Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

"Norman Wells" wrote in message

Bill Wright wrote:
"Richard Evans" wrote in message
...
If you live to 98 then your hearing will probably have
deteriorated
to the point where you can not tell the difference between FM and
DAB anyway. (Or does that require total deafness )

Most people can't hear anything wrong with DAB.

Please read that again. I did not say there is nothing wrong with
DAB. I am all too aware of DAB's deficiencies.

I deal with the public. I talk to them about radio. The hard fact
is
that the vast majority are completely unaware of the deficiencies
of
DAB as caused by low bit rates. Yes, the sound grates on me, and it
grates on you. But for most people, if there isn't a loud whistling
or buzzing in the background, and if the sound doesn't keep fading
out, everything is fine. Ordinary people are remarkably unaware of
poor audio quality, as long as they can actually tell what the
speaker is saying or discern the beat of the tune. Go into a pub on
quiz night. The PA is ridiculous, but nothing is done because
no-one
is bothered.

No-one is bothered because the quality of radio transmissions is
almost
entirely irrelevant. I know no-one who sits down in front of their
radio
just to listen to it. They're always doing something else at the
same
time, getting up, cooking their breakfast, eating their toast,
reading
their newspaper, belching, cleaning their teeth, driving to work.
And
all those things are noisy, so any quality, as long as it isn't
absolutely appalling, is in fact perfectly adequate.


If you changed "No-one", "no-one", "always" and "all" to "Some
people", "some people", "sometimes" and "most", I wouldn't disagree.
But as things stand you're completely wrong.


Of course, this is not an argument in favour of low audio quality.
The
broadcasters should aspire to the best possible audio quality

Why? It's just not necessary, except for the very few who have an
anechoic chamber to sit in while they listen..


Ah, anechoic chambers. Those were the days.



--
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 ,
Norman Wells wrote:
No-one is bothered because the quality of radio transmissions is
almost
entirely irrelevant. I know no-one who sits down in front of their
radio just to listen to it. They're always doing something else at
the
same time, getting up, cooking their breakfast, eating their toast,
reading their newspaper, belching, cleaning their teeth, driving to
work. And all those things are noisy, so any quality, as long as
it
isn't absolutely appalling, is in fact perfectly adequate.

You've got it in one. Which is why things like stereo too ain't
anything
like so important for most.


No, he's got it all wrong, which is why you agreed with him.



--
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

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote in message
news
In article
en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart writes
In article ,
SpamTrapSeeSig
wrote:
Quite frankly most stereo radio is wasted (for the reasons stated
previously), I would say that the only BBC radio station that
benefits
from stereo is R3, the rest could put the freed up spectrum to
better
use - or just not bother...

That applies even more so to TV.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, even if it's wrong.

Rod.

Well, start from the basis that nobody pans dialog.

There's only a tiny amount of output for which a genuine stereo
soundstage (related properly to the picture) is meaningful. Concerts
and
opera would possibly be worth it, but that's more a case of pictures
enhancing the stereo experience than vice versa.

It works well in immersive games though


I suggest you actually try listening to the same music that's in mono
and then in stereo. I have compared the two, and mono music is
basically lifeless - it's definitely not all about the position of an
instrument, stereo makes the music sound more dynamic in general.



--
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 ,
Agamemnon wrote:
DAB was doomed from the start. Now perhaps Ofcom will step in and
close
the whole thing down and create a new system which is based on
quality
and open broadcast standards, i.e., OGG Vorbis/AAC+HC at 64 kbps
minimum requirement, mp3 at no lower than 224 kbps, mp3 at no lower
than 320kbps, and compulsory 5.1 surround compatible encoding on
all
BBC stations at bitrates of 192kbps AAC/OGG Vorbis, over the air
updates and upgrades of audio codecs so that new more efficient
ones
can be introduced when developed, and the ability to broadcast
individual stations without the need to put them on a regional
multiplexes, and all Community Radio digital transmission costs to
be
met by Ofcom from a levy on commercial radio and the BBC licence
fee
until the price of equipment and links reaches affordable levels.

Given that DAB had extremely poor take up when introduced - with
reasonable bit rates


You're ignoring the minimum £300 price tag for DAB receivers whilst
the bit rates were high.

All DAB supporters conveniently ignore this. I wonder why.

Also, it's teh advertising, stupid. There was no TV ads for DAB when
the bit rates were high. The 20 BBC TV ad campaigns came after the bit
rates were low.




--
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 ,
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.

Pretty well no one was interested in DAB when the bitrates were
high.


This is the 2nd time you've said this in this thread.

When the DAB bit rates were higher, the minimum cost of a DAB receiver
was £300, and there had been no advertising.

It's hardly surprising that sales increased when the price dropped to
£100 and the BBC was advertising the ******** off DAB on TV, is 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

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:52:08 +0100, Edster wrote:
Or headphones that didn't come from the pound shop.

Talking of which, do the BBC ever broadcast anything in
binaural format as opposed to stereophonic, as they used
to do in the 1980s?

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
DAB was doomed from the start. Now perhaps Ofcom will step in and close
the whole thing down and create a new system which is based on quality
and open broadcast standards, i.e., OGG Vorbis/AAC+HC at 64 kbps
minimum requirement, mp3 at no lower than 224 kbps, mp3 at no lower
than 320kbps, and compulsory 5.1 surround compatible encoding on all
BBC stations at bitrates of 192kbps AAC/OGG Vorbis, over the air
updates and upgrades of audio codecs so that new more efficient ones
can be introduced when developed, and the ability to broadcast
individual stations without the need to put them on a regional
multiplexes, and all Community Radio digital transmission costs to be
met by Ofcom from a levy on commercial radio and the BBC licence fee
until the price of equipment and links reaches affordable levels.

Given that DAB had extremely poor take up when introduced - with
reasonable bit rates - and reached what is likely its maximum increase in
sales *after* those bitrates were reduced - what makes you think the
public will rush to buy yet another different system - given there are now
so many ways you can listen to 'radio' programmes?

Given that bitrates on DAB were always too low from the very start 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.


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. What people want is quality, not qunatity.
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?

"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
DAB was doomed from the start. Now perhaps Ofcom will step in and close
the whole thing down and create a new system which is based on quality
and open broadcast standards, i.e., OGG Vorbis/AAC+HC at 64 kbps
minimum requirement, mp3 at no lower than 224 kbps, mp3 at no lower
than 320kbps, and compulsory 5.1 surround compatible encoding on all
BBC stations at bitrates of 192kbps AAC/OGG Vorbis, over the air
updates and upgrades of audio codecs so that new more efficient ones
can be introduced when developed, and the ability to broadcast
individual stations without the need to put them on a regional
multiplexes, and all Community Radio digital transmission costs to be
met by Ofcom from a levy on commercial radio and the BBC licence fee
until the price of equipment and links reaches affordable levels.

Given that DAB had extremely poor take up when introduced - with
reasonable bit rates


You're ignoring the minimum £300 price tag for DAB receivers whilst the
bit rates were high.

When were the bit rates ever high? 192kbps on the BBC was no where near FM
quality. All the commercial stations were always at 128kbps so it's no
surprise that no one listened to them.


All DAB supporters conveniently ignore this. I wonder why.

And the fact that the stations targeted teenagers alone, none of whom could
possibly afford the receivers and even if they could they were not "Walkman"
sized so couldn't be carried around in their pockets. And of course
teenagers would have had greater sensitivity to high frequencies but DAB at
128kbps has a frequency response barley better than Medium Wave and is
impossible to listen to on headphones anyway because of all the compression
artefacts.


Also, it's teh advertising, stupid. There was no TV ads for DAB when the
bit rates were high. The 20 BBC TV ad campaigns came after the bit rates
were low.

The bit rates were always low. Advertising DAB would have made no
difference. The sound quality was utter crap so what did they have to
advertise, nothing but low bit rate stations for teenagers who couldn't
afford the receivers and who couldn't bare the levels distortion with their
sensitive hearing.

"Commander Gideon" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM [email protected] wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...channel4-radio

FM switch-off now put back to May 2038 - if all goes well.

Hehe.

Interesting slant you put on it - most would simply say CH4 have pulled
out of their proposed radio venture. And who could blame them given the
current circumstances? Although the idea they could provide a serious and
profitable alternative to R4 is somewhat of a joke.

As you never cease to point out there are plenty alternatives to DAB -
FreeView, satellite, on line. So therefore CH4 considers these non viable
too?

It must be down to less advertising revenue being available!

There was never any advertising revenue there to begin with. The stations
were mostly intended for teenagers. What are they going to buy? All the
existing stations were funded by Premium Rate Telephone Line scams and when
they were all exposed that was the end.

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk
"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
DAB was doomed from the start. Now perhaps Ofcom will step in and
close
the whole thing down and create a new system which is based on
quality
and open broadcast standards, i.e., OGG Vorbis/AAC+HC at 64 kbps
minimum requirement, mp3 at no lower than 224 kbps, mp3 at no
lower
than 320kbps, and compulsory 5.1 surround compatible encoding on
all
BBC stations at bitrates of 192kbps AAC/OGG Vorbis, over the air
updates and upgrades of audio codecs so that new more efficient
ones
can be introduced when developed, and the ability to broadcast
individual stations without the need to put them on a regional
multiplexes, and all Community Radio digital transmission costs
to be
met by Ofcom from a levy on commercial radio and the BBC licence
fee
until the price of equipment and links reaches affordable levels.

Given that DAB had extremely poor take up when introduced - with
reasonable bit rates


You're ignoring the minimum £300 price tag for DAB receivers whilst
the
bit rates were high.

When were the bit rates ever high? 192kbps on the BBC was no where
near FM
quality. All the commercial stations were always at 128kbps so it's
no
surprise that no one listened to them.


The BBC and a few commercial stations used 192 kbps up to 2001.


All DAB supporters conveniently ignore this. I wonder why.

And the fact that the stations targeted teenagers alone, none of
whom
could possibly afford the receivers and even if they could they were
not
"Walkman" sized so couldn't be carried around in their pockets. And
of
course teenagers would have had greater sensitivity to high
frequencies
but DAB at 128kbps has a frequency response barley better than
Medium
Wave and is impossible to listen to on headphones anyway because of
all
the compression artefacts.


Also, it's teh advertising, stupid. There was no TV ads for DAB
when the
bit rates were high. The 20 BBC TV ad campaigns came after the bit
rates
were low.

The bit rates were always low.


The BBC and a few commercial stations used 192 kbps up to 2001.


Advertising DAB would have made no
difference. The sound quality was utter crap so what did they have
to
advertise, nothing but low bit rate stations for teenagers who
couldn't
afford the receivers and who couldn't bare the levels distortion
with
their sensitive hearing.



--
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