BBC iMP Trial to start 1st September
DAB sounds worse than FM
The BBC's interactive media player (iMP) is starting a wider trial on
1st September.
Only a limited number of radio shows and TV programmes will be available
in the trial at first, although more shows might be added closer to
launch date, apparently.
The iMP uses peer-to-peer technology, which is the same technology that
the file-sharing networks use where people download parts of each
programme from multiple users. The reason why there will only be a
limited number of programmes available is probably due to there only
being 5,000 trialists, because the fewer programmes there are available
the more likely it will be that people will be able to download from
multiple users. It is planned that all TV and radio programmes will be
available when the iMP is fully launched next year, and programmes will
be available for 7 days after they've been broadcast.
The radio shows are apparently going to use 128kbps WMA9, which means
that they should have better audio quality than is available on the
BBC's radio stations on DAB or digital TV. However, WMA9 might not be
used when the system is fully launched next year due to the desire that
Apple Macs be supported.
Hopefully they'll adopt AAC instead, which would allow support for both
Windows and Mac users and is the best-performing well-known audio codec
at 128kbps.
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm
Bruce Stewart
> From www.digitalradiotech.co.uk
>
> The BBC's interactive media player (iMP) is starting a wider trial on
> 1st September.
>
> Only a limited number of radio shows and TV programmes will be available
> in the trial at first, although more shows might be added closer to
> launch date, apparently.
>
> The iMP uses peer-to-peer technology, which is the same technology that
> the file-sharing networks use where people download parts of each
> programme from multiple users. The reason why there will only be a
> limited number of programmes available is probably due to there only
> being 5,000 trialists, because the fewer programmes there are available
> the more likely it will be that people will be able to download from
> multiple users. It is planned that all TV and radio programmes will be
> available when the iMP is fully launched next year, and programmes will
> be available for 7 days after they've been broadcast.
>
> The radio shows are apparently going to use 128kbps WMA9, which means
> that they should have better audio quality than is available on the
> BBC's radio stations on DAB or digital TV. However, WMA9 might not be
> used when the system is fully launched next year due to the desire that
> Apple Macs be supported.
>
> Hopefully they'll adopt AAC instead, which would allow support for both
> Windows and Mac users and is the best-performing well-known audio codec
> at 128kbps.
>
>
>
What about .OGG Vorbis?
It's open, available on different platforms and appears to sound good at
that rate.
Bruce
--
Replace the by by blueyonder
Giuseppe
> The radio shows are apparently going to use 128kbps WMA9, which means
> that they should have better audio quality than is available on the
> BBC's radio stations on DAB or digital TV. However, WMA9 might not be
> used when the system is fully launched next year due to the desire that
> Apple Macs be supported.
Does that mean that they will use copy-protection? Because Windows Media
9 is also available on the Mac, only the recent DRM versions are not
supported.
> Hopefully they'll adopt AAC instead, which would allow support for both
> Windows and Mac users
Not to mention iPod users...
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@low.quality> wrote:
>
>> The radio shows are apparently going to use 128kbps WMA9, which means
>> that they should have better audio quality than is available on the
>> BBC's radio stations on DAB or digital TV. However, WMA9 might not be
>> used when the system is fully launched next year due to the desire
>> that Apple Macs be supported.
>
> Does that mean that they will use copy-protection?
Yes, they are.
>Because Windows
> Media 9 is also available on the Mac, only the recent DRM versions
> are not supported.
Right.
>> Hopefully they'll adopt AAC instead, which would allow support for
>> both Windows and Mac users
>
> Not to mention iPod users...
Yes, but one drawback of AAC is that it's only the iPod that supports it
out of the MP3 players. Or at least I can't think of any other MP3
players that support AAC. Unfortunately, a lot of MP3 players do support
WMA.
David
system from the BBC.
Unfortunately I do not think the broadcasters think or care about top
quaulity anymore.
--
Regards,
David
<><
Please reply to News Group
Ivan
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
news:uvFNe.17428$Mf6....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> From www.digitalradiotech.co.uk
>
> The BBC's interactive media player (iMP) is starting a wider trial on
> 1st September.
>
> Only a limited number of radio shows and TV programmes will be available
> in the trial at first, although more shows might be added closer to
> launch date, apparently.
>
> The iMP uses peer-to-peer technology, which is the same technology that
> the file-sharing networks use where people download parts of each
> programme from multiple users. The reason why there will only be a
> limited number of programmes available is probably due to there only
> being 5,000 trialists, because the fewer programmes there are available
> the more likely it will be that people will be able to download from
> multiple users. It is planned that all TV and radio programmes will be
> available when the iMP is fully launched next year, and programmes will
> be available for 7 days after they've been broadcast.
>
> The radio shows are apparently going to use 128kbps WMA9, which means
> that they should have better audio quality than is available on the
> BBC's radio stations on DAB or digital TV. However, WMA9 might not be
> used when the system is fully launched next year due to the desire that
> Apple Macs be supported.
>
> Hopefully they'll adopt AAC instead, which would allow support for both
> Windows and Mac users and is the best-performing well-known audio codec
> at 128kbps.
>
>
Slightly OT know Steve, but I tend to use DAB basically as a higher quality
alternative to AM Radio. However I was reading in this month's New Scientist
about a system called DRM which could be due to take off during the next
year or two, what's your own opinion on it, you think that it will rival or
maybe even supersede DAB?
http://www.drm.org/system/technicalaspect.php
Dave MacRae
> Well untill BBC DAB improves I will not be interested in any new radio
> system from the BBC.
>
What does iMP have to do with Radio Waves? It uses this new-fangles
Internet thingy.
--
Dave
Max Demian
news:nrekt2-...@home.macrae.org.uk...
What does hospital radio have to do with radio waves?
--
Max Demian
AD C
d.remo...@tesco.net says...
> Well untill BBC DAB improves I will not be interested in any new radio
> system from the BBC.
You will be waiting for ever and a day.,
> Unfortunately I do not think the broadcasters think or care about top
> quaulity anymore.
>
You are correct there.
John Patrick
at sets combining the two systems. So it won't be a question of one over the
other the DRM system using what is now called SW, LW, & MW will be capable
of longer distance reception.
"Ivan" <ivan'H'ol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3mpf71F...@individual.net...
Giuseppe
> > Does that mean that they will use copy-protection?
> Yes, they are.
I wonder why, it's not like their most popular shows are not already on
p2p. There must be tens of thousands of people outside the UK already
watching Extras, available on popular bit torrent sites a few hours
after the BBC2 airing.
> >> Hopefully they'll adopt AAC instead, which would allow support for
> >> both Windows and Mac users
> > Not to mention iPod users...
> Yes, but one drawback of AAC is that it's only the iPod that supports it
> out of the MP3 players. Or at least I can't think of any other MP3
> players that support AAC. Unfortunately, a lot of MP3 players do support
> WMA.
But all those players combined probably don't even have as much market
(and mind-) share as the iPods.
Giuseppe
> they will go with whatever format is the most popular/widely used,
> relative quality won't even be a consideration. they will also want
> some form of drm restrictions to stop them from working after a set
> time (probably 7 days from broadcast).
> so it will be wma/wmv.
No it won't.
> apple
> will have caught up by the time it's launched.
Somehow I can't see Apple ditching their DRM and Quicktime platform and
choose instead their main competitors' proprietary systems.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@low.quality> wrote:
>
>>> Does that mean that they will use copy-protection?
>
>> Yes, they are.
>
> I wonder why, it's not like their most popular shows are not already
> on p2p. There must be tens of thousands of people outside the UK
> already watching Extras, available on popular bit torrent sites a few
> hours after the BBC2 airing.
Yeah, but that's not supposed to happen. And then there's the issue over
radio playing copyrighted music, so you just imagine what the record
industry would say if the shows had no protection.
>>>> Hopefully they'll adopt AAC instead, which would allow support for
>>>> both Windows and Mac users
>
>>> Not to mention iPod users...
>
>> Yes, but one drawback of AAC is that it's only the iPod that
>> supports it out of the MP3 players. Or at least I can't think of any
>> other MP3 players that support AAC. Unfortunately, a lot of MP3
>> players do support WMA.
>
> But all those players combined probably don't even have as much market
> (and mind-) share as the iPods.
I once read that smaller MP3 players were the best selling, and iPods
are just far more famous.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Who wrote the article?
> which could be due to
> take off during the next year or two, what's your own opinion on it,
> you think that it will rival or maybe even supersede DAB?
> http://www.drm.org/system/technicalaspect.php
DRM is a very good system, but it was designed to be used at frequencies
below 30 MHz, and such low frequency signals have strange propagation
characteristics. But DRM is now being extended to work at frequencies up
to 120 MHz, although some broadcasters like the BBC are employing
delaying tactics to make sure that the time it takes DRM to be extended
is as long as possible to allow DAB a free run without any competing
systems.
The fact of the matter is that DAB technology is now 15 years old,
whereas DRM's technology is all modern, so the broadcasters backing DAB
don't want to allow countries to adopt DRM ahead of DAB, so they're
delaying it.
Radioscape who produce DAB modules have developed a DAB+DRM module and
it's likely that we'll see radios with DRM in the UK soon. But it'll be
the current version of DRM, not the extended version, so the only
stations it'll be able to receive are those that transmit at frequencies
below 30 MHz. Also, the extension of DRM will bring wider channels
(100kHz), so the bit rates can be increased, whereas at the moment the
maximum channel width is only 20kHz, so the bit rates will be low and
the audio quality will be poor, but better than MW.
Basically, the BBC have decided that Europe should follow the UK and
adopt DAB. The other European public service broadcasters bizarrely look
to the BBC for a lead, and the BBC is backing DAB, so most of the other
European public service broadcaster lemmings are following them. The
fact that DAB is about as outdated a digital technology as it is
possible to imagine and that modern systems like DVB-H and DRM wipe the
floor with DAB seems to be irrelevant to them. The European Broadcasting
Union (EBU) is very powerful as well, and its technical department has
got a load of ex-BBC men in it, and it is headed by the person that was
in charge of BBC R&D at the time that the BBC rolled out their DAB
transmitter network.
It's all about egos at the end of the day; the people that designed DAB
don't want to admit that they designed a shite system and they're happy
to provide low audio quality to all of their listeners rather than face
reality.
Anyway, back to DRM: they'll probably manage to delay the extension of
it for about 5 years by which time most people in the UK will probably
be listening to low audio quality via DAB.
Just to give you an indication of how outdated and inefficient DAB is
and how efficient DRM is, the amount of spectrum required for a
reasonable audio quality station (160kbps) on DAB is 250kHz, whereas on
DRM is it only 25kHz (after DRM has been extended). So, if you've got 1
MHz of spectrum then you can fit 4 reasonable quality stations on DAB or
40 reasonable quality stations on DRM. DRM is also far cheaper for
broadcasters to transmit. So, it's no wonder that they want to delay DRM
as long as possible, because it seriously puts DAB in its place, i.e. in
the technology museum.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB and DRM will be complementary systems.
Actually, if a country chooses to use DRM after it's been extended then
they wouldn't need to use the 15-year-old DAB system at all.
> Set designers are already
> looking at sets combining the two systems. So it won't be a question
> of one over the other the DRM system using what is now called SW, LW,
> & MW will be capable of longer distance reception.
DRM is being extended to work at frequencies up to 120 MHz, and once it
does it'll be able to provide high audio quality.
Ivan
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
>
>
> Who wrote the article?
Thanks for the detailed explanation Steve, I'm now a little more up to speed
about what's going on, as I have to admit that my only awareness of DRM was
that I vaguely knew that there was some kind of digital rejuvenation on the
cards for the AM radio spectrum.
It seems a shame that DRM won't be taking off in the UK sooner rather than
later, especially if the signal is more robust than DAB and offers better
quality, plus the choice of many more stations.
Giuseppe
> > I wonder why, it's not like their most popular shows are not already
> > on p2p. There must be tens of thousands of people outside the UK
> > already watching Extras, available on popular bit torrent sites a few
> > hours after the BBC2 airing.
> Yeah, but that's not supposed to happen.
But it does, and will, happen. :-)
I heard that the iMP content will also be made available for a fee to
those outside the UK, is it confirmed or just a rumour?
> And then there's the issue over
> radio playing copyrighted music, so you just imagine what the record
> industry would say if the shows had no protection.
Yeah, I guess that the BBC will just have to implement it even if they
would prefer not to.
> > But all those players combined probably don't even have as much market
> > (and mind-) share as the iPods.
> I once read that smaller MP3 players were the best selling, and iPods
> are just far more famous.
In any case, Apple has also been making flash players for a while, and
apparently they've been fairly successful.
Giuseppe
> >Somehow I can't see Apple ditching their DRM and Quicktime platform and
> >choose instead their main competitors' proprietary systems.
> if they're already trialing with wma they're not going to switch to
> something else just for a few freaks with non-standard computers.
Such idiotic gibberish doesn't even deserve a serious reply. Much like
everything else you write, actually...
DAB sounds worse than FM
> g...@bastaspamNGI.it (Giuseppe) went:
> using something else. if you think otherwise you're deluding yourself.
This is not a launch; it is a trial.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@low.quality> wrote:
>
>>> I wonder why, it's not like their most popular shows are not already
>>> on p2p. There must be tens of thousands of people outside the UK
>>> already watching Extras, available on popular bit torrent sites a
>>> few hours after the BBC2 airing.
>
>> Yeah, but that's not supposed to happen.
>
> But it does, and will, happen. :-)
Yes, but it's still not meant to happen.
> I heard that the iMP content will also be made available for a fee to
> those outside the UK, is it confirmed or just a rumour?
It was something the Director of New Media, Ashley Highfield, said in a
speech this summer.
>> And then there's the issue over
>> radio playing copyrighted music, so you just imagine what the record
>> industry would say if the shows had no protection.
>
> Yeah, I guess that the BBC will just have to implement it even if they
> would prefer not to.
Yep, it's all to keep the copyright holders happy.
>>> But all those players combined probably don't even have as much
>>> market (and mind-) share as the iPods.
>
>> I once read that smaller MP3 players were the best selling, and iPods
>> are just far more famous.
>
> In any case, Apple has also been making flash players for a while, and
> apparently they've been fairly successful.
It was after the iPod Shuffle came out that I read that more people buy
small capacity than large capacity MP3 players. When you think about it
it's not surprising because of the massive price difference.
hwh
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> schreef in bericht
news:iv4Oe.12$NT...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> It was after the iPod Shuffle came out that I read that more people buy
> small capacity than large capacity MP3 players. When you think about it
> it's not surprising because of the massive price difference.
Yes, the larger capacity ones have discs, the smaller ones are solid state.
Just like those USB keys, the 128/256MB. ones are really cheap.
gr, hwh
DAB sounds worse than FM
> IIRC the author was Barry Fox :0)
Oh, him... I'm not his biggest fan ever.
> Thanks for the detailed explanation Steve, I'm now a little more up
> to speed about what's going on, as I have to admit that my only
> awareness of DRM was that I vaguely knew that there was some kind of
> digital rejuvenation on the cards for the AM radio spectrum.
>
> It seems a shame that DRM won't be taking off in the UK sooner rather
> than later, especially if the signal is more robust than DAB and
> offers better quality, plus the choice of many more stations.
We'll likely see radios with DAB+DRM, but they'll only be able to
receive signals below 30 MHz. It'll be interesting to see whether in a
few years' time once DRM has been extended that this rules out the UK
from receiving the higher frequency DRM channels thus consigning the UK
to an absolutely appalling overall digital radio system.
Pierre PANTALÉON
> We'll likely see radios with DAB+DRM, but they'll only be able to
> receive signals below 30 MHz. It'll be interesting to see whether in a
> few years' time once DRM has been extended that this rules out the UK
> from receiving the higher frequency DRM channels thus consigning the UK
> to an absolutely appalling overall digital radio system.
But we can't digitalize FM band without stop some FM radio.
And it need some years before DRM+ is ready.
So because, UK choice DAB, it will be the transition system before come
back digital FM band.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM a écrit :
>
>> We'll likely see radios with DAB+DRM, but they'll only be able to
>> receive signals below 30 MHz. It'll be interesting to see whether in
>> a few years' time once DRM has been extended that this rules out the
>> UK from receiving the higher frequency DRM channels thus consigning
>> the UK to an absolutely appalling overall digital radio system.
>
> But we can't digitalize FM band without stop some FM radio.
Stop FM radio? How dare you say that! ;-)
> And it need some years before DRM+ is ready.
DRM+ could be ready within 18 months if they wanted to make it ready.
What do they need to do exactly? They have to decide on possible changes
to an already designed system, then simulate those changes, then
validate those changes. It's not like they're designing a system from
nothing.
> So because, UK choice DAB, it will be the transition system before
> come back digital FM band.
They'd better sort the audio quality out before they even consider
switching FM off.
Ivan
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@low.quality> wrote in message
> Pierre PANTALÉON wrote:
> > DAB sounds worse than FM a écrit :
> >
> >> We'll likely see radios with DAB+DRM, but they'll only be able to
> >> receive signals below 30 MHz. It'll be interesting to see whether in
> >> a few years' time once DRM has been extended that this rules out the
> >> UK from receiving the higher frequency DRM channels thus consigning
> >> the UK to an absolutely appalling overall digital radio system.
> >
> > But we can't digitalize FM band without stop some FM radio.
>
>
> Stop FM radio? How dare you say that! ;-)
>
>
> > And it need some years before DRM+ is ready.
>
>
> DRM+ could be ready within 18 months if they wanted to make it ready.
> What do they need to do exactly? They have to decide on possible changes
> to an already designed system, then simulate those changes, then
> validate those changes. It's not like they're designing a system from
> nothing.
>
>
supply the RS500, which supplies all the necessary hardware and software to
design and build receivers able to support any combination of DRM, DAB,
FM-RDS and AM, cutting down significantly on the development time and
resources needed from the manufacturer".
"Pricing for both the DRM300 and DRM350 chips starts at $18 in sample
quantities of 1000 or less and are expected to be available in Q3 2005."
Then let the roll-out commence!
DAB sounds worse than FM
Yes, but this is still the <30 MHz version of DRM, not the version
that'll be able to handle 120 MHz and below.
Pierre PANTALÉON
> Stop FM radio? How dare you say that! ;-)
Because, we need FM spectrum for DRM+ ! :)
It's true, it exist iBOC ;)
> DRM+ could be ready within 18 months if they wanted to make it ready.
> What do they need to do exactly? They have to decide on possible changes
> to an already designed system, then simulate those changes, then
> validate those changes. It's not like they're designing a system from
> nothing.
Short time to develop DRM+, but to improve new changes in real life it's
another thing.
>>So because, UK choice DAB, it will be the transition system before
>>come back digital FM band.
>
>
>
> They'd better sort the audio quality out before they even consider
> switching FM off.
perhaps, but simulcast seems impossible, we need spectrum with
transition system.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM a écrit :
>
>> Stop FM radio? How dare you say that! ;-)
>
> Because, we need FM spectrum for DRM+ ! :)
> It's true, it exist iBOC ;)
DRM is not IBOC.
>> DRM+ could be ready within 18 months if they wanted to make it ready.
>> What do they need to do exactly? They have to decide on possible
>> changes to an already designed system, then simulate those changes,
>> then validate those changes. It's not like they're designing a
>> system from nothing.
>
> Short time to develop DRM+, but to improve new changes in real life
> it's another thing.
DRM has a completed specification. The audio codec won't change. The
fact it uses OFDM and QPSK, 16-QAM and 64-QAM won't change. The vast
majority of the spec won't change, and it's predominantly just being
extended and the extensions required to work at higher frequencies are
not difficult to define, because they're simple transmission parameters
that are easily arrived at from experience of DAB, DVB-T/H etc.
3 years is too long for these changes, let alone 5 years.
Anyway, someone from teh DRM consortium has admitted that it's DAB
broadcasters that are employing delaying tactics so that DRM doesn't
compete with DAB. Pathetic.
>>> So because, UK choice DAB, it will be the transition system before
>>> come back digital FM band.
>>
>>
>>
>> They'd better sort the audio quality out before they even consider
>> switching FM off.
>
> perhaps, but simulcast seems impossible, we need spectrum with
> transition system.
Given the BBC's and Ofcom's love of farcical digital radio
implementation then they'll probably replace FM in-band. Now that would
be utterly farcical, but I wouldn't put it past the freaks.
John
> DRM has a completed specification. The audio codec won't change. The
> fact it uses OFDM and QPSK, 16-QAM and 64-QAM won't change. The vast
> majority of the spec won't change, and it's predominantly just being
> extended and the extensions required to work at higher frequencies
> are not difficult to define, because they're simple transmission
> parameters that are easily arrived at from experience of DAB, DVB-T/H
> etc.
>
> 3 years is too long for these changes, let alone 5 years.
>
> Anyway, someone from teh DRM consortium has admitted that it's DAB
> broadcasters that are employing delaying tactics so that DRM doesn't
> compete with DAB. Pathetic.
Does that apply to the BBC World Service which has nothing to benefit
from DAB ?
Remember the BBC W/S is paid for by the F&CO and not the licence fee
and I would have thought the F&CO would have been very positive about
DRM.
J
DAB sounds worse than FM
The companies that want to delay DRM are the ones that support DAB and
don't want any competition for DAB. So, from the list of DRM members:
http://www.drm.org/members/members.php
the organisations that are in the DRM consortium, or are associate
members, that support DAB are:
BBC
IRT
EBU (full of ex-BBC people)
John
Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that these companies
which are members of the DRM consortium have made the decision to delay
DRM in favour of DAB.
Possibly not as I don't see how Neutel, VT Communications any many
other companies in that list can benefit from such a decision.
Especially if they don't sell or operate DAB equipment.
J
DAB sounds worse than FM
I've seen someone (whom I trust not to lie) say that they spoke to
someone in the DRM consortium who told them that some members that
support DAB wanted to delay DRM to allow DAB to "have a clear run".
DAB needs all the help it can get, because all the technology that the
DAB system comprises of is literally 15-years-old. So new competing
systems such as DRM, that wipe the floor with DAB are bound to be
discouraged by DAB proponents.
Pathetic.
> Possibly not as I don't see how Neutel, VT Communications any many
> other companies in that list can benefit from such a decision.
> Especially if they don't sell or operate DAB equipment.
Where did I say that everybody in that list is in favour of delaying
DRM? I didn't, and some, such as the names you mention, will obviously
be in favour of DRM being extended ASAP. But if you've got powerful
organisations such as the BBC, IRT and the EBU wanting DRM to be delayed
as long as possible then what can they do about it?
MJ Ray
> What about .OGG Vorbis?
> It's open, available on different platforms and appears to sound good at
> that rate.
They trialled the audio and I think politics killed it off.
The server they were talking about at www.fave.org.uk can
stream Ogg. The BBC are developing a video codec called Dirac
and haven't done much visible with Ogg Theora (sometimes .ogm),
but presumably one Ogg container is much like another.
Then again, the failure to use open multiplatform systems on
digital satellite (for EPG or text service, for a start)
suggests they don't care strongly for open standards.
U n d e r a c h i e v e r
>
> Yes, but one drawback of AAC is that it's only the iPod that supports it
> out of the MP3 players. Or at least I can't think of any other MP3
> players that support AAC. Unfortunately, a lot of MP3 players do support
> WMA.
There are a handful that do support AAC; there are even some phones that
support it.
The problem with WMA/Ogg/AAC is that two out of three are supported on
90% of portable players, but no one format other than MP3 has >90%
support.
Of the "better than MP3" catagory, AAC might have more "devices in
pockets" support thanks to the overwhelming popularity of iPods.
U n d e r a c h i e v e r (and proud)
--
takem...@rocketmail.com
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that these companies
> which are members of the DRM consortium have made the decision to delay
> DRM in favour of DAB.
Only what I was told directly by "someone" senior at the BBC.
It wouldn't be fair to tell you who it was. He wouldn't have known my
personal "vested" interest because I was there in a professional
capacity for a completely different reason. So he spoke very freely.
It could be this Steve is passing on, but he probably has other
sources. It's not rocket science - the extended DRM spec to bury DAB
could be out next year, but is likely to be held back until 2008-2010.
It didn't take that long to put the original DRM spec together from
scratch!
Cheers,
David.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@low.quality> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, but one drawback of AAC is that it's only the iPod that
>> supports it out of the MP3 players. Or at least I can't think of any
>> other MP3 players that support AAC. Unfortunately, a lot of MP3
>> players do support WMA.
>
> There are a handful that do support AAC; there are even some phones
> that support it.
Quite a lot of mobile phones support AAC. A lot of, if not most, new
Nokia phones seem to support AAC, and Nokia are the market leaders with
about 35-40% of sales.
> The problem with WMA/Ogg/AAC is that two out of three are supported on
> 90% of portable players, but no one format other than MP3 has >90%
> support.
Yeah, that's the problem, really.
> Of the "better than MP3" catagory, AAC might have more "devices in
> pockets" support thanks to the overwhelming popularity of iPods.
Yeah, but WMA is supported by a wide range of MP3 players.
It is really too much to ask for them to provide files in both WMA and
AAC (or a different combination)? WMA rules out iPods, whereas AAC rules
out a lot of the other MP3 players.
MP3 player owners have had to encode their files to one standard or
another, so they should be tech savvy enough to make a simple choice
when setting the iMP up on their PC so that they can then only access
WMA or AAC. If they make the wrong decision they could always change it
afterwards.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> John wrote:
>> Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that these
>> companies which are members of the DRM consortium have made the
>> decision to delay DRM in favour of DAB.
>
> Only what I was told directly by "someone" senior at the BBC.
>
> It wouldn't be fair to tell you who it was. He wouldn't have known my
> personal "vested" interest because I was there in a professional
> capacity for a completely different reason. So he spoke very freely.
>
> It could be this Steve is passing on, but he probably has other
> sources.
No, I'd seen you mention it elsewhere. :-)
> It's not rocket science - the extended DRM spec to bury DAB
> could be out next year, but is likely to be held back until 2008-2010.
> It didn't take that long to put the original DRM spec together from
> scratch!
Absobloodylutely! It's an absolute disgrace.