Am I the only happy one?
Chris Kelly
I've got a Wavefinder, and besides the odd audio skipping, I'm more than
happy with it ...
Jeez - Radio 5 and Virgin with some decent quality (compared to their AM
broadcasts)
And lots of other stations and choice.
And ....
I'm sorry - it sounds fine!
Aztech
news:ab6kid$frhd8$1...@ID-113965.news.dfncis.de...
Compared to AM I'm sure it does... however, saying it sounds better than a 100
year old system isn't much ;)
Az.
Drew Wilson
"Chris Kelly" <chri...@NOFECKINGSPAM.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ab6kid$frhd8$1...@ID-113965.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I've got a Wavefinder, and besides the odd audio skipping, I'm more than
> happy with it ...
You are not alone m8.
I find my Wavefinder fabulous. Excellent audio. No problems with
installation and the choice of stations is quite amazing.
At last count I have 39 to choose from over 5 Multiplexers.
Respect the DAB!
Drew
Steve
"Chris Kelly" <chri...@NOFECKINGSPAM.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ab6kid$frhd8$1...@ID-113965.news.dfncis.de...
> So, am I the *only* person happy with their DAB radio?
Probably not, there is one person already who has replied to your post and
said he likes it too. For people with low standards it will be fine, but for
people with average or above average standards then the audio quality is
poor.
The main reason why me and others on here are so pissed off with DAB is that
we heard what it was like before Christmas just gone. Radios 1-4 were all at
192kbps sounding excellent. Before that I believe that Virgin and Classic FM
were 192kbps. Kiss was 160kbps until a few weeks ago for the Manchester mux
that it is on. CE London presently contains 4 stations transmitted at
160kbps and all of these are going to be reduced to 128kbps. Do you see a
pattern emerging here? Audio quality goes up when bit rates go up and audio
quality goes down when bit rates go down. You may be very happy with loads
of stations all at less than mediocre audio qualities but I am not, I am
absolutely pissed off about it. You have to think about the fact that this
digital radio system is meant to be with us for decades. So here we are just
as it is taking off and the broadcasters are already doing exactly what has
been happening on digital TV where the number of channels goes up and the
picture quality has to go down so that they can fit all the channels into
the fixed space available. What we are witnessing is just the start. The
broadcasters would like to transmit at the absolute minimum possible that
they can get away with. I was told by someone at the Radio Authority that a
few stations applied to transmit stereo music at 80kbps. If you don't
understand, that would produce an audio quality equivalent to AM stations.
DAB was meant to use 192kbps but now virtually all the stations are
transmitted at 128kbps. Basically, if you heard Radios 1-4 at 192kbps and
then compared that to what they now sound like you would understand why
we're so pissed off.
> I've got a Wavefinder, and besides the odd audio skipping, I'm more than
> happy with it ...
Are you happy that this digital system is capable of producing near CD
quality audio and is actually producing an audio quality that is lower than
a good FM signal? I am certainly not.
> Jeez - Radio 5 and Virgin with some decent quality (compared to their AM
> broadcasts)
Granted. This is hardly an achievement though is it? If the same stations
just went to FM they would sound better than on DAB.......
> And lots of other stations and choice.
So you would prefer to have masses of choice all at shit audio quality or
would you prefer to have a fair amount of choice at excellent audio quality
and wait to introduce all the crap stations until there is some more
bandwidth available? Basically you are playing right into the broadcasters'
hands. What you don't know doesn't hurt you. That is their motto. Why do you
think they've lowered the bit rates just before consumers start to buy it?
It is so that they can brainwash us all into thinking that the audio quality
is good enough. It might be good enough for people who've got a shit stereo
system but what about people who haven't? I'm not talking megabucks here
because you can get a nice sounding separates system for a few hundred quid.
I think it is pathetic and quite unbelievable that people seem to be so
gullible.
> And ....
>
> I'm sorry - it sounds fine!
Good for you.
--
Steve
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk -- Compare DAB with digital radio via satellite
Steve
"Drew Wilson" <drew....@metuk.netx> wrote in message
news:102071507...@eos.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Chris Kelly" <chri...@NOFECKINGSPAM.btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:ab6kid$frhd8$1...@ID-113965.news.dfncis.de...
> > So, am I the *only* person happy with their DAB radio?
> >
> > I've got a Wavefinder, and besides the odd audio skipping, I'm more than
> > happy with it ...
>
> You are not alone m8.
Is that a motorway?
> I find my Wavefinder fabulous. Excellent audio.
Don't tell me, do you playback via a £10 SoundBlaster to a pair of computer
speakers?
Have you ever heard what a decent stereo system sounds like?
> No problems with
> installation and the choice of stations is quite amazing.
Yep, amazing audio quality too. Yeah right.
> At last count I have 39 to choose from over 5 Multiplexers.
Wooowoooo.
> Respect the DAB!
********!!
Malcolm RK
news:slrnaddudj...@merp.demon.co.uk...
> On Mon, 6 May 2002 21:52:44 +0100, Steve
(info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk) said:
> And on that note, being a selfish cow who's got the wavefinder working
now,
> and so no purpose further here, I'm off (too little time to stay with
the
> group.)
Best news I've had for several days. In her own words, a selfish cow
with a gob on her.
--
Malcolm
Steve
news:slrnaddudj...@merp.demon.co.uk...
> I rarely listen to radio for quality music listening, because its so very
> rare that radio plays my favourite music -- nor do I expect it to.
IMO that is a crap excuse for accepting crap.
> Or occasionally for some classical music, where quality is important for
me,
> and fortunately thats still at a decent bitrate (160/192kbps?)
Well, bully for you....
> I don't *LISTEN* to Radio 1, I can't stand the majority of music played
> there. The fact that its 128kbps has no actual effect on _ME_ whatsoever.
> I'm interested in this, because its upset _you_ and others that its gone
> down, and has reduced YOUR listening.
YES IT HAS SERIOUSLY AFFECTED MINE AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S AUDIO QUALITY
JULIE.
> Personally, I consider the use of airspace for music a waste mostly (in
the
> case of stuff already available on CD, not for original, new or live
pieces
> of course). However, each to their own!
I want to hear the Essential Mix which is obviously a live mix in the sense
that someone was living when they mixed it. It is quite often recorded in a
nightclub live. But R1 decide to spend so little money on getting the audio
quality back unharmed that I am embarrassed to be British.
> Be careful with your words, lest you p*ss someone off with your posts by
> considering only a relatively narrow viewpoint...
Why? I like pissing people off that try and piss me off.
> as its _just_ that narrow
> focussing that results in marketting and business types assuming that
> cramining more channels into less space is necessarily _always_ the thing
to
> do, rather than considering that it _might_ be more complicated than that
> (and potentially failing big-time like ITV Digital did from that
assumption.)
I know you haven't been here for long but I really really want DAB to fail
big time. It would just get replaced by a superior system or more money
would be concentrated on DSat. One way or the other, unless the bit rates go
up, I hope DAB dies ASAP.
> And on that note, being a selfish cow who's got the wavefinder working
now,
> and so no purpose further here, I'm off (too little time to stay with the
> group.)
>
> *8-)
>
> No doubt, I'll be back when the BBC muck up R4 (as I gather they may be,
> though for how long they get away with it without a lot of people moaning,
> me included, I don't know.)
Probably not. R4 is looked upon in a different light to R1 and R2. It
assumes the listeners have a brain, and that is the difference.
Alan
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ab706p$kau$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
OK, I think we've got the message. Steve doesn't like DAB the way it's
currently configured, and neither do some of his other friends in the NG.
Can we now all accept that and not have to read it time after time.
DAB as it stands is far from perfect but maybe Steve would like to fix up an
FM aerial for me in my corner of SW London, which does not suffer with
multi-path problems from nearby hills, that has a decent signal level and
does not suffer birdies caused by pirate FM stations. I've been trying for
thirty years without success. I wonder how many people have *perfect* FM
reception?
To have the quiet background of DAB is great. The audio quality is OK but
not perfect.
I don't claim to have Golden Ears but I do have decent kit - Quad/Spendor.
Maybe we could now change the record, instead of turning this NG into
alt.knock-dab.steve etc.
Alan
Alec
and over again, why can't you let people have a bit of fun, if you don't
like it go and do something else with your life instead of critising
everyone who does.
Alec
Happy Wavefinder Owner
Steve
"wowfabgroovy" <wowfab...@wowmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ce715a7...@news.easynews.com...
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> went:
>
> >Probably not. R4 is looked upon in a different light to R1 and R2. It
> >assumes the listeners have a brain, and that is the difference.
>
> else. 12 to 14 year olds probably aren't expected to be digital radio
> owners (because of the price) or household decision makers.
Using a name like 'wowfabgroovy' can we assume that you are in the 12 to 14
year old bracket that you mention?
R1's target audience is 16-24 year old IIRC.
Steve
"Alec" <al...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6lEB8.24208$6N5.16...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I think we have got the message Steve that you don't like DAB over and
over
> and over again, why can't you let people have a bit of fun, if you don't
> like it go and do something else with your life instead of critising
> everyone who does.
You can go to plenty of other places. Why should I go anywhere?
> Alec
> Happy Wavefinder Owner
Steve
"Alan" <Ala...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ab72ms$fsdtd$1...@ID-129999.news.dfncis.de...
> OK, I think we've got the message. Steve doesn't like DAB the way it's
> currently configured, and neither do some of his other friends in the NG.
>
> Can we now all accept that and not have to read it time after time.
>
> DAB as it stands is far from perfect but maybe Steve would like to fix up
an
> FM aerial for me in my corner of SW London, which does not suffer with
> multi-path problems from nearby hills, that has a decent signal level and
> does not suffer birdies caused by pirate FM stations. I've been trying for
> thirty years without success. I wonder how many people have *perfect* FM
> reception?
>
> To have the quiet background of DAB is great. The audio quality is OK but
> not perfect.
>
> I don't claim to have Golden Ears but I do have decent kit - Quad/Spendor.
Alright, so we've heard your criticisms with my criticisms. Some questions
for you:
Which is best, 25 stations at 192kbps, or 35 stations at 128kbps?
Why do we have to put up with high processing levels?
Why do broadcasters ignore the views of their listeners?
> Maybe we could now change the record, instead of turning this NG into
> alt.knock-dab.steve etc.
If you don't like the group it is very easy to start your own group.
Malcolm RK
news:ab72ms$fsdtd$1...@ID-129999.news.dfncis.de...
> Maybe we could now change the record, instead of turning this NG into
> alt.knock-dab.steve etc.
The regulars you complain about have been here two years and more. You
spend forty quid on a heap of junk and believe you have the right to
come here and immediately change things. Shove off if you don't like it.
--
Malcolm
Malcolm RK
news:6lEB8.24208$6N5.16...@news-text.cableinet.net...
over
> and over again, why can't you let people have a bit of fun, if you
don't
> like it go and do something else with your life instead of critising
> everyone who does.
Until recently this NG was occupied by two groups who coexisted
peacefully. European DAB users and American satellite radio users. Now
we have a third. Cloth eared and sometimes arrogant, Wavefinder owners
who descend like a plague of locusts and try to take over a place where
DAB is discussed. As Julie demonstrated, once you've made a Wavefinder
work, what else is there to say about it? And since nearly all
Wavefinders are hooked up to six quid PC speakers, how can they be used
to judge anything at all? At best they are, as you say, just a bit of
fun. There are Wavefinder forums, go there and join like thinkers if you
don't like it here.
--
Malcolm
Alec
about problems with the Wavefinder. I like a few others are getting a bit
sick of Steve and his ranting about the poor quality of DAB in general. I
work for a specialised Hi-Fi retailer as a service engineer and have come
across DAB tuners in excess of a £1k and the differences in quality between
the various stations is the same, the good ones are good and the bad ones
are bad.
Alec
Steven Templeton
you cannae listen to it !!!!!
"Chris Kelly" <chri...@NOFECKINGSPAM.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ab6kid$frhd8$1...@ID-113965.news.dfncis.de...
DAB Fan
funny how Steve gets angrier and angrier the more people just show an
alternative view to him.
LDR
Steve
"DAB Fan" <likedigi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11261ed1.02050...@posting.google.com...
> For me the audio quality's fine, and the choice is good.
And you are an industry lurker. So basically it would be good enough for you
as your job depends on it, or at least a lot of decisions that you have made
depend on the fact that people are only going for content and are not
bothered about quality.
You have told me that this is so in private emails so you are hardly
unbiased here.
> It is quite
> funny how Steve gets angrier and angrier the more people just show an
> alternative view to him.
I didn't get angry when I replied to these posts.
I've decided to turn a new leaf. I am not going to get angry because that
will play into your hands. I am going to remain composed, just to piss you
off.
Steve
> I enjoy the newsgroup Malcolm and have posted several useful observations
> about problems with the Wavefinder. I like a few others are getting a bit
> sick of Steve and his ranting about the poor quality of DAB in general.
But as Malcolm said, there are plenty of DAB forums that are more applicable
for your purposes.
> I
> work for a specialised Hi-Fi retailer as a service engineer and have come
> across DAB tuners in excess of a £1k and the differences in quality
between
> the various stations is the same, the good ones are good and the bad ones
> are bad.
Oh, should we just accept the audio quality of the bad ones?
And should we just let the broadcasters get on with lowering the bit rates
until the audio quality is so low that it is virtually unlistenable? How
exactly is this supposed to be progress when a new system provides a worse
audio quality than the previous one?
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> I know you haven't been here for long but I really really want DAB to fail
> big time. It would just get replaced by a superior system or more money
> would be concentrated on DSat. One way or the other, unless the bit rates go
> up, I hope DAB dies ASAP.
For readers just joining us... Steve is the one who reminds us
incessantly that DAB is "crap", that it produces audio of
"sub-cassette quality" and that mp2 is "embarrassingly bad". He has
even set up a campaigning website (the URL is in his sig) to say so at
greater length, and to urge us all to buy satellite radios instead.
Yet despite his detailed grasp of precisely what's wrong with the DAB
standard and with UK DAB services, this same Steve (so he tells us)
has very recently invested a big bundle of his hard-won beer tokens in
a *second* DAB receiver. This, as he must have foreseen, has brought
him even more embarrassingly bad, crap, sub-cassette-quality Radio 1
to be miserable about. Yet he has been unable to account for this
bizarre departure from his own unambiguous and often-repeated advice.
(Reader, it appears to have been just an impulse buy.)
Now he tells us that he hopes DAB will die ASAP -- even though this
would write off entirely the ukp160 he has just spent, plus, of
course, his ukp100 Wavefinder, his special DAB antenna, power supply
and perhaps other oddments. Is he some kind of masochist?
I shall no doubt be accused again of winding him up, but I think it's
fair to ask whether he is being reasonable or logical. If Steve really
wants DAB to fail, buying more DAB radios doesn't seem the right way
to make it happen.
Richard
--
Tom Hawley
>
> I've got a Wavefinder, and besides the odd audio skipping, I'm more than
> happy with it ...
I'm very happy with my Wavefinder and DAB generally. If i'd paid the 90 quid
its supposed to retail at, or *shudder* the 199 quid it apparantly used to
retail at i'd be very pissed off. What we have here, is a bargain. I'm very
happy with Virgin at 160kbps and Talksport at 80, and although I agree that
the BBC could be doing things differently, i'm not too bothered.
> Jeez - Radio 5 and Virgin with some decent quality (compared to their AM
> broadcasts)
Ahh. see. we bought ours for similar reasons.
> I'm sorry - it sounds fine!
Indeed it does. And i've got terrible speakers too! :)
NB all: No repeat bitching about DAB required, we've heard it, thanks.
=VG=
> "Alan" <Ala...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ab72ms$fsdtd$1...@ID-129999.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
>>OK, I think we've got the message. Steve doesn't like DAB the way it's
>>currently configured, and neither do some of his other friends in the NG.
>>
>>Can we now all accept that and not have to read it time after time.
>>
>>DAB as it stands is far from perfect but maybe Steve would like to fix up
>
> an
>
>>FM aerial for me in my corner of SW London, which does not suffer with
>>multi-path problems from nearby hills, that has a decent signal level and
>>does not suffer birdies caused by pirate FM stations. I've been trying for
>>thirty years without success. I wonder how many people have *perfect* FM
>>reception?
>>
>>To have the quiet background of DAB is great. The audio quality is OK but
>>not perfect.
>>
>>I don't claim to have Golden Ears but I do have decent kit - Quad/Spendor.
>
>
>
> Alright, so we've heard your criticisms with my criticisms. Some questions
> for you:
>
> Which is best, 25 stations at 192kbps, or 35 stations at 128kbps?
>
Is that 25 classical music stations ;)
Depends if one of "your 10" is dropped I would imagine...
Additionally the BBC is totally obsessed with "reach" which high numbers
of outlets help increase. I don't know if Reithian values included audio
quality.
> Why do we have to put up with high processing levels?
>
God knows. Try asking a BBC engineer - oh sorry you've been banned
from calling them ;)
> Why do broadcasters ignore the views of their listeners?
>
Because the number complaining is totally insignificant.
Look at GLR - completely buggered about into "London Live" -
a far more active campaign exists to get this reinstated, but it has
been largely useless.
Mumm-Ra
news:ab6kid$frhd8$1...@ID-113965.news.dfncis.de...
> So, am I the *only* person happy with their DAB radio?
Aren't you the BBC Bristol Webmaster?
Steve
"Richard Lambley" <use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e3bcd6324...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk...
The reason I bought the receiver is that I can't put a satellite dish up
where I live.
Most importantly though, £200 or so is not a lot of money to me. I have
plenty of savings and will be getting a very well paid job in the next
couple of months so £200 is peanuts.
Also, I bought the VideoLogic tuner because my Wavefinder is possibly the
most unreliable heap of junk I have ever had the misfortune to own.
Lastly, Kiss is not on Sky so I want to listen to Kiss in better quality
than on my Wavefinder. Should I be allowed to do this or not?
It looks like I will have to keep you off my kill-file so that I can keep an
eye on your lies and word-twisting Richard.
The fact remains that I would absolutely love it to bits if I could throw
away all my DAB equipment if a newer system with better audio quality came
along. Oh, that probably means when I get my satellite doesn't it.
Steve
"Mumm-Ra" <paul@***remove2reply***.mumm-ra.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yjOB8.24522$mh7.17...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Steve
"Tom Hawley" <tom.h...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:8ONB8.321$CN5....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net...
I think there is a Wavefinder forum on ukmedia. I think you would be better
off communicating with other lemmings on there.
Bye.
Robin Emery
Although some channels are unaceptable in quality for DAB, there are plenty
of others that offer stereo at high quality and is an improvement on AM or
FM.
Whether he works for the BBC or not is no matter for this post!
He simply is stating a true point for his personal experience of DAB digital
radio.
ROBIN EMERY
http://www.uk-dab.info
"digital radio information for the UK"
-----------------------------------------
deets
it only cost me £40, I will not ever bother upgrading to a separate DAB
tuner while the situation stays as it is (or gets worse as it looks).
I am totally with Steve on this one, its not about DAB being okay as it is
just that, its how DAB could be very good.
Steve is one of the good guys IMHO :D
ChrisC
<info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> In a galaxy far far away
wrote:
Can't the bandwidth of MUX'es be increased? Therefore increasing the
bit rate. I new to this so explain why not, if not.
--
ChrisC - chris...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk
"Enlightenment, for a wave in the ocean,
is the moment the wave realises it is water."
Thich Nhat Hanh
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> The reason I bought the receiver is that I can't put a satellite dish up
> where I live.
>
> Most importantly though, £200 or so is not a lot of money to me. I have
> plenty of savings and will be getting a very well paid job in the next
> couple of months so £200 is peanuts.
>
> Also, I bought the VideoLogic tuner because my Wavefinder is possibly the
> most unreliable heap of junk I have ever had the misfortune to own.
>
> Lastly, Kiss is not on Sky so I want to listen to Kiss in better quality
> than on my Wavefinder.
Fine; that all sounds very reasonable to me. But let me get this
straight, because I don't want to be accused again of twisting your
words --
1. You've spent quite a substantial sum on a new radio in order to get
a single station. So, despite all you've written, a wider choice of
stations is clearly important to you.
2. You have spent this sum even though you already know the sound
quality to be less than perfect. So audio quality is not your top
priority, and is less important to you than programme content.
Well, congratulations: you seem to have rejoined the real world
inhabited by the rest of us. It's not long ago that you were assuring
us that DAB was a hopeless case, and that the appalling audio quality
would put people off buying it.
> The fact remains that I would absolutely love it to bits if I could throw
> away all my DAB equipment if a newer system with better audio quality came
> along. Oh, that probably means when I get my satellite doesn't it.
I believe it does. But for portable or mobile reception, a Sky system
won't be much good to you.
Richard
--
Steve
"deets" <de...@deets.dom> wrote in message
news:PUOB8.356$CN5....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net...
> well I have my wavefinder and while I am not too fussed with the quality
as
> it only cost me £40, I will not ever bother upgrading to a separate DAB
> tuner while the situation stays as it is (or gets worse as it looks).
>
> I am totally with Steve on this one, its not about DAB being okay as it is
> just that, its how DAB could be very good.
Exactly.
> Steve is one of the good guys IMHO :D
I agree. :)
Steve
"Robin Emery" <robin...@uk-dab.info> wrote in message
news:ab8cq6$jk2$1...@nntp0.reith.bbc.co.uk...
> Why don't you all shut up moaning and listen to what he says?
We have and some of us don't agree with him....
> Although some channels are unaceptable in quality for DAB, there are
plenty
> of others that offer stereo at high quality and is an improvement on AM or
> FM.
It is an improvement on AM although if it weren't then it would obviously
not have been introduced as a system because AM is so absolutely dreadful.
Most stations on DAB that are also on FM are better audio quality on FM. I
can think of 3 that are better on DAB: Kiss (just after having its bit rate
reduced to 128kbps), Jazz FM, Radio 3.
> Whether he works for the BBC or not is no matter for this post!
Well, you would say that seeing as you work at the BBC yourself....
> He simply is stating a true point for his personal experience of DAB
digital
> radio.
And we are disagreeing with him. That is what a newsgroup is all about is it
not?
Steve
"ChrisC" <chris...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9jgfdu8c3e5pl8v42...@4ax.com...
> Can't the bandwidth of MUX'es be increased? Therefore increasing the
> bit rate. I new to this so explain why not, if not.
The analogue bandwidth for a mux is fixed at 1.5 MHz. The bit rate can be
increased if they used a weaker form of error correction coding but this
requires a higher signal to noise ratio at the receiver. If a higher signal
to noise ratio were required at the receiver then the area covered by each
transmitter would decrease because the power of a radio signal reduces with
distance from the transmitter but the noise level will be pretty constant.
Therefore, as the commercial operators and the BBC are trying to roll out
their transmitter network to cover as much area as possible then the last
thing they would do is reduce the coverage to increase the bit rate because
they will think that any signal is better than no signal.
Unfortunately we're stuck with the present bit rate limits for the
forseeable future. I think the maximum overall bit rate is 1184kbps so the
likes of the BBC cannot increase their overall bit rate and so when they add
their 3 new stations the multiplex will be absolutely chock a block and all
the stations apart from R3 will be transmitting at the very low bit rates.
It's a crap state of affairs, and it is only going to get worse.
Ian
even you must admit to be looking forward to Alan Green on 5live relaying
the goals at Maine Road on DAB rather than MW. Of course it possibly won't
make quality listening (whatever the bit rrate) if City go straight back
down!
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ab8kr5$7g6$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Steve
> In message <ab8cge$2ma$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The reason I bought the receiver is that I can't put a satellite dish up
> > where I live.
> >
> > Most importantly though, £200 or so is not a lot of money to me. I have
> > plenty of savings and will be getting a very well paid job in the next
> > couple of months so £200 is peanuts.
> >
> > Also, I bought the VideoLogic tuner because my Wavefinder is possibly
the
> > most unreliable heap of junk I have ever had the misfortune to own.
> >
> > Lastly, Kiss is not on Sky so I want to listen to Kiss in better quality
> > than on my Wavefinder.
>
> Fine; that all sounds very reasonable to me. But let me get this
> straight, because I don't want to be accused again of twisting your
> words --
>
> 1. You've spent quite a substantial sum on a new radio in order to get
> a single station. So, despite all you've written, a wider choice of
> stations is clearly important to you.
I have said that it is not a substantial sum to me. I know it is available
on DAB so if I can afford the money why should I not be able to spend it how
I wish without people such as yourself asking for reasons that I have
already given you?
My issue is that I have 35 stations that I can receive on my Wavefinder and
IMO that should be totally adequate for anybody. I would prefer it if the
multiplexes that I can receive were re-configured back to how they were so
that R1 and Kiss are 192kbps and 160kbps respectively. I am very opposed to
the fact that Kiss has had its bit rate reduced to 128kbps and am against
further reductions on stations that are already transmitting at higher rates
to fit in new stations. For example, if CE Manchester goes the same way as
CE London is going then XFM and Magic are also going to be reduced along
with Kiss from 160kbps to 128kbps to fit in Smash Hits Radio. What on earth
is the point in that? How many of the target audience of Smash Hits Radio is
going to rush out and buy a DAB radio at the present prices or at the prices
that they will be available in the next few years?
So, to answer your question, no I absolutely do not want a wider choice and
to try and twist things to further your boring argument such as you are
attempting to do here will fail miserably.
> 2. You have spent this sum even though you already know the sound
> quality to be less than perfect. So audio quality is not your top
> priority, and is less important to you than programme content.
Troll allert, Richard is trolling AGAIN. Get back into your low bit rate low
audio quality hole you troll.
> Well, congratulations: you seem to have rejoined the real world
> inhabited by the rest of us. It's not long ago that you were assuring
> us that DAB was a hopeless case, and that the appalling audio quality
> would put people off buying it.
A partonising troll at that....
> > The fact remains that I would absolutely love it to bits if I could
throw
> > away all my DAB equipment if a newer system with better audio quality
came
> > along. Oh, that probably means when I get my satellite doesn't it.
>
> I believe it does. But for portable or mobile reception, a Sky system
> won't be much good to you.
Ah, but if you remember it may well be feasible to receive it on a portable
and Global Radio will be fine for me when I get S-DAB for the car.
Bye Richard you troll.
Nick Jeffery
> Steve
>
> even you must admit to be looking forward to Alan Green on 5live relaying
> the goals at Maine Road on DAB rather than MW. Of course it possibly won't
> make quality listening (whatever the bit rrate) if City go straight back
> down!
Hearing your team getting beaten at home every other week for half a
year must be depressing.
It'd be compounded by the fact that you'd hear all the opposition's
goals go in with low-bitrate audio using that crap old MP2 codec.
--
Nick Jeffery - Durham, England Station Manager, Purple FM
http://durham.easytiger.ws/ http://www.purplefm.com/
Telephone 07941 349 444 Durham.St...@dur.ac.uk
Lat: N54:45:47 Long: W1:34:53 Dunelm House, DURHAM, DH1 3AN
Steve
"Ian" <i...@nospamccsm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nRQB8.45641$oK4.93021@NewsReader...
> Steve
>
> even you must admit to be looking forward to Alan Green on 5live relaying
> the goals at Maine Road on DAB rather than MW.
Yes, I've never denied that stations that are only otherwise available on MW
are better on DAB.
> Of course it possibly won't
> make quality listening (whatever the bit rrate) if City go straight back
> down!
Would you care to have a £100 bet on that? (seriously)
a...@redhat.invalid
> Can't the bandwidth of MUX'es be increased? Therefore increasing the
> bit rate. I new to this so explain why not, if not.
Basically, the problem is that there is only room at present for two
national multiplexes (BBC and Digital One), plus local multiplex
coverage for about 80% of the population, and coverage of about 63% by
two or more local/regional multiplexes.
Search for "A message from the Radio Authority" on
http://groups.google.com and you'll find a fuller explanation.
Andrew.
Ian
out before next may are though!
I actually think with WBA, Norwich, Everton, Soton & Bolton you've got
little to worry about and at least you'll entertain!
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ab8o91$3sl$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
tony sayer
Lambley <use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> writes
>In message <ab706p$kau$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I know you haven't been here for long but I really really want DAB to fail
>> big time. It would just get replaced by a superior system or more money
>> would be concentrated on DSat. One way or the other, unless the bit rates go
>> up, I hope DAB dies ASAP.
>
>For readers just joining us... Steve is the one who reminds us
>incessantly that DAB is "crap", that it produces audio of
>"sub-cassette quality" and that mp2 is "embarrassingly bad". He has
>even set up a campaigning website (the URL is in his sig) to say so at
>greater length, and to urge us all to buy satellite radios instead.
>
Steve is a disappointed angry young man who has indeed spent money on
something that last year delivered the goods in the quality that was
advertised and claimed. This year, some of those goods aren't of the
same quality that they once were. Upon complaining to the supplier and
subcontractor he has had no redress, and hence feels rather aggrieved.
However, he has now found an alternative source of the desired
merchantable quality and hence feels even more aggrieved at the former
product, and as any reasonable person would, wishes others to know that
the goods they are buying are defective, and that a better product
exists....
>Yet despite his detailed grasp of precisely what's wrong with the DAB
>standard and with UK DAB services, this same Steve (so he tells us)
>has very recently invested a big bundle of his hard-won beer tokens in
>a *second* DAB receiver. This, as he must have foreseen, has brought
>him even more embarrassingly bad, crap, sub-cassette-quality Radio 1
>to be miserable about. Yet he has been unable to account for this
>bizarre departure from his own unambiguous and often-repeated advice.
>(Reader, it appears to have been just an impulse buy.)
Steve feeling that his former purchase wasn't giving the performance
that was originally advertised due to shortcomings therein, thought that
a better quality product would result in the original claims of how
superior the new product, to a previous product, would be justified went
and purchased said new product. However, despite there being an
improvement now feels that the original promises of quality have not
been met, and therefore now feels even more aggrieved than ever and
wishes that someone could have foreseen all the problems involved and
now feels duty bound to let other prospective purchasers know about the
shortcomings of supplier and sub-contractor...
>
>Now he tells us that he hopes DAB will die ASAP -- even though this
>would write off entirely the ukp160 he has just spent, plus, of
>course, his ukp100 Wavefinder, his special DAB antenna, power supply
>and perhaps other oddments. Is he some kind of masochist?
>
Steve like many people who have purchased something that has not lived
up to expectations now feels that its his duty to warn others against
making the same mistake.
This is analogous to where a woman takes a man in matrimony and finds
out that the promises given when they took on various undertakings have
not been kept in practice. Therefore, she now feels that the whole world
should be warned against the same mistake.
In this example the gender stated is interchangeable with the opposite
to the original gender first described herein this document.
>I shall no doubt be accused again of winding him up, but I think it's
>fair to ask whether he is being reasonable or logical. If Steve really
>wants DAB to fail, buying more DAB radios doesn't seem the right way
>to make it happen.
>
>Richard
This is quite understanDABle. Human nature being the way it is.....
--
Tony Sayer
Steve
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hxorC9CPx$18E...@bancom.co.uk...
Thankyou Tony for bringing back some sanity to the way my views are
portrayed on this newsgroup as Richard's are distorted beyond recognition.
Steve
> No try www.victorchandler.com ! I'm not sure what the odds are on KK
walking
> out before next may are though!
You never know with KK but I hope he stays as long as possible.
> I actually think with WBA, Norwich, Everton, Soton & Bolton you've got
> little to worry about and at least you'll entertain!
This is the most optimistic I've been about City since they sacked Peter
Reid after 4 games of the season and replaced him with Brian "Who?" Horton.
I think we had finished 4th or 5th in one of the two previous seasons and
finished above United for the first time in years. But that was good old
Peter Swales in charge.
Drew Wilson
> Is that a motorway?
Yes it is
> > I find my Wavefinder fabulous. Excellent audio.
>
>
> Don't tell me, do you playback via a £10 SoundBlaster to a pair of
computer
> speakers?
Not quite. Soundcard is a SB Audigy, with Line o/p to Sherwood DD5.1
Amplifier.
Speakers are two pairs of Gale mini monitors. Centre speaker is a Yamaha
> Have you ever heard what a decent stereo system sounds like?
Yes thanks.
>
>
> > No problems with
> > installation and the choice of stations is quite amazing.
>
>
> Yep, amazing audio quality too. Yeah right.
>
>
> > At last count I have 39 to choose from over 5 Multiplexers.
>
>
> Wooowoooo.
>
And your point????????????
Drew Wilson
"Drew Wilson" <drew....@metuk.netx> wrote in message
news:10208064...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
> And your point????????????
Having now read about your opinions of DAB from this lenghthy thread, I can
see you are a very unhappy chappy.
I took the opportunity of purchasing the wavefinder at £40. It works and it
sounds fine. I am happy with it.
It's no where near the quality of my Sky+ system which I have hooked up to
my modest Home Cinema kit
I don't see me purchasing a seperate DAB tuner.
Still, there was no need to flame me.
Oh well, time to go listen to some tunes on my modest Yamaha DSP-X1, Dennon
DVD and Morden Short 6.1 Speaker system.
Drew.
Steve
"Drew Wilson" <drew....@metuk.netx> wrote in message
news:10208064...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
> And your point????????????
I think there are more relevant newsgroups for people with interests such as
your own.
Au revoir.
Steve
"Drew Wilson" <drew....@metuk.netx> wrote in message
>
> "Drew Wilson" <drew....@metuk.netx> wrote in message
> news:10208064...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
>
> > And your point????????????
>
>
> Having now read about your opinions of DAB from this lenghthy thread, I
can
> see you are a very unhappy chappy.
Yes. Very. DAB has turned from excellent audio quality to poor in the few
months that I've owned a DAB radio. I personally think I am justified in
being pissed off.
> I took the opportunity of purchasing the wavefinder at £40. It works and
it
> sounds fine. I am happy with it.
I still say that for £40 you can't argue with that price so long as it works
okay.
> It's no where near the quality of my Sky+ system which I have hooked up to
> my modest Home Cinema kit
Well, this is my point really. DAB should really be as good or better
quality because DAB *is* and audio system whereas Sky is primarily a video
system.
> I don't see me purchasing a seperate DAB tuner.
I wouldn't if I were you.
> Still, there was no need to flame me.
Apologies. I'd been wound up by DAB Fan who works in the DAB industry and
the success of DAB affects him and the company that he works for. He had
tried to tell me to stop being aggressive to people who had positive views
about DAB yet he was telling me to do this in his first ever post to this
newsgroup so I took afront with his views because he has no right to dictate
what I should and shouldn't do when all he ever does is read the posts but
never participates. Also, his views are exactly the same as those of the
commercial broadcasters who are intent on continually lowering standards to
squeeze every last penny they can out of DAB and without any thoughts of
audio quality. For example, I am really pissed off about the fact that they
reduce 4 stations from 160kbps to 128kbps to fit in the likes of Smash Hits
Radio. That is just a pisstake as far as I am concerned.
> Oh well, time to go listen to some tunes on my modest Yamaha DSP-X1,
Dennon
> DVD and Morden Short 6.1 Speaker system.
Once again, sorry if I was rude, the timing of the start of the thread
wasn't the best but that is no excuse really. All I want is for DAB to
improve but some of the practices that the broadcasters are carrying out are
simply patronising to the general public but in general, the public aren't
aware of what they are doing and by the time they get DAB it will all be too
late to do anything about it. So yes, I am well pissed off because DAB is no
better than FM and it is going to be with us for decades. What a joke.
Steve
>
> "Drew Wilson" <drew....@metuk.netx> wrote in message
> news:10208064...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
>
> > And your point????????????
>
> I think there are more relevant newsgroups for people with interests such
as
> your own.
I take that back.
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL
>
> I don't see me purchasing a seperate DAB tuner.
If your Wavefinder works (and it's a big if - I speak from very bitter
experience) and is stable, it's a perfectly good DAB tuner to have. Steve's
point is about the quality of the audio being put out by the broadcasters.
If you bought a CD and its contents sounded like a 128 kbps joint stereo
MP3, you'd probably take it back. We're being sold short.
L
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL
> I think we have got the message Steve that you don't like DAB over and
over
> and over again
Steve doesn't like DAB as it now stands. He has, however, described the BBC
stations as sounding "excellent" when they were at 192 kbps. It's a case of
unrealised potential.
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL
news:ab6u50$8ce$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> Best news I've had for several days. In her own words, a selfish cow
> with a gob on her.
Play nice, Malcolm. I've known Julie since we were at university together
more than a decade ago, and she's a good person.
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL
news:ab6kid$frhd8$1...@ID-113965.news.dfncis.de...
> So, am I the *only* person happy with their DAB radio?
I'm reasonably happy with it, now that I have a working Wavefinder. For
off-air recording and time-shifting, it's unbeatable. However, the audio
quality isn't always quite the best it could be.
> And lots of other stations and choice.
I'm afraid that choice is an illusion on DAB. Are the various digital music
stations really so different from Heart, Capital and Virgin that they
justify their bandwidth allocations? Too many companies are pumping out the
same homogenised rubbish that gets played enough already on analogue. Where,
AbracaDABra, Oneword and 6 Music apart, are the innovative niche-based
stations?
> I'm sorry - it sounds fine!
Could be better, though. Much better.
L
Alan
>
> "Alan" <Ala...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ab72ms$fsdtd$1...@ID-129999.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > OK, I think we've got the message. Steve doesn't like DAB the way it's
> > currently configured, and neither do some of his other friends in the
NG.
> >
> > Can we now all accept that and not have to read it time after time.
> >
> > DAB as it stands is far from perfect but maybe Steve would like to fix
up
> an
> > FM aerial for me in my corner of SW London, which does not suffer with
> > multi-path problems from nearby hills, that has a decent signal level
and
> > does not suffer birdies caused by pirate FM stations. I've been trying
for
> > thirty years without success. I wonder how many people have *perfect* FM
> > reception?
> >
> > To have the quiet background of DAB is great. The audio quality is OK
but
> > not perfect.
> >
> > I don't claim to have Golden Ears but I do have decent kit -
Quad/Spendor.
>
>
> Alright, so we've heard your criticisms with my criticisms. Some questions
> for you:
>
> Which is best, 25 stations at 192kbps, or 35 stations at 128kbps?
>
> Why do we have to put up with high processing levels?
>
> Why do broadcasters ignore the views of their listeners?
>
>
> > Maybe we could now change the record, instead of turning this NG into
> > alt.knock-dab.steve etc.
>
>
> If you don't like the group it is very easy to start your own group.
I happen to agree with most of what you say. What does get irritating is
reading it again and again.
Alan
> "Alan" <Ala...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ab72ms$fsdtd$1...@ID-129999.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > alt.knock-dab.steve etc.
>
> spend forty quid on a heap of junk and believe you have the right to
> come here and immediately change things. Shove off if you don't like it.
> --
> Malcolm
>
>
>
Where did I say I spent £40? As it happens I spent considerably more than
that.
I'm not disagreeing with most of what is written here. I'm just fed up with
reading the same thing over and over again.
I'm sorry for disturbing YOUR newsgroup.
Oh, and politeness costs nothing.
Alan.
Steve
> I happen to agree with most of what you say. What does get irritating is
> reading it again and again.
Fine, I wrote my website primarily because I seemed to be saying it over and
over again. One problem I've had is that Richard Lambley has been following
me around everywhere I go and pulling me up and he winds me up when he does
so which has prolonged this longer than it should have done. I also dislike
false claims which I also respond to. I have no wish to post incessantly any
more and I think you will get your wish sooner than you think.
Chris Malme
news:ab9jfa$i1u$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
> All I want is for DAB to improve
I thought you wanted it to fail horribly.
Obviously, I'm not keeping up.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk
Phil Stewart
>
> > I happen to agree with most of what you say. What does get irritating is
> > reading it again and again.
>
> Fine, I wrote my website primarily because I seemed to be saying it over
and
> over again. One problem I've had is that Richard Lambley has been
following
> me around everywhere I go and pulling me up and he winds me up when he
does
> so which has prolonged this longer than it should have done.
Steve, you need to chill dude. Never get provoked and /or wound up by usenet
... it really is far easier not to. Chill out, point out the errors of
others, accept the errors of yourself (cos we all make the odd mistake, darn
human nature :-), ignore trolls, avoid flame, and never get angry ... these
ideals certainly made my usenet experiences much better.
--
From Phil
Whos biggest usenet adventures nowadays are the odd carefully placed
'devil's advocate' post ...
tony sayer
IbMePdErRoIoAmL <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> writes
Precisely...
--
Tony Sayer
Steve
"Phil Stewart" <usenet2...@lichp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:abaogv$bso$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ab9q3j$83p$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > > I happen to agree with most of what you say. What does get irritating
is
> > > reading it again and again.
> >
> > Fine, I wrote my website primarily because I seemed to be saying it over
> and
> > over again. One problem I've had is that Richard Lambley has been
> following
> > me around everywhere I go and pulling me up and he winds me up when he
> does
> > so which has prolonged this longer than it should have done.
>
> Steve, you need to chill dude. Never get provoked and /or wound up by
usenet
> ... it really is far easier not to. Chill out, point out the errors of
> others, accept the errors of yourself (cos we all make the odd mistake,
darn
> human nature :-), ignore trolls, avoid flame, and never get angry ...
these
> ideals certainly made my usenet experiences much better.
I know you're right, it just seems to be easier said than done when I get
going.
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> "Richard Lambley" <use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:0210e832...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk...
> > In message <ab8cge$2ma$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
> > "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> >
...extensive snip...
> > > Lastly, Kiss is not on Sky so I want to listen to Kiss in better quality
> > > than on my Wavefinder.
> > >
...snipped 17 lines of waffle about local stations in Manchester....
> > >
> So, to answer your question, no I absolutely do not want a wider choice and
> to try and twist things to further your boring argument such as you are
> attempting to do here will fail miserably.
Er, my point was that you *do* want the wider choice which has now
brought you Kiss. That was the main reason you gave for buying your
Videologic box (since you can get your other stations better via FM).
And you've spent money to gain this choice even though you knew in
advance that the audio quality would be "embarrassingly bad" (your
description of the mp2 codec). Yet you assured us that people wouldn't
do this. How am I twisting your words there?
> > But for portable or mobile reception, a Sky system
> > won't be much good to you.
>
> Ah, but if you remember it may well be feasible to receive it on a portable
So long as you're on the right side of the building and don't have any
obstructions in the way. And so long as users of the adjacent
satellites can cope with the much higher power levels that you'd be
wanting from Astra. Are you going to issue them all with bigger dishes
so that they won't suffer from co-channel interference? Or will you
simply replace all the other satellites over Europe too? This sounds
like another crazy scheme that you haven't thought through.
> and Global Radio will be fine for me when I get S-DAB for the car.
So long as you're willing to pay the subscription... for what may yet
turn out to be another low-rate service driven by commercial
imperatives. But I must tread softly, for I tread on your dreams.
Silly me.
Richard
--
Steve
There is nothing to respond to that hasn't been said before. It seems a bit
unfair that I'm getting stick for the number of times I have to say things
on here when you are the root cause of me having to say these things over
and over again.
Get off my back and change the record. I don't think I've heard anything new
from you for months. It's just the same miserable crap day in day out.
Richard Lambley
"Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Too many companies are pumping out the
> same homogenised rubbish that gets played enough already on analogue. Where,
> AbracaDABra, Oneword and 6 Music apart, are the innovative niche-based
> stations?
Well, that's three more than we had before, Louis -- which is not a
bad start in a hard commercial world.
Richard
--
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL
> In message <ab9khc$mhf$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> bad start in a hard commercial world.
So, we should be grateful for whatever scraps we can get? Sorry, but I
expect better. We have this wonderful new platform and it's being used to
relay the same bollocks that you can buy on any Now That's What I Call Music
compilation. Where is the station playing jazz 24 hours a day (Jazz FM,
despite its name, plays very little real jazz. Instead it favours 'smooth
jazz', which is best described as instrumental modern soul/R&B.)? Where is
the comedy station? There is a market out there for both of these and many
more in this "hard commercial world" to which you refer.
L
Steve
"Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:abbtp4$l16$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Here, here.
tony sayer
IbMePdErRoIoAmL <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> writes
Re, JazzFM/SAT/DAB/Internet, the station that must by now have an
identity crisis, this is playing the sort of sounds I do like to hear,
except its getting rather bland during the day.
As to just about anything else, well the average ILR output with the
bland, inane, presenter/mouthy pratt we can well do without....
--
Tony Sayer
Tom Hawley
better
> off communicating with other lemmings on there.
Great another idiot who thinks he owns a newsgroup just cos hes an authority
on its subject.
Wavefinder is perfectly on-topic here, so I think i'll stay. Thanks for your
concern though.
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL
> Re, JazzFM/SAT/DAB/Internet, the station that must by now have an
> identity crisis, this is playing the sort of sounds I do like to hear,
> except its getting rather bland during the day.
There's a place for smooth jazz, but surely a station of that name should be
making an effort to play trad, mainstream, modern, bebop, free, big band,
small band and all points of the jazz compass?
> As to just about anything else, well the average ILR output with the
> bland, inane, presenter/mouthy pratt we can well do without....
Remember when local radio was local?
L
tony sayer
IbMePdErRoIoAmL <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:qGeZv0Ba...@bancom.co.uk...
>> Re, JazzFM/SAT/DAB/Internet, the station that must by now have an
>> identity crisis, this is playing the sort of sounds I do like to hear,
>> except its getting rather bland during the day.
>
>There's a place for smooth jazz, but surely a station of that name should be
>making an effort to play trad, mainstream, modern, bebop, free, big band,
>small band and all points of the jazz compass?
Yep, now that's what I call music, not another smash hitz....
>
>> As to just about anything else, well the average ILR output with the
>> bland, inane, presenter/mouthy pratt we can well do without....
>
>Remember when local radio was local?
Well old Auntie is still, but its rather boring and sleep
inducing...zzzzzzzzzzzz...
--
Tony Sayer
Mark Carver
"Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:abbtp4$l16$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>Where is the comedy station ?
Next time you're passing Basingstoke on the M3 tune to 107.6 :-)
Richard Lambley
"Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> So, we should be grateful for whatever scraps we can get? Sorry, but I
> expect better. We have this wonderful new platform and it's being used to
> relay the same bollocks that you can buy on any Now That's What I Call Music
> compilation. Where is the station playing jazz 24 hours a day
Jazz FM started that way, and, AIUI, was found not to work
commercially. The formula was abandoned in the first management
reshuffle. But I think perhaps this is where satellite comes in.
One station I was hoping to find on DAB, though, is WRN; I seem to
remember reading that it was involved in the early tests in the London
area, but maybe it has been priced out of the market.
> Where is
> the comedy station?
Well, it's called Radio 4, or possibly Network Z. But even R4 seems to
struggle at the moment to find good new comedy (Dead Ringers
excepted). Its best show is now 30 years old. I think this is just a
feature of the age. There was a lot more good comedy about when I was
at school, although maybe I was just more easily amused then.
I don't think you can realistically expect UK commercial stations to
do comedy, unless they confine themselves to playing other people's
recordings -- it would be so much more expensive than playing canned
music. Also, I suspect non-stop comedy might turn out to be
disappointingly unfunny.
Richard
--
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL
> Jazz FM started that way
I know it did. I was that listener.
> and, AIUI, was found not to work commercially.
There was a loss of nerve, which coupled to management issues, sent them
flying the other way. For a while it was all "And that was Sting. His bass
player used to work with Miles Davis. Now here's Eric Clapton, who used to
be a blues guitarist, but now isn't." It all comes down to the Reithian
ideal of giving people what they didn't necessarily know they wanted.
Nothing on earth will convince me that Jazz FM could be much more pleasing
to purists while maintaining its current figures.
> The formula was abandoned in the first management
> reshuffle. But I think perhaps this is where satellite comes in.
Indeed. What I have heard of Music Choice is good and varied.
> Well, it's called Radio 4
You're missing my point. What I was asking was with all of this bandwidth
available, why so much of it is wasted on stations playing the same few
records as each other in heavy rotation. With such a proliferation of
mediocrity competing against itself, you can't tell me that all of them are
"working commercially". DAB should be ideal for catering to niches, and a
great opportunity has been muffed. .
> or possibly Network Z.
Bad news. I met one of the Network Z programmers the other day. We were
talking about the Burkiss Way and how wonderful it was. He reported that he
had suggested it to his bosses for the new network who rejected it because
it wasn't a "classic" or "youth-based". He mused on the stupidity of aiming
an archive station at youth... It sounds like Network Z is going to be all
of the Hancock and Goons that you can buy in any branch of HMV anyway mixed
uneasily with whatever Radio 4 had on last week. A pity.
> But even R4 seems to struggle at the moment to find good new comedy (Dead
Ringers
> excepted).
It's cyclical, and I think the comedy scene is in a fairly moribund state at
the moment. Have you heard of the Boosh? Terrible.
> Its best show is now 30 years old.
ISIHAC? We agree on this much.
> I think this is just a feature of the age. There was a lot more good
comedy about when I was
> at school
When was that? I grew up with Radio Active and Eddie Braben's Show with No
Name. Marvellous.
>, although maybe I was just more easily amused then.
> I don't think you can realistically expect UK commercial stations to
> do comedy,
It was a genre I used as an example. It applies to any form of speech. DAB
has Oneword and that's it. A shame, IMHO.
> unless they confine themselves to playing other people's
> recordings -- it would be so much more expensive than playing canned
> music.
John Wellington used to do that on Radio Mercury in the 1980s. Friends of
mine in the industry have expressed amazement that this happened and
mentally totted up the PRS fees for playing a whole Python LP as he often
did.
> Also, I suspect non-stop comedy might turn out to be
> disappointingly unfunny.
It would be nice to have the option. Non-stop chart pop is available
everywhere, so who needs more of it?
L
Mark Carver
"Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:abmcsm$8n7$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> John Wellington used to do that on Radio Mercury in the 1980s. Friends of
> mine in the industry have expressed amazement that this happened and
> mentally totted up the PRS fees for playing a whole Python LP as he often
> did.
Would the fees have simply been the same as 45 mins worth of top 40 singles,
or are the PRS fees not 'linear' ?
Richard Lambley
"Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Richard Lambley <use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:084ed233...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk...
>
> > The formula was abandoned in the first management
> > reshuffle. But I think perhaps this is where satellite comes in.
>
> Indeed. What I have heard of Music Choice is good and varied.
I was thinking more of the continental stations than Music Choice. I
find those CD carousel services suffocating.
> > Well, it's called Radio 4
>
> You're missing my point. What I was asking was with all of this bandwidth
> available, why so much of it is wasted on stations playing the same few
> records as each other in heavy rotation.
OK, I was being flippant. But this kind of convergence is what seems
to happen everywhere.
> > or possibly Network Z.
>
> Bad news. I met one of the Network Z programmers the other day. We were
> talking about the Burkiss Way and how wonderful it was. He reported that he
> had suggested it to his bosses for the new network who rejected it because
> it wasn't a "classic" or "youth-based".
I'd say Burkiss was a classic by any standards. What a shame -- that
was just the kind of thing I was hoping for from Network Z.
> It's cyclical, and I think the comedy scene is in a fairly moribund state at
> the moment. Have you heard of the Boosh? Terrible.
But not so terrible as the Spam Fritter Man, which actually got taken
off before the end of its run, as I remember. Our favourite comedy at
the moment is in Garrison Keillor's weekly show from Minnesota Public
Radio -- pure gold, but you need a dish to tune in.
> > I think this is just a feature of the age. There was a lot more good
> comedy about when I was
> > at school
>
> When was that? I grew up with Radio Active and Eddie Braben's Show with No
> Name. Marvellous.
I'm a bit more elderly than that (Steve G will probably tell you by
how much, if you wait around)....
> John Wellington used to do that on Radio Mercury in the 1980s. Friends of
> mine in the industry have expressed amazement that this happened and
> mentally totted up the PRS fees for playing a whole Python LP as he often
> did.
I heard some of those programmes and boggled too. I seem to remember
that there used to be performing rights restrictions which prevented
the playing of BBC programmes on commercial stations, but no doubt
Radio Mercury found some way around them ;-) Don't think Mercury does
anything like that now.
> > Also, I suspect non-stop comedy might turn out to be
> > disappointingly unfunny.
>
> It would be nice to have the option. Non-stop chart pop is available
> everywhere, so who needs more of it?
It's an age thing.... If you or I were in the right age range, we
would instantly detect subtle differences between these stations
which make one enjoyable and another not. My youngest assures me that
Capital Radio is heaps better than Radio 1 or Radio Mercury. But maybe
she just likes Chris Tarrant.
Richard
--
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL
> I was thinking more of the continental stations than Music Choice. I
> find those CD carousel services suffocating.
Carousel it may be, I've heard them play complete, long deleted Tubby Hayes
LPs within a period of a few hours, none of which have ever emerged on CD. I
spoke to someone who works there, and apparently the guy who does their
playlists takes in records from his own collection and digitises them for
transmission. That deserves some kind of credit, IMHO.
> OK, I was being flippant. But this kind of convergence is what seems
> to happen everywhere.
Indeed. That it happens doesn't make it right, though.
> I'd say Burkiss was a classic by any standards. What a shame -- that
> was just the kind of thing I was hoping for from Network Z.
Yep. Me too. Incidentally, Mike Brown of this parish is the man to speak to
when it comes to matters Burkiss.
> But not so terrible as the Spam Fritter Man, which actually got taken
> off before the end of its run, as I remember.
I missed that.
> Our favourite comedy at
> the moment is in Garrison Keillor's weekly show from Minnesota Public
> Radio -- pure gold, but you need a dish to tune in.
Sounds good.
> I'm a bit more elderly than that (Steve G will probably tell you by
> how much, if you wait around)....
So, Round the Horne for you then or is that going too far?
> I heard some of those programmes and boggled too. I seem to remember
> that there used to be performing rights restrictions which prevented
> the playing of BBC programmes on commercial stations, but no doubt
> Radio Mercury found some way around them ;-)
Like hoping nobody noticed?
> Don't think Mercury does anything like that now.
Indeed not. Whatever happened to John Wellington? Last time I heard him was
on COuntry 1035 (as it then was).
> It's an age thing.... If you or I were in the right age range, we
> would instantly detect subtle differences between these stations
> which make one enjoyable and another not. My youngest assures me that
> Capital Radio is heaps better than Radio 1 or Radio Mercury. But maybe
> she just likes Chris Tarrant.
I suppose there's that, but wouldn't you think stations would be more
interested in attracting older listeners with more disposable income than
chasing the pop kids?
L
Richard Lambley
"Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <lfb...@cheeseford.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I
> spoke to someone who works there, and apparently the guy who does their
> playlists takes in records from his own collection and digitises them for
> transmission. That deserves some kind of credit, IMHO.
Certainly. Hope he doesn't get told to stop, then.
>
> Me too. Incidentally, Mike Brown of this parish is the man to speak to
> when it comes to matters Burkiss.
Thanks for the tip. Wonder whether Mike is on-channel??
> > But not so terrible as the Spam Fritter Man, which actually got taken
> > off before the end of its run, as I remember.
>
> I missed that.
Count yourself fortunate.
> > Our favourite comedy at
> > the moment is in Garrison Keillor's weekly show from Minnesota Public
> > Radio -- pure gold, but you need a dish to tune in.
>
> Sounds good.
It is, even at 128kbit/s ;-)
> > I'm a bit more elderly than that (Steve G will probably tell you by
> > how much, if you wait around)....
>
> So, Round the Horne for you then or is that going too far?
Ooooh, 'e goes too far, that one, 'e goes too far! No, RTH would be
just about right!
> wouldn't you think stations would be more
> interested in attracting older listeners with more disposable income than
> chasing the pop kids?
That's undoubtedly what Classic FM, Oneword, Primetime and Saga are
doing. But almost anything you try beyond playing current pop and
phone-ins will consume production resources and talent to an extent
which presumably makes it unattractive as a business.
BTW, I regard Oneword as a brave effort, but I'm still puzzled by it.
Tune in, and you're liable to find that (as is the case right now)
they're on Part 20 of a 54-part novel. Correction, they've just moved
on to episode 17 of a 32-parter. Unless you're able to stick with the
station for days at a stretch, it's somewhat unrewarding.
Richard
--