Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
It wasn't designed by 'BBC executives' But altered by them later.
After very few appeared to want to use it. But don't let facts get in
the way of your rants.


AAC was available from 1997. The BBC ignored the existence of AAC and
lanched DAB anyway. That is grossly incompetent.

The DAB spec was finalised long before 1997. Same as anything else like
that.


Yes, so all the more time to realise that DAB wasn't up to the job. Do you
not even realise that 100 - 120 smaller UK local stations can't even get on
DAB either due to there being no capacity left in their area or they simply
can't afford to transmit on DAB?

WHICH IMBECILES thought it was a good idea to launch a system that couldn't
even carry all the stations? AND this is after they've decimated the bit
rates. If they broadcast at good audio quality levels the DAB system would
probably only be able to carry 50% of all UK radio stations.

It's a ****ing joke, and how anybody can stick up for it is beyond me.


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

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
The BBC R&D engineers were basoically screaming about how good AAC was
compared to MP2 from 1996 onwards. Please don't try to tell me that
there wasn't time to adopt AAC, because there was.

I am telling you. To change the spec at that late date would have been a
nonsense.


Bull****. The system already existed, and it had the features available
that made it easy to upgrade - that's why it only took 12 months to
design DAB+. You don't know what you're talkking about.

Neither do you. A great deal has changed in the speed things can be
designed and implemented since DAB was finalised. Try talking to those who
designed it in the first place.

And takes no account of those who may find DAB under certain
conditions quite satisfactory.


A system shouldn't be designed jsut to cater for mediocrity.

Like FM, you mean? Which is perfectly capable of giving dreadful
results.


FM provides very good audio quality if you've got good reception
quality. You haven't, but tens of millions of people do have good FM
reception quality.

Tens of millions? Rubbish. The only way to get decent FM reception - and
that in a reasonable area - is with a good outside aerial. And there
aren't 'tens of millions' of those.

--
*He broke into song because he couldn't find the key*

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

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
At the risk of actually siding with Steve, I do think that the DAB spec
was finalised too early.
You could say that about near anything - with hindsight.

It was many years afterwards that receivers
cheap enough for ordinary people to buy became available, during those
years there was opportunity to have updated the audio codec at least.

And make such equipment as had been bought obsolete? Great thinking.

Unlike digital TV, DAB has been, and continues to be, a hard sell.

Because there already was a vast choice of popular stations on FM and AM.
Not like TV with only 5. It's interesting that DAB has actually offered
very little more choice. Which backs up my theory that radio is no longer
a serious medium for most.

By
and large people don't want DAB sets and are not buying them in
sufficient numbers to allow analogue to be switched-off in anything
remotely approaching the timetable that Ofcom have in mind. Frankly I
can see no good reason to switch analogue off at all, it's hardly going
to save much spectrum.

I can't see it happening.

--
*If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.

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

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Unlike digital TV, DAB has been, and continues to be, a hard sell. By
and large people don't want DAB sets and are not buying them in
sufficient numbers to allow analogue to be switched-off in anything
remotely approaching the timetable that Ofcom have in mind. Frankly I
can see no good reason to switch analogue off at all, it's hardly
going to save much spectrum.


Well said David. I can see we're going to become close friends after all.

If that is sense, why do you waste so much time and effort on something so
unimportant?

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
The BBC R&D engineers were basoically screaming about how good AAC was
compared to MP2 from 1996 onwards. Please don't try to tell me that
there wasn't time to adopt AAC, because there was.

I am telling you. To change the spec at that late date would have been a
nonsense.


Bull****. The system already existed, and it had the features available
that made it easy to upgrade - that's why it only took 12 months to
design DAB+. You don't know what you're talkking about.

Neither do you. A great deal has changed in the speed things can be
designed and implemented since DAB was finalised. Try talking to those who
designed it in the first place.


I'd rather not in case their incompetence rubs off on me.


And takes no account of those who may find DAB under certain
conditions quite satisfactory.


A system shouldn't be designed jsut to cater for mediocrity.

Like FM, you mean? Which is perfectly capable of giving dreadful
results.


FM provides very good audio quality if you've got good reception
quality. You haven't, but tens of millions of people do have good FM
reception quality.

Tens of millions? Rubbish. The only way to get decent FM reception - and
that in a reasonable area - is with a good outside aerial. And there
aren't 'tens of millions' of those.


********.


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

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Unlike digital TV, DAB has been, and continues to be, a hard sell. By
and large people don't want DAB sets and are not buying them in
sufficient numbers to allow analogue to be switched-off in anything
remotely approaching the timetable that Ofcom have in mind. Frankly I
can see no good reason to switch analogue off at all, it's hardly
going to save much spectrum.


Well said David. I can see we're going to become close friends after all.

If that is sense, why do you waste so much time and effort on something so
unimportant?


God, give me the strength to carry on in the face of Plow********'
stupidity.

There are 60 million people in the UK. I'll let you ponder on that.


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

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
At the risk of actually siding with Steve, I do think that the DAB spec
was finalised too early.
You could say that about near anything - with hindsight.


DAB was launched with the following features:

* low audio quality
* it had insufficient capacity to carry a third of all UK commercial radio
stations, even after they'd screwed the bit rate levels
* reception quality is unreliable
* it's ultra-expensive to transmit

DAB was a failure on the day it launched.

Face facts.



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

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Unlike digital TV, DAB has been, and continues to be, a hard sell. By
and large people don't want DAB sets and are not buying them in
sufficient numbers to allow analogue to be switched-off in anything
remotely approaching the timetable that Ofcom have in mind. Frankly I
can see no good reason to switch analogue off at all, it's hardly
going to save much spectrum.


Well said David. I can see we're going to become close friends after all.

If that is sense, why do you waste so much time and effort on something so
unimportant?


Congrats Dave, you've just taken the 'vacuous post of the year' award.

--
Bill Coombes

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
David Looser wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Mr DAB refuses to acknowledge that the current system was finalized
long before any of his alternatives.

AAC was standardised in 1997, DAB was properly launched in the UK in
2002.
Doubt anyone cares about when you think DAB was 'properly' launched.

At the risk of actually siding with Steve, I do think that the DAB spec
was finalised too early. It was many years afterwards that receivers cheap
enough for ordinary people to buy became available, during those years
there was opportunity to have updated the audio codec at least.


Well bugger me senseless. Sense has broken out in uk.rec.audio for once!!!



Bound to be a temporary blip.

--
Bill Coombes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
At the risk of actually siding with Steve, I do think that the DAB spec
was finalised too early.

You could say that about near anything - with hindsight.

I don't think so. Whilst clearly the march of technical progress tends to
make any established service/product look out of date eventually, few have
looked quite so out of date quite so soon as DAB.

It was many years afterwards that receivers
cheap enough for ordinary people to buy became available, during those
years there was opportunity to have updated the audio codec at least.

And make such equipment as had been bought obsolete? Great thinking.

It has happened before. In 1935 those who had bought or built receivers for
the 30-line TV service were not best pleased when it was abruptly
discontinued. In 2002 there were probably no more than a few thousand DAB
receivers in private hands, fewer than the number of 30-line receivers in
use in 1935, yet Ofcom is cheerfully talking about making *millions* of
analogue receivers obsolete within a few short years from now.

Unlike digital TV, DAB has been, and continues to be, a hard sell.

Because there already was a vast choice of popular stations on FM and AM.
Not like TV with only 5. It's interesting that DAB has actually offered
very little more choice. Which backs up my theory that radio is no longer
a serious medium for most.


There are differences between the way people "consume" TV and the way they
consume radio. Whilst they are happy to channel hop on TV, most people tend
to find one or two radio stations they like and stick to them. So a huge
choice of stations on radio has far less appeal than it does on TV. I would
also agree with your comment about radio not being a serious medium for
most. 'Pop' stations in particular seem to be used mostly as a sort of aural
wallpaper.

By
and large people don't want DAB sets and are not buying them in
sufficient numbers to allow analogue to be switched-off in anything
remotely approaching the timetable that Ofcom have in mind. Frankly I
can see no good reason to switch analogue off at all, it's hardly going
to save much spectrum.

I can't see it happening.

Neither can I. I just wish Ofcom would accept the inevitable and stop
worrying people.

David.