Re: Swedish government suspends DAB rollout

Pat Horridge wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3RCpf.35216$Cj5.15121@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>>> People understand
>>>>> that as it's a new technology
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hahahahahhahahahahahzhhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa.
>>>>
>>>> Superb.
>>>>
>>>> 1991 - BBC starts transmitting DAB experimental signal
>>>> 1995 - BBC switches on national DAB transmitter network
>>>>
>>>> New technnology,
>>>> hahahahahhahahahahahzhhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa.
>>>>
>>>> The component technologies of which DAB is comprised are exactly
>>>> the same as they were in 1991. DAB is as old as you can get. DAB is
>>>> literally multiple generations out of date.
>>>
>>> I was pointing out that consumers assume DAB is new technology and
>>> for them it is.
>>
>>
>> Sorry, DAB is not a new technology whether consumers think it is or
>> not.
> I don't contest that.


You originally wrote this:

"People understand that as it's a new technology"


> I only observed that consumers think it is and
> I stand by that as a correct statement.
> You maynot like it that consumers thinks it's a new technology.


No, I don't like the fact that consumers think it's a new technology,
and it is indicative of the way DAB is advertised in a highly misleading
manner.


> It may drive you mad with frustration but from what I've observed it's
> what consumers believe to be the truth.


I know they think it's new.


>>> It may have been around for a long time but not on
>>> their kitchen window sill.
>>
>>
>> It is still old technology.
>>
>>
>>> So to them it's new and new is trendy.
>>
>>
>> Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha.
>> Trendy!!!!!!! Superb.
>>
> And that useful comment means what???


It's just laughable to suggest that a radio is trendy, let alone a radio
that uses 15-year-old digital technology could be trendy.


>>>> Quality is not a consideration in the purchase.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I'm sure they came out of the shop expecting DAB to sound
>>>> miles worse than FM.
>>>
>>> General public assumes digital means better quality.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely, but you've therefore just contradicted yourself, because
>> earlier you said this:
>>
>> "Quality is not a consideration in the purchase."
>>
> When I say Quality isn't I mean it in the way i'd measure quality.
> See how it loks here how it sounds compare with other devices in
> controlled surroundings.
> But I know of very few other people who make a purchase based on
> "quality" in those terms.
> They read an article that says it's a great new technology.


Yes, either that or they see it or hear it advertised as providing
fantastic audio quality.


> They go
> and buy based on what it looks like and the price point.
> I bet few customers even bother to listen to a unit before leaving
> the shop with it.


Most wouldn't be able to anyway, because signals in most eletrical
retailers seem to be non-existent.


> That's how important quality is to them.


Bull***. This is where I totally disagree with you and others like
!"£$%%^&*()_+Jerry+_)(*&^%$£"!.

People are naive, gullible and they don't understand technology. That
DOES NOT mean that they don't WANT better quality.


> So yes they belive they are getting better quality because it's new
> technology


Precisely. And you've just demolished your own point, because you've
just stated that they do want better quality.


> but for the vast majority that's as far as they care.


Again, bull***. They WOULD like better quality, but they're unable to
question whether they're getting good value for money / better quality /
etc. They believe it, and that's all the broadcasters care about.


> I agree completely that they are being misled by the maketing that
> Digital is better.


We agree on something at least.


> But the same happened with Digital TV and still
> countless people what crap low bitrate MPG compressed cable and
> satelite pictures on massive 42" displays and don't moan. Maybe their
> measure of quality is differnent?


What are they supposed to say, exactly? Are they supposed to ring up
Channel 4 and say "the blocking artefacts I saw were inexcusable"? They
have no understanding of any of the technical aspects whatsoever, and
therefore they don't have the vocabulary to even make a complaint.


>>> Buying a small
>>> DAB radio nobody I've met has noticed the quality is a problem
>>
>>
>> They wouldn't find quality a problem because it's a portable radio.
>>
>>
>>> (as I
>>> said) Why do you suppose they left the shop assuming it was any
>>> worse?
>>
>>
>> I didn't, you said that quality wasn't part of the reason for
>> purchasing DAB, whereas it actually is a big reason why people buy
>> DAB portables - possibly the number one reason.
>>
> As I said not from my experience. People I know have purchased DAB
> portable because its a new tech and it looks stylish. And it does the
> job they need. As I said they are all happy with what they hear.
> (accepted they are all tone deaf and wouldn't know a low bitrate
> signal from a CD quaility signal.)


No, no, no. They own portable radios, so who gives a *** what DAB or FM
sounds like on these little incapable radios?


>>> I'd have expected they left the shop expecting the quality to be
>>> better.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely. This is part of my issue: if the advertising was honest,
>> I wouldn't care, but as it stands the general public thinks they're
>> getting better quality if they buy DAB. They are being conned.
>>
>>
> Isn't that what marketings all about?


If you want me to stick up for misleading adverts then you've come to
the wrong man.


> Don't cigurettes make you look
> cool and drive fast cars. Doesn't playing the Lottery make you a
> millionare? That's what Marketing folks do. Imply something and then
> just let it roll along letting consumers build a false perception of
> what it is they are getting. That happens everywhere.


They're not allowed to make mis-leading claims, and some complaints made
against some DAB radio adverts were upheld for being mis-leading.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they're banned from websites (yet), and
they just re-phrase the misleading bull*** anyway.


>>>>> (I work in post production for TV so
>>>>> have my fair share of budget saving over production values) but
>>>>> the fact is that only a small number of consumers are aware, or
>>>>> care about quality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, that must explain the phenomenal sales of DVD then. What was
>>>> it, oh yes, the fastest selling consumer electronics product of all
>>>> time! That aint bad for something that sold on the basis that it
>>>> provided far better quality than VHS.
>>>>
>>> Oh dear there you go again. Is DVD exactly the same as VHS apart
>>> from quality?
>>> To you yes its all about quality. But as somebody who authors DVDs I
>>> know that things like random access, Extra features. Multi angle,
>>> subtitles, multiple language tracks (one could go on) have a huge
>>> impact on the convience of DVD.
>>
>>
>> The *main* reason people bought a DVD player was because it offered
>> better quality. End of. I'm not saying better quality is the *only*
>> reason people bought a DVD player, but it is the *main* reason.
>>
> Well then we'd disagree. Because it's just not that simple.


Read what I said: MAIN REASON. Not ONLY REASON.


> As I siad
> below if quality was THAT important people would
> ensure they got the best from their setup.


FFS, people generally have no idea that RGB provides better quality than
composite. That DOES NOT mean they don't want better quality.

Look, you're talking out of your arse here, and as I said in a post
yesterday, your posts are just hole ridden and it takes too long to
correct all your mistakes, so I'm going to duck out.

Here's a quick test to carry out: ask some friends whether they would
like better quality on radio or TV, and see what they say. Do NOT IN ANY
WAY influence their decision, and that means you have to be extremely
careful about the way your ask the question and what you say leading up
to the question. If you don't influence them in any way then the vast
majority will say that they want better quality. That's enough. Don't
read anything more into this than their answer, because it's not yours
or anybody else's right to dictate to people that they don't really want
better quality at all.

Market research surveys ALWAYS show that the vast majority of people
consider the main advantage of digital radio to be better audio quality.
DO NOT read anything else into this than the fact that they have
expressed a desire for better quality -- their wish should be taken into
consideration, not trampled on by greedy broadcasters and incompetent
and toothless regulators. End of story.

Good bye.


> But they don't because for
> the vast majority they just don't notice the flaws.
>>
>>> I guess the real test would be how many users have their DVD players
>>> connected via component to their TV?
>>> Again a poll of those I know (and that's far bigger than people I
>>> know using DAB) is that most use composite to connect to their TV.
>>> Despite RGB giving better results.
>>> Why one asks?
>>> Because they can't be bothered to work out which Scart connector has
>>> the RGB input (normal only one does and it's already connected to
>>> the VHS) and they are quite happy with the PAL footprint over
>>> everything.
>>
>>
>> Actually, the reason is because they don't understand that RGB gives
>> better quality.
>>
> Well they should almost all the instruction books that come with DVD
> players indicate that an RGB connection is the best quality and that
> yyou should connect that way. If Quality was of paramount importance
> they would have read that and worked it out.
> I know a lot of people who know I know about TV and technology and
> very few have ever bothered to ask me how to get the best from their
> setup. Some I've even noticed the PAL artifacts and offered to
> recable to resolve but almost always they say not to botehr it's just
> fine as it is.
>> One of the main things about the general public is that they really
>> have no idea about the technical side of things. As a result they're
>> extremely naive. They also make wrong decisions. Ultimately, though,
>> they would like high quality. And that is my point. The issue with
>> DAB isn't whether they'll accept the current level of quality,
>> because they will accept this level of quality. The issue is that
>> when asked whether they'd like better quality they overwhelmingly
>> say "yes", and market research always shows that they value better
>> quality higher than everything else.
> I suspect what happens is they say they prefer higher/better quality
> but that maynot be representaive of their buying trends.
> How often is it that the crap sounding HiFi systems sell so well?
> Often because price and otehr feature sway buyers.
>
>> My problem, therefore, is that they're being conned with DAB.
>>
>>
>>>> Oh yeah, and HDTV will be the biggest and most expensive flop in
>>>> the history of broadcasting starting from next year. It only
>>>> provides far better quality, so it will be of no use to anybody,
>>>> because nobody like better quality. Nope, you heard it here first:
>>>> nobody wants better quality and it isn't human nature to want
>>>> things at better quality.
>>> Oh dear there you go yet again.
>>> Consumers won't buy HD primarily for better quality.
>>
>>
>> Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahhahahahahahhahhahahahahahahahaha.
>>
>> Yeah, I'm sure they'll buy HDTV for the extra choice, eh? Er, no,
>> they won't actually, because there either won't be ANY extra choice
>> or it'll amount to about 1 or 2 channels by the looks of things on
>> SkyHD. HDTV will sell ONLY on the basis of better quality. OBVIOUSLY
> I've just purchased a HDTV and it offered no better quality that I had
> before.
> I had to get HDTV as it wasn't an option to not have the HD with the
> other features I wanted.
> So I say again a lot of people will buy a HDTV not because it offers
> better quality. But because it will include the extra features they
> want, come in a screen size they want and at a price they will pay.
> People are buying these displays today despite them looking crap in
> the stores (I've rarely seen any looking even fair).
>
>>
>>
>>> They will buy
>>> because they want a 42" screen and they will be able to afford to
>>> buy at that size and they will get HD as it's sold in as part of the
>>> package.
>>
>>
>> As there are no HDTV packages available yet, WTF are these people
>> getting for their "package"??
> As part of the package I mean if you buy a large screen display today
> for SD TV you will be mainly looking at units that are HDTV ready. So
> by package I mean currently SD but HDTV ready. so SD and HD
> "packaged" together. So WTF are people getting is an HDTV ready unit.
> But there is no HD
> to see. I say they buy because that's how it comes and there's little
> choice to buy without HD in the larger screen sizes. They get no
> quality benefit form a large screen today. In fact the pictures look
> far worse but they don't care.
>>
>>
>>> Again I know many people with HD capable plasma and
>>> flatscreen TV's and you'll never guess what....
>>> Not one of them is watching HDTV and haven't ever watched it.
>>
>>
>> HDTV is not available yet, which is a pretty good reason why they're
>> not watching HDTV yet, wouldn't you agree?
> Yes. But their SD images look far worse on a large 42" screen than
> they did on their 21" CRT. But they still buy 42" screens and hang
> them in the front room and invite all to come and see the wonderful
> pictures. To you and me it's a gastley site, to them it's a wonder to
> behold.
>
>>
>>
>>> No I predict HDTV will take off eventually over here,
>>
>>
>> Yep, next year when Sky and cable bring their HD packages out, and
>> the BBC following that.
>>
>>
>>> but it won't be
>>> quality that sells it,
>>
>>
>> I've seen some absolutely ridiculous comments in my time on Usenet,
>> but suggesting that HDTV won't be sold on the basis that it provides
>> better quality is amongst the most utterly ludicrous ones ever.
>>
> It maybe sold on the basis that Quality is better (and depending on
> the transmission bitrates that may or not be true) but the pounds
> they spend in the shop will not significantly be based on that
> quality. There are already growing concerns that HD DVD or Blueray
> will be
> slow to take off if they do at all because consumers are wary over a
> format war and actually happy with SD DVD.
>
>>
>>> as most people will still be watching SD DVD's
>>> on their nice HDTV.
>>
>>
>> They will not be included in the numbers with HDTV, because they
>> won't be watching HDTV. HDTV means live broadcast HDTV from Sky,
>> cable or the BBC on FTA satellite.
>>
>>
>>> Of course I could be wrong but I can live with that. Others as we
>>> know can't.
>>
>>
>> Ug?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
>>
>> Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_radios.htm

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

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_radios.htm


.

Loading