Re: Replication of 'Gold'
- From: Scott <spiced.porkandham@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:43:30 GMT
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:40:46 GMT, "Rayzor" <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OT OT OT
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message
news:BPNLi.50190$j16.27437@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Scott wrote:winge winge winge
I have just returned from a trip involving an overnight at Walsall. I
tried out the DAB and found Classic Gold, Cap Gold, and Gold all of
which seemed to be the same (though I did not investigate for long
enough to see if the adverts differed). All broadcasting at 128 kbps.
I can see an argument - though I do not agree with it - that if there
is a shortage of spectrum the bit rate should be reduced to provide
more choice but what is the point of using 384 kbps to provide low
quality? Why not up it to 256 kbps joint stereo and use the remaining
capacity for something else? Then the listening public could decide
if 128 kbps is adequate or if they would prefer full DAB capability.
Or maybe I have just answered my own question.
We'll never see 256 kbps used on DAB. The thing you've noticed will
probably only be a temporary thing if they are all carrying the same
stream.
PS Is there a way of running the main service at 256 kbps with the
adverts treated as a secondary station allocated to the local area so
that local ads could be retained?
They could probably insert local adverts, but I'd imagine it would require
someone to manually flick some switches, so they probably can't be arsed
doing it.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Replication of 'Gold'
- From: Richard Evans
- Re: Replication of 'Gold'
- References:
- Replication of 'Gold'
- From: Scott
- Re: Replication of 'Gold'
- From: DAB sounds worse than FM
- Re: Replication of 'Gold'
- From: Rayzor
- Replication of 'Gold'
- Prev by Date: Re: Replication of 'Gold'
- Next by Date: Re: Replication of 'Gold'
- Previous by thread: Re: Replication of 'Gold'
- Next by thread: Re: Replication of 'Gold'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
