"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote in message
news:7afvb2F1vcqeoU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:h1ubkq$mge$1@news.albasani.net
>> "Kráftéé" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
>> news:so2dnUqKDqA-Ld_XnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> jasee wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse
>>>>> than FM <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote
>>>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
>>>>> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>>>>
>>>> Why would it do that?
>>>> How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do
>>>> you want anyway?
>>>
>>> But with a greater bandwidth they wouldn't have to compress the audio
>>> so much & so you could have better quality sound, the way it should
>>> be!
>>>
>> What we need is more compression to recreate a greater bandwidth,
>> with DRM that's what you get
>
>
> Where are you getting this stuff about DRM from? A typical DRM station is
> the BBC World Service, which transmits in a 9 or 10 kHz bandwidth channel
> and it uses a bit rate of about 20 kbps. The audio quality is so bad that
> it makes DAB sound good in comparison, and I consider the audio quality on
> DAB to be dire.
>
If you tried DAB at 20kbps it would be even worse
>
> If you really mean DRM+ then that's a different story, but DRM without the
> + is a crap, low quality system that's only really meant to replace MW
> stations. And DRM doesn't stand a chance of getting established in the UK
> now, because I don't think there are any receivers in teh shops that
> support DRM - if there are any there's only one or two.
>
>
Yes of course DRM+, of course there aren't any receivers for sale
no one is broadcasting DRM+ yet

Guess what, the Flux capacitor for time travel isn't available yet either.

Steve Terry