Re: Dr says audiophiles "taught themselves to become irritated by poor audio quality."

On 4 Aug, 19:06, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote:
"Bill O'Really" <gbora...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:9451711c-6884-4278-895a-3e4ffaaeeea5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It would have been totally wrong to hamper DABs progress by
pandering
to a minority cause at the expense of the wider listenership.

Repeat after me.
AAC was standardised in 1997.
AAC was standardised in 1997.
AAC was standardised in 1997.
AAC was standardised in 1997.
AAC was standardised in 1997.
AAC was standardised in 1997.
AAC was standardised in 1997.
AAC was standardised in 1997.
Repeat until it sinks in.

If DAB
had been inplemented the way you would have liked

With AAC, you mean?

- there would be a a
few 10s of thousands happy audiophiles

No, there would be far more million DAB receivers sold by now, because
DAB+ wouldn't have had to be designed, because DAB wouldn't have been
outdated, which would have meant that other European countries would
have got on board, which would have led to economies of scale reducing
receiver prices and we would start to see around now the car
manufacturers factory fitting DAB as standard in a large number of
cars.

There wouldn't have been any criticism of the audio quality, because
the BBC would be using 128 kbps AAC, not the dire 128 kbps MP2, which
is at the root of everything that's wrong with DAB.

The commercial broadcasters would be able to afford the transmission
costs, so Fru Hazlitt wouldn't have dropped her bombshell earlier this
year.

Getting the picture yet, Greg? Is this really news to you? I've been
saying teh same bleeding thign for probably 3 or 4 years or so on my
website.

- but the rest of the
population wouldnt have engaged with it in any way because it would
have only offered 'advantages' that a tiny percentage of possible
listeners.

Considering that the number one advantage cited by analogue radio
listeners is that DAB would provide higher sound quality, you're
obviously wrong about that as well.

Basically, the DAB industry has convinced itself that providing higher
audio quality wouldn't have sold DAB. In reality, the higher quality
model was never given a chance, because the decision was taken in 2000
to launch 5 new BBC stations.

In fact, my recollection of DAB in 2000 and 2001 was that when you
consuider the prices of receivers, it seemed to be doing really well.
If you recall, the receivers available were all £300 or more - the
VideoLogic DRX601E (£300), the Psion Wavefinder (£300) and the Arcam
Alpha 10 tuner (£800). Then there was that special offer in the Xmas
of 2001 when they had some phone-in and people ended up queuing up to
get their hands on a £100 DAB portable radio.

Then the Psion Wavefinder was reduced to £99 in around September 2001,
which is when I bought my first DAB receiver. That Xmas I recall that
sales were good considering that there was no advertising at all.

If I remember correctly, something like 70,000 to 100,000 receivers
had been sold at stupidly high prices and without any advertising.

Then the bit rates were slashed in December 2001, and the saturation
BBC TV advertising began in spring 2002, and OBVIOUSLY the 5 TV ad
campaigns for each of the new BBC stations that were launched plus
another high impact TV ad campaign in the run-up to Xmas led to growth
in demand.

Basically, there isn't a shred of evidence that says that using higher
quality wouldn't have led to DAB selling, and neither is there any
evidence that says that having a compromise between quality and number
stations wouldn't have led to DAB selling. If you've got some
evidence, then show it. I'd know about it though, so I know you don't
have any.

It's the old DAB industry groupthink thing again. You basically all
convince yourself of something which by a staggering coincidence just
so happens to EXACTLY FIT the decisions that had already been taken.

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

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm

Um - Steve - you are forgetting that to 'most' radio listeners - even
crap mono pop stations at 64kbps sound 'better' to them because of
DABs clarity. We both know in terms of audio engineering it isnt -
but thats not going to impact upon people with totally different
expectations. Your position seems to be that higher audio quality
would be the main driver of the general publics take up of DAB - and
thats clearly bullshit!

BBC7 (a mono station) was one of the main reasons for DAB initial
surge of sales - the content was far more attractive than the audio
there.

You dont like DAB? Thats fine - dont use it - youve got lots of other
choices...but dont try and impose your selfish, specialist
requirements on people who have totally different wants and needs to
yours.

And try not to be such an objectionable git in your dealings with
people who dont have your fervour. Who knows - people might listen to
what you say if you stop insulting or hassling them so aggressively.

Bill
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dr says audiophiles "taught themselves to become irritated by poor audio quality."
    ... AAC was standardised in 1997. ... DAB+ wouldn't have had to be designed, ... manufacturers factory fitting DAB as standard in a large number of ... Your position seems to be that higher audio quality ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Dr says audiophiles "taught themselves to become irritated by poor audio quality."
    ... AAC was standardised in 1997. ... DAB+ wouldn't have had to be designed, ... manufacturers factory fitting DAB as standard in a large number of ... There wouldn't have been any criticism of the audio quality, ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Good quality aac+
    ... Not all of their streams are available in aac+, but of those that are, ... the sound quality is very impressive. ... So by the time DAB+ ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Dr says audiophiles "taught themselves to become irritated by poor audio quality."
    ... AAC was standardised in 1997. ... No, there would be far more million DAB receivers sold by now, because ... manufacturers factory fitting DAB as standard in a large number of ... There wouldn't have been any criticism of the audio quality, ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Ofcom consultation
    ... AAC+ on DAB before they even think about switching off FM (or FM ... I am concerned about the possibility of switching off FM services, before the issue of sound quality on digital platforms had been properly resolved. ... I also realise that limited spectrum and broadcasting costs make it difficult to provide DAB broadcasts at sufficiently high bit rates to provide good sound quality. ... The likely adoption of AAC codecs on DAB could become the solution to this problem. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)