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

In article , Dominic
writes
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

Now, if you only listen on a small mono portable radio, then, erm, don't
even bother to put your view forward, because you're listening on a small
mono portable radio.


I do have a small mono portable radio (ha, it's DAB, it aint *that* small)...
actually it's stereo, but of course the speakers are so close together
that you'd never know... I also have a 'Hi Fi' seperates DAB receiver, CD
player, and amp. Cheap, and the speakers are crap. Still better than
FM stereo for radio 4, which is what I use it for.

Just tried KERRANG! on the DAB. It's 80kbit mono. Ignoring the
fact that I get a crap signal from Switch London here, oh boy, it sounds
really awful. Nasty muffled mpeg artifacts galore.

Lucky I don't *listen* to music very much. There is certainly a difference
between the 128kbit channels and the 160kbit ones. Couldn't find
anything better.

Change your sig to "DAB sounds worse than FM *on music channels at
at less than 192kbit/s*" and then I'll agree with you. :-P


Make that 256 K then I'll agree with you too!...
dom.

p.s. Anyone tried one of the pc software based DRM radios? Keep
meaning to put a receiver together and try it.



--
Tony Sayer

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:24:23 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

My previous experience in this particular case is that I bought
something that was promised to provide an improvement, but didn't.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to be suspicious when a very
similar promise is offered a second time, and to think carefully
about whether I want it at all.


It is ridiculous simply because you're writing off the new DAB
standard which is completely different to the first DAB system -
you're not giving the new system a chance. The original system was
designed in the 1980s, and it's now adopting the most efficient
audio codec in existence. It's a massive, massive improvement, and
yet you're just going off what the 1980s-vintage system could
provide.

Well, if it really is a "massive massive improvement", then my ears
will tell me this.


The system itself has been massively, massively improved, because it was
using 1980s technology and now it's been dragged, kicking and screaming into
the 21st century, although the error correction coding is still
state-of-the-art for the 1990s, but that's not something to want to scrap
the whole system over.

If the BBC deigns to use 128 kbps AAC for its music stations and Radio 4
then I think it will sound better than FM.


And I'll consider what it costs. At that point I'll
be able to decide whether I want to spend my money on it. I haven't
"written off" the new system; I just haven't heard it yet.


You had exactly written off the system without hearing it yesterday.


--
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 , Dominic
writes
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:

Believe me, you can't miss it if you're afflicted by it, and it's miles,
miles more annoying than FM hiss. If you've got a DAB portable radio just
put the aerial down, that should produce the bubbling mud sound. You're a
reception man, so I don't need to tell you how to degrade the reception
quality.


Oh! I see, now it all makes sense. So you're saying an FM receiver with
a properly installed aerial sounds better than a DAB receiver with a
signal too low to work properly? Fair enough, it would. Bit of a
strange point, isn't it?

Before you call me a fool, I do agree with you that on the whole
the bitrates are too low on DAB. But I tend to listen to radio 4,
which often has a wide range of volume where the quieter parts
get lost in the hiss of radio 4 FM (unless I switch to mono)
which doesn't happen on 128kbit stereo DAB.

No problem here on FM .. and it's in Stereo too!....


An up-to-date audio codec is long overdue so we can
lose the mpeg audio compression artifacts which I can
hear (especially on 64kbit channels) but choose to ignore.

What any Digital A-U-D-I-O Broadcasting system should have is a facility
for an upgraDABle codec....

I can't ignore the visual compression artifacts on freeview and low
bitrate satellite channels though. Decent analogue is better there!


Bloody right it is our B&O ****es over digital telly but very few
believe me until they see them side by side. The main reason is poor
analogue reception because of **** poor aerial systems. But amazing how
they spend silly money on digital aerials simply because their digital..


Do skyhd and the bbc hd trials use mpeg4 or similar video codecs?

dom.



--
Tony Sayer

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

Now, if you only listen on a small mono portable radio, then, erm,
don't even bother to put your view forward, because you're listening
on a small mono portable radio.


I do have a small mono portable radio (ha, it's DAB, it aint *that*
small)... actually it's stereo, but of course the speakers are so
close together
that you'd never know...


Yes, it doesn't produce stereo sound, so I fail to see why you would call it
stereo.


I also have a 'Hi Fi' seperates DAB
receiver, CD player, and amp. Cheap, and the speakers are crap.
Still better than
FM stereo for radio 4, which is what I use it for.


Only because you've already admitted that you've got crap FM reception. FM
still sounds better than DAB on Radio 4 if you've got good reception on both
DAB and FM.


Just tried KERRANG! on the DAB. It's 80kbit mono. Ignoring the
fact that I get a crap signal from Switch London here, oh boy, it
sounds really awful. Nasty muffled mpeg artifacts galore.


That's why I gave it as an example of something that sounds worse than MW.


Lucky I don't *listen* to music very much. There is certainly a
difference between the 128kbit channels and the 160kbit ones.
Couldn't find
anything better.


Radio 3 is 192 kbps, but it sounds better on FM.


Change your sig to "DAB sounds worse than FM *on music channels at
at less than 192kbit/s*" and then I'll agree with you. :-P


No, DAB sounds worse than FM on 192 kbps music and speech.



--
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

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

Believe me, you can't miss it if you're afflicted by it, and it's
miles, miles more annoying than FM hiss. If you've got a DAB
portable radio just put the aerial down, that should produce the
bubbling mud sound. You're a reception man, so I don't need to tell
you how to degrade the reception quality.


Oh! I see, now it all makes sense. So you're saying an FM receiver
with a properly installed aerial sounds better than a DAB receiver
with a signal too low to work properly?


No, the point I was making was that bubbling mud on DAB is far more annoying
than hiss on FM.


Before you call me a fool, I do agree with you that on the whole
the bitrates are too low on DAB.


So when you said:

"And the audio quality on normal DAB is extremely hunky dory."

were you lying, or just talking crap?


But I tend to listen to radio 4,
which often has a wide range of volume where the quieter parts
get lost in the hiss of radio 4 FM (unless I switch to mono)
which doesn't happen on 128kbit stereo DAB.


And what's your view of R4 being transmitted in mono in the evenings?


An up-to-date audio codec is long overdue so we can
lose the mpeg audio compression artifacts which I can
hear (especially on 64kbit channels) but choose to ignore.


Try and remember in future that because you primarily listen to speech
radio, and speech is easier to compress than music, you are effectively
being preferentially treated on DAB when R4 is being transmitted at the same
bit rate as all of the music stations apart from R3.


I can't ignore the visual compression artifacts on freeview and low
bitrate satellite channels though. Decent analogue is better there!


And yet you seem fine with the fact that people that listen to music radio
should have perceptually far worse audio artifacts added to what they listen
to. Charming. Very kind of you.


Do skyhd and the bbc hd trials use mpeg4 or similar video codecs?


Yes.


--
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

Peter Crosland wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Don't try and patronise me, pal. I'll eat you for breakfast, spit
you out and eat a Dave Plowman for brunch.

Strangely I'm still here, so your digestive system must be as
effective as your powers of reasoning...

ROTFLOLPMP! Reason and dab.is must be one of the best oxymorons of the
decade!


Peter, you don't have to actually tell us that you've ****ed your pants,
because after all, you are known to be doubly incontinent.


--
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

JF wrote:


I'm sure you're right. The trouble is that BSkyB channel 145 -- the
Beeb's flagship HD demo channel courtesy BSkyB -- shows a caption card
that provides the telephone number of a spokesman who tells callers all
about receiving the BBC's HD TV. It seems that no matter what TV
receiver you have, even if it sports a troupe of naked dancing hologram
angels on top carrying a banner that says: 'This TV is HD ready!', it's
not quite ready enough for the exacting requirements of BSkyB.

According to the helpful BBC spokesman, one must give BSkyB GBP299 for
their HD receiver/decoder/recorder plus GBP59 installation charge, and
sign-up a direct debit for a service -- cheques, bankers' orders are not
acceptable. You must obey all BSkyB directives to the letter if you want
them to send their boys round. This includes having a land line for
permanent connection to your local friendly BSkyB soundproof
interrogation centre for their personal use. A Cellphone won't do.

As I say, I'm sure you're right. Maybe the BBC spokesman needs a refresher?

Yes he certainly does. Looks as if BBC (mis)Information has been infiltrated
by BSkyB moles. I can assure you it's perfectly possible to view the BBC HD
channel without the use of any Sky supplied equipment, services, or payment.

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

Mark Carver wrote:

Luke Bosman wrote:
Mike Henry wrote:

In , Edster wrote:

"Graham" wrote in message

There are no BBC stations "on SKY"
There is on mine.
No. Sky Digital is a subscription satellite service. The BBC stations
can be picked up by a Digibox and they also appear in the EPG (which is
regulated by Ofcom). Those stations are not, and never have been, part
of Sky's subscription satellite service and so they are not "on Sky".
They are just digital satellite stations.

Do you take everything 100% literally?

Mike is quite correct to in this case. This is a technical newsgroup dealing
with technical matters. BBC satellite transmissions are not handled or
uplinked by Sky, therefore the BBC are not 'on Sky'. The same applies to
ITV, C4, and some other broadcasters. All broadcasters that are on Sky's EPG
do have to transmit EPG/SI data supplied by Sky however.

Well done. You've failed to answer my question.

Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

AD C wrote:

Luke Bosman wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

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.

While, of course, those who haven't bought DAB yet will need a new radio
too.

why would I need a new radio? There are no plans to replace Fm.

Is that true? I thought there was no timescale rather than no plans.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:30:39 +0000, Luke Bosman
wrote:

You can be just as terse and belligerent as I.

"... as ME".

No. "...as I" is correct.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush