Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:45:57 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Quite; they're not meant for you, so we're arguing about different
things.

My main objection with DAB is that in the beginning we were promised
compression (dynamic) free broadcast, and the ability to select our
own degree of compression on the receiver. Well, Arcam certainly
kept their promise for that last part, but the broadcasters went
ahead and compressed anyway. *******s.


Yes, I agree with you there. But my main objection to DAB is that the
radio stations that I would listen to all use 128kbps and sound
crap. R3 and R4 listeners are extremely lucky compared to everybody
else.

But the big problem for you here is that most of those stations are
DAB-only; you don't have the option of listening to them on FM.


Out of the 37 stations I can receive on DAB in Manchester, there's 10
stations that are also on FM, 2 DAB-only stations (Life and DNN), 5
stations are also on MW, and the remainder are digital-only, by which I
mean they're available on more than one digital platform (I dislike the
use of digital radio to mean DAB, because a station on Freeview, say, is
just as much a digital radio station as it is on DAB).

All of the stations I listen to are also on FM, and are 128kbps on DAB.


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

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm