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

no_Spam" "(no_Spam)andywilkins wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
DAB has adopted the AAC+ audio codec and stronger error correction
coding:
http://www.worlddab.org/upload/uploa...e_November.pdf

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.

Receivers that support the new DAB standard will come on sale next
year, and in about 2 - 3 years' time we will see radio stations
launch in the UK using AAC+. I have no proof that stations will
launch using AAC+ in 2 - 3 years' time, but there's expected to be
4.6m DAB receivers in the UK by the end of this year, and according
to the DRDB's sales forecasts, there will be 13m by the end of 2008
and 20m by the end of 2009, so the large majority of receivers will
support the new DAB standard in 2 - 3 years' time, and Ofcom will
allow the broadcasters to launch new stations using AAC+. The only
countries where the old DAB system has sold in any quantity
have been the UK Denmark and Norway (DAB sales have been low there,
but they're too stubborn to change), and all other European
countries are expected to adopt the new DAB standard.

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.



I think it will be a phased in change over a number of years, in the
same way the change from 405 to 625 line TV was undertaken.


I don't know how that change happened, but I agree it will be a phased
change depending on the proportion of receivers that can and cannot receive
the new standard.


IMO the new national multiplex should go live with the new system


The incompetents at Ofcom seem not to want to do this.


followed by a planned switch over say taking four or five years.
Regardless of the spin (in either direction) will there be either an
instant switch over or no switch over.


That sentence doesn't make sense, so I can't comment.


--
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

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:38:53 +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 use "him" and "us", therefore you use "me", not
"I".

Actually, I would say "as we are" or "as he is".

As I said before, that is not the point at issue. That completely alters
the sentence. Obviously you don't understand.

Don't tell me what I would or would not say, because you and I have
never met.

Well you said it originally, as quoted above, without the equivalent "am".
We have met in this group, or are you going to quibble over the use of "say"
and "write" now?
In any case, you are just splitting hairs now because you have been shown
to have lost the argument. Pathetic. Why can't you just admit you were wrong?
Would you have preferred I use "one" instead of "you"? Here you are then...

One wouldn't say/write "you can be as terse as he" or "you can be as terse
as we", one would use "him" and "us", therefore one uses "me", not "I".

In message , DAB sounds worse
than FM writes
I don't listen to the radio.
--
Ian

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

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.

I would call it being realistic based on past performance. The first
thing they will want to do is move all the TV stations away from the
commercial mux where they have to pay for it onto their own, where
they won't have to pay. Then they will want all the other BBC TV
stations on there as well so that they can say they are giving viewers
an extra choice of how they watch them.


I've already said that they could put BBC1/2/3/4/N24 on there and the audio
quality would still be better.


Then they will want all the regional BBC radio stations on there as
well so that people can listen to their own regional station
regardless of where they are in the country. (I believe they have
stated this as their goal at some point in the past?).


You let yourself down by just coming out with ridiculous stuff. That is an
utterly ridiculous comment, and I think you've just basically made it up out
of thin air because I've shown that even if they add their TV channels the
audio quality will go up, so you just had to think of some other services to
add to try and prove your point. If you actually think for a moment about
whether they would do this, you would very quickly come to the conclusion
that no, they would not. There's 31 local BBC stations, and they're not very
popular even with people that live in the area where they're transmitted, so
they're not going to broadcast them on a national multiplex even if there
were space for them, which there obviously isn't because there's 31 of the
fking things.


All on top of
all the completely new radio stations they will want to launch so that
they can compete with the commercial broadcasters.


Please provide a reference to any suggestion that they will be launching new
stations.


The point you have ignored 3 times now, is that if they really wanted
to broadcast high quality audio they would already be doing so on Sky
or Freeview.


I've already responded to it at least once. The reason why they even go to
the extent of degrading the audio quality on the digital TV platforms let
alone not increasing the bit rates on satellite is because they want
everybody to listen via DAB. Simon Nelson, the BBC Controller in charge of
digital radio has said this on R4 Feedback and if you look at the BBC press
office speeches page and read Mark Thompson's latest speech he mentions
their full commitment to the [DAB] platform.

I hate it as much as you do, but that's why they've not done it. And I'm
afraid that is why they will improve the quality on DAB.


--
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

Ian wrote:
In message , DAB sounds
worse than FM writes
I don't listen to the radio.


Who cares what you do or do not do?


--
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:


Something that you may not have considered is that we might end up
with the DAB encodings being used as the source for FM transmissions
so we would end up with the worst of both worlds. A bit like the way
you see digital artifacts on analogue TV these days.

I think it is time for me to think about giving up T.V and radio in the
next few years and just stay with DVD and my own music.

My brother have just got a T.V license for the first time for years, he
never watched T.V only DVD's. I told him he is mad, T.V is getting so
bad now anyone who can avaoid it is better off.

Radio at the moment is a different thing, I still like listening to the
radio, but if the quality of sound goes down, then I will give that up.

In article ,
Edster wrote:
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.

I noticed everything was louder for some reason, presumably they have
research that says most of their listeners are a bit deaf and have
something wrong with their volume controls.

Merely to match the level the pop boys use on FreeView.

But I don't see how that
would explain the hiss? BBC7 is just as loud as Radio 4, if not
louder, and does not hiss.

If you were comparing it direct to FM, but it was at a higher level, any
background would be more noticeable.

In my workshop I have a choice of FM, DAB and Freeview and can measure/set
the levels accurately for each one. Switching between them there is no
obvious change in hiss. And using R4 as the source, just about no change
in quality either. Those who hear this massive change on R4 between DAB
and FM when DAB is at 128 kbps should put their 'golden ears' to better
use.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

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

In article ,
Edster wrote:
What have cars got to do with anything? What difference would audio
quality on Sky or Freeview make to someone in a car with a mono radio?

Can you actually buy a mono car radio? Not seen one on sale for ages.

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

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

In article ,
AD C wrote:
I told him he is mad, T.V is getting so
bad now anyone who can avaoid it is better off.

What would *you* like to view on TV?

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

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

In article , Edster
writes
AD C wrote in message

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

Something that you may not have considered is that we might end up
with the DAB encodings being used as the source for FM transmissions
so we would end up with the worst of both worlds. A bit like the way
you see digital artifacts on analogue TV these days.

Yes that is the scary bit. At least Radio 3 listeners protest and
sometimes get things done. I reckon radio one listeners will put up with
what their given, and they after all don't know any different being
bought up on a diet of MP3 ;(
--
Tony Sayer