new DAB pocket radio story

Easy to be wise with hindsight. I first heard demonstrations of the present UK DAB system in the '80s, and transmissions started shortly afterwards. There will always be better technology just round the corner.

WorldDMB are liars.

For example, if you go to the WorldDMB home page and hover your mouse over the word "DAB+", it says that the system is backwardly compatible with DAB. But the opposite is in fact true, and I've asked WorldDMB to tell the truth and correct their website, but they've done nothing.

The President of WorldDMB is Quetin Howard, the ex-chief exec (before being sacked) of Digital One, who lied on BBC TV:

and he basically lies whenever he feels like it.

Since 1996 we have testing DAB here in Sweden and we don't like it. The same in Finland. Finland closed down DAB completely. Old DAB is too inefficient.

Hahahahahahhahahahahahahhaaha. Consumer resistance? You're having a giraffe.

The VAST MAJORITY of people WANT DAB+ to be used once they know what it is and what it provides.

There will be a slow migration over to DAB+. All "DAB" receivers are gonig to support DAB+ and DMB-A soon.

On a portable radio maybe - on *anything* better you've got to be deaf to think that.

Funny how you've mentioned the ONLY two stations that are using reasonable bit rates on DAB - R4 at 128k is reasonable because speech is far easier to encode than music.

That's both factually wrong and it's plainly idiotic to suggest that music should be broadcast in mono.

Who the hell are you to say that just because you don't want something better than others should be denied it?

BBC music podcasts are now 128 kbps MP3, the BBC's listen again MP3 streams are 128 kbps, 192 kbps (R3) adn 80 kbps for mono stations. The live streams will start using higher bit rates in the next few weeks.

Why don't you check your facts first?

DAB+ is 2-3 times cheaper to transmit per station than DAB. That's one of the attractions to the commercial broadcasters. DAB+ is definitely going to happen, and it'll happen sooner than you think.

I saw a quote that sums up the situatino with DAB+ pretty well:

(wording from memory) "people overestimate how much progress can be made in 1 year, but they underestimate how much progress can be made in 10 years"

That's spot on where DAB+ is concerned. There will be loads of DAB+ stations in 5 years' time.

Irrelevant.

Now you're lying, because I told you what the score was in the early days, so repeating this is lying.

You're also an R4 listener though, and you admitted that you don't listen to the pop music statinos or similar, which is wehre you get the shit audio quality.

Basically, both of you two are just extremely selfish people.

They screwed up in the first place:

So don't try to suggest that we couldn't have had good audio quality, because we DEFINITELY could have had it.

The BBC is already using 128 kbps - and even 192 kbps for R3 - for a lot of its Internet stuff now.

Plowman, DAB is DEAD in Sweden and Finland - the transmitters were even switched off in Finland, and most of the transmitters were switched off in Sweden as well when the government refused to fund it.

Now that DAB+ is available adn there's receivers and ALL DAB receivers are going to include support for DAB+ in the near future, there's no way that any country that's considering what system to use would use DAB. End of story.

In article , Dave Plowman (News) scribeth thus

Fantastic DAB;!..

Fine you don't ... others might..

I suppose it's a matter of taste - as is deciding what is or isn't "music". My statement is factuallu correct; your opinion is differenct from mine, but opinions are not facts. If a radio station wants more bits per second, I suppose they are able to bid for them - if they can't pay for more then their revenue model may not match their pretensions. Which could be why some of the new stations don't last long. Or the regualtions about providing more 'bandwidth' are inappropriate (which is my opinion).

Who the hell are you to say that just because you want something different from what most people are content with, we should all spend more money?

I did. The last podcast I downloaded is 'Talking Allowed" from last week, which is very definitely ar 64kbps - I've never seen a BBC podcast at any other bit rate.

When I used to service monitors most of the Philips one's were made in Hungary, these days I think more and more of their stuff comes straight from China.

You think people want to chuck out what they've got and buy new? You're mad. Or perhaps you think the 'promise' of better quality will get everyone buying it? Even more mad.

You really think Arqiva will stop charging what the market will stand? You make it sound like it's the power consumption of the transmitters which costs.

Getting facts wrong has nothing to do with taste. And on the subject of music being in mono, that's ridiculous, and I'm not going to waste my time discussing anything so ridiculous.

Again, ridiculous.

No. You can't just reclassify music stations as not being music just because you might not like the bloody music they're playing.

I've never come across such a ridiculous way to try and squirm out of admiting that they're wrong.

I'd suggest that you just keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about. I do that, and that's why I'm very rarely wrong.

DAB multiplexes have capacity limits. That's why the audio quality is as shit as it is - because there's not enough capacity.

The balls up basically happened in the 1990s, and now the multiplexes are pretty much full, adn the transmissino costs are ridiculously expensive (that's one of the major balls ups of the DAB system).

Basically, the only way to improve quality now is to switch to DAB+. And it will happen, despite what unknowledgable people on the subject like yourself might think.

Again, you haven't got a clue, have you? You don't know anything about "the regulations about providing more bandwidth are inappropriate". How is that your "opinion" when you don't even have a clue what the regulations are?

The reason I know you don't know what you're talking about is that I do know what the regulations are, and what you've just said doesn't make any sense.

BTW, good luck Googling for them, because the bit about audio quality is stuck in teh middle of a really big pdf. Happy hunting.

I'm me. And I'm not being told what I want to listen to by some low audio quality loving tree dweller.

So in checking your "facts" that "BBC podcasts are 64 kbps" you downloaded a speech podcast, even though speech is often mono and speech is far easier to encode than music so music typically uses higher bit rates? Mm, good researching.

Try some music podcasts:

Actually, that's THE reason why the quality is shit on the BBC multiplex. On the commercial multiplexes it's more about transmission costs being sky high.

According to the person I was replying to Sweden and Finland 'would never start using the old DAB' - so take it up with him, you shiftless worm.

Can't you read? DAB+ wasn't around when the UK system was devised.

So you want to reduce choice for others just so you can have higher bitrates on *your* favourites - especially since you say you prefer FM anyway. Just how selfish can you get?

If you re-read the single sentence you've quoted, I simply said that the quality is shit. I didn't say anywhere that I wanted to remove stations so that the statinos I listen to can be at higher quality - you're the only person suggeseting that.

I'd be happy if the BBC simply provided its stations at high quality (and I'm talking properly high here) via the Internet and the digital TV platforms, and they must also promote the fact that the quailty is higher on those platforms. Then they can do whatever the fooking hell they like with DAB for the next few years until it's time to switch over to DAB+.

Ken is absolutely right. Sweden and Finland will never start using the old DAB system. DAB is dead in those countries, which is exactly what I said.

What on earth has that got to do with anything? You're off your trolley.