new DAB pocket radio story

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef64094adave@davenoise.co.uk

In article <kMNJk.28721$Zl2.9435@newsfe01.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
already explained what happened in a reply to you once today. That
was
a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some
moron
who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.

Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier
today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...

I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like to
dispute on that page, fire away.



--
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/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jqGbkGBZNE+IFwMT@bancom.co.uk

In article <LVIJk.11528$qt6.3193@newsfe28.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
than
FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef301ce5dave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <0TGJk.29594$xU3.10876@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
this
year because they couldn't afford to pay the Ł1 million per year
transmission costs.

DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a
big,
big
saving for a station.

The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.


Totally wrong. It was the TRANSMISSION COSTS that caused the DAB
crisis earlier this year. GCap wanted to close 4 stations (theJazz,
Core, Life and Planet Rock - the latter was sold), and it wanted to
sell its 67% stake in Digital One for Ł1 to Arqiva.

Who do the actual transmission.

And I reckon before long will become a large broadcaster in their
own
right..

Then all the commercial broadcast and transmission platforms will be
Aussie controlled;(...

It was the transmission costs that led to that and to Fru Hazlitt
saying that DAB is "not an economically viable platform".

It's common knowledge that the transmission costs are exhorbitant
on
DAB.


Indeed couldn't be better set up for a Monopoly organisation;!...

How did Arqiva taking over NGW get past the monopolies and mergers
thing?



--
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/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef64094adave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <kMNJk.28721$Zl2.9435@newsfe01.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
already explained what happened in a reply to you once today. That
was
a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some
moron
who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.

Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier
today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...

I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like to
dispute on that page, fire away.

I have read it - before I read anything you've posted in usenet, as it
happens. You express your own opinion very forcibly, but with little
support from external sources and the very blindness to your own ignorance
that you are so fond of accusing others of. At excessive length.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfgqpq.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef64094adave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <kMNJk.28721$Zl2.9435@newsfe01.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
already explained what happened in a reply to you once today.
That
was
a long post, so I'm not going to fucking rewrite it all for some
moron
who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.

Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier
today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...

I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like
to
dispute on that page, fire away.

I have read it - before I read anything you've posted in usenet, as
it
happens. You express your own opinion very forcibly, but with
little
support from external sources and the very blindness to your own
ignorance
that you are so fond of accusing others of. At excessive length.

Little support from external sources, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization

"AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known formally
as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"

Multi-channel listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part
in 1996:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w1420.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Stereo listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part in
1998:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w2006.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

BBC R&D open day brochure from 1999 saying AAC it twice as efficient
as MP2, and they say "don't squeeze the bit rate":

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/BBC_R&D_AAC_1999_Open_Day.pdf

BBC mentions plans to launch 4 new stations in 1998:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm

We've seen that it took them about 16 months to add AAC+ and RS coding
to DAB when they designed DAB+.

So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the 1990s
when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in 1997
to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for DAB?
The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a right 2
and 8.

That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be advertising
DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't support
DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete DAB
radios. Tut tut.

The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
*deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest otherwise.


--
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/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfgqpq.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef64094adave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <kMNJk.28721$Zl2.9435@newsfe01.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

[...]

I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...

I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like
to
dispute on that page, fire away.

I have read it - before I read anything you've posted in usenet, as
it
happens. You express your own opinion very forcibly, but with
little
support from external sources and the very blindness to your own
ignorance
that you are so fond of accusing others of. At excessive length.


Little support from external sources, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization

"AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known formally
as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"

Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.

Multi-channel listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part
in 1996:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w1420.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Stereo listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part in
1998:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w2006.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs, not
about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the
responsibility of the BBC anyway).

BBC R&D open day brochure from 1999 saying AAC it twice as efficient
as MP2, and they say "don't squeeze the bit rate":

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/BBC_R&D_AAC_1999_Open_Day.pdf

BBC mentions plans to launch 4 new stations in 1998:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm

We've seen that it took them about 16 months to add AAC+ and RS coding
to DAB when they designed DAB+.

"They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist as a
standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until 2007.

So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the 1990s
when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in 1997
to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for DAB?
The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a right 2
and 8.

Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new broadcasting
systems, they were and are in the business of providing content for
systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you still
haven't given any support for.

That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be advertising
DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't support
DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete DAB
radios. Tut tut.

So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the one with
hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you can tell
us.

The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
*deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest otherwise.

No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least incompetent. We've
had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has. If the
exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in other
countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make sense - but
no-one can turn back the clock.

Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated; that's an
opinion. I am not going to create a large web site and spend my days
posting uselessly to newsgroups bemoaning any 'facts' of 'incompetence'
that such facilites are not already available for me - and certainly not
attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before anyone else
had and without international consensus. There are many ways digital
radio broadcasting /could/ be done, but most of those ways are not going
to be developed.

DAB is right here, right now, and it works - just as it did ten years ago.
DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in one or two
countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too, but
there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.

In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial radio or
TV station to equal. That's something to be glad about, I think. But then
I'm not a commercial broadcaster trying to come up with content that
rivals the Beeb's but lacking more than 70 years experience and
back-catalogue and a guaranteed revenue stream. I do sympathise with the
likes of Channel 4 about that ) That's the big problem for independent
broadcasters in this country, not the technology. It has been ever since
the first commercial TV stations were licensed in the 1950s.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfh4h5.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfgqpq.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef64094adave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <kMNJk.28721$Zl2.9435@newsfe01.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

[...]

I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...

I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like
to
dispute on that page, fire away.

I have read it - before I read anything you've posted in usenet,
as
it
happens. You express your own opinion very forcibly, but with
little
support from external sources and the very blindness to your own
ignorance
that you are so fond of accusing others of. At excessive length.


Little support from external sources, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization

"AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known
formally
as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"

Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.

DAB+ has got nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. DAB+ came
years later. I'm talking about the fact that the AAC audio codec was
available to be used from 1997 onwards, but the non-technical BBC
executives chose to ignore its existence - even though the BBC R&D
guys were saying how good it was.

AAC was the solution to DAB's problems. But the non-technical BBC
execs simply didn't have a clue what they were doing. And here we are
today.

Multi-channel listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took
part
in 1996:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w1420.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Stereo listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part in
1998:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w2006.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs,
not
about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the
responsibility of the BBC anyway).

If the BBC wanted to upgrade DAB prior to relaunch it could have done
and it would have done.

BBC R&D open day brochure from 1999 saying AAC it twice as
efficient
as MP2, and they say "don't squeeze the bit rate":

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/BBC_R&D_AAC_1999_Open_Day.pdf

BBC mentions plans to launch 4 new stations in 1998:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm

We've seen that it took them about 16 months to add AAC+ and RS
coding
to DAB when they designed DAB+.

"They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist as
a
standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until
2007.

Again, what on earth has DAB+ got to do with this? You don't even seem
able to follow which digital radio standard we're talking about here.
We're talking about DAB, and the fact that DAB wasn't upgraded prior
to its relaunch when it should have been upgraded.

So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the
1990s
when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in
1997
to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for
DAB?
The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a
right 2
and 8.

Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new
broadcasting
systems, they were and are in the business of providing content for
systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you
still
haven't given any support for.

BBC R&D has always been in teh business of inventing new broadcasting
technologies. For example, DVB-T2 that will be used to deliver HDTV
via Freeview from next year was basically an idea that stemmed from
BBC R&D experimenting with MIMO antennas.

That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be
advertising
DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't support
DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete DAB
radios. Tut tut.

So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the one
with
hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you can
tell
us.

People that know about DAB+ and who're considering buying a DAB radio
tend to want one that supports DAB. By keeping quiet about the DAB+
issue, and especially advertising DAB aat a time when most receivers
don't support DAB+, the BBC is misleading the general public.

The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
*deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest
otherwise.

No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least incompetent.

This is just ridiculous. From when you first turned up on this thread,
you continually got things wrong, and now you're lecturing ME about
DAB.

You get one chance at launching a new radio system, so it's got to be
right. But they screwed up royal, and here I am basically some
know-nothing telling me what's what.

THEY HAD FIVE WHOLE YEARS TO ADOPT AAC BETWEEN 1997 AND 2002. THEY DID
NOTHING. THAT IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.

We've
had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has. If
the
exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in
other
countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make
sense - but
no-one can turn back the clock.

They had the opportunity from 1997 to 2002. They did nothing. Nada.
Niet. Sweet FA.

The DAB crisis this year could have been avoided if they'd have
adopted AAC.
The audio quality on the BBC's stations would be shithot if they'd
have adopted AAC.
There wouldn't have been the bubbling mud that people suffer from if
they'd have adopted AAC, because adoption of AAC also requires
adapting the error correction coding.

Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated; that's
an
opinion.

That just displays your incompetence. FLAC is a lossless codec, and
the chance of a lossless codec ever being used on a terrestrial
digital broadcasting system are nil.

Diract is a sodding video codec. Why would you want sodding Diract to
be implemented? Eh? Explain yourself oh wise one.

I am not going to create a large web site and spend my days
posting uselessly to newsgroups bemoaning any 'facts' of
'incompetence'
that such facilites are not already available for me - and certainly
not
attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before
anyone
else had and without international consensus.

The thing you're ignoring is that the BBC R&D people were already
telling the non-technical suits to use AAC.

DAB is right here, right now, and it works

It works if you don't mind shit quality, and if you actually receive a
signal that doesn't suffer from bubbling mud.

- just as it did ten years ago.
DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in one
or two
countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too, but
there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.

Don't tell me what to do or what not to do.

In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial
radio
or TV station to equal.

The audio quality on BBC DAB stations is shit.

And BBC has been providing far lower quality on its Internet radio
streams than commercial radio for the last 2 years, and it's currently
trying to fabricate excuses to avoid providing the SAME bit rate as
commercial radio Internet streams.

That's your idea of setting a very high standard, is it?

How would you explain the BBC providing its Internet radio streams at
32 kbps until last year? And transcoding the audio by receiving the
radio stations off satellite? And why did they transcode the stations
for the listen again streams when they could have been sent via the
Internet? And why did they transcode anythying when it would only have
cost Ł10k per year for a direct link?

And why is the audio quality on Radio 1 and Radio 2 FM shit these days
when it used to be superb?

You saying that the BBC sets very high standards is yet another
ridiculous thing you've said.

That's something to be glad about, I think.

Yeah, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm over teh moon about the BBC's
performance.



--
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/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfh4h5.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfgqpq.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef64094adave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <kMNJk.28721$Zl2.9435@newsfe01.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

[...]

Little support from external sources, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization

"AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known
formally
as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"

Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.

DAB+ has got nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. DAB+ came
years later. I'm talking about the fact that the AAC audio codec was
available to be used from 1997 onwards, but the non-technical BBC
executives chose to ignore its existence - even though the BBC R&D
guys were saying how good it was.

AAC was the solution to DAB's problems. But the non-technical BBC
execs simply didn't have a clue what they were doing. And here we are
today.

DAB with AAC support, is DAB+. You are trying to pretend that DAB should
have been DAB+ from the start, but it couldn't be. AAC didn't exist in
the mid '90s, for a start.

[...]

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs,
not
about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the
responsibility of the BBC anyway).

If the BBC wanted to upgrade DAB prior to relaunch it could have done
and it would have done.

That 'relaunch' seems to be something you've invented; the BBC started
broadcasting on DAB in the mid '90s. All that happened in 2002 was the
addition of more BBC stations and some advertising of the services.
Clearly the BBC didn't change the codecs used for their broadcasts,
because the existing broadcasting standards (which are not set by the BBC)
made no provision for doing so. As for what the BBC may or may not have
'wanted', that is unknown. You know what /you/ want to have happened, but
that's just your own opinion.

[...]

"They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist as
a
standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until
2007.

Again, what on earth has DAB+ got to do with this? You don't even seem
able to follow which digital radio standard we're talking about here.
We're talking about DAB, and the fact that DAB wasn't upgraded prior
to its relaunch when it should have been upgraded.

You are talking about DAB with the ability to handle AAC codecs; that is
DAB+, not DAB. DAB by definition does not support AAC and never will;
DAB+ does, and is about to 'go live' in Italy and Australia.

So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the
1990s
when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in
1997
to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for
DAB?
The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a
right 2
and 8.

Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new
broadcasting
systems, they were and are in the business of providing content for
systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you
still
haven't given any support for.


BBC R&D has always been in teh business of inventing new broadcasting
technologies. For example, DVB-T2 that will be used to deliver HDTV
via Freeview from next year was basically an idea that stemmed from
BBC R&D experimenting with MIMO antennas.

They do research (or used to); sometimes the results of that research
eventually finds its way into new broadcasting standards, sometimes it
doesn't. The BBC don't impose technical standards unilaterally; such
things have to be done by international agreement between governments,
broadcasters, manufacturers, and others.

That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be
advertising
DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't support
DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete DAB
radios. Tut tut.

So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the one
with
hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you can
tell
us.


People that know about DAB+ and who're considering buying a DAB radio
tend to want one that supports DAB. By keeping quiet about the DAB+
issue, and especially advertising DAB aat a time when most receivers
don't support DAB+, the BBC is misleading the general public.

When mass-market DAB receivers support both DAB and DAB+, people will be
able to buy them. At present, hardly any support DAB+ at all, and only a
few claim to be 'upgradeable'. That's how new the new standard is. Now
that there is an agreed standard for DAB+, manufacturers have undertaken to
start designing models to accomodate it. But there is nothing to listen
to on DAB+ in this country yet, and it's anybody's guess when there will
be.

The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
*deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest
otherwise.

No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least incompetent.

This is just ridiculous. From when you first turned up on this thread,
you continually got things wrong, and now you're lecturing ME about
DAB.

Actually, I'm tryig to introduce you to the concept of 'logic'.

You get one chance at launching a new radio system, so it's got to be
right. But they screwed up royal, and here I am basically some
know-nothing telling me what's what.

No, you are expressing an unsupported and unrealistic opinion and I'm
telling you so.

THEY HAD FIVE WHOLE YEARS TO ADOPT AAC BETWEEN 1997 AND 2002. THEY DID
NOTHING. THAT IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.

That's your opinion. How "they" were supposed to start using a standard
in 2002 or 1995 or at any other time in the past, that wasn't available
until 2007 at the earliest, is beyond anyone but you.

We've
had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has. If
the
exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in
other
countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make
sense - but
no-one can turn back the clock.


They had the opportunity from 1997 to 2002. They did nothing. Nada.
Niet. Sweet FA.

The DAB crisis this year could have been avoided if they'd have
adopted AAC.
The audio quality on the BBC's stations would be shithot if they'd
have adopted AAC.
There wouldn't have been the bubbling mud that people suffer from if
they'd have adopted AAC, because adoption of AAC also requires
adapting the error correction coding.

It would be iven better if they;d used soe other system that doesn't exist
yet. Get real!

Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated; that's
an
opinion.


That just displays your incompetence. FLAC is a lossless codec, and
the chance of a lossless codec ever being used on a terrestrial
digital broadcasting system are nil.

I don't see why; it's still a more efficient use of resources than
analogue, and would give the potential for genuinely 'as good as a CD'
sound - which no lossy codec ever will, not even your beloved AAC. It
would also remove the temptation to impose low bit rates to get more
stations into the space - which will always tend to result in listeners
getting a 'just about good enough for the uncritical masses' listening
experience. FLAC is also royalty-free, unlike AAC.

Diract is a sodding video codec. Why would you want sodding Diract to
be implemented? Eh? Explain yourself oh wise one.

Why not? Moving pictures would be a useful adjunct to sound radio -
without necessarily going the whole hog to 'television' quality. Film
trailers, animations, traffic-cameras, ...

I notice you haven't commented in Vorbis.

[...]

and certainly
not
attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before
anyone
else had and without international consensus.


The thing you're ignoring is that the BBC R&D people were already
telling the non-technical suits to use AAC.

No they weren't, they were publishing the results of some research.

DAB is right here, right now, and it works

It works if you don't mind shit quality, and if you actually receive a
signal that doesn't suffer from bubbling mud.

Aha. I think we've got to the point of your ire; you're in a poor
reception area, or haven't got a good enough aerial.

- just as it did ten years ago.
DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in one
or two
countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too, but
there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.

Don't tell me what to do or what not to do.

Why not? You put a huge amount of effort into telling everyone else what
to do.

In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial
radio
or TV station to equal.

The audio quality on BBC DAB stations is shit.

Actually, no, it isn't. The quality of your DAB reception may be though.
The quality of the BBC VHF/FM stations is about as good as DAB (at its
best it used to be better, but I don't think any of the content now on
analogue radio has escaped being digitised and compressed at least once
on its way to the transmitter). Where I live, analogue reception is
mostly poor - Radio 3 FM is useless. But that's down to geography and
transmitter placement and power, not to the underlying technology. But
I'm close enough to the BBC's local DAB transmitter to get a 'full
strength' signal even with the aerial of my portable folded. That's luck,
not technology.

And BBC has been providing far lower quality on its Internet radio
streams than commercial radio for the last 2 years, and it's currently
trying to fabricate excuses to avoid providing the SAME bit rate as
commercial radio Internet streams.

That's your idea of setting a very high standard, is it?

You are confusing content with transmission technology; they aren't the
same thing at all. I agree that for internet listeners with a lot of
bandwidth available, the BBC could provide better streams and 'podcasts'.
But they'd still have to accomodate those on lesser internet connections.

How would you explain the BBC providing its Internet radio streams at
32 kbps until last year? And transcoding the audio by receiving the
radio stations off satellite? And why did they transcode the stations
for the listen again streams when they could have been sent via the
Internet? And why did they transcode anythying when it would only have
cost ÂŁ10k per year for a direct link?

If you think you could run the BBC better than the present staff, why not
apply for a job?

And why is the audio quality on Radio 1 and Radio 2 FM shit these days
when it used to be superb?

I've never understood why anyone would choose to listen to Radio 1 so I
can't comment on that. I seldom listen to Radio 2 either - and would use
DAB if I did. But apart from poor reception (which is often worse now
than it used to be thanks to the profusion of licensed and pirate stations
in what used to be a nearly empty VHF waveband), I'm pretty sure even the
analogue stations now get digitised and compressed material, which will
never sound as good as genuine analogue.

You saying that the BBC sets very high standards is yet another
ridiculous thing you've said.


That's something to be glad about, I think.


Yeah, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm over teh moon about the BBC's
performance.

Do try not to confuse technology with the content. Content is
/programmes/, not codecs or transmitters. Anyone trying to compete with
the BBC has access to exactly the same technology, but finding programmes
to equal what the BBC produce is what defeats commercial competitors.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <slrngfhecv.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

If you think you could run the BBC better than the present staff, why
not apply for a job?

Think he did and was turned down. Hence the crusade...

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[tony sayer]

In article <6PXJk.5183$he4.547@newsfe27.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than FM
<dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jqGbkGBZNE+IFwMT@bancom.co.uk
In article <LVIJk.11528$qt6.3193@newsfe28.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
than
FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef301ce5dave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <0TGJk.29594$xU3.10876@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
this
year because they couldn't afford to pay the Ł1 million per year
transmission costs.

DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a
big,
big
saving for a station.

The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual costs.


Totally wrong. It was the TRANSMISSION COSTS that caused the DAB
crisis earlier this year. GCap wanted to close 4 stations (theJazz,
Core, Life and Planet Rock - the latter was sold), and it wanted to
sell its 67% stake in Digital One for Ł1 to Arqiva.

Who do the actual transmission.

And I reckon before long will become a large broadcaster in their
own
right..

Then all the commercial broadcast and transmission platforms will be
Aussie controlled;(...

It was the transmission costs that led to that and to Fru Hazlitt
saying that DAB is "not an economically viable platform".

It's common knowledge that the transmission costs are exhorbitant
on
DAB.


Indeed couldn't be better set up for a Monopoly organisation;!...


How did Arqiva taking over NGW get past the monopolies and mergers
thing?



They rolled over and let them tickle their tummies like the way we do so

well;(...

I expect that no one at the commission really understood it all....
--
Tony Sayer

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfhecv.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfh4h5.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfgqpq.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net
On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef64094adave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <kMNJk.28721$Zl2.9435@newsfe01.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

[...]

Little support from external sources, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_audio_coding#Standardization

"AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known
formally
as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"

Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.

DAB+ has got nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. DAB+
came
years later. I'm talking about the fact that the AAC audio codec
was
available to be used from 1997 onwards, but the non-technical BBC
executives chose to ignore its existence - even though the BBC R&D
guys were saying how good it was.

AAC was the solution to DAB's problems. But the non-technical BBC
execs simply didn't have a clue what they were doing. And here we
are
today.

DAB with AAC support, is DAB+. You are trying to pretend that DAB
should
have been DAB+ from the start, but it couldn't be. AAC didn't exist
in
the mid '90s, for a start.

Ah, I see the penny looks to have dropped a bit, but not all the way
to the floor yet.

You say that AAC didn't exist in teh mid 90s. It was actually in
development from 1993/4 (so BBC R&D would have known about it from
1993/4). The BBC carried out a listening test on it in 1996. It was
standardised in 1997.

There was FIVE WHOLE YEARS for them to adopt it before 2002, but they
did nothing. Hence the accusation of gross incompetence.

AAC would have solved all of DAB's main problems. It's incompetent to
launch the system they did when AAC had been available for so long.

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs,
not
about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the
responsibility of the BBC anyway).

If the BBC wanted to upgrade DAB prior to relaunch it could have
done
and it would have done.

That 'relaunch' seems to be something you've invented; the BBC
started
broadcasting on DAB in the mid '90s.

The "big launch" happened in 2002. There had been absolutely no TV
advertising for DAB prior to that. I remember something published by
the DRDB in around 2002 which said that consumer awareness of DAB
before the TV ads was 1%. A whopping 1%.

DAB was properly launched in 2002.

All that happened in 2002 was the
addition of more BBC stations and some advertising of the services.
Clearly the BBC didn't change the codecs used for their broadcasts,
because the existing broadcasting standards (which are not set by
the BBC)
made no provision for doing so. As for what the BBC may or may not
have
'wanted', that is unknown. You know what /you/ want to have
happened, but
that's just your own opinion.

The BBC could have added AAC if they'd have wanted to.

"They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist
as
a
standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until
2007.

Again, what on earth has DAB+ got to do with this? You don't even
seem
able to follow which digital radio standard we're talking about
here.
We're talking about DAB, and the fact that DAB wasn't upgraded
prior
to its relaunch when it should have been upgraded.

You are talking about DAB with the ability to handle AAC codecs;
that is
DAB+, not DAB. DAB by definition does not support AAC and never
will;
DAB+ does, and is about to 'go live' in Italy and Australia.

No, we're talking about DAB. We're talking about what happened in the
1990s. DAB+ only came out about 18 months ago.

DAB+ is irrelevant to this discussion.

So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the
1990s
when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in
1997
to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for
DAB?
The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a
right 2
and 8.

Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new
broadcasting
systems, they were and are in the business of providing content
for
systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you
still
haven't given any support for.


BBC R&D has always been in teh business of inventing new
broadcasting
technologies. For example, DVB-T2 that will be used to deliver HDTV
via Freeview from next year was basically an idea that stemmed from
BBC R&D experimenting with MIMO antennas.

They do research (or used to); sometimes the results of that
research
eventually finds its way into new broadcasting standards, sometimes
it
doesn't. The BBC don't impose technical standards unilaterally;
such
things have to be done by international agreement between
governments,
broadcasters, manufacturers, and others.

The BBC could have done whatever it wanted with DAB. If the BBC didn't
want to launch DAB, DAB would have failed in the UK. So the BBC had
the opportunity to adopt AAC if it wanted.

Sorry, but it's just ridiculous to launch a radio system - which are
things taht are meant to be around for a long time - when it simply
wasn't up to the job from day one. And I'm talking about day 1 being
March 2002, when the TV ads started.

There were no DAB receivers in teh shops until late 1999 / early 2000
(IIRC), and then they cost Ł800 - Malcolm Knight off this group bought
one of the first ones. It will have been late 2000 or early 2001 when
VideoLogic brought out their DRX601E DAB tuner at Ł300, and probably
the Psion Wavefinder came out at about the same time.

So with AAC being standardised in 1997, it's not as if they didn't
have the opportunity to hold things up so that AAC could be added to
DAB.

Face facts. The BBC was grossly incompetent. That's all there is to
it. Deny it if you like, but you're just deluding yourself due to your
BBC Fanboyism.

That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be
advertising
DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't
support
DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete
DAB
radios. Tut tut.

So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the
one
with
hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you
can
tell
us.


People that know about DAB+ and who're considering buying a DAB
radio
tend to want one that supports DAB. By keeping quiet about the DAB+
issue, and especially advertising DAB aat a time when most
receivers
don't support DAB+, the BBC is misleading the general public.

When mass-market DAB receivers support both DAB and DAB+, people
will be
able to buy them. At present, hardly any support DAB+ at all, and
only a
few claim to be 'upgradeable'. That's how new the new standard is.
Now
that there is an agreed standard for DAB+, manufacturers have
undertaken
to start designing models to accomodate it. But there is nothing to
listen to on DAB+ in this country yet, and it's anybody's guess when
there will be.

Thanks for an update on DAB+. I wasn't aware of the overall DAB+
picture. Thanks for that. Very interesting. Ta.

The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
*deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest
otherwise.

No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least
incompetent.

This is just ridiculous. From when you first turned up on this
thread,
you continually got things wrong, and now you're lecturing ME about
DAB.

Actually, I'm tryig to introduce you to the concept of 'logic'.

There wasn't any logic in what you said above.

You get one chance at launching a new radio system, so it's got to
be
right. But they screwed up royal, and here I am basically some
know-nothing telling me what's what.

No, you are expressing an unsupported and unrealistic opinion and
I'm
telling you so.

There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about saying that a digital
radio system that the broadcasters originally intended to be used in
this country for a very long time, and they thoroughly expected it
would become a global digital radio standard should be fit for purpose
BEFORE it was launched.

You don't get two goes with these things. It needed to be right first
time. It wasn't.

THEY HAD FIVE WHOLE YEARS TO ADOPT AAC BETWEEN 1997 AND 2002. THEY
DID
NOTHING. THAT IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.

That's your opinion. How "they" were supposed to start using a
standard
in 2002 or 1995 or at any other time in the past, that wasn't
available
until 2007 at the earliest, is beyond anyone but you.

You're still sticking to this nonsense about DAB+. DAB+ is just a
standard that was designed recently. I'm talking about the AAC codec
being added to DAB. That could have happened at any time from 1997
onwards.

We've
had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has.
If
the
exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in
other
countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make
sense - but
no-one can turn back the clock.


They had the opportunity from 1997 to 2002. They did nothing. Nada.
Niet. Sweet FA.

The DAB crisis this year could have been avoided if they'd have
adopted AAC.
The audio quality on the BBC's stations would be shithot if they'd
have adopted AAC.
There wouldn't have been the bubbling mud that people suffer from
if
they'd have adopted AAC, because adoption of AAC also requires
adapting the error correction coding.

It would be iven better if they;d used soe other system that doesn't
exist
yet. Get real!

Sorry, but you're just coming out with drivel. I've repeatedly said
that I'm referring to the AAC codec being added to DAB. Nothing to do
with DAB+ - that came a lot later.

AAC could have been added to DAB from 1997 onwards - they could have
worked towards adding it from 1994 onwards, because that's when it got
the go-ahead from MPEG.

Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated;
that's
an
opinion.


That just displays your incompetence. FLAC is a lossless codec, and
the chance of a lossless codec ever being used on a terrestrial
digital broadcasting system are nil.

I don't see why; it's still a more efficient use of resources than
analogue,

An average FLAC bit rate is around 800 kbps. A DAB multiplex can carry
1184 kbps. So only one FLAC-compressed station could be carrier per
DAB multiplex. A DAB multiplex has a bandwidth of 1.75 MHz, so that's
1.75 MHz per station.

An FM station has a bandwidth of about 400 kHz.

So, no, it's more efficient than analogue, it's far less efficient
than analogue.

And the cost of transmitting a FLAC-encoded station on a national DAB
multiplex to 90% of the population would be Ł11m per year - nice and
economically feasible to go with the high spectral efficiency.

It's basically one of the most ridiculous things anybody has said on
this newsgroup all year - possibly 2 years in fact. But you'll just
ignore that, and come up with some more idiocy in your next post no
doubt.

and would give the potential for genuinely 'as good as a CD'
sound - which no lossy codec ever will, not even your beloved AAC.

FLAC doesn't offer the potential to provide CD quality, it does
provide CD quality. That's why it's called a lossless codec, because
there is no loss - it is a perfect bit-for-bit copy of the original
when decompressed - that's what a lossless codec is, otherwise it's
not lossless. Strewth.

It would also remove the temptation to impose low bit rates to get
more
stations into the space - which will always tend to result in
listeners
getting a 'just about good enough for the uncritical masses'
listening
experience. FLAC is also royalty-free, unlike AAC.

I bet the broadcasters would be over the moon that FLAC is
royalty-free. Just the Ł11m per annum transmission costs on national
DAB to worry about then. Gordon Bennett.

And what choice we'd have. I'd be able to receive 4 stations on DAB.

Do you work for the FSA by any chance?

Diract is a sodding video codec. Why would you want sodding Diract
to
be implemented? Eh? Explain yourself oh wise one.

Why not? Moving pictures would be a useful adjunct to sound radio -
without necessarily going the whole hog to 'television' quality.
Film
trailers, animations, traffic-cameras, ...

Yeah, I can see you've considered the bandwidth required for this as
well. You are aware that video requires far higher bit rates than
audio, are you? Video on handheld devices requires a bit rate of about
200 kbps for the video, then there's the audio. You can do video on
DAB - that's what DMB is, but it consumes a lot of bandwidth, and it's
basically a waste of capacity when it could be delivered via the
Internet.

I notice you haven't commented in Vorbis.

I didn't need to comment on Ogg, because I had more than enough
ammunition with your idiotic suggestion to use FLAC.

Regarding Ogg, what's the point in using it when you'ev got AAC/AAC+?
AAC+ is more efficient than Ogg, so the broadcasters will use AAC+.

and certainly
not
attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before
anyone
else had and without international consensus.


The thing you're ignoring is that the BBC R&D people were already
telling the non-technical suits to use AAC.

No they weren't, they were publishing the results of some research.

I've already told you that when non-technical BBC suits make technical
decisions they get presentations by BBC R&D people to advise them
about the technical issues. They will have known what the score was,
but they ignored it.

DAB is right here, right now, and it works

It works if you don't mind shit quality, and if you actually
receive a
signal that doesn't suffer from bubbling mud.

Aha. I think we've got to the point of your ire; you're in a poor
reception area, or haven't got a good enough aerial.

No bubbling mud on 3 multiplexes. A bit of bubbling mud on 1
multiplex. That's indoor reception.

Perfect FM reception, BTW.

- just as it did ten years ago.
DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in
one
or two
countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too,
but
there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.

Don't tell me what to do or what not to do.

Why not? You put a huge amount of effort into telling everyone else
what
to do.

I could say the same thing about you.

In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial
radio
or TV station to equal.

The audio quality on BBC DAB stations is shit.

Actually, no, it isn't.

Erm, yes, it is.

The quality of your DAB reception may be though.

See above - there's nothing wrong with my DAB reception quality on 3
multiplexes.

The quality of the BBC VHF/FM stations is about as good as DAB

The quality on FM still easily beats DAB, and that's with the BBC
degrading R1 and R2. R3 FM wipes the floor with R3 DAB. The only
station that has a similar quality on both is R4.

(at its
best it used to be better, but I don't think any of the content now
on
analogue radio has escaped being digitised and compressed at least
once
on its way to the transmitter).

The audio for BBC FM stations is distributed to the transmitters via
NICAM. NICAM uses a 14-to-10 bit companding algorithm with a bit rate
of 728 kbps.

Anybody with a high SNR signal is effectively listening to NICAM, and
NICAM pisses all over MP2.

Where I live, analogue reception is
mostly poor - Radio 3 FM is useless.

Right. So don't even bother commenting on FM.

Bored of this now.

<snip>



--
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/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fefc5e3bedave@davenoise.co.uk

In article
slrngfhecv.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
If you think you could run the BBC better than the present staff,
why
not apply for a job?

Think he did and was turned down. Hence the crusade...

I have never applied for a job at the BBC. Hence you're talking out of
your arse again.



--
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/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[tony sayer]

I've never understood why anyone would choose to listen to Radio 1 so I
can't comment on that. I seldom listen to Radio 2 either - and would use
DAB if I did. But apart from poor reception (which is often worse now
than it used to be thanks to the profusion of licensed and pirate stations
in what used to be a nearly empty VHF waveband), I'm pretty sure even the
analogue stations now get digitised and compressed material, which will
never sound as good as genuine analogue.

You saying that the BBC sets very high standards is yet another
ridiculous thing you've said.


That's something to be glad about, I think.


Yeah, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm over teh moon about the BBC's
performance.

Do try not to confuse technology with the content. Content is
/programmes/, not codecs or transmitters. Anyone trying to compete with
the BBC has access to exactly the same technology, but finding programmes
to equal what the BBC produce is what defeats commercial competitors.

Well seeing they have the licence fee behind them that shouldn't be too
difficult

They could up the rates on satellite so as to get rid of that metallic
audio on 192 K this would cost them bugger all and then they'd match
other European broadcasters.

DAB can then be consigned to clock radios and the like;!...

--
Tony Sayer

 

[john d hamilton]

The reason i wanted a small DAB radio is mainly for news and world service
whilst walking around. In north london my other small FM radios keep
breaking up at almost every other corner.

I rang phillips and they are now saying something different. that the
*wiping off* of all the presets after a 'local' scan is normal for this
Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05.

I emailed the 'Pure' radio people and they have advised: Ofcom has
explicitly not licensed DAB+ services, and key figures in the UK broadcast
industry have indicated that it will be years before the new standard starts
to be used and many years after that before there is expected to be any
change to existing DAB services.

So I think I'll go and get another phillips DA1103 and make do with it for a
few years. thanks for all the 'education'/ hornets nest i got in this
group.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

So I think I'll go and get another phillips DA1103 and make do
with it for a few years. thanks for all the "education" / hornet's
nest I got in this group.

The problem had nothing to do with the question and everything to do with
the fact (???) that the DAB system -- and DAB radios - seem to be poorly
designed and executed.

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:gdcocp$3ko$1@registered.motzarella.org

The reason i wanted a small DAB radio is mainly for news and world
service
whilst walking around. In north london my other small FM radios
keep
breaking up at almost every other corner.

I rang phillips and they are now saying something different. that
the
*wiping off* of all the presets after a 'local' scan is normal for
this
Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05.

I emailed the 'Pure' radio people and they have advised: Ofcom has
explicitly not licensed DAB+ services, and key figures in the UK
broadcast
industry have indicated that it will be years before the new
standard
starts to be used and many years after that before there is expected
to
be any change to existing DAB services.

Pure is hardly going to say "yeah, DAB+ is just around the corner, so
don't buy a DAB radio at the moment, wait until everything supports
DAB+", are they?



--
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/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2yceCoBwTM+IFwPv@bancom.co.uk

In article <6PXJk.5183$he4.547@newsfe27.ams2>, DAB sounds worse than
FM
dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jqGbkGBZNE+IFwMT@bancom.co.uk
In article <LVIJk.11528$qt6.3193@newsfe28.ams2>, DAB sounds worse
than
FM <dab.is@dead.?> scribeth thus
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fef301ce5dave@davenoise.co.uk
In article <0TGJk.29594$xU3.10876@newsfe19.ams2>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
4 national stations closed on the Digital One multiplex earlier
this
year because they couldn't afford to pay the Ł1 million per
year
transmission costs.

DAB+ is 2 - 3 times cheaper to transmit per station. That's a
big,
big
saving for a station.

The costs charged for rental have little to do with actual
costs.


Totally wrong. It was the TRANSMISSION COSTS that caused the DAB
crisis earlier this year. GCap wanted to close 4 stations
(theJazz,
Core, Life and Planet Rock - the latter was sold), and it wanted
to
sell its 67% stake in Digital One for Ł1 to Arqiva.

Who do the actual transmission.

And I reckon before long will become a large broadcaster in their
own
right..

Then all the commercial broadcast and transmission platforms will
be
Aussie controlled;(...

It was the transmission costs that led to that and to Fru Hazlitt
saying that DAB is "not an economically viable platform".

It's common knowledge that the transmission costs are exhorbitant
on
DAB.


Indeed couldn't be better set up for a Monopoly organisation;!...


How did Arqiva taking over NGW get past the monopolies and mergers
thing?



They rolled over and let them tickle their tummies like the way we
do so
well;(...

Looks like it.

I expect that no one at the commission really understood it all....

Sounds like the FSA or Ofcom must have advised them if they couldn't
figure out that one transmission provider taking over the only other
transmission provider left a monopoly.



--
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/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[DAB sounds worse than FM]

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfhecv.bd2.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message

Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated;
that's
an
opinion.


That just displays your incompetence. FLAC is a lossless codec, and
the chance of a lossless codec ever being used on a terrestrial
digital broadcasting system are nil.

I don't see why; it's still a more efficient use of resources than
analogue, and would give the potential for genuinely 'as good as a
CD'
sound - which no lossy codec ever will, not even your beloved AAC.
It
would also remove the temptation to impose low bit rates to get more
stations into the space - which will always tend to result in
listeners
getting a 'just about good enough for the uncritical masses'
listening
experience. FLAC is also royalty-free, unlike AAC.

I see FLAConDAB Boy has disappeared. Or are you just having a break,
FLAConDAB Boy? Probably best if you run along, FLAConDAB Boy, cos I'd
only bring up your idiotic idea to use FLAC on DAB again.

Incidentally, thinking about it, you couldn't use FLAC on DAB anyway.
You see with FLAC being a lossless audio codec, you can't guarantee
that teh bit rate will be below the 1184 kbps maximum capacity of a
DAB multiplex.

I also have to say that it's gloriously ironic that you came up with
the suggestion that you could use FLAC on DAB when you'd previously
claimed that "technology is easy". Technology is easy, but *only once*
you've done the hard work studying the appropriate subjects, and you
blatantly haven't.

And when the BBC chose to adopt DAB in the 1990s, the people making
the decisions were a marketing person, Simon Nelson, and Jenny
Abramsky, who probably can't even programme a video recorder - harsh,
but probably true. They obviously thought technology was easy as well.
And the end result was that they incompetently chose to launch DAB
without first upgrading it.

And the people who make the technical decisions about digital radio at
the BBC at the moment similarly don't understand the technologies.
Their current decision making is mostly simply based on being biased
against the Internet streams and being biased in favour of DAB. If I'm
wrong about that, and they really are trying to provide good quailty,
then they're also simply making incompetent technical decisions
because they don't understand the technical aspects.

It's about time the BBC employed people who understand engineering.
Anthony Rose, who's in charge of the iPlayer TV streams, understands
it. But no-one on the radio side understands engineering at all.



--
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/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

 

[Whiskers]

On 2008-10-18, DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@dead> wrote:

[...]

I see FLAConDAB Boy has disappeared. Or are you just having a break,
FLAConDAB Boy? Probably best if you run along, FLAConDAB Boy, cos I'd
only bring up your idiotic idea to use FLAC on DAB again.

[...]

If you must troll and cross-post, at least try to do it with some style
and without making yourself look desperate and ridiculous. Or at least
stay out of 24HS.D - I'm sure we've had all the entertainment you can
provide.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Bill Wright]

"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:slrngfbo9r.830.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net...

Waiting for the next improvement or new technology is a
never-ending game

It WILL end if the greenies get their way, because they want us all to go
back to the stone age.

Bill

 

[William Sommerwerck]

It WILL end if the greenies get their way, because
they want us all to go back to the stone age.

Since when?