tony sayer wrote:
In article , Rob
scribeth thus
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
Of course. In fairness the centre of the DAB 'whinge' was always that it
could have been so much better, and not that it was/is intrinsically bad.
'Better', as you seem to suggest below, can't always be detected even if
it has theoretical advantages.

Of course it could have been better, broadcasting quality is a compromise
between performance and cost, always has been. The broadcaster's aim is to
provide a quality that is "good enough" without being too expensive, both
for themselves and the buyers of receiving equipment.

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 don't know the costs of transmitting at higher quality. Presumably you
know they are prohibitive ...

Its the multiplex system where each MUX has so many bits .

Course the more bits the less services you can carry.

And bitz cost;!..

Yes. I suppose my issue is the quality/quantity thing. I will at some
point accept that people listen to/enjoy some of these radio stations.
Just not today ;-)

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.

... and even if implemented, not worthwhile?

Debatable till the cows come home;!..

I'm of a view that if you do have an opportunity to provide something to
a high standard, you take it. Not everyone will appreciate it, maybe,
small price. I found the whole roll-out of DAB wrong-headed.

Rob