Re: DRM+DAB Receivers Have HE AAC Decoders in Them!




Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Gegroet,
>
>
> steve41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx schreef:
> >>Not until it gets into the official specs!
>
> > Data services on DAB work before they go in the official specs. And
> > sending HE AAC audio streams over DAB would effectively be a data
> > service.
>
> Do you really think broadcasters and manufactorers of receivers will
> start developing chips in mass-quantities before it is "semented" into a
> specification which will not change afterwards?


Radioscape use software-defined radio. They've already developed
software for DMB with DAB. An HE AAC decoder is there already, and it
could be used very easily.


> >>(And it's not because you find a couple of references on the internet it
> >>*might* be interesting to add to the specs, that it is).
>
>
> > It said this:
> > http://www.worlddab.org/images/1-1Frank_Herrmann.pdf
> (I know, I read it too).
>
>
> > "DAB Perspectives based on AVDS Developments
> > * Pave way for new audio codecs (e.g. HE AAC v2)
> > * Convert DAB into an "All IP System" (incl. Audio)"
>
> Note the word "Perspectives".


Yeah, I can read. And just in case you're using a different meaning of
the word to me, here's a dictionary definition of it:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=perspective&ls=a

noun: the appearance of things relative to one another as determined
by their distance from the viewer
noun: a way of regarding situations or topics etc.

I would suggest that the above quote means the following:

"In light of AVDS developments this paves the way for DAB to
incorporate new audio codecs such as HE AAV v2."


> The document talks about 3 systems: DMB, IP-based WM9/10 and "IP-based,
> 3G-aligned, DVB-H alligned".
>
> And, after that, there is a list of "perspectives". You do have the
> habbit it reading document the way it does fit your ideas the best, do
> you. You see "perspectives" and read "it is for sure".


I have absolutely no idea what definition of the word 'perspective'
you're using, but it seems to be wrong.

The important bit is "pave way for". Thing about what it literally
means: you pave a road so that cars can travel down it; you pave a path
so that people can walk on it, etc. It doesn't mean "we will look at
the feasibility of various materials to see whether it might be
possible to lay down some foundations and one day it might just be
possible to build the road upon which cars can travel down."

Basically, it's a "strong" use of language, and the only reason I used
the word 'might' in the thread title was because it isn't conclusive
proof; it does look like it is very likely though, from the use of
language.


> What's the procedure inside the worlddab forum to get a technical
> proposal into the offical worlddab/ETSI specifications?


They'll have a vote.


> > Kristoff, that doesn't seem to me to be that "it *might* be interesting
> > to add to the specs", it looks far more likely that it will be added to
> > the spec than that.
>
> To you, it looks that way as that is the way you like it to say.


It's interesting to look at exactly why you are against such a move.
What would such a move actually mean? It would mean that any country
that adopts DAB after the HE AAC codec is available can either provide
far better audio quality or far more stations. Why are you against
that? Might it be because I support the use of the HE AAC codec by any
chance and you don't want that to happen?

Basically, you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face. If
Belgian broadcasters use 128kbps for their transmissions then which
codec would you prefer them to use, MP2 or AAC? Low audio quality or
high audio quality - which would you prefer? It's a simple enough
question, and anybody thinking about this dispassionately would prefer
the latter.


> Anycase, as long as this is not in the officials specs ... it will not
> be used for mass-broadcasting.


Think about this rationally, Kristoff. Every DRM receiver has to have
an HE AAC decoder in it. It is illogical for an HE AAC decoder to be in
receivers and a far less efficient audio codec is used instead.

Get your head out of your arse and think about this rationally.

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dr says audiophiles "taught themselves to become irritated by poor audio quality."
    ... AAC was standardised in 1997. ... DAB+ wouldn't have had to be designed, ... manufacturers factory fitting DAB as standard in a large number of ... Your position seems to be that higher audio quality ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Switzerland adopting DAB+
    ... DAB sounds worse than FM even in AAC+ schreef: ... which can carry up to 68 kbps AAC+. ... (e.g. one of the 160 Kbps stations of the VRT) ... approximately the same audio quality as 192 kbps MP2. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Dr says audiophiles "taught themselves to become irritated by poor audio quality."
    ... AAC was standardised in 1997. ... DAB+ wouldn't have had to be designed, ... manufacturers factory fitting DAB as standard in a large number of ... There wouldn't have been any criticism of the audio quality, ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: 4Digital wins national DAB mux
    ... if the BBC wants to improve its audio quality, ... You forgot to mention that AAC+ sounds crap. ... You accuse me of criticising the audio quality on DAB, ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: [dabusb] DAB+ Mux Dump from Australia
    ... digital radio due to them being much more efficient, ... internet ranting played *any* role in DAB+ being designed. ... the transmission cost per station goes ... would a radio station choose to degrade the audio quality ...
    (alt.radio.digital)