Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

charles wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM [email protected] wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...channel4-radio

FM switch-off now put back to May 2038 - if all goes well.

that should see me out and a bit more. But I might live to 98, you never
know.

I wouldn't worry.

If you live to 98 then your hearing will probably have deteriorated to
the point where you can not tell the difference between FM and DAB
anyway. (Or does that require total deafness )

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
*A nest isn't empty until all their stuff is out of the attic
Never mind the attic. What about the bedroom he slept in, the bedroom he
annexed, the garage, and the shed?

Bill

"Silk" wrote in message
...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...channel4-radio

FM switch-off now put back to May 2038 - if all goes well.

This is old news. It's already been mentioned on Guardian Radio... I mean
BBC 5Live.

It isn't just R5. The whole of the BBC has left wing bias.

Bill

"Richard Evans" wrote in message
...
If you live to 98 then your hearing will probably have deteriorated to the
point where you can not tell the difference between FM and DAB anyway. (Or
does that require total deafness )

Most people can't hear anything wrong with DAB.

Please read that again. I did not say there is nothing wrong with DAB. I am
all too aware of DAB's deficiencies.

I deal with the public. I talk to them about radio. The hard fact is that
the vast majority are completely unaware of the deficiencies of DAB as
caused by low bit rates. Yes, the sound grates on me, and it grates on you.
But for most people, if there isn't a loud whistling or buzzing in the
background, and if the sound doesn't keep fading out, everything is fine.
Ordinary people are remarkably unaware of poor audio quality, as long as
they can actually tell what the speaker is saying or discern the beat of the
tune. Go into a pub on quiz night. The PA is ridiculous, but nothing is done
because no-one is bothered.

Of course, this is not an argument in favour of low audio quality. The
broadcasters should aspire to the best possible audio quality, just as they
should aspire to the best possible programme material. This should be done
as a matter of principle, not as a matter of practicality. Standards have to
be maintained or they will be eroded. Statement of the bleedin' obvious.

The tragedy here is that those in broadcast (and outside it, hello Steve)
who lobby for better DAB audio have an uphill struggle, because the
beancounters can point to the lumpen masses and say, 'They're happy enough'.
It takes a determined and principled person (or lobby) to stand up against
this, and as far as I can see no such person (in a suitable post) exists.

Bill

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
This is old news. It's already been mentioned on Guardian Radio... I
mean BBC 5Live.

It isn't just R5. The whole of the BBC has left wing bias.

Indeed. Meant for those with brains.

--
*Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view

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

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
The tragedy here is that those in broadcast (and outside it, hello
Steve) who lobby for better DAB audio have an uphill struggle, because
the beancounters can point to the lumpen masses and say, 'They're happy
enough'. It takes a determined and principled person (or lobby) to
stand up against this, and as far as I can see no such person (in a
suitable post) exists.

Pretty well no one was interested in DAB when the bitrates were high. I
was an early adopter because it was a way round my poor FM reception - and
at that time there weren't alternatives as today. It was only some time
after the choice of stations was increased that it got a reasonable take
up. Make of that as you will.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? *

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

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news

"Richard Evans" wrote in message
...
If you live to 98 then your hearing will probably have deteriorated
to the point where you can not tell the difference between FM and DAB
anyway. (Or does that require total deafness )

Most people can't hear anything wrong with DAB.

Please read that again. I did not say there is nothing wrong with DAB.
I am all too aware of DAB's deficiencies.

I deal with the public. I talk to them about radio. The hard fact is
that the vast majority are completely unaware of the deficiencies of
DAB as caused by low bit rates. Yes, the sound grates on me, and it
grates on you. But for most people, if there isn't a loud whistling or
buzzing in the background, and if the sound doesn't keep fading out,
everything is fine. Ordinary people are remarkably unaware of poor
audio quality, as long as they can actually tell what the speaker is
saying or discern the beat of the tune. Go into a pub on quiz night.
The PA is ridiculous, but nothing is done because no-one is bothered.

Of course, this is not an argument in favour of low audio quality. The
broadcasters should aspire to the best possible audio quality, just as
they should aspire to the best possible programme material. This
should be done as a matter of principle, not as a matter of
practicality. Standards have to be maintained or they will be eroded.
Statement of the bleedin' obvious.

The tragedy here is that those in broadcast (and outside it, hello
Steve) who lobby for better DAB audio have an uphill struggle, because
the beancounters can point to the lumpen masses and say, 'They're
happy enough'. It takes a determined and principled person (or lobby)
to stand up against this, and as far as I can see no such person (in a
suitable post) exists.

Bill



One comment made to me some years ago sums it all up really - 'we've got
a coloured television.' When I got to see it they were right - way too
bright, high contrast, far too much colour in fact the whole picture was
overall bright green - but it was 'coloured' and they were happy.

As we now know, any colour TV properly set up should look like a moving
colour slide. I once had the opportunity to look inside an active
'scanner' - an outside broadcast (BBC) mobile control room and it had a
rank of Sony Trinitron TV's as the monitors. I had never seen such
picture quality, and if I'm honest I don't think I've seen anything
significantly better since (ducks under flame-proof cover!)


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

Bill Wright wrote:
"Richard Evans" wrote in message
...
If you live to 98 then your hearing will probably have deteriorated
to the point where you can not tell the difference between FM and
DAB anyway. (Or does that require total deafness )

Most people can't hear anything wrong with DAB.

Please read that again. I did not say there is nothing wrong with
DAB. I am all too aware of DAB's deficiencies.

I deal with the public. I talk to them about radio. The hard fact is
that the vast majority are completely unaware of the deficiencies of
DAB as caused by low bit rates. Yes, the sound grates on me, and it
grates on you. But for most people, if there isn't a loud whistling
or buzzing in the background, and if the sound doesn't keep fading
out, everything is fine. Ordinary people are remarkably unaware of
poor audio quality, as long as they can actually tell what the
speaker is saying or discern the beat of the tune. Go into a pub on
quiz night. The PA is ridiculous, but nothing is done because no-one
is bothered.

No-one is bothered because the quality of radio transmissions is almost
entirely irrelevant. I know no-one who sits down in front of their radio
just to listen to it. They're always doing something else at the same time,
getting up, cooking their breakfast, eating their toast, reading their
newspaper, belching, cleaning their teeth, driving to work. And all those
things are noisy, so any quality, as long as it isn't absolutely appalling,
is in fact perfectly adequate.

Of course, this is not an argument in favour of low audio quality. The
broadcasters should aspire to the best possible audio quality

Why? It's just not necessary, except for the very few who have an anechoic
chamber to sit in while they listen..

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
No-one is bothered because the quality of radio transmissions is almost
entirely irrelevant. I know no-one who sits down in front of their
radio just to listen to it. They're always doing something else at the
same time, getting up, cooking their breakfast, eating their toast,
reading their newspaper, belching, cleaning their teeth, driving to
work. And all those things are noisy, so any quality, as long as it
isn't absolutely appalling, is in fact perfectly adequate.

You've got it in one. Which is why things like stereo too ain't anything
like so important for most.

--
*Don't byte off more than you can view *

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

In article ,
Woody wrote:
As we now know, any colour TV properly set up should look like a moving
colour slide. I once had the opportunity to look inside an active
'scanner' - an outside broadcast (BBC) mobile control room and it had a
rank of Sony Trinitron TV's as the monitors. I had never seen such
picture quality, and if I'm honest I don't think I've seen anything
significantly better since (ducks under flame-proof cover!)

They may have had Trinitrons in the production area but I'll bet they had
something better in racks. ;-)

I'd hope a good monitor would give better colour rendering than film too.

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

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