On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:45:57 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:25:59 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I know there are some bad reception areas for FM. My point, which
you've conveniently omitted or forgotten, is that just because a
smallish percentage of the population do have poor FM reception is
not justification to provide low audio quality on DAB. Do you
disagree?

The stations I listen to on DAB sound fine to me.


Well, this is part of the problem, because we will always be
comparing apples and oranges, because you probably listen to R3, R4
and maybe R5, which are probably the least-affected radio stations
on DAB, but my issue is not about those stations; my issue is with
regards to the stereo music stations, which are being transmitted at
128kbps and sound horrendous.

Does *anybody* listen to that other crap? Low bit rate is the least of
their problems.


Yes, see:

http://www.rajar.co.uk/INDEX2.CFM?menuid=9

I think a more pertinent question would be: Does *anybody* listen to
Radio 3?

Yes - me!


so I'd
rather give them a miss regardless. Even if I liked most of their
music, which I don't.


Quite; they're not meant for you, so we're arguing about different
things.

My main objection with DAB is that in the beginning we were promised
compression (dynamic) free broadcast, and the ability to select our
own degree of compression on the receiver. Well, Arcam certainly kept
their promise for that last part, but the broadcasters went ahead and
compressed anyway. *******s.


Yes, I agree with you there. But my main objection to DAB is that the
radio stations that I would listen to all use 128kbps and sound crap. R3
and R4 listeners are extremely lucky compared to everybody else.

But the big problem for you here is that most of those stations are
DAB-only; you don't have the option of listening to them on FM.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com