In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
You won't like DAB quality, believe me.

For R3?

DAB in many cases will provide far better sound quality than FM on R3.


We won't go into that one again Dave what abaht the other radio services
from the BBC eh?.

The OP specifically mentioned R3. And only R3.

And pray why should radio 3 be more deserving?..

For instance.. do they have inferior equipment in the studios?...

As I've said many times before the public seem to like the use of those
signal processors which compress the dynamic range and increase the
perceived loudness which make *far* more difference to the sound quality
at home than the difference between DAB at the current rates and FM. And
every radio station uses them - although R3 and R4 at some times of the
day less aggressively. Every single pop station has them set in such a way
as to make them so tiring to listen to that I simply don't bother - apart
from rarely and as background listening in the car.


As its the new year and all that .. I can agree with most of that
statement..

If you don't find these annoying to the point of simply switching off
perhaps it's you who needs their hearing tested...


However the system that the powers that be including the BBC have
implemented is a disgrace!...

I'm not sure. Like FreeView, the public seems to demand choice over
quality. Or the suits seem to think so. Of course it would be nice to have
both - but is that possible given the limited bandwidth of terrestrial
transmissions?

Well these plenty of Bandwidth on Satellite but most if it is "wasted"
with junk TV....
--
Tony Sayer