Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk
"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
DAB was doomed from the start. Now perhaps Ofcom will step in and
close
the whole thing down and create a new system which is based on quality
and open broadcast standards, i.e., OGG Vorbis/AAC+HC at 64 kbps
minimum requirement, mp3 at no lower than 224 kbps, mp3 at no lower
than 320kbps, and compulsory 5.1 surround compatible encoding on all
BBC stations at bitrates of 192kbps AAC/OGG Vorbis, over the air
updates and upgrades of audio codecs so that new more efficient ones
can be introduced when developed, and the ability to broadcast
individual stations without the need to put them on a regional
multiplexes, and all Community Radio digital transmission costs to be
met by Ofcom from a levy on commercial radio and the BBC licence fee
until the price of equipment and links reaches affordable levels.

Given that DAB had extremely poor take up when introduced - with
reasonable bit rates


You're ignoring the minimum £300 price tag for DAB receivers whilst the
bit rates were high.

When were the bit rates ever high? 192kbps on the BBC was no where near
FM
quality. All the commercial stations were always at 128kbps so it's no
surprise that no one listened to them.


The BBC and a few commercial stations used 192 kbps up to 2001.

Which was totally inadequate using the codec's of the time and even today
and equivalent to mp3 at 96kbps. Nobody would pay £300 for a one speaker
receiver (obviously the chose only one speaker to hide the severe distortion
on stereo) with sound quality that bad.



All DAB supporters conveniently ignore this. I wonder why.

And the fact that the stations targeted teenagers alone, none of whom
could possibly afford the receivers and even if they could they were not
"Walkman" sized so couldn't be carried around in their pockets. And of
course teenagers would have had greater sensitivity to high frequencies
but DAB at 128kbps has a frequency response barley better than Medium
Wave and is impossible to listen to on headphones anyway because of all
the compression artefacts.


Also, it's teh advertising, stupid. There was no TV ads for DAB when the
bit rates were high. The 20 BBC TV ad campaigns came after the bit rates
were low.

The bit rates were always low.


The BBC and a few commercial stations used 192 kbps up to 2001.


Which was totally inadequate using the codec's of the time and even today
and equivalent to mp3 at 96kbps. Nobody would pay £300 for a one speaker
receiver (obviously the chose only one speaker to hide the severe distortion
on stereo) with sound quality that bad.


Advertising DAB would have made no
difference. The sound quality was utter crap so what did they have to
advertise, nothing but low bit rate stations for teenagers who couldn't
afford the receivers and who couldn't bare the levels distortion with
their sensitive hearing.

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

snip

Given that DAB had extremely poor take up when introduced - with
reasonable bit rates


You're ignoring the minimum £300 price tag for DAB receivers whilst the
bit rates were high.

All DAB supporters conveniently ignore this. I wonder why.

Also, it's teh advertising, stupid. There was no TV ads for DAB when the
bit rates were high. The 20 BBC TV ad campaigns came after the bit rates
were low.


There was no advertising for Colour TV when introduced (other than a BBC 1
colour logo) either and yet people were prepared to send a dammed sight
more than 300 quid on a colour set back then (the equivalent is something
like spending 1,000 plus UKP in today's money

And 3 times the licence fee.

Steve, like those who are paying that sort of money when buying into the
flat panel HD sets), they did so - like today with HD - because there was
a benefit for them in doing so, DAB has no benefit to 98% of the
population apart from allowing more choice, in that DAB has been a success
even though receivers are still at least 3x as expencive than the
equivalent analogue receiver.

More choice? Choice for who? All the commercial stations were directed at
teenagers, provided lousy sound quality and were beyond their pockets. It
was a complete failure from its very inception.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
No good for true stereo - unless a dummy head recording.

That's true, though I remember the first time I heard stereo music
through headphones, I thought the experience was far more 'vibrant'
than via speakers. Of course YMMV.

Like I said earlier few have ever heard decent stereo.

That takes me back to an episode from childhood... I was walking down
Southend high street with mother in tow, looking to spend the money I
had got for my birthday. Personal stereos had just about fallen to a
price point where I could afford one (we are talking early 80's here),
and that is what I was after. Having mentioned this fact, I was now
getting the extended lecture about "what do you want another cassette
player for? You have already got one...". So I attempted to explain that
this was stereo, and a significant jump up in audio performance from an
"ordinary" cassette player etc. This almost fell on deaf ears (after all
here was the woman who would quite happily listen to the world service
on a dodgy mini portable radio, where the heterodyne whistle was the
only clearly audible part of the experience). The we switched tack to
"Well if you are going to *waste* your money on another one, why not get
one we can all listen to, instead of one where you have to use
headphones?". Eventually we reached the target shop, that had the right
model at the right price. I asked for a demo and had a quick listen to
confirm it was on par with those I had auditioned before, then stuck the
headphones on mother. Cue, the first 20 seconds of silence of the
ongoing 30 minute nag-fest. The final comment "oh, it is rather good
isn't it!"

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
Given that bitrates on DAB were always too low from the very start

I'd guess you're the sort where any bitrate is always too low...

and the sound quality was abysmal why should anyone have bought the
super expensive receivers when they were first introduced and why should
anyone buy them now when they offer barley any improvement over the
sound quality of Medium Wave.

... as well as talking pure ********. It's obvious you've never listened
to either Medium wave or DAB when you come out with crap like that.

It is obvious that you have defective hearing if when you come out with
******** like that. Compare the Asian Network on DAB (about 64kbps in mp2,
equivalent to 32kbps real audio) with the Asian Network on Medium Wave. The
sound quality on Medium Wave is far superior. DAB is unbearable.



The vast majority of those who listen to radio are perfectly happy with
the present DAB (if they own a set). Try asking your neighbours rather
than those with axes to grind on here, etc.

The vast majority of people who listen to radio are not and have never
been satisfied with the present DAB.

Try asking your neighbours.

Why would any of my neighbours or anyone in my street want to buy useless
crap like a DAB receiver. They ain't teenage kids.


What people want is quality, not qunatity.

More ********, I'm afraid. Just look at any viewing/ listening figures.

Obviously you are almost completely deaf then and you've even actually
listened to any of the stations on DAB


DAB in the UK should have been launched with a minimum bit rate of 320
kbps so that it was comparable to the sound quality on the equivalent
system on the continent, near CD quality, and designed so that it would
be compatible with 5.1 surround. It should have allowed for local and
community radio stations to be broadcast individually from their own
transmitters and not on huge regional multiplexes which were controlled
by monopolies and were filled with automated rubbish intended for the
consumption of no one but teenagers. How were teenagers supposed to
afford the cost of the receiver when they cost over £250 for a tiny one
speaker radio and how could they listen to the programmes on headphones
on "Walkman" style radios (which were never introduced) when the sound
quality was so bad it was and still is unbearable at the low bit rates
it was transmitted at?

Well there's a mux going begging so here's your chance to show the
broadcasters where they went wrong.

What do I want a whole mux for. I already told you that the whole problem
with multiplexes is that they are not local. What radio listeners want is
local and community radio telling them what is going on in their town and
catering for local bands and musicians and local musical tastes not
quasi-national radio primarily directed at teenagers playing exactly the
same music as every other station, above all that what everyone wants, who
isn't deaf, is sound quality which is close to that of CD or DVD.

"Edster" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:



What people want is quality, not qunatity.

More ********, I'm afraid. Just look at any viewing/ listening figures.

I would suspect the reason not many people listen to Radio 3 would be
more because of its content than because of its high quality.

Given that Classic FM is the most listened to and profitable commercial
radio station your implied conclusion is obviously complete ********.

SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:

My point is that whatever panned-mono scheme is adopted for
transmission, it's not stereo (although it has two channels).
Furthermore for most output, NCA, chat and game shows, etc. 'stereo'
adds little or nothing.

It adds ambience and atmosphere. On a chat show you can get almost as
much enjoyment without it, but its still better with it.

For music and shows where there is a defined proscenium of some sort, it
definitely helps, but they are a minority. For other things, sport,
drama and nat hist for example you get some stereo atmos, that's nice to
listen to , and definitely adds ambience, but doesn't as such contribute
a stereo image matching the picture.

The key here is that it rarely if ever hinders, so you could turn the
argument around, and say why bother doing anything in mono? With today's
technology two channels of (decent) sound is should be trivial - might
as well make it the minimum standard.

Good sound (especially multichannel) helps make any viewing experience
more immersive IME, and opens up new layers of viewing pleasure (when
done well anyway).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Given that DAB had extremely poor take up when introduced - with
reasonable bit rates - and reached what is likely its maximum increase in
sales *after* those bitrates were reduced - what makes you think the
public will rush to buy yet another different system - given there are
now
so many ways you can listen to 'radio' programmes?

I was interested enough in DAB when it was introduced to read about it and
wonder when it would be introduced where I live, and to consider getting a
tuner to receive it.

Then I found out that the tuners cost more than I had spent on my entire
hifi system.

I wonder what the deciding factor might have been amongst ordinary folks
who
were not broadcast engineers hifi enthusiasts or music lovers?


Those that were broadcast engineers hi-fi enthusiasts or music lovers said
get stuffed to it because it was neither high fidelity, it wasn't even close
to FM quality, and as for the music played on it, it was all the same pop
songs looped over and over again directed exclusively at teenagers.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Pretty well no one was interested in DAB when the bitrates were high. I
was an early adopter because it was a way round my poor FM reception - and
at that time there weren't alternatives as today. It was only some time
after the choice of stations was increased that it got a reasonable take
up. Make of that as you will.


Also the time when DAB started to sell, was around around about the time
that receiver prices became a lot lower, and also around about the time
when there were huge high profile advertising campaigns for DAB.

Richard E.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Pretty well no one was interested in DAB when the bitrates were high. I
was an early adopter because it was a way round my poor FM reception - and
at that time there weren't alternatives as today. It was only some time
after the choice of stations was increased that it got a reasonable take
up. Make of that as you will.


Also the time when DAB started to sell, was around around about the time
that receiver prices became a lot lower, and also around about the time
when there were huge high profile advertising campaigns for DAB.

Richard E.

Bill Wright wrote:


There is one circumstance in which my head is permanantly at the optimum
point for good stereo and that's when I'm working on this PC. I do enjoy
stereo radio when I'm here.

I find that even when my head is nowhere near the optimum position for
stereo listening, I can still hear a significant stereo image, and it
still sounds a lot better than mono.

Richard E.