portables and duff little bedside radios etc etc (analogue or DAB) and
its a fact that most people dont have golden ears...its not a popular
thing to say to a collection of radio specialists, engineers and audio
purists...but that doesnt stop it from being true.

That said - its still no justifiabl excuse for broadcasters to take
liberties - and do things like broadcast quality music in mono or at
horribly low bitrates but it remains a FACT that your Average Joe
thinks most things sound great if it doesnt fade, cackle or have
pirate radio bleeding all over the bleeding place....they are also
radio listeners taking most notice of the content - not a bunch of
jobless malcontents with too much time on thier hands...like me!

Bill

Upon what do you base your 'experience'? Have you done research? Are
you in the industry? My 'experience' is that large numbers of people
like the sound of their iPod so much that they wear it more or less
permanently outdoors especially on trains and buses. If DAB was as
popular as you imply they would not be closing stations.

I think you are getting confused between fact and opinion. Why are
people spending vast sums of money on HD televisons, surround sound
systems, expensive in-car audio etc if it is a 'fact' that the average
person does not care about quality?

I didnt say the average person doesnt care about quality!

HD Tv etc - yep youre right about all that - but when it coms to audio
- peoples perceptions are very very different.

Yes - Im in the industry - and yes Ive seen and carried out much
research...If I had not I wouldnt have said what I said.

Bill

You said that you're a jobless malcontent, so are you a jobless malcontent
inside the DAB industry? Ah, I get it, you're Ralph Bernard - sussed!

The reality about the public is not that they "don't care", it's that
they're almost infinitely gullible - the TV channels could probably screw up
the quality of HD but still sell it as HD and you'd get people saying
"ooooooooooooooooooooh, look how lovely it looks" even if it looks no better
than SD. HD will look better than SD, but I still think the TV channels
could do that due to the gullibility of the public.

--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

I must have misunderstood. When you said:

"... it remains a FACT that your Average Joe

I though you were saying they were happy with DAB as it is.

If you meant that DAB fades, crackles and has pirate radio bleeding
all over the place that is a strange way of describing the problems
with DAB. I would describe it more as distortion, overcompression,
sibilance and lack of stereo separation but I can see what you are
getting at.

Surround sound, in-car stereos that I mentioned. Not audio?

And concluded that there is a demand for numerous computer playout
stations sounding the same running at low bitrates some in mono and no
demand for high quality stereo sound. I wonder who your sample was
and wtf you asked them.

Richard E.

Not really because 112 kbps have been taken by BFBS.

They're just fashion victims.

If these people care so much about quality (though quality in-car
audio is an oxymoron anyway) why are they quite happy to listen to MP3
lossy compression instead of 16 bit PCM off a CD? The reason is that
convenience trumps quality every time which is why plenty of people
are happy with a DAB radio that doesn't have noise and interference
unlike FM. As for HD TV - the quality difference between one of those
and a normal TV is bloody obvious , the difference between a DAB
broadcast and an iPod through crappy apple headphones with lots of
background noise is almost unhearable.

B2003

What the hell for? They can't exactly receive DAB in Iraq and when
they're back at base in britain they've got all the national and local
stations to listen to.

B2003

>almost unhearable.

Unbearable shirly;?...
>
>B2003

--
Tony Sayer

The also have Garrison FM which is a low power FM service in places like
Colchester, Catterick and Aldershot etc...
--
Tony Sayer

Apparently adding BFBS to D1 was some kind of experiment. I think it
sound more like they added it just to fill up the multiplex until they
find some better idea.

Perhaps (hopefully) at some point they will come up with the fabulous
idea of trailing a DAB+ service on D1, and make room for it by removing
BFBS and the remaining 4 mobile TV channels.

Of course 4Digital would be able to do the same, if they can not sell
off the capacity they have reserved for mobile TV.

Oh and BTW. I had a quick listen to BFBS on my hi-fi system and that
112k encoding sounded terrible.

Richard E.

You are clearly not a military man, nor do you understand what BFBS
does. Military men do not spend most of their time deployed. Military
men have a strong sense of camaraderie with fellow troops. BFBS connects
people back home, be they colleagues or civvies, with those in the
field. Adding a widely available domestic platform makes sense from all
angles. I hope it is successful and does as is hoped.

And replace the word almost with totally.

No no no. It does not work like that. Multiplex owners cannot do that.
They cannot give digital radio carriage away free. And, if they could,
why would they? Capacity must be rented on a fair, reasonable, and
non-discriminatory basis.

BFBS are running the service as a trial. They've probably signed a
fixed-term agreement with the multiplex operator which will either be
extended, made continuing, or cancelled, depending on the outcome of
their research.

Why? Do you object to a large number of hard-working people, risking
their lives, having a radio station to connect them with colleagues,
friends and family back home? Why?

It does not sound the best, I agree. But I imagine there is some "fine
tuning" to be done, especially as some BFBS programming is made
overseas. Anyway, as you think it should be booted off, I can only
presume you won't be listening - so your opinion really is of no
consequence.

Because unlike DAB it is possible to choose your quality settings.
My 192k mp3 files which I have been encoding for use in my car probably
wouldn't sound quite as good as 16 bit PCM, but they do sound good
enough so that in car I'm not likely to notice the difference. DAB on
the other hand sounds very much worse than that.

The idea of lossy encoding is to reduce the bit rate low enough to
provide much more convenience but no so low as to spoil the music.
Unfortunately DAB broadcasters don't seem very interested in this
concept. Their concept seems to be push the bit rate right down, and
then wonder why so few people want to listen to it.

Only when you are talking about a large increase in convenience for only
a small loss of quality. I think you will find that when quality drops
below a certain point (varying from person to person), most people would
prefer to increase the bit rate, sacrificing some convenience to regain
reasonable sound quality.

If by plenty you mean a minority of the population, then yes. Out a
large population there are bound to be at least some who don't notice
sh*t sound quality.

FM usually doesn't have any significant noise and interference, when you
are within the coverage area (a bit like DAB then). Of course it is a
different story when you start going out of the coverage area.

The difference between DAB and FM is also obvious.

That probably varies from person to person. It also depends upon the
quality of encoding on the Ipod. I find my mp3 player sounds very
noticeably better than DAB, (using LAME VBR Level 6). That level of
compression is enough to fit 4 albums into it's 256Mb capacity.

Richard E.

I didn't say that they were giving away capacity for free, but they did
need to find something to fill up the multiplex.

OK I know I had hear somewhere that it was a trial. So it wourked out
conviniently for both them and for D1.

I don't. I never said I did. I'm simply saying that at some point after
the trial, they might want to use the capacity for DAB+. In fact it
might even be worth considering broadcasting BFBS on DAB+

It sounds bad because like virtually all DAB broadcasts, it uses mp2 at
far to low a bit rate. The only type of tuning that would make it sound
OK is either moving to DAB+ or increasing bit rate to at least 192k. I
doubt that the latter will happen.

Richard E.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to also broadcast it via the internet?
Or do they already do that?

Richard E.

Unless its deployed in the places its required such as near military
bases it seems a bit pointless. Why broadcast it in London and not
near Salisbury for example? I'm not knocking BFBS , I'm sure its a
great thing for the troops to have , I'm just not sure its an
appropriate use of bandwidth in an area where probably not many
serving soldiers/sailors/airmen will be listening (unless you count
the MOD itself).

B2003

Oh come on , we all know that you could put on a 20 year old C60
cassette in a car and wouldn't notice much difference between that and
a CD playing because of the abysmal acoustics and huge amount of
background noise when driving. Why people spend thousands on ICE is a
mystery to me. I can just about understand teenagers doing it because
they're still at that naive showing off age but middle age men should
know better.

Its large enough minority to make it viable for manufacturers to make
DAB radios and thats what counts at the end of the day. Anyway , I
seem to be stuck between 2 camps - I think DAB is ok. Not great , not
totally crap , just ok. Good enough for talk radio and most types of
music but it could be better.

Depends. You can get a dodgy stereo signal even in the coverage area
sometimes. And if you've got pirate radio like we have in spades here
in london they can cause interference too. Which in fact was the
reason I bought DAB in the first place.

Not always.

B2003

> Wouldn't it be a good idea to also broadcast [BFBS] via the internet?

Yep, four channels: www.ssvc.com/bfbs/radio/digital/index.htm

--
Ronan Flood <use...@umbral.org.uk>

It's on the national mux, does that not cover Salisbury?

--
Ronan Flood <use...@umbral.org.uk>

Yes, and it also covers every single town in the country (with Digital One
coverage) where there are no army barracks as well, which is the real point.

BFBS is available via the Internet and via satellite, and as it is I'm
completely unconvinced that BFBS should be available nationally on Digital
One.

The bit rate is 112 kbps using a codec that should be used at bit rates of
192 kbps or higher, so what do you expect?

Fine tuning? The bit rate is 112 kbps with MP2, so shit audio quality is
exactly what you would expect.

It's a radio station paid for out of taxaion, so Richard can express his
opinion whether or not he listens to it.

BFBS being on Digital One doesn't make any sense to me when it's already
available on the Internet and on satellite.

This resident of Aldershot from the 1940s to 1980s used to listen to
BFBS from Germany on FM when the conditions were right. If there was a
case for making it available nationally I think I would have heard the
clamour for it 30, 40 or 50 years ago when Aldershot was a massive
garrison town. It's a pale ghost of its former self now and anyone who
really wanted BFBS would be getting it via satellite. It was there last
time I looked out for it.
--
Malcolm

Well personally I would not spend thousands. However I do often find the
sound quality of the stereo built into my new car to be slightly
irritating, and would like to change the speaker system (if only I can
find the time, perhaps when I get a couple of weeks off work). Not that
it is a poor system, but in my old car I had rear shelf speakers and 10"
sub woofers, and the built in door speakers in my new car just don't
sound as good.

I would think that music sound quality is simply more important to some
people than others. It does also of course depend upon what you are
doing. I have a Squeezebox connected to amplified speakers in my
bedroom, and I find that fine for everyday music listening, even though
the speakers only cost me about Ł20. However if I then play the same
music on my hi-fi, it is an entirely different story. Some how it's like
there are about 50% more sounds, and I can't really explain why, the
just somehow seems far more detailed.

Well it probably does count in a commercial world, I'd say that is one
of the problems of radio these days. The no longer seem worry about
serving everybody, perhaps not even serving the majority, just as long
as they make a profit.

Well it obviously varies from person to person. Personally I did find
DAB acceptable when I first started listening to it (although not as
good as it could be). Over the months though it just got more and more
on my nerves. I don't have time right now to go into that explanation
again, but I suspect the same applies for a lot of people.

Well you can always find places where DAB works better than FM, and you
can always find places where FM works better than DAB. In my flat I find
FM reception works just fine virtually anywhere, but with DAB you have
to hunt around to find a spot where you don't get bubbling mud.

I tend to conclude that on average there isn't a lot to choose between
FM and DAB as far as reception within the coverage area is concerned.

Or perhaps not to all people. However when I got my first DAB car
stereo, and switched between Capital FM on DAB and on FM, I did find
that FM sounded noticeably better.

Richard E.

Absolutely.

Yep, with it being on satellite and the Internet I see absolutely no point
in it being on Digital One at all - other than the government pulling
strings and using public money to bail out Digital One.

Hmm. The thing about car "hi-fi" is that its equivalent to setting up
a home system with some of the speakers near the ceiling pointing
upwards and others 3 inches away from the armchair and pointing
directly at it. Then take the whole room , put it by the side of a
main road and seperate it from it with a few thin panes of glass and
put the washing machine on spin cycle. And theres a car audio
enviroment. I would challenge anyone to be able to distuiguish all but
the most lousy recordings in that setup.

B2003

The logic is impeccable, I'd be inclined to argue the same, except that
when I changed my top of the range Ford for a top of the range Rover,
the improvement in audio quality was immediately apparent. RF
performance unfortunately took a turn for the worse, though not by too
much.

Neither were hi-fi and both quite good enough for the car, but the not
very great differences were easy enough to discern.
--
Malcolm

I can easily tell whether a track I'm playing has good or bad audio quality
in my car. My car stereo head unit is a Pioneer that cost about £230, with
reasonably good speakers. It can sound very good.

I've read a few of your posts on this subject over the last couple of days
or so, and I'd hazard a guess that you've actually got a shit car stereo,
and you're trying to extrapolate your own experience onto the rest of the
population.

Things like road noise are easily masked if you turn the bleeding volume up
and/or closed the facking window!

It came with the car. So did my last car radio and the one before
that. Been in friends cars with flashy ICE and they sounded pretty
crap too on the move. Perhaps I have the opposite of golden ears,
which is fine by me as I can save a stack load of money :o)

What do you drive , a rolls?

B2003

Provided that the stereo is powerful enough to do that without too much
distortion. Most good car stereos would be, perhaps Boltar's isn't.

Actually when I had DAB in my previous car, I found the horrible flat
stereo image was obvious even at lower volume levels. I did find however
that I tended not to notice the compression artefacts when on the move.
(that flat stereo image still killed the enjoyment though).

Richard.

There is good audio, there is bad audio, and then there is DAB.

Richard E.

I drive an old Rover 214. I've heard lots of good quality car stereos over
the years, so I've no idea why you've come to the conclusion you've come to.

Yeah, factory-fitted car stereos seem to be pretty variable in quality terms
and in power levels, so I'd imagine Boltar has simply been unlucky.

DAB has a knack of sounding bad in all circumstances!