"Serge Auckland" wrote in message

"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
...
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message


loads snipped
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.


There are over 8,000 Internet radio streams on shoutcast.com using
128
kbps or higher, and a third of all UK commercial radio stations are
using
128 kbps. Don't see why you think 32 kbps will be common for
Internet
radio streams, to be honest.



--
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

Perhaps it won't but what I'm saying is that mobile broadband
internet
radio will become more popular than portable radio receivers,
whether AM,
FM or DAB.


60% of all radio listening takes place at home though, and there's no
point in listening to radio via mobile broadband when you're at home
(assuming there's a fixed-line broadband connection).


If adequate quality for the purpose is available at only
32kbps, then bandwidth is no bar to this developing.


32 kbps isn't adequate, though.




--
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

"David Looser" wrote in message

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

Internet bandwidth costs fall in-line with Moore's Law, because
Moore's
Law increases the speed of Internet routers without increasing the
costs
of the routers.



Frankly Steve, if you can write something as naive as that, your
opinion
isn't worth bothering with.

Suffice it to say that internet costs are more to do with
transmission
systems than routers, and that is particularly true of mobile
internet.


I meant Internet bandwidth costs for content producers. Have a read of
this section if you don't believe me:

http://tinyurl.com/5bzosx

I'm not in any way suggesting that the cost of mobile broadband is
linked to Moore's Law.

Spectral efficiency on mobile systems can be increased though, because
the new 4G systems such as LTE and WiMAX are using MIMO, and the 5G
system when it's chosen will use MIMO in a big way - MIMO allows the
channel capacity to be multiplied by the number of antennas used at
either end of the link. There's a 5G prototype system that uses 12x12
MIMO, and that literally has a capacity that's 12x what it would be
using single antennas, and it's been demonstrated transmitting at 5
Gbps to a moving receiver - in a 100 MHz channel. We obviuosly won't
see those speeds ourselves, but it shows what the technology is
capable of and the incredibly high spectral efficiency is allows.



--
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

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:06:48 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

BTW, do you have any evidence to back any of these up:

"Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it."

"CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory
system"

"It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD."

"Since the CD there has not been a single development that has
improved
the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener."

Go on. prove me wrong in any one of these instances. This should be
interesting - I'll give you a start for each

1. Classical music is less complex and demanding than modern pop
because....

2. The human auditory system has more definition than the CD in the
following areas...

3. It is readily possible to compare CD to SACD - you just...

4. The following developments have improved on the sound of the CD,
resulting in wide adoption by the classical listener...

Over to you. Just complete those sentences.

d

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4997c65d.512004828@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:06:48 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

BTW, do you have any evidence to back any of these up:

"Because classical music is generally far more complex and
demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it."

"CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory
system"

"It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD."

"Since the CD there has not been a single development that has
improved
the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical
listener."

Go on. prove me wrong in any one of these instances.


You're the one making the claim, so you should be able to back that
claim up. Apparently it's my inability to do that with your lickle
listening test that made you brand me a failure.

So, step to it, Pearce.


This should be
interesting - I'll give you a start for each

1. Classical music is less complex and demanding than modern pop
because....

2. The human auditory system has more definition than the CD in the
following areas...

3. It is readily possible to compare CD to SACD - you just...

4. The following developments have improved on the sound of the CD,
resulting in wide adoption by the classical listener...

Over to you. Just complete those sentences.


Er, no. I don't think you've quite got the hang of this. You made teh
claims, so you have to back the claims up. Surely that's a simple
thing to understand?




--
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

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:38:52 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4997c65d.512004828@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:06:48 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

BTW, do you have any evidence to back any of these up:

"Because classical music is generally far more complex and
demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it."

"CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory
system"

"It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD."

"Since the CD there has not been a single development that has
improved
the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical
listener."

Go on. prove me wrong in any one of these instances.


You're the one making the claim, so you should be able to back that
claim up. Apparently it's my inability to do that with your lickle
listening test that made you brand me a failure.

So, step to it, Pearce.


This should be
interesting - I'll give you a start for each

1. Classical music is less complex and demanding than modern pop
because....

2. The human auditory system has more definition than the CD in the
following areas...

3. It is readily possible to compare CD to SACD - you just...

4. The following developments have improved on the sound of the CD,
resulting in wide adoption by the classical listener...

Over to you. Just complete those sentences.


Er, no. I don't think you've quite got the hang of this. You made teh
claims, so you have to back the claims up. Surely that's a simple
thing to understand?


No, this is how it goes. All my statements are reasonable and in line
with everybody's experience - had it been otherwise somebody would
immediately have picked me up on it. You have now made the
extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self
evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be proved.

Now get on with it.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:38:52 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4997c65d.512004828@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:06:48 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

BTW, do you have any evidence to back any of these up:

"Because classical music is generally far more complex and
demanding
than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it."

"CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human
auditory
system"

"It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD."

"Since the CD there has not been a single development that has
improved
the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical
listener."

Go on. prove me wrong in any one of these instances.


You're the one making the claim, so you should be able to back that
claim up. Apparently it's my inability to do that with your lickle
listening test that made you brand me a failure.

So, step to it, Pearce.


This should be
interesting - I'll give you a start for each

1. Classical music is less complex and demanding than modern pop
because....

2. The human auditory system has more definition than the CD in
the
following areas...

3. It is readily possible to compare CD to SACD - you just...

4. The following developments have improved on the sound of the
CD,
resulting in wide adoption by the classical listener...

Over to you. Just complete those sentences.


Er, no. I don't think you've quite got the hang of this. You made
teh
claims, so you have to back the claims up. Surely that's a simple
thing to understand?


No, this is how it goes. All my statements are reasonable and in
line
with everybody's experience


Apart from those who disagree with you.


- had it been otherwise somebody would
immediately have picked me up on it.


I noticed that at least one of the things I quoted, someone had picked
up on what you'd said.


You have now made the
extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self
evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be proved.


No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously on you
to prove them.


Now get on with it.


No, the onus is on you, because you've made the claims.



--
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

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:07:42 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

You have now made the
extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self
evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be proved.


No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously on you
to prove them.

So there we go. You can't pass a simple listening test, and you now
realise that you have just foolishly disagreed with a whole raft of
well known and accepted truths. Competence isn't exactly shining
through is it?

But I am happy to get the ball rolling.

1. Classical music is more complex and demanding than modern pop.
First, it is longer - that demands a greater concentration span.
Second, it is generally written in several movements in varied time
signatures, as opposed to modern pop, which is typically in a simple
4/4 or 8/8 signature.
Third, it makes great use of interpretive rubato - something which
can't be done with a pop tune locked to a click track.
Fourth the harmonies are varied and often not those which would
immediately suggest themselves. Contrast the simple thirds and fifths
of pop music - when there are any, that is.
Fifth the performance must be great because unlike pop, vocoding
devices to bring the performances back in tune can't be used.

2. The CD has more definition than the human auditory system.
Frequency range - the CD is flat from 0Hz to 22kHz. At normal
listening levels, human hearing is down about 20dB at 20Hz and 20kHz.
Linearity - The CD has vanishingly small distortion over almost 100dB
of dynamic range. Human hearing is only marginally linear at mid
frequencies, and heavily expansive for treble, and particularly bass.
Resolution - the CD has effectively infinite frequency resolution. The
human ear suffers masking, resulting in the ability to hear low level
sounds close in frequency to a high level one.

3. It is not easy to compare CD and SACD.
The DACs are not the same, so accurate levelling is not simple.
They do not go through the same mastering process so there is no
like-for-like material available to make the comparison.

4. Developments since the CD have not improved audible quality.
The answer to 2 above already demonstrates this, but to see the truth
of this you need only look at what the developments are.
MP2 - a compressed version of CD, therefore by definition not better.
MP3 - ditto
AAC - ditto
Minidisc - ditto

I think I will leave that there.

OK - I'm done. Now time for you to put your money where your mouth is
and demonstrate that all of those are false.

d

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4998dad6.517245406@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:07:42 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

You have now made the
extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self
evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be
proved.


No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously on
you
to prove them.

So there we go. You can't pass a simple listening test, and you now
realise that you have just foolishly disagreed with a whole raft of
well known and accepted truths. Competence isn't exactly shining
through is it?

But I am happy to get the ball rolling.

1. Classical music is more complex and demanding than modern pop.
First, it is longer - that demands a greater concentration span.


Doesn't prove anything.


Second, it is generally written in several movements in varied time
signatures, as opposed to modern pop, which is typically in a simple
4/4 or 8/8 signature.


This proves nothing.


Third, it makes great use of interpretive rubato - something which
can't be done with a pop tune locked to a click track.


You said:

"it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it"

When are you gonig to get round to the "intelligence" bit?

Wouldn't happen to be because you can't prove that, would it?


Fourth the harmonies are varied and often not those which would
immediately suggest themselves. Contrast the simple thirds and
fifths
of pop music - when there are any, that is.
Fifth the performance must be great because unlike pop, vocoding
devices to bring the performances back in tune can't be used.


See above.

Overall: FAIL


2. The CD has more definition than the human auditory system.
Frequency range - the CD is flat from 0Hz to 22kHz.


Is there an infinite transition bandwidth at 22 kHz? That's an
impossibility, because it requires non-causal filters which require an
infinite number of filter taps. So what figure are you actually
claiming the bandwidth is for a CD?


At normal
listening levels, human hearing is down about 20dB at 20Hz and
20kHz.


Does psychoacoustic theory actually make any claims such as "nobody
will have hearing above X kHz" and other stuff like that?

At best, everything's statistical - all the psychoacoustic models have
to be statistical, becaue they can't exactly have measured every
single person's hearing on the planet.

This implies that nothing can be proven with absolutely certainty - so
the very best you can say is that you're X% certain of Y being true
based on statistical analysis.

Overall: FAIL


Linearity - The CD has vanishingly small distortion over almost
100dB
of dynamic range. Human hearing is only marginally linear at mid
frequencies, and heavily expansive for treble, and particularly
bass.


Can you prove that no-one can perceive the difference between 16 and
24 bit? Obviously not, so FAIL.


Resolution - the CD has effectively infinite frequency resolution.
The
human ear suffers masking, resulting in the ability to hear low
level
sounds close in frequency to a high level one.


You can't prove this. FAIL


3. It is not easy to compare CD and SACD.
The DACs are not the same, so accurate levelling is not simple.


Is it impossible? If it's not impossible then FAIL.


They do not go through the same mastering process so there is no
like-for-like material available to make the comparison.


Is it possible to master a CD that is to all intents and purposes a
44.1 kHz 16-bit version of an SACD or whichever other high-resolution
audio format? If so, then FAIL.


4. Developments since the CD have not improved audible quality.
The answer to 2 above already demonstrates this, but to see the
truth
of this you need only look at what the developments are.
MP2 - a compressed version of CD, therefore by definition not
better.
MP3 - ditto
AAC - ditto
Minidisc - ditto

I think I will leave that there.


Since the CD came out, there have been attempts to provide higher
audio quality, which you cannot prove do not provide higher audio
qulaityu than CD does.

All you're doing is using the circular argument that because *you
believe* that the CD is slightly overspecified wrt human hearing then
it doesn't allow trhe quality to be improved upon relative to CD,
therefore any attempts at designing new audio formats will either be
no better than or worse than CD. There have been formats that deilver
sound quality below CD, therefore your circular argument has it that
the only developments have led to reductions in quality.

However, you have failed to prove that humans can't perceive any
improvement relative to CD, therefore this and all the other claims
come crashing down in a big FAIL FEST.

Overall: FAIL.


OK - I'm done. Now time for you to put your money where your mouth
is
and demonstrate that all of those are false.


Done.

Your turn.

The reason I chose the quotes I did was because I knew you *couldn't*
prove them. The best you could possibly do is argue the case, but
theyr'e actually unprovable, so I couldn't lose.

Thanks for playing the Self-Defeating Game, though.




--
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

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:57:23 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4998dad6.517245406@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:07:42 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

You have now made the
extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self
evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be
proved.


No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously on
you
to prove them.

So there we go. You can't pass a simple listening test, and you now
realise that you have just foolishly disagreed with a whole raft of
well known and accepted truths. Competence isn't exactly shining
through is it?

But I am happy to get the ball rolling.

1. Classical music is more complex and demanding than modern pop.
First, it is longer - that demands a greater concentration span.


Doesn't prove anything.


Second, it is generally written in several movements in varied time
signatures, as opposed to modern pop, which is typically in a simple
4/4 or 8/8 signature.


This proves nothing.


Third, it makes great use of interpretive rubato - something which
can't be done with a pop tune locked to a click track.


You said:

"it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it"

When are you gonig to get round to the "intelligence" bit?

Wouldn't happen to be because you can't prove that, would it?


Fourth the harmonies are varied and often not those which would
immediately suggest themselves. Contrast the simple thirds and
fifths
of pop music - when there are any, that is.
Fifth the performance must be great because unlike pop, vocoding
devices to bring the performances back in tune can't be used.


See above.

Overall: FAIL


2. The CD has more definition than the human auditory system.
Frequency range - the CD is flat from 0Hz to 22kHz.


Is there an infinite transition bandwidth at 22 kHz? That's an
impossibility, because it requires non-causal filters which require an
infinite number of filter taps. So what figure are you actually
claiming the bandwidth is for a CD?


At normal
listening levels, human hearing is down about 20dB at 20Hz and
20kHz.


Does psychoacoustic theory actually make any claims such as "nobody
will have hearing above X kHz" and other stuff like that?

At best, everything's statistical - all the psychoacoustic models have
to be statistical, becaue they can't exactly have measured every
single person's hearing on the planet.

This implies that nothing can be proven with absolutely certainty - so
the very best you can say is that you're X% certain of Y being true
based on statistical analysis.

Overall: FAIL


Linearity - The CD has vanishingly small distortion over almost
100dB
of dynamic range. Human hearing is only marginally linear at mid
frequencies, and heavily expansive for treble, and particularly
bass.


Can you prove that no-one can perceive the difference between 16 and
24 bit? Obviously not, so FAIL.


Resolution - the CD has effectively infinite frequency resolution.
The
human ear suffers masking, resulting in the ability to hear low
level
sounds close in frequency to a high level one.


You can't prove this. FAIL


3. It is not easy to compare CD and SACD.
The DACs are not the same, so accurate levelling is not simple.


Is it impossible? If it's not impossible then FAIL.


They do not go through the same mastering process so there is no
like-for-like material available to make the comparison.


Is it possible to master a CD that is to all intents and purposes a
44.1 kHz 16-bit version of an SACD or whichever other high-resolution
audio format? If so, then FAIL.


4. Developments since the CD have not improved audible quality.
The answer to 2 above already demonstrates this, but to see the
truth
of this you need only look at what the developments are.
MP2 - a compressed version of CD, therefore by definition not
better.
MP3 - ditto
AAC - ditto
Minidisc - ditto

I think I will leave that there.


Since the CD came out, there have been attempts to provide higher
audio quality, which you cannot prove do not provide higher audio
qulaityu than CD does.

All you're doing is using the circular argument that because *you
believe* that the CD is slightly overspecified wrt human hearing then
it doesn't allow trhe quality to be improved upon relative to CD,
therefore any attempts at designing new audio formats will either be
no better than or worse than CD. There have been formats that deilver
sound quality below CD, therefore your circular argument has it that
the only developments have led to reductions in quality.

However, you have failed to prove that humans can't perceive any
improvement relative to CD, therefore this and all the other claims
come crashing down in a big FAIL FEST.

Overall: FAIL.


OK - I'm done. Now time for you to put your money where your mouth
is
and demonstrate that all of those are false.


Done.

Your turn.

The reason I chose the quotes I did was because I knew you *couldn't*
prove them. The best you could possibly do is argue the case, but
theyr'e actually unprovable, so I couldn't lose.

Thanks for playing the Self-Defeating Game, though.

I've argued the case, as you say. And you have provided nothing
contrary - merely denied. You know that isn't good enough.

As you have nothing to offer on this subject, my conversation with you
closes at this point.

d

Don Pearce wrote in message news:499aeaab.521298390@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:57:23 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote in message news:4998dad6.517245406@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:07:42 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote:

You have now made the
extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self
evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be
proved.


No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously
on
you
to prove them.

So there we go. You can't pass a simple listening test, and you
now
realise that you have just foolishly disagreed with a whole raft
of
well known and accepted truths. Competence isn't exactly shining
through is it?

But I am happy to get the ball rolling.

1. Classical music is more complex and demanding than modern pop.
First, it is longer - that demands a greater concentration span.


Doesn't prove anything.


Second, it is generally written in several movements in varied
time
signatures, as opposed to modern pop, which is typically in a
simple
4/4 or 8/8 signature.


This proves nothing.


Third, it makes great use of interpretive rubato - something which
can't be done with a pop tune locked to a click track.


You said:

"it takes a greater degree of intelligence to
understand and appreciate it"

When are you gonig to get round to the "intelligence" bit?

Wouldn't happen to be because you can't prove that, would it?


Fourth the harmonies are varied and often not those which would
immediately suggest themselves. Contrast the simple thirds and
fifths
of pop music - when there are any, that is.
Fifth the performance must be great because unlike pop, vocoding
devices to bring the performances back in tune can't be used.


See above.

Overall: FAIL


2. The CD has more definition than the human auditory system.
Frequency range - the CD is flat from 0Hz to 22kHz.


Is there an infinite transition bandwidth at 22 kHz? That's an
impossibility, because it requires non-causal filters which require
an
infinite number of filter taps. So what figure are you actually
claiming the bandwidth is for a CD?


At normal
listening levels, human hearing is down about 20dB at 20Hz and
20kHz.


Does psychoacoustic theory actually make any claims such as "nobody
will have hearing above X kHz" and other stuff like that?

At best, everything's statistical - all the psychoacoustic models
have
to be statistical, becaue they can't exactly have measured every
single person's hearing on the planet.

This implies that nothing can be proven with absolutely certainty -
so
the very best you can say is that you're X% certain of Y being true
based on statistical analysis.

Overall: FAIL


Linearity - The CD has vanishingly small distortion over almost
100dB
of dynamic range. Human hearing is only marginally linear at mid
frequencies, and heavily expansive for treble, and particularly
bass.


Can you prove that no-one can perceive the difference between 16
and
24 bit? Obviously not, so FAIL.


Resolution - the CD has effectively infinite frequency resolution.
The
human ear suffers masking, resulting in the ability to hear low
level
sounds close in frequency to a high level one.


You can't prove this. FAIL


3. It is not easy to compare CD and SACD.
The DACs are not the same, so accurate levelling is not simple.


Is it impossible? If it's not impossible then FAIL.


They do not go through the same mastering process so there is no
like-for-like material available to make the comparison.


Is it possible to master a CD that is to all intents and purposes a
44.1 kHz 16-bit version of an SACD or whichever other
high-resolution
audio format? If so, then FAIL.


4. Developments since the CD have not improved audible quality.
The answer to 2 above already demonstrates this, but to see the
truth
of this you need only look at what the developments are.
MP2 - a compressed version of CD, therefore by definition not
better.
MP3 - ditto
AAC - ditto
Minidisc - ditto

I think I will leave that there.


Since the CD came out, there have been attempts to provide higher
audio quality, which you cannot prove do not provide higher audio
qulaityu than CD does.

All you're doing is using the circular argument that because *you
believe* that the CD is slightly overspecified wrt human hearing
then
it doesn't allow trhe quality to be improved upon relative to CD,
therefore any attempts at designing new audio formats will either
be
no better than or worse than CD. There have been formats that
deilver
sound quality below CD, therefore your circular argument has it
that
the only developments have led to reductions in quality.

However, you have failed to prove that humans can't perceive any
improvement relative to CD, therefore this and all the other claims
come crashing down in a big FAIL FEST.

Overall: FAIL.


OK - I'm done. Now time for you to put your money where your mouth
is
and demonstrate that all of those are false.


Done.

Your turn.

The reason I chose the quotes I did was because I knew you
*couldn't*
prove them. The best you could possibly do is argue the case, but
theyr'e actually unprovable, so I couldn't lose.

Thanks for playing the Self-Defeating Game, though.

I've argued the case, as you say. And you have provided nothing
contrary - merely denied. You know that isn't good enough.


No, I deliberately chose quotes that you *couldn't* prove. I've
already told you that.


As you have nothing to offer on this subject, my conversation with
you
closes at this point.


Clearly a sore loser.



--
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