Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:31:17 +0100, Silk wrote:
Indeed. Meant for those with brains.

To give 'em a good wash.

Washed brains make more obedient and compliant citizens.

Doubleplusgood goodthinked.

In article , Jerry
scribeth thus

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

snip

Which is why things like stereo too ain't anything
like so important for most.


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...

Cloth ears!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Ivor Jones
scribeth thus
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


Don't you find them a bit "coloured"?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart scribeth
thus
In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Most people can't hear anything wrong with DAB.

Hear?, thats the least of what wrong with DAB!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
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?

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.


Ever though of what it must be like to be a commercial broadcaster and
know that a lot of people won't be listening cos as yet theirs bugger
all DAB sets fitted in cars as standard equipment?...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
I take it you've never heard decent stereo? For it to work properly you
must sit between the speakers where you and they form a triangle. Not
really practical when moving around the house or room - as most do when
listening to the radio. Which is now really a background occupation in
general - unlike in days of yore.

It's not background when it's Beethoven.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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?

I was interested enough in DAB when it was introduced to read about it and
wonder when it would be introduced where I live, and to consider getting a
tuner to receive it.

Then I found out that the tuners cost more than I had spent on my entire
hifi system.

I wonder what the deciding factor might have been amongst ordinary folks who
were not broadcast engineers hifi enthusiasts or music lovers?

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

In article , SpamTrapSeeSig
wrote:
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.

True, but irrelevant. Stereo sound doesn't need to "relate to the picture"
any more than the colour of someone's shirt needs to relate to the plot in
order to improve the viewers' enjoyment of the programme.

A good stereo background or appropriate room reverb can make a scene feel
more real, and while most dialogue is central (not even recorded in stereo
in fact), the dramatic possibilities of occasional off-screen lines or spot
effects are sometimes used.

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

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:14:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart 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.

Audio technology has progressed a bit since the days of 2LO, crystal
sets and wind-up gramophones playing 78rpm records, so *somebody* must
care.

I take it you've never heard decent stereo? For it to work properly you
must sit between the speakers where you and they form a triangle. Not
really practical when moving around the house or room - as most do when
listening to the radio. Which is now really a background occupation in
general - unlike in days of yore.

I think you'll find that most people these days don't know what
'stereo' actually is.


Marky P.

"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
There's lots of reasons for this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ar...nd-quality.php

Mainly it's that "it's digital, so it's better, innit".

The media persist in propagating the myth that digital is always better than
analogue. This is partly because this is the official line and partly
because journos are mostly lazy no-good arts educated people.

But that isn't really the point. The man on the Clapham bendybus is
completely and utterly unable to differentiate between good FM and bad DAB.
I know it's almost incredible, but it's true.

Some weeks ago I went into a flat to test the signals from the communal
dish. The TV set was on and the family were watching it. As I went about my
task I vaguely thought that the programme had a very over the top audio
effect, because everything was very echoey, like the sound in a huge empty
hard-walled place like a cooling tower. Having established that the signals
from the satellite system were indeed somewhat deficient I turned to the man
of the house to explain that I would have to go to the plantroom to
investigate further. I picked up the remaote and flicked through the
terrestrial (analogue) channels, just for a quick check. The sound was just
as echoey on all the other channels.

"The sound's a bit peculiar."

"It's a bit funny innit but we got used to it."

"Do you might if I have a fiddle about with your remote?"

"Feel free."

It turned out that the audio was on a setting called 'cathedral'. After I
altered it the sound was remarkably better to my ears, but the blank looks
from the assembled throng suggested that the improvement had not been
discerned, or at least was not appreciated.

Bill