In article , DAB sounds worse than FM scribeth thus
Who do the actual transmission.
And I reckon before long will become a large broadcaster in their own right..
Then all the commercial broadcast and transmission platforms will be Aussie controlled;(...
Indeed couldn't be better set up for a Monopoly organisation;!...
-- Tony Sayer
How did Arqiva taking over NGW get past the monopolies and mergers thing?
-- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
Yes. Not DAB+, just another audio codec.
Yes indeed, no dispute with that. But that's about audio codecs, not about digital radio broadcsting standards (which are not the responsibility of the BBC anyway).
"They" isn't the BBC, or Ofcom. The point is, DAB+ didn't exist as a standard to which anyone could build commercial equipment until 2007.
Because the BBC weren't in the business of inventing new broadcasting systems, they were and are in the business of providing content for systems. Your "FACT" is not a fact, it's an opinion - which you still haven't given any support for.
So when do those DAB-only receivers become useless? You are the one with hindsight before the event; the world needs to know and only you can tell us.
No, the adoption of DAB was bold, but not in the least incompetent. We've had years of digital radio to enjoy which no other country has. If the exercise were being started from scratch today, as is the case in other countries, provision ab intio for the latest codecs would make sense - but no-one can turn back the clock.
Ideally, I'd want Vorbis, FLAC, and Dirac, to be accomodated; that's an opinion. I am not going to create a large web site and spend my days posting uselessly to newsgroups bemoaning any 'facts' of 'incompetence' that such facilites are not already available for me - and certainly not attacking the BBC for not having invented a way to do it before anyone else had and without international consensus. There are many ways digital radio broadcasting /could/ be done, but most of those ways are not going to be developed.
DAB is right here, right now, and it works - just as it did ten years ago. DAB+ looks likely to get off the ground within the next year in one or two countries; doubtless it will eventually become useable here too, but there's no point whingeing about it not having happened years ago.
In the UK, the BBC has set a very high standard for any commercial radio or TV station to equal. That's something to be glad about, I think. But then I'm not a commercial broadcaster trying to come up with content that rivals the Beeb's but lacking more than 70 years experience and back-catalogue and a guaranteed revenue stream. I do sympathise with the likes of Channel 4 about that :)) That's the big problem for independent broadcasters in this country, not the technology. It has been ever since the first commercial TV stations were licensed in the 1950s.
-- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
DAB+ has got nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. DAB+ came years later. I'm talking about the fact that the AAC audio codec was available to be used from 1997 onwards, but the non-technical BBC executives chose to ignore its existence - even though the BBC R&D guys were saying how good it was.
AAC was the solution to DAB's problems. But the non-technical BBC execs simply didn't have a clue what they were doing. And here we are today.
If the BBC wanted to upgrade DAB prior to relaunch it could have done and it would have done.
Again, what on earth has DAB+ got to do with this? You don't even seem able to follow which digital radio standard we're talking about here. We're talking about DAB, and the fact that DAB wasn't upgraded prior to its relaunch when it should have been upgraded.
BBC R&D has always been in teh business of inventing new broadcasting technologies. For example, DVB-T2 that will be used to deliver HDTV via Freeview from next year was basically an idea that stemmed from BBC R&D experimenting with MIMO antennas.
People that know about DAB+ and who're considering buying a DAB radio tend to want one that supports DAB. By keeping quiet about the DAB+ issue, and especially advertising DAB aat a time when most receivers don't support DAB+, the BBC is misleading the general public.
This is just ridiculous. From when you first turned up on this thread, you continually got things wrong, and now you're lecturing ME about DAB.
You get one chance at launching a new radio system, so it's got to be right. But they screwed up royal, and here I am basically some know-nothing telling me what's what.
THEY HAD FIVE WHOLE YEARS TO ADOPT AAC BETWEEN 1997 AND 2002. THEY DID NOTHING. THAT IS GROSSLY INCOMPETENT.
They had the opportunity from 1997 to 2002. They did nothing. Nada. Niet. Sweet FA.
The DAB crisis this year could have been avoided if they'd have adopted AAC. The audio quality on the BBC's stations would be shithot if they'd have adopted AAC. There wouldn't have been the bubbling mud that people suffer from if they'd have adopted AAC, because adoption of AAC also requires adapting the error correction coding.
That just displays your incompetence. FLAC is a lossless codec, and the chance of a lossless codec ever being used on a terrestrial digital broadcasting system are nil.
Diract is a sodding video codec. Why would you want sodding Diract to be implemented? Eh? Explain yourself oh wise one.
The thing you're ignoring is that the BBC R&D people were already telling the non-technical suits to use AAC.
It works if you don't mind shit quality, and if you actually receive a signal that doesn't suffer from bubbling mud.
Don't tell me what to do or what not to do.
The audio quality on BBC DAB stations is shit.
And BBC has been providing far lower quality on its Internet radio streams than commercial radio for the last 2 years, and it's currently trying to fabricate excuses to avoid providing the SAME bit rate as commercial radio Internet streams.
That's your idea of setting a very high standard, is it?
How would you explain the BBC providing its Internet radio streams at
32 kbps until last year? And transcoding the audio by receiving the radio stations off satellite? And why did they transcode the stations for the listen again streams when they could have been sent via the Internet? And why did they transcode anythying when it would only have cost £10k per year for a direct link?And why is the audio quality on Radio 1 and Radio 2 FM shit these days when it used to be superb?
You saying that the BBC sets very high standards is yet another ridiculous thing you've said.
Yeah, it's absolutely fantastic. I'm over teh moon about the BBC's performance.
-- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
DAB with AAC support, is DAB+. You are trying to pretend that DAB should have been DAB+ from the start, but it couldn't be. AAC didn't exist in the mid '90s, for a start.
[...]
That 'relaunch' seems to be something you've invented; the BBC started broadcasting on DAB in the mid '90s. All that happened in 2002 was the addition of more BBC stations and some advertising of the services. Clearly the BBC didn't change the codecs used for their broadcasts, because the existing broadcasting standards (which are not set by the BBC) made no provision for doing so. As for what the BBC may or may not have 'wanted', that is unknown. You know what /you/ want to have happened, but that's just your own opinion.
[...]
You are talking about DAB with the ability to handle AAC codecs; that is DAB+, not DAB. DAB by definition does not support AAC and never will; DAB+ does, and is about to 'go live' in Italy and Australia.
They do research (or used to); sometimes the results of that research eventually finds its way into new broadcasting standards, sometimes it doesn't. The BBC don't impose technical standards unilaterally; such things have to be done by international agreement between governments, broadcasters, manufacturers, and others.
When mass-market DAB receivers support both DAB and DAB+, people will be able to buy them. At present, hardly any support DAB+ at all, and only a few claim to be 'upgradeable'. That's how new the new standard is. Now that there is an agreed standard for DAB+, manufacturers have undertaken to start designing models to accomodate it. But there is nothing to listen to on DAB+ in this country yet, and it's anybody's guess when there will be.
Actually, I'm tryig to introduce you to the concept of 'logic'.
No, you are expressing an unsupported and unrealistic opinion and I'm telling you so.
That's your opinion. How "they" were supposed to start using a standard in 2002 or 1995 or at any other time in the past, that wasn't available until 2007 at the earliest, is beyond anyone but you.
It would be iven better if they;d used soe other system that doesn't exist yet. Get real!
I don't see why; it's still a more efficient use of resources than analogue, and would give the potential for genuinely 'as good as a CD' sound - which no lossy codec ever will, not even your beloved AAC. It would also remove the temptation to impose low bit rates to get more stations into the space - which will always tend to result in listeners getting a 'just about good enough for the uncritical masses' listening experience. FLAC is also royalty-free, unlike AAC.
Why not? Moving pictures would be a useful adjunct to sound radio - without necessarily going the whole hog to 'television' quality. Film trailers, animations, traffic-cameras, ...
I notice you haven't commented in Vorbis.
[...]
No they weren't, they were publishing the results of some research.
Aha. I think we've got to the point of your ire; you're in a poor reception area, or haven't got a good enough aerial.
Why not? You put a huge amount of effort into telling everyone else what to do.
Actually, no, it isn't. The quality of your DAB reception may be though. The quality of the BBC VHF/FM stations is about as good as DAB (at its best it used to be better, but I don't think any of the content now on analogue radio has escaped being digitised and compressed at least once on its way to the transmitter). Where I live, analogue reception is mostly poor - Radio 3 FM is useless. But that's down to geography and transmitter placement and power, not to the underlying technology. But I'm close enough to the BBC's local DAB transmitter to get a 'full strength' signal even with the aerial of my portable folded. That's luck, not technology.
You are confusing content with transmission technology; they aren't the same thing at all. I agree that for internet listeners with a lot of bandwidth available, the BBC could provide better streams and 'podcasts'. But they'd still have to accomodate those on lesser internet connections.
If you think you could run the BBC better than the present staff, why not apply for a job?
I've never understood why anyone would choose to listen to Radio 1 so I can't comment on that. I seldom listen to Radio 2 either - and would use DAB if I did. But apart from poor reception (which is often worse now than it used to be thanks to the profusion of licensed and pirate stations in what used to be a nearly empty VHF waveband), I'm pretty sure even the analogue stations now get digitised and compressed material, which will never sound as good as genuine analogue.
Do try not to confuse technology with the content. Content is /programmes/, not codecs or transmitters. Anyone trying to compete with the BBC has access to exactly the same technology, but finding programmes to equal what the BBC produce is what defeats commercial competitors.
-- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
Think he did and was turned down. Hence the crusade...
--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
In article , DAB sounds worse than FM scribeth thus
They rolled over and let them tickle their tummies like the way we do so well;(...
I expect that no one at the commission really understood it all....
-- Tony Sayer
I have never applied for a job at the BBC. Hence you're talking out of your arse again.
-- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
The reason i wanted a small DAB radio is mainly for news and world service whilst walking around. In north london my other small FM radios keep breaking up at almost every other corner.
I rang phillips and they are now saying something different. that the
*wiping off* of all the presets after a 'local' scan is normal for this Phillips pocket DAB radio DA1103/05.I emailed the 'Pure' radio people and they have advised: Ofcom has explicitly not licensed DAB+ services, and key figures in the UK broadcast industry have indicated that it will be years before the new standard starts to be used and many years after that before there is expected to be any change to existing DAB services.
So I think I'll go and get another phillips DA1103 and make do with it for a few years. thanks for all the 'education'/ hornets nest :) i got in this group.
The problem had nothing to do with the question and everything to do with the fact (???) that the DAB system -- and DAB radios - seem to be poorly designed and executed.
Pure is hardly going to say "yeah, DAB+ is just around the corner, so don't buy a DAB radio at the moment, wait until everything supports DAB+", are they?
-- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
Looks like it.
Sounds like the FSA or Ofcom must have advised them if they couldn't figure out that one transmission provider taking over the only other transmission provider left a monopoly.
-- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
I see FLAConDAB Boy has disappeared. Or are you just having a break, FLAConDAB Boy? Probably best if you run along, FLAConDAB Boy, cos I'd only bring up your idiotic idea to use FLAC on DAB again.
Incidentally, thinking about it, you couldn't use FLAC on DAB anyway. You see with FLAC being a lossless audio codec, you can't guarantee that teh bit rate will be below the 1184 kbps maximum capacity of a DAB multiplex.
I also have to say that it's gloriously ironic that you came up with the suggestion that you could use FLAC on DAB when you'd previously claimed that "technology is easy". Technology is easy, but *only once* you've done the hard work studying the appropriate subjects, and you blatantly haven't.
And when the BBC chose to adopt DAB in the 1990s, the people making the decisions were a marketing person, Simon Nelson, and Jenny Abramsky, who probably can't even programme a video recorder - harsh, but probably true. They obviously thought technology was easy as well. And the end result was that they incompetently chose to launch DAB without first upgrading it.
And the people who make the technical decisions about digital radio at the BBC at the moment similarly don't understand the technologies. Their current decision making is mostly simply based on being biased against the Internet streams and being biased in favour of DAB. If I'm wrong about that, and they really are trying to provide good quailty, then they're also simply making incompetent technical decisions because they don't understand the technical aspects.
It's about time the BBC employed people who understand engineering. Anthony Rose, who's in charge of the iPlayer TV streams, understands it. But no-one on the radio side understands engineering at all.
-- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
[...]
If you must troll and cross-post, at least try to do it with some style and without making yourself look desperate and ridiculous. Or at least stay out of 24HS.D - I'm sure we've had all the entertainment you can provide.
-- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
It WILL end if the greenies get their way, because they want us all to go back to the stone age.
Bill
Since when?
There was absolutely nothign desperate or ridiculous about what I said. It was you that ridiculously claimed that FLAC could be used on DAB, and I was merely taking the piss out of that suggestion.
You've been cross-posting nonsense on alt.radio.digital throughout this thread, so don't tell me where I can or cannot cross-post to.
-- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.