Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

In article ,
Edster wrote:
So why would they be bothered if the radio hissed? What happens to DAB
when you go under bridges anyway?

Round London the signal is far more robust than FM (on the stations I
listen to).

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

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

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM [email protected] wrote:
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.

And some would think you might have moved on after all these years.
Especially with the choices now available for listening to radio progs.

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM [email protected] wrote:
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.

And some would think you might have moved on after all these years.
Especially with the choices now available for listening to radio
progs.


My website has moved on, David. News articles are usually about
Internet radio now, not DAB.



--
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 ,
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.


On which planet?



--
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
...
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.


Indeed.



--
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

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message

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.]


Plowman is wrong anyway, because I could receive about 35 stations in
2001, which is the "high bit rate period" when he's saying sales were
low (which was simply due to there being literally less than 1%
awareness of DAB, which was only changed once the BBC began
advertising the ******** off it in 2002), and I can now receive about
35 stations today - the extra BBC stations have been offset by
commercial station closures.



--
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

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message

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


Someone in the DAB industry actually literally said the phone once
that countries that use the lowest quality on DAB have been the most
successful. It's true, but it's got to be the most idiotic thing I've
ever heard anyone say on the phone in my entire life.



--
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 ,
Paul Ratcliffe 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.]

When the bitrate was reasonable but the choice poor it had a very poor
take up rate - even with so called Hi-Fi enthusiasts. When the choice was
increased which necessitated dropping the bit rate sales took off. And
those who hadn't wanted it before started complaining. You can put
whatever slant you want on things - but logic certainly isn't your forte.

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

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

In article ,
Mike Henry wrote:
In , "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

False.

Yes it's false - but then so is saying it's mono on DAB. Take it up with
Edster.

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory *

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

In article ,
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
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

Been a good session in the pub, then?

--
*Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *

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