|
|
DAB was designed to provide "high-quality digital audio programmes"
|
Quoting from the DAB specification, May 1997 version, page 11:
|
It might have been designed for that, but the end result doesn't meet the
specification! What went so wrong?
To answer that look no further than the multiplex owners. The more stations
within a space the more money made and the happier the shareholders are.
That is the one thing restricting good audio quality. DAB will never work
when greed exists as the people behind multiplexes probably never use it.
|
The idea of having commercial multiplex operators is flawed. There
should be an independent body that operates all multiplexes and sell out
capacity at cost price. Authorities should enforce minimum quality
standards for music and talk stations.
The operation of the multiplexes will be cheaper (all operated by the
same body, sharing facilities) and there would be technical advantages
as well (equal signal strengths across multiplexes).
gr, hwh
|
A men.
I remember saying something similar many months ago.
But alas, I can't see it ever happening that way.
Richard E.
|
|
My local radio station no longer promotes DAB due to all the complaints made
by listeners over poor quality.
|
"1 Scope
This European Telecommunication Standard (ETS) establishes a broadcasting
standard for the Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) system designed for
delivery of high-quality digital audio programme and data services for
mobile, portable and fixed reception from terrestrial or satellite
transmitters in the Very High Frequency (VHF)/Ultra High Frequency (UHF)
frequency bands as well as for distribution through cable networks."
|
It's still in the actual version of the standard (1.4.1), page 10,
Scope
|
To all those that tried to suggest that DAB wasn't designed to provide high
audio quality: try arguing with the sodding
specification.....................
|
Technology is often used different from the original intention. As I
remember well, Alfred Nobel invented dynamite for mining. It is not
always used according his intentions
|
That unimportant, because the issue here is what DAB was originally designed
for. Numerous people, who claim to be all knowing when it comes to this
issue, have tried to suggest that DAB was originally designed first and
foremost to provide better mobile reception, and they've ever laughably
tried to suggest that audio quality wasn't much of a consideration.
I knew that these people were totally wrong, but it's good to see it in
black and white in the specification itself.
|
|
|
Just a thaught.
I few years further along, if combined DAB/DRM receivers start selling.
I wonder how many broadcasters will want to abandon DAB in favor of DRM.
After all if cost is more important to them than sound quality, then
wouldn't DRM be a more attractive system, as broadcasting costs would be
much less than even 128k DAB (or even 112k for that matter).
Richard E.
|
|
Oh but they didn't really mean high quality.
|
It wouldn't actually surprise me if Richard L, Kristoff Bonne, Nicolas
Croiset or any one of the other DAB apologists did try and say that and
without any trace of sarcasm.
|
OK, here we go then: DAB *does* provide high quality. It's just that
it's not as high as you were evidently hoping for. "High quality" is a
vague term and other people may not understand it to mean the same as
you do.
Furthermore, observe the word order: "high quality" qualifies not
"delivery" but "digital audio programmes". This is a loophole big
enough for any lawyer to wriggle through. So they have beaten you this
time.
|
Note the word order: pathetic apologist imbecile.
|
Ah. So you concede my point.
|
|
|
And when does someone resort to legal technicalities such as loopholes?
Usually when they are wrong but still want to get away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|