Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Perhaps that's the difference between us. I'm only interested in the
sound I hear in my room. I don't really care how it is unacceptably
degraded.

That I find a really odd attitude from someone who works as a sound
recordist;?..
No, IMHO, the correct one. It's the end result that matters - not what
equipment is used.


Rates of pay/unionisation/working
conditions/education-training-apprenticeships; equipment/process:
'green', efficient, effective, reliable, replicable, universal, under
review. And so on really. Tragic IMO - I'd have thought all these things
matter?

And what do they have to do with equipment?

Equipment can be: 'green', efficient, effective, reliable, replicable,
universal, under
review. I would be surprised if none of that was important to you.
It's even of passing interest to me.


I have noticed this 'what matters is what works' has become more
pervasive, although even Labour had the sensitivity/expediency to remove
the phrase from their policy docs.

Sigh. Perhaps I should explain again.

Those who moan about current 'DAB quality' are almost certainly listening
to pop music stations - as R3&4 have a just about adequate data rate for
the material they carry. Or at least during the times I listen to them.
And *every* pop and light music station is so heavily processed on all
wavebands that - to me - they are simply dreadful to listen to. Ones like
R2 the worst - given the amount of speech they transmit.
Of course it obviously doesn't offend others. People are not the same.


I'd agree with all of that - although I'm not an especially critical
radio listener, mainly R4.

Rob