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

Kristoff Bonne wrote:
> Gegroet,
> steve41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx schreef:
> > 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.
> That's not the issue.
> The question why a receiver-manufactorer would use a more complex chip
> with features not needed and cost them more royalties if there is no
> need for it.

Perhaps you're not keeping up here? The HE AAC decoder will already be
in the receiver if the receiver supports DRM.

> >>>"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:
> >
> Well, "perspective" in a marketing-document (if the vice-president of a
> industry-organisation makes a speech, it's "marketing") means something
> else. It means "possibility", or "we are looking into it", or "we want
> to mention it as we have a reason to do so".

Now you're just talking nonsense. You usually have a pretty good
command of the English language, but you've definitely got this wrong.

> I've been in sufficiant conferences which showed "what the future *will*
> look like" (not "might", or "might possibibly look like") and "we've got
> just some bugs to fix but you can expect this technology to appear in
> our products by next year".
> Well, it never did. :-)

Really? You've never told us that before, Kristoff.

> > I have absolutely no idea what definition of the word 'perspective'
> > you're using, but it seems to be wrong.
> It looks like you don't want to "have an idea" as it would not fit your
> matra.

Do forgive me for understanding what words in English actually mean
better than you Bonne.

I'm afraid you haven't got a leg to stand on here

> >>What's the procedure inside the worlddab forum to get a technical
> >>proposal into the offical worlddab/ETSI specifications?
> > They'll have a vote.
> Who can vote? What are the opinions of the about this?

Presumably everybody can vote.

> > Get your head out of your arse and think about this rationally.
> Sure, why would somebody be forced to by a chip which does both DRM/DAB
> if you just want DAB?

Given the fact that the DRM consortium and the WorldDAB Forum are now
cooperating together, and that DRM is being extended up to 120 MHz and
it looks a safe bet that it'll be used in a lot of countries, why
wouldn't DRM be supported?

> A chip which can do MPEG-4 cost extra royalties? Why would I pay for
> them if the specs of DAB only specify mpeg layer 2?

You amaze me. If this was a thread only about DRM then you wouldn't say
any of this. You're an imbecile. Get your head out of your arse man.