"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote


Yes, I've come across Loser before, and your description is the same as
I
remember him.


Whilst you, as I remember, regards anyone who doesn't back you 100% in
your obsession with DAB and the BBC as an "enemy".


I disagree. Anyway, at least I don't spout bull****, which is most
definitely my recollection of your posting style.

You are in no position to talk about "posting style", yours is bombastic.
And you very definitely *do* post "bull****" (which I don't) Oh, and you
appear to be unable to snip posts.


Ok. Enjoy the low audio quality on DAB, anyway.

If you had remembered correctly you would have remembered that I don't
listen to DAB. I get excellent FM reception and I'm more than happy to stick
with that.

David.

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote


Or should I say DAB Fanboy 3, IIRC?

You don't, remember correctly that is.


What, so you're not going to take me to task on my explanation about
efficiency? I was dearly hoping you would, to be honest.


I've been looking up DVB-T2 on the web and whilst there's plenty comparing
it to DVB-T, I can find nothing that compares it with DAB. Perhaps you can
post a link to such a comparison? I did also notice that DVB-T2 is *not*
described as a "mobile" broadcasting system, unlike DVB-H and DVB-SH.

David.

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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?

And those stations either existed or were planned when DAB was in the
planning stage?

You could say *exactly* the same about analogue UHF TV - why didn't they
plan properly for CH5?

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.

Some have an idea about the timescale and difficulties in setting up
something new like this.

Plenty like you can give magic fixes with the benefit of hindsight. Or
perhaps you could give details of correspondence you had with the BBC when
DAB was first mooted pointing out all the 'obvious' flaws? Could have been
a great help to them as some very fine engineers indeed didn't see them
coming.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

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

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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.

Says it all, really. You simply don't want to understand things were done.
Just criticise with the benefit of hindsight.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

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

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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

You wanted it to duplicate everything?

* reception quality is unreliable

As FM then. And every single transmission method which all depend on
having adequate field strength. Or perhaps you have a 'solution' to this
too?

* it's ultra-expensive to transmit

Sigh. The rates charged by the transmission monopoly have *nothing* to do
with actual running costs. One DAB transmitter carries several channels.
On FM you need a separate transmitter for each. And despite trying to find
out true figures for the actual installation/running costs of each, I
can't. And neither can you but insist on spouting this red herring.

DAB was a failure on the day it launched.

And just how were those who designed it going to know that? Crystal ball?

Face facts.

If only you gave the full ones rather than your bigoted and narrow version.

It's no wonder despite your high profile you're never asked to take part
in mainstream broadcasting as a spokesman for 'the other side' when DAB is
discussed.

--
*Money isn‘t everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

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

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
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.

Plenty of examples. Various audio and video formats. FreeView boxes that
can't be re-tuned, due to a change in the format.

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.

Analogue only TV sets were still on sale even after transmissions had
ceased in that area.

Ofcom talk of many things. It won't happen anywhere near the date they've
given - if ever.

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.

My point exactly.

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.

I have noticed a large increase in the use of DAB among my friends etc
over the past couple of years. For things like a bedroom or kitchen radio
- where most actually want radio. Car use is far more of a problem, since
car makers think anything over 10 dollars too much for an installation.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*

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

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
If you had remembered correctly you would have remembered that I don't
listen to DAB. I get excellent FM reception and I'm more than happy to
stick with that.

I'm very rare in that I have a good DAB car radio with a decent aerial.
Reception around London with that is vastly better than FM. To the point
where it could be described as rock solid. Only time it does give problems
is in some tunnels, etc. But hangs on far later than FM even there.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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

********.


Dave's usual well reasoned rebuttals coming to the fore again.


--
Bill Coombes

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
If you had remembered correctly you would have remembered that I don't
listen to DAB. I get excellent FM reception and I'm more than happy to
stick with that.

I'm very rare in that I have a good DAB car radio with a decent aerial.
Reception around London with that is vastly better than FM. To the point
where it could be described as rock solid. Only time it does give problems
is in some tunnels, etc. But hangs on far later than FM even there.


A very London-centric POV, you only have to get a little way past the Reading
services on the M4 heading West to experience the classic DAB reception problems
even with a quality DAB car set. In most of Devon [away from the cities] Dab is
a total waste of time in a car and requires a proper external ariel for even
half decent indoor reception...quite a long way from what the half-wits in the
government [term used with derision] promised.



--
Bill Coombes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
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.

Plenty of examples. Various audio and video formats.

It wasn't that those formats "looked out of date", simply that they didn't
have what the market wanted. Often they were seen as unnecessary products
even though they were more technically advanced than the established market
leader. Examples like SACD and DVD-Audio.

FreeView boxes that
can't be re-tuned, due to a change in the format.

Well indeed, if it can be done with freeview why not with DAB? But the
earlier it is done the easier it is.


I have noticed a large increase in the use of DAB among my friends etc
over the past couple of years.

Have you?, depends on the circles in which you move I guess.

For things like a bedroom or kitchen radio
- where most actually want radio.

Who, other than a child or lodger, wants a radio in the bedroom?

Car use is far more of a problem, since
car makers think anything over 10 dollars too much for an installation.

And car radios last the life of the car, anything up to 20 years.


David.