In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Good digital eh?, not that one they use for the DABble radio and the
Freeview telly then;?...

That statement suggests you think all analogue is perfect? Otherwise why
comment that all digital is not necessarily the same? Or have you been in
Currys recently? ;-)


Dave an I go back a long way debating this sort of thing. In my ever so
humble opinion I think that digital broadcasting could have been done
better.

Every system ever could be bettered. AM radio had its quality halved at a
stroke in the '70s.

Its now a screwed up outdated system for radio thats bloody useless for
most all applications, and the TV system thats gone for all Quantity and
sod the quality.

TV has always had variable quality. Depends on the source material. And
radio too. Or perhaps you don't remember just how bad some pop 45s sounded?

And yes I've been in Curry's and Vomit as well .. and no I wouldn't by
anything from either of those cesspits...

I just wondered since you imply that all digital should by nature be good.
Does your mobile phone give you good audio quality? Mine doesn't.
--



David!, really?, you bloody well know that phones are for simple voice
comms and are designed to fit a 300 odd to 3 K odd bandwidth..

So as to fit in with other fone networks;!...
--
Tony Sayer

One must question why people rant so romantically about the approximate 30
to 60 year period when the predominate mode of listening to music was so
distorted, �unsighted and thus so unnatural.

It's a frequently asked question, and the most frequent answer is that
it enabled people to use their own imagination. There a huge number of
people who prefer to read or prefer to listen to the radio, thus using
only one of their senses. They enjoy the simplicity and purity of
using only one sense and are more than happy to supply the rest of
their experience out of their own fertile heads.

andy evans