Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
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.

They cost about the same as CD players did in real terms when they were
first available.

CD offered you studio quality recordings. DAB offered sound quality
equivalent to a worn out 78 record.


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

Exactly the same arguments were put about CD.

And the reasons people bought CD was all primarily based on QUALITY!


However, hindsight makes it clear there just wasn't any demand for digital
radio.

Nope. There wasn't any demand for a system which provided sound quality
worse the FM and wasn't even up to the sound quality of Medium Wave for
stations such as the Asian Network.

Might have been different if it had been a world standard like CD
and equipment prices tumbled quickly through mass production.

There would have only been mass production if there had been high consumer
demand. The sound quality of DAB was and still is complete and utter crap
and it offered nothing which FM did not (20 stations playing exactly the
same music as opposed to 4 or 5 local stations, and no 5.1 surround), and
nobody that had the money was going to spend it on rubbish.


Rod.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
No-one is bothered because the quality of radio transmissions is
almost
entirely irrelevant. I know no-one who sits down in front of their
radio just to listen to it. They're always doing something else at
the
same time, getting up, cooking their breakfast, eating their toast,
reading their newspaper, belching, cleaning their teeth, driving to
work. And all those things are noisy, so any quality, as long as
it
isn't absolutely appalling, is in fact perfectly adequate.
You've got it in one. Which is why things like stereo too ain't
anything
like so important for most.


No, he's got it all wrong, which is why you agreed with him.


(Steve I agree with what you have said, and this seems to be a
convenient point to add my comments).

I think a lot of people in this thread are talking about stereo TV,
rather than playing music over stereo radio.

The value of stereo TV is perhaps debatable, however for listening to
music, stereo does make a huge difference. I find that even if I'm
nowhere near the optimum position, I can still hear lot of stereo
effects that would not be there if I where listening in mono.

Two points to add.
1: OK if you are not in the optimum position, then the sounds might not
appear from the exact positions that they were intended to come from.
However you still hear different sounds from different positions (or at
least I do), so you still hear a pleasing stereo effect.

2: There is a lot of phase information between the two speakers, which
adds a great deal to the listening experience. Take away this, and it's
just not the same. Which is probably why I fond the intensity stereo
used in DAB to be so irritating.

Richard E.

m wrote:


Most Tx sites probably alreay have a feed for analogue use so there
shouldn't be cost there and others can RBR satellite feeds.


That's all very well. However at some point somebody decided to sell off
all the broadcasting facilities. Now broadcasting facilities are
provided by a commercial company looking to make as much profit as
possible. Hence broadcasters such as Channel4 can not really benefit
from the economies of scale. They have to pay Arqiva to provide the
transmissions, and Arqiva will charge as much as they can get away with
charging, and Arquiva will be the only company benefiting from economies
of scale, broadcasting several transmissions from the same TX sites.

Richard E.

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
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 Asian network? I have no idea what the technical standards of what
they feed to the transmitters are or the type of programme material they
allow. Anymore than hospital radio. I've just flicked across to it and the
music they're playing has severe distortion which is nothing to do with
DAB or any other transmission type. Nor is it surprising given the
modulation levels they're attempting.

Lets just stick to the mainstream stuff. If you are unhappy with the
quality of the Asian network - take it up with them.



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.

Ah right. You don't know any of your neighbours. Not a surprise.


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

This from the one who things MW sounds better than 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.

Then it's up to you to provide this service since you're so certain it
would be a winner.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

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

In article ,
Richard Evans 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.

That doesn't explain why all those who are complaining about the low bit
rates weren't interested in it at first.

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

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.

That doesn't explain why all those who are complaining about the low bit
rates weren't interested in it at first.

Yes it does.

I for one was interested in DAB long before the bit rates were lowered.
However I actually wanted to use it in my car, and it wasn't until late
2003 that Goodmans released the first DAB car radio to cost less than
£200. That was at least a year after than BBC dropped their bit rates.

So in my case it was receiver prices that stopped me getting a DAB
receiver when the bit rates were high, and I would think that for most
people cost would be even more of a factor than it was for me. Most
people probably wouldn't buy one until they could do so for about £30 or
less, and £30 DAB radios have only been available very recently.

Richard E.

In ,
Edster typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: "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.

My mum stopped listening to it a long time ago. When asked why, she
replies "too much talk, not enough music."

Also the last time I listened to it they appeared to be peaking at about 2
on the PPM's, couldn't hear a thing..!


Ivor

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM [email protected] wrote:
Pretty well no one was interested in DAB when the bitrates were
high.

This is the 2nd time you've said this in this thread.

When the DAB bit rates were higher, the minimum cost of a DAB
receiver
was £300, and there had been no advertising.

So what? Quite in line with other high quality audio equipment at
launch.
Know what a CD player cost originally?


Again, you're just ignoring the TV advertising. It's TV ADVERTISING
THAT SELLS THINGS, that's what it's for, that's why it costs so much.

There was no TV advertising when the bit rates were high.


I repeat - those who had an interest in 'Hi-Fi' didn't rush out to
buy
them.


I think DAB actually sold very well considering that the minimum price
was £300.


It's hardly surprising that sales increased when the price dropped
to
£100 and the BBC was advertising the ******** off DAB on TV, is it?

And you think increasing the choice of stations had no effect?


Nowhere near as much effect as the TV advertising had, no.

I could receive 35 stations in 2001 (before the bit rates were
reduced). I can receive about the same number now - some commercial
stations have closed since then.

The large majority of people who buy DAB do so because they think
they're going to get higher quality!



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Richard Evans 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.

That doesn't explain why all those who are complaining about the low
bit
rates weren't interested in it at first.


I was interested in it, but I couldn't afford £300. £300 is a lot to
spend on what's basically "a radio".



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I think you'll find that most people these days don't know what
'stereo' actually is.

Indeed. And unless you are listing in the correct position the
actual
musical balance becomes corrupted.

It was mentioned without reaction by someone else in this thread 24
hours ago, so I'll have a go.

Headphones ?

An awful lot of music and other recordings are now consumed by an
awful
lot of people via these. Much more than 30 years ago.

How many people actually want to wear headphones when not forced to?
Not
many is my guess.


FFS. You're just a crank.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm