In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Dave an I go back a long way debating this sort of thing. In my ever so
humble opinion I think that digital broadcasting could have been done
better.


Most things in life "could have been done better", but digital broadcasting
could have been done a lot worse, as well.

Yep.. They couldn't have done it a -lot- worse tho;!..

Its now a screwed up outdated system for radio thats bloody useless for
most all applications,

"Most all" really??

and the TV system thats gone for all Quantity and

I claim no great experience of DAB, but I have been watching digital TV (and
listening to radio via the digital satellite platform) since 1995, and I
have to say that, IME, it's a fair bit better than analogue TV, both in
terms of picture and sound quality. It's interesting to see archive material
from the 1970s to see just how bad (by current standards) the technical
quality of so much TV of that period was. This, of course, is in terms of
production, rather than transmission, but it does show just how much
standards have improved.


As muttered before nowt -wrong- with digital transmission provided that
there are sufficient bits and if bits are limited then the best codec
for the job...

Radio Via satellite generally this is very good with some broadcasters
using sufficient bits and others not as good...

And the TV from some broadcasters is very good but UK TV still leaves a
bit or two to be desired;!..


UK T-DAB .. the digital joke system. So much wrong with it I haven't got
all day .. but the MUX system, the MP2 codec, and the lack of an agreed
digital radio standard in Europe at least for vehicles would be a
starting point...

David.



--
Tony Sayer