Audio, hi-fi and car audio

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

There wasn't meant to be a link between the first and and second
statements. And I've dealt with you before, so I might as well
say
from the off that I have no intention of jumping through your
hoops
attempting to "prove" that the BBC is biased. I can't actually
prove
it anyway,

OK. Your last statement seems to me like the key one. You are
simply
presenting your personal opinion as 'fact'.

I see Jim Lesurf is as dishonest as the BBC Liars he's sticking up
for.
You deliberately snipped that last sentence in such a way as to
completely alter the semantics of what I was saying, you dishonest
individual. This is the full sentence:

"I can't actually prove it anyway, because it would require them to
actually admit that they're biased, whcih they're too smart to
actually
do."

sigh Alas, your response simply illuminates the problems with
your
assertions and claims about this. I snipped your " ...because it
would
require them to actually admit that they're biased, whcih sic
they're too
smart to actually do" because that was another assertion on your
part. Not
evidence showing that your other opinion was 'fact'.

It was presented while you were admitting that you had no evidence
that
it was anything more than your personal opinion as to your own
asserted
"reason" for another of your opinions.

WRONG. I did not say that I didn't have any supporting evidence to
back up my assertion - you simply made that bit up. All I said was
that I can't *PROVE* that they're biased, because actual *PROOF* (i.e.
absolutely indisputable under any circumstances, cf a mathematical
proof) WOULD require the BBC to actually somehow admit that they're
biased, and anything less would NOT constitute PROOF. But you
dishonestly snipped that bit from the sentence when I said it.

I'll give a few examples of this supporting "evidence" below (I doubt
you consider any or much of it to be evidence, because everything's
black and white in Lepedant Land, and the examples I'll give won't be
sufficiently black to make the grade as "evidence"), First of all
though, do you dispute that the BBC is biased towards DAB? For
example, do you consider that the BBC has been acting in an impartial
manner with regards to digital platforms by broadcasting 22 TV
advertising campaigns for DAB and no TV advertising campaigns for
Internet radio? And presumably when the ex-BBC Controller in charge of
digital radio (and the person behind the BBC's DAB planning and their
use of low bi rates) said on Radio 4 Feedback that "of course the BBC
would prefer it if everybody listened to digitral radio via DAB", that
will probably be irrelevant information in Lepedant's eyes, because
again it doesn't constitute indisputable proof of the fact that the
BBC is biased.

The fact that the BBC refused to increase the bit rate levels on teh
digital TV platforms despite the fact that they've got 231 Mbps of
capacity on satellite and increasing the bit rate levels of the radio
stations to deliver them at "high" quality would only have required
around 300 kbps in total to be reallocated to the radio stations is
presumably also irrelevant in Lepedant's eyes.

The fact that the BBC delivered the Internet radio streams for Radios
1, 2 and 4 at 32 kbps with the diabolical Real G2 audio codec until
mid 2007, despite the fact that in December 2007 the BBC launched the
iPlayer TV streams, which began life using 500 kbps, and the bandwidth
consumed by the iPlayer TV streams overtook that consumed by the
Internet radio streams in their first month since launch is presumably
also irrelevant in Lepedant's eyes.

The fact that the BBC chose to "transcode" the audio for the Internet
radio streams by receiving their own radio stations off air via
satellite (the MP2 streams everybody receives via satellite) then
re-encoded them to Real Player prior to distribution, despite the fact
that transcodign is well known to be awful audio engineering practice,
will also be highly irrelevant in Lepedant's eyes. He will also ignore
the fact that they were only transcodign teh audio in order to save
about £5k - £10k per annum by not installing a leased line to
transport the uincompressed audio directly to where the encoders and
Internet servers were housed in Maidenhead, even though the BBC is
spending around £10m per annum on broadcasting DAB - a figure that
will increase to £40m per annum once universal coverage has been
achieved for the BBC's national DAB multiplex (a figure that Lepedant
continually questioned earlier in teh thread despite the fact that I'd
already told him what the £40m figure covered - he is Lepedant after
all, so I should expect him not to accept any answer I provide).

The fact that the BBC was the main player within the Digital Radio
Working Group that recommended to government that FM should be
switched off and that DAB should replace FM, whereas Internet radio
didn't receive any recommendations in the DRWG final report for
government, will also be irrelevant to Lepedant, who would only be
satisfied by the BBC saying (presumably directly on the phone to him
so that he can carry out Lepedant questioning of what they're saying)
that they are biased towards DAB and they are biased against Itnernt
radio.

The fact that Mark Friend, the current BBC Controller in charge of
digitla radio, was the Chairman of the Technical sub-group within the
DRWG, and in his presentation at the DRWG stakeholder meeting he
provided a list of supposed "drawbacks" for Internet radio, most of
which were simply fabricated because they weren't even problems now
let alone in teh future, and others which will be solved in the
future, and seemingly on that basis Internet radio wasn't included in
any of the recommendations made by the DRWG to government.

How convenient that the big radio broadcasters chose not to include
Internet radio in the DRWG report's recommendations considering that
they're "terrified" of Internet radio (see the quote in my sig, which
was made by someone who was the chief exec of the GMG Radio group
until last year, so he should know how the radio industry perceives
the threat posed by Internet radio). Interesting how they want to push
everyone onto DAB even though the stats show that young people don't
seem interested in buying DAB, because they see it as old fashioned,
and they seem to prefer platforms such as the Internet, because that's
where they spend most of their time on social networking sites and so
on.

It is somewhat puzzling that Internet radio has been excluded from the
plans towards FM switch off considering that young people don't seem
to like DAB, because promoting something that they don't seem to want
is surely counter-productive to increasing take up amongst young
people, no? Of course this is another opinion of mine, so that will be
stricken from the record by Lepedant, who is only interested in black
and white matters that are proved or disproved by indisputable facts,
and shades of grey in between and common sense issues can be safely
ignored by labelling them as merely POV.

And the fact that James Cridland repeatedly said on BBC Internet and
BBC Radio Labs blogs last year that the BBC intended to provide the
live streams at lower audio quality than the on-demand streams because
live radio is also available via FM, DAB and the digital TV platforms
will also be (in fact it already has been) ignored by Ledepant, even
though that was being biased against the live Internet radio streams
by the very definition of the word "biased" - yet Lepedant actually
dishonestly claimed that I said that I didn't have any evidence to
back up my assertion that the BBC is biased towards DAB and biased
against Internet radio, even though IMO this was an example that
proved that they were biased in this way, and they only relented
because I continually hounded them on this issue.

The fact that the BBC refuses to support live Internet radio streaming
to mobiles (other than those on a carefully selected list, and even
then the live stream links are difficult to find and they're excluded
from the iPlayer widget included on that carefully selected list of
supported mobiles) whereas Mark Friend said at both of the last two
digital radio conferences how keen he is to get DAB included in Nokia
mobiles, and the fact that the BBC refuses to add its radio stations
to the free Nokia Internet radio application is presumably also
irrelevant in Lepedant's eyes.

I've no doubt missed out a few more examples that strongly point to
the BBC being biased towards DAB and biased against Internt radio
(there are countless examples of small remarks made by BBC digital
radio execs such as on their own blogs or on Twitter (before they
realised I was reading what they said, anyway) and so on that also
help to reveal how they really view the platforms issue when they're
not speaking in their BBC capacity), but I think that will be enough
to be going on with.

All of the above points are discussed at much greater lenght in
articles on my website:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/

Feel free to read some of the relevant articles, Lepedant, and feel
free to claim that I don't have any evidence. Also feel free to
continue supporting the BBC on this, even though anybody who does
claim that the BBC isn't biased towards DAB is an utter fool in my
opinion, because it would require someone to have lived on the moon
for the last decade not to have noticed that the BBC is blatantly
biased towards DAB.

--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report