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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
It was WorldDAB that finally caved in to pressure following a highly
embarrassing sequence of attacks on the old DAB system from
organisations from Europe and Australia and they realised that if they
didn't upgrade the system then DAB would die and everybody would adopt
DVB-H or DMB for digital radio instead, because they're miles more
efficient and miles cheaper to transmit than DAB is.

That will explain why DAB sales in the UK are at an all time high?
Of course new more efficient technology comes along. You make it sound
like it was consumer lead which is rubbish.

And isn't it bizarre that Mr. FM actually sells the very stuff he
dislikes?

Cheers,
Luke


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

Graham wrote:


If they wanted to improve audio quality they would already have high
audio quality on Sky where there are no space constraints to use as an
excuse.

There are no BBC stations "on SKY"

You gain no points for pedantry.

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:
Brian wrote:

This time I hope thick stupid people do not buy the
radios and allow themselves to be conned the same way as they were
over DAB. I would only buy a digital radio if sound quality was
equal to FM stereo or better. I don't want MW quality stations all
playing the same music with adverts every 6 minutes.

Nor do I. That's why I bought a DAB radio and, strangely enough, have
yet to listen to such a station.


Try Kerrang.


I'm not thick. I'm not stupid. I have had very good experiences with
DAB.


You're making yourself out to be, because most of the regulars on here will
be well aware that DAB sounds crap.


Sadly, some of the people here are too bigoted to cope with the
concept that DAB has given many customers what they wanted for very
little money.


I was unaware that people wanted low audio quality.


--
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

Luke Bosman wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:59:54 +0000,
(Luke Bosman) wrote:


And, you know what, compared with FM, DAB does sound better here.
If you doubt me, I would invite you to come and compare. I have
spent £100 on DAB equipment and £100 on FM.

Then you cannot possibly be hearing FM at its best. I've been
familiar with the sound quality of FM broadcasting for forty years,
so I know what it is capable of, and have been disappointed with
what DAB is currently providing.

A properly installed aerial and a good quality receiver can usually
give excellent results on FM, but no matter what you do to receive
DAB, the damage has been done to the audio signal before it is even
transmitted so you can never achieve perfection, not even in theory.

And that's the key. The reception I have on DAB is better than that on
FM because FM requires a properly installed aerial.


Bull****. I have an internal aerial and get excellent reception on most
stations - all of the BBC ones - and good reception on everything else.


--
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

Luke Bosman wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Luke Bosman wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM 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.


Are you serious? Here was me thinking that they were going to give
them away.

Comments such as that simply make you appear foolish.


You were the fool that made the comment that people that hadn't
bought a DAB radio would have to buy one. Something that obvious
obviously does not need to be said.

Whereas "Oh, and BTW, you're going to need a new radio" did?


I said it to wind up some of the fools that have been apologising for DAB
all along.


Once
again, your attitude makes you appear foolish.


I can hardly be seen to be foolish when you consider that I have been
arguing in favour of DAB being upgraded for a few years against people that
have been trying to justify the status quo (you would no doubt have been one
of these idiots if you'd have been on this newsgroup a year or two ago) and
now, finally, after years of telling them what a ****e system DAB is, they
have now upgraded the system.

I've been thoroughly vindicated - my website has been used as a source of
information by many of the organisations that attacked the old DAB system
which ultimately led to the DAB system being upgraded. So do you seriously
think I could give a flying fook about what some random with a portable
radio says just because he is unfortunate enough to have poor FM reception?
Dream on.


Note, by the way, I've
not said you are a fool so please don't descend to personal abuse
again.


Really?


--
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

Luke Bosman wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
It was WorldDAB that finally caved in to pressure following a highly
embarrassing sequence of attacks on the old DAB system from
organisations from Europe and Australia and they realised that if
they didn't upgrade the system then DAB would die and everybody
would adopt DVB-H or DMB for digital radio instead, because they're
miles more efficient and miles cheaper to transmit than DAB is.

That will explain why DAB sales in the UK are at an all time high?


DAB sales in the UK are at an all time high because DAB is growing, you
fool.

There's about 120m FM radios to be replaced by DAB radios, so if sales don't
grow then we could be looking at FM switchoff around, say, 2070 at the
current rate of sales.


Of course new more efficient technology comes along. You make it
sound like it was consumer lead which is rubbish.


It was governments and broadcasters that attacked DAB that led to the DAB
system being upgraded, because if it hadn't been upgraded these other
countries and broadcasters were going to use DVB-H or DMB instead.


And isn't it bizarre that Mr. FM actually sells the very stuff he
dislikes?


I sell nothign from my website.


--
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 ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:


I was unaware that people wanted low audio quality.


There is a difference between "wanting low quality" and "putting up with
low quality". Some years ago, people flocked to buy VHS Video recorders
because they offered a facility they wanted; the fact that the quality was
dreadful was ignored.

I suspect it is a similar situation with radio.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article ,
I have an internal aerial and get excellent reception on most stations -
all of the BBC ones - and good reception on everything else.

That depends on where you live, relative to the transmitter. It also
depends on the constructional materials used in the house.

I live with the service area of the Guildford transmitter, but my house is
built of very dense brick. Reception on portables for FM is difficult,
generally the radio needs to be beside a window. That's not always
convenient.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:



And isn't it bizarre that Mr. FM actually sells the very stuff he
dislikes?


I sell nothign from my website.

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood one of your comments earlier.

Cheers,
Luke


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

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Luke Bosman wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:59:54 +0000,
(Luke Bosman) wrote:


And, you know what, compared with FM, DAB does sound better here.
If you doubt me, I would invite you to come and compare. I have
spent £100 on DAB equipment and £100 on FM.

Then you cannot possibly be hearing FM at its best. I've been
familiar with the sound quality of FM broadcasting for forty years,
so I know what it is capable of, and have been disappointed with
what DAB is currently providing.

A properly installed aerial and a good quality receiver can usually
give excellent results on FM, but no matter what you do to receive
DAB, the damage has been done to the audio signal before it is even
transmitted so you can never achieve perfection, not even in theory.

And that's the key. The reception I have on DAB is better than that on
FM because FM requires a properly installed aerial.


Bull****. I have an internal aerial and get excellent reception on most
stations - all of the BBC ones - and good reception on everything else.

Oh, do calm down. You may disagree with me, and you are welcome to do
so. Please do not, on the other hand, dismiss what I say as 'bull****'.
Your experience is different from mine. Do I declare that what you say
is 'bull****'?

How much did your internal aerial cost? Once again, I invite you to use
the evidence of your own ears.

Cheers,
Luke


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