DAB was designed to provide "high-quality digital audio programmes"
DAB sounds worse than FM
"1 Scope
This European Telecommunication Standard (ETS) establishes a broadcasting
standard for the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) system designed for
delivery of high-quality digital audio programme and data services for
mobile, portable and fixed reception from terrestrial or satellite
transmitters in the Very High Frequency (VHF)/Ultra High Frequency (UHF)
frequency bands as well as for distribution through cable networks."
To all those that tried to suggest that DAB wasn't designed to provide high
audio quality: try arguing with the sodding
specification.....................
--
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
Rob
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
news:7Jrpg.65351$qD.4...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> Quoting from the DAB specification, May 1997 version, page 11:
>
>
specification! What went so wrong?
To answer that look no further than the multiplex owners. The more stations
within a space the more money made and the happier the shareholders are.
That is the one thing restricting good audio quality. DAB will never work
when greed exists as the people behind multiplexes probably never use it.
My local radio station no longer promotes DAB due to all the complaints made
by listeners over poor quality.
hwh
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote in message
> news:7Jrpg.65351$qD.4...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>> Quoting from the DAB specification, May 1997 version, page 11:
>>
>>
> It might have been designed for that, but the end result doesn't meet the
> specification! What went so wrong?
> To answer that look no further than the multiplex owners. The more stations
> within a space the more money made and the happier the shareholders are.
> That is the one thing restricting good audio quality. DAB will never work
> when greed exists as the people behind multiplexes probably never use it.
The idea of having commercial multiplex operators is flawed. There
should be an independent body that operates all multiplexes and sell out
capacity at cost price. Authorities should enforce minimum quality
standards for music and talk stations.
The operation of the multiplexes will be cheaper (all operated by the
same body, sharing facilities) and there would be technical advantages
as well (equal signal strengths across multiplexes).
gr, hwh
Richard Evans
I remember saying something similar many months ago.
But alas, I can't see it ever happening that way.
Richard E.
Richard Evans
> Quoting from the DAB specification, May 1997 version, page 11:
>
> "1 Scope
>
> This European Telecommunication Standard (ETS) establishes a broadcasting
> standard for the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) system designed for
> delivery of high-quality digital audio programme and data services for
> mobile, portable and fixed reception from terrestrial or satellite
> transmitters in the Very High Frequency (VHF)/Ultra High Frequency (UHF)
> frequency bands as well as for distribution through cable networks."
>
> To all those that tried to suggest that DAB wasn't designed to provide high
> audio quality: try arguing with the sodding
> specification.....................
>
>
Oh but they didn't really mean high quality.
</Sarcasm mode>
Richard Evans
>
> "1 Scope
>
> This European Telecommunication Standard (ETS) establishes a broadcasting
> standard for the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) system designed for
> delivery of high-quality digital audio programme and data services for
> mobile, portable and fixed reception from terrestrial or satellite
> transmitters in the Very High Frequency (VHF)/Ultra High Frequency (UHF)
> frequency bands as well as for distribution through cable networks."
>
> To all those that tried to suggest that DAB wasn't designed to provide high
> audio quality: try arguing with the sodding
> specification.....................
>
>
I few years further along, if combined DAB/DRM receivers start selling.
I wonder how many broadcasters will want to abandon DAB in favor of DRM.
After all if cost is more important to them than sound quality, then
wouldn't DRM be a more attractive system, as broadcasting costs would be
much less than even 128k DAB (or even 112k for that matter).
Richard E.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I think the issue over multiplex operators is only a problem because DAB is
an extremely inefficient system, and that makes it extremely expensive to
transmit, and that severely limits the number of radio stations that can
transmit.
Basically, because of DAB's inefficiency it makes it virtually inevitable
that low audio quality will be provided. Just look at transmission costs:
These transmission cost figures provided to my by someone from the UK DAB
industry a couple of years ago:
Local FM station = £60k per annum
128 kbps DAB station on a local mux = £96k
Transmission cost is pro rata with the bit rate, so if you want to transmit
at FM-quality, which requires a bit rate of 224 kbps MP2, the cost would be:
£96k * 224/128 = £168
So transmitting on DAB at FM-quality means adding £100,000 to the
transmission cost compared to transmitting on FM, not to mention the fact
that for about 15 years they've got to shoulder both transmission costs.
Needless to say, commercial radio stations, especially those that aren't so
big, won't want to spend a huge amount on transmission costs unless they can
help it.
Take Stockport's local station, Imagine FM. According to RAJAR, it has a
weekly reach of 43,000 listeners. In comparison, Key 103, which is one of
Manchester's biggest commercial stations, has a weekly reach of 592,000
listeners. So you'd expect that Imagine FM is hardly a very rich radio
station, so how on earth could it possibly afford to spend an *additional*
£168k per annum on transmission costs? The simple answer is that it cannot
afford to transmit on DAB, or if it did transmit on DAB it would be forced
to transmit in mono!
Passion Radio, which is a dance music station based in Brighton, recently
started transmitting on the local Sussex Coast DAB multiplex. It's also a
small station, so it's not flush with cash. And what bit rate is it
transmitting at? 80 kbps mono.
Then there's the issue that there's not enough spectrum. Ofcom said last
year that out of the 326 existing analogue stations, 90 won't be able to
transmit on DAB even after all the new multiplexes have been rolled out, and
that's not including the new FM stations that are going to be licensed and
it doesn't include the community stations either.
If you can't even carry all the existing stations then the bit rates will
*always* be squeezed.
Look at the situation in London. There's 3 local DAB multiplexes:
http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/ukloc.html#London1
http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/ukloc.html#London2
http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/ukloc.html#London3
Look at how many radio stations are using mono that should really be in
stereo. It's a lot.
That's the current situation with DAB using the MP2 codec. Now let's compare
that with DAB with the AAC/AAC+ codecs:
Smaller local stations
----------------------
48 kbps AAC+ (stereo) provides approximately the same level of audio quality
as 160 kbps MP2.
Therefore, using 48 kbps it is 160/48 = 3.33 times cheaper
Take the example of Passion Radio. 80 kbps costs:
£96k * 80/128 = £60,000 per annum
Using 48 kbps AAC+ the costs are reduced to:
£96k * 48/128 = £36,000 per annum
AND it can transmit in stereo instead of mono.
Bigger radio stations
---------------------
AAC is twice as efficient as MP2, so the £96k per annum for 128 kbps MP2,
which sounds shite, can buy 128 kbps AAC, which sounds the same as 256 kbps
MP2 - i.e. virtually CD-quality.
The *same* amount of money changes the audio quality from shite to virtually
CD-quality!
Even if they decide not to use 128 kbps AAC, they're *far less likely* to
provide the shite level of audio quality that they're currently providing
with 128 kbps MP2.
Spectrum Availability
----------------------
If AAC/AAC+ were used on DAB then the number of stations that can be carried
increases by a factor of 2 to 3, because AAC is twice as efficient as MP2
and AAC+ is about 3 times as efficient as MP2.
So with AAC/AAC+, the DAB system would be able to carry *all* existing
analogue radio stations and have room to carry plenty of extra digital-only
stations - i.e. it *massively* eases the huge pressure on bit rates that
results from using an inefficient system.
Take the above to the extreme:
Say it costs £10,000 per annum to transmit a good audio quality radio
station and there is effectively no limit to the number of radio stations
that can be carried. Would the radio stations still decide to provide low
audio quality to save, say, £2,500 per annum? I don't think they would.
And if they wouldn't, then the problem isn't the multiplex operators per se.
The problem with the multiplex operators only emerges *because* DAB is a
very inefficient system.
DAB sounds worse than FM
It wouldn't actually surprise me if Richard L, Kristoff Bonne, Nicolas
Croiset or any one of the other DAB apologists did try and say that and
without any trace of sarcasm.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Yeah, could be.
Richard L
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> Richard Evans wrote:
> > DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> >> Quoting from the DAB specification, May 1997 version, page 11:
> >>
> >> "1 Scope
> >>
> >> This European Telecommunication Standard (ETS) establishes a
> >> broadcasting standard for the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB)
> >> system designed for delivery of high-quality digital audio programme
> >> and data services for mobile, portable and fixed reception from
> >> terrestrial or satellite transmitters in the Very High Frequency
> >> (VHF)/Ultra High Frequency (UHF) frequency bands as well as for
> >> distribution through cable networks." To all those that tried to suggest
> >> that DAB wasn't designed to
> >> provide high audio quality: try arguing with the sodding
> >> specification.....................
> >>
> >>
> > <Sarcasm mode>
> > Oh but they didn't really mean high quality.
> > </Sarcasm mode>
>
>
> It wouldn't actually surprise me if Richard L, Kristoff Bonne, Nicolas
> Croiset or any one of the other DAB apologists did try and say that and
> without any trace of sarcasm.
OK, here we go then: DAB *does* provide high quality. It's just that
it's not as high as you were evidently hoping for. "High quality" is a
vague term and other people may not understand it to mean the same as
you do.
Furthermore, observe the word order: "high quality" qualifies not
"delivery" but "digital audio programmes". This is a loophole big
enough for any lawyer to wriggle through. So they have beaten you this
time.
--
Richard L.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
Note the word order: pathetic apologist imbecile.
Richard L
ste...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
Ah. So you concede my point.
--
Richard L.
Frans
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Quoting from the DAB specification, May 1997 version, page 11:
>
>"1 Scope
>
>This European Telecommunication Standard (ETS) establishes a broadcasting
>standard for the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) system designed for
>delivery of high-quality digital audio programme and data services for
>mobile, portable and fixed reception from terrestrial or satellite
>transmitters in the Very High Frequency (VHF)/Ultra High Frequency (UHF)
>frequency bands as well as for distribution through cable networks."
>
It's still in the actual version of the standard (1.4.1), page 10,
Scope
>To all those that tried to suggest that DAB wasn't designed to provide high
>audio quality: try arguing with the sodding
>specification.....................
Technology is often used different from the original intention. As I
remember well, Alfred Nobel invented dynamite for mining. It is not
always used according his intentions
DAB sounds worse than FM
That unimportant, because the issue here is what DAB was originally designed
for. Numerous people, who claim to be all knowing when it comes to this
issue, have tried to suggest that DAB was originally designed first and
foremost to provide better mobile reception, and they've ever laughably
tried to suggest that audio quality wasn't much of a consideration.
I knew that these people were totally wrong, but it's good to see it in
black and white in the specification itself.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
How does your spin-filled mind come to that ridiculous conclusion? No,
I definitely do not concede your laughable point, because it says in
black and white in the DAB specification that it was designed to
provide "high quality digital audio programme and data services", and
only a blitering idiot would try and suggest that the "high quality"
bit referred to the quality of the programmes when this is a technical
specification, you moron.
Richard Evans
Usually when they are wrong but still want to get away with it.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Well said!
Pierre PANTALÉON
I think your speech is a very good synthesis.
Plenty of truth, and not thoerical only.
With DAB+, every factors of digital radio development are got.
Germany begins, UK consider it. This is the future now !
Industrially it's ready. So why do we wait ?
Kristoff Bonne
Pierre PANTALÉON schreef:
> With DAB+, every factors of digital radio development are got.
> Germany begins, UK consider it. This is the future now !
Please do not equate a message on a internet-forum or a website as
"<some-country> begins".
It's not because there is somebody in Germany doing a DMB-pilot and
broadcasting a radio-station in AAC (either because it has to broadcast
that station while he is only interested in TV; so -if he has to do it
anyway- he want to do it in such a way that you need his kind of
receiver to receive it and then turn it into subscription-radio) that
this means that "Germany begins".
> Industrially it's ready. So why do we wait ?
Because the industry lives in the real world; and overthere,
receiver-availabilty is more important then bitrates.
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
DAB sounds worse than FM
<snip>
> I think your speech is a very good synthesis.
> Plenty of truth, and not thoerical only.
>
> With DAB+, every factors of digital radio development are got.
Indeed. Using DAB with MP2 is bound to result in low audio quality, whereas
with DAB+ the smaller stations that can't afford to use 128 kbps AAC can use
48 kbps AAC+. It's by far the best solution.
> Germany begins, UK consider it. This is the future now !
> Industrially it's ready. So why do we wait ?
We need the specification to be released, and we need DMB software to be
modified for whatever changes the DAB+ specification brings.
Pierre PANTALÉON
> Gegroet,
>
>
> Pierre PANTALÉON schreef:
>> With DAB+, every factors of digital radio development are got.
>> Germany begins, UK consider it. This is the future now !
>
> Please do not equate a message on a internet-forum or a website as
> "<some-country> begins".
>
>
> It's not because there is somebody in Germany doing a DMB-pilot and
> broadcasting a radio-station in AAC (either because it has to broadcast
> that station while he is only interested in TV; so -if he has to do it
> anyway- he want to do it in such a way that you need his kind of
> receiver to receive it and then turn it into subscription-radio) that
> this means that "Germany begins".
everyday it's said that radios are free to pay what it wants to
broadcast. It's a way of life in using low bitrate, and experience show
DAB loose quality.
DAD+ (visual radio) Technology allow better capacity, better quality,
better all.
It's possible to conserve actual network.
RRC06 give for every country new channels, so it's a good thing to
update system with new modern system.
It's low cost for station, so it's good for consumers.
>> Industrially it's ready. So why do we wait ?
>
> Because the industry lives in the real world; and overthere,
> receiver-availabilty is more important then bitrates.
Industry made receivers for 1-2 years in Korea.
If industry lives in real-world why broadcasters and consumers don't
live in real world ????
Richard L
ste...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
By observing the conventions of English prose.
> No,
> I definitely do not concede your laughable point, because it says in
> black and white in the DAB specification that it was designed to
> provide "high quality digital audio programme and data services", and
> only a blitering idiot would try and suggest that the "high quality"
> bit referred to the quality of the programmes when this is a technical
> specification, you moron.
Then it appears that its draughting was as incompetent as you believe
its design and implementation were, and perhaps no-one should expect
too much of it -- least of all you. "High quality" is subjective
description, and is only a little more precise than "ultra-ultra high
quality", which you used in a post a couple of days ago. (How can
audio be "beyond-beyond high quality"?)
--
Richard L.
Pierre PANTALÉON
> We need the specification to be released, and we need DMB software to be
> modified for whatever changes the DAB+ specification brings.
how many time is needed ?
Just add AAC and AAC+ codec ?
Richard Evans
Besides with software it is not always easy to just replace parts of a
system, there are often other complications that don't become apparent
until you get into the details.
Richard E.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Pretty much, yes. It shouldn't take long because DMB is virtually identical
to DAB+.
DAB sounds worse than FM
But DMB already consists of DAB + RS coding + AAC/AAC+, so it's virtually
identical to DAB+, and Radioscape and Frontier-Silicon and others have
already developed software receivers for DMB, so it shouldn't take long.
Richard Evans
> Richard Evans wrote:
>
>>Pierre PANTALÉON wrote:
>>
>>>DAB sounds worse than FM a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>We need the specification to be released, and we need DMB software
>>>>to be modified for whatever changes the DAB+ specification brings.
>>>
>>>
>>>how many time is needed ?
>>>Just add AAC and AAC+ codec ?
>>
>>And also a different error correction system.
>>
>>Besides with software it is not always easy to just replace parts of a
>>system, there are often other complications that don't become apparent
>>until you get into the details.
>
>
>
> But DMB already consists of DAB + RS coding + AAC/AAC+, so it's virtually
> identical to DAB+, and Radioscape and Frontier-Silicon and others have
> already developed software receivers for DMB, so it shouldn't take long.
>
>
Richard E.
Kristoff Bonne
Pierre PANTALÉON schreef:
>>> Industrially it's ready. So why do we wait ?
>> Because the industry lives in the real world; and overthere,
>> receiver-availabilty is more important then bitrates.
> Industry made receivers for 1-2 years in Korea.
No, they added DMB to mobile phones for a particular service
(subscription mobile-TV).
That's not the same thing as having the 50 or so of different kinds
(tableradio, walkman, clockradio, fixed receiver, boombox, ...) of
radios from different manufacters.
> If industry lives in real-world why broadcasters and consumers don't
> live in real world ????
As long there are no official specs of DAB, no receivers.
No receivers, no listeners.
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne
ste...@totalise.co.uk
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Pierre,
>
>
> Pierre PANTALÉON schreef:
> >>> Industrially it's ready. So why do we wait ?
>
> >> Because the industry lives in the real world; and overthere,
> >> receiver-availabilty is more important then bitrates.
>
> > Industry made receivers for 1-2 years in Korea.
>
> No, they added DMB to mobile phones for a particular service
> (subscription mobile-TV).
> That's not the same thing as having the 50 or so of different kinds
> (tableradio, walkman, clockradio, fixed receiver, boombox, ...) of
> radios from different manufacters.
Radioscape modules are ALL pin-compatible, and as Radioscape implements
ALL of its modules using software-defined radio (SDR) and as Radioscape
has already developed DMB receivers, DAB+ is basically ready from the
day that the spec is released. All that needs to be done is for an
existing Radioscape printed circuit board to be reprogrammed with DAB+
and then it can be put into *existing* DAB receivers. This could happen
today.
The other leading DAB module design company, Frontier-Silicon, also
uses SDR, as do one in Israel and another one in South Korea.
You have to remember that both DMB and DAB+ still use the core DAB
network, and they're just backwardly compatible with it:
DMB:
audio/video => RS encode / interleave => transmit over core DAB system
as a data service
DAB+:
audio => RS encode / interleave => transmit over core DAB system as a
data service
The core DAB system part is unchanged.
You know, one day you talk about the limitless opportunities that
digital broadcasting allows, and the next day - when it suits you - you
just ignore how simple it is to transmit AAC/AAC+ audio over the DAB
network in a data service, because the core DAB system doesn't need to
change. AAC+ audio is ALREADY being transmitted over DAB networks in
the form of DMB transmissions.
Kristoff, DAB+ is going to happen, and it is FAR BETTER to start off
using AAC/AAC+ from the very beginning.
> > If industry lives in real-world why broadcasters and consumers don't
> > live in real world ????
>
> As long there are no official specs of DAB, no receivers.
> No receivers, no listeners.
True, but Australia has already said it will start using DAB+, so it's
only a matter of time before the specs are released.
Kristoff Bonne
ste...@totalise.co.uk schreef:
>> No, they added DMB to mobile phones for a particular service
>> (subscription mobile-TV).
>> That's not the same thing as having the 50 or so of different kinds
>> (tableradio, walkman, clockradio, fixed receiver, boombox, ...) of
>> radios from different manufacters.
> Radioscape modules are ALL pin-compatible, and as Radioscape implements
> ALL of its modules using software-defined radio (SDR) ...
All good and well, but there are still no DMB or DAB+ receivers in the
shops.
> Kristoff, DAB+ is going to happen, and it is FAR BETTER to start off
> using AAC/AAC+ from the very beginning.
For a commercial broadcaster, they are not interested in what *may be
the future* or whatever (except of they have a long-term goal, like RTL
or the satellite-operaters; to break into an existing market).
No receivers in the field; no broadcasts.
>>> If industry lives in real-world why broadcasters and consumers don't
>>> live in real world ????
>> As long there are no official specs of DAB, no receivers.
>> No receivers, no listeners.
> True, but Australia has already said it will start using DAB+, so it's
> only a matter of time before the specs are released.
Still no DAB+ receivers in the shops, even not in Australia.
Do come back when the receivers are there; but upto then, DAB+ is still
a pipe-dream.
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Steve,
>
>
> ste...@totalise.co.uk schreef:
> >> No, they added DMB to mobile phones for a particular service
> >> (subscription mobile-TV).
> >> That's not the same thing as having the 50 or so of different kinds
> >> (tableradio, walkman, clockradio, fixed receiver, boombox, ...) of
> >> radios from different manufacters.
>
> > Radioscape modules are ALL pin-compatible, and as Radioscape implements
> > ALL of its modules using software-defined radio (SDR) ...
>
> All good and well, but there are still no DMB or DAB+ receivers in the
> shops.
You said this:
"No, they added DMB to mobile phones for a particular service
(subscription mobile-TV).
That's not the same thing as having the 50 or so of different kinds
(tableradio, walkman, clockradio, fixed receiver, boombox, ...) of
radios from different manufacters."
which is trying to suggest that it is somehow difficult to achieve
having 50 different kinds of receivers from different manufacturers,
when in fact all that is needed is to reprogram existing circuit boards
in existing receivers that are in the shops today.
> > Kristoff, DAB+ is going to happen, and it is FAR BETTER to start off
> > using AAC/AAC+ from the very beginning.
>
> For a commercial broadcaster, they are not interested in what *may be
> the future* or whatever (except of they have a long-term goal, like RTL
> or the satellite-operaters; to break into an existing market).
What, broadcasters never think about the future? Get real.
> >>> If industry lives in real-world why broadcasters and consumers don't
> >>> live in real world ????
> >> As long there are no official specs of DAB, no receivers.
> >> No receivers, no listeners.
>
> > True, but Australia has already said it will start using DAB+, so it's
> > only a matter of time before the specs are released.
>
> Still no DAB+ receivers in the shops, even not in Australia.
>
>
>
> Do come back when the receivers are there; but upto then, DAB+ is still
> a pipe-dream.
I suggest you look up "pipe dream":
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pipe+dream
I can assure you, it is hardly "an illusory or fantastic plan, hope, or
story" when IT DEFINITELY WILL HAPPEN.
Pierre PANTALÉON
> All good and well, but there are still no DMB or DAB+ receivers in the
> shops.
no one have choose DMB in europ, but in korea it's more than hundred
receivers in the shops.
> For a commercial broadcaster, they are not interested in what *may be
> the future* or whatever (except of they have a long-term goal, like RTL
> or the satellite-operaters; to break into an existing market).
>
>
> No receivers in the field; no broadcasts.
I give you a link of VDL website (english version)
http://www.vdl.fr/angl/product/dab/dmb.php
Every thing is okay.
> Still no DAB+ receivers in the shops, even not in Australia.
DMB receivers exist
To receive DAB+ we need only new codec software, just an upgrade.
> Do come back when the receivers are there; but upto then, DAB+ is still
> a pipe-dream.
DAB+ isn't a dream, DAB+ exist with BSAC codec, and when new
specification release will be published with AAC and AAC+
Kristoff Bonne
ste...@totalise.co.uk schreef:
>>>> No, they added DMB to mobile phones for a particular service
>>>> (subscription mobile-TV).
>>>> That's not the same thing as having the 50 or so of different kinds
>>>> (tableradio, walkman, clockradio, fixed receiver, boombox, ...) of
>>>> radios from different manufacters.
>>> Radioscape modules are ALL pin-compatible, and as Radioscape implements
>>> ALL of its modules using software-defined radio (SDR) ...
>> All good and well, but there are still no DMB or DAB+ receivers in the
>> shops.
> You said this:
> "No, they added DMB to mobile phones for a particular service
> (subscription mobile-TV).
> That's not the same thing as having the 50 or so of different kinds
> (tableradio, walkman, clockradio, fixed receiver, boombox, ...) of
> radios from different manufacters."
> which is trying to suggest ...
Please do not try to put words or suggestions in my mouth which I did
not make.
> ... that it is somehow difficult to achieve
> having 50 different kinds of receivers from different manufacturers,
> when in fact all that is needed is to reprogram existing circuit boards
> in existing receivers that are in the shops today.
The technical feasability is not the issue. As anybody who lives in the
real world knows,
"technically possible != economically real".
DMB is added to these mobile phones as it used for a certain
*application* (mobile TV on a subscription-basis).
There are no DMB radios for normal FTA-radio as there seams to be no
economic basis for it.
>>> Kristoff, DAB+ is going to happen, and it is FAR BETTER to start off
>>> using AAC/AAC+ from the very beginning.
>> For a commercial broadcaster, they are not interested in what *may be
>> the future* or whatever (except of they have a long-term goal, like RTL
>> or the satellite-operaters; to break into an existing market).
> What, broadcasters never think about the future? Get real.
"Real?" is in "reality"? like "the reality is that there do not exist
any DMB-radios".
>> Do come back when the receivers are there; but upto then, DAB+ is still
>> a pipe-dream.
> I suggest you look up "pipe dream":
English might not be my native language but I do know what "pipe dream"
means.
(B.T.W. Perhaps can tell me how much languages you speak)
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pipe+dream
> I can assure you, it is hardly "an illusory or fantastic plan, hope, or
> story" when IT DEFINITELY WILL HAPPEN.
As I already told you, we will continue this discussion when the DMB or
DAB+ radios are there.
And then we will see what happens. Will station who have been assigned
128 Kbps in Australia use it for one single 128 Kbps AAC+ station, or 4
stations at 32 Kbps? Or 1 station FTA plus 2 or 3 stations
subscription-radio? Or lease a part of the spectrum for
datacasting-services?
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Kristoff Bonne
Pierre PANTALÉON schreef:
>> All good and well, but there are still no DMB or DAB+ receivers in the
>> shops.
> no one have choose DMB in europ, but in korea it's more than hundred
> receivers in the shops.
DMB-radios for the reception of FTA-radio?
>> No receivers in the field; no broadcasts.
> I give you a link of VDL website (english version)
> http://www.vdl.fr/angl/product/dab/dmb.php
That's for mobile TV.
>> Still no DAB+ receivers in the shops, even not in Australia.
> DMB receivers exist
As in a normal "DAB" radio which you can find in the shops?
> To receive DAB+ we need only new codec software, just an upgrade.
No specification, no receivers.
>> Do come back when the receivers are there; but upto then, DAB+ is still
>> a pipe-dream.
> DAB+ isn't a dream, DAB+ exist with BSAC codec, and when new
> specification release will be published with AAC and AAC+
As they say: "show me the specs".
Please do not make the same mistake as our friend. Just stick to
reality. DRM has been out as a specification for how many years now?
"Operational" DRM-broadcasts have existed for over one year now (with x
years of "tests" before that) and just now DRM receivers are starting to
appear.
(The 199 euro DRM/DAB receiver that is announced for september).
Do note that this chipset in this receiver does handle DAB and DRM (and
hence AAC+) but no DMB. Not even does it have the CPU-power to do AAC+
at the speeds that are possible in the 20 Khz DRM-mode.
So do note think that you will be able to use this chipset for 128 Kbps
AAC+ or some other mode some people in this newsgroup probably dream of
at night.
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Nicolas Croiset
>Pierre,
>
>
>Pierre PANTALÉON schreef:
>>> All good and well, but there are still no DMB or DAB+ receivers in the
>>> shops.
>
>> no one have choose DMB in europ, but in korea it's more than hundred
>> receivers in the shops.
>
>DMB-radios for the reception of FTA-radio?
>
>
>
>>> No receivers in the field; no broadcasts.
>> I give you a link of VDL website (english version)
>
>> http://www.vdl.fr/angl/product/dab/dmb.php
>
>That's for mobile TV.
>
Dear Kristoff,
you have a lot of DMB receivers in shop, all are receiving television
and radio in MP2 Eureka 147 auddio format.
http://www.dab-digitalradio.ch/?lang=en&c=db_dl&mode=type&id=16
Bye.
Nicolas Croiset VDL
http://www.vdl.fr/
DAB sounds worse than FM
> Kristoff Bonne <compaq...@kristoff.bonne> wrote :
>
>> Pierre,
>>
>>
>> Pierre PANTALÉON schreef:
>>>> All good and well, but there are still no DMB or DAB+ receivers in
>>>> the shops.
>>
>>> no one have choose DMB in europ, but in korea it's more than hundred
>>> receivers in the shops.
>>
>> DMB-radios for the reception of FTA-radio?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> No receivers in the field; no broadcasts.
>>> I give you a link of VDL website (english version)
>>
>>> http://www.vdl.fr/angl/product/dab/dmb.php
>>
>> That's for mobile TV.
>>
>
> Dear Kristoff,
>
> you have a lot of DMB receivers in shop, all are receiving television
> and radio in MP2 Eureka 147 auddio format.
AAC+ is used for the audio on the mobile TV channels. It is INCOMPETENT to
use MP2 when you can use AAC+.
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> Kristoff Bonne <compaq...@kristoff.bonne> wrote :
>>
>>> Pierre,
>>>
>>>
>>> Pierre PANTALÉON schreef:
>>>>> All good and well, but there are still no DMB or DAB+ receivers in
>>>>> the shops.
>>>
>>>> no one have choose DMB in europ, but in korea it's more than hundred
>>>> receivers in the shops.
>>>
>>> DMB-radios for the reception of FTA-radio?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No receivers in the field; no broadcasts.
>>>> I give you a link of VDL website (english version)
>>>
>>>> http://www.vdl.fr/angl/product/dab/dmb.php
>>>
>>> That's for mobile TV.
>>>
>>
>> Dear Kristoff,
>>
>> you have a lot of DMB receivers in shop, all are receiving television
>> and radio in MP2 Eureka 147 auddio format.
>
>
>AAC+ is used for the audio on the mobile TV channels. It is INCOMPETENT to
>use MP2 when you can use AAC+.
It is your opinion, if it was decided to use MP2 in South Korea you can
easily imagine that it was much more easyer to do this instead of
implementing a new algo for audio only.
It's very easy to say implement this new feature and then watch what's
happened instead of doing the job and makes all necessary tests before
any commercial launch.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>>> you have a lot of DMB receivers in shop, all are receiving
>>> television and radio in MP2 Eureka 147 auddio format.
>>
>>
>> AAC+ is used for the audio on the mobile TV channels. It is
>> INCOMPETENT to use MP2 when you can use AAC+.
>
> It is your opinion,
It is a FACT that it is INCOMPETENT to use MP2 when you can use AAC+.
> if it was decided to use MP2 in South Korea you
> can easily imagine that it was much more easyer to do this instead of
> implementing a new algo for audio only.
Only INCOMPETENT "engineers" (i.e. people like YOU) would use MP2.
Nicolas Croiset
>Please do not make the same mistake as our friend. Just stick to
>reality. DRM has been out as a specification for how many years now?
>"Operational" DRM-broadcasts have existed for over one year now (with x
>years of "tests" before that) and just now DRM receivers are starting to
>appear.
>
>
>(The 199 euro DRM/DAB receiver that is announced for september).
>
>Do note that this chipset in this receiver does handle DAB and DRM (and
>hence AAC+) but no DMB. Not even does it have the CPU-power to do AAC+
>at the speeds that are possible in the 20 Khz DRM-mode.
>So do note think that you will be able to use this chipset for 128 Kbps
>AAC+ or some other mode some people in this newsgroup probably dream of
>at night.
The first DRM/DAB receiver had been delayed once again, now it is
october.
I confirm the chip from Radioscape which decode AAC+ have some
limitations and can not decode higher bitrate than 24kbps.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Kristoff and Nicolas, you pair of imbeciles, I mentioned *DMB*, not *DRM*.
If the Radioscape *DMB* module cannot decode 128 kbps AAC+ then it
*OBVIOUSLY* could not decode H.264 300-400 kbps video.
You pair of fools.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Steve,
>
>
> ste...@totalise.co.uk schreef:
> >>>> No, they added DMB to mobile phones for a particular service
> >>>> (subscription mobile-TV).
> >>>> That's not the same thing as having the 50 or so of different kinds
> >>>> (tableradio, walkman, clockradio, fixed receiver, boombox, ...) of
> >>>> radios from different manufacters.
> >>> Radioscape modules are ALL pin-compatible, and as Radioscape implements
> >>> ALL of its modules using software-defined radio (SDR) ...
> >> All good and well, but there are still no DMB or DAB+ receivers in the
> >> shops.
>
> > You said this:
> > "No, they added DMB to mobile phones for a particular service
> > (subscription mobile-TV).
> > That's not the same thing as having the 50 or so of different kinds
> > (tableradio, walkman, clockradio, fixed receiver, boombox, ...) of
> > radios from different manufacters."
>
> > which is trying to suggest ...
>
> Please do not try to put words or suggestions in my mouth which I did
> not make.
You WERE trying to suggest that it would be difficult to get 50
different DAB+ receivers designed.
> > ... that it is somehow difficult to achieve
> > having 50 different kinds of receivers from different manufacturers,
> > when in fact all that is needed is to reprogram existing circuit boards
> > in existing receivers that are in the shops today.
>
> The technical feasability is not the issue. As anybody who lives in the
> real world knows,
> "technically possible != economically real".
>
>
> DMB is added to these mobile phones as it used for a certain
> *application* (mobile TV on a subscription-basis).
It's good to see that you're now referring to it as "mobile TV", which
you used to say would NEVER happen.
> There are no DMB radios for normal FTA-radio as there seams to be no
> economic basis for it.
And how well are DAB radios selling in Korea??
> >>> Kristoff, DAB+ is going to happen, and it is FAR BETTER to start off
> >>> using AAC/AAC+ from the very beginning.
> >> For a commercial broadcaster, they are not interested in what *may be
> >> the future* or whatever (except of they have a long-term goal, like RTL
> >> or the satellite-operaters; to break into an existing market).
>
> > What, broadcasters never think about the future? Get real.
>
> "Real?" is in "reality"? like "the reality is that there do not exist
> any DMB-radios".
But there will be DAB+ radios.
> >> Do come back when the receivers are there; but upto then, DAB+ is still
> >> a pipe-dream.
>
> > I suggest you look up "pipe dream":
>
> English might not be my native language but I do know what "pipe dream"
> means.
Obviously you do NOT know what it means, because you've just misused
the term.
> > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pipe+dream
> > I can assure you, it is hardly "an illusory or fantastic plan, hope, or
> > story" when IT DEFINITELY WILL HAPPEN.
>
> As I already told you, we will continue this discussion when the DMB or
> DAB+ radios are there.
I would be very happy if you never replied to any of my posts ever
again, and I would be equally happy if you never referred to me or
anything I say in any of your posts, because that way I wouldn't have
to communicate with such a fool like yourself. As it is, if you
continue posting nonsense, I feel obliged to correct your nonsense.
> And then we will see what happens. Will station who have been assigned
> 128 Kbps in Australia use it for one single 128 Kbps AAC+ station, or 4
> stations at 32 Kbps? Or 1 station FTA plus 2 or 3 stations
> subscription-radio? Or lease a part of the spectrum for
> datacasting-services?
AAC is twice as efficient as MP2, and AAC+ is 3 times as efficient as
MP2, so it is far more likely that we will be provided with higher
audio quality if we use AAC/AAC+ than if MP2 is used.
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> Kristoff Bonne <compaq...@kristoff.bonne> wrote :
>>
>>
>>> Please do not make the same mistake as our friend. Just stick to
>>> reality. DRM has been out as a specification for how many years now?
>>> "Operational" DRM-broadcasts have existed for over one year now
>>> (with x years of "tests" before that) and just now DRM receivers are
>>> starting to appear.
>>>
>>>
>>> (The 199 euro DRM/DAB receiver that is announced for september).
>>>
>>> Do note that this chipset in this receiver does handle DAB and DRM
>>> (and hence AAC+) but no DMB. Not even does it have the CPU-power to
>>> do AAC+ at the speeds that are possible in the 20 Khz DRM-mode.
>>> So do note think that you will be able to use this chipset for 128
>>> Kbps AAC+ or some other mode some people in this newsgroup probably
>>> dream of at night.
>>
>> The first DRM/DAB receiver had been delayed once again, now it is
>> october.
>>
>> I confirm the chip from Radioscape which decode AAC+ have some
>> limitations and can not decode higher bitrate than 24kbps.
>
>
>Kristoff and Nicolas, you pair of imbeciles, I mentioned *DMB*, not *DRM*.
>
>If the Radioscape *DMB* module cannot decode 128 kbps AAC+ then it
>*OBVIOUSLY* could not decode H.264 300-400 kbps video.
>
The DMB module from radioscape is able to decode a data stream up to
640kbps, but it is unable to decode an H264 + an HE-AAC stream it is an
external chip outside this module.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Prove it.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>> Kristoff and Nicolas, you pair of imbeciles, I mentioned *DMB*, not
>>> *DRM*.
>>>
>>> If the Radioscape *DMB* module cannot decode 128 kbps AAC+ then it
>>> *OBVIOUSLY* could not decode H.264 300-400 kbps video.
>>>
>>
>> The DMB module from radioscape is able to decode a data stream up to
>> 640kbps, but it is unable to decode an H264 + an HE-AAC stream it is
>> an external chip outside this module.
>
>
>Prove it.
Prove that it is include. You don't prove your assertion.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Radioscape produce DMB chipsets, so YOU have to prove that their DMB
chipsets DON'T decode H.264/AAC+.
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 07:55:53 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
>> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>
>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>
>>>>> Kristoff and Nicolas, you pair of imbeciles, I mentioned *DMB*, not
>>>>> *DRM*.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Radioscape *DMB* module cannot decode 128 kbps AAC+ then it
>>>>> *OBVIOUSLY* could not decode H.264 300-400 kbps video.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The DMB module from radioscape is able to decode a data stream up to
>>>> 640kbps, but it is unable to decode an H264 + an HE-AAC stream it is
>>>> an external chip outside this module.
>>>
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Prove that it is include. You don't prove your assertion.
>
>
>Radioscape produce DMB chipsets, so YOU have to prove that their DMB
>chipsets DON'T decode H.264/AAC+.
No they don't have any DMB chipset, only T-DAB chipset.
http://www.radioscape.com/downloads/RSRed_Promo_Bklt_RS500L_05.pdf
DAB sounds worse than FM
"RadioScape has developed a full range of receiver module designs, which
enable receiver manufacturers to deliver a broad range of receivers
supporting (Eureka 147) DAB,
Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM), ******Digital Multimedia Broadcasting
(DMB)*****, analogue FM-RDS and AM standards, with a broad range of
functionality and receiver types."
Kristoff Bonne
DAB sounds worse than FM schreef:
>>> Radioscape produce DMB chipsets, so YOU have to prove that their DMB
>>> chipsets DON'T decode H.264/AAC+.
>> No they don't have any DMB chipset, only T-DAB chipset.
>> http://www.radioscape.com/downloads/RSRed_Promo_Bklt_RS500L_05.pdf
> "RadioScape has developed a full range of receiver module designs, which
> enable receiver manufacturers to deliver a broad range of receivers
> supporting (Eureka 147) DAB,
> Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM), ******Digital Multimedia Broadcasting
> (DMB)***** ...
Is this is RECEIVER-module or a DECODER-module?
Nicolas claimed that they have receivers for the T-DMB part by the H-264
and AAC-decoding is done using an external chip.
Perhaps you can open up and look inside the DMB-receiver you have at
home to see what chips are realy in there.
:-)
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Steve,
>
>
> DAB sounds worse than FM schreef:
> >>> Radioscape produce DMB chipsets, so YOU have to prove that their DMB
> >>> chipsets DON'T decode H.264/AAC+.
> >> No they don't have any DMB chipset, only T-DAB chipset.
>
> >> http://www.radioscape.com/downloads/RSRed_Promo_Bklt_RS500L_05.pdf
>
> > "RadioScape has developed a full range of receiver module designs, which
> > enable receiver manufacturers to deliver a broad range of receivers
> > supporting (Eureka 147) DAB,
> > Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM), ******Digital Multimedia Broadcasting
> > (DMB)***** ...
> Is this is RECEIVER-module or a DECODER-module?
Their RECEIVER modules definitely decode MP2, so unless Croissant can
find some proof to back up his assertion that their DMB RECEIVER module
cannot decode H.264 then it's just his usual antics of denying anything
and everything.
By the way, enjoy the low audio quality on DAB.
Nicolas Croiset
Read the specs of all modules and you will don't find any module able to
decode H264 and HE-AAC.
http://www.radioscape.com/Resource_Library/Products/default.asp
Yes their modules are able to decode T-DMB RF, but no video and audio
decoding. check also the diagram, no one have a video decoder.
Nicolas Croiset
Please find in the technical specs one module which have in their
diagram a video decoder.
http://www.radioscape.com/Resource_Library/Products/default.asp
DAB sounds worse than FM
I see no "video decoder" listed.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I see absolutely no proof of that, and you've failed to provide any proof.
Kristoff Bonne
ste...@totalise.co.uk schreef:
>> Is this is RECEIVER-module or a DECODER-module?
> Their RECEIVER modules definitely decode MP2, so unless Croissant can
> find some proof to back up his assertion that their DMB RECEIVER module
> cannot decode H.264 then it's just his usual antics of denying anything
> and everything.
It was you who came up with the argument "if they can decode H264, they
can also decode AAC".
So it's for you to come up with the proof the chipset actually does that.
Or you can sent us a picture of the inside of your DMB, DVB-H receiver
to prove there is no external video-decoder in there.
> By the way, enjoy the low audio quality on DAB.
I do. 160 or 192 Kbps overhere. Remember :-)
Enjoy your high-quality subscription-radio on your non-existing
receiver. :-)
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
DAB sounds worse than FM
BTW, where's your proof that Radioscape's DRM/DAB module can only handle 24
kbps AAC+?
BTW, how about Frontier-Silicon's Kino 2 DMB chip:
http://www.frontier-silicon.com/products/briefs/chips/FS_Kino2.pdf
"Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum 1.8 Mbps"
As I've said, DAB+ is ready to fly as soon as the specification comes out,
because both Radioscape and Frontier-Silicon, which probably make up about
95% of the DAB receiver module market, use software-defined radio and both
have implemented DAB and both have implemented RS decoders and both have
implemented AAC+ decoders. That's it, job done. Finito. The only work to do
is minor tweaks to *existing* software.
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> ste...@totalise.co.uk wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> Kristoff Bonne wrote:
>>>> Steve,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM schreef:
>>>>>>> Radioscape produce DMB chipsets, so YOU have to prove that their
>>>>>>> DMB chipsets DON'T decode H.264/AAC+.
>>>>>> No they don't have any DMB chipset, only T-DAB chipset.
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.radioscape.com/downloads/RSRed_Promo_Bklt_RS500L_05.pdf
>>>>
>>>>> "RadioScape has developed a full range of receiver module designs,
>>>>> which enable receiver manufacturers to deliver a broad range of
>>>>> receivers supporting (Eureka 147) DAB,
>>>>> Digital Radio Mondiale (DRM), ******Digital Multimedia Broadcasting
>>>>> (DMB)***** ...
>>>> Is this is RECEIVER-module or a DECODER-module?
>>>
>>>
>>> Their RECEIVER modules definitely decode MP2, so unless Croissant can
>>> find some proof to back up his assertion that their DMB RECEIVER
>>> module cannot decode H.264 then it's just his usual antics of
>>> denying anything and everything.
>>>
>>> By the way, enjoy the low audio quality on DAB.
>>
>> Please find in the technical specs one module which have in their
>> diagram a video decoder.
>>
>> http://www.radioscape.com/Resource_Library/Products/default.asp
>
>
>I see no "video decoder" listed.
Video and audio needs to be very well synchronised so if you don't find
the video decoder, the audio decoder for HE-AAC is also missing. The
result is that both decoders are external and not included in the
Radioscape module like you said.
DAB sounds worse than FM
You have provided *absolutely no proof* of this.
Also, please see Frontier-Silicon's Kino 2 DMB chip:
http://www.frontier-silicon.com/products/briefs/chips/FS_Kino2.pdf
"Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum 1.8 Mbps"
As I've said, DAB+ is ready to fly as soon as the specification comes out,
because both Radioscape and Frontier-Silicon, which probably make up about
95% of the DAB receiver module market, use software-defined radio and both
have implemented DAB and both have implemented RS decoders and both have
implemented AAC+ decoders. That's it, job done. Finito. The only work to do
is minor tweaks to existing software.
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>
>
>BTW, where's your proof that Radioscape's DRM/DAB module can only handle 24
>kbps AAC+?
>
>BTW, how about Frontier-Silicon's Kino 2 DMB chip:
>
>http://www.frontier-silicon.com/products/briefs/chips/FS_Kino2.pdf
>
>"Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum 1.8 Mbps"
>
>As I've said, DAB+ is ready to fly as soon as the specification comes out,
>because both Radioscape and Frontier-Silicon, which probably make up about
>95% of the DAB receiver module market, use software-defined radio and both
>have implemented DAB and both have implemented RS decoders and both have
>implemented AAC+ decoders. That's it, job done. Finito. The only work to do
>is minor tweaks to *existing* software.
No you are wrong once again, in this chip the HE-AAC and H264 decoders
are external.
Read carrefully on page 2 the first paragraph :
- support for three SPI slave devices (including DMB TS data output, SD
card profile and optional local SPI Flash)
- SPI supports remote booting, t-DMB ts output and host command/control
simplifying the host interface significantly.
- SPI slave port available for autonomous ts data, boot and control
to/from host Optional DVB synchronous parallel interface (DVB-SPI)
output of t-DMB ts data
So the MPEG2-TS stream is sending to an external device via the SPI
interface.
KINO 2 is a baseband processor ONLY... On the block diagram (page 2)
KINO2 is the line in black.
Generally, when FS an Radioscape spoke about T-DMB, it's because they
are able to decode a subchannel up to 600kbps (minimum) instead of
256kbps like it was on DAB (sometimes less).
DAB sounds worse than FM
Lying again I see. The fact that data is available via a port as well as
being decoded is normal for DAB receiver modules. For example, I've just
done reviews of 6 DAB/FM tuners, and I think 3 or 4 of them could output RDI
data, which is just the non-decoded multiplex data to allow an external
device to decode, for instance, data services. That DOES NOT mean that the
DAB receiver modules don't decode the MP2 audio - they definitely do decode
the MP2 audio.
Stop lying. You've been found out again.
> So the MPEG2-TS stream is sending to an external device via the SPI
> interface.
See above.
> KINO 2 is a baseband processor ONLY... On the block diagram (page 2)
> KINO2 is the line in black.
How on earth can you argue against this:
"Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum 1.8 Mbps"
If the Kino 2 chip did not decode audio and video then that data sheet is
lying.
Now, given your history of lying, and given that Frontier-Silicon could be
sued for a lot of money if their data sheet is incorrect, who do you think
is telling the truth, the pathological liar (i.e. you) or Frontier-Silicon?
> Generally, when FS an Radioscape spoke about T-DMB, it's because they
> are able to decode a subchannel up to 600kbps (minimum) instead of
> 256kbps like it was on DAB (sometimes less).
"Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum 1.8 Mbps"
Nicolas Croiset
No ! you said :
"Radioscape modules are ALL pin-compatible, and as Radioscape implements
ALL of its modules using software-defined radio (SDR) and as Radioscape
has already developed DMB receivers, DAB+ is basically ready from the
day that the spec is released. All that needs to be done is for an
existing Radioscape printed circuit board to be reprogrammed with DAB+
and then it can be put into *existing* DAB receivers. This could happen
today."
I prove to you that modules from RS and FS don't include the video and
audio decoding for T-DMB. This decoding is external of the module.
Nicolas Croiset
Please accept that you are wrong. There is no integrated video decoder
on ALL modules (so no HE-AAC decoder also).
RDI output is totally different it is in the specs of DAB. It is a
transparent strream for an external device for decoding specific
streams. in the professional world we use a lot this RDI output for
decoding MNSC or to get the paging, TMC DGPS information. you can also
decode receive from this output a subchannel and decode it by a PC with
the right software.
>> KINO 2 is a baseband processor ONLY... On the block diagram (page 2)
>> KINO2 is the line in black.
>
>
>How on earth can you argue against this:
>
>"Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum 1.8 Mbps"
Yes you decode multiple subchannels
Once again the block diagram does not show any video decoder !!! The
block diagram show the audio MP2 decoder, so...
>If the Kino 2 chip did not decode audio and video then that data sheet is
>lying.
>
No it does not lying, you just don't understand what the chip is able to
do exactly. Only a block diagram can tell you exactly what a chip do or
not do.
>
>> Generally, when FS an Radioscape spoke about T-DMB, it's because they
>> are able to decode a subchannel up to 600kbps (minimum) instead of
>> 256kbps like it was on DAB (sometimes less).
>
>
>"Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum 1.8 Mbps"
yes, subchannels "stream audio", "stream datas" and "packet datas" up to
1.8Mbit/s.
You are playing with words because you don't want to recognize that YOU
ARE WRONG.
Frans
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
Good to see you're not infallible. There is no Video decoder on board
and probably als no AAC decoder. The TS is available for further
processing. The decodes multiple video and.............. just means
that sub channels can be decoded up to the maximum availabe CU's. Many
chips in the past could not. They were able to decode one or two
sub-channels with a maximum that was part of the mux
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>> Also, please see Frontier-Silicon's Kino 2 DMB chip:
>>
>> http://www.frontier-silicon.com/products/briefs/chips/FS_Kino2.pdf
>>
>> "Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum
>> 1.8 Mbps"
>>
>> As I've said, DAB+ is ready to fly as soon as the specification
>> comes out, because both Radioscape and Frontier-Silicon, which
>> probably make up about 95% of the DAB receiver module market, use
>> software-defined radio and both have implemented DAB and both have
>> implemented RS decoders and both have implemented AAC+ decoders.
>> That's it, job done. Finito. The only work to do is minor tweaks to
>> existing software.
>
> No ! you said :
>
> "Radioscape modules are ALL pin-compatible, and as Radioscape
> implements ALL of its modules using software-defined radio (SDR) and
> as Radioscape has already developed DMB receivers, DAB+ is basically
> ready from the day that the spec is released. All that needs to be
> done is for an existing Radioscape printed circuit board to be
> reprogrammed with DAB+ and then it can be put into *existing* DAB
> receivers. This could happen today."
>
> I prove to you that modules from RS and FS don't include the video and
> audio decoding for T-DMB. This decoding is external of the module.
You definitely have NOT provided ANY proof that video and audio decoding is
done externally.
How have you got the audacity to argue against this:
http://www.frontier-silicon.com/products/briefs/chips/FS_Kino2.pdf
"Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum 1.8 Mbps"
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:42:07 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>> How on earth can you argue against this:
>>
>> "Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum
>> 1.8 Mbps"
>>
>> If the Kino 2 chip did not decode audio and video then that data
>> sheet is lying.
>>
> Good to see you're not infallible.
It's good to see that you recognise that I do get the vast, vast majority of
what I say correct.....
> There is no Video decoder on board
> and probably als no AAC decoder. The TS is available for further
> processing. The decodes multiple video and.............. just means
> that sub channels can be decoded up to the maximum availabe CU's. Many
> chips in the past could not. They were able to decode one or two
> sub-channels with a maximum that was part of the mux
Fair enough. The problem with arguing with a pathological liar like Croiset
is that because they lie 99% of the time, you don't recognise the time when
they are actually telling the truth.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>> "Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum
>> 1.8 Mbps"
>
> yes, subchannels "stream audio", "stream datas" and "packet datas" up
> to
> 1.8Mbit/s.
>
> You are playing with words because you don't want to recognize that
> YOU ARE WRONG.
Even if I'm wrong on this occasion, it doesn't alter the FACT that you are
INCOMPETENT to want to use the MP2 audio codec. Using the MP2 audio codec
will INEVITABLY result in radio stations delivering low audio quality ACROSS
EUROPE. You want this to happen because VDL Diffusion will make A LOT more
money by using MP2 than if AAC/AAC+ were used. You greedy bastard.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> No ! you said :
>>
>> "Radioscape modules are ALL pin-compatible, and as Radioscape
>> implements ALL of its modules using software-defined radio (SDR) and
>> as Radioscape has already developed DMB receivers, DAB+ is basically
>> ready from the day that the spec is released. All that needs to be
>> done is for an existing Radioscape printed circuit board to be
>> reprogrammed with DAB+ and then it can be put into *existing* DAB
>> receivers. This could happen today."
>>
>> I prove to you that modules from RS and FS don't include the video and
>> audio decoding for T-DMB. This decoding is external of the module.
>
>
>You definitely have NOT provided ANY proof that video and audio decoding is
>done externally.
>
>How have you got the audacity to argue against this:
>
>http://www.frontier-silicon.com/products/briefs/chips/FS_Kino2.pdf
>
>"Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum 1.8 Mbps"
Where is the video decoder on the block diagram ?
DAB sounds worse than FM
I'm happy to believe Frans that the module doesn't do video decoding - I
would never take your word for anything, because you lie far, far more often
than you tell the truth.
Anyway, none of this proves in the slightest that DAB+ modules could not be
ready *very quickly*. Both Frontier-Silicon and Radioscape use
software-defined radio, and both have designed DMB modules, and Radioscape
at least have designed an AAC+ decoder. It is simple to modify an existing
design for DAB+, because the transmission scheme part of DAB+ will be
virtually identical to DMB, and then you've just got to add an AAC+ decoder.
It's simple, because the core part of DAB will be unchanged - DAB+ streams
will still be data services as far as the core DAB network is concerned, so
any changes that need to be made are at the "back end" after the core DAB
part of the receiver.
seani
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> Frans wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 20:42:07 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> > <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>
> >> How on earth can you argue against this:
> >>
> >> "Decodes multiple video, audio and data services up to the maximum
> >> 1.8 Mbps"
> >>
> >> If the Kino 2 chip did not decode audio and video then that data
> >> sheet is lying.
> >>
> > Good to see you're not infallible.
>
>
> It's good to see that you recognise that I do get the vast, vast majority of
> what I say correct.....
>
>
> > There is no Video decoder on board
> > and probably als no AAC decoder. The TS is available for further
> > processing. The decodes multiple video and.............. just means
> > that sub channels can be decoded up to the maximum availabe CU's. Many
> > chips in the past could not. They were able to decode one or two
> > sub-channels with a maximum that was part of the mux
>
>
> Fair enough. The problem with arguing with a pathological liar like Croiset
> is that because they lie 99% of the time, you don't recognise the time when
> they are actually telling the truth.
>
>
I've got an idea, Steve Green. Why not conduct conversations solely on
a forum on your website, rather than on usenet?
That way you can, at your leisure, revise your "facts" and alter
history unhindered, with less risk of being caught red-handed when you
do.
It means that you won't look like a little schoolboy with his pants
around his ankles when it happens. Much like your public exposure in
this manner a few days ago, remember?
I think it might be time to preserve some of your finer moments for
posterity in case your responses expire, or the Google cache isn't
there to confirm the FACT that you will lie and cheat in almost any
circumstance that suits you.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
You always change your discussion when you are wrong.
Your assertion could not be verified. But I think, if the module is
unable to integrate audio+video decoder in it, it's because the
CPU/memory is not enough.
So your assertion is pure speculation without any practice. your
assertion is like I have a I486 with an MP2 real time decoder and I
want to decode HE-AAC with the same processor, the result it does not
works.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I've already admitted I'm wrong, but only because Frans said that they don't
include video - I would never take the word of a pathological liar like you.
But the original discussion was about how easy or how difficult it will be
to design a DAB+ receiver, and I maintain that it would be SIMPLE, because
both Radioscape and Frontier-Silicon have already designed DMB modules, and
Radioscape at least have designed an AAC+ decoder, and all of this is in
software, so it will be very simple to combine the software from DMB with an
AAC+ decoder to implement a DAB+ receiver.
> Your assertion could not be verified. But I think, if the module is
> unable to integrate audio+video decoder in it, it's because the
> CPU/memory is not enough.
If the Kino 2 chip can decode/receive 1.8 Mbps of audio/video streams, then
it obviously has plenty of computational power to spare for when it receives
single streams, so you would expect it would be able to decode a single
AAC/AAC+ stream......
Roderick Stewart
> >
> > Fair enough. The problem with arguing with a pathological liar like Croiset
> > is that because they lie 99% of the time, you don't recognise the time when
> > they are actually telling the truth.
> >
> >
>
> I've got an idea, Steve Green. Why not conduct conversations solely on
> a forum on your website, rather than on usenet?
>
> That way you can, at your leisure, revise your "facts" and alter
> history unhindered, with less risk of being caught red-handed when you
> do.
>
> It means that you won't look like a little schoolboy with his pants
> around his ankles when it happens. Much like your public exposure in
> this manner a few days ago, remember?
>
> I think it might be time to preserve some of your finer moments for
> posterity in case your responses expire, or the Google cache isn't
> there to confirm the FACT that you will lie and cheat in almost any
> circumstance that suits you.
I seem to be receiving postings intended for alt.infantile.slangingmatch by
mistake. Can anyone direct me to a newsgroup where grownups discuss digital
radio?
Rod.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I'm afraid seani's only reason for posting to this newsgroup is to try and
wind me up. It's best to just ignore his anti-Steve rants.
seani
What an excellent idea.
Perhaps we can start off by stamping down on the practice of branding
someone a "pathalogical liar", resorting to digging up dirt on Google
and attempted blackmail, or other unsavoury practices whenever we have
a disagreement?
I'll be right behind you on that lot.
Failing that, there's always your killfile.
seani
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> > In article <1152180449.5...@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Seani wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Fair enough. The problem with arguing with a pathological liar like
> >>> Croiset is that because they lie 99% of the time, you don't
> >>> recognise the time when they are actually telling the truth.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I've got an idea, Steve Green. Why not conduct conversations solely
> >> on a forum on your website, rather than on usenet?
> >>
> >> That way you can, at your leisure, revise your "facts" and alter
> >> history unhindered, with less risk of being caught red-handed when
> >> you do.
> >>
> >> It means that you won't look like a little schoolboy with his pants
> >> around his ankles when it happens. Much like your public exposure in
> >> this manner a few days ago, remember?
> >>
> >> I think it might be time to preserve some of your finer moments for
> >> posterity in case your responses expire, or the Google cache isn't
> >> there to confirm the FACT that you will lie and cheat in almost any
> >> circumstance that suits you.
> >
> > I seem to be receiving postings intended for
> > alt.infantile.slangingmatch by mistake. Can anyone direct me to a
> > newsgroup where grownups discuss digital radio?
>
>
> I'm afraid seani's only reason for posting to this newsgroup is to try and
> wind me up. It's best to just ignore his anti-Steve rants.
>
Untrue.
My motivation in this case, and many others, has to do with your
attempts to stifle discussion where you don't agree with the opinions
of other people.
You have a long and undistinguished track record of attempting to bully
and belittle those who do not share your stance. From this point of
view I personally believe it's worth the occasional effort of pointing
out that you have no control over the content, direction, or mandate of
this group, whatever the voices in your head tell you, and that you are
an arsehole who can be safely kill-filed.
If this also means pointing out examples of your lamentably dishonest
behaviour, so be it.
Your supporters may believe that your behaviour can be excused and that
the ends justify the means. I don't share this opinion, and don't
consider myself answerable to them or you.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
seani wrote:
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
> > In article <1152180449.5...@a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Seani wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough. The problem with arguing with a pathological liar like Croiset
> > > > is that because they lie 99% of the time, you don't recognise the time when
> > > > they are actually telling the truth.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've got an idea, Steve Green. Why not conduct conversations solely on
> > > a forum on your website, rather than on usenet?
> > >
> > > That way you can, at your leisure, revise your "facts" and alter
> > > history unhindered, with less risk of being caught red-handed when you
> > > do.
> > >
> > > It means that you won't look like a little schoolboy with his pants
> > > around his ankles when it happens. Much like your public exposure in
> > > this manner a few days ago, remember?
> > >
> > > I think it might be time to preserve some of your finer moments for
> > > posterity in case your responses expire, or the Google cache isn't
> > > there to confirm the FACT that you will lie and cheat in almost any
> > > circumstance that suits you.
> >
> > I seem to be receiving postings intended for alt.infantile.slangingmatch by
> > mistake. Can anyone direct me to a newsgroup where grownups discuss digital
> > radio?
>
> What an excellent idea.
>
> Perhaps we can start off by stamping down on the practice of branding
> someone a "pathalogical liar",
There is obviously nothing wrong with calling someone a pathological
liar if they actually are a pathological liar. Please get a grip.
> resorting to digging up dirt on Google
> and attempted blackmail,
Attempted blackmail??
Gopher
increasingly hysterical posts. But carry on, for it is great
entertainment watching you froth and rant about DAB.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
I'm definitely not the one trying to stifle discussion. I'm the person
in favour of using DAB+, whereas Croiset and Bonne are intent on trying
to suggest that it would be difficult to implement, which is
preposterous considering that we already have mobile TV services using
DVB-H and DMB transmitting where the computational complexity is far
above what is required for DAB+ audio.
> You have a long and undistinguished track record of attempting to bully
> and belittle those who do not share your stance.
I would agree that I used to do that, but I disagree that I still do
that. I will react to people (Gopher being a good recent example) where
they're trying to wind me up by saying that DAB is oh so wonderful and
FM is oh so terrible - that's not bullying, he's just being selfish,
even though he cannot even see this himself.
> From this point of
> view I personally believe it's worth the occasional effort of pointing
> out that you have no control over the content, direction, or mandate of
> this group, whatever the voices in your head tell you, and that you are
> an arsehole who can be safely kill-filed.
Thankfully, you vastly overestimate the importance of your own posts.
> If this also means pointing out examples of your lamentably dishonest
> behaviour, so be it.
Utter nonsense - but expected, because of your longstranding anti-Steve
posting history.
> Your supporters may believe that your behaviour can be excused and that
> the ends justify the means. I don't share this opinion, and don't
> consider myself answerable to them or you.
Listen to yourself, anybody'd think this was the United bleeding
Nations or sumfink.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I've been toying with killfiling you for some time now, and this post shows
that the time has come to do so.
*plonk*
Gopher
>
> I'm definitely not the one trying to stifle discussion. I'm the person
> in favour of using DAB+, whereas Croiset and Bonne are intent on trying
> to suggest that it would be difficult to implement, which is
> preposterous considering that we already have mobile TV services using
> DVB-H and DMB transmitting where the computational complexity is far
> above what is required for DAB+ audio.
>
Are you sure this DAB+ isn't another Global Radio style white elephant?
seani
*If* is the operative word here. You have considerable difficulty with
the concepts of objective truth and subjective opinion. But no scruples
when it comes to misrepresenting one as the other, as your attempt to
alter you website mid-conversation recently demonstrated.
>
> > resorting to digging up dirt on Google
> > and attempted blackmail,
>
>
> Attempted blackmail??
Oh yes, end of January this year, absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Want
a *hand* remembering? Have your bi-tten off more than you can chew with
your a-bi-smal little muckraking exercise? Overestimated your own
a-bi-lity?
The saddest thing is that you obviously thought you were being clever
or subtle, but the briefest glance at your past behaviour and modus
operandi made the purpose of the whole post and the way you went about
things transparent.
Goole search is such a *comfort* to you, isn't it, you vacuously
immoral little man.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
Yes, you're going to have to help me out with this one, because I can
assure you that I have never and would never blackmail anybody.
If you're referring to that bloke that I referred to the other day who
had posted on here and I looked up his Google Groups posting history
and it showed that he'd been busily posting to groups looking for
someone to take part in some mutual masturbation sessions, all I did
was use some words along the lines of bi-cycle and other words being
prefixed with 'bi' as a bit of fun.
I emailed Bill Wright about it, and oh how we both laughed. Why?
Because it is funny to see a self-confessed married man looking for
some sordid sessions being tossed off by some random stranger in a
layby. If you don't think it is, then you really need to get yourself a
sense of humour pal.
No harm was done whatsoever, and me and Bill had a bit of a giggle. The
only person who would give a shit about this is YOU - no surprise there
then.
> Goole search is such a *comfort* to you, isn't it, you vacuously
> immoral little man.
seani, whatever job it is you do, your talents are being utterly
wasted, and I have the ideal job for you: you should start a new
organisation called Doggers & Swingers Rights to Fumble in Laybys
(DASRTFIL). I believe you'd do a grand job.
seani
Oh you think so, do you?
We'll see.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
seani wrote:
> ste...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
> > No harm was done whatsoever, and me and Bill had a bit of a giggle. The
> > only person who would give a shit about this is YOU - no surprise there
> > then.
> >
>
> Oh you think so, do you?
Oh, without a shadow of a doubt, yes. It really does require someone --
like yourself -- to not have any sense of humour whatsoever to not find
his posting history a little amusing.
You know, here's the appropriate visualisation: two married burly Leeds
blokes in a car having a mutual fumble. Now if that doesn't put a
little grin on your face then nothing can me old China.
The words "up" and "lighten" spring to mind....
Remember that his Google Groups posting history has him admitting quite
openly that he is married, where he lives, what his first name is, what
his sexual desires were, whereas me asking him on alt.radio.digital
whether he likes to go bi-cycling and whether he likes to look at
bi-planes pales into utter and total insignificance in comparison to
that. If his wife ever did start searching his Google Groups posting
history then his marriage would not break down due to my post, put it
that way..... I didn't once say explicitly that he was bisexual - I
merely hinted at it by some of the words I used, and nobody batted an
eyelid at the time, and it's only since I brought the subject up that
you've gone searching for the incident in question.
> We'll see.
Oh, I'm quivering at the thought of what we will see - I do hope you're
not going to provide any pictures of any in-car fumbling.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> seani <ing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> No harm was done whatsoever, and me and Bill had a bit of a giggle.
>>> The only person who would give a shit about this is YOU - no
>>> surprise there then.
>>>
>> Oh you think so, do you?
>
> to those posts when replying to "SS", but he didn't:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.gay/browse_frm/thread/568d
> a20bc0ed71fe/3824ca2f7b72463b?hl=it>
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.bi/browse_frm/thread/a05c0
> 14bf0dce9e2/177126157af75053?hl=it>
Absolutely. No harm was done at all - it was a bit of fun, nothing more.
What a surprise that seani blew it out of all proportion and has actually
laughably suggested that I was trying to BLACKMAIL the person!!!! What an
idiot.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
seani wrote:
> ste...@totalise.co.uk wrote:
> > No harm was done whatsoever, and me and Bill had a bit of a giggle. The
> > only person who would give a shit about this is YOU - no surprise there
> > then.
> >
>
> Oh you think so, do you?
>
> We'll see.
Oh, BTW, can you remember when the Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten was caught
having an affair with a rent boy while being married? I can imagine
that you don't bother watching any comedy on TV, because you don't seem
to have a sense of humour whatsoeverf, but there were plenty of jokes
about that, so please enlighten me why this married bloke wanting to
pick up people on Usenet for mutual masturbation sessions should be
immune to ridicule?
Kristoff Bonne
ste...@totalise.co.uk schreef:
>> We'll see.
> Oh, BTW, can you remember when the Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten was caught
> having an affair with ...
Come on guys. Let's keep things at least slightly on-topic related to
digital radio or -at least- somthing technology-like.
Cheerio! kr. Bonne.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
Oh right, yeah, let's get back to the endless arguments about DAB vs
DAB+ etc - fantastic...
Kristoff Bonne
To be honest. I have sufficiant problems with some bloke who is trying
to use a belgian radio-related NG (be.radio) for posting 10 messages of
off-topic messages (usually propaganda for a far-right political party),
crossposting to be.politics (as the name implies a politics-related NG)
so that is sure he will always get reply from somebody.
Overthere, the NG which is supposed to be about radio is completely
cluttered with non-related politicsl discussions and the S/N has now
probably dropped below -30 dB.
So, please, let's keep politics to political newsgroups and limit
technical NGs to discussion about technology.
Thanks.
:-)
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
But this isn't about politics, it's about sordid sexual encounters with
random strangers for mutual masturbation. (that was a joke BTW - I'd
better not put a smilie in case you get the wrong impression)
Sean Inglis
> > > only person who would give a shit about this is YOU - no surprise there
> > > then.
> > >
> > Oh you think so, do you?
>
> those posts when replying to "SS", but he didn't:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.gay/browse_frm/thread/568d
> a20bc0ed71fe/3824ca2f7b72463b?hl=it>
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.bi/browse_frm/thread/a05c0
> 14bf0dce9e2/177126157af75053?hl=it>
And this is where your argument comes undone.
If the intention was not to pressurise the OP into shutting up, why
*wasn't* the post in question referred to explicitly and instead in
this puerile and oblique manner?
Why was the OPs wife mentioned:
"I mean, what would your wife think?"
What was the purpose of this?
That's the nature of blackmail of course - if you "expose" the person
you're blackmailing, it's game-over. If you don't, but just drop a few
hints, you stand a chance of exercising some control, and this is
precisely the situation here. Only now he's caught out, it's just a
laugh and a joke, right? He's roped in Bill Wright to spread the risk
and try to defuse things a bit, but it's easy to see the intention.
And *he* has the gall to accuse someone else of sordid behaviour?
He's a pathetic spineless sniggering little schoolboy.
ste...@totalise.co.uk
Sean Inglis wrote:
> Giuseppe wrote:
> > seani <ing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > No harm was done whatsoever, and me and Bill had a bit of a giggle. The
> > > > only person who would give a shit about this is YOU - no surprise there
> > > > then.
> > > >
> > > Oh you think so, do you?
> >
> > I do as well. It might have been different if he had posted the links to
> > those posts when replying to "SS", but he didn't:
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.gay/browse_frm/thread/568d
> > a20bc0ed71fe/3824ca2f7b72463b?hl=it>
> >
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.bi/browse_frm/thread/a05c0
> > 14bf0dce9e2/177126157af75053?hl=it>
>
> And this is where your argument comes undone.
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhaaha.
> If the intention was not to pressurise the OP into shutting up, why
> *wasn't* the post in question referred to explicitly and instead in
> this puerile and oblique manner?
Buy jar of Vaseline. Unscrew top. Apply liberally to neck and hand
area. Twist head out of anus until fully extracted.
> Why was the OPs wife mentioned:
>
> "I mean, what would your wife think?"
>
> What was the purpose of this?
I've always said that if the day comes when you can no longer have a
bit of a laugh and a joke at someone's expense who's acted stupidly,
then it's time to give up.
> That's the nature of blackmail
Blackmail! Always with the dramatic words. Pull head out of arse,
immediatement!
>of course - if you "expose" the person
> you're blackmailing, it's game-over.
Game over? Do you mean like it was game over the second you mentioned
the word "blackmail"? Yep, s'pose so.
> If you don't, but just drop a few
> hints, you stand a chance of exercising some control, and this is
> precisely the situation here. Only now he's caught out, it's just a
> laugh and a joke, right?
Absolutely.
> He's roped in Bill Wright to spread the risk
> and try to defuse things a bit, but it's easy to see the intention.
Sean, the only reason you know about these posts is because I mentioned
them here as follows on 3rd July:
"Can you remember that poster on here that was trying to seek out
discrete
partners (due to him being married) on Usenet for mutual in-car
masturbation
(before anybody asks: no, this is not a new kind of data service
carried on
DAB) in the Yorkshire area but forgot to change the email address he
uses on
Usenet? Oh how I laughed."
That post was a REPLY TO BILL WRIGHT.
> And *he* has the gall to accuse someone else of sordid behaviour?
>
> He's a pathetic spineless sniggering little schoolboy.
Sean, the most amusing thing about you is that all the things you claim
to find abhorrent about me you actually practice yourself when posting
about me:
You try to 'blackmail' me - yet you claim you don't like this behaviour
in myself
You try to 'bully' me - yet you claim you don't like this behaviour in
myself
You're therefore incredibly hypocritical (another trait you've
criticised me for), and you call me a liar, but because you claim to
dislike bullying and blackmail and yet you practice both, you're
therefore a liar and a hypocrite.
Moreover, your power to wind me up was lost the day I decided not to
give a shit about being called by my real name, Steven Green, and the
name of the magazine I write for, Hi-Fi World.
You've always tried to use absolutely laughable arguments in order to
try and slur me, but the one and only threat that I didn't like was to
use my real name and more recently the magazine I write for. But now I
don't give a shit, and you're left with your laughable arguments on
their own, which have precisely zero power over me.
Sean, remember, apply Vaseline liberally to neck area, and twist out.
Anyway, I've wasted too much time responding to your drivel - have the
last laughable word.
Sean Inglis
>
>> He's roped in Bill Wright to spread the risk
>> and try to defuse things a bit, but it's easy to see the intention.
>
>
> Sean, the only reason you know about these posts is because I mentioned
> them here as follows on 3rd July:
>
> "Can you remember that poster on here that was trying to seek out
> discrete
> partners (due to him being married) on Usenet for mutual in-car
> masturbation
> (before anybody asks: no, this is not a new kind of data service
> carried on
> DAB) in the Yorkshire area but forgot to change the email address he
> uses on
> Usenet? Oh how I laughed."
>
> That post was a REPLY TO BILL WRIGHT.
>
>
>> And *he* has the gall to accuse someone else of sordid behaviour?
>>
>> He's a pathetic spineless sniggering little schoolboy.
>
I do intend to reply and to do you justice, but I'll just clear one thing
up first. I realised what you were up to at the time of the post, hence my
reply:
Not as explicit as it could have been, as I was considering the situation
the OP was in.
Apparently you aren't concerned by your public behaviour on here
after all. Good for you. Others may not be so generous when they look into
your past.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:53:26 -0700, steve41 wrote:
>
>>
>>> He's roped in Bill Wright to spread the risk
>>> and try to defuse things a bit, but it's easy to see the intention.
>>
>>
>> Sean, the only reason you know about these posts is because I
>> mentioned them here as follows on 3rd July:
>>
>> "Can you remember that poster on here that was trying to seek out
>> discrete
>> partners (due to him being married) on Usenet for mutual in-car
>> masturbation
>> (before anybody asks: no, this is not a new kind of data service
>> carried on
>> DAB) in the Yorkshire area but forgot to change the email address he
>> uses on
>> Usenet? Oh how I laughed."
>>
>> That post was a REPLY TO BILL WRIGHT.
No comment on this I see...
>>> And *he* has the gall to accuse someone else of sordid behaviour?
>>>
>>> He's a pathetic spineless sniggering little schoolboy.
>>
>
> I do intend to reply and to do you justice, but I'll just clear one
> thing up first. I realised what you were up to at the time of the
> post, hence my reply:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ecgt2
Oooooo, aren't you clever. Well done, Sean.
> Not as explicit as it could have been, as I was considering the
> situation the OP was in.
What situation was the OP in exactly?
Here's the text you're referring to:
"> Have you got bi-polar disorder, or something? Anyway, on yer bi-cycle,
> pal. And I hope this doesn't turn into a bi-weekly event: you turn up,
> stick your oar in then disappear only to turn up 2 weeks later wanting
> to stick your oar in again. I mean, what would your wife think?
> BTW, John Porcella is always up for coming up with a solution or two for
> fellow DAB lovers with curious issues. In fact, I think all the DAB
> supporters on this group have called on John's expertise at some point
> or another in the past, and he's always willing to lend a hand to
> provide some relief, no matter how big or small the matter is at hand.
> TBH, I think all of the DAB supporters on here would help you out if you
> asked them, especially seani and Richard L. "
Oh my golly gosh, how outrageous.
> Apparently you aren't concerned by your public behaviour on here
> after all. Good for you. Others may not be so generous when they look
> into your past.
No, I'm not concerned at all by my public behaviour on here. Although I
wouldn't deny I used to be out of order at times, I do not feel I behave at
all badly these days, so all your criticisms are of the wholly laughable
variety, and when I removed the one and only piece of power from you -- my
willingness to be called by my real name and the magazine I write for -- you
have now become absolutely powerless and even more laughable, which is
fantastically entertaining.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> Sean Inglis <ing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why was the OPs wife mentioned:
>>
>> "I mean, what would your wife think?"
>>
>> What was the purpose of this?
>
> up about it.
He's getting worked up only because it was me. If it was anybody else he
wouldn't have said a word.
Roderick Stewart
wrote:
> ~ ~
> ~ ~ I seem to be receiving postings intended for
> ~ ~ alt.infantile.slangingmatch by mistake. Can anyone direct me to a
> ~ ~ newsgroup where grownups discuss digital radio?
> ~
> ~
> ~ I'm afraid seani's only reason for posting to this newsgroup is to
> ~ try and wind me up. It's best to just ignore his anti-Steve rants.
> ~
>
> I think Rod was referring to *you* Stevie41 !!
I think they both need their heads knocking together, as my mother might
have said. Sadly, they're not the only ones. There seems no shortage of
people who are unable to contain their fury in the face of opinions
different from their own, and who all too readily abandon reasoned
argument and lapse into personal insults to express it. I usually bail
out of a usenet thread at this point on the assumption that nothing
meaningful is likely to emerge from it, and if I want to hear a childish
exchange of insults I only have to visit my grandchildren near the end
of a hot day.
I see that each of the main warring participants in this thread seems to
think I was referring to the other one, so my comment only seems to have
succeeded in splitting it in two. Perhaps I should have known better
than to interfere.
Rod.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> In article <V5org.20499$1g....@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, R K Pelligo
> wrote:
>> ~ ~
>> ~ ~ I seem to be receiving postings intended for
>> ~ ~ alt.infantile.slangingmatch by mistake. Can anyone direct me to a
>> ~ ~ newsgroup where grownups discuss digital radio?
>> ~
>> ~
>> ~ I'm afraid seani's only reason for posting to this newsgroup is to
>> ~ try and wind me up. It's best to just ignore his anti-Steve rants.
>> ~
>>
>> I think Rod was referring to *you* Stevie41 !!
>
> I think they both need their heads knocking together, as my mother
> might have said.
Look, I cannot help it if seani has the mother of all grudges against me and
occasionally comes up with some laughable misdemeanour that I've supposedly
committed.
I would like nothing better than to never communicate with him again.
André Coutanche
> There seems no shortage of people who are unable to contain their
> fury in the face of opinions different from their own, and who all
> too readily abandon reasoned argument and lapse into personal
> insults to express it.
I responded to this annoying thread by doing what I have been thinking
about for a while - I have added Steve Green to my 'blocked senders'
list, despite the fact that he undoubtedly has interesting things to
say which are relevant. Unfortunately, he is also responsible for much
of the noise on this group, along with some of the signal. (BTW, why
does no-one trim quotes here? ;-( ).
I am working on the assumption that when Steve posts something
technically interesting, it will get a response and I will see it that
way. When there's a stupid slanging match going on, at least I will be
spared half the posts.
So far, so good ...
André Coutanche