Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
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.

I think it's wrong too. Although the only location where I benefit from
stereo radio is in the car, and I'm very glad of it. I haven't sat down at
home to listen to a radio programme for years, probably the last time when
I was a teenager locked away in my bedroom.

There is one circumstance in which my head is permanantly at the optimum
point for good stereo and that's when I'm working on this PC. I do enjoy
stereo radio when I'm here.

Bill

In ,
SpamTrapSeeSig typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:

[snip]

: Early Trinitrons were used as OB production monitors on set, because
: of the relative brightness (compared to normal dot shadowmask tubes),
: but not in the vans. When Sony produced broadcast quality monitors
: they sold them to the BBC, like everyone else. Incidentally, until at
: least January this year, Sony's high-end HD monitor offerings were CRT
: (although I doubt exclusively so).

The best HDTV I've seen so far has been on a large screen Sony CRT in San
Francisco.

Ivor

In ,
Edster typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:

[snip]

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..
:
: Or headphones that didn't come from the pound shop.

I have a pair of Beyer DT100 headphones. Best £90 I've spent in a long
time.

Ivor

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

snip

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.


There was no advertising for Colour TV when introduced (other than a
BBC 1 colour logo) either and yet people were prepared to send a
dammed sight more than 300 quid on a colour set back then (the
equivalent is something like spending 1,000 plus UKP in today's money
Steve, like those who are paying that sort of money when buying into
the flat panel HD sets), they did so - like today with HD - because
there was a benefit for them in doing so, DAB has no benefit to 98% of
the population apart from allowing more choice, in that DAB has been a
success even though receivers are still at least 3x as expencive than
the equivalent analogue receiver.
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:24:18 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Mainly it's that "it's digital, so it's better, innit".

And does not much of that attitude stem from the misinformation
"propaganda" which have the BBC have spread?

One example coming to mind was that for quite a long time they used to
describe DAB in the UKofGB&NI as being "near CD" quality.

On Saturday, October 11th, 2008, at 13:31:16h +0100,
Agamemnon posed the question:

How do they think Community Radio will be
broadcast on digital multiplexes which are anything but local

UHF Band L which is much more localized than the VHF Band III local
multiplex transmissions.

In article , Edster
writes
[I said]
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.

Yes, and we don't really need TV to be in colour either, unless it's
snooker or something, because we don't really need to know what colour
shirt someone is wearing to be able to follow the story. It is just
unnecessary information, and a lot of people are colour blind anyway
or just have the TV on in the background while they do something else.

You're missing the point. It's not that colour is a gimmic, nor that
hi-fi sound is a waste of time, but that stereo sound _usually_ doesn't
relate to picture. It really doesn't.

If, for example, you're doing some immersive format like Omnimax,
Disney's Circlevision, or similar, multi-channel sound is a must. In
between that there's 2:1 movies (or wider), then TV, usually with a
really narrow viewing angle, is practically a point image.

So how does a stereo soundstage map to that? If it doesn't, then you're
transmitting a sound effect to go along with pictures rather than an
integrated whole.

And even if you have, say, projection TV, there's still the issue of the
BCU intercut with wides. What should the sound do at that point, in
stereo?

My point is that whatever panned-mono scheme is adopted for
transmission, it's not stereo (although it has two channels).
Furthermore for most output, NCA, chat and game shows, etc. 'stereo'
adds little or nothing.

For music and shows where there is a defined proscenium of some sort, it
definitely helps, but they are a minority. For other things, sport,
drama and nat hist for example you get some stereo atmos, that's nice to
listen to , and definitely adds ambience, but doesn't as such contribute
a stereo image matching the picture.


--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:

Early Trinitrons were used as OB production monitors on set, because of
the relative brightness (compared to normal dot shadowmask tubes), but
not in the vans. When Sony produced broadcast quality monitors they sold
them to the BBC, like everyone else. Incidentally, until at least
January this year, Sony's high-end HD monitor offerings were CRT
(although I doubt exclusively so).

If you're quick you can still get Grade 1 Sony CRTs, but this is set to
replace them:-

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowProduct.action?product=BVM-L230&site=biz_en_GB&pageType=Overview&imageType=Ma in&category=BVM

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

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:39:58 +0100, Edster wrote:
They didn't even use the word "near", they just said CD quality.

Here is some background information of historical interest from

http://multimediameetsradio.typepad.COM/ebu/2006/10/
never_mind_the_.html

QUOTE

EBU Technical Director Phil Laven told last week's conference that
*as far back as 1976* he had expressed concern to his then bosses, at
the BBC, that digital technology would force broadcasters to change
their attitudes towards quality.

He recalled arguing that quality and quantity would become tradable.
As quality costs money, he had reasoned, accountants would insist on
quality reductions to make savings.

At the time, he was laughed out of the room and told that the BBC
would never compromise on issues of quality. But history appears to
have borne him out.

When the BBC was preparing to launch DAB services, in the mid 1990s,
many engineers saw it as an opportunity to offer very high quality
audio services. They estimated that 256 kbit/s would be needed to
provide a high quality stereo broadcast signal.

But when the multiplexes came along, sights needed to be lowered as
they had a maximum bit rate of 1152 kbit/s each. It was decided that
the best way to exploit what was available was to provide five stereo
services at 192 kbit/s and two mono services at 96 kbit/s.

Most people seemed to be happy enough, apart from those blessed, or
possibly cursed, with "golden ears". BBC Radio 3 listeners, who are a
discerning bunch with not a tin ear between them, were dismayed that
the Beeb was not delivering on its promise of CD-quality sound.

UNQUOTE

In article , Mark Carver
writes
SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:

Early Trinitrons were used as OB production monitors on set, because
of the relative brightness (compared to normal dot shadowmask tubes),
but not in the vans. When Sony produced broadcast quality monitors
they sold them to the BBC, like everyone else. Incidentally, until at
least January this year, Sony's high-end HD monitor offerings were
CRT (although I doubt exclusively so).

If you're quick you can still get Grade 1 Sony CRTs, but this is set to
replace them:-

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowP...=BVM-L230&site
=biz_en_GB&pageType=Overview&imageType=Main&categ ory=BVM

It's 10-bit!

Ah well,

"... grandchildren, I actually remember high quality analogue TV!"
--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)