Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:02:46 +0100, Edster wrote:
You can hear things that are not on the screen and know where they
are in relation to what you can see.

And that works even more effectively with a 5.1 sound system.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


To give 'em a good wash.

In message , Mark Carver
writes
SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:

Early Trinitrons were used as OB production monitors on set, because
of the relative brightness (compared to normal dot shadowmask tubes),
but not in the vans. When Sony produced broadcast quality monitors
they sold them to the BBC, like everyone else. Incidentally, until at
least January this year, Sony's high-end HD monitor offerings were
CRT (although I doubt exclusively so).

If you're quick you can still get Grade 1 Sony CRTs, but this is set to
replace them:-

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowP...=BVM-L230&site
=biz_en_GB&pageType=Overview&imageType=Main&categ ory=BVM

Not very good in the blacks (well dark greys actually) and poor
off-axis, maybe 6/10, must do better.

--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:11:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

Plural ???

I suppose Prescot and Mantlebum must have 2 between them.

Trouble is one has it in his ar*e and the other in his d*ck.

Derek

Tony Quinn wrote:

If you're quick you can still get Grade 1 Sony CRTs, but this is set
to replace them:-

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowP...=BVM-L230&site
=biz_en_GB&pageType=Overview&imageType=Main&catego ry=BVM

Not very good in the blacks (well dark greys actually) and poor
off-axis, maybe 6/10, must do better.

You saw it at IBC then ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In message , Mark Carver
writes
Tony Quinn wrote:

If you're quick you can still get Grade 1 Sony CRTs, but this is set
to replace them:-

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowP...=BVM-L230&site
=biz_en_GB&pageType=Overview&imageType=Main&catego ry=BVM
Not very good in the blacks (well dark greys actually) and poor
off-axis, maybe 6/10, must do better.

You saw it at IBC then ?

I've just installed some in edit suites, why?
--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Jerry
writes
Quite frankly most stereo radio is wasted (for the reasons stated
previously), I would say that the only BBC radio station that benefits
from stereo is R3, the rest could put the freed up spectrum to better
use - or just not bother...

That applies even more so to TV.
--
SimonM





with tv, most viewers are sitting still in front of the speakers.
having said that, i do think you get sod all stereo separation with tv
speakers.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

Tony Quinn wrote:
In message , Mark Carver
writes
Tony Quinn wrote:

If you're quick you can still get Grade 1 Sony CRTs, but this is set
to replace them:-

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowP...=BVM-L230&site

=biz_en_GB&pageType=Overview&imageType=Main&catego ry=BVM
Not very good in the blacks (well dark greys actually) and poor
off-axis, maybe 6/10, must do better.

You saw it at IBC then ?

I've just installed some in edit suites, why?

Ah, I didn't realise any had been sold yet.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article , Norman Wells
scribeth thus
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..


What a sad attitude.

Makes you wonder why anyone bothered to come down from the trees;!...


No hold on!, you work for the BBC DAB dept and I claim my Five pounds:!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
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.


Do you record in Stereo Dave?..
--
Tony Sayer