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

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

Luke Bosman wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:

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.

This is Usenet, the home of pedantry.


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

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:


Yes he certainly does. Looks as if BBC (mis)Information has been
infiltrated by BSkyB moles.

This started in the early 90s when Sky used to take double page spreads in
the Radio Times. I don't think those working for the sales side of that
publication realised that Sky was a rival ;-(

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Luke Bosman wrote:
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.

Or possibly "...as I am".

AFAIC the point is moot.

See for example
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...cbc1a5 7aa847

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t

In article ,
Edster wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message

Graham Murray wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" writes:

The point is that this change - despite what the naysayers are
saying - will provide a significant improvement in quality, and in
the case of the BBC, I'm sure they will use this opportunity to make
a large improvement in the quality. They've always strongly favoured
DAB ahead of all the other platforms as far as digital radio goes,
and they've said they'd like to improve the quality on DAB.

So why do they not simply apply less compression to the audio and
increase the data rate?


Because the BBC DAB multiplex is chok-a-block full.

Sky and Freeview aren't.

neither of which are particularly receivable in cars.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Luke Bosman wrote:

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.

You are correct, no timescale. I doubt FM will be replaced for years,
but then you never know with this country, I did not think they would
replace analogue T.v with that crap digital system

Edster wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message

Graham Murray wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" writes:

The point is that this change - despite what the naysayers are
saying - will provide a significant improvement in quality, and in
the case of the BBC, I'm sure they will use this opportunity to
make a large improvement in the quality. They've always strongly
favoured DAB ahead of all the other platforms as far as digital
radio goes, and they've said they'd like to improve the quality on
DAB.

So why do they not simply apply less compression to the audio and
increase the data rate?


Because the BBC DAB multiplex is chok-a-block full.

Sky and Freeview aren't. And if they can put DAB TV channels for
mobile phones on a commercial multiplex they can do the same with
radio.


Do you know what, the possibility that Radio 4 will be transmitted in mono
using AAC+ is so remote that it's not even worth talking about. You see,
AAC+ can go down to even as little as 32 kbps and still use stereo and still
sound good with speech.

You should be happy that DAB is adopting AAC+, because *ALL* the mono
stations will be able to transmit in stereo. Whether they decide to change
R5 and the WS to stereo, I don't know, but I'd put any amount of money that
R4, BBC7 and Asian Network will be permanently stereo once the MP2 services
have been switched off and we're only using AAC+. That's going to be a long
time away, but at least you'll get what you wanted.

Until then, Radio 4 and BBC7 are permanently transmitting at 128 kbps AAC at
this very moment via the Internet using multicasting:

http://support.bbc.co.uk/multicast/streams.html

The problem with DAB needed to be solved, and now it will be solved. The BBC
will not be allowed to launch loads of new mono stations, as you seem to be
suggesting. They may add mobile TV to their multiplex, but still, the audio
quality will still be a lot better than it is today and the least likely
thing to continue is Radio 4 and BBC7 being in mono.

And you know what, they could add BBC1/2/3/4/News24 mobile TV channels at
double the bit rates that the mobile TV channels are at on the Digital One
multiplex and the audio quality of the radio stations would still be miles
better than it is now - such is the efficiency of AAC+. I hope they don't
add all these channels, but the audio quality would still be a lot better if
they did. And, of course, that still allows for ALL stations to be
transmitted in stereo.

People who suggest that the audio quality will be as bad as it is today have
simply never actually bothered to calculate what can be transmitted on a
multiplex with the new standard, and they're just being pessimistic for the
sake of being pessimistic.


--
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:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message

Roderick Stewart wrote:
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.


The point is that this change - despite what the naysayers are
saying - will provide a significant improvement in quality, and in
the case of the BBC, I'm sure they will use this opportunity to make
a large improvement in the quality. They've always strongly favoured
DAB ahead of all the other platforms as far as digital radio goes,
and they've said they'd like to improve the quality on DAB.

We're not going to see the BBC switch for a few years, but I would
hope that when they do they will actually deliver an improvement in
quality over and above FM. If that is the case, then saying that
you've bought one DAB radio so you're not prepared to buy another is
simply being stubborn for the sake of it.

Why would they do something that most people won't notice when they
could do something they could point at when people say the TV tax is
overpriced (extra radio stations for children and other minorities),
or do something that will generate income (extra TV channels for
mobile phones or value adding data services)?


I've no doubt that the BBC will ask the government to allow them to launch
new stations. But that doesn't mean they'll be allowed to launch any.


If they had any interest in providing quality they would already be
doing so on Sky and Freeview. They certainly wouldn't have
deliberately degraded quality on Freeview in an attempt to make DAB
sound better in comparison.


They're only really interested in DAB, because Simon Nelson, the BBC
Controller in charge of digital radio was the person that oversaw the
"planning" for the new stations. His CV relies on DAB being a success, and
that means the UK radio listeners will just have to suffer so that his CV is
not harmed in any way.


--
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 ,
Edster wrote:
There must be something wrong with your ears, because Radio 4 on DAB
sounds awful compared to Radio 4 on FM. Radio 4 on Freeview isn't much
better either now that they have decided to make it hiss, presumably
in an attempt to make DAB sound better by comparison.

Think you need your equipment fixed. Or perhaps your ears if you haven't
noticed that they've upped the level of R4 on Freeview. Which may make any
background originated 'hiss' seem higher when you switch between the two.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory *

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

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:23:20 +0000, Luke Bosman
wrote:

You can be just as terse and belligerent as I.

"... as ME".

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

No, it isn't. You wouldn't say "you can be as terse as he" or "you can be
as terse as we", you would you "him" and "us", therefore you use "me", not
"I".