The FM switch-off?

Hi Hal,

We are off-topic.  I don't think I listened to the Reference Recording of Grainger but I am a great fan of the label and its recordings. They have a tweakfree honesty and integrity which, to bring us closer to back on-topic, is lacking from much of what I hear when I tune into BBC R3. The combination of lossy compression in DAB with more contrived recordings makes a buzzy mush I don't like.  I hear processing, lots of microphones and lots of anonymous swishy digital reverberation trying to cover the seams.  I hear too much in-your-face detail from the back of the orchestra - percussion and harps, and some individuals in the wind & brass.  Meanwhile the body of strings recedes up an alp somewhere and all I can hear from the section are sometimes front desks like an angry string octet.

Would have to agree whole-heartedly with Tony on this one; I don't remember having any choice as a member of the public in the introduction of DAB at the expense of FM, in the same way that this govt. wants to levy a tax on improving broadband (when the profit made by broadband providers is enormous), althought this is likely to be essential if we want to enjoy high-rate digital delivery. As for the BBC, the days of the compulsory licence fee are surely numbered as it continues to deliver more dumbed-down TV and radio content; however, in the abscence of a licence I would not be averse to paying a levy to listen to BBCRadio 3 on FM, rather like a subscription, but where is my choice?

Tony is right; if you/we want better quality sound, stick with LP, SACD and CD played on good quality HiFi. Oh and go to more concerts! ATB Myron

The trouble is that's it's free at the point of delivery - no paying customers. They can do what they like, we have no economic leverage.

P

My opinion is not only that the FM switch-off is probably inevitable, but that there is some chance a DAB switch-off may actually not be decades later as the internet gains further strength.  On the one side, the sound-quality of DAB is an issue for critical listeners (sometimes better listening off tv channels offering radio).  On the other side, if a listener is prepared to put up with compromised sound quality one might as well hunt round the internet for streaming and downloads.  This way you get what you want (more or less), when you want it.

For me Radio3 has managed to write itself out of the script for many listeners. There are fewer and fewer interesting live relays, the sound quality has fallen, and there are many alternatives which are far less patchy, self-puffing, and of course far less expensive to operate.  For example Naxos's subscription electronic library of repertoire is to all intents and purposes a very sensibly and comprehensibly compiled Radio3 on demand.  If I want to hear Nielsen's violin concerto or Penderecki's St. Luke's Passion at 5am, I just dial it up.  With Radio3 I have to wait for the coincidence of being free and by a radio when they choose to play it via cruddy DAB.  Not much choice, and not worth £145.50 as of April 1st unless you are a fan of EastEnders and Question Time.

It seems to me that there are two quite separate issues.  One is quality of sound.  I'm not going to write about that because many others do, and it is not the most important issue to me nor I suspect to many other ordinary folk.

My problem is that I have radios in most rooms of the house, as well as the car.  That's a lot of kit to throw away, and in the case of the car I'm not sure I'd ever get a replacement for an original manufacturer's FM radio on a 12 year old car.  Two of the house radios are high quality tuners (one a venerable Quad FM4 which is still better than anything else I have or have had) and thus not cheap to replace.  

Then I have a very serviceable music system which would be made substantially redundant just because one bit doesn't support DAB, a kitchen radio, 2 alarm clock radios - you get the idea.

Also, as I understand it, DAB+ will be required, so although the alarm clocks are both DAB and FM, they won't work either.

I don't believe I am unusual in this respect.  Many people I know seem to have radios all over the place.  Go count them and add up the replacement cost at anything like similar quality - it may surprise you.

There's a fallacy that this is similar to the TV switchover.  It isn't.  For one thing most people don't have 6 or 7 TVs.  For another, with Freeview, an old TV can be made to carry on working by adding a cheap box.  This is not true for radios.

So - write to your MP - complain in any way you can.  See http://www.savefm.org/ - the site has been quiet for a while but I'm hoping it will wake up again.

The Audio Editor wrote "but rather stick with the rather poor basic DAB system we already have.
And that's an even worse prospect."

Back in 1990 (ish) I was privileged to attend a BBC R&D demo of DAB. The demo was aimed at the car receiver and associated multipath problems. We were driven around Central Birmingham stopping at various points where multipath distortion became a problem on FM. The BBC’s story was that DAB thrived on multipath and car reception was improved.

A side issue was that the audio quality was equal if not better than the FM signal. Both signals were in the 220MHz region and not processed inany way. To my
ears DAB was totally suitable for high quality listening.

The problem is though that the moneyman has become involved. Reduced bandwidth (Bit rate) allowing more stations in a given frequency range lower audio quality and more income for the licence holder.

TonyF12's analogy with coffee is pertinent. The difference is that you can still walk into a supermarket and buy ground coffee, nobody's taken it off the shelves completely, as will happen with FM.

Looking back at the history of recording there's a sort of "arc of fidelity" that I perceive, from the earliest days of 78s the striving to achieve ever higher quality (Stokowski's Philadelphia recordings, the development of analogue stereo etc, etc.,) until a ceiling seems to have been reached where further refinements were out of range of most people's pockets. Then starts the downward curve, where convenience replaces fidelity as the marketing bait.

You only have to look at hi-fi ads from the '50s and 60's..."closer to the original sound", "a real orchestra in your living room" etc., however spurious these claims may have been, they reflected a desire on the part of the consumer to aim for quality in reproduction. Now it's all about getting your entire CD collection into one little electronic box, not even having to go to a shop to buy your music, and, as far as the marketing men go, quality can go hang...nobody's interested any more, especially as we put all our eggs into the digital basket and few people have the means to make comparisons with other media.

The eventual switching off of FM is just another nail in the coffin.