You and Yours
 

"Mike Henry" wrote in message

In , "Bill Wright"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...rs_14_08_2009/

I'm surprised that you hounds haven't leapt upon this and devoured
it.
Go to the 47 minute point and marvel at the sheer bloody cheek of
the
bloke, telling the most outrageous lies about DAB and FM. A total
morass
of misinformation. What the chuff is a '£25 adaptor'?

I liked his "argument" against the fact that battery consumption is
higher
with DAB - the manufacturer Roberts has managed to make an FM radio
(feature-set unspecified) which consumes even more power than one of
their
DAB radios (feature-set unspecified). Oh well, that's proved it
then!


Yeah, that's what I thought. Innit great that BBC licence fee money
helps to pay that liar's wages....



--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

You and Yours
 

In message , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote

You don't happen to remember who the "expert guest" was, do you?


No, it was a programmes that I switched to when there was c**p on the
channel I was listen to. I caught the programme around half way through
and switched again when two or three misleading answers had been given.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

You and Yours
 

"seani" wrote in message
...
On Aug 15, 12:41 am, "Bill Wright"
wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...rs_14_08_2009/

I'm surprised that you hounds haven't leapt upon this and devoured it. Go
to
the 47 minute point and marvel at the sheer bloody cheek of the bloke,
telling the most outrageous lies about DAB and FM. A total morass of
misinformation. What the chuff is a '£25 adaptor'?

Bill

I don't know what else it was on about, but when your google is
unbroken you'll see a few adaptors at / under the 25 quid mark:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...html?t=1369515

Yes we all know about them. But the bloke was making out that they provided
a universal and perfect solution for anyone who has a DAB-less radio, which
is ********. I was listening on a £150 kitchen radio/CD player, which has
excellent audio quality, but no aux inputs. I don't see how a DAB adaptor
could connect to that radio, and even if it could it would be more clutter
that I don't won't and it would sound crap. It was very misleading for the
non-techy listener. It's a pity that woman who interviewed him wasn't more
clued up, because she just didn't know what to ask to expose his bollockery.
Or maybe that was the idea.

What do you mean by 'when your google is unbroken'? Are you trying to be
funny? In any case, 'unbroken' is a silly word.

Bill

You and Yours
 

In article , DAB sounds worse than FM
wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote:
Have you heard UK DAB+ transmissions to compare with DAB?

DAB+ uses the AAC/AAC+ audio codec, so all you need to do to hear
how DAB+ performs is to encode your own music to AAC/AAC+. There's no
need to actually be able to receive DAB+.

Right. So DAB+ will always sound better than DAB - regardless of the
data rates used on either?


I didn't actually say that at all, but the logical conclusion is that
DAB+ should sound far better than DAB because AAC/AAC+ is so much more
efficient than the MP2 codec used on DAB it's difficult to imagine any
broadcaster choosing to deliver lower audio quality on DAB+ than on DAB.

They've already chosen to use less than ideal rates on DAB - so why are
you so sure they won't on DAB+?


After so many years of sticking up for DAB, you don't even appear to
have learnt the very, very basics of how the system works, Plowman.

And you don't have any idea of what may happen in the real world.


I've got a very good idea of what will happen in the real world on
DAB+, thanks.

Your famous crystal ball again.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

You and Yours
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM
wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article , DAB sounds worse
than
FM wrote:
Have you heard UK DAB+ transmissions to compare with DAB?

DAB+ uses the AAC/AAC+ audio codec, so all you need to do to hear
how DAB+ performs is to encode your own music to AAC/AAC+.
There's no
need to actually be able to receive DAB+.

Right. So DAB+ will always sound better than DAB - regardless of
the
data rates used on either?


I didn't actually say that at all, but the logical conclusion is
that
DAB+ should sound far better than DAB because AAC/AAC+ is so much
more
efficient than the MP2 codec used on DAB it's difficult to imagine
any
broadcaster choosing to deliver lower audio quality on DAB+ than on
DAB.

They've already chosen to use less than ideal rates on DAB - so why
are
you so sure they won't on DAB+?


All I'm saying is that they're likely to deliver higher quality on
DAB+ than on DAB, because DAB+ makes it cheaper for the broadcasters,
stations wouldn't need to be squeezed into multiplexes like trhey are
now, etc.

I've yet to see anyone put forward an argument for why the BBC would
continue to deliver anything like as bad quality when they switch to
DAB+ as they deliver now, for instance, because DAB+ is about 3 times
more efficient than DAB, so whoever wants to claim that DAB+ would
deliver no improvement in the audio quality of the BBC's stations
would have to come up with a plausible explanation for what the BBC
would transmit in the other 2 thirds of the multiplex that would be
freed up once the stations switched to DAB+. I haven't seen anyone
come close to providing a decent argument for why the BBC wouldn't
massively improve the quality if they switched to DAB+.


After so many years of sticking up for DAB, you don't even appear
to
have learnt the very, very basics of how the system works,
Plowman.

And you don't have any idea of what may happen in the real world.


I've got a very good idea of what will happen in the real world on
DAB+, thanks.

Your famous crystal ball again.


It's referred to as "understanding the subject", David. It's basically
the difference between you and me when it comes to digital radio,
because I know my stuff, whereas you know naff all.




--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

You and Yours
 

"Alan" wrote in message

In message , DAB sounds worse
than
FM wrote

You don't happen to remember who the "expert guest" was, do you?


No, it was a programmes that I switched to when there was c**p on
the
channel I was listen to. I caught the programme around half way
through
and switched again when two or three misleading answers had been
given.


Fair enough.



--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

You and Yours
 

On 15/08/09 09:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
A sub comment.
Having listened to dab, freeview and fm of the same stations here. Pure,
Netgem and Denon respectively, through the same audio chain, I have these
observations.

Dab sounds OK, but is fatiguing, its hard to say why, though its probably
the tendency to grittiness.

Freeview is very good... at the moment, though I do notice the odd glitch
for some reason.

FM, though hissier, is nicer sounding, less in your face, but can be more
compressed than the same on either of the other mediums.

Conclusion, our radio station engineers care sod all fro quality in any
shape or form, and none of the mediums is being ised to the potential it is
capable of. Do BBC engineers really exist any more?

There are very few traditional engineers still at the BBC, most are now
working for Siemens/RedBee with the possible exception of TV Studios
(only because they couldn't find a buyer) and Radio. When you are a
contractor, technical comment is no longer always welcome by either the
BBC or your employer (especially if they installed the system).

Also as there is no longer an engineering directorate at the BBC, the
quantity of stations is dictating the quality. The BBC research
department did publish a paper some years ago stating the minimum
bitrate for compression to be 192Kb but should be 256Kb. I would not
blame the engineers as they are effectively powerless.

At a speech given by a Head of Technology around 2004/5 he stated if
there was still anyone with the title 'Engineer' in the BBC by 2012 then
he would have failed in his job.

You and Yours
 

In article , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote:
I've yet to see anyone put forward an argument for why the BBC would
continue to deliver anything like as bad quality when they switch to
DAB+ as they deliver now, for instance, because DAB+ is about 3 times
more efficient than DAB, so whoever wants to claim that DAB+ would
deliver no improvement in the audio quality of the BBC's stations
would have to come up with a plausible explanation for what the BBC
would transmit in the other 2 thirds of the multiplex that would be
freed up once the stations switched to DAB+. I haven't seen anyone
come close to providing a decent argument for why the BBC wouldn't
massively improve the quality if they switched to DAB+.

Have we any reason to believe that they wouldn't do exactly what they've
done up to now with digital radio, and use the extra space to provide
more of what they call "choice"? (at the same time telling us that this
is what we want).

Whatever they do with it, I'll believe it when I hear it - if I can be
bothered to listen. There's so much stuff available elsewhere nowadays
that it really hardly matters.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

You and Yours
 

On 15 Aug, 17:58, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse than

FM wrote:
I've yet to see anyone put forward an argument for why the BBC would
continue to deliver anything like as bad quality when they switch to
DAB+ as they deliver now, for instance, because DAB+ is about 3 times
more efficient than DAB, so whoever wants to claim that DAB+ would
deliver no improvement in the audio quality of the BBC's stations
would have to come up with a plausible explanation for what the BBC
would transmit in the other 2 thirds of the multiplex that would be
freed up once the stations switched to DAB+. I haven't seen anyone
come close to providing a decent argument for why the BBC wouldn't
massively improve the quality if they switched to DAB+.

Have we any reason to believe that they wouldn't do exactly what they've
done up to now with digital radio, and use the extra space to provide
more of what they call "choice"? (at the same time telling us that this
is what we want).

Whatever they do with it, I'll believe it when I hear it - if I can be
bothered to listen. There's so much stuff available elsewhere nowadays
that it really hardly matters.

I'm with you Rod. I don't see the point in arguing it - we can all
wait and see what happens - but I don't understand where Steve gets
his optimism from on this point!

If we started day one with DAB+ and DRM+, and the rest of Europe was
simultaneously on board, then we'd see a very different scenario from
what we've faced 2002-2009.

However, starting from here, and trying to move to there (note: no one
important is pushing DRM+ yet), I think the future for broadcast
digital radio isn't anything that will interest people who want decent
quality.

btw, I've just heard something about HD on DVB-T2 which will make
people's jaws drop (in a bad way) if it comes to pass. I can't tell
you what it is, and I can't believe it myself, but we'll all see soon
enough. (This isn't about the quality).

Cheers,
David.

You and Yours
 

2Bdecided wrote:
btw, I've just heard something about HD on DVB-T2 which will make
people's jaws drop (in a bad way) if it comes to pass. I can't tell
you what it is, and I can't believe it myself, but we'll all see soon
enough. (This isn't about the quality).

You can't leave us hanging on a cliff-hanger like that !!

Not about the quality, ummmm, perhaps just a single HD channel running at 34
Mb/s, but showing a compilation of BBC, ITV, C4 and 5 HD programmes for just 4
hours per night ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk