"Whiskers" wrote in message
On 2008-10-17, DAB sounds worse than FM dab.is@dead wrote:
"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:
[...]
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"
Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.
DAB+ has got nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. DAB+ came
years later. I'm talking about the fact that the AAC audio codec was
available to be used from 1997 onwards, but the non-technical BBC
executives chose to ignore its existence - even though the BBC R&D
guys were saying how good it was.
AAC was the solution to DAB's problems. But the non-technical BBC
execs simply didn't have a clue what they were doing. And here we are
today.
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.
Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs,
not
about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the
responsibility of the BBC anyway).
If the BBC wanted to upgrade DAB prior to relaunch it could have done
and it would have done.
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+.
"They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist as
a
standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until
2007.
Again, what on earth has DAB+ got to do with this? You don't even seem
able to follow which digital radio standard we're talking about here.
We're talking about DAB, and the fact that DAB wasn't upgraded prior
to its relaunch when it should have been upgraded.
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.
Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new
broadcasting
systems, they were and are in the business of providing content for
systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you
still
haven't given any support for.
BBC R&D has always been in teh business of inventing new broadcasting
technologies. For example, DVB-T2 that will be used to deliver HDTV
via Freeview from next year was basically an idea that stemmed from
BBC R&D experimenting with MIMO antennas.
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.
So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the one
with
hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you can
tell
us.
People that know about DAB+ and who're considering buying a DAB radio
tend to want one that supports DAB. By keeping quiet about the DAB+
issue, and especially advertising DAB aat a time when most receivers
don't support DAB+, the BBC is misleading the general public.
The adoption of DAB was grossly incompetent, and only people who
*deliberately choose* to ignore *the facts* would suggest
otherwise.
No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least incompetent.
This is just ridiculous. From when you first turned up on this thread,
you continually got things wrong, and now you're lecturing ME about
DAB.
You get one chance at launching a new radio system, so it's got to be
right. But they screwed up royal, and here I am basically some
know-nothing telling me what's what.
THEY HAD FIVE WHOLE YEARS TO ADOPT AAC BETWEEN 1997 AND 2002. THEY DID
NOTHING. THAT IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.
We've
had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has. If
the
exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in
other
countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make
sense - but
no-one can turn back the clock.
They had the opportunity from 1997 to 2002. They did nothing. Nada.
Niet. Sweet FA.
The DAB crisis this year could have been avoided if they'd have
adopted AAC.
The audio quality on the BBC's stations would be ****hot if they'd
have adopted AAC.
There wouldn't have been the bubbling mud that people suffer from if
they'd have adopted AAC, because adoption of AAC also requires
adapting the error correction coding.
Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated; that's
an
opinion.
That just displays your incompetence. FLAC is a lossless codec, and
the chance of a lossless codec ever being used on a terrestrial
digital broadcasting system are nil.
Diract is a sodding video codec. Why would you want sodding Diract to
be implemented? Eh? Explain yourself oh wise one.
I am not going to create a large web site and spend my days
posting uselessly to newsgroups bemoaning any 'facts' of
'incompetence'
that such facilites are not already available for me - and certainly
not
attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before
anyone
else had and without international consensus.
The thing you're ignoring is that the BBC R&D people were already
telling the non-technical suits to use AAC.
DAB is right here, right now, and it works
It works if you don't mind **** quality, and if you actually receive a
signal that doesn't suffer from bubbling mud.
- just as it did ten years ago.
DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in one
or two
countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too, but
there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.
Don't tell me what to do or what not to do.
In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial
radio
or TV station to equal.
The audio quality on BBC DAB stations is ****.
And BBC has been providing far lower quality on its Internet radio
streams than commercial radio for the last 2 years, and it's currently
trying to fabricate excuses to avoid providing the SAME bit rate as
commercial radio Internet streams.
That's your idea of setting a very high standard, is it?
How would you explain the BBC providing its Internet radio streams at
32 kbps until last year? And transcoding the audio by receiving the
radio stations off satellite? And why did they transcode the stations
for the listen again streams when they could have been sent via the
Internet? And why did they transcode anythying when it would only have
cost £10k per year for a direct link?
And why is the audio quality on Radio 1 and Radio 2 FM **** these days
when it used to be superb?
You saying that the BBC sets very high standards is yet another
ridiculous thing you've said.
That's something to be glad about, I think.
Yeah, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm over teh moon about the BBC's
performance.
--
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