Re: {OT} DAB: A very British failure

Jon B <black.hole@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Woody <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Paul Russell" <prussell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yet another huge screw-up by the BBC at the taxpayers' expense -
DAB's death throes now seem to be almost over:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/06/dab_fail/>.

There was a technology that very few people ever cared about! I had a
dab radio back in 2002/3. It worked in portsmouth, apart from not
picking up any bbc stations, but after moving to the west country it
didn't work at all (I think I got one station). The internet was much
better at radio so I ebayed it.

The `not good enough' sound quality doesn't help in the case of either
Internet streaming or DAB. If you want to listen to Radio 3 /properly/,
a good quality FM tuner is the only way - unless you can plug directly
into the BBC somehow.

I certainly don't want to listen to any radio properly (especially not
radio 3).

Do you know what's on Radio 3? And have you ever tried listening to
the range of what it offers? Radio 3 sounds like a cross between the
other three BBC national channels if you ask me - and yes it does have
presenters from R1, R2, and R4.

When I listen to radio it is almost always because I am doing something
else, and it is background noise.

Ah. Not a mode I operate in.

However, I found dab quite annoying, as unlike an FM radio being
slightly off, when it will go mono or quiet, the dab breaks up in an
ugly way.

Proper aerials are called for. You can't beat a good FM tuner in any
case.

Last year we were in the states and the car we hired had satelite
radio. I was really impressed with that - hundreds of channels doing
all manner of stations in high quality and it worked everywhere (well,
almost - wasn't so good in the chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel). And it
was free (or for us it was - don't know who paid for it). If only we
could have something like that here, I might be tempted to start
listening to the radio again.

The problem I had with radio in the USA is that I couldn't find any
stations I could listen to. Maybe there was a way of getting the BBC
World Service - but aside from that, nuffin' but *** from my point of
view. I could find nothing but music or drivelling blather.

I wanted music, so that is what I found. I never want talking on the
radio.

Fair enough. There aren't any radio stations which play music that I
want to hear at the time they play it to any useful extent. I loathe
background music. If there's music playing, either I'm listening to it,
or it's an annoyance[2].

Damned if I know why you never want talking radio - do you never listen
to people talking on the telly? The radio does the same, only better.

It could be something to do with how we listen to it. On the TV you are
captive and you can concentrate on it,

With the telly, it's just not there because it holds me captive and it's
crap. With the radio, you're not captive and you can concentrate on it
*properly* without distractions of the sort that turn up on the telly.
Oh yeah, and not to mention also get on with things while listening if
you want to without any trouble.

Did you know that tests have shown that it's easier for professional
liars like politicians to get away with lying on the telly than on the
radio? They know how to convince people `in real life', and their
techniques work when the visual channel is available. When all you've
got is the voice, you can spot the dishonesty a lot more easily.

Television is great for the ruling classes; radio is a serious threat.

Radio's more honest if you ask me - certainly the tests seem to show
that.

a common factor for some of us is
we only listen to the radio in the car, in which case you need to be
able to drift concentration to or from it, someone coming from the left,
concentrate on them,

I think I can do that sort of thing without troubling brain audio inputs
(I suspect that the mind-brain-ear system does some buffering in my
case). And I do that sort of thing at a much higher level of stress
than you deal with in a car. A Honda VFR750, and I like to make good
progress. Not that I've ever tried listening to the radio while riding.

What I don't think I could do while riding is make strategic judgements
correctly if I were trying to listen to the radio - I need all my verbal
reasoning available, and it wouldn't be if I were listening to language.
The fact that one can `tune out' that sort of thing at any instance is
no use at all - one has to decide when to do that, and with the ability
to make judgements impaired due to thinking about (say) the wildlife of
the mudflats being talked about on the radio, the decision would either
turn up too late or not at all.

if this is a talkie, you could have now just missed
the key factor that makes the whole program, or you could have been so
busy concentrating on listening to them, and not what is happening
around you, that you've just hit someone.

Hmm. A point. On the other hand, I would suggest that if you have to
concentrate on driving to the extent that you can't listen to a radio
programme, you need to change your driving style.

Do bear in mind that when driving, most of your driving decision making
is done on the basis of visual input, while the radio comes in via your
ears. It's how come one can drive and listen to the radio at the same
time.

Me? I wouldn't attempt to listen to the radio while riding my bike
because if I did that, I'd crash and burn. Of course I need to change
my riding style.

Rowland.


--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
.