OT - All DAB receivers to be obsolete - DAB is dead

Dominic wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

Hey, you're the fool trying to suggest that DAB sounds better than
something else.


Clearly no use trying to discuss the subject with you, as you argue
with personal abuse against me and Luke when we both make exactly the
same point.


Well, if you will both come out with loony comments...



--
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:
98% of all stereo stations on DAB use a bit rate of 128 kbps, and FM
sounds a lot better. End of story.

And 98% of that 98% are so over processed it makes no difference. Are you
so deaf you can't hear it or just conditioned through years of listening
to such pop stations?

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

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

Agamemnon wrote:
Well it seems that OfCom took some notice of my consultation
submission to them then.


This has precisely bugger all to do with Ofcom. It was WorldDAB that finally
caved in to pressure following a highly embarrassing sequence of attacks on
the old DAB system from organisations from Europe and Australia and they
realised that if they didn't upgrade the system then DAB would die and
everybody would adopt DVB-H or DMB for digital radio instead, because
they're miles more efficient and miles cheaper to transmit than DAB is.

Ofcom, on the other hand, regulates the communications industry, and does
not decide on whether any system should or should not be upgraded.


--
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

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
DAB has adopted the AAC+ audio codec and stronger error correction coding:

http://www.worlddab.org/upload/uploa...e_November.pdf

Ignore the spin in the article about the UK not switching to using AAC+ -
we will switch to using the AAC+ codec, and all existing DAB receivers
will eventually be made obsolete.


That's why no one is making them now and the stockpiled ones are being sold
off for a fraction of the manufacturers recommended (price fixed) retail
price. We will see the same price fixing cons in a few years when the new
radios are released. This time I hope thick stupid people do not buy the
radios and allow themselves to be conned the same way as they were over DAB.
I would only buy a digital radio if sound quality was equal to FM stereo or
better. I don't want MW quality stations all playing the same music with
adverts every 6 minutes.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:01:15 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Ignore the spin in the article about the UK not switching to using AAC+ - we
will switch to using the AAC+ codec, and all existing DAB receivers will
eventually be made obsolete.
[...]
The old DAB system is now basically dead, and not a second too soon, AFAIAC.

Forgive me for laughing at the DAB apologists who have continually argued
that the low audio quality on DAB is oh so hunky dory, but:
hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahha. Oh, and BTW, you're going to need a new
radio.

Oh no I'm not. I've still got several FM radios, which I've had since
before this rubbish new system was invented. For quality listening DAB
is pretty much useless now, and I'll still have my FM radios long
after it has become completely so.

Rod.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:44:40 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

No, Frontier-Silicon, which makes the DAB modules that go in 80% of all DAB
radios are bringing out a new DAB module in spring that is cheaper for the
manufacturers and it triples the battery-life of portable radios. They
expect all the receiver manufacturers that use their products to quickly
switch to the new module. Crucially, the new module will support the new DAB
standard - at first only by software upgrade, but by the end of next year
receivers that contain the new module will support the new standard - it's
just software, and they'll load the new software once they've implemented
the new standard, which they expect to happen by the end of next year.

Too late. Tried DAB. Didn't like it. Not interested any more. I've got
more important things to spend my money on. They had their chance to
impress, and as far as I'm concerned they blew it.

Rod.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:59:54 +0000,
(Luke Bosman) wrote:


And, you know what, compared with FM, DAB does sound better here. If you
doubt me, I would invite you to come and compare. I have spent £100 on
DAB equipment and £100 on FM.

Then you cannot possibly be hearing FM at its best. I've been familiar
with the sound quality of FM broadcasting for forty years, so I know
what it is capable of, and have been disappointed with what DAB is
currently providing.

A properly installed aerial and a good quality receiver can usually
give excellent results on FM, but no matter what you do to receive
DAB, the damage has been done to the audio signal before it is even
transmitted so you can never achieve perfection, not even in theory.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:44:40 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

No, Frontier-Silicon, which makes the DAB modules that go in 80% of
all DAB radios are bringing out a new DAB module in spring that is
cheaper for the manufacturers and it triples the battery-life of
portable radios. They expect all the receiver manufacturers that use
their products to quickly switch to the new module. Crucially, the
new module will support the new DAB standard - at first only by
software upgrade, but by the end of next year receivers that contain
the new module will support the new standard - it's just software,
and they'll load the new software once they've implemented the new
standard, which they expect to happen by the end of next year.

Too late. Tried DAB. Didn't like it. Not interested any more. I've got
more important things to spend my money on. They had their chance to
impress, and as far as I'm concerned they blew it.


What an absolutely ridiculous attitude to take.


--
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

Edster wrote:
Mark Carver wrote in message

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Paul wrote:

So, place your bets now on how low the bitrate will get with the
new standard?


Ah, yes, I should have pre-empted that, but I forgot.

Right, the counter-example to your suggestion is the BBC national
multiplex. They transmit 11 stations, and they could transmit all
the music stations and Radio 4 at 128 kbps AAC (providing excellent
audio quality - just as DAB was intended to do), all the speech
stations at 64 kbps AAC+ and in stereo rather than mono, and
transmit MPEG Surround streams for all of the stations that would
benefit from surround sound, *and* have a third of the multiplex
left over.

I wish I could share your optimism. The beancounters are firmly in
charge now, and they'll simply see this as an increase in 'spectral
efficiency'. I expect no improvements in audio quality, only in
service 'quantity', the Google archive will prove one of us wrong.

Apparently the people who think DAB radio should sound at least as
good as what it is replacing are very much a minority,


No, they're the large majority, but they all seem to be buying small
portable radios where it doesn't actually make any/much difference that the
audio quality is lower.


so its unlikely
they will ever do anything just to please us. Maybe if we were all
Muslim single parent lesbians or something things would be different.

If we ever switched to AAC (which obviously isn't going to happen
here),


No, we definitely will switch to AAC+. And I would have a bet with anybody
(apart from someone who works in the radio division at Ofcom) that we will
see stations using AAC+ within the next 3 years.


the BBC would just create new mono stations with even smaller
appeal than the ones they have now,


No they wouldn't.



--
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

Brian wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
DAB has adopted the AAC+ audio codec and stronger error correction
coding:
http://www.worlddab.org/upload/uploa...e_November.pdf

Ignore the spin in the article about the UK not switching to using
AAC+ - we will switch to using the AAC+ codec, and all existing DAB
receivers will eventually be made obsolete.


That's why no one is making them now and the stockpiled ones are
being sold off for a fraction of the manufacturers recommended (price
fixed) retail price. We will see the same price fixing cons in a few
years when the new radios are released. This time I hope thick
stupid people do not buy the radios and allow themselves to be conned
the same way as they were over DAB. I would only buy a digital radio
if sound quality was equal to FM stereo or better. I don't want MW
quality stations all playing the same music with adverts every 6
minutes.


Agreed.


--
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