In message
Walt Davidson wrote:

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:12:31 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

However, as you very well know it is far from better than FM with 192 K
dab only just matching FM in term's of sound quality, provided you don't
mind the "metallic" sound, and as to virtually everything else on DAB
its simply inferior in virtually every aspect.

It is not inferior in virtually every aspect.

Hard as it may be for you to grasp the fact, hi-fi quality is not, for
everyone, the be-all and end-all of radio reception.

DAB is superior to FM in a number of different aspects, for example:

- the number of different programmes available
- ease of tuning in, without the need to know a frequency or channel
number
- proof against interference of various kinds
- seamless switching between successive relay stations on a car or
train journey
- value added, in the form of messages on the LCD display (albeit
limited at the moment)

There are others.

Hear, hear. I've been forced back on to my pocket FM set this
week because the display on my DAB radio has packed up (wish
D*x*ns would hurry up and finish their refit so that I can return
it) and I'd forgotten how bad FM reception at street level really
is.

--
Richard L.

Walt Davidson wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:30:05 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

[gross drivel deleted]


Drivel? Oh no, sorry, "gross drivel"? I'm afraid what I wrote is not
drivel just because it happens to contradict your incorrect views about
DAB.

Just remember that I've forgotten more about DAB than you know about it.


For heaven's sake go and get yourself a job, Steve. Even if it's only
serving in McDonalds ... that would be a start.


I'll start applying for jobs when I want to apply for jobs, not when
some crank called Walter wants me to clear off from Usenet in the
daytime so he can propagate incorrect statements about DAB without
anyone showing his nonsense up for what it is.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Freeview receivers price comparison -
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
DAB radios price comparison -
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Yes maybe.. But as far as DAB goes, that, sadly is another matter;((

Do you consider AM transmissions to be good quality? If not, why should
DAB *have* to be the best possible, rather than a viable alternative to AM?


Well Dave I'm of the idea that as the human race progresses things
should improve, i.e. like we came down from the trees. Now AM once was
the doggies doo-dahs of radio, then FM was some considerable improvement
but had some limitations. DAB was devised by the same BBC as an
"improved" system over those that went before, and should have been
considered a progression over what was.

However, as you very well know it is far from better than FM with 192 K
dab only just matching FM in term's of sound quality, provided you don't
mind the "metallic" sound, and as to virtually everything else on DAB
its simply inferior in virtually every aspect.

It was originally conceived to give improved mobile reception above all
else. FM tends to do badly here - or indeed anywhere where you can't have
a fixed properly sited aerial.

Well apart from some parts of central London I can't really say I've had
a problem with mobile reception. But I bet if the BBC engineers who
developed DAB originally knew how it was to turn out they've resigned in
disgust!. Humm.. quite a few peeps seem to be having "properly sited
aerials for DAB".

The BBC and the regulators have really let the public down with the way
DAB has been allowed to be implemented in this country. Let alone the
other shortcomings of it as a digital transmission medium. So sad too
the word "Digital" is starting to take on a different meaning to what it
once was. Even my wife notices the differences between Digital TV via
freeview with the pictures we enjoy on PAL up here.

To me, it's 'choice' over quality. Same with DAB.

Well if thats how U see it its not my idea thanks..

But you're tilting at
windmills if you think you can reverse this - it seems to be what the vast
majority of the public want.

No Dave, what the public we're given!...

Never mind, the powers that be have now decided the matter and DAB will
be an inferior system, so really end of story.

Inferior to AM in quality?

Perhaps equal too tho it is ridiculous that a supposed replacement
system is compared with its 100 odd year old predecessor..

Inferior to FM in choice? You have to be
careful what you mean by inferior.

In parts of the country these quite a bit of choice on FM and if they'd
allocated some more band 3 there would be even more!. Apart form that
the FM allocations are a bit of a piggy's ear...

Quite frankly I'm sometimes a tad surprised at your attitudes re Dab as
you support Digital audio on other forums ands as a sound engineer too
I'm rather saddened that you see DAB as fit for you and your professions
efforts ??????

If DAB had replaced all other forms of radio, I'd be the first to
complain. But you've still got FM and now also Freeview and satellite
carrying the majority channels.

Well lets be thankful eh?...

To want DAB to maintain the highest
technical standards possible with the implications that makes on the
choice of material available through it strikes me as elitist.

Yep well "elitist" it sure is;((
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Walt Davidson
writes
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:12:31 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Well Dave I'm of the idea that as the human race progresses things
should improve, i.e. like we came down from the trees. Now AM once was
the doggies doo-dahs of radio, then FM was some considerable improvement
but had some limitations. DAB was devised by the same BBC as an
"improved" system over those that went before, and should have been
considered a progression over what was.

However, as you very well know it is far from better than FM with 192 K
dab only just matching FM in term's of sound quality, provided you don't
mind the "metallic" sound, and as to virtually everything else on DAB
its simply inferior in virtually every aspect.

It is not inferior in virtually every aspect.

Hard as it may be for you to grasp the fact, hi-fi quality is not, for
everyone, the be-all and end-all of radio reception.

Well it was sold as such originally remember the 800 odd squid Arcam
tuner)

DAB is superior to FM in a number of different aspects, for example:

- the number of different programmes available

Yes well if the same spectrum had been given over to FM band 3?, no real
argument...

- ease of tuning in, without the need to know a frequency or channel
number

Humm most every set I've seen these days doesn't need a tuning dial more
pushbuttons...

- proof against interference of various kinds

Like blubbling mud...

- seamless switching between successive relay stations on a car or
train journey

Like RDS


- value added, in the form of messages on the LCD display (albeit
limited at the moment)

Like Radio text on FM..

There are others.

Name them..

For normal radio listening, for example in the kitchen, in the bedroom
or in the car (which together account for most radio listeners), the
audio quality is perfectly adequate.

Like AM then for Radio Cambridgeshire listners...agreed...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Walt Davidson
writes
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:30:05 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

[gross drivel deleted]

For heaven's sake go and get yourself a job, Steve. Even if it's only
serving in McDonalds ... that would be a start.

You've lost any credible argument by saying that Walt;((
--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
It is a well known fact that the BBC aims at the best possible studio
equipment.


Yes maybe.. But as far as DAB goes, that, sadly is another matter;((

Do you consider AM transmissions to be good quality? If not, why should
DAB *have* to be the best possible, rather than a viable alternative to
AM?


Well Dave I'm of the idea that as the human race progresses things
should improve, i.e. like we came down from the trees. Now AM once was
the doggies doo-dahs of radio, then FM was some considerable improvement
but had some limitations. DAB was devised by the same BBC as an
"improved" system over those that went before, and should have been
considered a progression over what was.

However, as you very well know it is far from better than FM with 192 K
dab only just matching FM in term's of sound quality, provided you don't
mind the "metallic" sound, and as to virtually everything else on DAB
its simply inferior in virtually every aspect.


Do you know, Tony - I'm quite mystified as to why you aren't 'into' vinyl
when you express a near-perfect 'anti-digital' view, like above??

(Especially when I remember that 'neck snap' when the male solo kicked in
suddenly, in Balshazzar's Feast that time.... !!! ;-)

In article , Keith G
writes

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
It is a well known fact that the BBC aims at the best possible studio
equipment.


Yes maybe.. But as far as DAB goes, that, sadly is another matter;((

Do you consider AM transmissions to be good quality? If not, why should
DAB *have* to be the best possible, rather than a viable alternative to
AM?


Well Dave I'm of the idea that as the human race progresses things
should improve, i.e. like we came down from the trees. Now AM once was
the doggies doo-dahs of radio, then FM was some considerable improvement
but had some limitations. DAB was devised by the same BBC as an
"improved" system over those that went before, and should have been
considered a progression over what was.

However, as you very well know it is far from better than FM with 192 K
dab only just matching FM in term's of sound quality, provided you don't
mind the "metallic" sound, and as to virtually everything else on DAB
its simply inferior in virtually every aspect.


Do you know, Tony - I'm quite mystified as to why you aren't 'into' vinyl
when you express a near-perfect 'anti-digital' view, like above??

Theres digital and theres well, digital....

(Especially when I remember that 'neck snap' when the male solo kicked in
suddenly, in Balshazzar's Feast that time.... !!! ;-)


Orgasmic stuff that!. Bach choir are performing that next April IIRC....

--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote


Do you know, Tony - I'm quite mystified as to why you aren't 'into' vinyl
when you express a near-perfect 'anti-digital' view, like above??

Theres digital and theres well, digital....


Degrees of 'digital, eh? ;-)


(Especially when I remember that 'neck snap' when the male solo kicked in
suddenly, in Balshazzar's Feast that time.... !!! ;-)


Orgasmic stuff that!. Bach choir are performing that next April IIRC....


Now let's give the bashers summat to laugh about - since posting the above
it's had me in the 'W's and I scurried down to the garage to clean Walton's
Symph No. 1 and Weber Symphs Nos. 1&2.

I've been on the shovel all day and I'm stiffer'n a stiff thing. With hands
like flippers I managed to propel the Weber forward to where it hit a 3 pin
plug - net result one superb, pristine record (from my 'numbered
collection' - many of which are unplayed) has now got a sodding 1" gouge in
it like it's been done wiv a Stanley knife!

Not a happy bunny..... :-(

(****ing 3 pin plugs - wot smartarse 'engineer ******' ever designed them? -
They're fekkin' *lethal*, they'll scratch anything!!!)

Keith G wrote:

(****ing 3 pin plugs - wot smartarse 'engineer ******' ever designed them? -
They're fekkin' *lethal*, they'll scratch anything!!!)

Best quality mains plugs in the world OTOH.

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Walt Davidson
writes
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 10:12:31 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Well Dave I'm of the idea that as the human race progresses things
should improve, i.e. like we came down from the trees. Now AM once was
the doggies doo-dahs of radio, then FM was some considerable improvement
but had some limitations. DAB was devised by the same BBC as an
"improved" system over those that went before, and should have been
considered a progression over what was.

However, as you very well know it is far from better than FM with 192 K
dab only just matching FM in term's of sound quality, provided you don't
mind the "metallic" sound, and as to virtually everything else on DAB
its simply inferior in virtually every aspect.

It is not inferior in virtually every aspect.

Hard as it may be for you to grasp the fact, hi-fi quality is not, for
everyone, the be-all and end-all of radio reception.

Well it was sold as such originally remember the 800 odd squid Arcam
tuner)

Listening to one of that ilk as I type.

Sincerely Chris

--
chris mcmillan