Jason Voice wrote:
Ok after a lot of head scratching over here at PURE after reading your post – I have a little more.
Checking up on http://www.wohnort.org/dab/ukloc.html
it looks like Capital will show separately because it has a different (Station ID) SID, whereas the ones which are not duplicated have identical SIDs. So based on this theory we’re definitely doing the right thing by only showing one version of stations that broadcast with the same SID, however we’re not showing the strongest in this instance - which is odd. It’s a rare circumstance too and possibly why we haven’t noticed before.
We’re looking into whether or not we can show only the strongest when we meet more than on version of a station with the same SID in signal environments like yours, and we’re also considering whether it’s better to show multiples in this instance, although our thinking at present is that this is not ideal (products with only two line displays etc).
If I get any more information I’ll post it here.
Well, that's fantastic support mate! It looks like you have a handle on it. I don't mind if you show one version or both, so long as I can get the strongest and keep the different ones from the other transmitter.
The idea of just showing the strongest is a good one though, I also don't see the point of showing both, so long as the best reception one gets the stage. That consideration appears easy to resolve but it doesn't really matter either way.
Thanks for all your efforts. I shall keep reporting issues if I see them as I think it helps you as much as me. I hope I don't come across as a difficult customer as I don't wish to, I really like this product of yours and am not trying to nit-pick.
Yep, this must be rare. Thinking about it, to trigger this a receiver would have to be in a position where it can receive one local mux at good to perfect strength and one other local mux, which transmits some duplicate stations, at borderline strength (for me Bournemouth works fine but is suseptable to interference at times and needs considered radio positioning). Also, the distant mux would have to come later in the alphabet than the closer mux. If I were closer to the Bournemouth mux than the South Hants one it would seem to work perfectly for me (a little extreme to go flat hunting for this reason though...). Most people won't be seeing this bug.
Problem is, as coverage gets better more people may be in this position as overlap will become more common when local mux coverage areas move towards each other to close the gaps. People with roof top aerials would likely often see this issue so if you ever release a set with an aerial socket you'll have to have a solution. Also, people who live a little further away from a weaker mux, like Bournemouth is to me but far enough away that it breaks up all the time, will have to learn about the trim method or they will think they can receive far less stations than they really can. The weak distant transmitter would block out the strong local transmitter! This is really counter intuative as having the weaker station block out the stronger one is against all logic to people used to analogue radio. They will assume they are simply in a poor reception spot when in reality they are in a very good one.
Having looked at the link you provided, it seems some local muxes may transmit the same station as the next local mux but at differing bitrates so there may be a reason to want to hear the weaker signal for some people (if it has the higher bitrate). The only station like this for me would be Capital, but you show both of those anyway so I'm fine either way. Still, this means the best approach would be to give full choice and show both stations. The two line display problem would be there though, not a problem with an Evoke Flow, but I get your point. Perhaps show duplicates with a bracketed number next to each station name? Like The Coast (1) and The Coast (2) with the strongest being number 1? Just an idea.