Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Rob" wrote in message
om
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
Yes, I know - but he does know what he knows about what he knows
(IYSWIM). And then, when he's on a related topic and he's run out
of
knowledge steam, he has been known to resort to personal insults.
I
think he started trying to be abusive about your home when you
challenged him on his knowledge of radio transmission costs?

I'm only ever abusive - afterwards - to those who start it.


Well yes, but twittering on about someone's domestic circumstance is
pretty much throwing in the towel. I'm not coming at this from high
ground btw ;-)

Our DAB 'expert' is known for being abusive to anyone who disagrees
with
his opinion and avoiding answering any points where he knows he'd
be
proved wrong. It's common enough with religions - but gawd knows
what
causes it on such an unimportant subject in the scheme of things.


Steve is, ahem, 'focused and driven', and brusque on occasion. I
don't
think the religion analogy works - I think he's just a technophile
who
believes very strongly about something technical.

The issue is complicated by the hefty political shenanigans that
accompanied the introduction of DAB. A lot of people cut through all
of
that by simply settling on 'DAB's bonkers good and better than what
we
had so let's just get on with it' - what matters is what works, as
it
were.
I don't think he's happy about *that*, and I think the matter of
implementation was important then, and it will be important again.
And
it's good that some people do campaign about things that matter to
them
- as it happens, I don't think public broadcasting is that left
field.


Thankyou.




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

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
Yes, I know - but he does know what he knows about what he knows
(IYSWIM). And then, when he's on a related topic and he's run out
of
knowledge steam, he has been known to resort to personal insults.
I
think he started trying to be abusive about your home when you
challenged him on his knowledge of radio transmission costs?

I'm only ever abusive - afterwards - to those who start it.


Well yes, but twittering on about someone's domestic circumstance
is
pretty much throwing in the towel. I'm not coming at this from high
ground btw ;-)

It has actually a bearing. He goes on and on about internet radio.
Now
most aren't going to have a dedicated internet radio,


Wi-Fi Internet radio is currently an early adopter technology. That
doens't mean most people won't get it in future.


so it would mean
using their computer.


Wi-Fi Internet radio doesn't require your computer to be switched on
at all. Shows how little you know about it.


Which probably isn't in the best place for using
while in the kitchen. Where many do listen to the radio. Same as the
bathroom. But if you live in one room it makes little difference.


I have a Wi-Fi Internet radio in the kitchen - have done for getting
on for 2 years, and I wouldn't want anything less - vast range of
choice, better audio quality, and you can listen to your own music
streamed from your PC.


Our DAB 'expert' is known for being abusive to anyone who
disagrees with
his opinion and avoiding answering any points where he knows he'd
be
proved wrong. It's common enough with religions - but gawd knows
what
causes it on such an unimportant subject in the scheme of things.


Steve is, ahem, 'focused and driven', and brusque on occasion. I
don't
think the religion analogy works - I think he's just a technophile
who
believes very strongly about something technical.

Probably hit on the head with a DAB radio when younger, given his
hate of
it. Did you miss this quote:-

*****************

From: BBC is biased towards DAB
Subject: Internet radio - classical music, etc
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

We don't *need* DAB or DAB+. There are other options to DAB/DAB+.

*****************

Says it all, really.


You didn't even know what I meant by that. I was actually referring to
using systems other than DAB/DAB+, such as mobile broadband and/or
eMBMS - heard of the latter, have we? Nah, obviuosly not, because not
even the DAB industry has heard of it AFTER they'd supposedly
"investigated" alternative digital radio platforms to use for the DRWG
long-term digital radio planning - which was in reality a complete
sham.


He doesn't 'need' DAB in any shape or form therefore
no one else does.


That's definitely not what I meant. I am actually a digital radio
enthusiast. Just not very enthusiastic about DAB.


But it also begs the question on why he spends so much
time 'discussing' something he doesn't need - and trying to put
others off
it. Sounds like a religion to me...

The issue is complicated by the hefty political shenanigans that
accompanied the introduction of DAB. A lot of people cut through
all of
that by simply settling on 'DAB's bonkers good and better than what
we
had so let's just get on with it' - what matters is what works, as
it
were.

There weren't any 'political shenanigans' that accompanied the
introduction of DAB. They came later. It was near universally
ignored by
the sort of people who read this groups and 'Hi-Fi' mags. Which
didn't
much surprise me as by then few listened to radio seriously. It had
become
just background music etc most of the time. They listened to their
CDs,
etc when they wanted to actually listen.


Public awareness of DAB was less than 1% in 2002. If no-one had heard
of it, how could it have become successful?

It actually sold really well when in 2001, when the cheapest price was
£300 for a tuner. You conveniently ignore that.






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

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Rob" wrote in message
m
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The issue is complicated by the hefty political shenanigans that
accompanied the introduction of DAB. A lot of people cut through
all of
that by simply settling on 'DAB's bonkers good and better than
what we
had so let's just get on with it' - what matters is what works, as
it
were.

There weren't any 'political shenanigans' that accompanied the
introduction of DAB.

Certainly were as i remember it. Thing is, I'm not your best source
as i
can't remember the details, but I did respond to the original policy
consultation and the issue was far from measured and thought
through.


The BBC effectively lied in the public consultation for the 5 new
digtial stations because they deliberately omitted to mention anything
about audio quality being massacred.






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

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...


Considering that Ofcom are still awarding 8 year Commercial FM licenses,
there's no likelihood of FM being turned off until 2017 at the earliest.
They are currently awarding a large number of 5 year Community Radio FM
licenses, so the prospects for FM to continue well into the future seem
clear.

I remember hearing an interview a year or so back with a spokeswoman from
Ofcom who was arguing strongly that analogue radio needed to be turned off
to give a kick-start to DAB. She also said that it wasn't fair on commercial
broadcaster to expect them to pay for both FM and DAB transmission, with the
implication that it was FM that should go. Of course much has changed since.
Several commercial broadcaster have dumped plans to launch DAB channels,
particularly Ch4 who have abandoned their plan to launch several national
channels including a speech-based rival to R4. So perhaps Ofcom are just
adjusting a bit to the real world.

As mobile internet gets cheaper and more widespread, I think it more
likely that Joe Public will listen to Internet Radio on their mobile
'phone rather than buy a DAB portable.


An extraordinarily inefficient way for Joe Public to listen to the radio. A
broadcast transmitter uses up the same amount of bandwidth regardless of how
many listeners there are. With internet radio the bandwidth used is a
function of the number of listeners.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"David Looser" wrote in message

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Probably hit on the head with a DAB radio when younger, given his
hate of
it. Did you miss this quote:-

*****************

From: BBC is biased towards DAB
Subject: Internet radio - classical music, etc
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

We don't *need* DAB or DAB+. There are other options to DAB/DAB+.

*****************

Says it all, really. He doesn't 'need' DAB in any shape or form
therefore
no one else does. But it also begs the question on why he spends so
much
time 'discussing' something he doesn't need - and trying to put
others
off it. Sounds like a religion to me...


Of course we don't "need" radio at all, mankind survived perfectly
well
without it right up to about 100 years ago. But since we've all got
used
to having it we'd miss it if it disappeared. I'm pretty happy with
FM; I
get an excellent signal, on BBC anyway which is all I'm really
bothered
about. So I don't want them to turn it off, I can see no
justification
for analogue switch-off for sound radio (even though I've been
watching
digital TV almost exclusively for the past 13 years, so analogue
switch-off of TV will be a total non-event AFAIAC). But given that
Ofcom
seem to have a desperate desire to switch off analogue radio
eventually


It isn't Ofcom, it's the broadcasters taht are so desperate to switch
off FM because of the cost of transmitting both DAB and FM
simultaneously.


the question of what replaces it arises. Internet radio is fine for
those
who want it, but it's no substitute for over-the-air broadcast
radio.


Do you know all of the technologies available? If not, I suggest that
you don't start digging a hold that you'd struggle to get out of...


so
DAB in one form or another is "needed" as a replacement for analogue
radio if and when that eventually goes.


No, DAB is not needed.


Had Steve's line been "we want DAB, but we want a *better* DAB I'd
had
given him some respect.


If you take a look at my website, you'd see that I do very much
support DAB+. DAB+ was my idea, basically, and I "campaigned" for it
to be designed, so I obviously want to see it being used. However, I
want to see the right system used in the longer term, and that ain't
DAB or DAB+.


Although I don't think DAB as we have it is as
bad as has been claimed, it could be better.


In terms of the technologies it uses, DAB is attrocious. It really is
ridiculously out of date. All the technologies are about 20 years old
now, because that's when DAB was designed. In digital terms that's
preshistoric.


IMO the system was finalised
too early, in the first few years receiver sales were as close to
non-existent as makes very little difference. So there was an
opportunity
to re-think and choose a more modern codec,


Correct. But wasn't it you that said that that shouldn't have been
done earlier in this thread????


an opportunity that was
wasted. But suggesting that the BBC's support for DAB is part of a
conspiracy to do down internet radio (which is a grossly inefficient
way
of reaching mass audiences anyway) is plain daft.


Believe me, you don't even know a fraction of the things that leads me
to think this.


Most of the public
already have the facility to listen to internet radio if they want
to,
and the BBC is in no position to stop them.


That's missing the point of what promotion achieves. Promotion
actually makes people start doing things which they wouldn't have done
otherwise.



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

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote:
I came on here, noticed a thread, read the thread, noticed a whole
lot
of nonsense being spewed, and I've replied to some of that nonsense
so
that these people can see the error of their ways. That's it,
really,
and I'll be off when I choose.

In fact, I think I'll stay a bit longer than I was going to now
you've
tried to tell me what to do


I'm beginning to
wonder if you are perhaps a sock puppet of Phil Allison's.


I don't even know who that is.

You've certainly been caught out here again. Let me quote you from
earlier

***********
From: BBC is biased towards DAB
Subject: Internet radio - classical music, etc
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:55
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

Wondered when you'd turn up. Your search on DAB topics seems a bit
slow
compared to usual.


I don't search for DAB topics - I just stumbled across this thread.
************

If you were even an occasional reader of this group - or any other
audio
one - you'd know about Allison.


uk.rec.audio is in my list of NGs in my newsreader, along with the
likes of comp.dsp, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.php and many
others which I've never or haven't posted on in many years.
uk.rec.audio is a group that I sometimes just scan the topics of, but
DAB and Internet radio don't seem to be discussed much.

In the past, maybe a couple of years ago or so, I've read a couple of
threads where there's raging arguments going on on this NG. I
recognise the odd name, such as Andre Jute(?), but the name you
mentioned didn't ring a bell, sorry.


But then you've turned up on other groups I read as soon as DAB is
mentioned - and then disappear just as quickly.


There's some groups I visit every day, and I'd say I browse the topics
on here every few days or sometimes more. I certainly do not search
for DAB in Google Groups, which is presumably what you're suggesting,
or if you think I'd search for you and follow you round, I'd literally
prefer to catch a dose.



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

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message

He doesn't need to know anything about compressed audio to conduct
listening tests. Quite the contrary, the less he knows the less he is
going to be able to bias the result.


I can't respond to that without providing Plowman an answer to one of the
questions I've just asked him. Suffice to say that you're very wrong.


Ah!, a bald "you're very wrong" from someone who has never done any
double-blind listening tests!

I haven't done any formal tests.

Well I have. At one time my full-time job was doing double-blind listening
tests.

I have done a hell of a lot of A/B listening

Ah! the non-blind listening test with a subject panel of one biased
listener. I know the sort.

for DAB/FM on decent tuners, though. How much have you done? Loads no
doubt even though you've just got DAB. And what DAB receiver is it you
got, BTW?


You aren't very good at reading are you? Did I not say that I mostly
listened to FM? I've got several very good FM tuners and there's an FM
transmitter mast I can see out of my front room window, why would I want to
spend money on a DAB tuner? But my daughter has a Pure Evoke DAB radio
because she a fan of BBC7.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...


As mobile internet gets cheaper and more widespread, I think it more
likely that Joe Public will listen to Internet Radio on their mobile
'phone rather than buy a DAB portable.


An extraordinarily inefficient way for Joe Public to listen to the radio.
A broadcast transmitter uses up the same amount of bandwidth regardless of
how many listeners there are. With internet radio the bandwidth used is a
function of the number of listeners.

David.



Indeed, it is inefficient, but so is Internet Television, Music downloads
etc. I think that bandwidths and costs are going in the direction that
encourages profligacy, or at least, doesn't discourage it. Home broadband
started with download limits, which were rapidly increased, and/or converted
to unlimited use packages. I envisage that competitive pressures will ensure
that mobile broadband packages go the same way. Internet radio on a mobile
'phone will be all about portability and choice of channels, audio quality
won't be an issue, so streaming at 32kbps or less is quite likely. I've set
up streaming for our local Hospital Radio Station, 32kbps WME, and it's
perfectly acceptable as background at home, in the car, or on the bus.
www.radiowestsuffolk.co.uk

S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"David Looser" wrote in message

"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
...
"David Looser" wrote in message

He doesn't need to know anything about compressed audio to conduct
listening tests. Quite the contrary, the less he knows the less he
is
going to be able to bias the result.


I can't respond to that without providing Plowman an answer to one
of the
questions I've just asked him. Suffice to say that you're very
wrong.


Ah!, a bald "you're very wrong" from someone who has never done any
double-blind listening tests!


You don't need to have played Premiership football to be able to talk
about it.....

Yes, he is very wrong.


I haven't done any formal tests.

Well I have. At one time my full-time job was doing double-blind
listening
tests.


Would you like a medal?


I have done a hell of a lot of A/B listening

Ah! the non-blind listening test with a subject panel of one biased
listener. I know the sort.


I've just read your answer below, and you don't have a DAB tuner, so I
suggest that you actually do some A/B comparisons on a DAB/FM tuner
and get back to me. You'll understand when you actually have a listen.


for DAB/FM on decent tuners, though. How much have you done? Loads
no
doubt even though you've just got DAB. And what DAB receiver is it
you
got, BTW?


You aren't very good at reading are you? Did I not say that I
mostly
listened to FM? I've got several very good FM tuners and there's an
FM
transmitter mast I can see out of my front room window, why would I
want
to spend money on a DAB tuner? But my daughter has a Pure Evoke DAB
radio
because she a fan of BBC7.


Then I suggest that you borrow your daughter's DAB radio, hook it up
to a hi-fi and compare it with DAB. You need to do that BEFORE
commenting on the adequacy of the audio quality on DAB - but that
hasn't stopped you so far....




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

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"David Looser" wrote in message

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...


Considering that Ofcom are still awarding 8 year Commercial FM
licenses,
there's no likelihood of FM being turned off until 2017 at the
earliest.
They are currently awarding a large number of 5 year Community
Radio FM
licenses, so the prospects for FM to continue well into the future
seem
clear.

I remember hearing an interview a year or so back with a spokeswoman
from
Ofcom who was arguing strongly that analogue radio needed to be
turned off
to give a kick-start to DAB. She also said that it wasn't fair on
commercial broadcaster to expect them to pay for both FM and DAB
transmission, with the implication that it was FM that should go.


Are you sure you're not getting things mixed up with this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/20...lly_viable.php

I've never heard of any woman from Ofcom commenting on radio - it
would be Peter Davies or Ed Richards if anyone commented on it. And it
isn't Ofcom that wants FM switched off, it's teh broadcasters.


Of
course much has changed since. Several commercial broadcaster have
dumped
plans to launch DAB channels, particularly Ch4 who have abandoned
their
plan to launch several national channels including a speech-based
rival
to R4. So perhaps Ofcom are just adjusting a bit to the real world.


Ofcom just reflects what the commercial radio broadcasters want.


As mobile internet gets cheaper and more widespread, I think it
more
likely that Joe Public will listen to Internet Radio on their
mobile
'phone rather than buy a DAB portable.


An extraordinarily inefficient way for Joe Public to listen to the
radio.


Ever heard of IP Multicast?


A broadcast transmitter uses up the same amount of bandwidth
regardless
of how many listeners there are. With internet radio the bandwidth
used
is a function of the number of listeners.


I suggest you look up multicast.



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

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm