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.


--
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:
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.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

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

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Your usual technique of resorting to personal abuse about anyone who
doesn't take your every word as gospel noted. Oh so common with religious
bigots of any denomination. And you certainly treat your obsession as a
crusade.


Bull****. I was simply giving my honest opinion about your level of
intelligence!

Your idea of honesty is very different from most.


Sadly your spin on the situation is based on specifications and
hindsight.


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.


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.

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

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

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
And that when it was started it was
positively ignored by the 'quality at all costs' brigade.


DAB tuners first came out in 2000 and they cost £800. Then in 2001 they
reduced to £300. I bought a DAB receiver in a sale in September 2001 for
£100. Please forgive me for not paying £300 - £800.

Plenty happily paid that for a turntable. The fact that you are penniless
is neither here nor there.

--
*Windows will never cease *

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

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Who by then weren't using radio for much serious listening as CD was
capable of better - very different from when the LP was the main
source at home.


Oh stop bleating with your excuses. Face the ****ing facts: DAB is a
shambles because the decision makers screwed up. Why on earth people
actually try to stick up for the BBC executives for the incompetent work
they did I'll never know.

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.

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

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

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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.


Standard David Loser technique....swerve around the embarrassing bit and try and
make an issue of something minor.


--
Bill Coombes

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


Doubt anyone cares about what you think about anything.

--
Bill Coombes

bcoombes wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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.


Standard David Loser technique....swerve around the embarrassing bit and
try and make an issue of something minor.


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


--
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:
Who by then weren't using radio for much serious listening as CD was
capable of better - very different from when the LP was the main
source at home.


Oh stop bleating with your excuses. Face the ****ing facts: DAB is a
shambles because the decision makers screwed up. Why on earth people
actually try to stick up for the BBC executives for the incompetent work
they did I'll never know.

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.


--
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:
Your usual technique of resorting to personal abuse about anyone who
doesn't take your every word as gospel noted. Oh so common with
religious bigots of any denomination. And you certainly treat your
obsession as a crusade.


Bull****. I was simply giving my honest opinion about your level of
intelligence!

Your idea of honesty is very different from most.


I'm very honest, actually. Don't know why I am in fact considering that the
BBC and the rest of the DAB industry just lie continually.


Sadly your spin on the situation is based on specifications and
hindsight.


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.


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.


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

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