Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

Agamemnon wrote:


But my point is that most people aren't spending £2000 for a TV.

The people who this technology would be targeted at, given that it would
be expensive at first, would be spending £2000 or more on an HDTV.


But the expectation is that the masses will follow and cause the price
to drop to a few hundred. If there isn't the expectation that it will
have mass appeal, then the prices will remain high.

Looking at it a different way, I can buy a new TV which comes in one
(big) box. I take it out, plonk it on the floor or table and that's it.
It doesn't really matter where I put it or where the seats are in
relation to it.

If I buy a stereo radio the same is true.

If I instead have a 5.1 system, at the very least there are 2 extra
boxes (rear speakers) and more likely an additional couple on top of
that (front speakers so you can have a decent separation). I've now got
the hassle of positioning the lot, cables, etc.

Now I can see some people being happy to do that for a home cinema
system, as the extra channels can vastly improve the watching experience
of a DVD. I can also imagine them occasionally using it for sound only
playback.

I can't see many looking for 5.1 primarily for radio though.

And if it is mainly an addon for TV, you are more likely to have success
upgrading what is on Freeview or satellite to 5.1 than DAB.


Replacement of playout system to work with more than stereo.

Most radio stations now play everything off computer. All you would need
is new encoder software that can handle 5.1 and that can be introduced
when each station can afford it.


So there is the cost of upgrading your playout system to the new version
which supports 5.1.

Upgrade of studio to work above stereo.

Obviously the record companies would have to be forced to allow radio
stations to rip DVD-Audio discs. SACDs are a big problem since they
would have to use external encoders. But given that the last 3
Hitchhikers novels were made in 5.1 I don't see why the BBC can't make
5.1 recordings itself for Radio 3.


I mean the cost to the broadcaster of upgrading their systems. They
currently have the ability to mix together a selection of stereo & mono
sources into a main stereo output.

They will need to upgrade things like mixers, add cabling, etc to
support the extra channels.

Finding as much material as possible in 5.1 and importing it to
playout system.

More material will come out in 5.1 in time.


But plenty will remain as stereo.

"Stuart Clark" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:


But my point is that most people aren't spending £2000 for a TV.

The people who this technology would be targeted at, given that it would
be expensive at first, would be spending £2000 or more on an HDTV.


But the expectation is that the masses will follow and cause the price to
drop to a few hundred. If there isn't the expectation that it will have
mass appeal, then the prices will remain high.

That is a load of nonsense. The prices will remain high until the R&D costs
are fully paid for by the target market, ie. the people who can afford the
high prices. The faster the target market pays for the R&D costs the sooner
the prices will fall. If the people who can afford the high prices think the
product is rubbish, like they did with DAB they won't pay for it and it will
flop. DAB flopped because the sound quality was and still is complete and
utter garbage and it was targeted primarily at teenagers.


Looking at it a different way, I can buy a new TV which comes in one (big)
box. I take it out, plonk it on the floor or table and that's it. It
doesn't really matter where I put it or where the seats are in relation to
it.

If I buy a stereo radio the same is true.

If I instead have a 5.1 system, at the very least there are 2 extra boxes
(rear speakers) and more likely an additional couple on top of that (front
speakers so you can have a decent separation). I've now got the hassle of
positioning the lot, cables, etc.

Now I can see some people being happy to do that for a home cinema system,
as the extra channels can vastly improve the watching experience of a DVD.
I can also imagine them occasionally using it for sound only playback.

I can't see many looking for 5.1 primarily for radio though.

You plug your 5.1 tuner into you 5.1 surround amp which your TV and DVD
player is also plugged into, and there is not additional work to be done.


And if it is mainly an addon for TV, you are more likely to have success
upgrading what is on Freeview or satellite to 5.1 than DAB.

Then no one will listen to DAB then if the alternatives provide superior
sound.



Replacement of playout system to work with more than stereo.

Most radio stations now play everything off computer. All you would need
is new encoder software that can handle 5.1 and that can be introduced
when each station can afford it.


So there is the cost of upgrading your playout system to the new version
which supports 5.1.

Already paid for when you upgraded your TV and DVD system to 5.1.


Upgrade of studio to work above stereo.

Obviously the record companies would have to be forced to allow radio
stations to rip DVD-Audio discs. SACDs are a big problem since they would
have to use external encoders. But given that the last 3 Hitchhikers
novels were made in 5.1 I don't see why the BBC can't make 5.1 recordings
itself for Radio 3.


I mean the cost to the broadcaster of upgrading their systems. They
currently have the ability to mix together a selection of stereo & mono
sources into a main stereo output.

They will need to upgrade things like mixers, add cabling, etc to support
the extra channels.

The playback system used by most radio stations today is PC based. Mixers
all go into the PC system which plays the music and does the encoding. All
you need is new software. All modern PCs have 5.1 outputs. You don't need a
5.1 input since the DJ mic and guest mic will always be in the centre and
the DJs are not allowed to adjust the pan settings.


Finding as much material as possible in 5.1 and importing it to playout
system.

More material will come out in 5.1 in time.


But plenty will remain as stereo.

It can be converted to 5.1 by the encoder software.

In article ,
Stuart Clark wrote:
Edster wrote:
Stuart Clark wrote:


I don't think I know anyone who has 5.1 on their computer.

Most sound cards have 5.1 now, even ones built into the motherboard.

Sorry that's not quite what I meant. I have a 5.1 capable soundcard.
What I meant to say was I don't know anyone who actually has 5.1 plugged
into their computer.

And why would you want it? Watching films on a tiny screen so close is
more like torture than fun.

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

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

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
But plenty will remain as stereo.

It can be converted to 5.1 by the encoder software.

And you profess to have an interest in sound quality.

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

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

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:47:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Watching films on a tiny screen so close is
more like torture than fun.

What makes you think everybody has tiny screens attached to their
computer, and that they sit on a chair right in front of it, whilst
watching movies or TV via their computer?

Agamemnon wrote:

"Stuart Clark" wrote in message
...

I can't see many looking for 5.1 primarily for radio though.

You plug your 5.1 tuner into you 5.1 surround amp which your TV and DVD
player is also plugged into, and there is not additional work to be done.


And if it is mainly an addon for TV, you are more likely to have
success upgrading what is on Freeview or satellite to 5.1 than DAB.

Then no one will listen to DAB then if the alternatives provide superior
sound.


Or I just save the cost of my 5.1 super DAB tuner and switch to R3 HD on
my Freeview or sat box.

I've saved the cost and complexity of an additional box, cables & aerial.

The broadcaster is probably more likely to pay for the higher bitrate
over Freeview/satellite than super-DAB, just because it is more likely
there will be 5.1 listeners than over super-DAB.

Agamemnon wrote:

"Stuart Clark" wrote in message
...

But plenty will remain as stereo.

It can be converted to 5.1 by the encoder software.


How do you manage that?

In article ,
Edster wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:47:46 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Watching films on a tiny screen so close is
more like torture than fun.

What makes you think everybody has tiny screens attached to their
computer, and that they sit on a chair right in front of it, whilst
watching movies or TV via their computer?

Right. So you move everything around for when you want to watch a movie -
or do ordinary computer things?

Or watches them on a computer monitor, come to that. Most video cards
have HDMI out, most TV sets have HDMI in.

But what do you expect from some idiot who thinks mono radio is an
improvement over stereo. Probably thinks youtube videos are HD.

It's some idiot who things *most* TV sets have HDMI in.

And thanks for totally misrepresenting what I said.

I love *good* stereo. If I can't have it for whatever reason I'd rather
have mono. Of course I doubt you understand the difference.

--
*If I worked as much as others, I would do as little as they *

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

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:34:54 +0100, Edster wrote:
All the BBC's radio stations were available on Freeview and Sky at
the time they were advertising DAB radios on BBC1, and almost all of
them were broadcast at a much higher quality than they are/were on
DAB.

Not quite all.

BBC local radio stations, apart from BBC Radio London, were only available
digitally on DAB and not via terrestrial or satellite DTV.

And it is not just the BBC who have been trying to fool people that DAB
is quality. OfCon have been trying to do the same with their "surveys".

http://james.cridland.net/blog/2007/...-quality-this-
time-from-ofcom/

QUOTE

If anyone says “DAB sounds worse than FM�, they’re not reflecting the
views of 94% of the population.

UNQUOTE

On Tuesday, October 14th, 2008 at 13:39:19 +0100,
Agamemnon proposed the notion:

It's time for a quality based system to be devised to replace it
with software decoders capable of being upgraded with the latest
codecs and surround compatibility.

Like GNU Radio?

http://www.gnu.ORG/software/gnuradio/doc/exploring-gnuradio.html

QUOTE

Software radio is the technique of getting code as close to
the antenna as possible. It turns radio hardware problems into
software problems.

UNQUOTE