Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LG Releases First Smartphone With DAB+ Chip (thestack.com)

Posted by timothy on from the shortwave-is-next dept.

An anonymous reader writes: LG have released the first smartphone with built-in DAB+ circuitry,allowing users to listen to digital radio without consuming mobile data bandwidth. The LG Stylus 2 will initially be released in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Norway, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands (perhaps not coincidentally these are among the highest-rate adopters of DAB/DAB+). Patchy coverage and often-poor bitrates have hindered the take-up of DAB/+, which has been in development since the early 1980s, and it's hoped that the shift from the motoring to the smartphone space will alleviate some of the coverage problems that users experienced with the push to DAB-based car radios. No benchmarks on power consumption of the integrated DAB+ circuitry is currently available.

53 comments

  1. Finally???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who says the illuminati aren't in control when it's clear the newest tech is always held out for the wealthy elitist bastards for at least ten years, or until some other better tech comes out into play.

    kill all humans !

    wdw

  2. Brilliant by zarr · · Score: 2, Funny

    So now you can listen to crappy bandwith radio while draining your battery at double speed. Nice.

    1. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DAB+ is at least an order of magnitude better than FM.

    2. Re:Brilliant by bug1 · · Score: 1

      It should not use much of your battery, it doesnt have to transmit AFAIK.

    3. Re:Brilliant by ffkom · · Score: 2

      You probably never listened to real-life DAB+. The abysmal rates (32kbit/s to 64kbit/s) most stations use here (because it's just so much cheaper) sound like crap in comparison to the same stations via analog FM. Sure, DAB+ could _theoretically_ sound much better, if they weren't cheap on bandwidth, but they are.

    4. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I listen to DAB+ every day and while not perfect, it is usually more than good enough. It doesn't have any of the audible noise FM tends to have and the dynamic range is noticably better. Most stations here are either 128 or 96 kb/s.

    5. Re:Brilliant by zarr · · Score: 2

      In Norway channels are typially 80kbps, while some go even further down. Expect local stations to be among those when they make the switch, to save cost.
      Source (in Norwegian): http://www.lydogbilde.no/nyhet...

    6. Re:Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still have to decode the signal. Processing power is what uses more power than just a analogue signal being turned into sound.

    7. Re:Brilliant by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The abysmal rates (32kbit/s to 64kbit/s) most stations use here

      Here is a big variable.

      National broadcasts "here" (Netherlands) are 96kbps or 128kbps
      Popular stations are 80kbps or 96kbps. And still sound better than FM.

      Only some edge case junk I can barely pick up on FM broadcasts below 64kbps.

  3. fEEL LIKE WE MISSING OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should get radio with worse coverage and more compression too!

  4. Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just like any other DAB/+ radio vs. FM, for the simple reason that it needs to do a lot more for at best the same result.

    Curious how digital TV is an improvement (usually), but digital radio fails in that space.

    1. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that digital TV was an improvement because it allowed them to shove more channels in the same limited bandwidth. Thus, not for efficiency or quality reasons, just bulk advertisements.

    2. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by clonehappy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because unlike FM Stereo, analog TV left a lot of room for improvement. FM Stereo, for most use cases, really actually is "good enough" considering the vast majority of people aren't audiophiles.

      Also, the sketchy RF environment inherent in mobile use (such as in the car or handheld device) isn't well suited for digital. Where an analog signal fades for a split second or you get a moment of static, the digital drops out completely, tries to re-sync the stream and has to buffer before it continues playing.

      Some things really are just better suited for a down-and-dirty analog connection.

    3. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Does DAB use a scheme like satellite radio, where the same data is sent a second time after a delay? If not, what is the point of buffering?

    4. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      While in the US, digital TV is associated with HD, in Europe it was originally associated with "more channels", HD coming later. The "more channels" thing is also the argument for digital audio, and the US "equivalent" of DAB, HDRadio (urgh) is mostly about adding channels, with a minor quality improvement that's kind of noticable but most ears forget about after a few seconds of listening.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was about freeing up large chunks of spectrum bandwidth that the government could make $$$ with in future mobile operator licensing,

    6. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      I don't know the specifics of DAB, but the US standard (IBOC HD) does generally have two redundant streams with a delay.

    7. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by bug1 · · Score: 1

      Hamming codes provide error correction, but its not really sending out the same data twice. It can correct small isolated errors. It does require a buffer, but not a large one.

    8. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Ormy · · Score: 1

      Because unlike FM Stereo, analog TV left a lot of room for improvement. FM Stereo, for most use cases, really actually is "good enough" considering the vast majority of people aren't audiophiles.

      Also, the sketchy RF environment inherent in mobile use (such as in the car or handheld device) isn't well suited for digital. Where an analog signal fades for a split second or you get a moment of static, the digital drops out completely, tries to re-sync the stream and has to buffer before it continues playing.

      Some things really are just better suited for a down-and-dirty analog connection.

      I would tend to agree but I have first hand anecdotal evidence to the contrary. After installing a DAB in my car I get far more channels that are much easier to search/navigate and the reception is largely the same or possibly better, in the various tunnels and longer under-passes (London) DAB receives slightly better than FM did and regains signal very quickly indeed compared to HDMI for example, but I know it cannot be instantaneous.

    9. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by ffkom · · Score: 1

      I'm too very sceptical about the power consumption of this receiver: So far, all the DAB+ radios I held in hand ate battery like crazy - about 10 times the amount of a similar FM radio. So either this LG phone has some new, exciting DAB+ chipset that is way more efficient than what we've seen so far, or it's an epic fail in terms of usability.

    10. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one think that all new mobile phones (exceeding a $50 price) that are manufactured or imported to the U.S. should have an FM chip so we don't have to use data, especially when we need news in an emergency. I said "should".

      But as for digital radio, meh. I think analog FM is more important.

      By the way, with DAB, can they require a subscription to listen to a given station?

    11. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the policymakers (lobbyists, politicians) all run around in London, so it gets the best DAB coverage. This isn't true for much of the rest of the country.

    12. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by johanw · · Score: 1

      "considering the vast majority of people aren't audiophiles."

      And considering not everyone listens to music all the time. I usually put on a news channel when I'm driving, or don't have any radio at all when I drive a short distance.

    13. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But those "future mobile operator" will still have 2Gb/Month caps

    14. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like digital television, digital radio is mostly used to broadcast more channels in the same amount of bandwidth.

    15. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Digital TV was mostly introduced to cram more channels in the same amount of bandwidth at comparable quality, i.e., precisely the same reason FM radio is now gradually being replaced by DAB+.

    16. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FM will be switched off in a few years anyway. Being able to receive DAB+ is more useful at this point.

    17. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Because unlike FM Stereo, analog TV left a lot of room for improvement. FM Stereo, for most use cases, really actually is "good enough" considering the vast majority of people aren't audiophiles.

      Spoken like someone who forgot the golden years of the CD. Non audiophiles marveled at the quality boost just as much as any other person. FM is not "good enough", just DAB+ has some disadvantages that cancel out the benefits and don't make it worth while in many scenarios (some of which you mentioned).

    18. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If not, what is the point of buffering?

      Packet decryption. The buffering period is incredibly short, but it's there. You need a portion of the stream before you can start decoding it. This is typically 1 second. But 1 second is an entire lifetime compared to an FM signal which may get a sudden bit of noise and then recover instantly and it makes a borderline signal unalienable.

    19. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Aereus · · Score: 1

      I find HDRadio to be a huge improvement over regular FM quality in my car. When the digital signal syncs I can hear a large difference in the sound stage compared to the first few seconds when its still using the analog. Every so often the HD signal is down for the day on a station, and I kinda wince at having to listen in analog as its just not anywhere near as nice to listen to IMHO.

    20. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the UK the switch to digital was largely a downgrade. The picture quality on digital channels is atrocious. Extremely low bit rate and resolution, far worse than an average analogue signal. For a while the HD channels weren't too bad, but over the years they have been cutting away at the bit rate on those too. Even the BBC's streaming service, iPlayer, is down to 720p low bit rate. Amateur stuff on YouTube looks far, far better now.

      The same is true of radio. DAB has brought low bit rates and poor reception, compared to much better sounding analogue FM.

      The only "benefit" has been more channels, which in practice means a couple of extra useful ones and a vast sea of utter shite.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Worse power consumption than with FM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FM will be switched off in a few years anyway. Being able to receive DAB+ is more useful at this point.

      That'd be one of the worst things to do. Old devices can do FM just fine. You'd be unnecessarily obsoleting perfectly working devices--devices which may need to be used in storm conditions. There is no reason to get rid of FM. It probably even works better when in motion (cars) versus digital.

      Did you mean "will" or "should"? I assume "should", but if you meant "will", I really hope they change their minds.

      American in the U.S. here.

  5. 1980s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't have digital technology in the 1980s. This is a hoax.

  6. What a waste by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's the point of this? There isn't much to listen to on the radio these days anyway.

    1. Re:What a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that all we hear is radio goo goo and radio ga ga?

    2. Re:What a waste by Threni · · Score: 1

      DAB solved the problem how "how can I sell a radio for £150 which gives me far fewer stations than an FM radio with worse sound quality". They're bringing this marketing triumph to the masses through the miracle of smartphones.

    3. Re:What a waste by Teun · · Score: 1

      This is for Europe where radio is great.
      Around here I get some + 50 DAB+ stations for all tastes.

      The biggest advantage for the listener is it's cell based so while driving it switches without drop out, for the owner it's especially the lower power cost.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:What a waste by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Qualcomm Snapdragon SoCs generally support FM Radio and it used to be a standard feature with the headphone jack acting as an aerial.

      When I'm on public transport I listen to the community radio stations such as PBS, RRR, ZZZ that support local artists and subcultures. How else does one stumble across gigs and local happenings?

      Obviously Googlebots in California don't use the feature though, since they explicitly do not support the feature in their Nexus series - bastards! So it will be a turnaround if LG's next Nexus includes *digital* radio.

    5. Re:What a waste by shione · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think they could do far more better by using a better DAC in their phones like a Wolfson. I'd buy their cheap phones just as music player if they did that. Samsung's GS2 had radio built into it and used the earphone cable as an antenna, then they took the radio out in the GS3 onwards. In fact a lot of new phones including the iphone have FM capability (Murata 339S0228 chip) but it is turned off in the firmware or not electrically connected to a antenna source. Seems a bit odd to be going for DAB in a phone when they can have FM now but its disabled.

    6. Re:What a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what parallel universe does DAB have fewer channels or worse sound quality?

    7. Re:What a waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America.

  7. Reminds me of APS film by Kodak by u19925 · · Score: 1

    Kodak came up with APS film way too late in the game and no one ever used. APS fell in between 35 mm film and digital. DAB is like that. It falls between FM and digital streaming. It is too late.

    Better option would be for government to completely wipe out AM/FM and replace with digital channels. It can squeeze more than 1000 stations with 128k bit rate in the current FM band. If that standardizes, I will start listening radio again (current satellite radios too expensive and DAB coverage not worth).

    1. Re:Reminds me of APS film by Kodak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APS?, I can see where you're going with that but a better camera film analogy would be This. LIke DAB, ISTR the advertising fluff of the time made it out to be the future, high quality images with a smaller negative..most people who fell for that one usually binned the cameras (or buried them at the back of the sock/underwear drawer) after the first set of prints came back..

      It's the same with DAB, here in the UK, 16 years after DAB radios became readily available commercially, and despite being one of the 'highest-rate adopters' the things are not that popular. People fell for the advertising, bought the things, found the reception to be piss-poor and the sound quality to be doubly piss-poor, so spread the word. If you're going to talk about increasing numbers of DAB radios being sold, you have to take into account that a lot of them also double as FM receivers, and this is what they get used for.
      On this I can only comment on what I've observed as I don't own any DAB radios (I borrowed one to test reception at home - worse than piss-poor, and I'm not a fan of the sound quality (when it comes to music) from them either) , and the one at work is usually on FM as the DAB reception round here, putting it mildly, sucks. (Despite our location being on the top of a hill, with theoretically unobstructed views of the various transmitters..)

  8. seems like good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm totally into "more is better" when it comes to actual radio receivers (and transmitters) in our phones. If you were to take your smartphone back to 1966, those confused bastards would probably think it's some kind of fancy transistor radio anyway (and they'd be right, sort of). (Now that I think of it, smartphones might as well have OTA digital TV tuners, too.)

    Next: when do our phones come with Citizens Band or something like that? I should be able to talk to my wife across a CostCo without going through the cell networks.

    "Where are you? Over."

    "I'm over--"

    "What? Over."

    "I'm over at--"

    "Say again. Over."

    Oh, right. "I am backslash-over at the beer area. Over."

    1. Re:seems like good idea by threephaseboy · · Score: 1

      Next: when do our phones come with Citizens Band or something like that?

      Done

      --
      .
    2. Re:seems like good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheaper option in the form of a pair of PMR HTs. (costco.com gave me an access denied error, even on their front page. Oh well.)

      On another note, this whole "push-to-talk" thing available at any telco for any price? GSM can do it, and so can various phones, but I've never seen it offered.

    3. Re:seems like good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheaper option in the form of a pair of PMR HTs. (costco.com gave me an access denied error, even on their front page. Oh well.)

      On another note, this whole "push-to-talk" thing available at any telco for any price? GSM can do it, and so can various phones, but I've never seen it offered.

      I found mention of this PTT facility buried somewhere on a Vodafone site, so you might try them. From what I can remember it's a company thing (available for nn+ employees) and no pricing visible online (talk to our salesdrones) so probably effing expensive.
      I'm sorry I don't have a link at hand as I was looking @work.

      I'll just stick to using UV5Rs...

  9. You are wrong, the first digital radio receiver... by ffkom · · Score: 2

    ... for the "DSR" (Digital Sattelite Radio) service was presented by Telefunken on August 20th, 1982. The DSR service was officially launched in 1989. And yes, DSR is among the 4+ digital radio standards that already died while FM is still thriving (DSR was shut off in 1999).

  10. Re:You are wrong, the first digital radio receiver by ffkom · · Score: 1

    And here's a picture + description of it: http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/t...

  11. Broadcast UDP, OTA via wi-fi? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Can anyone tell me whether there ways of using UDP broadcast over the air? The idea is that you would have a wireless server, with an IP address throwing out packets for its content and then have wi-fi stations simply receiving these packets and making them available to systems on the local network. The idea being that you could simply set up a wi-fi router and then transmit. A little like a mesh, except it is one way.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Broadcast UDP, OTA via wi-fi? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself, but looks like there is already one project

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  12. Missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DAB = Digital Audio Broadcasting

    p.s. After learning that, I can't be arsed to care what DAB+ refers to, because I've never used and will never use digital audio broadcasting.

  13. Coverage Problems? by Agripa · · Score: 1

    ... it's hoped that the shift from the motoring to the smartphone space will alleviate some of the coverage problems that users experienced with the push to DAB-based car radios.

    How will using a handheld device with a tiny antenna solve coverage problems compared to a vehicle with a proper antenna?