DRM n India
- Thread starter benravin
- Start date
docd
Active Member
Do you need a special tuner or a regular AM radio will do
anuragn
Active Member
No. You need DRM Radio receivers. Just the transmission band is SW.
vktarun
Active Member
Any information on availability of DRM receivers in India and its price.
NXP (earlier Philips) showcased DRM chip during CES in Las Vegas.
Digital Radio Mondiale reception platform for car entertainment at CES 2012 - YouTube
Digital Radio Mondiale reception platform for car entertainment at CES 2012 - YouTube
Rabepobemababe
Member
While DAB & DAB+ receivers are widely available in the U.S. and parts of Europe, the commercial availability of DRM & DRM+ receivers is still thin. When the DRM transmissions from Khampur commenced, target for full-fledged DRM broadcasts in India was stated as 2013. That appears to be incredulous at this juncture.
I, for one, have scouted for a DRM+ receiver on all the online sites that ship to India. Not even Chinavasion, which lists a number of DAB receivers, has a DRM receiver listed.
A plugin device a.k.a. a pendrive for the existing analog receivers though, was demonstrated, and this seems to be the way to go for third-world countries like India.
Also, since "broadcast quality" for FM transmissions is defined as 16 Bit / 44.1 Mhz (which lead to some receivers like NAD C-426 claiming "better than broadcast quality"), and since DRM is very unlikely to have that kind of a bit-rate, I think audiophiles have no reason for excitement regarding the advent of DRM+ in India.
I, for one, have scouted for a DRM+ receiver on all the online sites that ship to India. Not even Chinavasion, which lists a number of DAB receivers, has a DRM receiver listed.
A plugin device a.k.a. a pendrive for the existing analog receivers though, was demonstrated, and this seems to be the way to go for third-world countries like India.
Also, since "broadcast quality" for FM transmissions is defined as 16 Bit / 44.1 Mhz (which lead to some receivers like NAD C-426 claiming "better than broadcast quality"), and since DRM is very unlikely to have that kind of a bit-rate, I think audiophiles have no reason for excitement regarding the advent of DRM+ in India.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
DAB in UK is a white elephant.
I have to confess having fallen for it ...shortly before realising I could get all the BBC content on the internet anyway. What a waste of money!
I have to confess having fallen for it ...shortly before realising I could get all the BBC content on the internet anyway. What a waste of money!
Rabepobemababe
Member
Pitfalls of DRM in real life:
1. Technically provides low audio quality. In the UK, 98% of DAB stations (which are similar to DRM stations) were reported to be using a bit rate of 128 kbit/s with the MP2 audio codec, which provided much poorer sound quality than FM radio, with identical signal strength of both DAB and FM. Also, a large and growing number of DAB music stations were transmitting in mono, compared to the 20Hz-17KHz stereo transmission of the analog FM stations.
2. Faraday cage effect inside R.C.C. buildings wherein DAB signals can get blocked out.
3. The sound quality from the trials conducted by the BBC with DRM technology was better than AM quality, but not better than even the average DAB quality, i.e., DRM is inferior to DAB.
4. High establishment cost of the radio station. Higher cost of the receivers than the analog ones (unless Chinavasion rescues the average Indian by pumping in large number of "Made in China" DRM receivers across the borders). This, in a scenario, where most commercial analog FM stations have still not started making profit (and forget about the fate of rural / community radio stations).
Unfortunately, our honourable policy makers do not seem to read through the scam behind DRM radio. Not withstanding the experiences of countries like the UK, whose legacy we seem to be keen to import, our policy makers still talk about replacing the analog FM with DRM+. It will be a sad chapter in the history of Indian radio broadcasting if this happens.
It is important to note, that with decent FM signal, properly installed antenna and a good FM tuner, when the source is uncompressed digital stereo, what you get to listen to is nothing but uncompressed digital sound. It is a mistake to think that DAB+ / DRM+ will have better sound quality just because the transmission is digital.
1. Technically provides low audio quality. In the UK, 98% of DAB stations (which are similar to DRM stations) were reported to be using a bit rate of 128 kbit/s with the MP2 audio codec, which provided much poorer sound quality than FM radio, with identical signal strength of both DAB and FM. Also, a large and growing number of DAB music stations were transmitting in mono, compared to the 20Hz-17KHz stereo transmission of the analog FM stations.
2. Faraday cage effect inside R.C.C. buildings wherein DAB signals can get blocked out.
3. The sound quality from the trials conducted by the BBC with DRM technology was better than AM quality, but not better than even the average DAB quality, i.e., DRM is inferior to DAB.
4. High establishment cost of the radio station. Higher cost of the receivers than the analog ones (unless Chinavasion rescues the average Indian by pumping in large number of "Made in China" DRM receivers across the borders). This, in a scenario, where most commercial analog FM stations have still not started making profit (and forget about the fate of rural / community radio stations).
Unfortunately, our honourable policy makers do not seem to read through the scam behind DRM radio. Not withstanding the experiences of countries like the UK, whose legacy we seem to be keen to import, our policy makers still talk about replacing the analog FM with DRM+. It will be a sad chapter in the history of Indian radio broadcasting if this happens.
It is important to note, that with decent FM signal, properly installed antenna and a good FM tuner, when the source is uncompressed digital stereo, what you get to listen to is nothing but uncompressed digital sound. It is a mistake to think that DAB+ / DRM+ will have better sound quality just because the transmission is digital.
Last edited:
Hi,
Your points are very well counted, especially for the audio quality.
But, DRM not all for just radio programs, it can give text information such as traffic information etc. Analog AM/FM transmissions are susceptible to fading/noise and not very well suited for car uses.
Thad E Ginathom
Well-Known Member
Once upon a long time ago, a tuner was considered the best possible source for hifi music.
Rabepobemababe
Member
Actually, RDS, which many of the car tuners are equipped with, is eminently suitable for carrying out some of the information dissemination functions. Many analog stations do broadcast the RDS carrier signal. But they don't have the information to disseminate. For example, when I tune into Big FM in Hyderabad, my tuner immediately recognizes the RDS carrier signal, but after pausing for three to four seconds, the text, "no information available," scrolls across the tuner display.
As to the fading/noise issues with analog FM, the experience of car users of DAB+ has so far been worse. DAB+ tends to have lesser range than analog FM, and DAB / DAB+ tuners typically consume more power than analog FM tuners.
Rabepobemababe
Member
Digital radio has been so resoundingly condemned in the UK. I don't know about USA+Canada+rest of Europe.
I remember reading an article which says that DAB signal is not receivable at one of the British queen's estates. One of the reasoning given in that article (I think it was by Ken Kessler in Hifi News and Record Review magazine) is that the signal is unable to penetrate the thick walls of her castle.
The biggest complaint against digital radio seems to be its patchy reach. The next biggest complaint is probably the lower than optimal audio quality (too much compression, and the use of MP2 compression as against the more recent AAC-x algorithms).
I remember reading an article which says that DAB signal is not receivable at one of the British queen's estates. One of the reasoning given in that article (I think it was by Ken Kessler in Hifi News and Record Review magazine) is that the signal is unable to penetrate the thick walls of her castle.
The biggest complaint against digital radio seems to be its patchy reach. The next biggest complaint is probably the lower than optimal audio quality (too much compression, and the use of MP2 compression as against the more recent AAC-x algorithms).
Order now for just ₹19,990.00
