Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

"Stuart Clark" wrote in message

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.


To be honest, my MP3 CDs all use high bit rate VBR or 320 kbps CBR, so
you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in quality between them
and the CD in a car.

You seem to be underestimating how good MP3 (Lame encoder) has become
as well. MP3 being synonymous with low audio quality is simply wrong,
and it has been wrong for a few years now.



--
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:
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.

I don't see it as a jump. DAB is simply irritating. I even find MW less
irritating than DAB.

As for low bit rate MP3, I avoid listening to that, to about the same
extent that I avoid listening to DAB. MP3 is more or less acceptable at
128k and (for some easy to encode content) it can sometimes sound OK at
96k, but if you go any lower than that it sounds horrible.

Richard E.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:21:54 +0100, 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.

It's hardly a scientific conclusion to an experiment is it? This makes it
worthless, and thus a pointless post.

[I had a cold last week and the cat crapped on the grass. The cause of my
cold was the cat crapping on the grass. Yeah right. Plowman logic at work
there.]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:53:47 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Like I said earlier few have ever heard decent stereo.

If you were in charge nobody would. You'd have everybody listening in
telephone quality mono on AM "because it's good enough".

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:38:12 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

...when I was a teenager locked away in my bedroom.

From the inside or the outside? :-)

On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:45:02 +0100, Edster 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.

Plowman
Don't talk crap. If R3 lowered the audio quality on their feed, they would
get more listeners. It's obvious innit?
/Plowman

"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
The large majority of people who buy DAB do so because they think
they're going to get higher quality!

********.


Market research carried out by the evil DAB industry themselves says
you're wrong.

The man on the Clapham bendybus has been brainwahed into the unthinking
assumption that digital = better.

Bill

"Edster" wrote in message
...
Stuart Clark wrote:
So why would they be bothered if the radio hissed? What happens to DAB
when you go under bridges anyway?

Nothing. Band III signals are reflected quite nicely by steel and concrete.

Bill

In article ,
Richard Evans wrote:
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.

That's all very well, but the sound quality broadcast on DAB is so poor,
that I found it irritating even in a car. I could accept reduced sound
quality in my car, but I can't accept it being reduced to the levels of
DAB.

More irritating than the near constant distortion caused by multi-path
when near high buildings etc as happens in most towns? And the fading of
the signal for the same reasons?

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

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

In article ,
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.

What equipment did you have in your car? I found the results poor even
with a good make radio with the supplied aerial. With a decent (and
expensive) one it was transformed.

--
*Who is this General Failure chap anyway - and why is he reading my HD? *

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