jarledb: I am not sure why people don't see the benefit of DAB. I think a lot of it has to do with some bad examples and also FUD from the likes of the mobile network industry.

DAB+ has a modern codec (AAC+ equivalent), and if you have at least 96 Kbit/s bandwidth you achieve FM-quality.

The true strength of DAB is that you can use single frequency networks, that things like reflections of signals on mountain walls/city walls actually strengthens the signal instead of weakening it, etc.

The problem it causes for the industry is that suddenly you can have a situation where you and your competitors all have equal signal strength and you have to compete on something other than just being heard (technically).

My experience with DAB here in Norway has been great. I can drive around in Norway without losing stations, without the tuner skipping between several transmitters and without the noise interference which is so typical for FM.

I am a sound engineer and worked 10 years in radio, and several FM transmitters that I was responsible for. What I wouldnt't have given for a network that would have given us good signal all over our county.

There are lots of ways to make sound on DAB bad, but most of the ways also make FM sound bad today, such as over compression to sound the loudest. On FM that is also done to extend coverage areas, because the noise is not as noticeable when you are compressing your sound signal heavily. With DAB there is no reason to do that.

Here in Norway there is actually an agreement between the stations to follow the same kind of loudness on DAB, so that you have the same base signal (in loudness) on all stations. And that is for both commercial and state channels.