Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

. For example, the latest digital mobile broadcasting systems are 10
times as efficient as DAB.

What is that supposed to mean? What sort of "efficiency" are you
talking about? Spectral efficiency?, capital cost efficiency?, power
efficiency?, what?

Come to that what do you mean by "mobile broadcasting systems"?

Mr DAB refuses to acknowledge that the current system was finalized long
before any of his alternatives.


AAC was standardised in 1997, DAB was properly launched in the UK in 2002.
There WAS DEFINITELY plenty of time for the BBC to realise that DAB needed
to adopt the AAC audio codec prior to properly launching it. They didn't do
that, because the people making the decisions were non-technical people, and
we're still paying the price for that incompetence to this day.


And that when it was started it was
positively ignored by the 'quality at all costs' brigade.


DAB tuners first came out in 2000 and they cost £800. Then in 2001 they
reduced to £300. I bought a DAB receiver in a sale in September 2001 for
£100. Please forgive me for not paying £300 - £800.


Who by then
weren't using radio for much serious listening as CD was capable of better
- very different from when the LP was the main source at home.


Oh stop bleating with your excuses. Face the ****ing facts: DAB is a
shambles because the decision makers screwed up. Why on earth people
actually try to stick up for the BBC executives for the incompetent work
they did I'll never know.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies