Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

In article ,
Edster wrote:
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?

Even if you could put up with the metallic distortion to voices and
the mono sound, the burbling noise you get when the signal level drops
would be much more annoying than the faint hiss or brief dropout you
would get with FM

Don't get any of that on the stations I listen to. You must have had
faulty equipment.

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

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

In article ,
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Easy to do a straw pole. How many FM aerials do you see as a
percentage of TV ones? It's probably a fair to guess that the majority
listen to radio every day - but just how many under decent conditions
on a decent audio system?

Very few, but then Holme Moss can be picked up on a rusty nail in
Manchester. If you use an outside aerial, chances are you'd need an
attenuator.

Even in high signal strength areas, reflections can cause problems with FM
reception if using a set top aerial. I'm truly surprised you've not
experienced this. So wouldn't a serious radio listener - the type who sits
down to appreciate the best it have to offer - fit an external aerial?

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

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

In article ,
Edster wrote:
It was when I got rid of my DAB radio. What it is now is irrelevant
since I would never buy another one.

It never went totally mono on DAB.

When was it stereo, in the middle of the night? Certainly at none of
the times I would want to listen to it, which would be the times when
stereo was most important -- drama and comedy.

Well you can dash out and buy another one now, then.

--
*Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?

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

Agamemnon wrote:

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

Why the 5.1? (I'm just curious - no axe to grind one way or the other.)

Because the current encoding system which uses joint stereo is
incompatible with Dolby Surround Pro-Logic at bit rates lower than 256
kbps and there is no way of putting 5.1 surround on FM, therefore 5.1
surround would be the strongest possible selling point for DAB assuming
it passed Dolby and THX certification, and therefore was of sufficient
quality.


Would there be enough of a market to make anything above stereo necessary?

Those using headphones or listening in the car will miss out, as will
anybody who just wants a cheap & simple set (either with a single
speaker or tiny stereo separation).

90% of source material is stereo too. The only thing I can really think
of where 5.1 might be good would be classical music, and for that it
might be better using the higher bitrate for a better quality stereo
signal than a not so high 5.1 signal.

J G Miller wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:40:36 +0100, Paul Martin wrote:
Very few, but then Holme Moss can be picked up on a rusty nail in
Manchester. If you use an outside aerial, chances are you'd need an
attenuator.

Is that why there are two 6 (?) element VHF antennas atop Broadcasting
House, Oxford Road, presumably pointing towards Holme Moss? ;+} ;+}

They might be there to receive Radio Leeds and Sheffield as part of the
backhaul to Maidenhead for internet streaming ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
More rubbish. LPs did *not* 'add quality' over 78 rpm discs - merely
quantity in terms of longer playing times.

Are you serious?

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

Agamemnon wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
is lower. I'd be interested in an example of mainstream success for a
quality over quantity situation.

See above. Add 12inch 33 1/3rpm LPs and 45s over 78 inch discs.

More rubbish. LPs did *not* 'add quality' over 78 rpm discs - merely
quantity in terms of longer playing times.

ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK!

LPs used a completely different a far superior stylus from 78s and thus
gave improved sound quality at reduced rpms. The frequency response of
78s was only about 10kHz. LPs gave a frequency response that was more
than double that.

Occasionally. Try playing an LP test disc above 10 kHz it's such a wing
and prayer job that the tone will be dropping up and down like the balls
in a lottery machine. (The old IBA code of practice only specified
frequency response up to 12.5 kHz.)


--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/

OpenPGP Key ID: 0xBD89BE41
Fingerprint: CE78 C285 1F97 0BDA 886D BA78 26D8 6C34 BD89 BE41

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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?


Dave to whole country isn't fecking Sarff Lunnon!..

So you'd prefer me to comment on an area I don't know? But I'm referring
to London in general. I cross it most weekends going through near enough
the centre which gives a good opportunity for comparison.

Its fine in my backyard;!...

Perhaps if you actually drove the car you might find things different,
then.

--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you

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

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
LPs used a completely different a far superior stylus from 78s and thus
gave improved sound quality at reduced rpms. The frequency response of
78s was only about 10kHz. LPs gave a frequency response that was more
than double that.


Give up on him he's only got the one ear working now;!... --

And somehow I credited you as knowing a little about the principles of
disc recording. Ah well.

--
*No hand signals. Driver on Viagra*

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

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
More rubbish. LPs did *not* 'add quality' over 78 rpm discs - merely
quantity in terms of longer playing times.

Are you serious?

Absolutely. Plenty of extremely high quality 78s around - as well as poor
quality LPs. 78s were still made for several years after LPs were
introduced - and extremely high quality pickups were made to play them too.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine*

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