Re: Questions Questions

In message <446dfba8$0$24299$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"The Crow" <TheCrow@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


This is probably one of the more interesting conversations I've ever had on
the usually vacuous usernet landscape. However, the fact remains that I
must decide whether to buy a DAB portable so I can listen to the cricket at
a higher level of quality, whilst in my back garden this summer. Not to
mention the world cup. And yes, maybe a little bit of music, even if it is,
apparently, going to sound inferior.

The question is, will I be making my self a patsy to corporate conspiracy by
doing so? Mmmmm.

Corporate decisions have certainly been made, but then corporate
decisions are made about any product you buy or service you use. All
you can do is decide whether the product or service is something you
want, and act accordingly.

In this case, a situation where transmission capacity is limited, the
broadcasters have to make a trade-off between sound quality and
programme choice. They have taken the view that people are more likely
to notice the latter than the former. But that's hardly a conspiracy.
It's just an acknowledgement of the obvious truth that people who
listen to the radio are generally listening to the programme, not
monitoring it for technical flaws.

Our Steve is _not_ most people. He's deeply interested in the
technical side of radio and very little interested in programme
content. So he doesn't want you to buy a DAB radio because in doing so
you would endorse the wrong-headed decision that the broadcasters have
made. Yet if you do buy one, he won't really blame you, or not for
more than one or two posts -- he will blame it on the DAB publicity
onslaught to which you have lately been subjected, which has turned us
all into helpless admass.

I suppose that's for me to decide. But surely, if the question is one of
bitrate, a situation is bound to evolve in the future whereby they can ramp
the bitrate back up to a more acceptable level?

Of course it could, although the expense of installing additional
transmitters and national distribution might be disproportionate to
the number of listeners who would notice and enjoy the improvement.

If you want improved audio quality on the BBC's radio networks, you
can have it easily and cheaply any time you like, via Freeview or
free-to-air satellite. It's just a bit less portable, that's all.

Enjoy the cricket....

--
Richard L.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A small DAC/headphone amp please
    ... if just listening to the MP3 without being able to compare with ... The quality may be well down on the ... At one time, Broadcasters, at least European Broadcasters, were custodians of quality, and would resist any new-fangled stuff like audio processing if quality was thought to suffer. ... The IBA, of blessed memory, refused to allow processing for many years, and required all radio studios to meet Code of Practice until their regulatory side was stripped from them. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: CBC ravaged today
    ... It's to bad because I used to love the CBC. ... listened to a minute of Radio Two ... I am listening only to NPR, which is learned a thing or two from CBC ... And although my finger is no longer there, the programme has ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: DAB radios uptake stalls
    ... people buying DAB radios has not increased since June this year, ... they have a problem with the sound quality. ... The measurement of digital-only radio services has increased, ... the number of people listening to digital ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Just to clarify
    ... I'm listening to it now. ... No, DAB is dead. ... then the quality doesn't matter.. ... a while, perhaps you need to just listen to the radio, and listen to it, ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: HD radio????
    ... suggest that you try listening to XM over a good quality home stereo. ... XM in my car and home. ... The sound quality is definitely better than FM ... radio quality when connected through a cassette adapter or directly. ...
    (alt.tv.tech.hdtv)