"Whiskers" wrote in message

On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
You must just ignore anything that you don't want to know. I've
already explained what happened in a reply to you once today.
That
was
a long post, so I'm not going to ****ing rewrite it all for some
moron
who will deliberately choose not to believe me anyway.

Here's the contents of the post you chose not to read earlier
today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I did ask you to read this:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Quoting your own website is hardly proof of anything...

I merely asked him to read it. But if there's anything you'd like
to
dispute on that page, fire away.

I have read it - before I read anything you've posted in usenet, as
it
happens. You express your own opinion very forcibly, but with
little
support from external sources and the very blindness to your own
ignorance
that you are so fond of accusing others of. At excessive length.


Little support from external sources, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance...tandardization

"AAC was first specified in the standard MPEG-2 Part 7 (known formally
as ISO/IEC 13818-7:1997) in 1997"

Multi-channel listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part
in 1996:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w1420.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

Stereo listening test for AAC vs MP2 in which the BBC took part in
1998:

http://sound.media.mit.edu/mpeg4/audio/public/w2006.pdf

Conclusion from test was that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.

BBC R&D open day brochure from 1999 saying AAC it twice as efficient
as MP2, and they say "don't squeeze the bit rate":

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/do...9_Open_Day.pdf

BBC mentions plans to launch 4 new stations in 1998:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/174535.stm

We've seen that it took them about 16 months to add AAC+ and RS coding
to DAB when they designed DAB+.

So, explain to me why they couldn't add AAC and RS coding in the 1990s
when they had a 5-year window from when AAC was standardised in 1997
to when DAB was re-launched in March 2002 when the BBC launched 6
Music and they began the first of 21 TV advertising campaigns for DAB?
The FACT IS that they could easily have adopted AAC prior to
relaunching DAB in 2002, but they didn't, and here we are in a right 2
and 8.

That's soon to be 22 TV ad campaigns by November, when they start
advertising DAB again on BBC TV, even though they will be advertising
DAB when the large majority of receivers in teh shops won't support
DAB+ - BBC encouraging people to go out and buy to-be-obsolete DAB
radios. Tut tut.

The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
*deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest otherwise.


--
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