Sky Gnome £69.99 + p & p
 

http://www.media247.co.uk/skydigital/news.php

In article , says...

http://www.media247.co.uk/skydigital/news.php


That is expensive considering that you need a sky box to use the thing

Ad C wrote:
In article , says...

http://www.media247.co.uk/skydigital/news.php

That is expensive considering that you need a sky box to use the thing

It is cheaper than an equivalent quality DAB radio. I do not consider it
expensive. Perhaps you are poorer than me.

INDUSTRIAL.

In article , lid
says...

That is expensive considering that you need a sky box to use the thing

It is cheaper than an equivalent quality DAB radio. I do not consider it
expensive. Perhaps you are poorer than me.



But it is not really portable or anywhere near it. No one knows how far
away from the box this thing will work, if you got a large garden, then
you could be stuck. Don't take any notice of figures, they are not
always true.


I am poorer than everyone :-)

Mike Henry wrote:
In , Industrial
wrote:

Ad C wrote:

In article , says...


http://www.media247.co.uk/skydigital/news.php

That is expensive considering that you need a sky box to use the thing

It is cheaper than an equivalent quality DAB radio.

But that's a contradiction in terms. "equivalent quality" depends on the
bitrates, which are always the same or higher on satellite. So you'll
never find a DAB to match the Gnome+digibox+dish. Or reading it the
other way, "quality DAB radio" - now that's really difficult to find
because of what DAB is in terms of technology, broadcasting and
bitrates.

So another bit-rate obsessive hijacks a legitimate discussion about a
scarcely related subject. No changes there.

I was referring to the quality of the set itself. That's why I wrote
"equivalent quality DAB radio" rather than "DAB radio of which the sound
quality of delivered broadcast audio is equivalent". Things like build
quality, speaker quality, ease of use, battery life, etc.

INDUSTRIAL.

Industrial wrote on Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:47:35 +0100:

I was referring to the quality of the set itself. That's why I wrote
"equivalent quality DAB radio" rather than "DAB radio of which the sound
quality of delivered broadcast audio is equivalent". Things like build
quality, speaker quality, ease of use, battery life, etc.

Why would anyone care about the speaker quality, if they didn't
care about the audio quality!?

--
David Taylor

Industrial wrote:
Mike Henry wrote:
In , Industrial
wrote:

Ad C wrote:

In article ,
says...
http://www.media247.co.uk/skydigital/news.php

That is expensive considering that you need a sky box to use the
thing

It is cheaper than an equivalent quality DAB radio.

But that's a contradiction in terms. "equivalent quality" depends on
the bitrates, which are always the same or higher on satellite. So
you'll never find a DAB to match the Gnome+digibox+dish. Or reading
it the other way, "quality DAB radio" - now that's really difficult
to find because of what DAB is in terms of technology, broadcasting
and bitrates.

So another bit-rate obsessive hijacks a legitimate discussion


Cock.


about a
scarcely related subject. No changes there.


Scarcely related? What on earth are you going on about, you imbecile?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

David Taylor wrote:
Industrial wrote on Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:47:35
+0100:

I was referring to the quality of the set itself. That's why I wrote
"equivalent quality DAB radio" rather than "DAB radio of which the
sound quality of delivered broadcast audio is equivalent". Things
like build quality, speaker quality, ease of use, battery life, etc.

Why would anyone care about the speaker quality, if they didn't
care about the audio quality!?


Quite.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

Ad C wrote:
In article , lid
says...

That is expensive considering that you need a sky box to use the
thing

It is cheaper than an equivalent quality DAB radio. I do not
consider it expensive. Perhaps you are poorer than me.



But it is not really portable or anywhere near it. No one knows how
far away from the box this thing will work,


30 metres.


if you got a large
garden, then you could be stuck. Don't take any notice of figures,
they are not always true.


2 + 2 = 4


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

In article ,
ity says...
David Taylor wrote:
Industrial wrote on Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:47:35
+0100:

I was referring to the quality of the set itself. That's why I wrote
"equivalent quality DAB radio" rather than "DAB radio of which the
sound quality of delivered broadcast audio is equivalent". Things
like build quality, speaker quality, ease of use, battery life, etc.

Why would anyone care about the speaker quality, if they didn't
care about the audio quality!?


Quite.




Talking about the speakers, I notice that they are on the back of the
box, it seems a strange place to put them.