"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Gareth Magennis wrote:
Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or
it doesn't.
Ah, you don't have a DAB radio then? The background sound of boiling
mud in low signal conditions is a joy.
But that IS "working" according to the people who specified
and designed the system. The low-level hash was determined to
be an acceptable tradeoff in the overall scheme. (Compare the
performance of MP3, etc.)
I don't mean that, I mean this - what happens when there isn't enough
signal strength.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/baddab.mp3

d


That sounds like John Humphrys pretending to be a Dalek.
I think its slightly less annoying than FM radio on the edge of
reception, where it would sound like he was pretending to be a force 9
gale in mono.



Gareth.

Yes, but there is an important difference - the FM signal drops into noise
gracefully and slowly. That DAB signal is only 1dB or so bigger than one
that is not received at all, and 1dB bigger again would be received
cleanly.

d

I think that when push comes to shove, a lot of the 'digital revolution',
including DAB, is about money, not any advantage to the consumer. DTTV
clearly shows this where, despite the limited bandwidth available for
transmissions, government and the regulators, continue to sell licences to
every little tinpot Tom Dick and Harry station, which then get crammed into
yet another multiplex, until there's no longer enough space left there for
everyone to get in a decent bitrate, whereupon it's discretely downed, and
stations start to get on the edge of Dalekism. Likewise, TV stations start
to have objectionable motion artifacts to the point of area blocking on some
of the worst affected ones.

That's not to say that digital transmissions *can't* be good in terms of
viewability and listenability. A 'good' full bitrate DAB transmission, or
better yet a radio or full bitrate satellite channel, can be excellent and
at least up to, if not exceeding a comparable analogue transmission of full
quality. It's just a shame that no matter how good the starting point, a
coupla dB is the difference between reception and digital cliff. Personally,
I'm with Don on that one, and I'd rather see the picture or hear the sound,
gradually deteriorate, as the signal level falls off.

So, is Freesat going to knock Freeview on the head ? I can't see any reason
why not, and can see one very good reason why it might.

HD

And that brings us back to the bandwidth issue ...

Arfa