DAB industry admits that they will adopt AAC+

http://james.cridland.net/blog/2006/11/02/jack-schofields-dab-rant-and-why-hes-wrong/

And I posted the following comment to the blog, but Mr Cridlandino decided
not to allow it on his blog. Mr Cridlandia doesn't like criticism, you see,
much like the rest of the DAB industry. So, as this ain't North Korea, I'm
posting it here instead.

And what was it Ricardo L was saying about the UK not using AAC+? Mefinks ur
wrong.

I reckon Mr Cridlandino and Mr Piggshot will get a talking to off a de
bosses for letting cats out of bags and stuff, like.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-North Korean version of my comment
=============================:

This thread seems rather dead now, so I'm not going to bother to argue with
the DAB industry people - Jack has already done that very well, IMO. But the
following needs to be corrected. You say, James, that:

"64k AAC+ is apparently roughly the same as 128k WMA, which is apparently
roughly the same as 160k MP3"

and further down you say:

"Given that, if you told a broadcaster that they could sound just as good at
64k AAC+ to 128k MP2"

Taking both of these statements together implies that 128k MP2 sounds as
good as 64k AAC+, which sounds as good as 128k WMA and 160k MP3. That is
very, very wrong, because 128k MP2 sounds miles worse than 64k AAC+, 128k
WMA and 128k MP3 (let alone 160k MP3).

If stations on DAB had used 128k MP3 or 128k WMA there would have been no
argument about audio quality on DAB, because it would have been sufficient.
As it is, and as the comments from non-DAB industry people on this thread
show, there is a significant amount of disquiet about the audio quality on
DAB. Think of the audio quality being like the referee of a football match:
a good referee isn't noticed. Therefore, the mere fact that there are so
many people complaining about the audio quality on DAB is proof in and of
itself that the audio quality isn't good enough - no matter what excuses you
say about consumers accepting the audio quality level. And on that point,
the vast majority of them are only listening on portable radios, and that's
the only reason you've got away with the audio quality on DAB being as low
as it is - on a hi-fi system, DAB sounds awful.

And in response to Nick Piggott:

"I was fairly close to the process that added aac+ to the DAB standard, and
all of the issues you see here were raised and discussed at quite some
length. It's been a long and thorough process, and the technical work has
been of the highest standard I've ever seen."

So the technical work has been of the highest standard you've ever seen, has
it? Okay, so could you explain to me the logic behind adding a Reed-Solomon
code with a code rate of 188/204? Why not use a lower code rate to give
higher protection which would result in higher spectral efficiency? Why
isn't UEP convolutional coding being used even though the original DAB
specification states that UEP profiles can be used for services other than
MP2? Why hasn't stat-muxing been added to the spec? Why was turbo coding
disgregarded?

Don't worry, I wouldn't expect you to be able to answer the above questions,
because you're a broadcaster, not a digital communications engineer.

IMO, the upgrade to the DAB system is better late than never, but I would
totally disagree that the technical work has been of the highest standard -
DAB's transmission scheme went from being cutting edge from the 1980s to
cutting edge from the early 1990s, which is hardly a big step forward. It
was about as unadventurous an upgrade as you could imagine when you consider
that an upgrade like this was a chance to really make DAB an excellent
system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can actually see why he wouldn't like such comments on his bloggedy blog,
seeing as I've just demolished what he's said and would have made him look
like a fool ... again.

And if you read this, Mr Cridlandish, what was that you were lecturing me
about Internet multicasting and no broadcasters using it, because ISPs
wouldn't allow them to and that I was totally wrong about anybody using it
and that I may know about digital comms but I know jackshit about the
Internet, eh, Mr Cridlandson? As you've said all of that, Mr
Cridlandham-Bucket, why are you *now* using multicasting for Virgin? Seems
to be rather hypocritical, dontchya fink?

Steve gets it right yet again. Now, if they'd have listened to me back in
2002 about DAB ... well, I don't think I need to spell it out, do you?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview/freeview_receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php


.