In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
John Phillips wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
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

Well, no. This researches "reach"

Did you actually look at the page? RAJAR researches more than just
"reach"; they also survey the number of hours that people listen, and
from this calculate the total number of hours that people listen and the
% share of listening. And it's these parameters that should worry any
Radio 3 fanatic who is trying to justify why Radio 3 is provided with a
50% higher bit rate than Radio 1, Radio 2, 6 Music and 1Xtra on DAB.

I did indeed read the RAJAR pages (well the ones that showed and explained
the figures - I don't have semi-infinite amounts of time). The RAJAR
research, as I said, does not address the listening issues which had been
brought to my attention by a manufacturer of current broadcast kit (used
by BBC and others). He has reported a number of separate listening issues
which inform his designs for kit and the parameters set by broadcasters.

Which bit of this do you not understand?:
snip

Well, I am a little disappointed that you repeat the same points as
before and resort to the ad homienem. That is a fairly well trodden
path for network news (and I suppose I should have expected it rather
than hoping for better) but unfortunately it creates more heat than light.

Your point of view seems a little narrow and perhaps could do with
being wider. I guess I will descend just this once to the suggestion
you might like to read Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" for an exposition on
narrow realities. I have found his best known point to be wise and
useful in practice. I will practice it now.

--
John Phillips