Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: Nicolas Croiset <ncroiset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:11:57 +0200
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:37:31 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
<dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nicolas Croiset wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote :
I wrote that in March 2002, which was before I knew a lot of what I
know now. Anyway, thanks for pointing out that error.
I've had to do a huge amount of radio listening in the last few
weeks, because I've had to do reviews of 6 DAB/FM tuners. One of the
radio stations I listened to a lot on DAB was Radio 3, which is the
only radio station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. It sounds crap, and
Radio 3 is the best-sounding radio station in the UK.
The audio quality on FM *wipes the floor* with DAB.
You just change your table right now.
Yes, I changed the table.
Which are you reference about
this table which listening tests ?
Extrapolated from data here:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/bitrate_vs_quality.htm
Where is the scientific method, the panel of listeners, the list of
tracks tested, which reference of audio encoder ....
Excuse me, but your result is not an objective one.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- References:
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: Nicolas Croiset
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: Nicolas Croiset
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: Pierre PANTALÉON
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: Nicolas Croiset
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: Nicolas Croiset
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: Nicolas Croiset
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- Re: RRC-06 Maps
- Prev by Date: Re: RRC-06 Maps
- Next by Date: Re: RRC-06 - Documents about outcome available?
- Previous by thread: Re: RRC-06 Maps
- Next by thread: Re: RRC-06 Maps
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|