Re: DAB Performance of different makes?

Nobody Here wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <PEp7f.556$sA4.505@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, DAB sounds
>>> worse than FM <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If it *is* the case that different DAB RXs give differing outputs
>>>>> when fed with the same DAB signal, then it may have some impact on
>>>>> the assessment of DAB that people keep making/assuming.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I really do hope you're not trying to suggest what I think you
>>>> might be trying to suggest.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I don't know what you have in mind, so can't comment.
>>>
>>>> Please expand on the above sentence.
>>>
>>> Not sure what expansion could add as I think I pretty much said
>>> what I meant. I thought it would be obvious, but I'll re-phrase
>>> it...
>>>
>>> <start of re-phrasing>
>>> *If* it is the case that the performance of DAB RXs vary, and their
>>> sensitivities to various sorts of interference, etc, or poor
>>> reception conditions, etc, also vary, then it may follow that
>>> judgements
>>
>>
>> Judgements about what? About audio quality or reception quality? If
>> the former, get a grip.
>
> See, it just goes to show, The Three Degrees and reading all those
> papers was a waste of time.


Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha.


> You can't read. If you can read the
> individual words, you don't seem to able to recognise them as a
> coherent whole
> as a meaningful sentence.


Be quiet you moron.


> And if you do recognise them as a
> meaningful sentence, you're obviously tooooo thick, The Three Degrees
> or no, to comprehend what they're saying.


Yawn.


> I didn't have any problem
> understanding what Jim meant,


I wanted to make sure before I slagged off his hypothesis.


> either the first or the remedial
> version, and I'd suspect anyone else still reading this thread didn't
> have much trouble either.
>
> That's the problem - you don't have any comprehension of all the
> issues,


Do be quiet analogue man. Come back when you've got a clue about digital
technology. Okay?


> which makes your opinion largely irrelevant.


In your dreams fat boy.


> There is much
> more to delivering DAB from the bradcaster to the end user than kust
> the
> choice of bitrate.


My God, I can see how you got all those imaginary journal papers
published. You really are an incredibly intelligent person to figure
that one out.


> Until you can understand that, and put your
> gripes about bitrate into some sort of meaningful context, you're
> on a hiding to nothing.


You see, that shows how little you do understand this issue.


> Like many single-issue objectors you don't
> base your wants or abjectives on any sort of meaningful framework,
> and you're wasting your and everyone else's time.


Try and lecture someone else that actually gives a *** about what you
think. Let's face it, all your views on me are now tainted to the extent
that they're meaningless drivel being written out of spite. Nothing
more, nothing less.

The vast majority of what you're coming out with are generic criticisms
that could be thrown at anybody in any field, and the rest is just
systems bollocks along the lines of "oh, if you knew all the things
about all the subsystems" blah de blah. It's irrelevant, I'm afraid.

With a digital radio system, if you have a BER (bit error rate) of zero,
or near zero, then you're receiving exactly, or virtually exactly, the
bitstream that was output from the MPEG encoder. All your RF *** is
irrelevant when there's no bit errors. Sorry.


> Oh, and pointing to crap you've written yourself as some sort of
> justification for a point of view is, ummm, just stupid.


Be quiet.


> Which magazine was it you've supposedly been writing for, again?


I'll tell you after you've answered one of my previous questions to you:
what's your name?


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

Please sign the petition asking the BBC to provide better audio quality
on its radio stations on DAB, Freeview, satellite and cable:
http://tinyurl.com/a68e4


.