"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
In article
,
Whiskers wrote:
I wouldn't be too sure. DAB+ may have a more modern codec etc but
isn't compatible with the present system. I think consumer
resistance
will make it a dead duck. There is little demand for high quality
radio - and for those that really want it in the UK they already
can
get most of the same stations on FreeView or Satellite.
As I understand it, transmitters can carry both DAB and DAB+, and
some
receivers can cope with both.
I suppose some new or future ones will. As regards transmitters
carrying
both the high cost of transmission is said to be one reason for some
existing or proposed stations closing. of course this cost is mainly
'rental' costs - but these private companies aren't there to provide
charity.
DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's one
of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters. DAB+ is definitely
going to happen, and it'll happen sooner than you think.
I saw a quote that sums up the situatino with DAB+ pretty well:
(wording from memory)
"people overestimate how much progress can be made in 1 year, but they
underestimate how much progress can be made in 10 years"
That's spot on where DAB+ is concerned. There will be loads of DAB+
stations in 5 years' time.
But there is now a significant number of
receivers which can only manage 'original' DAB, and broadcasters
are
likely to be reluctant to broadcast their content using both
standards
at once, or to broadcast only in DAB+ while few people can listen
to
it. Listers would be pretty peeved if required to scrap all the new
DAB receivers we've bought by the million over the last five years
or
so.
Absolutely. It took long enough to get to this level of acceptance.
Irrelevant.
While 'audiophiles' might be prepared to buy new equipment to get
'better' sound reproduction,
but the thing is they didn't when it started
Now you're lying, because I told you what the score was in the early
days, so repeating this is lying.
most people just want something 'good
enough' - which DAB manifestly is.
Indeed.
I'm listening to Radio 4 as I type:
"Varied Speech" at "128kbps Stereo" which sounds fine to me (on a
Roberts MP23).
Same here - and I'm using a pretty good sound system in this room.
The
speakers are Chartwell LS3/5a. But we are in a minority if the vocal
lobby
who only look at bitrates are to be believed.
You're also an R4 listener though, and you admitted that you don't
listen to the pop music statinos or similar, which is wehre you get
the **** audio quality.
Basically, both of you two are just extremely selfish people.
Radio 3 probably justifies the 192kbps Stereo it gets,
but most stations are Mono and many only get 80kbps and don't seem
any
the worse for it. I just don't expect, or even want, a 'concert
hall
experience' in my kitchen or bedroom, or even the living-room, and
certainly not in the car.
In an ideal world the rates would be a minimum 192 kbps for all -
but that
would cost too much it seems.
They screwed up in the first place:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm
So don't try to suggest that we couldn't have had good audio quality,
because we DEFINITELY could have had it.
BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.
Of course more modern codecs can use lower rates with less
noticeable
degradation. But not as low as that. ;-)
The BBC is already using 128 kbps - and even 192 kbps for R3 - for a
lot of its Internet stuff now.
--
Steve -
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm