Radio 4 on Freeview has started hissing

In article ,
Roger Wilmut wrote:


Yes, almost every BBC written response to a complaint is polite, but
the content boils down to 'well, _we_ like it, so **** off'.

or, I don't like it any more than you do, but if production want to f***
about with the technical facilities, there is nothing, I, or anybody else,
can do about it.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

The message
from "Dave Plowman (News)" contains these words:

In article
. co.uk.invalid,
Alan Pemberton wrote:
It seems to me that the dynamic range compression of R4 is now the same
on DTT, DSAT and FM, and has been brought up to the same level as R2 on
all three platforms, making both networks unlistenable no matter how you
pick them up.

In general, I don't find the degree of compression applied to R4
objectionable. Although PM and Today get close.

Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

Yes, it's quite true. They don't want to die laughing.

--
Regards, John.

Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.

charles wrote:
In article ,
Roger Wilmut wrote:


Yes, almost every BBC written response to a complaint is polite, but
the content boils down to 'well, _we_ like it, so **** off'.

or, I don't like it any more than you do, but if production want to
f*** about with the technical facilities, there is nothing, I, or
anybody else, can do about it.


Charles, you give a tear-jerking description of the poor loves who have to
respond to the evil general public's complaints about the BBC. However, the
reality is somewhat different, although you wouldn't know this, because
you're a BBC apologist, so you would obviously never actually complain about
The Corporation That Can Do No Wrong.

BBC responses to complaints nowadays are usually in the form of what I call
'template' emails or letters, where the replies are all pre-written,
presumably by the BBC Controller him/herself when it's on something that's
receiving a lot of complaints, and all the people at BBC Information or BBC
Reception Advice do is select the appropriate template email and maybe add 1
or 2 lines themselves to make it look like the reply has been written just
for the benefit of the person who's complaining's benefit - most people fall
for it, and they think "ooo, look, the BBC has gone to the great trouble of
writing a long reply to my complaint, they really do care about our
grievances, I love the BBC me".

Here's an example of a template reply that everybody got when they
complained about Radio 3's bit rate being reduced in July:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ar...60-kbps-on-DAB

The brackets in the middle of the text seem to have been added by the BBC
Information droid.

Unfortunately, the reply on that page actually contains quite a few gross
inaccuracies - some would call them lies.

And the reply is very much as Roger Wilmut described: 'well, _we_ like it,
so **** off'.

It should also be said that the BBC is totally unregulated with regards to
technical issues, because there is no appeals procedure in place for
technical complaints - if Kevin the YTS Lad's computer says no, cough, then
that's it, and we have to accept whatever grossly incompetent action we're
complaining about, because The BBC Is Always Right.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
because The BBC Is Always Right.

You'd do well there, then.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

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

In article ,
Roger Wilmut writes:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:

Sam Nelson wrote:
In article . com,
"Mark Carver" writes:
Slow Flyer wrote:
The BBC must have their ressons for introducing distortions which
prevent the art forms the BBC broadcast being received as the
artist intended.

Yes, the organisation is now largely run by twentysomething, Medja
Studies graduate philistines.

I suspect it's more likely to be them expecting someone else to do the
research, development, and training---be they 20-summat coke-addled
media-studies graduate philistines or not.

But the response to every complaint to the BBC contains some form or
other of the phrase `in a competitive multi-channel environment'
which is apparently supposed to explain everything: crap pictures,
crap sound, crap presentation, crap content, the lot.

Hear hear.

Yes, almost every BBC written response to a complaint is polite, but
the content boils down to 'well, _we_ like it, so **** off'.

The one exception to that I can think of so far was the one where they had
hundreds of complaints about crashing the end of `Casanova' with a trail
for Eastenders involving some bristling bald shouty ******* yelling at
someone in close-up (no surprise there, then). Other than that, R4's
Feedback programme is largely just a queue of BBC production staff lining
up to be superior at us. I can't recall ever hearing one of them say
anything remotely resembling `Uh, yeah, got that wrong---sorry'.
--
SAm.

Sam Nelson wrote:

The one exception to that I can think of so far was the one where they had
hundreds of complaints about crashing the end of `Casanova' with a trail
for Eastenders involving some bristling bald shouty ******* yelling at
someone in close-up (no surprise there, then). Other than that, R4's
Feedback programme is largely just a queue of BBC production staff lining
up to be superior at us. I can't recall ever hearing one of them say
anything remotely resembling `Uh, yeah, got that wrong---sorry'.

....apart from, eventually, Jenny Abramski over the BBC Radio 3 bitrate,
which she restored.

You're right though - the arrogance is amazing. Even I was surprised to
hear the word "****" on Radio 4 around 9:30am. They had several
complaints (not me) and of course the producer came on to explain in
great detail why all the complainants were wrong, and they would use
the word "****" at any time on Radio 4 (except during the school run)
if they felt it was justified.

I don't know whether it was justified or even whether it matters, but
if a lot of your audience says "I don't like something" then you
probably shouldn't be doing something. More over, if you have a
feedback programme, act on the feedback that you receive!

Cheers,
David.

In article om,
wrote:
You're right though - the arrogance is amazing. Even I was surprised to
hear the word "****" on Radio 4 around 9:30am. They had several
complaints (not me) and of course the producer came on to explain in
great detail why all the complainants were wrong, and they would use the
word "****" at any time on Radio 4 (except during the school run) if
they felt it was justified.

I don't know whether it was justified or even whether it matters, but
if a lot of your audience says "I don't like something" then you
probably shouldn't be doing something. More over, if you have a
feedback programme, act on the feedback that you receive!

So the tiny percentage who complain about something should get their wish?
It's well known that people will complain long before complimenting.

R4 is supposed to be a service for those who don't just wish audio
wallpaper, and surely few of those will be truly offended by '****' if
used for a legitimate reason.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
wrote:
You're right though - the arrogance is amazing. Even I was surprised to
hear the word "****" on Radio 4 around 9:30am. They had several
complaints (not me) and of course the producer came on to explain in
great detail why all the complainants were wrong, and they would use the
word "****" at any time on Radio 4 (except during the school run) if
they felt it was justified.

I don't know whether it was justified or even whether it matters, but
if a lot of your audience says "I don't like something" then you
probably shouldn't be doing something. More over, if you have a
feedback programme, act on the feedback that you receive!

So the tiny percentage who complain about something should get their wish?
It's well known that people will complain long before complimenting.

R4 is supposed to be a service for those who don't just wish audio
wallpaper, and surely few of those will be truly offended by '****' if
used for a legitimate reason.

I know entirely where you're coming from Dave.

But sadly it's the exact same position that the BBC (or any other
"accountable" organisation) can use to justify _anything_ it wants.

Like SVCD quality digital TV, mono DAB radio, using the licence fee to
stream content to the USA, etc etc etc.

Cheers,
David.

" wrote:

Sam Nelson wrote:

Feedback programme is largely just a queue of BBC production staff lining
up to be superior at us. I can't recall ever hearing one of them say
anything remotely resembling `Uh, yeah, got that wrong---sorry'.

...apart from, eventually, Jenny Abramski over the BBC Radio 3 bitrate,
which she restored.

Did anyone in the Beeb actually admit to having been *wrong* about that,
though, and apologise for it?

--
Ronan Flood
working for but not speaking for
Network Services, University of London Computer Centre
(which means: don't bother ULCC if I've said something you don't like)

In article ,
R K Pelligo ña wrote:
What happened to the "bleeper"? Frequently used on "Have I Got News for
You" and that's at 9pm. Well, I suppose that's visual so it's
different.......

It's TV.;-)

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

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