DAB radio sets Display
David
and they are now looking a bit more styleish, the 1940's look that they all
had appears to have gone.
But I note they all have one thing in common the very small display.
Why is this?
Can't a larger one be used?
--
Regards,
David
Please reply to News Group
Alexander Keys
which I got last year for £60. Also, they are more sensitive than the
cheaper ones, I tried both an Alba and an 'Acoustic Solutions' from Argos,
and had to take them back as they wouldn't get all the stations, even in my
second floor flat near the centre of Leicester.
On the sensitivity front, I did have the big Philips CD player with DAB at
my previous workplace, it worked fine there (ground floor of steel-framed
building near Leic. city centre), as well as in a friends ground floor flat
in a hilly area, where it is now.
--
"But the headline's on tennis,
so it seems everything's alright."
"David" <david...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:W53Wg.8505$pa....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
David
"Alexander Keys" <alexand...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:I3cWg.6759$yf2....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Buy a Roberts, they all seem to have nice big displays. I have a 'Gemini
> 15' which I got last year for £60. Also, they are more sensitive than the
> cheaper ones, I tried both an Alba and an 'Acoustic Solutions' from Argos,
> and had to take them back as they wouldn't get all the stations, even in
> my second floor flat near the centre of Leicester.
>
> On the sensitivity front, I did have the big Philips CD player with DAB at
> my previous workplace, it worked fine there (ground floor of steel-framed
> building near Leic. city centre), as well as in a friends ground floor
> flat in a hilly area, where it is now.
>
Does the general look of the Roberts look modern or does it fit my old
fashioned coment?
Philips, well not a Philips fan, sorry.
Alexander Keys
Have a look at their website, www.robertsradio.co.uk .
The 'Gemini 15' is a modern styled smallish portable in white/dark grey,
which I have discovered is made by Taiwanese manufacturer Sangean, being
based on an FM model for the USA market.
Roberts also do the 'RD-50' (1950's/60's style, choice of colours, RRP £150)
with the same large display.
Dave Plowman (News)
Alexander Keys <alexand...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On the sensitivity front, I did have the big Philips CD player with DAB
> at my previous workplace, it worked fine there (ground floor of
> steel-framed building near Leic. city centre), as well as in a friends
> ground floor flat in a hilly area, where it is now.
You're not allowed to make that point while 'DAB is better than FM' has a
breath left in his body. FM is always perfect while DAB always rubbish.
--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> In article <I3cWg.6759$yf2....@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>,
> Alexander Keys <alexand...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On the sensitivity front, I did have the big Philips CD player with
>> DAB at my previous workplace, it worked fine there (ground floor of
>> steel-framed building near Leic. city centre), as well as in a
>> friends ground floor flat in a hilly area, where it is now.
>
> You're not allowed to make that point while 'DAB is better than FM'
> has a breath left in his body. FM is always perfect while DAB always
> rubbish.
I've never said, and would never say, that any terrestrial broadcast system
would provide perfect reception.
So stop lying.
Oh, and BTW, you've lost the argument: DAB is being upgraded and the old DAB
system will be obsolete in around 5-6 years' time.
Bye.
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview/freeview_receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php
David
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
news:3cpWg.16857
>
> Oh, and BTW, you've lost the argument: DAB is being upgraded and the old
> DAB system will be obsolete in around 5-6 years' time.
>
new sets in 5/6 years?
Don Pearce
wrote:
>
>"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
>news:3cpWg.16857
>>
>> Oh, and BTW, you've lost the argument: DAB is being upgraded and the old
>> DAB system will be obsolete in around 5-6 years' time.
>>
> So are we expected to buy new sets when DAB extends to the L band and again
>new sets in 5/6 years?
I bought my DAB radio, and Arcam Alpha 10, when they first came out -
it already has an L-band input. Don't they all?
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> news:3cpWg.16857
>>
>> Oh, and BTW, you've lost the argument: DAB is being upgraded and the
>> old DAB system will be obsolete in around 5-6 years' time.
>>
> So are we expected to buy new sets when DAB extends to the L band and
> again new sets in 5/6 years?
This has nothing to do with L-band. The DAB system is being upgraded and all
DAB receivers sold and currently on sale will be obsolete in a few years'
time. This is hardly a big deal, because any DAB radio you buy today for say
£60 will be the £10 cheapo shite in 5-6 years' time. But if you really do
care about having to buy a new DAB radio in a few years' time, wait until
the spring and buy one that's advertised as having very low power
consumption (with the Venice 5 DAB module in it), because that will be
upgradeable so it won't become obsolete.
Dave Plowman (News)
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> Oh, and BTW, you've lost the argument: DAB is being upgraded and the old
> DAB system will be obsolete in around 5-6 years' time.
Can you give details of an official announcement about this?
--
*Born free...Taxed to death.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> In article <3cpWg.16857$pa.1...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>> Oh, and BTW, you've lost the argument: DAB is being upgraded and the
>> old DAB system will be obsolete in around 5-6 years' time.
>
> Can you give details of an official announcement about this?
There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to announce
that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6 years' time. But they
will be obsolete.
For lots of details about this, see the premier website covering digital
radio:
There's also other fact that I've not yet put up on there, although if you
read all my posts over the last couple of weeks you'll be able to find all
these various facts out if you're persistent.
I can't be arsed in repeating myself for someone like yourself, who'll
probably not even understand what I'm saying.
Richard Lamont
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <3cpWg.16857$pa.1...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
>> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>> Oh, and BTW, you've lost the argument: DAB is being upgraded and the
>>> old DAB system will be obsolete in around 5-6 years' time.
>>
>> Can you give details of an official announcement about this?
>
> There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to announce
> that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6 years' time. But they
> will be obsolete.
>
> For lots of details about this, see the premier website covering digital
> radio:
>
> www.digitalradiotech.co.uk
Do you have any source for your claim other than your own web site?
--
Richard Lamont http://www.lamont.me.uk/
<ric...@lamont.me.uk>
OpenPGP Key ID: 0x5096714C
Fingerprint: F838 740C 76B4 6EC6 9ECC 1C4D A4DE 3322 5096 714C
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <3cpWg.16857$pa.1...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>,
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>>> Oh, and BTW, you've lost the argument: DAB is being upgraded and
>>>> the old DAB system will be obsolete in around 5-6 years' time.
>>>
>>> Can you give details of an official announcement about this?
>>
>> There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to
>> announce that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6
>> years' time. But they will be obsolete.
>>
>> For lots of details about this, see the premier website covering
>> digital radio:
>>
>> www.digitalradiotech.co.uk
>
> Do you have any source for your claim other than your own web site?
No. And as I've already said, you WILL NOT FIND an official announcement,
because they don't want to admit that all DAB receivers on sale will be
obsolete in X year' time.
The 5-6 years figure is my estimate based on the DRDB 5-year forecast of DAB
sales, existing sales, the time when the DAB receivers will start selling
that are either upgradeable or support AAC+ as standard, the fact that about
30% of all analogue stations can't transmit on DAB so they'll start
transmitting using AAC+ (on DAB+ or DRM/DRM+) and loads of other stations
will also launch using AAC+, both of which give an incentive to people to
buy a new DAB radio; the fact that new DAB radios that will support AAC+
will have about 7-times the battery life as present DAB radios, and so on.
Oh, and Ofcom is in favour of switching.
The 5-6 years is only an estimate, but I bet it's not far off.
I can add 2 + 2 and get 4 - I don't need to draw on other sources.
Richard L
But why would these stations want to confine themselves to a subset
of the available DAB audience when by sticking with the existing
standard they can reach the whole lot?
--
Richard L.
J. P. Gilliver
news:s9tWg.17585$pa....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
[]
> No. And as I've already said, you WILL NOT FIND an official announcement,
> because they don't want to admit that all DAB receivers on sale will be
> obsolete in X year' time.
> Oh, and Ofcom is in favour of switching.
That's reason enough in itself to oppose it!
Seriously, the switch may be good or bad; I just feel Ofcom are too big for
their boots these days.
>
> The 5-6 years is only an estimate, but I bet it's not far off.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, these days. Do you think FM (and
maybe AM) will go too, about the same time?
[]
hwh
> But why would these stations want to confine themselves to a subset
> of the available DAB audience when by sticking with the existing
> standard they can reach the whole lot?
Because DAB audiences are not spectacular as it is and they could save
money in the long run by using 64 kbps AAC+ and not 128 kbps MP2?
gr, hwh
Dave Plowman (News)
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> > Can you give details of an official announcement about this?
> There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to
> announce that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6 years'
> time. But they will be obsolete.
Nice to know you've added crystal ball gazing to your other 'talents'.
--
*Procrastinate now
David
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
news:1zsWg.9066
>
> There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to
> announce that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6 years'
> time. But they will be obsolete.
>
I mentioned before about the DAB expansion into the L band in 1 or 2 years
time and from the replies I got here I understand only one present set will
be able to recieve the L band. So your estimate of when current sets will
be obselete does not matter at the moment as they will be obselte sooner for
a different reason.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> In article <1zsWg.9066$Or2....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>> Can you give details of an official announcement about this?
>
>
>> There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to
>> announce that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6
>> years' time. But they will be obsolete.
>
> Nice to know you've added crystal ball gazing to your other 'talents'.
Yeah, it's an absolute outrage that anybody would ever try to predict the
future - I bet Ladbrokes are gutted that nobody ever tries to predict
anything.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> news:1zsWg.9066
>>
>> There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to
>> announce that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6
>> years' time. But they will be obsolete.
>>
>
> I mentioned before about the DAB expansion into the L band in 1 or 2
> years time
Radio services won't be using L-band, unless you know something no-one else
does.
David
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> David wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
>> news:1zsWg.9066
>>>
>>> There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to
>>> announce that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6
>>> years' time. But they will be obsolete.
>>>
>>
>> I mentioned before about the DAB expansion into the L band in 1 or 2
>> years time
>
>
> Radio services won't be using L-band, unless you know something no-one
> else does.
>
>
>
in a year or so?
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> news:DmyWg.17737$pa....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> David wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
>>> news:1zsWg.9066
>>>>
>>>> There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to
>>>> announce that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6
>>>> years' time. But they will be obsolete.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I mentioned before about the DAB expansion into the L band in 1 or 2
>>> years time
>>
>>
>> Radio services won't be using L-band, unless you know something
>> no-one else does.
>>
>>
>>
> If that is the case where are these new DAB radio stations going that
> start in a year or so?
Band III.
David
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> David wrote:
>> If that is the case where are these new DAB radio stations going that
>> start in a year or so?
>
>
> Band III.
>
>
In that case I must ask the previous respondants will the current sets be OK
to recieve these?
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> news:NNyWg.9475$Or2...@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>> David wrote:
>
>>> If that is the case where are these new DAB radio stations going
>>> that start in a year or so?
>>
>>
>> Band III.
>>
>>
> In that case I must ask the previous respondants will the current
> sets be OK to recieve these?
All existing DAB receivers can receive Band III. But all existing DAB
receivers will be obsolete in a few years' time, because the audio codec is
going to change.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> news:s9tWg.17585$pa....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> []
>> No. And as I've already said, you WILL NOT FIND an official
>> announcement, because they don't want to admit that all DAB
>> receivers on sale will be obsolete in X year' time.
> []
>> Oh, and Ofcom is in favour of switching.
>
> That's reason enough in itself to oppose it!
Not if it's in listeners' interests to support it.
> Seriously, the switch may be good or bad; I just feel Ofcom are too
> big for their boots these days.
>>
>> The 5-6 years is only an estimate, but I bet it's not far off.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, these days. Do you think FM
> (and maybe AM) will go too, about the same time?
Nah, it'll take a lot longer to switch off FM.
Actually though, it's just occurred to me that FM will outlive the old DAB
system, which has a nice ring about it.
Richard L
hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote:
But commercial radio is likely to be far more interested in this
year's financial results than in what may or may not happen at some
time in the future.
--
Richard L.
Richard L
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> David wrote:
> > "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> > news:1zsWg.9066
> >>
> >> There won't be an official announcement, because they don't want to
> >> announce that all DAB receivers on sale will be obsolete in 5-6
> >> years' time. But they will be obsolete.
> >>
> >
> > I mentioned before about the DAB expansion into the L band in 1 or 2
> > years time
>
>
> Radio services won't be using L-band, unless you know something no-one else
> does.
So what were all those L-band DAB allocations announced by Ofcom?
--
Richard L.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
By that logic, commercial radio stations wouldn't have launched on DAB,
because DAB is a purely loss-making venture for probably a decade at
least.
Would it be possible for you to get things more wrong? I don't think
so.
You're a bitter and twisted man. Face up to the fact that you've been
defending the indefensible for a number of years, and WorldDAB has
pulled the rug out from under your feet. You've LOST the argument, and
if I were you I'd slope off, because if you stick around I will simply
continually remind you that you lost the argument, LOSER.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
When were these DAB L-band allocations? I've not seen any mention
anywhere in the last couple of years of L-band being used for radio
stations in the UK.
Roderick Stewart
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>
>This has nothing to do with L-band. The DAB system is being upgraded and all
>DAB receivers sold and currently on sale will be obsolete in a few years'
>time. This is hardly a big deal, because any DAB radio you buy today for say
>£60 will be the £10 cheapo shite in 5-6 years' time. But if you really do
>care about having to buy a new DAB radio in a few years' time, wait until
>the spring and buy one that's advertised as having very low power
>consumption (with the Venice 5 DAB module in it), because that will be
>upgradeable so it won't become obsolete.
Based on the previous behaviour of the broadcasters with regard to
DAB, we shouldn't just wait 5 or 6 years till the new system is
implemented so we can buy expensive new technology to receive it,
we'll have to wait another 5 or 6 years after that to make sure they
don't just reduce the quality again.
If by that time I'm (a) alive, (b) still interested, and (c) wealthy
enough to afford it, and if something even better hasn't been invented
that would render it pointless, I might be interested, otherwise I'll
find better things to do in my old age than fret about something I
cannot change, and which, frankly, most people don't seem to care
about anyway. It's sad that just having the technological ability to
improve something is not enough to make it happen, but that's the way
the world is.
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
>> > > But why would these stations want to confine themselves to a subset
>> > > of the available DAB audience when by sticking with the existing
>> > > standard they can reach the whole lot?
>> >
>> > Because DAB audiences are not spectacular as it is and they could save
>> > money in the long run by using 64 kbps AAC+ and not 128 kbps MP2?
>>
>> But commercial radio is likely to be far more interested in this
>> year's financial results than in what may or may not happen at some
>> time in the future.
>
>
>By that logic, commercial radio stations wouldn't have launched on DAB,
>because DAB is a purely loss-making venture for probably a decade at
>least.
When DAB started, it offered something significantly different from
the existing system, so the non-technical execs that make the
decisions will have been easily persuaded that the future's bright,
the future's digital, and it offers a guaranteed route to unimaginable
long term wealth, and whoever makes the decision will be thanked by
posterity for their great wisdom.
Now consider he case for "New DAB" Versus "Old DAB" (or whatever they
may be called), and it doesn't seem so strong, especially if New DAB
receivers will not work with Old DAB broadcasts, and consequently they
have to duplicate all the old broadcasts. 6 years is not a long time
in the life of a piece of modern electronics with no high voltages and
no moving parts, so it seems very likely that most people with DAB
radios will still regard them as fairly recent purchases. Explain in
non-techical language why millions of people should discard their
perfectly functional Old DAB radios and replace them with more
expensive New DAB ones - what's the difference to them?
Rod.
David
<ste...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160470557.5...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Is this helpfull from www.ofcom.org.uk where I put L band in the Search.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/radiocomms/reports/analysys/final_report.pdf
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On 10 Oct 2006 01:26:03 -0700, ste...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
>
>>>>> But why would these stations want to confine themselves to a
>>>>> subset of the available DAB audience when by sticking with the
>>>>> existing standard they can reach the whole lot?
>>>>
>>>> Because DAB audiences are not spectacular as it is and they could
>>>> save money in the long run by using 64 kbps AAC+ and not 128 kbps
>>>> MP2?
>>>
>>> But commercial radio is likely to be far more interested in this
>>> year's financial results than in what may or may not happen at some
>>> time in the future.
>>
>>
>> By that logic, commercial radio stations wouldn't have launched on
>> DAB, because DAB is a purely loss-making venture for probably a
>> decade at least.
>
> When DAB started, it offered something significantly different from
> the existing system, so the non-technical execs that make the
> decisions will have been easily persuaded that the future's bright,
> the future's digital, and it offers a guaranteed route to unimaginable
> long term wealth, and whoever makes the decision will be thanked by
> posterity for their great wisdom.
>
> Now consider he case for "New DAB" Versus "Old DAB" (or whatever they
> may be called), and it doesn't seem so strong, especially if New DAB
> receivers will not work with Old DAB broadcasts, and consequently they
> have to duplicate all the old broadcasts.
They won't duplicate the MP2 broadcasts.
> 6 years is not a long time
> in the life of a piece of modern electronics with no high voltages and
> no moving parts, so it seems very likely that most people with DAB
> radios will still regard them as fairly recent purchases.
Fairly recent purchases need to be purchased recently, but 6 years ain't
recently.
> Explain in
> non-techical language why millions of people should discard their
> perfectly functional Old DAB radios and replace them with more
> expensive New DAB ones - what's the difference to them?
Firstly, they won't be more expensive new DAB radios, because in 6 years'
time the functionality you get on Ł80 DAB radios of today will be the Ł15
jobbies in Argos.
Secondly, you say "perfectly functional Old DAB radios". Are they really
perfectly functional? 8-10 hours of battery life on a so-called portable
radio is hardly ideal, whereas the new DAB module that's coming out, that
supports the New DAB standard, claims that battery life by a factor of about
6. Just to go a bit technical for a minute, cos it is a mainly technical
group, the way they've achieved this large increase in battery life is that
they've put a lot of memory on-chip rather than off-chip, so it eliminates
bus transfers from external memory which consumes a lot of power.
A factor of 6 increase in battery life moves DAB portables from being
verging on the non-portable to being truly portable, and existing receivers
shouldn't need to be redesigned because the new module is smaller, so they
can simply plumb it into existing receiver designs.
It's similar to the situation with legacy ITV Digital set-top boxes that
were in the market when Freeview launched. There were 1 million when
Freeview launched, and by Sept 2005 there were only 300,000 still in use.
The rate of decline in the number of legacy DAB radios won't be so steep,
but it will decline in the same general way, mainly because of the
difference in battery life.
Also, the better functionality of newer DAB radios already makes the older
ones look decidedly basic, because older ones don't have FM, don't have
pause and rewind, can't record to SD card, can't playback MP3 files from SD
card, don't have the EPG, and so on.
There will also be lots more stations available only on receivers that
support AAC+.
Look, I've written this same explanation a few times. It's not going to be
wrong, because it all perfectly logical, and the only possible criticism is
that my timescale estimate might turn out to be optimistic - although I
think 6 years is a reasonable estimate based on the sales forecasts and how
many have been sold to date.
It is inevitable that the UK will switch to using AAC+ - it's just a matter
of how long.
DAB sounds worse than FM
That's from 2004, and IIRC that was part of the analysis to aid Ofcom in
decision-making for their consultations. But the consultations have finished
now, and as I've understood it all, L-band won't be used for radio
multiplexes, and it's going to be auctioned off for things like mobile TV,
European satellite digital radio and WiMAX and such like.
Richard L
ste...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
>
> Richard L wrote:
> > In message <452aa164$1$4515$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>
> > hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote:
> >
> > > Richard L wrote:
> > > > But why would these stations want to confine themselves to a subset
> > > > of the available DAB audience when by sticking with the existing
> > > > standard they can reach the whole lot?
> > >
> > > Because DAB audiences are not spectacular as it is and they could save
> > > money in the long run by using 64 kbps AAC+ and not 128 kbps MP2?
> >
> > But commercial radio is likely to be far more interested in this
> > year's financial results than in what may or may not happen at some
> > time in the future.
>
>
> By that logic, commercial radio stations wouldn't have launched on DAB,
> because DAB is a purely loss-making venture for probably a decade at
> least.
>
> Would it be possible for you to get things more wrong? I don't think
> so.
Weren't the big commercial groups obliged to support DAB as a
condition of having their FM licences extended?
> You're a bitter and twisted man. Face up to the fact that you've been
> defending the indefensible for a number of years, and WorldDAB has
> pulled the rug out from under your feet. You've LOST the argument, and
> if I were you I'd slope off, because if you stick around I will simply
> continually remind you that you lost the argument, LOSER.
I'm still waiting for you to correct my arithmetic in a post last
week, where I calculated that the Oxford DVB-H trial required no fewer
than nine transmitter sites to serve an area of four miles radius.
This can't possibly be correct, since it would make a DVB-H network
unaffordable as a means of delivering national radio coverage. But you
seem to have gone quiet on DVB-H all of a sudden.
--
Richard L.
Richard L
ste...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
Is next year's proposed auction off, then?
--
Richard L.
tony sayer
<use...@nowirelessspam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <1160468762.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
> ste...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
>
>>
>> Richard L wrote:
>> > In message <452aa164$1$4515$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>
>> > hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Richard L wrote:
>> > > > But why would these stations want to confine themselves to a subset
>> > > > of the available DAB audience when by sticking with the existing
>> > > > standard they can reach the whole lot?
>> > >
>> > > Because DAB audiences are not spectacular as it is and they could save
>> > > money in the long run by using 64 kbps AAC+ and not 128 kbps MP2?
>> >
>> > But commercial radio is likely to be far more interested in this
>> > year's financial results than in what may or may not happen at some
>> > time in the future.
>>
>>
>> By that logic, commercial radio stations wouldn't have launched on DAB,
>> because DAB is a purely loss-making venture for probably a decade at
>> least.
>>
>> Would it be possible for you to get things more wrong? I don't think
>> so.
>
>Weren't the big commercial groups obliged to support DAB as a
>condition of having their FM licences extended?
That from what I've heard, is about the only reason some of them did!...
--
Tony Sayer
Adam Sampson
> 6 years is not a long time in the life of a piece of modern
> electronics with no high voltages and no moving parts,
This is definitely true, but...
> so it seems very likely that most people with DAB radios will still
> regard them as fairly recent purchases.
... the manufacturers have got consumers (especially young people)
very effectively trained -- through mobile phones, computer equipment,
digital TV boxes, etc. -- to regard the useful lifespan of consumer
electronics as no more than a couple of years. Many people would not
expect a radio to last six years.
--
Adam Sampson <a...@offog.org> <http://offog.org/>
charles
in our amateur theatre, one lantern was thrown out because "a wire had come
off". This by the younger generation. So we need to find another £100 or
so to replace it.
--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
hwh
> Explain in
> non-techical language why millions of people should discard their
> perfectly functional Old DAB radios and replace them with more
> expensive New DAB ones - what's the difference to them?
More stations and a better sound quality.
gr, hwh
DAB sounds worse than FM
Good answer!
David
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
>>
>> More stations and a better sound quality.
>
>
> Good answer!
>
Yes but is it the right one?
Ken
> > 6 years is not a long time in the life of a piece of modern
> > electronics with no high voltages and no moving parts,
>
> This is definitely true, but...
>
> > so it seems very likely that most people with DAB radios will still
> > regard them as fairly recent purchases.
>
> ... the manufacturers have got consumers (especially young people)
> very effectively trained -- through mobile phones, computer equipment,
> digital TV boxes, etc. -- to regard the useful lifespan of consumer
> electronics as no more than a couple of years. Many people would not
> expect a radio to last six years.
I expect 30 years!
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
And how will you persuade them to accept the bit about sound quality,
bearing in mind that it wasn't true last time?
Rod.
Dave Plowman (News)
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> > More stations and a better sound quality.
> Good answer!
Is it? The majority of radio stations transmit pretty poor quality audio
at the moment - regardless of the transmission medium. It's what the
public want, apparently.
--
*Windows will never cease *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> news:l5SWg.2553
>>>
>>> More stations and a better sound quality.
>>
>>
>> Good answer!
>>
>
> Yes but is it the right one?
No, people will be dead against better sound quality and more stations. Of
course it's the bloody right answer.
Stephen
news:W53Wg.8505$pa....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>I was looking at the variety of DAB sets in our large Tesco store yesturday
>and they are now looking a bit more styleish, the 1940's look that they all
>had appears to have gone.
> But I note they all have one thing in common the very small display.
> Why is this?
> Can't a larger one be used?
Although the Roberts Gemini 15 display is nice and large, I think the best
is the top of the range Pure because it's the only one that lets you see the
whole of the text in one go without having to wait for it to scroll, as it
has more lines in the text display. Stations like Chill that have no
presenters, and rely on the text display to tell you what's playing are a
good idea, but I find it annoying that I have to wait so long for the
display to crawl around to the bit I actually want to read.
One day all DAB displays will have more lines so they don't need to scroll,
and they'll be in full colour with white backlights and show colour pictures
and graphics - like a mobile phone. A few years ago it was common for mobile
phones to use the same type of display found on most DAB radios today - a 2
line scrolling text-only display with a monochrome backlight. But no-one
would buy a mobile phone like that now. It would look way out of date
compared with the current modeils, and very unimpressive. It will soon be
the same with DAB radios. A proper compact high resolution colour graphics
display of the type used as standard on mobile phones will not greatly
increase the cost, and once one DAB radio manufacturer puts one in their DAB
radios all the other manufacturers will have to follow.
As with mobile phones, this display will also be capable of showing small
screen video clips and live TV. Like it or not, the distinction between
portable radio and portable TV is becoming blurred.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> In article <l5SWg.2553$69....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>> More stations and a better sound quality.
>
>> Good answer!
>
> Is it? The majority of radio stations transmit pretty poor quality
> audio at the moment - regardless of the transmission medium. It's
> what the public want, apparently.
Only Tweedle Dim (Dave Plowman) or Tweedle Dumb (Jerry) would suggest
anything as preposterous as the public actually wanting poor quality.
Therefore, without further ado, and it's not a second too soon, and good
riddance to bad rubbish, and you're a buffoonerer, back in the killfile you
go.
*plonk*
Don Pearce
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <l5SWg.2553$69....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
>> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>>> More stations and a better sound quality.
>>
>>> Good answer!
>>
>> Is it? The majority of radio stations transmit pretty poor quality
>> audio at the moment - regardless of the transmission medium. It's
>> what the public want, apparently.
>
>
>Only Tweedle Dim (Dave Plowman) or Tweedle Dumb (Jerry) would suggest
>anything as preposterous as the public actually wanting poor quality.
>
>Therefore, without further ado, and it's not a second too soon, and good
>riddance to bad rubbish, and you're a buffoonerer, back in the killfile you
>go.
>
>*plonk*
The evidence is rather on Dave's side. VHS beat Betamax, simply
because it had the movies. When TV sets had colour control knobs they
were inevitably wound up to super-saturation by the average member of
the general public. McDonald's is a popular eatery. The Labour Party
won a second term in government and George Bush is living proof.
So even though they may not express it in terms of poor quality, that
is inevitably where the public choice goes - high quality makes
demands on the intellect that Joe Blow simply isn't prepared to meet.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Jerry
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
news:3B1Xg.20797$pa....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <l5SWg.2553$69....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
> > DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> >>> More stations and a better sound quality.
> >
> >> Good answer!
> >
> > Is it? The majority of radio stations transmit pretty poor
quality
> > audio at the moment - regardless of the transmission medium. It's
> > what the public want, apparently.
>
>
> Only Tweedle Dim (Dave Plowman) or Tweedle Dumb (Jerry) would
suggest
Only a halfwit could get them round the wrong way!...
> anything as preposterous as the public actually wanting poor
quality.
What he said was that they want choice, if that means a lower quality
they are prepared to *accept* it not that they want it - there is a
difference.
>
> Therefore, without further ado, and it's not a second too soon, and
good
> riddance to bad rubbish, and you're a buffoonerer, back in the
killfile you
> go.
>
> *plonk*
>
Meaning, 'oh shit I'm loosing again and don't want to read those who
are proving me wrong'.
I suspect I'll be the next one for the 'plonkers' actions...
Dave Plowman (News)
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> > Is it? The majority of radio stations transmit pretty poor quality
> > audio at the moment - regardless of the transmission medium. It's
> > what the public want, apparently.
> Only Tweedle Dim (Dave Plowman) or Tweedle Dumb (Jerry) would suggest
> anything as preposterous as the public actually wanting poor quality.
Well, you're a member of the public but apparently are perfectly happy
with the vast amount of audible 'processing' applied to most stations on
FM. Which to others makes them painful to listen to. But confine your
crusade to DAB.
> Therefore, without further ado, and it's not a second too soon, and good
> riddance to bad rubbish, and you're a buffoonerer, back in the killfile
> you go.
> *plonk*
Doncha just love these pretentious twats that have to inform the world
about who's in their killfile - as if it was of any importance to others.
--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:05:19 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <l5SWg.2553$69....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>>>> More stations and a better sound quality.
>>>
>>>> Good answer!
>>>
>>> Is it? The majority of radio stations transmit pretty poor quality
>>> audio at the moment - regardless of the transmission medium. It's
>>> what the public want, apparently.
>>
>>
>> Only Tweedle Dim (Dave Plowman) or Tweedle Dumb (Jerry) would suggest
>> anything as preposterous as the public actually wanting poor quality.
>>
>> Therefore, without further ado, and it's not a second too soon, and
>> good riddance to bad rubbish, and you're a buffoonerer, back in the
>> killfile you go.
>>
>> *plonk*
>
> The evidence is rather on Dave's side.
This is what Dave wrote:
"The majority of radio stations transmit pretty poor quality audio
at the moment - regardless of the transmission medium. It's what the
public want, apparently."
Suggesting that the public wants poor quality is obviously ridiculous.
What the public "wants" and what the public will "accept" are two completely
different things.
CD is an example where the public wanted something of higher quality (forget
the arguments about whether it is better or not, the public thought it was
better, which is a "want").
The fact that DAB sales have taken off actually proves that the public wants
better quality on the radio, because they think that DAB will be better than
FM (ignore those that say that DAB sales have taken off only because of the
stations, that's total bollocks).
HDTV will be successful, because the public wants (or would like it if it
could afford it) better TV picture quality.
It is human nature to want better things.
Following your logic then the general public wants to live in a small house
with a crappy car, because the majority of houses are small and the average
car is crap. That's bollocks, because given the chance the general public
would obviously want a large house and an expensive car.
tony sayer
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:05:19 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
><dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>
>>Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <l5SWg.2553$69....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>,
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>>>> More stations and a better sound quality.
>>>
>>>> Good answer!
>>>
>>> Is it? The majority of radio stations transmit pretty poor quality
>>> audio at the moment - regardless of the transmission medium. It's
>>> what the public want, apparently.
>>
>>
>>Only Tweedle Dim (Dave Plowman) or Tweedle Dumb (Jerry) would suggest
>>anything as preposterous as the public actually wanting poor quality.
>>
>>Therefore, without further ado, and it's not a second too soon, and good
>>riddance to bad rubbish, and you're a buffoonerer, back in the killfile you
>>go.
>>
>>*plonk*
>
>The evidence is rather on Dave's side. VHS beat Betamax, simply
>because it had the movies. When TV sets had colour control knobs they
>were inevitably wound up to super-saturation by the average member of
>the general public.
Now beg to differ on that one Don. When I were a lad etc, I used to have
to install colour TV's back in the mid 70's and we were then installing
the Philips K70 chassis sets. Now those with their colour difference
drive looked superb and when we put them in customers homes the comment
was "what a marvellous picture, and isn't the sound good too!" "much
better then any we've seen!..
Which at the time were generally BRC sets which did look very colourful
and furthermore they were interested in keeping the picture that good if
they ever developed faults to do with the colour!....
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> writes
Point Taken, but there are some it seems who prefer it back up in the
trees;!....
>Following your logic then the general public wants to live in a small house
>with a crappy car, because the majority of houses are small and the average
>car is crap. That's bollocks, because given the chance the general public
>would obviously want a large house and an expensive car.
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
DAB sounds worse than FM
I believe Dave Plowman's treehouse has almost doubled in price in the last
few years.
Don Pearce
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
well, since you deleted everything I wrote then replied to stuff I
didn't, that would appear to be the end of that conversation.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>>The evidence is rather on Dave's side. VHS beat Betamax, simply
>>because it had the movies. When TV sets had colour control knobs they
>>were inevitably wound up to super-saturation by the average member of
>>the general public.
>
>Now beg to differ on that one Don. When I were a lad etc, I used to have
>to install colour TV's back in the mid 70's and we were then installing
>the Philips K70 chassis sets. Now those with their colour difference
>drive looked superb and when we put them in customers homes the comment
>was "what a marvellous picture, and isn't the sound good too!" "much
>better then any we've seen!..
>
>Which at the time were generally BRC sets which did look very colourful
>and furthermore they were interested in keeping the picture that good if
>they ever developed faults to do with the colour!....
>
That would be a minority. My experience was that whenever I visited
anybody, the colour telly always had glaring colour. If I adjusted it
back to normality they would complain that it looked washy.
Chris Malcolm
> In article <y2afydw...@cartman.at.offog.org>,
> Adam Sampson <a...@offog.org> wrote:
>> Roderick Stewart <escap...@removethisbit.beeb.net> writes:
>> > 6 years is not a long time in the life of a piece of modern
>> > electronics with no high voltages and no moving parts,
>> This is definitely true, but...
>> > so it seems very likely that most people with DAB radios will still
>> > regard them as fairly recent purchases.
>> ... the manufacturers have got consumers (especially young people)
>> very effectively trained -- through mobile phones, computer equipment,
>> digital TV boxes, etc. -- to regard the useful lifespan of consumer
>> electronics as no more than a couple of years. Many people would not
>> expect a radio to last six years.
> in our amateur theatre, one lantern was thrown out because "a wire had come
> off". This by the younger generation. So we need to find another #100 or
> so to replace it.
Probably half the electronic equipment in my house was found in a skip
or donated free because it had stopped working. In most cases all that
was wrong was that a fuse had died of old age. I have a TV that was
thrown out because the fuse in the mains plug went.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
DAB sounds worse than FM
Here's the bit I snipped:
"VHS beat Betamax, simply
because it had the movies. When TV sets had colour control knobs they
were inevitably wound up to super-saturation by the average member of
the general public. McDonald's is a popular eatery. The Labour Party
won a second term in government and George Bush is living proof.
So even though they may not express it in terms of poor quality, that
is inevitably where the public choice goes - high quality makes
demands on the intellect that Joe Blow simply isn't prepared to meet."
You're basically agreeing with Dave "Tree Dweller" Plowman, who said that
the public actually *WANTS* poor quality. What utter nonsense.
Roderick Stewart
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>HDTV will be successful, because the public wants (or would like it if it
>could afford it) better TV picture quality.
>
>It is human nature to want better things.
It's also human nature to be lazy and apathetic, and even dynamic and
strongly motivated people may simply have things to do that they
consider more important, or more deserving of their hard earned cash,
than watching television programmes.
Rod.
Don Pearce
No, the conclusion of what I wrote is that quality isn't a factor in
the public's preferences, and since quantity usually comes along with
poor quality, that is the way things generally go. The CD succeeded
not because of its high quality, but because it made sense - it was
small, contained more music and was much easier to deal with than
vinyl. HDTV is selling itself on quality much the same way DAB did -
nobody here knows better than you how poor DAB is, and soon we will
all see how bad HDTV is - and for exactly the same reasons; quantity
will win over quality. The market will decide - in other words the
great unwashed will always go for more over better.
So as I say, although the situation may not be expressed in terms of a
preference for poorer quality, that is what the result amounts to.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Again, this in absolutely no way shows that the general public wants low
fking quality.
Will anybody who tries to put forward such a ridiculous suggestion that the
public actually consciously wants low quality please take a few moments to
consider WTF they're actually trying to suggest before they suggest it,
because this is pure, unadulterated, absolute, total ridiculous nonsense.
tony sayer
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
Beg to differ on that Don perhaps our customer base being in Cambridge
were better informed;-)...
>d
>
>--
>Pearce Consulting
>http://www.pearce.uk.com
>
--
Tony Sayer
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:43:15 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>
>> Here's the bit I snipped:
>>
>> "VHS beat Betamax, simply
>> because it had the movies. When TV sets had colour control knobs they
>> were inevitably wound up to super-saturation by the average member of
>> the general public. McDonald's is a popular eatery. The Labour Party
>> won a second term in government and George Bush is living proof.
>>
>> So even though they may not express it in terms of poor quality, that
>> is inevitably where the public choice goes - high quality makes
>> demands on the intellect that Joe Blow simply isn't prepared to
>> meet."
>>
>> You're basically agreeing with Dave "Tree Dweller" Plowman, who said
>> that the public actually *WANTS* poor quality. What utter nonsense.
>>
>
> No, the conclusion of what I wrote is that quality isn't a factor in
> the public's preferences,
Then you're simply wrong, because the public definitely does consider
quality to be a factor. The problem is that the public is utterly clueless
about quality issues, but that in no way means that it doesn't want good
quality.
> and since quantity usually comes along with
> poor quality, that is the way things generally go.
Again, the fact that the public likes choice does NOT mean that they want
poor quality.
This is all basic set theory. Try drawing a Venn diagram, and you'll see
that you're wrong.
Don Pearce
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Then you're simply wrong, because the public definitely does consider
>quality to be a factor. The problem is that the public is utterly clueless
>about quality issues, but that in no way means that it doesn't want good
>quality.
>
If it is clueless about quality, it can hardly want it or consider it
to be a factor. You are clearly wrong, because wherever there has ever
been a choice between quantity and quality, quantity has won. QED.
Dave Plowman (News)
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> CD is an example where the public wanted something of higher quality
> (forget the arguments about whether it is better or not, the public
> thought it was better, which is a "want").
So 'the public' specified the CD format? Which planet are you from?
--
*I'm not your type. I'm not inflatable.
Roderick Stewart
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>> HDTV will be successful, because the public wants (or would like it
>>> if it could afford it) better TV picture quality.
>>>
>>> It is human nature to want better things.
>>
>> It's also human nature to be lazy and apathetic, and even dynamic and
>> strongly motivated people may simply have things to do that they
>> consider more important, or more deserving of their hard earned cash,
>> than watching television programmes.
>
>
>Again, this in absolutely no way shows that the general public wants low
>fking quality.
>
>Will anybody who tries to put forward such a ridiculous suggestion that the
>public actually consciously wants low quality please take a few moments to
>consider WTF they're actually trying to suggest before they suggest it,
>because this is pure, unadulterated, absolute, total ridiculous nonsense.
I wasn't trying to say that the public *wants* low quality, simply
that many of them demonstrate by their actions (or inaction) that they
are willing to accept it, which is not the same thing.
Rod.
Dave Plowman (News)
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> You're basically agreeing with Dave "Tree Dweller" Plowman, who said
> that the public actually *WANTS* poor quality. What utter nonsense.
I'll admit to being unwise expecting you to understand irony.
--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *
Dave Plowman (News)
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> Now beg to differ on that one Don. When I were a lad etc, I used to have
> to install colour TV's back in the mid 70's and we were then installing
> the Philips K70 chassis sets. Now those with their colour difference
> drive looked superb and when we put them in customers homes the comment
> was "what a marvellous picture, and isn't the sound good too!" "much
> better then any we've seen!..
They must have improved it somewhat from the G6 I had - superb picture
when properly set up but appalling sound. I fitted a buffer amp and
repcoil to feed the Hi-Fi - long before such things were common. Had to do
loads of other mods to minimise inter carrier buzz, etc.
--
*A fool and his money can throw one hell of a party.
Dave Plowman (News)
Don Pearce <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> The evidence is rather on Dave's side. VHS beat Betamax, simply
> because it had the movies. When TV sets had colour control knobs they
> were inevitably wound up to super-saturation by the average member of
> the general public. McDonald's is a popular eatery. The Labour Party
> won a second term in government and George Bush is living proof.
> So even though they may not express it in terms of poor quality, that
> is inevitably where the public choice goes - high quality makes
> demands on the intellect that Joe Blow simply isn't prepared to meet.
How many times do you go into the average house and see the stereo
speakers in anything like a decent position for 'any' listener? They'll
almost certainly be where they look 'nice' or situated 'conveniently'.
Either side of the only sofa seems favourite...
--
*Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *
Don Pearce
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <452ca755....@free.teranews.com>,
> Don Pearce <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> The evidence is rather on Dave's side. VHS beat Betamax, simply
>> because it had the movies. When TV sets had colour control knobs they
>> were inevitably wound up to super-saturation by the average member of
>> the general public. McDonald's is a popular eatery. The Labour Party
>> won a second term in government and George Bush is living proof.
>
>> So even though they may not express it in terms of poor quality, that
>> is inevitably where the public choice goes - high quality makes
>> demands on the intellect that Joe Blow simply isn't prepared to meet.
>
>How many times do you go into the average house and see the stereo
>speakers in anything like a decent position for 'any' listener? They'll
>almost certainly be where they look 'nice' or situated 'conveniently'.
>Either side of the only sofa seems favourite...
Or with a mini stereo, side by side (touching each other) on top of
the main unit seems to be the position of choice.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Absolutely it's not the same thing, which is what I've been saying all
along, but Delerious Dave here thinks that accepting something is exactly
the same as wanting it. To use an analogy, someone might accept the fact
that they've picked up a dose of crabs, but forgive me for having the
absolutely outrageous thought that they didn't actually want to get crabs.
tony sayer
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <rkC5n3Gd...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> Now beg to differ on that one Don. When I were a lad etc, I used to have
>> to install colour TV's back in the mid 70's and we were then installing
>> the Philips K70 chassis sets. Now those with their colour difference
>> drive looked superb and when we put them in customers homes the comment
>> was "what a marvellous picture, and isn't the sound good too!" "much
>> better then any we've seen!..
>
>They must have improved it somewhat from the G6 I had - superb picture
>when properly set up but appalling sound. I fitted a buffer amp and
>repcoil to feed the Hi-Fi - long before such things were common. Had to do
>loads of other mods to minimise inter carrier buzz, etc.
>
No the K70 was superb, made in Sweden IIRC proper bass and treble
speakers and treb and bass controls unheard of on a TV set in those
days?.
And the picture was excellent. I remember seeing the Olympics from
Germany?, was it at the time?, and was stunned by just how good they
were:-=))
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <452ca755....@free.teranews.com>,
> Don Pearce <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> The evidence is rather on Dave's side. VHS beat Betamax, simply
>> because it had the movies. When TV sets had colour control knobs they
>> were inevitably wound up to super-saturation by the average member of
>> the general public. McDonald's is a popular eatery. The Labour Party
>> won a second term in government and George Bush is living proof.
>
>> So even though they may not express it in terms of poor quality, that
>> is inevitably where the public choice goes - high quality makes
>> demands on the intellect that Joe Blow simply isn't prepared to meet.
>
>How many times do you go into the average house and see the stereo
>speakers in anything like a decent position for 'any' listener? They'll
>almost certainly be where they look 'nice' or situated 'conveniently'.
>Either side of the only sofa seems favourite...
>
But ITOH how many people spend a lot of moolah on home cinema systems so
they must have some interest in what the picture and sound is like?...
--
Tony Sayer
Don Pearce
wrote:
>In article <4e7423c...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
Mostly not - simply the "must haves".
tony sayer
<nos...@nospam.com> writes
But how do you "know" that Don?..
>
>d
>
>--
>Pearce Consulting
>http://www.pearce.uk.com
>
--
Tony Sayer
Don Pearce
wrote:
From all the systems I've seen and heard. Have you ever listened to
those one-note subwoofers that accompany most home theatres? Have you
heard the abysmal quality of the cinema sound recorded on the DVDs?
The evidence is all there.
Of course you must ignore the systems belonging to people such as you
will find here - they simply aren't typical.
d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
--
hwh
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:09:01 +0200, hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam>
> wrote:
>
>>> Explain in
>>> non-techical language why millions of people should discard their
>>> perfectly functional Old DAB radios and replace them with more
>>> expensive New DAB ones - what's the difference to them?
>> More stations and a better sound quality.
>
> bearing in mind that it wasn't true last time?
By not just telling them but showing them sets that play so they can
listen for themselves.
gr, hwh
hwh
>
>
> Is it? The majority of radio stations transmit pretty poor quality audio
> at the moment - regardless of the transmission medium. It's what the
> public want, apparently.
When you take a look at the market penetration of DAB I wouldn't say so.
gr, hwh
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:04:52 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>
>> Then you're simply wrong, because the public definitely does consider
>> quality to be a factor. The problem is that the public is utterly
>> clueless about quality issues, but that in no way means that it
>> doesn't want good quality.
>>
>
> If it is clueless about quality, it can hardly want it or consider it
> to be a factor.
Nonsense.
> You are clearly wrong, because wherever there has ever
> been a choice between quantity and quality, quantity has won. QED.
You've proved nothing, because proof requires that people actually want low
quality, and you don't stand a hope in hell of proving that.
HDTV is being sold purely on the basis of improved quality. So, by your
logic nobody will want HDTV and it will turn out to be a huge failure. I
totally disagree, and I think people will love it, and that alone would be a
QED.
Don Pearce
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:04:52 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
>> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>
>>> Then you're simply wrong, because the public definitely does consider
>>> quality to be a factor. The problem is that the public is utterly
>>> clueless about quality issues, but that in no way means that it
>>> doesn't want good quality.
>>>
>>
>> If it is clueless about quality, it can hardly want it or consider it
>> to be a factor.
>
>
>Nonsense.
>
>
>> You are clearly wrong, because wherever there has ever
>> been a choice between quantity and quality, quantity has won. QED.
>
>
>You've proved nothing, because proof requires that people actually want low
>quality, and you don't stand a hope in hell of proving that.
>
>HDTV is being sold purely on the basis of improved quality. So, by your
>logic nobody will want HDTV and it will turn out to be a huge failure. I
>totally disagree, and I think people will love it, and that alone would be a
>QED.
You have this backwards. DAB was sold on the basis of being high
quality. In practice of course it turned out to be low quality, but
99% of members of the public couldn't care less - they are buying it
anyway because they want the extra stations. HDTV will go precisely
the same way; the economics dictate that it must. I have seen HDTV
demos, and even with fairly generous amounts of bandwidth, much more
than will be available down the line, the MPEG artifacts are visible
and in some cases gross. That is the future of HDTV, and people will
still buy it.
The choice for people is simple - do you want low quality but plenty
of channels, or high quality and just a few channels? The answer will
be deafening - LOW QUALITY PLEASE!".
Exactly as they have for DAB.
Dave Plowman (News)
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >How many times do you go into the average house and see the stereo
> >speakers in anything like a decent position for 'any' listener? They'll
> >almost certainly be where they look 'nice' or situated 'conveniently'.
> >Either side of the only sofa seems favourite...
> >
> But ITOH how many people spend a lot of moolah on home cinema systems so
> they must have some interest in what the picture and sound is like?...
I'm sure to be shot down in flames, but most of the home cinema setups
I've heard seem to be designed to be 'impressive' rather than accurate.
In other words, they sound nothing like what I hear in control room or
dubbing suite. A pal with the most expensive one I've seen/heard only uses
it for watching DVDs and returns to an ordinary telly for Coronation
Street etc. ;-)
--
*How about "never"? Is "never" good for you?
DAB sounds worse than FM
Nonsense. They buy for a combination of the promise of better quality and
more stations.
This is from an Ofcom document. It is results from asking analogue listeners
what they think the main advantage of digital radio will be:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/images/digital_radio_benefits.jpg
> HDTV will go precisely
> the same way;
You're simply talking out of your arse now.
> the economics dictate that it must. I have seen HDTV
> demos, and even with fairly generous amounts of bandwidth, much more
> than will be available down the line, the MPEG artifacts are visible
> and in some cases gross. That is the future of HDTV, and people will
> still buy it.
HDTV will provide a large improvement in comparison to SDTV.
> The choice for people is simple - do you want low quality but plenty
> of channels, or high quality and just a few channels? The answer will
> be deafening - LOW QUALITY PLEASE!".
HDTV is an improvement in quality over SDTV. How difficult is that for you
to comprehend?
How on earth you have the audacity to say that HDTV actually backs up your
laughable argument when its sole reason for being is to improve quality is
beyond belief.
You're usually quite sensible, but today you're as ridiculous as anyone I've
ever seen on Usenet - seriously.
> Exactly as they have for DAB.
HDTV will provide a large improvement in quality over SDTV, and it will be
sold purely on the basis of quality, and there will only be relatively few
channels.
It couldn't be more different to DAB.
Don Pearce
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
When DAB was launched we were promised CD quality sound. Since then
the quality has degraded daily to the parlous state we have now. That
is NOT nonsense, it is an absolutely accurate statement of fact.
>This is from an Ofcom document. It is results from asking analogue listeners
>what they think the main advantage of digital radio will be:
>
>http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/images/digital_radio_benefits.jpg
>
So you think people are currently buying better quality? Then what on
earth is your sig about? Listen carefully - the quality is WORSE and
people still like it.
>
>> HDTV will go precisely
>> the same way;
>
>
>You're simply talking out of your arse now.
>
Wanna put money on that?
>
>> the economics dictate that it must. I have seen HDTV
>> demos, and even with fairly generous amounts of bandwidth, much more
>> than will be available down the line, the MPEG artifacts are visible
>> and in some cases gross. That is the future of HDTV, and people will
>> still buy it.
>
>
>HDTV will provide a large improvement in comparison to SDTV.
>
It already isn't, with plenty of bandwidth available.
>
>> The choice for people is simple - do you want low quality but plenty
>> of channels, or high quality and just a few channels? The answer will
>> be deafening - LOW QUALITY PLEASE!".
>
>
>HDTV is an improvement in quality over SDTV. How difficult is that for you
>to comprehend?
>
>How on earth you have the audacity to say that HDTV actually backs up your
>laughable argument when its sole reason for being is to improve quality is
>beyond belief.
>
>You're usually quite sensible, but today you're as ridiculous as anyone I've
>ever seen on Usenet - seriously.
>
>
>> Exactly as they have for DAB.
>
>
>HDTV will provide a large improvement in quality over SDTV, and it will be
>sold purely on the basis of quality, and there will only be relatively few
>channels.
>
>It couldn't be more different to DAB.
You live in the clouds.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I'm obviously not disputing what you're saying about the decline in audio
quality on DAB - I've written a website about it.
I'm simply disputing that acceptance of something is similar to wanting
something.
Let's use an extreme example, because you just don't seem to be getting
this:
Someone might accept that they're going to die because they've got terminal
cancer. Does that person want to die?
>> This is from an Ofcom document. It is results from asking analogue
>> listeners what they think the main advantage of digital radio will
>> be:
>>
>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/images/digital_radio_benefits.jpg
>>
>
> So you think people are currently buying better quality?
No, I've never said that.
> Then what on
> earth is your sig about? Listen carefully - the quality is WORSE and
> people still like it.
The general public is deluded in thinking that it's better because it's
digital and because the BBC tells them it's better. The general public is
massively gullible. This in no way shows that they actually WANT low
quality.
>>> HDTV will go precisely
>>> the same way;
>>
>>
>> You're simply talking out of your arse now.
>>
>
> Wanna put money on that?
I am not disputing that the bit rates will be reduced from the 20 Mbps used
by the BBC for its HD stream. What I am extremely willing to put money on is
that HDTV will provide better quality than SDTV - that's hardly fking
difficult to achieve.
People will buy HDTV for the better quality, and they will get better
quality. The quality may reduce from the current level, but it will still be
higher quality than SDTV. So do not try and use a reduction in HDTV's
quality as backing up your laughable argument.
>>> the economics dictate that it must. I have seen HDTV
>>> demos, and even with fairly generous amounts of bandwidth, much more
>>> than will be available down the line, the MPEG artifacts are visible
>>> and in some cases gross. That is the future of HDTV, and people will
>>> still buy it.
>>
>>
>> HDTV will provide a large improvement in comparison to SDTV.
>>
>
> It already isn't, with plenty of bandwidth available.
It blatantly is better. God knows what planet you're on.
>>> The choice for people is simple - do you want low quality but plenty
>>> of channels, or high quality and just a few channels? The answer
>>> will be deafening - LOW QUALITY PLEASE!".
>>
>>
>> HDTV is an improvement in quality over SDTV. How difficult is that
>> for you to comprehend?
>>
>> How on earth you have the audacity to say that HDTV actually backs
>> up your laughable argument when its sole reason for being is to
>> improve quality is beyond belief.
>>
>> You're usually quite sensible, but today you're as ridiculous as
>> anyone I've ever seen on Usenet - seriously.
>>
>>
>>> Exactly as they have for DAB.
>>
>>
>> HDTV will provide a large improvement in quality over SDTV, and it
>> will be sold purely on the basis of quality, and there will only be
>> relatively few channels.
>>
>> It couldn't be more different to DAB.
>
> You live in the clouds.
Oh, the fking irony...
Malcolm Knight
"Don Pearce" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:452d3d31....@free.teranews.com...
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:37:58 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>HDTV will provide a large improvement in comparison to SDTV.
>>
>
> It already isn't, with plenty of bandwidth available.
BBC HD currently provides me with a massive improvement over SD when I
stand three feet from my screen, unfortunately I normally sit 15 feet
away and back there it looks no better than the best SD. But at least I
have the option of getting up close. When I get up close to the aural
equivalent of a big HD screen DAB 'quality' deteriorates even further so
if the two of you are pursuing analogies I don't think it is a good one.
But whichever of you said that HD quality will go downhill is probably
right, how else will we be persuaded in ten years time that SuperHD is a
must have?
--
Malcolm
Richard L
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> HDTV is being sold purely on the basis of improved quality. So, by your
> logic nobody will want HDTV and it will turn out to be a huge failure. I
> totally disagree, and I think people will love it, and that alone would be a
> QED.
Some mistake, surely. You've somehow forgotten to mention that HDTV
will sell because it's enjoying a barrage of print, on-the-air and
point-of-sale promotion worth squillions of pounds. Previously, you've
liked to argue that people do exactly what advertisers tell them.
--
Richard L.
Dave Plowman (News)
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> The general public is deluded in thinking that it's better because it's
> digital and because the BBC tells them it's better. The general public
> is massively gullible. This in no way shows that they actually WANT low
> quality.
But after buying a set, *most* are happy with it.
--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.
tony sayer
No of course there're not, but perhaps my experiences have differed to
yours. There does seem to be an interest in better TV and radio
reproduction but are the broadcasters doing their bit with their bit cut
services.....
>d
>
>--
>Pearce Consulting
>http://www.pearce.uk.com
>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>In article <CTfD6UJq...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >How many times do you go into the average house and see the stereo
>> >speakers in anything like a decent position for 'any' listener? They'll
>> >almost certainly be where they look 'nice' or situated 'conveniently'.
>> >Either side of the only sofa seems favourite...
>> >
>
>> But ITOH how many people spend a lot of moolah on home cinema systems so
>> they must have some interest in what the picture and sound is like?...
>
>I'm sure to be shot down in flames, but most of the home cinema setups
>I've heard seem to be designed to be 'impressive' rather than accurate.
>In other words, they sound nothing like what I hear in control room or
>dubbing suite. A pal with the most expensive one I've seen/heard only uses
>it for watching DVDs and returns to an ordinary telly for Coronation
>Street etc. ;-)
>
Perhaps a small step in the right direction;)...
--
Tony Sayer
Clive
> One day all DAB displays will have more lines so they don't need to
scroll,
> and they'll be in full colour with white backlights and show colour
pictures
> and graphics - like a mobile phone.
Sounds a little bit like that new fangled Television thingy to me,
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
>>>> Explain in
>>>> non-techical language why millions of people should discard their
>>>> perfectly functional Old DAB radios and replace them with more
>>>> expensive New DAB ones - what's the difference to them?
>>> More stations and a better sound quality.
>>
>> And how will you persuade them to accept the bit about sound quality,
>> bearing in mind that it wasn't true last time?
>
>By not just telling them but showing them sets that play so they can
>listen for themselves.
And when you tell them that the quality of the broadcasts is not going
to be reduced after they've bought their new radios, why are they
going to believe it isn't going to happen all over again?
Rod.
hwh
Perhaps you shouldn't make statements about things you can't tell, like
the quality of transmissions in the future. You can only show them how
it is at the time.
gr, hwh
Tony Quinn
<iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> writes
Make no mistake, if the beancounters can fuck up technical quality, they
will ... I have no doubt that any new system will be wrecked in the name
of 'more choice'.
--
Kyoto dealt with Global Warming. Disposing of lawyers cuts down the
production of Hot Air, and thus is encouraged by the Kyoto Accords.
-- Keith Glass
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
It wasn't a statement, it was a question.
Of course I don't know what is going to happen in the future, but
anybody who is persuaded to buy a "New DAB" radio on the strength of
its superior audio quality will be faced with a situation apparently
very similar to one that has occured in the past, i.e. when "Old DAB"
was sold on the strength of its superior audio quality, and that
quality was subsequently reduced. It would be reasonable for anyone
contemplating such a purchase to want some reassurance that exactly
the same thing wouldn't happen again. What argument would you use to
convince them? Assume they're reasonably intelligent people but with
no technical knowledge.
Rod.
Richard Evans
> In message <452e284f$0$4530$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, hwh
> <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> writes
>>
>> Perhaps you shouldn't make statements about things you can't tell,
>> like the quality of transmissions in the future. You can only show
>> them how it is at the time.
>
>
> Make no mistake, if the beancounters can fuck up technical quality, they
> will ... I have no doubt that any new system will be wrecked in the name
> of 'more choice'.
I rather hope that Ofcom have learned something by their mistake of
allowing DAB to used at 128k. Hopefully they secretly know that 128k is
not enough, even though they don't want to admit that they got it wrong.
If that is the case then DAB+ would be a chance for them to get it rite
on the second time attempt, while still being able to claim that they
are increasing choice.
The same goes for the BBC, who now seem to know that 128k DAB is not
good enough. However when DAB+ comes along, they'll be able to put that
rite. And besides, it is unlikely that they will be allowed to start up
any new stations, so they they might as well use their DAB capacity to
broadcast good quality AAC.
Richard E.