Re: Is the BBC deliberately degrading FM?

Richard L wrote:
In message <HfWwi.19286$rr5.12607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote:

It was only
about 3 years ago that I was extolling the virtues of using AAC+ and
RS coding, whereas the engineers in the European DAB industry were
publishing articles or trying to tell me via email how fantastic the
technologies used in the current DAB system are. But who won that
argument?

I don't see that you can take any credit for that development, since
it was as predictable as the speed increase in next year's PCs.


Here's a few quotes you made just in 2002 when the number of receivers was
about 100,000 and where you poured cold water on any hopes to change to a
new standard:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/a79513a400a7fbc4?hl=en&;

"I don't trouble to read your more mathematical screeds, because
they're mainly concerned with your fantasies about re-writing the DAB
standard."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/56c63f3816887faf?hl=en&;

"Now he tells us that he hopes DAB will die ASAP"

Here's one by myself where I'm clearly displaying my guruness even as early
as May 2002:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/0f9f746d03592076?hl=en&;

"I haven't taken it out of context. I have simply said what I think are the
implications of having multi-standard receivers. If there is an MP2 decoder
for DAB and a shiny supercharged new AAC decoder sat idly next to it when
people are listening to DAB then I think it would be too good an opportunity
to pass over when about 97% of all DAB receivers contain an AAC decoder to
simply transmit at double the bit rate for no other reason that to keep a
few early uptakers such as yourself happy. And by that time the early
uptakers will actually nearly all have a shiny new receiver with a shiny new
AAC decoder next to it."

I didn't realise I'd had that fantastic brainwave as early as May 2002 - I'm
clearly better than I thought. I should write a book: The Zen of Digital
Radio System Design.

Here's part of your reply:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/f1e497ff1b45f74f?hl=en&;

"It would take
months or even years to agree an update to the standard, and by the
time you'd done it the inertia would be even greater. Besides, I don't
see that a codec upgrade offers any benefit to the broadcasters"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/d23f3111a8030566?hl=en&;

"Just please stop dreaming in public about replacing the DAB
codec; it isn't going to happen until you become the BBC's director of
engineering."

I think I'll stop there, but suffice it to say that if I could be bothered I
would be able to find probably a few hundred posts in which you've poured
freezing cold water on my suggestions that DAB would be upgraded.

And on the subject of the European DAB industry's views on DAB's technology,
that's pretty much summed up in this EBU Technical Review article from July
2004:

http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_299-weck.pdf

That's basically one long article justifying DAB by saying that it's
technology is oh so fantastic, and DVB-H is such an evil system. I wrote
this in response:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dvb-h_dab_dmb.htm

and here's my Recommendations:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dvb-h_dab_dmb.htm#Recommendations

The reality of this is that the European DAB industry, which consisted of
the European public service broadcasters plus some UK commercial
broadcasters, were trying desperately to make everyone use the OLD DAB
system, and I can remember very well that all discussions on here at the
time completely expected that DAB would become the European digital radio
standard - I know this very well, because it used to frustrate me a great
deal that no-one seemed able to see that the DAB system was truly abysmal.

Don't try to re-write history.


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


.

Relevant Pages