Re: BBC claims DAB provides "improved sound quality"

"Richard L" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0277121b4f.usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <5jqj5jFs72kU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Malcolm Knight" <firstinitial.secondinitial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

It's only counter intuitive if you you don't stop to think. Which do
you
think is the most likely, that a deaf person will ask you to speak
more
clearly or ask you to put a hand in front of your mouth, slur your
words
and speak with a husky voice? So unless your experience is that deaf
people prefer you to mumble you will surely agree that poor quality
DAB
is more of a problem to the deaf than it is to those who can hear
reasonably well.

Well, now you're trying to make your case by exaggerating it.

Maybe, but I note that you like others are unwilling to answer the
question.

But what
you wrote was "Deaf people need every bit of fidelity they can get if
anything intelligible is to get through". I'm not deaf (yet) but (like
you) I do have deaf acquantainces, and I very much doubt that the
relatively small differences between a DAB service and the
corresponding FM service (which generate so much heat in this group)

You won't find a record of me saying FM is better than DAB, all radio is
too poor for my liking and I've totally stopped seriously listening to
it, and never listen to UK originated music broadcasts.

are sufficient to make a noticeable difference to intelligibility, for
deaf people or anyone else. You may not like the sound of DAB,
especially of low bit rate DAB, but surely you are kidding yourself if
you think that (say) the presence or absence of the 12-15 kHz range
makes a noticeable difference to intelligibility.

I can only go by what others say as I can still manage that range
myself. The sample of one which you are so keen to deride cannot follow
TV at all without the subtitles but has no difficulty distingusihing CD
from radio. Hence my point that letting DAB be at worse quality than it
needs to be won't matter to deaf people (the contention of the OP IIRC)
is totally wrong. You thought otherwise but then I rarely find myself
agreeing wth you these days.
--
Malcolm




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BBC claims DAB provides "improved sound quality"
    ... fidelity they can get if anything intelligible is to get through. ... I have one a friend who is deaf and a family member who lectures ... people prefer you to mumble you will surely agree that poor quality DAB ... makes a noticeable difference to intelligibility. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Further comment on complaints to BBC
    ... with a Ducth recordings/transmissions at the same bitrate. ... some think UK DAB sound worse than NL DAB. ... I shouted that, because YOU ARE DEAF. ... This guy mailed me very politely asking for DAB samples and as ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Further comment on complaints to BBC
    ... DAB for it's stability. ... doesn't sound as good as FM, but it is not 'irritating' bad. ... I shouted that, because YOU ARE DEAF. ... This guy mailed me very politely asking for DAB samples and as ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: BBC claims DAB provides "improved sound quality"
    ... "Malcolm Knight" ... I have one a friend who is deaf and a family member who ... agree that poor quality DAB is more of a problem to the deaf than it ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: ASL translation?
    ... I think it also has to do with how people speak and sign simultaneously. ... speaking English while signing in pure ASL, ... Japanese stuff dubbed into Cantonese without removing the Japanese. ... Where's the deaf community if you're blind? ...
    (sci.lang)