Re: FAO Doug MacD - Europe is richer than US



On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:27:13 +0100
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Secondly, to suggest that DVB-T2 and MPEG-4 H.264 are "technology for
its own sake" is about as wrong as the type of things that Jamie comes
out with!

Ultimately its the end result that matters, not how its produced. If the end
product isn't any better then there is no point. At least from the end
consumers point of view and in that case he/me has a right to be rather
dubious.

receivers in the same way DAB can, but DVB-T2 is literally 10 times
more efficient than DAB. If that is "technology for its own sake" then
I'd hate to see what you'd say about a system that only provided a
marginal improvement in efficiency.

If they drop the bitrate so its sounds the same as DAB then frankly who
cares? Its no good having a ferrari if it spends its life driving along
streets with a 30mph limit.

Also, MPEG-4 H.264 is double the efficiency of the MPEG-2 video codec,
which means that with all else being equal broadcasters can halve
their transmission costs, which makes it more likely that they'll
deliver higher picture quality.

All else never is equal though. They'll probably go the HD route but more
pixels doesn't necessarily mean better quality. From more than a few
feet away I can't tell the difference between a DVD and a blue ray disk on
my 32 inch TV. However I can very much spot nasty mpeg blocking on freeview
which never occurs on analogue.

Both DVB-T2 and MPEG-4 H.264 are excellent technologies that provide
both broadcasters and consumers great benefits.

I'm sure someone said the same about DVB-T when it first came out. The
latest tech is always trumpeted as the best thing since Mrs Hovis got out
the kitchen knife when it comes out. Personally I'll reserve judgement.

B2003


.