John Phillips wrote:
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).


Here's your original claim (brackets deleted):

"There is research which differentiates between those who actually
listen and those who merely have the station on in the background. He
says the results are quite different"

For there to be more people actually listening to Radio 3 than people
actually listening to Radios 1 or 2 then there would have to be 19 times
as many people actually listening to Radio 3, and that is obviously not
going to be the case.


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.


Well, I've argued this issue over and over, and have yet to be convinced
in the slightest that Radio 3 should have a 50% higher bit rate than
Radios 1 & 2. Given the following reason, I really do not have a clue
how you can actually argue that Radio 3 should have a far higher bit
rate than Radios 1 or 2:

* for a given level of audio quality, music on Radios 1 is as good as
certain to require a higher bit rate than Radio 3, and music on Radio 2
is very likely to require a higher bit rate than Radio 3;

And if you're going to fall back on the "Radio 3 listeners actually
listen" argument, then that is a number of listeners issue -- the exact
thing that you hate so much.


Your point of view seems a little narrow


Mine are narrow? The only supporting argument for Radio 3 using a 50%
higher bit rate is really "Radio 3 is just more deserving than Radios 1
& 2".



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm