On May 17, 10:44 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

I disagree. FM stereo is very good and it is certainly better than
the mono that most DAB stations use or the 'joint stereo' that the
classical music stations use.

The FM stereo system was, as you allude to, added to the original
mono FM design, but it does work properly. You use more bandwidth and
you get two separate stereo channels. On DAB if you get stereo at
all it is "joint stereo" which does not give two stereo channels. The
result is that the stereo image is unclear and instruments seem to
wander about.

I do agree that FM is better suited to a fixed installation because of
its need for a good aerial.

With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

Robert