Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...
I normally listen on FM of course, but yesterday I checked on the bit
rate on Radio 4 yesterday morning and it was 128 kbps. Noticeably
inferior to FM.

FM doesn't have a "bit rate", so it's meaningless to say that 128kb/s is
"noticeably inferior" to it.

Or perhaps you mean that the sound quality was "noticeably inferior"?,
in what way?, and what scientific listening tests did you set up to
determine it?

I have noticed that this thread seems to be afflicted by a similar
phenomenon to digital camera "megapixelitis", when it's the number of
megapixels that matter, not the quality of the pictures.

Could well be. The average man in the street doesn't whinge on and on
about DAB quality - and my guess is many who do on the likes of these
groups don't actually possess a DAB tuner. And sound quality on portable
DAB radios is influenced by rather more than just the data rate.


Of course. In fairness the centre of the DAB 'whinge' was always that it
could have been so much better, and not that it was/is intrinsically
bad. 'Better', as you seem to suggest below, can't always be detected
even if it has theoretical advantages.

Some time ago I set up a test. Recorded the same clips from R1,3 and 4 off
DAB, FM and AM (AM using a Quad AM3 with proper aerial) Adjusted levels
so they were subjectively the same. Then played the clips sequentially to
a 'panel' of assorted ages. Chosen purely at random as they were just
friends.

The results were totally inconclusive. Even to the point were not everyone
got the AM ones correct each time. But to be fair, I should point out it
was at Xmas and strong drink had been taken. ;-)


To extend your anecdote to one of my own, 'hifi' simply isn't important
to many people. Provided that sound quality is sufficient, they're not
going to know which is best because there's no consistent point of
reference. Depends on the questions you asked I suppose. And drink plied.

Rob