"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Its only in recent times that they have had an opportunity to downgrade
it owing to the bitrates they can set it at.. You'd never hear someone
from the pre digital times saying that they could -downgrade- the
transmission system in use.


Rubbish!. AM radio was downgraded by reducing it's bandwidth from 9kHz to
4.5kHz betwen the 1930s and the 1960s.


Oddly enough DAB was developed with the intention of making it all
better .. Reception and audio quality!..

Was it? evidence?

The problem is that what is good enough for the bulk of the audience may
not
satisfy the enthusiasts, how much cost do you impose on the system to
satisfy a small minority?

I wouldn't say it has to satisfy the enthusiasts as such but one would
have hoped for something as good as the existing system - or better
would have been used..

I am not persuaded that, taking all real-world factors into account, DAB is
not at least as good as FM.


In the particular case of DAB I think a small improvement is justified, as
it can be done at little extra cost. But even as things are now the notion
that DAB is clearly worse than FM is challenged by some serious
commentators.

Well cost = MUX bitspace so it isn't that simple and seeing that the UK
is going to be lumbered with the ancient system we have whereas other
countries are adopting better ones!..

It's important to adopt common standards with other countries. And now would
be a good time to do so.


David.