DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

From 'You and Yours'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01nwk66

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01nwk6t

--
Davey.

DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

"Davey" wrote in message
...
From 'You and Yours'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01nwk66

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01nwk6t

--


Heard it live - a combination of lies and obfuscating and
misleading waffle with many questions side-stepped or just
plain ignored 'Thatcher' style (i.e. answer your own
question, not the one asked.)

What I found really annoying is that DAB+, whilst accepted
as able to handle more data, was (a) implied that it is an
upgrade of the existing DAB rather than a completely
different process and (b) it was pushed as being able to
handle more stations rather than premitting existing
stations to be broadcast in better quality which many
contributors had complained about.

They also insisted that many countries in Europe and around
the world are moving to DAB - which a little research will
show is untrue. Some countries have tried DAB but switched
it off again - a point conveniently missed.

What was that about 'never mind the quality feel the width?'


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:18:45 -0000
"Woody" wrote:

Heard it live - a combination of lies and obfuscating and
misleading waffle with many questions side-stepped or just
plain ignored 'Thatcher' style (i.e. answer your own
question, not the one asked.)

What I found really annoying is that DAB+, whilst accepted
as able to handle more data, was (a) implied that it is an
upgrade of the existing DAB rather than a completely
different process and (b) it was pushed as being able to
handle more stations rather than premitting existing
stations to be broadcast in better quality which many
contributors had complained about.

They also insisted that many countries in Europe and around
the world are moving to DAB - which a little research will
show is untrue. Some countries have tried DAB but switched
it off again - a point conveniently missed.

What was that about 'never mind the quality feel the width?'



My feeling was that the interviewees absolutely refused to accept that
there were any problems at all. A blithe "27 million people listening
on DAB", how do they know? Totally ignoring very relevant points
brought up. Typical political obfuscation.


BTW, how come your response appears as a sig.? I had to copy and paste
it to make it appear in my reply to you.

--
Davey.

DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:18:45 -0000
"Woody" wrote:

Heard it live - a combination of lies and obfuscating and
misleading waffle with many questions side-stepped or
just
plain ignored 'Thatcher' style (i.e. answer your own
question, not the one asked.)

What I found really annoying is that DAB+, whilst
accepted
as able to handle more data, was (a) implied that it is
an
upgrade of the existing DAB rather than a completely
different process and (b) it was pushed as being able to
handle more stations rather than premitting existing
stations to be broadcast in better quality which many
contributors had complained about.

They also insisted that many countries in Europe and
around
the world are moving to DAB - which a little research
will
show is untrue. Some countries have tried DAB but
switched
it off again - a point conveniently missed.

What was that about 'never mind the quality feel the
width?'



My feeling was that the interviewees absolutely refused to
accept that
there were any problems at all. A blithe "27 million
people listening
on DAB", how do they know? Totally ignoring very relevant
points
brought up. Typical political obfuscation.


BTW, how come your response appears as a sig.? I had to
copy and paste
it to make it appear in my reply to you.


Ah, likely because I deleted your name but not the two
signature hyphens. Is this one OK?


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

"Woody" wrote:
"Davey" wrote in message
...
From 'You and Yours'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01nwk66

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01nwk6t


At the risk of relighting a fire, I've been very impressed with DAB since
recently getting my first car with a factory fitted DAB radio. I only tend
to listen to speech radio, so I was pleased to get the addition of Radios
5, 7 & the World Service. The surprising, to me, aspect is the quality of
reception. Driving around town I've yet to hear any bubbling mud or any
form of drop out. We have an underpass that is about 300 metres long. FM
reception is normally lost about a third of the way in. DAB held out for
the entire length. What is also interesting is that reception on my
driveway is also good. Within my house reception on radios with telescopic
rod antennas is patchy, even in the converted second floor loft by the
windows. In other words the car radio seems to be a much better receiver.
Mind you, modern factory fitted car FM radios seem to be very good sets as
well. I believe DAB was originally conceived primarily for in car
reception, and for that it seems to work well. Obviously, the car is never
going to be a good environment for HiFi listening and perhaps Internet
reception is the way to go to get high quality audio within the home. I'm
no "golden ears" but perhaps in all but the extreme cases, the bit rates
are good enough for kitchen and car radios. Don't get me wrong. I'm not in
favour of turning off the FM network, as this would render a lot of
receivers useless, but as an additional network, DAB is giving me extra,
useful, stations beyond the FM offering.

DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

I see dab as a not very good replacement for am at the moment.
So what of FM, now why not actually make a set of channels which transmit
stuff unprocessed for fm or am out through a realistically bit rated stream
for once.
I listened to a broadcast over DAB I recorded in 2001 and it was far better
than now, so somehting has gone bad somewhere.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Woody" wrote in message
...
"Davey" wrote in message
...
From 'You and Yours'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01nwk66

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01nwk6t

--


Heard it live - a combination of lies and obfuscating and misleading
waffle with many questions side-stepped or just plain ignored 'Thatcher'
style (i.e. answer your own question, not the one asked.)

What I found really annoying is that DAB+, whilst accepted as able to
handle more data, was (a) implied that it is an upgrade of the existing
DAB rather than a completely different process and (b) it was pushed as
being able to handle more stations rather than premitting existing
stations to be broadcast in better quality which many contributors had
complained about.

They also insisted that many countries in Europe and around the world are
moving to DAB - which a little research will show is untrue. Some
countries have tried DAB but switched it off again - a point conveniently
missed.

What was that about 'never mind the quality feel the width?'


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

In many cases, if you make something the only game in town, how would new
people know what they are missing?
Sad fact at present seems to be that some fm outputs sound like they are
being distributed over a very naff sounding digital link.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Davey" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:18:45 -0000
"Woody" wrote:

Heard it live - a combination of lies and obfuscating and
misleading waffle with many questions side-stepped or just
plain ignored 'Thatcher' style (i.e. answer your own
question, not the one asked.)

What I found really annoying is that DAB+, whilst accepted
as able to handle more data, was (a) implied that it is an
upgrade of the existing DAB rather than a completely
different process and (b) it was pushed as being able to
handle more stations rather than premitting existing
stations to be broadcast in better quality which many
contributors had complained about.

They also insisted that many countries in Europe and around
the world are moving to DAB - which a little research will
show is untrue. Some countries have tried DAB but switched
it off again - a point conveniently missed.

What was that about 'never mind the quality feel the width?'



My feeling was that the interviewees absolutely refused to accept that
there were any problems at all. A blithe "27 million people listening
on DAB", how do they know? Totally ignoring very relevant points
brought up. Typical political obfuscation.


BTW, how come your response appears as a sig.? I had to copy and paste
it to make it appear in my reply to you.

--
Davey.

DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

In article
, Tweed
wrote:
"Woody" wrote:


Driving around town I've yet to hear any bubbling mud or any form of
drop out.

I believe DAB was originally conceived primarily for in car reception,

Alas often people who are complaining about it muddle together two quite
different topics.

1) That when the RF reception is poor you get 'bubbling mud' effects. Issue
with poor reception, not a poor choice of codec or bitrates.

2) That broadcasters wound down the bitrates to stuff more stations onto
the 'dial'. Whereas it was originally assumed by the engineers that the
bitrate would be 256k (or more) per station, and that if anything the
judgement rules would improve over time for *better quality* not "more
stations". But now 192k is the exception (R3 some of the time) with lower
rates common.

Talk about "more TXs" may help with (1) but do nothing for (2).

The discussion was - as usual - crippled by a shying away from technical
details for fear this would confuse dimwitted listeners. Fortunately, at
least the interviewer did challenge the attempt by one of the interviewed
to gloss over some issues like DAB now putting the UK in the 'slow lane'
and rendering many UK radios useless for listening to the now common
elsewhere DAB+. Asked specifically about DAB as distinct from DAB+, etc, he
tried to conflate them, but was picked up on this. Alas, since no-one was
willing to actually explain any 'technical' details this won't mean much to
most listeners beyond "our radios won't work if we take them to the
continent".

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 15:41:18 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

I see dab as a not very good replacement for am at the moment.
So what of FM, now why not actually make a set of channels which transmit
stuff unprocessed for fm or am out through a realistically bit rated stream
for once.
I listened to a broadcast over DAB I recorded in 2001 and it was far better
than now, so somehting has gone bad somewhere.
Brian

Would that be because the bitrate was still 192 kbps at that time?

DAB discussions on BBC Radio 4
 

Heard it live - a combination of lies and obfuscating and
misleading waffle with many questions side-stepped or just
plain ignored 'Thatcher' style (i.e. answer your own
question, not the one asked.)

I too heard it live but didn't think it was that bad given it's long
seemed to me that DAB must be short for "dissemble and bluster".

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid