Jake Brodsky wrote:
On 19 Aug 2003 14:21:25 GMT, "R J Carpenter"
wrote:


"Jake Brodsky" wrote in message
...

The beauty of digital broadcasting is that it works
better overall in a wider variety of conditions and the radio
doesn't have to be outrageously large, heavy, expensive, or high
maintenance.

Weird claims.

No. Market forces will make this happen.


No, you mean advertising by the broadcasters will produce expectations in
the minds of the consumers that digital = better, which will lead to the
highly suggestible general public believing these claims whether they're
true or not (certainly untrue if you take the UK's experience), this
advertising creates demand, which allows manufacturing batch sizes to
increase which leads to lower prices, which goes on until the prices are low
and demand carries on going up as the prices fall.

This isn't market forces, this is manipulation of the market by broadcasters
and consumer electronics companies to ship new products to make extra
profit.


In fact digital may increase the weight of a battery-powered radio
because of the current drain of the digital processing chips - at
least in early versions.

In early versions, you'd be right. Have you looked at the size and
performance of PCS phones lately? No, they don't sound as good as
analog cellular phones. But they're close enough that nobody cares
about the difference.


That's mobile phones, not broadcast quality audio. Who gives a **** about
the absolute audio quality of a mobile phone call so long as it is
intelligible? This is very different for broadcast quality audio. And BTW,
I'm not supporting analogue AM because in the UK analogue AM is ****e.


The bottom line: just because a certain degree of performance is
possible doesn't mean it is desirable by the general public.


The bottom line is that the broadcasters are abusing their relationship with
their listeners in that their listeners trust them to provide as good a
service as they think is possible, when in reality in the UK we have sub-FM
audio quality on DAB when there is spare capacity on nearly all DAB
multiplexes left unused and going to waste, but the broadcasters just don't
want to increase the bit rates to improve the audio quality (96% of stereo
radio stations on DAB in the UK use 128kbps MPEG Layer 2, and Layer 2 was
supposed to be used at 192kbps for stereo audio streams).

The bottom line is that CD-quality on the radio is possible, and given the
choice between CD-quality or lower quality then the general public would not
turn down CD-quality.

But again the reality is so far away from CD-quality it is just a bad joke.
On DAB in the UK the audio quality is sub-FM, yet we hear adverts day in day
out saying crap like "superb digital quality sound" and such like. This is
an abuse of trust and the broadcasters should be ashamed of themselves that
they're conning the general public to earn extra profit (for the commercial
radio groups) or to try to hang on to market share and be seen to be more
politically correct (for the BBC).


Dare I say it: Mediocrity rules.


You've just said it.


If it didn't, do you think Bill Gates
would be a multi-billionare?


So basically because companies can get away with mediorcity then that should
be accepted and applauded?

Basically this is all to make a very small number of people a lot richer,
while the masses have to put up with crap audio quality passed off as
entertainment.

The bottom line is that we'll all be dead one day and the only actual
trade-off going on is people's enjoyment against fking profit for a very
small number of people.

But hey, that's capitalism for ya.

Think Enron and Worldcom.

And it seems one of the main purveyors of medicority in the US is getting a
bit of a backlash isn't it? Or are the reports about Clear Channel and a
load of unhappy listeners just bull****?


--
DAB sounds worse than FM, Freeview, Digital Satellite and Cable --
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/

BBC DAB is a national disgrace
Subscribe for free to the Digital Radio Listeners' Group Newsletter