"Whiskers" wrote in message

On 2008-10-12, DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
"Whiskers" wrote in message


[...]

but most stations are Mono
and many only get 80kbps and don't seem any the worse for it.


That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest
that
music should be broadcast in mono.

I suppose it's a matter of taste


Getting facts wrong has nothing to do with taste. And on the subject
of music being in mono, that's ridiculous, and I'm not going to waste
my time discussing anything so ridiculous.


- as is deciding what is or isn't
"music".


Again, ridiculous.


My statement is factuallu correct; your opinion is differenct
from mine, but opinions are not facts.


No. You can't just reclassify music stations as not being music just
because you might not like the bloody music they're playing.

I've never come across such a ridiculous way to try and squirm out of
admiting that they're wrong.

I'd suggest that you just keep your mouth shut if you don't know what
you're talking about. I do that, and that's why I'm very rarely wrong.


If a radio station wants more
bits per second, I suppose they are able to bid for them


DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality is
as **** as it is - because there's not enough capacity.


- if they can't
pay for more then their revenue model may not match their
pretensions.


The balls up basically happened in the 1990s, and now the multiplexes
are pretty much full, adn the transmissino costs are ridiculously
expensive (that's one of the major balls ups of the DAB system).

Basically, the only way to improve quality now is to switch to DAB+.
And it will happen, despite what unknowledgable people on the subject
like yourself might think.


Which could be why some of the new stations don't last long. Or the
regualtions about providing more 'bandwidth' are inappropriate
(which is
my opinion).


Again, you haven't got a clue, have you? You don't know anything about
"the regulations about providing more bandwidth are inappropriate".
How is that your "opinion" when you don't even have a clue what the
regulations are?

The reason I know you don't know what you're talking about is that I
do know what the regulations are, and what you've just said doesn't
make any sense.

BTW, good luck Googling for them, because the bit about audio quality
is stuck in teh middle of a really big pdf. Happy hunting.


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.


Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want
something
better than others should be denied it?

Who the hell are you to say that just because you want something
different
from what most people are content with, we should all spend more
money?


I'm me. And I'm not being told what I want to listen to by some low
audio quality loving tree dweller.


BBC podcasts and streams all seem to be at 64kbps.


BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3
streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations.
The
live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few
weeks.

Why don't you check your facts first?

I did. The last podcast I downloaded is 'Talking Allowed" from last
week,
which is very definitely ar 64kbps - I've never seen a BBC podcast
at any
other bit rate.


So in checking your "facts" that "BBC podcasts are 64 kbps" you
downloaded a speech podcast, even though speech is often mono and
speech is far easier to encode than music so music typically uses
higher bit rates? Mm, good researching.

Try some music podcasts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/directory/




--
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