"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

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.


Most things in life "could have been done better", but digital broadcasting
could have been done a lot worse, as well.

Its now a screwed up outdated system for radio thats bloody useless for
most all applications,

"Most all" really??

and the TV system thats gone for all Quantity and

I claim no great experience of DAB, but I have been watching digital TV (and
listening to radio via the digital satellite platform) since 1995, and I
have to say that, IME, it's a fair bit better than analogue TV, both in
terms of picture and sound quality. It's interesting to see archive material
from the 1970s to see just how bad (by current standards) the technical
quality of so much TV of that period was. This, of course, is in terms of
production, rather than transmission, but it does show just how much
standards have improved.

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
It's interesting to see archive material from the 1970s to see just
how bad (by current standards) the technical quality of so much TV of
that period was. This, of course, is in terms of production, rather
than transmission, but it does show just how much standards have
improved.

To be fair, a great deal of it has suffered from poor archiving -
transferring decent original tapes using clapped out or poorly lined up
machines, etc. '70s stuff *at its best* would look little different from
todays.

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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Its now a screwed up outdated system for radio thats bloody useless for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.
--

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

David Looser wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
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.


Most things in life "could have been done better", but digital broadcasting
could have been done a lot worse, as well.


Yes, you're quite right of course. That's where the discussion ends for
most people.

Shame, rest on mediocrity. But there it is.

Rob

"Rob" wrote in message
. ..
David Looser wrote:
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
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.


Most things in life "could have been done better", but digital
broadcasting could have been done a lot worse, as well.


Yes, you're quite right of course. That's where the discussion ends for
most people.

Shame, rest on mediocrity. But there it is.


Mediocrity is not the word I would have chosen, compromise is. Striving for
perfection often leads to having nothing at all.

"The best is the enemy of the good"

David.

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Most things in life "could have been done better", but digital
broadcasting could have been done a lot worse, as well.


Yes, you're quite right of course. That's where the discussion ends for
most people.

Shame, rest on mediocrity. But there it is.

Well pretty well none were interested in DAB when it started out with
reasonable kbps. If the demand for 'quality' radio was really there I
wonder why? My guess is very very few 'seriously' listen to radio these
days.

--
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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


My guess is very very few 'seriously' listen to radio these
days.


Tha probably applies to music in general. Most people
use it as wallpaper. Very few people seem to be able
to sit,remain silent for the length of one movement of
a symphony, and actually listen.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

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


My guess is very very few 'seriously' listen to radio
these days.


That probably applies to music in general. Most people
use it as wallpaper. Very few people seem to be able
to sit,remain silent for the length of one movement of
a symphony, and actually listen.

That's because *just* listening to music has always been an unnatural thing,
one that we only ever did out of desperation.

For all time until early in the previous century, one could see the source
of the music one was listening to, which was one or more human being(s)
singing and/or playing. The exceptions were rare, such as obstructed vision
seating.

Then, in the 1920s some things very that were inherently very substandard
and very unnatural called radio and records became popular. They were
triumphs of art quality over basic human experience because they offered
better quality artistry at the cost of sound quality and actually seeing
the person(s) making the music. They made us all listen to music that was
audibly distorted and also like blind people.

Then in the 1930s the situation was somewhat corrected by film with sound,
later on television and even later on by widely-distributed
consumer-playable video recordings. It again became possible for music to be
experienced as nature had always intended, with the vision of the person(s)
making the music, and improving sound quality.

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.

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

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.


Most things in life "could have been done better", but digital broadcasting
could have been done a lot worse, as well.

Yep.. They couldn't have done it a -lot- worse tho;!..

Its now a screwed up outdated system for radio thats bloody useless for
most all applications,

"Most all" really??

and the TV system thats gone for all Quantity and

I claim no great experience of DAB, but I have been watching digital TV (and
listening to radio via the digital satellite platform) since 1995, and I
have to say that, IME, it's a fair bit better than analogue TV, both in
terms of picture and sound quality. It's interesting to see archive material
from the 1970s to see just how bad (by current standards) the technical
quality of so much TV of that period was. This, of course, is in terms of
production, rather than transmission, but it does show just how much
standards have improved.


As muttered before nowt -wrong- with digital transmission provided that
there are sufficient bits and if bits are limited then the best codec
for the job...

Radio Via satellite generally this is very good with some broadcasters
using sufficient bits and others not as good...

And the TV from some broadcasters is very good but UK TV still leaves a
bit or two to be desired;!..


UK T-DAB .. the digital joke system. So much wrong with it I haven't got
all day .. but the MUX system, the MP2 codec, and the lack of an agreed
digital radio standard in Europe at least for vehicles would be a
starting point...

David.



--
Tony Sayer

In article , Iain Churches
scribeth thus

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


My guess is very very few 'seriously' listen to radio these
days.


Tha probably applies to music in general. Most people
use it as wallpaper. Very few people seem to be able
to sit,remain silent for the length of one movement of
a symphony, and actually listen.

Iain





Sad but true ....
--
Tony Sayer