Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

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

So what? Quite in line with other high quality audio equipment at launch.
Know what a CD player cost originally?

I repeat - those who had an interest in 'Hi-Fi' didn't rush out to buy
them.

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?

And you think increasing the choice of stations had no effect?

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

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

In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
Given that bitrates on DAB were always too low from the very start

I'd guess you're the sort where any bitrate is always too low...

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.

.... as well as talking pure ********. It's obvious you've never listened
to either Medium wave or DAB when you come out with crap like that.


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.

Try asking your neighbours.

What people want is quality, not qunatity.

More ********, I'm afraid. Just look at any viewing/ listening figures.

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?

Well there's a mux going begging so here's your chance to show the
broadcasters where they went wrong.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

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

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
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.


Do you record in Stereo Dave?..

On location drama? In general no. Apart from a few disasters like
Eastenders all dialogue is mono. It's simply impossible to match stereo
sound to the pictures, dialogue wise. The sound image would have to bounce
all over the place.
FX and backgrounds are normally recorded in stereo. And of course any
music.

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

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

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
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?...

Indeed - no demand for it. Which has got nothing to do with the bitrate on
DAB.

--
*I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing *

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

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
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.

It is if it's from Classic FM...

Rod.

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

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

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
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.

They cost about the same as CD players did in real terms when they were
first available.

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

Exactly the same arguments were put about CD.

However, hindsight makes it clear there just wasn't any demand for digital
radio. Might have been different if it had been a world standard like CD
and equipment prices tumbled quickly through mass production.

Rod.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

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

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
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.

Snag is without using extension speakers - at the least - all this is lost
on the average TV.

Rod.

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

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

In ,
tony sayer typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
: In article , Ivor Jones
: scribeth thus

[snip]

: 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"?..

No, they're black and white ;-)

I'll get my coat.........


Ivor

In ,
Dave Plowman (News) typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:
: In article ,
: Agamemnon wrote:

[snip]

: What people want is quality, not qunatity.
:
: More ********, I'm afraid. Just look at any viewing/ listening
: figures.

Ah, market research. There's a thread droning on in uk.telecom about that.
******** is indeed the appropriate word.

Ivor

In article ,
Marky P 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.

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

Indeed. And unless you are listing in the correct position the actual
musical balance becomes corrupted. So under these conditions it's best to
hit the mono button and preferably use only one speaker.

But this rather goes over the heads of all these claimed golden ear types
who can only talk about 'bit rates' and 'stereo' off a spec sheet.

--
*Sleep with a photographer and watch things develop

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