In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus


Maybe I notice the drawbacks of FM more easily than yourself.


Maybe we have a better TX feed than you do;?..

Which gives you less ignition interference and level compression?

Not a problem here at home or in my car,

Odd that you don't notice the level compression on R3 when at home.


Yes I do but I do understand why they do this..

And I wonder why they don't do it on their digital platforms quite so
much but then again since when has engineering been the BBC's strong
point?..


As to ignition interference haven't hears that for years now!..

and the radio in that is
nothing special!..

The compression isn't the fault of the FM system as such, its more to do
with how the broadcaster sees it!..

You can also say that the level of data compression on DAB/DTTV isn't a
fault of the system as such, its more to do with how the broadcaster sees
it! :-)

Indeed..assisted by good old Ofcom;!...




Problem here is that 'regulation' aimed at keeping up quality has
essentially been abandoned by all and sundry, and the BBC have been
made to feel that they have to be 'popular' to 'justify' the fees.
Gresham's Law then comes into force with the results we have. In some
ways I'd say it was remarkable that the BBC have resisted this to the
extent they have given the commercial interests that would just as soon
have the BBC evaporate.


I don't see the BBC would have a problem if it dropped its silly ratings
war. I don't think the viewing public are quite as stupid as they think
and they should educate them anyway!..

But some of the critics of the BBC in our journalistic and political
classes *are* that stupid as it suits their agenda. The argument they shove
out is the weary one "how can you justify making everyone pay the fee if
you only make programmes a minority will view/hear?"

They rely on people resenting paying for anything at all, combined with
them not realising how output aimed at educating and informing can raise
standards and provide info which even those who don't watch/hear will find
affecting and informing the debate or environment around them. Good
programmes put out into the public domain information, etc, that then can
spread by other means to those who didn't see/hear the orginal programmes.

Alas, ideas like that aren't on the radar for critics who follow the line
that only having an 'audience' can justify the fees.

BTW If you haven't read it already, try reading "Flat Earth News" by Nick
Davies. It does a good job of exposing the way journalism, etc, have
essentially been dumbed down by the mentality of grocers and accountants
whose only interest is making a cash return. Including its effect upon the
BBC who are expected to 'compete' on a similar basis.



Grocers?, Do they still have them up your way;?..



--
Tony Sayer