Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

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


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.

Well no, but millions of travellers do daily whether they're
pedestrians
or passengers. Haven't you noticed !?

Your point is?

Anyway, only a tiny percentage of those will be listening to the
radio.


So far we've got:

headphone users
people in cars
people who're listening to their hi-fi and happen to be in the right
spot to hear stereo

I'd say that's a hell of a lot of people.

I'd also say that music simply sounds more dynamic when it's in stereo
than in mono - it sounds flat in mono.



--
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

"J G Miller" wrote in message

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:24:18 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Mainly it's that "it's digital, so it's better, innit".

And does not much of that attitude stem from the misinformation
"propaganda" which have the BBC have spread?


Absolutely.


One example coming to mind was that for quite a long time they used
to
describe DAB in the UKofGB&NI as being "near CD" quality.


As someone else has said, the BBC actually used to say it was "CD
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

"Bill Wright" wrote in message

"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
There's lots of reasons for this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ar...nd-quality.php

Mainly it's that "it's digital, so it's better, innit".

The media persist in propagating the myth that digital is always
better
than analogue. This is partly because this is the official line and
partly
because journos are mostly lazy no-good arts educated people.

But that isn't really the point. The man on the Clapham bendybus is
completely and utterly unable to differentiate between good FM and
bad
DAB. I know it's almost incredible, but it's true.


You're wrong. It's nothing to do with not being able to tell the
difference, it's ALL to do with the reasons on he

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ar...nd-quality.php

Call it white coat syndrome, naivety, call it whatever you like, but
"it's digickle so it's better" and all the things associated with that
are why they unquestioningly accept it.




--
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

In article , Edster
scribeth thus
"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.

I think you'll find the radio 3 audience do complain long and loud when
they are subjected to that 160 K joint stereo abortion..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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.

Ever though of what it must be like to be a commercial broadcaster and
know that a lot of people won't be listening cos as yet theirs bugger
all DAB sets fitted in cars as standard equipment?...

Indeed - no demand for it.

Nope no demand good... system that isn't it!..

Which has got nothing to do with the bitrate on
DAB.

Its just another blatant problem of the wondrous DAB system we have in
the UK...


--
Tony Sayer

In article , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote:
So far we've got:

headphone users
people in cars
people who're listening to their hi-fi and happen to be in the right
spot to hear stereo

I'd say that's a hell of a lot of people.

Yes, and all of them are me!

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

"Edster" wrote in message

"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote:


"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".

I bought a Wavefinder when they dropped down to £150, I had about a
year of good use out of it before it all turned into ****e.


You must have got yours in a limited offer then, because I remember
waiting for the price to drop, and I ended up getting a Wavefinder
when they first dropped from £300 to £100 in Sept or Oct 2001.

The BBC bit rates were then reduced on something like 21st December
2001. Just in time for people unwrapping their Xmas presents - so
people didn't experience the higher quality - the dishonest BBC
*******s.




--
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

In article ,
Edster wrote:
That doesn't explain why all those who are complaining about the low bit
rates weren't interested in it at first.

They were. The only reason you don't see more of them complaining is
because they got rid of their DAB radios when it became apparent that
they were going to stay ****e forever.

Try again with some facts.

--
*I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast *

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

In article ,
Edster wrote:
I bought a Wavefinder when they dropped down to £150, I had about a
year of good use out of it before it all turned into ****e. I got it
expecting the World Service to be in stereo, and got rid of it when
Radio 4 became mono.

Radio 4 is mono on FM too.

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

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

On Oct 12, 5:01*pm, "DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote:

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

********.