Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"Stuart Clark" wrote in message


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?


When it comes for money.

Ignoring the BBC stations for a second, if a commercial station can get
away with using a lower bitrate (and therefore a lower cost) without too
much difference in their advertising income then they will lower the
bitrate.

"Silk" wrote in message

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.


Silk, you're *just* a troll, so STFU.



--
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
news
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".


If by "very few" you mean "a few million people" who surf the net and
their concentration is primarily on their computer screen and have the
TV on in the background (much like radio, in fact), I'd agree with
you.

I know, let's switch to black and white TV. People won't mind. They're
only surfing the web anyway, so they won't even notice.



--
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:
"Stuart Clark" wrote in message


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

What point are you trying to make??


I'm just wondering how people's expectations affect things.

If you are used to listening to CDs then the jump to DAB is bigger than
if you are used to listening to a low bitrate MP3.

"Edster" wrote in message
...
"Agamemnon" wrote:



"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 ********.

How many people listen to Classic FM on DAB?

Not many I presume. They sound quality is complete **** on DAB so why would
they.

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

It's nothing to do with the Asian Netowok. It is the low bit rates used DAB
which is to blame. It's worse than Medium Wave.




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.

I know enough of them to know that they don't listen to DAB. 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

This from the one who things MW sounds better than DAB...

The Asian Network proves it.



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.

It's up to Ofcom to rethink the entire system first, before any serious
broadcasters will touch it.

In ,
typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:
: 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!
:
: ********.

Think being the operative word. Or not, as the case may be ;-)

Ivor

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"Stuart Clark" wrote in message
news
Edster wrote:

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

If by "very few" you mean "a few million people" who surf the net and
their concentration is primarily on their computer screen and have the
TV on in the background (much like radio, in fact), I'd agree with
you.


Fair enough if that is the case. Where do you get that figure from?

"Stuart Clark" wrote in message
news
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"Stuart Clark" wrote in message
news
Edster wrote:

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

If by "very few" you mean "a few million people" who surf the net
and
their concentration is primarily on their computer screen and have
the
TV on in the background (much like radio, in fact), I'd agree with
you.


Fair enough if that is the case. Where do you get that figure from?


No figures, just going off what lots of other people say they do, and
from what I do. At the end of the day, people mainly go on the
Internet in the evening, which is also when people watch telly, so I
think it's common sense that a lot of people will have the telly on
whilst they're on the Internet.



--
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

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"Stuart Clark" wrote in message


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?


When it comes for money.

Ignoring the BBC stations for a second, if a commercial station can
get
away with using a lower bitrate (and therefore a lower cost) without
too
much difference in their advertising income then they will lower the
bitrate.


Why have you ignored the BBC stations though? It's the BBC stations I
want to be at high 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