Re: DAB industry admits that they will adopt AAC+

In message <QwRdh.11805$HV6.7680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote:

Kristoff Bonne wrote:
David,


davidrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx schreef:
Actually they will switch to AAC+ IF there are receivers
available and if the majority of receivers already bought are
AAC+ compatible, i.e probably not before 10 years.
I suggest you should read this:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/articles/All-DAB-receivers-will-be-obsolete-in-a-few-years-time.php
That's what they call a "FUD-campain".

From Wikipedia...

"Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (or FUD) is the appeal to fear in sales
or marketing; in which a company disseminates negative (and vague)
information on a competitor's product."

Is that what we have here, even in the broadest sense?

The "competitor" here is the idea: the idea that -in the case of the
UK- mp2 is there to stay for a pretty long time.


According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt

FUD is *misinformation* provided *unethically* by the bigger company to put
potential customers off products from the smaller company. And the example
you cite is Microsoft, presumably putting people off using Linux.

So it's interesting that you think that www.digitalradiotech.co.uk is the
bigger outfit than the combination of the
<snipped list of organozations>.

Oh, well, that got you off the hook, didn't it?

Come off it, Steve -- you'e still spreading rumour.

I'll show you a great example of a FUD campaign: the marketing of DAB, which
is typified by the spin and lies propagated by the BBC, GCap, Emap,
Chrysalis, Ofcom, the UK government, the DRDB, the EBU, Swedish Radio, DR,
NRK, IRT, the southern German Lander(sp?) etc in their description of FM,
and which is exemplified on this newsgroup by none other than Richard L. For
example, snap, crackle and pop is something you hear when you eat Rice
Krispies, not when you listen to FM.

Well, it remains true that the original reason for developing DAB was
to overcome the shortcomings of FM-RDS. It seems that I have pressed
one of your buttons here, since you repeatedly invoke my name in
discussions like this where I have not participated.

If you really believe that FM is so irreproachably good, you should
climb down out of that ivory tower and actually try listening to some
programmes on FM under real-life conditions -- preferably programmes
which have a dynamic range.

Don't forget that I'm providing this information to INFORM people - that was
my stated aim when I started my website, and it is has always been the case
since.

But your _real_ aim it to try to get everyone to see the world the
same way as you do.

I would say that the use of the word "few" is perfectly justifiable, because
all DAB receivers will be partially obsolete once the first AAC+ station is
launched, which will be sooner than you seem to think, and I think we could
see the MP2 services switched off entirely by the time that we reach the
right-hand side of this graph:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/images/DAB_cumulative_receiver_sales.gif

So I do think "few" is the best word to use.

That graph is little else than an embodiment of your personal hopes
and fantasies. Digital One may well want to try some AAC+ to see
whether anyone bites -- but what we're likely to see at first will be
niche stations which by definition don't attract a big audience. You
might get your dance music, of course. But can you really imagine that
the BBC would want to shut off that nicely-constructed Evoke in
David's kitchen, and millions of other DAB sets like it, for the
benefit of a small number of enthusiasts who want higher audio quality
but can't screw up the courage to ask their landlords for a satellite
dish?

--
Richard L.
.