In article , Mark ihatespam
@spam.spam.spam.spam writes
On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:06:00 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

Yes Dave, I can as it happens..

You *say* you can. As do others.

Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
bitrates that DAB can handle.

This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.

M

Quite agree!. The analogue piccy on our 10 Y/O B&O still knocks the
spots off digital on most all programme materiel especially on
definition and colour rendering:-)

Hope proper HD is here before I have to get a 3view box!...
--
Tony Sayer