[cma-l] FW: MiniDAB

Wed Mar 9 17:46:15 GMT 2016

Thanks for the clarification Alex!   Although technically possible, I
personally I doubt whether Ofcom would want to get into the complexities of
managing such things for small scale DAB!

I agree SSDAB seems great for small cities and large towns where a suitable
high site is available.   For small towns it starts to become wasteful of
spectrum - ie: are there sufficient community services in a small area to
fill the mux?  If not, then spectrum is wasted, and FM is more suitable
(and with some more creative planning approaches to avoid the "no
frequencies available mantra).

For big cities, the arbitrary 100w (now tending towards 200w) limit for
SSDAB is having the perverse impact of increasing costs.  In the case of
large cities there should be the option (with suitable safeguards) of more
power and less sites (ultimately just one) to minimise costs - just like
the incumbents.   But it will probably never happen for all the obvious
reasons!

Glyn

On 9 March 2016 at 17:28, Alex Gray, Two Lochs Radio <tlr at gairloch.co.uk>
wrote:

> No Glyn (and Ian), no ‘old thinking’ going on, quite the reverse, so maybe
> you were as you say missing my points!
>
>
>
> I’m familiar with the workings of DAB multiplexes and SFNs, but I
> apologise for any confusion I caused you by my very careless use of the
> word ‘channels’ (in the sense of programme channels, not spectrum
> channels), when I should have written ‘programme services’.
>
>
>
> I too was envisaging an SFN with perhaps 3 or 4 relays for covering a
> large city.  As you say, a single DAB+ multiplex (ie one using AAC+) could
> provide 30 services, but that would imply services averaging 32kbps each,
> which I would regard as adequate quality for general service, which is why
> I suggested 24 channels. I think 48kbps should be the minimum target except
> perhaps for mono or speech-only services, but that is to an extent a
> subjective matter of course, and it also depends on the quality/price of
> the encoders used.
>
>
>
> You mention the common misconception that an SFN requires all transmitters
> to contain the same MUX content. Certainly that is the simplest and most
> conventional arrangement, and what would in almost all circumstances be the
> practice, but in appropriate situations some regional variation is possible
> within careful design (which Ofcom has the people to do) . Practical
> experiments carried out some years ago in Germany showed that it is a
> possible even within an SFN to have some local variation in programmes
> service, subject to careful design and suitable topography.
>
>
>
> That is where my comment about interference arose – if alternative audio
> services are put in the same time slot on different relays there are
> significant regions of mutual digital interference where there is no usable
> reception of that slot. But that was all just a possible extra worth
> investigating as a side issue in areas of particularly high demand, not
> something to get hung up on.
>
>
>
> The most obvious starting point would be a dedicated multiplex with 24 (or
> your 30) slots for community-based services across a wide area.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> *From:* cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk [
> mailto:cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk
> <cma-l-bounces at mailman.commedia.org.uk>] *On Behalf Of *Associated
> Broadcast Consultants
> *Sent:* 09 March 2016 14:25
> *To:* The Community Media Association Discussion List <
> cma-l at mailman.commedia.org.uk>
> *Subject:* Re: [cma-l] MiniDAB
>
>
>
> I don't understand these comments about number of channels and
> interference.  I wonder if there is some old analogue/FM thinking going on?
>
>
>
> DAB has the capability to transmit on the same channel without causing
> interference (in fact delivering a significant gain in the overlap area).
> It's called SFN - but it requires all the transmitters to carry the same
> Mux content.
>
>
>
> So for large metropolitan areas you could have one mux covering the
> centre, and three or four relays in the suburbs - all on the same channel.
> Use AAC+ coding and it could easily deliver 30 services with pretty good
> audio quality.   The alternative is not worth considering - 5 transmitters
> on separate channels would deliver far too much capacity (150+ programme
> services), and 5 separate muxes on same channel would deliver far too much
> interference rendering it unusable.
>
>
>
> Unless I'm missing your points...?
>
>
>
> Glyn
>
>
>
> This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Reply - cma-l at commedia.org.uk
>
> The cma-l mailing list is a members' service provided by the Community
> Media Association - http://www.commedia.org.uk
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/community_media
> http://www.facebook.com/CommunityMediaAssociation
> Canstream Internet Radio & Video: http://www.canstream.co.uk/
> _______________________________________________
>
> Mailing list guidelines:
> http://www.commedia.org.uk/about/cma-email-lists/email-list-guidelines/
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or manage your CMA-L mailing list subscription please visit:
> http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cma-l
>

-- 
Glyn Roylance - Principal Consultant
Associated Broadcast Consultants <http://www.a-bc.co.uk/>
<http://www.a-bc.co.uk/index.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.commedia.org.uk/pipermail/cma-l/attachments/20160309/f489c3f1/attachment.html>