Re: The beginnings of a campaign on Radio 3 Classical Music Message board




"Edster" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:44c6a921.28557093@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"LongJohn" <jl.turner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Some elitist swine (obviously not a scouser!) has started his own solo
campaign against the BBC on the Radio 3 classical music message board.
He's actually complaining that Radio 3 should have more than its meagre
staple of 160 kbps. This sort of individualism is dangerous and
shouldn't be permitted. He should meekly and contritely accept that a
striving for quality and excellence has no place in today's 'choice for
all' world. Just read this utter, unbelievable, tosh:-

"DEAR LOVERS OF TRUE CULTURE (FEW THOUGH WE MAY BE):

BE LIKE A PUPPY WITH A SHOE: Don't let this subject die. The BBC
deserve to be castigated to the absolute, ultimate, Nth degree for
allowing the quality of your DAB listening to die in their now
less-than-expert hands.

You all love classical music and want it to be broadcast at the highest
quality. We were given 192kbps (it could have been 256kbps as in
Europe); they cut that down to 160kbps in the middle of the day to make
room for another station you and I scarcely listen to. Sad to relate,
insufficient people noticed the deleterious effect on 'Afternoon
Performance', or rather, not enough of us complained, which is perhaps
how it was planned all along...

The men in sharp suits, with their enviable detachment from reality and
true technical know-how could then announce: "They haven't whinged yet,
so let's put the rate down to 160kbps all day. After all, Classic FM
have done it for yonks, so our sheep will still safely graze. Besides,
we've got one of guys to say we've improved the encoder, so that
160kbps has the same quality as 193kbps before it. He'll say anything
for his salary..."

Shame on you, fellow sheep. You should all stand up and be counted. In
my naivete, I regarded the BBC as the arbiter of excellence, immune to
the onslaught of commercialisation. I mistakenly believed that it was
the Rolls-Royce of world broadcasting corporations. I now realise it's
just become a publicly funded marketing outlet that exploits our
license fee and its monopoly to increasingly undemocratic ends, as it
outwardly panders to the Thatcherite maxim of 'choice for all'.

Yours with great regret,

John Turner (LJ)"

(any link to the exceedingly nice 'LJ' guy on the alt.radio.digital
forum is purely coincidental)

Where were all the Radio 3 listeners when Radios 1 and 2's quality was
decimated and Radio 4 was reduced to mono for 12 hours a day? Too busy
being smug and feeling safe in the knowledge that BBC decision makers
were Radio 3 listeners. Why should anyone care now that it's happened
to you? You've still got more bits than anyone else, and you've still
got stereo.

What a silly rhetorical question to pose. Why don't you take a look back
through the postings in this group and see what folk like me were saying at
the time?

The phrases "never mind the quality, feel the width" and "trying to squeeze
a quart into a pint pot" were pretty much the most frequent comments. The
Beeb made a mess of DAB the moment they gave us that rotten Christmas
present of crappy telephone quality audio on most of its old and new
channels. At least keeping Radio 3 at 192kbps discrete stereo gave folk the
chance to hear a hint of what DAB could have offered in audio terms.

It's a small mercy that they have at least woken up from their collective
stupor and re-introduced the joint (intensity) 'stereo' at 160kbps. The
discrete stereo at that rate meant the string players all sounded like raw
beginners.


.