|
|
You and Yours
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 |
You and Yours
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 |
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 I have seen them in Halfords. and is it adaptors or adapters... I am never sure. |
You and Yours
"Kurt Ayres" wrote in message
"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 Firstly, that thread dates back to December 2008, and if you follow the link from there to the PC World website that adaptor isn't available at PC World. Secondly, and if you'd have bothered to read the forum thread you'd have realised this, it looks to have been one of Dixons/Currys/PC World's famous offers that are intended to attract attention for the price being very low, but they actually don't have any stock available. Thirdly, the audio quailty of cheap DAB adaptors is basically guaranteed to be diabolical, so when you add this to DAB's already diabolical audio quality you get a doubly diabolical audio quality, which isn't the best quality. Fourthly, how would you plug a DAB adaptor into a hi-fi system or other piece of audio equipment with an FM tuner that doesn't have an audio input? I have seen them in Halfords. I've just looked on the Halfords website, and I couldn't see any DAB adaptors at all, let alone ones for under £25. -- 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
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
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. Actually, his answers were more honest than he normally is. Tony Moretta is clearly a pathological liar, there's no doubt about it. Anybody who could appear in a radio interview that was being listened to by hundreds of thousands to millions of people and say that it's an "urban myth" that DAB is less advanced than DAB+ and that DAB+ only offers "very, very slightly higher audio quality" than DAB, is obviously a bare faced liar, and judging by the frequency of the lies he comes out with I'd imagine that he would be officially categorised as being a pathological liar. 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'? When asked about whether DAB delivers inferior audio quality to FM on Feedback, the BBC's Director of Radio Tim Davie also claimed that: "DAB doesn't have the coverage of FM at this point. And it's really straightforward that the quality of your audio is related to how close you are to a transmitter. So DAB currently has less transmitters, so those people who are farther away from a transmitter aren't getting as good sound." So either the Cambridge-educated Davie doesn't understand the ridiculously simple concept that DAB's audio quailty is crap because teh bit rate levels are far too low, or he lied through his teeth. -- 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 article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Anybody who could appear in a radio interview that was being listened to by hundreds of thousands to millions of people and say that it's an "urban myth" that DAB is less advanced than DAB+ and that DAB+ only offers "very, very slightly higher audio quality" than DAB, is obviously a bare faced liar Have you heard UK DAB+ transmissions to compare with DAB? -- *Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
You and Yours
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
om 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. The audio quality of music on DAB varies from track to track, because some tracks are easy to compress whereas other tracks are more difficult to compress, and with DAB stations using bit rate levels that are far too low for the MP2 audio codec that's used on DAB, those tracks that are more difficult to compress sound crap as a result, because the encoder simply hasn't got enough bits available to encode the audio accurately enough - that's why the sound is gritty and dull and muffled etc. Freeview is very good... at the moment, though I do notice the odd glitch for some reason. The new BBC iPlayer 128 and 192 kbps AAC Internet radio streams are the best quality digital streams. 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? The BBC is grossly technically incompetent. -- 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
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
In article , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Anybody who could appear in a radio interview that was being listened to by hundreds of thousands to millions of people and say that it's an "urban myth" that DAB is less advanced than DAB+ and that DAB+ only offers "very, very slightly higher audio quality" than DAB, is obviously a bare faced liar 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+. 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. -- 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 , 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 was listening to a BBC Radio Essex in the car a few weeks ago and a few people who 'had a clue' phoned in about technical and reception problems with DAB. The expert guest effectively dismissed their question, implying that they were wrong, and said how it was all much better because you could get more stations. -- Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
You and Yours
In message , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote "DAB doesn't have the coverage of FM at this point. And it's really straightforward that the quality of your audio is related to how close you are to a transmitter. I've now heard this one a couple of times repeated by radio presenters who probably have no technical knowledge. It's probably in an idiots guide to 'spinning' DAB radio. -- Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
You and Yours
"Alan" wrote in message
In message , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote "DAB doesn't have the coverage of FM at this point. And it's really straightforward that the quality of your audio is related to how close you are to a transmitter. I've now heard this one a couple of times repeated by radio presenters who probably have no technical knowledge. It's probably in an idiots guide to 'spinning' DAB radio. I'd imagine that presenters / researchers will have listened to Tim Davie's appearance on Feedback when he incorrectly or dishonestly claimed that DAB's audio quality is only related to the distance from the transmitter, and because he's the BBC's Director of Radio they will have assumed that he knew what he was talking about and that he wouldn't have told utter porkie pies. So combining that with their lack of technical knowledge, so they're unable to question what he said properly, that's shaped how the issue of DAB's audio quality has been discussed on Radio 4 programmes since then. So, overall, Tim Davie's comment, which I'd bet he thought about prior to appearing on Feedback, in which case it was a bare faced lie, has successfully diverted attention away from the actual issue of DAB's crap audio quality. All in a day's work for a dishonest BBC exec, basically. They're all the same when it comes to DAB's audio quality, because I can't even remember anyone from the BBC providing an honest answer about it. -- 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 , 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 was listening to a BBC Radio Essex in the car a few weeks ago and a few people who 'had a clue' phoned in about technical and reception problems with DAB. The expert guest effectively dismissed their question, implying that they were wrong, and said how it was all much better because you could get more stations. You don't happen to remember who the "expert guest" was, do you? -- 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
So, overall, Tim Davie's comment, which I'd bet he thought about prior
to appearing on Feedback, in which case it was a bare faced lie, has successfully diverted attention away from the actual issue of DAB's crap audio quality. All in a day's work for a dishonest BBC exec, basically. They're all the same when it comes to DAB's audio quality, because I can't even remember anyone from the BBC providing an honest answer about it. Is there any mileage in mere individuals pursuing this general issue with the BBC Trust as a matter of impartiality? I have in mind that the BBC are promoting a technology and change which are arguably a matter of public policy and controversy. As such AIUI they are obliged by the charter to treat the subject with due accuracy and impartiality; but they are however allowed to express an opinion as the subject is broadcasting. -- R |
You and Yours
"Bill Wright" wrote in message ... 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. You and Yours often has broadcasting and media professionals both from the BBC and the commercial sector but I don't recall any of them being commented about on here. Perhaps readers here are shrewd enough to know that broadcasting executives like foreign ambassadors all speak with forked tongues. Roger R |
You and Yours
"Kurt Ayres" wrote in message
... "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'? 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 I have seen them in Halfords. and is it adaptors or adapters... I am never sure. It's neither. It's a tuner. Suitable to substitute for the FM tuner of a component system and not much else. Adapter implies it turns an existing FM radio into a DAB radio, presumably by transmitting an FM signal like the ones you can use to play MP3s in a car. I don't know whether they make (or are contemplating making) such a thing. -- Max Demian |
You and Yours
and is it adaptors or adapters... I am never sure. OED shows adapter with -or as an alternative. Ditto Merriam Webster so the cousins seem to be in step. -- R |
You and Yours
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? 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. -- *Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
You and Yours
"neverwas" wrote in message
om So, overall, Tim Davie's comment, which I'd bet he thought about prior to appearing on Feedback, in which case it was a bare faced lie, has successfully diverted attention away from the actual issue of DAB's crap audio quality. All in a day's work for a dishonest BBC exec, basically. They're all the same when it comes to DAB's audio quality, because I can't even remember anyone from the BBC providing an honest answer about it. Is there any mileage in mere individuals pursuing this general issue with the BBC Trust as a matter of impartiality? There are definitely grounds to complain about the BBC being extremely biased towards DAB. I've given a few examples of their bias on he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/20...as_towards_DAB A recent example was the TV ad campaign for The Ashes commentary, which used the line "The Ashes continues on DAB digital radio" without mentioning that The Ashes commentary was also available via the digital TV platforms and via the Internet - and the Internet would have been a more useful thing for people to know about considering that most people will have been at work, so a lot of people would have access to the Internet but not to DAB. I have in mind that the BBC are promoting a technology and change which are arguably a matter of public policy and controversy. The BBC Trust should hold a public consultation about the plans for the BBC's FM stations to be switched off, because it says on he http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets...st_consult.txt "It will also always consult as part of a “Public Value Test”, when there has been a proposal for a new service, or a significant change to an existing service." Proposing to switch off the BBC's national FM stations is obviously a "significant change to an existing service", so the BBC Trust would be shirking its responsibilities if it didn't consult about this issue. So I would suggest that you email the BBC Trust and ask them to hold a public consultation, and if they say that they don't intend to hold a consultation then complain to the BBC Trust about the BBC Trust shirking its responsibilities. The BBC was the main player in the Digital Radio Working Group (DRWG), which was the group that recommended to Government that a date should be set for FM to be switched off, and the Digital Britain report merely went along with basically all of the recommendations taht the DRWG made. The DRWG could not have recommended to Government that a date should be set for FM to be switched off without the BBC's support for that to happen, because if the BBC didn't want that to happen it could simply have refused to extend its national DAB multiplex to provide FM-like coverage, and digital radio switchover then couldn't happen. So the BBC has basically lobbied Government to set an FM switch off date, and that's what the Government has done, yet the BBC has done this without licence fee payers giving their blessing for this to happen, and the BBC Trust hasn't consulted with the public about this issue yet either. If you view the BBC as a company, and its shareholders are licence fee payers, as things currently stand the BBC is making decisions that shareholders don't want to happen, because if they did consult with the public about this there would only be one outcome, which is that the public would tell the BBC where to stick their plans to switch off FM. Shareholders wouldn't stand for that in normal companies, so I fail to see why the BBC thinks this is acceptable behaviour here. So the BBC Trust needs to hold a consultation on this, and if they refuse to hold one then people should first complain to the BBC Trust about the BBC Trust not sticking up for the interests of licence fee payers, and if that fails complain to your MP (or other MPs) about the BBC Trust. All it needs it to get one MP to take up this cause and the BBC Trust would basically be forced to hold a consultation even if it didn't want to of its own accord - although you would have to ask why it wouldn't want to do that considering that the BBC Trust is supposed to represent licence fee payers... As such AIUI they are obliged by the charter to treat the subject with due accuracy and impartiality; but they are however allowed to express an opinion as the subject is broadcasting. They're certainly supposed to maintain impartiality in everything they do, but when it comes to DAB they're incredibly biased. Also bear in mind why the BBC wants to push everyone onto DAB as quickly as possible because they fear that the longer it takes to switch from FM to digital radio the more people will end up listening via the Internet, and the BBC thinks that there's a higher probability that people who listen via the Internet will choose to listen to stations other than BBC ones. That is, it's all about protecting their existing audience, and the last thing on their minds is to actually do anything to benefit the public - the public isn't in favour of FM being switched off. -- 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
"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. 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. -- 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
"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 |
You and Yours
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:25:12 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote: 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 ? In 4:3? -- Peter Duncanson (in uk.tech.digital-tv) |
You and Yours
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:25:12 +0100, Mark Carver wrote: 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 ? In 4:3? In monochrome? It would be great for all those moody old films. Bill |
You and Yours
My guess is Broadcasts of Parliament and Parliamentary Committees.
After all, in order for us to see the detail with which hon and rt hon Members scrutinise legislation we need resolution of at least, oh, 4x4 with 4 bit greyscale? -- R |
You and Yours
Subscription? HD licence? Football? -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
You and Yours
Bill Wright wrote:
What the chuff is a '£25 adaptor'? Probably a DAB radio with an built in FM transmitter. A bit of a bodge really, but it would allow people to listen to DAB on a system that has FM. Richard E. |
You and Yours
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 They tackled the problem of sound quality in the way they often do. By becomming very vague, providing a bit of meaningless waffle, and then mentioning that the coverage will be improved. It looks very unlikely that they will ever actually admit that DAB provides poor sound quality. Richard E. |
You and Yours
In article ,
Richard Evans wrote: Bill Wright wrote: What the chuff is a '£25 adaptor'? Probably a DAB radio with an built in FM transmitter. A bit of a bodge really, but it would allow people to listen to DAB on a system that has FM. these certainly exist for cars: "Pure Highway" for instance. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11 |
You and Yours
On Aug 15, 2:01*pm, "Bill Wright"
wrote: "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. Well, but it was a silly question, wasn't it? If you'd already decided it couldn't be the obvious answer because of assumptions you'd made about the mans intentions combined with a detailed knowledge of your own personal radio equipment and intolerance for clutter, it's a pity you didn't give anyone a hint that was the case. I'd agree the adaptors are a bit **** and wouldn't have one in the house, but it's impossible for me to know that you know about them and feel the same way. |
You and Yours
"Bill Wright" wrote in message ... "seani" wrote in message ... 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. *snip* 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, If you "knew all about them", you'd know that the adaptors remodulate the received DAB station onto a spare FM channel. What do you mean by 'when your google is unbroken'? Are you trying to be funny? In any case, 'unbroken' is a silly word. I think seani meant you should http://www.just****inggoogleit.com/ . |
You and Yours
"seani" wrote in message ... On Aug 15, 2:01 pm, "Bill Wright" What do you mean by 'when your google is unbroken'? Are you trying to be funny? In any case, 'unbroken' is a silly word. Well, but it was a silly question, wasn't it? If you'd already decided it couldn't be the obvious answer because of assumptions you'd made about the mans intentions combined with a detailed knowledge of your own personal radio equipment and intolerance for clutter, it's a pity you didn't give anyone a hint that was the case. I think you were just being a bit cocky. Bill |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com