I'm glad to see a cheaper "one-chip" decoder for DAB receivers costing only 100 pounds is now available (http://www.dab.org/tothemanorborn.htm),
but .....

Like it or not, 100 pounds is no good.
I can buy an excellent FM/AM portable radio in Tandy for 10 pounds.

Like it or not, for ordinary listeners,DAB provides no improvement in sound quality or reception whatsoever.
For us, FM is already perfect, infact even AM is perfect as long as there's a strong signal.

DAB has nothing going for it except NEW STATIONS.
The average member of the public would not object to having a 3rd waveband added to his FM/AM radio, with more new stations on it. He or she would probably be prepared to pay up to 20 pounds for this receiver, rather than 10.

Around 20 years ago, before the widespread success of FM, almost all FM stations were duplicates of AM stations, and there was a policy to eventually replace AM by FM, but most people continued to listen on AM.

The later success of FM went hand in hand with separate programming, and the abandonment of any idea of replacing the older AM band.

The continued rationing of radio licenses, and the large number of pirate stations still in operation are testimony to the fact that even the whole of the FM and AM bands put together do not provide enough radio frequencies to meet demand. More channels are needed, and, as with FM, this is where DAB's natural success lies.

The DAB frequency allocation is far too small for it to replace FM or AM, but it can provide a useful addition to the FM band.
It can never replace AM because very popular stations like Atlantic 252 will only ever be able to broadcast on wavelengths much longer than those used by DAB.

DAB will not succeed until:

1. The receiver cost is 20 pounds, and

2. All notions of DAB REPLACING FM or AM have been abandoned, and the DAB stations are different from the FM and AM stations.
 

Any comments? mailto:stephen@sptv.demon.co.uk