Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

In article , Stuart Clark
scribeth thus
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

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


I think the biggest benefit is for people in cars - better "quality" due
to lack of multi-path, and a greater selection of channels.


Well it could be if cars had them fitted;!..

Actual acoustic quality for those listening in a car is fairly
immaterial anyway due to the environment - a horrible shape and
positioning of speakers with a rather load background noise from the engine.

Well I do a lot of listening in mine..
--
Tony Sayer

Richard Evans wrote:

This is all very well, but there are limits, and as far as I'm concerned
DAB goes well below these limits. I could accept reduced sound quality
in my car, and probably wouldn't notice. However I can not accept DAB in
my car. I tried it, but the the poor sound quality was obvious and
irritating even in an in car environment.


Would you feel the same if you where playing a MP3 CD instead of radio?

Stuart Clark wrote:
Richard Evans wrote:

This is all very well, but there are limits, and as far as I'm
concerned DAB goes well below these limits. I could accept reduced
sound quality in my car, and probably wouldn't notice. However I can
not accept DAB in my car. I tried it, but the the poor sound quality
was obvious and irritating even in an in car environment.


Would you feel the same if you where playing a MP3 CD instead of radio?

In my previous car I frequently played MP3 CDs, encoded at 192k, and I
never had a problem with sound quality. When played in the car it
sounded just like listening to CDs.

The car I have now doesn't play mp3 CDs, but I do often plug in my IPod.
However I'm now using 256k. Not because I ever had a problem with 192k,
but because my IPod has a 160Gb hard drive, so there seems little point
in not using high bit rates.

Richard E.

"Edster" wrote in message

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


"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.

It might have been a PC World special offer, though I don't remember
ever seeing them for sale anywhere else.


That's where I got mine from as well. If you had yours for a year
before the bit rates went down (in December 2001) then you got it
about 9-10 months before me, because the bit rates went down 2-3
months after I bought mine.



--
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

Edster wrote:
Stuart Clark wrote:

For both of those types of listener quality isn't that important. Cars
are a horrible place to listen due to the large noise making engine a
few feet in front of you, and the workplace is equally bad - maybe some
mono speakers in the suspended ceiling or a small cheap set in the
middle of the office. And anyway it is only on as background music while
you are doing the more important work.

Why bother having high quality TV? Most people only have a small
portable TV in their bedroom, and not many people sit and watch it
anyway they just have it on in the background while they are waiting
for something worth watching to come on.


Because for the majority that isn't true?

Very few people have the TV on "in the background".

"Stuart Clark" wrote in message

Bill Wright wrote:

The tragedy here is that those in broadcast (and outside it, hello
Steve)
who lobby for better DAB audio have an uphill struggle, because the
beancounters can point to the lumpen masses and say, 'They're happy
enough'. It takes a determined and principled person (or lobby) to
stand
up against this, and as far as I can see no such person (in a
suitable
post) exists.

Why do people actually listen to radio?

For the majority does quality matter?

I think the most common type of radio listener are those in their
cars
(especially driving to/from work) and background music in the
workplace.


IIRC 60% of all listening is done at home - 20% is in teh car, can't
remember what percentage in the workplace is but it's a low
percentage.


For both of those types of listener quality isn't that important.
Cars
are a horrible place to listen due to the large noise making engine
a
few feet in front of you, and the workplace is equally bad - maybe
some
mono speakers in the suspended ceiling or a small cheap set in the
middle of the office. And anyway it is only on as background music
while
you are doing the more important work.

Quality really matters if you are making a concious decision to
listen.
So those with portable radios with headphones and people listening
on
their hi-fi. These are a minority.


So ****ing what? Since when did the minority become unimportant?



--
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

"Stuart Clark" wrote in message

Richard Evans wrote:

This is all very well, but there are limits, and as far as I'm
concerned
DAB goes well below these limits. I could accept reduced sound
quality
in my car, and probably wouldn't notice. However I can not accept
DAB in
my car. I tried it, but the the poor sound quality was obvious and
irritating even in an in car environment.


Would you feel the same if you where playing a MP3 CD instead of
radio?


What point are you trying to make??



--
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. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message

In message ,
Agamemnon
writes
[]
Given that bitrates on DAB were always too low from the very start
and

Debatable; certainly, there are some here who think (especially with
the
CoDecs then available) that, but in its early days it _was_
broadcast at
rates high enough to give a signal of comparable quality to that
obtainable from an average FM set without an external aerial - some
of
the time. (Didn't last, though.)


But the BBC knew from the mid 1990s onwards that their plans to launch
new stations would inevitably lead to using approx 128 kbps, and they
still did nothing.

It was gross incompetence. There's no other word for it when AAC was
already standardised and ready to be used.

Even the men in tweed suits down at R&D were warning them. And they
still did bugger all.




--
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

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"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

Don't be an arse all your life Steve.

"Edster" wrote in message

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


"Edster" wrote in message

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


"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.

It might have been a PC World special offer, though I don't
remember
ever seeing them for sale anywhere else.


That's where I got mine from as well. If you had yours for a year
before the bit rates went down (in December 2001) then you got it
about 9-10 months before me, because the bit rates went down 2-3
months after I bought mine.

I bet you were pleased about that. At least I had a year of use out
of
mine, even if it did cost more.


I was so pleased I set up a website about 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