Not a problem for me, but I have a Net radio station running out of my basement. 🙂
Who cares how 5 million Norwegians listen to their radios, FM/Digital?
The results of this may determine communications policies in other countries. In addition, it will determine which receivers will be required, which manufacturers will produce them, and who will sell them.
It’s much like what happened when analog TV was phased out a few years ago.
What we are seeing is all types of communication technology being shoved into one type of medium…and for th most part a naturally occuring proess…into the internet eventually and once that happens – big Brother will take control one way or another…..
Naturlich..Ja.?
Cheers…off to Costco to buy a 4k 120 hZ smart TV….lol
It’s actually quite easy to add extra capabilities into integrated circuits and often doesn’t cost much more. So, for the same space on a board and a bit of extra money, why not go from the electronic equivalent of a 2-cylinder engine to a V-8?
As for different communications technologies, many amateur radio transceivers are multi-mode nowadays and have all sorts of capabilities packed into small volumes. With some of my rigs, I can operate in single sideband, FM, or continuous wave (referred to by hams as CW), allowing me to go on the air with Morse code.
What could be so Draconian as DUAL BAND (Analog/DAB) Broadcasts?
Ah, socialism in action, creating problems where none exist!
Having only all digital transmissions is stupid thinking. Aside from not being able to show kids how to build crystal radios anymore, there is no redundancy in totally digital radio. An EMP will fry all new low power digital electronics and one then has no way to pick up radio transmissions. An old tube based radio would survive EMP as well as old radios that had been shielded or one could make a crystal radio with a chunk of galena to use as a diode. Also, tube transmitters would survive an EMP.
An EMP could ruin your whole day.
Radios, both AM and FM where the back ground noise of (most of us anyway) our lives, from the 20’s all the way through to now. The only time I listen to the radio now is when I am driving. which thankfully isn’t that much.
This is the Norwegian government station we’re talking about here, their CBC.
If the CBC switched to DAB would anyone even notice? Would those five people who noticed spend a hundred bucks to get a DAB receiver?
I say go for it.
What could be so Draconian as DUAL BAND (Analog/DAB) Broadcasts?
Actually, that makes sense. Many stations will be operating on medium wave in AM which, in Europe, is still quite popular. It’s not unusual to listen to a station from one country in another one nearby in that mode. Those stations will likely be on the air for several more years.
If you want further information on that, you could consult a reference such as the World Radio TV Handbook about that.
Having only all digital transmissions is stupid thinking. Aside from not being able to show kids how to build crystal radios anymore, there is no redundancy in totally digital radio.
During the period from the 1930s to the 1970s and maybe later, most amateur radio equipment was built in the U. S. and were, for the most part, based on vacuum tubes. They were good rigs but they were bulky and heavy. There’s a reason they were nicknamed “boat anchors” and are still affectionately referred to as such.
However, with advent of solid-state electronics, radios could be made smaller, lighter, and with more capabilities. Many of the older manufacturers found it too expensive or time-consuming to design new radios or re-tool to produce the solid-state circuitry. Consequently, most of those companies went out of business and are now historical artifacts, though many of their products are still available on the second-hand market.
One of the main reasons for using digital electronic equipment is cost. For the price of a boat anchor, one could get a transceiver that can do much more.
It’s largely a matter of practicality.
I think in a more free society, it’d be better to simply open the doors to digital transmission, rather than issue the change as a “decree”. Most analog transmitters of music or Tv now have a digital presence, and it didn’t require gov’t to demand this.
Prior to the oil boom and movement in world wide cheap electronics to its new world headquarters in China… there was in the 1970’s – 80’s Norway, Tandberg, known around the world for excellence in audio components. (the name Tandberg continues on as a manufacturer of teleconferencing equipment, it is not the same company).
I own only 1, the old school cassette TCD 420A in black, which functions flawlessly, and sounds as good as analog can. The few receivers from this company I’ve seen locally have been priced as though it was “audio art”. Which perhaps explains it as it is now. The Tandberg TR-2080 receiver was, with the Luxman R1120 (which I did own) at the top of the analog receiver game. Excellent quality. The individual components equally excellent as well. http://www.ebay.com/bhp/tandberg https://www.facebook.com/Tandbergaudio-components-140953972608428/
I must say I do not understand the motivation of this Norwegian edict. FM is perfetly adequate
I must say I do not understand the motivation of this Norwegian edict.
It could be the same reason why analog TV signals have been phased out. Digital signals don’t require such a large bandwidth, so the broadcasters could move to a different part of the spectrum. This would free the existing FM broadcast band and it could be allocated for different purposes.
In the U. S., the FCC often auctions off frequencies. There’s gold in them thar spectrum.
Sadly, analogue sounds better. It is a shame to see FM go away anywhere. The compressed sound delivered by FM kicks the crap out of the crap Mp3 files. But if your average (sheltered) Millennial never HEARS analogue, or only hears it on an iPhone or laptop speaker, then they will never know what they’re missing.
I have a state of the art Mcintosh analogue 2-channel stereo system driven by monoblocked MC-275’s. Tube heaven. My turntable is a Mcintosh MT-10 … my speakers are British (which is all I will say) and are simply sumptuous. I play only the very highest-end vinyl produced, including original issues and reissues engineered by the very best in the Industry; Mobile Fidelity, DCC, LP100, Analogue Productions. Sourced from the original analogue studio tapes. I like to demo the difference between my analogue system by playing my DCC copy of Pet Sounds, then playing a cd version and Mp3 version. Suffice to say that every listener is blown-away. The instruments that they never heard before, buried deep in the tracks and the subtlety of vocal tones is revealed in analogue … and washed-away in digital.
Digital is … convenient. Analogue is … Zen. Analogue is produced and played the same way in which it was made. By physical sound waves. Digital representation of those sound waves is artificial. Thin. Lifeless. There is a much stronger connection between listener and source in analogue. Even something as frivolous as having to listen to a whole lp side … and experience ALL of the artists work (not just the hits) is the difference between seeing an original Monet on canvas and a paint-by-numbers facsimile. Seeing the brush strokes of the artistic genius … immersing yourself in subtlety and nuance.
Governmental elimination of analogue is the equivalent of blinding everyone in one eye. You can still “see” … but not as nature designed vision. It’s a crude facsimile.
If that sounds as good as it looks…. (I’ve seen that previously, but have never sat down and listened). http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/us/Products/pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=amplifiers&ProductId=MC275B
wow.
Bryston / NAD / Rega / Tandberg / sumptuous B&W here, but not complaining. and hearing what passes for good digital music these days with a good headphone, really exposes the faults. always AKG 701s, with green of course…
This is what the Norwegians are giving up, quality with real depth… for iPods.
sigh.
While its easy to see the comparison to TV going digital, radios are different, really.
I’ve got a boom box in the garage circa 1983. Still booms it out. We don’t replace our radios like TVs, as we have seen that technology rapidly evolve, several times in the last decade, from plasma, to LCD, to LED, 3D (fail), to SMART, curve screen, and now 4K being the bleeding edge.
Radio is still radio, largely over the air anyways. Talk radio has rapidly degraded though, the quality has gone straight downhill here on the left coast.
CKNW is unrecognizable now, just a goo of dimwits discussing dirge and progressive BS. CFAX Victoria is PRAVDA, bloody awful.
FM? Well, the best music stations I get are American, KISM, KISW and KZOK. The Canuck stations are either the FOX playing yute rock, ROCK101, which hasn’t changed its setlist since 1985, all the hippyhoppy and girly screeching music, and then the Q, Victoria, which isn’t bad half the time. No more Jack, it went Top20. ECK.
Anyways, our radios last decades, there’s only so much change in tech one can do in radio, mainly the display data on the set in your car.
While its easy to see the comparison to TV going digital, radios are different, really.
The same basic principles still apply as both a transmitter and a receiver are required, though the type of signals are different, of course.
Most people are unaware of how radios have changed since the days of vacuum tubes. They’ve become smaller in size because of the type of components that are used as well as how they’re constructed. Nowadays, one doesn’t see very many discrete components on circuit boards as surface mount technology has become more prominent.
Along with that are changes in their capabilities. Many radios have a variety of audio controls to change the sound quality. As well, one can program receivers by storing specific frequencies and modes in memories. In addition, frequency displays are much more detailed than they were when I first started listening to stations such as the Voice of America on shortwave more than 40 years ago.
As well, software-defined radios are becoming more common. Functions such as signal filtering can now be performed using software instead of hardware, giving the radios more flexibility.
Mind you, the equipment that has all of this tend to be for specialized applications, such as amateur radio or military communications. Eventually, though, it’s bound to make its way into commercial products.
Actual signal content, however, is another matter.
Marc … your equipment appears thoroughly capable … esp the B&W’s. I gave my daughter a little pair of 805’s to go with the old Thorens (mid range) turntable that I bought for her a few years ago.
If you haven’t seen it … https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HgS6gvokEI
American-made, hand-made … since the inception of the Company. Builds their own custom-designed transformers. Similar to the best Brit. speaker mfr.’s who custom build their own drivers. Some day I hope to upgrade my old Spendor SP-100’s (that I purchased from the original owner) to a pair of ATC-100’s or B&W 802’s … lack of excess $$$ keeps me from my ultimate dream system. $ 20k + for speakers is quite a barrier !
Not a problem for me, but I have a Net radio station running out of my basement. 🙂
Who cares how 5 million Norwegians listen to their radios, FM/Digital?
The results of this may determine communications policies in other countries. In addition, it will determine which receivers will be required, which manufacturers will produce them, and who will sell them.
It’s much like what happened when analog TV was phased out a few years ago.
What we are seeing is all types of communication technology being shoved into one type of medium…and for th most part a naturally occuring proess…into the internet eventually and once that happens – big Brother will take control one way or another…..
Naturlich..Ja.?
Cheers…off to Costco to buy a 4k 120 hZ smart TV….lol
It’s actually quite easy to add extra capabilities into integrated circuits and often doesn’t cost much more. So, for the same space on a board and a bit of extra money, why not go from the electronic equivalent of a 2-cylinder engine to a V-8?
As for different communications technologies, many amateur radio transceivers are multi-mode nowadays and have all sorts of capabilities packed into small volumes. With some of my rigs, I can operate in single sideband, FM, or continuous wave (referred to by hams as CW), allowing me to go on the air with Morse code.
What could be so Draconian as DUAL BAND (Analog/DAB) Broadcasts?
Ah, socialism in action, creating problems where none exist!
Having only all digital transmissions is stupid thinking. Aside from not being able to show kids how to build crystal radios anymore, there is no redundancy in totally digital radio. An EMP will fry all new low power digital electronics and one then has no way to pick up radio transmissions. An old tube based radio would survive EMP as well as old radios that had been shielded or one could make a crystal radio with a chunk of galena to use as a diode. Also, tube transmitters would survive an EMP.
An EMP could ruin your whole day.
Radios, both AM and FM where the back ground noise of (most of us anyway) our lives, from the 20’s all the way through to now. The only time I listen to the radio now is when I am driving. which thankfully isn’t that much.
This is the Norwegian government station we’re talking about here, their CBC.
If the CBC switched to DAB would anyone even notice? Would those five people who noticed spend a hundred bucks to get a DAB receiver?
I say go for it.
What could be so Draconian as DUAL BAND (Analog/DAB) Broadcasts?
Actually, that makes sense. Many stations will be operating on medium wave in AM which, in Europe, is still quite popular. It’s not unusual to listen to a station from one country in another one nearby in that mode. Those stations will likely be on the air for several more years.
If you want further information on that, you could consult a reference such as the World Radio TV Handbook about that.
Having only all digital transmissions is stupid thinking. Aside from not being able to show kids how to build crystal radios anymore, there is no redundancy in totally digital radio.
During the period from the 1930s to the 1970s and maybe later, most amateur radio equipment was built in the U. S. and were, for the most part, based on vacuum tubes. They were good rigs but they were bulky and heavy. There’s a reason they were nicknamed “boat anchors” and are still affectionately referred to as such.
However, with advent of solid-state electronics, radios could be made smaller, lighter, and with more capabilities. Many of the older manufacturers found it too expensive or time-consuming to design new radios or re-tool to produce the solid-state circuitry. Consequently, most of those companies went out of business and are now historical artifacts, though many of their products are still available on the second-hand market.
One of the main reasons for using digital electronic equipment is cost. For the price of a boat anchor, one could get a transceiver that can do much more.
It’s largely a matter of practicality.
I think in a more free society, it’d be better to simply open the doors to digital transmission, rather than issue the change as a “decree”. Most analog transmitters of music or Tv now have a digital presence, and it didn’t require gov’t to demand this.
Prior to the oil boom and movement in world wide cheap electronics to its new world headquarters in China… there was in the 1970’s – 80’s Norway, Tandberg, known around the world for excellence in audio components. (the name Tandberg continues on as a manufacturer of teleconferencing equipment, it is not the same company).
I own only 1, the old school cassette TCD 420A in black, which functions flawlessly, and sounds as good as analog can. The few receivers from this company I’ve seen locally have been priced as though it was “audio art”. Which perhaps explains it as it is now. The Tandberg TR-2080 receiver was, with the Luxman R1120 (which I did own) at the top of the analog receiver game. Excellent quality. The individual components equally excellent as well.
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/tandberg
https://www.facebook.com/Tandbergaudio-components-140953972608428/
I must say I do not understand the motivation of this Norwegian edict. FM is perfetly adequate
I must say I do not understand the motivation of this Norwegian edict.
It could be the same reason why analog TV signals have been phased out. Digital signals don’t require such a large bandwidth, so the broadcasters could move to a different part of the spectrum. This would free the existing FM broadcast band and it could be allocated for different purposes.
In the U. S., the FCC often auctions off frequencies. There’s gold in them thar spectrum.
Sadly, analogue sounds better. It is a shame to see FM go away anywhere. The compressed sound delivered by FM kicks the crap out of the crap Mp3 files. But if your average (sheltered) Millennial never HEARS analogue, or only hears it on an iPhone or laptop speaker, then they will never know what they’re missing.
I have a state of the art Mcintosh analogue 2-channel stereo system driven by monoblocked MC-275’s. Tube heaven. My turntable is a Mcintosh MT-10 … my speakers are British (which is all I will say) and are simply sumptuous. I play only the very highest-end vinyl produced, including original issues and reissues engineered by the very best in the Industry; Mobile Fidelity, DCC, LP100, Analogue Productions. Sourced from the original analogue studio tapes. I like to demo the difference between my analogue system by playing my DCC copy of Pet Sounds, then playing a cd version and Mp3 version. Suffice to say that every listener is blown-away. The instruments that they never heard before, buried deep in the tracks and the subtlety of vocal tones is revealed in analogue … and washed-away in digital.
Digital is … convenient. Analogue is … Zen. Analogue is produced and played the same way in which it was made. By physical sound waves. Digital representation of those sound waves is artificial. Thin. Lifeless. There is a much stronger connection between listener and source in analogue. Even something as frivolous as having to listen to a whole lp side … and experience ALL of the artists work (not just the hits) is the difference between seeing an original Monet on canvas and a paint-by-numbers facsimile. Seeing the brush strokes of the artistic genius … immersing yourself in subtlety and nuance.
Governmental elimination of analogue is the equivalent of blinding everyone in one eye. You can still “see” … but not as nature designed vision. It’s a crude facsimile.
If that sounds as good as it looks…. (I’ve seen that previously, but have never sat down and listened).
http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/us/Products/pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=amplifiers&ProductId=MC275B
wow.
Bryston / NAD / Rega / Tandberg / sumptuous B&W here, but not complaining. and hearing what passes for good digital music these days with a good headphone, really exposes the faults. always AKG 701s, with green of course…
This is what the Norwegians are giving up, quality with real depth… for iPods.
sigh.
While its easy to see the comparison to TV going digital, radios are different, really.
I’ve got a boom box in the garage circa 1983. Still booms it out. We don’t replace our radios like TVs, as we have seen that technology rapidly evolve, several times in the last decade, from plasma, to LCD, to LED, 3D (fail), to SMART, curve screen, and now 4K being the bleeding edge.
Radio is still radio, largely over the air anyways. Talk radio has rapidly degraded though, the quality has gone straight downhill here on the left coast.
CKNW is unrecognizable now, just a goo of dimwits discussing dirge and progressive BS. CFAX Victoria is PRAVDA, bloody awful.
FM? Well, the best music stations I get are American, KISM, KISW and KZOK. The Canuck stations are either the FOX playing yute rock, ROCK101, which hasn’t changed its setlist since 1985, all the hippyhoppy and girly screeching music, and then the Q, Victoria, which isn’t bad half the time. No more Jack, it went Top20. ECK.
Anyways, our radios last decades, there’s only so much change in tech one can do in radio, mainly the display data on the set in your car.
While its easy to see the comparison to TV going digital, radios are different, really.
The same basic principles still apply as both a transmitter and a receiver are required, though the type of signals are different, of course.
Most people are unaware of how radios have changed since the days of vacuum tubes. They’ve become smaller in size because of the type of components that are used as well as how they’re constructed. Nowadays, one doesn’t see very many discrete components on circuit boards as surface mount technology has become more prominent.
Along with that are changes in their capabilities. Many radios have a variety of audio controls to change the sound quality. As well, one can program receivers by storing specific frequencies and modes in memories. In addition, frequency displays are much more detailed than they were when I first started listening to stations such as the Voice of America on shortwave more than 40 years ago.
As well, software-defined radios are becoming more common. Functions such as signal filtering can now be performed using software instead of hardware, giving the radios more flexibility.
Mind you, the equipment that has all of this tend to be for specialized applications, such as amateur radio or military communications. Eventually, though, it’s bound to make its way into commercial products.
Actual signal content, however, is another matter.
Marc … your equipment appears thoroughly capable … esp the B&W’s. I gave my daughter a little pair of 805’s to go with the old Thorens (mid range) turntable that I bought for her a few years ago.
If you haven’t seen it … https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2HgS6gvokEI
American-made, hand-made … since the inception of the Company. Builds their own custom-designed transformers. Similar to the best Brit. speaker mfr.’s who custom build their own drivers. Some day I hope to upgrade my old Spendor SP-100’s (that I purchased from the original owner) to a pair of ATC-100’s or B&W 802’s … lack of excess $$$ keeps me from my ultimate dream system. $ 20k + for speakers is quite a barrier !