Talk:Digital Audio Broadcasting

DAB+ in Hungary

"Hungary is due to launch DAB+ stations in 2008..."

This sentence is now dated. I was not able to find any DAB+ rollout news in Hungary after a couple google searches. Anyone know the status?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mburns (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 Feb 2009 (UTC)

First

"DAB reception quality first degrades rapidly when the signal strength falls below a critical threshold..."

What does this mean? One expects it to say "DAB reception quality first degrades rapidly and then improves even more rapidly..." or something like that.

Alternatively, it was written by someone whose first (and only) language is Swedish, in which case the translation into English would be

"DAB reception quality degrades rapidly only when the signal strength falls below a critical threshold..."

This is still awkward, however. Could it be that DAB reception does not deteriorate at all (or only barely) with signal strength until the signal strength reaches a critical threshold, at which point it deteriorates rapidly as the signal weakens further? I don't know, because I don't know anything about DAB radio. That's why I was reading the article.

higher transmission cost

The article mentions higher transmission cost. Could someone explain what part of transmission cost depends on bit rate? Gah4 (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

A late reply. Bit rate is not the issue for the cost of the transmitters. There are quite a few factors involved which make a DAB transmitter much more expensive than an analogue FM one. One factor is the efficiency of the transmitter. FM transmitters can approach 80% efficiency (AC in to RF power out). A DAB transmitter might be 30% because the amplifier needs to be quite linear compared with class C for FM. That means more expensive power supplies and much more electricity usage and more cooling. The digital modulators are more complex and may require GPS synchronisation. There can be licenses for some of the software used. You need a multiplexer and audio encoders. The extra cost is mitigated by being able to share the cost between several stations. DavidX1000 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

This whole article needs to be refreshed I think

This article is quite messy so far as Wikipedia goes. First of all there is of course the issue of unreferenced sections. But also importantly the format doesn't read right. There is a 'History and development' section that is messy and also shows technologic info about DAB+. There's a bunch of info on Technology but it really blends the lines with 'DAB and AM/FM compared', 'Sound quality', and especially 'Strengths and weaknesses'. It feels like every section deals with multiple topics at once.

Right now it doesn't really feel and read like a good quality Wikipedia article so far as format goes. It needs a major change I think. Does anyone have suggestions how to do go ahead? Because even I myself am lost what needs to be done to improve. 85.255.236.102 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

broadcasts a single multiplex that is approximately 1.5 MHz wide

The article says: broadcasts a single multiplex that is approximately 1.5 MHz wide. In US English, multiplex is usually an adjective. (Multiplexer is a noun, common in digital logic design.) Am I missing something here, or is this common in non-US English? Gah4 (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiplex is commonly used as a noun in this situation and many others where more than one signal is carried through a medium. Here is an example of the UK government regulator using it in this DAB context Davidbstanley (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In US English, it is either carrier or subcarrier. And normally only when there is more than one subcarrier, otherwise it isn't multiplex. (That is, more than one.) I suspect it is commonly used in the US as short for multiplex cinema, though. Is carrier and subcarrier wrong in non-US English? Gah4 (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I would not say carrier and subcarrier are wring, just it is more common here to use multiplex as a noun for these purposes. Another example, here the input to a FM transmitter is often referred to as multiplex whereas in the US it is more typical to say composite. We are used to dealing with both names, so it creates little confusion. Davidbstanley (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

For FM, there are the stereo subcarrier and SCA subcarrier. In the case of stereo, the combination is often enough described as multiplex or more usual, multipliexed. But mono FM would not be multiplex, and especially there is no single multiplex, as multiplex implies more than one. Single would be uniplex, though that is rare, or sometimes simplex. OK, for FM there would be the stereo multiplexer, which might be one box, and then the output of that goes to the FM transmitter. The multiplexer is a physical thing that you can touch, and sometimes pick up. The circuit in the FM receiver is, then, the stereo demultiplexer, though often enough just stereo decoder. Gah4 (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DAB Radio 07.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

DVB-T

Don't digital terrestrial television (DVB-T or DVB-T2) receivers (television devices and decoders) usually include DAB reception? The ones I know offer also audio-only channels. -- Error (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The DVB-T transmissions can include audio only channels which will typically be shown as radio channels in the program guides. That is different from DAB radio which is a different technology. The DVB-T/T2 receivers I have do not include DAB reception though it is quite possible that other devices could include it. It would require a different antenna for the DAB reception. DavidX1000 (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)