I suspect you haven't realised it, but you just contradicted yourself.
You must see the difference between consumer products and national networks. The consumer cannot push the construction of new generation digital radio networks because the capital investments are higher.
In your post #105 you suggested that's exactly what consumers should do if they aren't happy with DAB/DAB+
...The reason for so low bitrate in the UK is that someone good has decided to give YOU an opportunity to broadcast YOUR own radio.
You then added
When would it happen on the FM frequencies - never because everything is occupied or there is no enough space/allocation for everyone.
So which is it; a high capital investment infrastructure which only Governments have the ability to fund, thereby excluding the possibility of consumers setting up their own DAB/DAB+ broadcasting solutions to "fix" the low bit rate issue
Or is it the democratised transmission space you envisaged back in post #105 when you thought your smart-ass reply would win the debating point? It can't be both, so you're going to have to concede that one of your points was wrong. Which one will you choose to sacrifice?
Your arguments continue to fail because they aren't valid in the real world, and now you compound that by contradicting yourself.
Here's a tip -
a suggestion - for you to follow when it's obvious you made mistake after mistake
LOL
You must see the difference between consumer products and national networks. The consumer cannot push the construction of new generation digital radio networks because the capital investments are higher.
I will concede that a national transmitter network is a major infrastructure project if you will concede the following points:
- The first UK radio transmitter network (1920-1926) required no direct UK Government funding*
- There was no UK Government promotion of radio, and yet by 1932 there was sufficient interest to expand British radio broadcasting to include The World Service
- There was no direct UK Government funding of television transmitters in the early days of British TV broadcasting
- By 1971, roughly four in ten UK homes had a telephone, but 9 out of 10 had a TV, and all without the Government promotion
- There was no direct UK Government funding for the establishment of a national FM transmitter network, and yet consumers were both aware of its existence and chose to switch without the need for a UK Government publicity scheme
You see, in contrast to DAB/DAB+, UK analogue radio and UK TV have been a success because they offer the consumer something of substantial benefit compared to what went before.
Taking the direct parallel between the introduction of digital TV and DAB/DAB+: both offered more channels, but only digital TV offered improved reception due to higher field strength, and as a result higher quality images in SD for those in marginal areas compared to analogue; and the introduction of HD image quality.
By contrast, DAB reception has been marginal for many UK listeners whereas FM worked; and DAB has been- and continues to be a step back in audio quality due to high compression rates, and neither DAB or DAB+ offer the audio equivalent of HD image resolution despite having a 20Hz to 20kHz audio frequency range.
* This was partly funded by levies on radio receivers and the requirement for an annual license. But this was a commercial relationship between consumers and the private company established to provide broadcasting services
CD is a cheap consumer-grade product that doesn't need heavy government capital investment.
CD playing equipment might be inexpensive to produce now, but that wasn't always the case.
In the early days of CD, the first Philips and Marantz and Sony CD players were the equivalent of £1700-£1900 in today's money (€1940-€2170). They weren't the most expensive either. The Cambridge Audio CD1 of 1986 was £1500 which translates to £4500/€5140 today.
Also, CD is a broadcast standard format. Radio stations worldwide have been using CD as their main broadcast media format taking over from vinyl.
The story here though in relation to DAB/DAB+ is simple. CD tech improved both quality and convenience for many music enthusiasts. Arguably, CD didn't really take off until the tech made it in to the stack Hi-Fis and midi systems of the mid-80s when the prices were more affordable. But again, this required no Government intervention. There was a clear consumer benefit over what went before. DAB/DAB+ hasn't proved itself equal to that. If it had, there would be much stronger consumer-lead demand for in-car and home DAB systems.
Oh, no, how could you believe those comments - many are trolls or simply haters, or just paid by the mobile operators to promote their technologies...
They are not genuine opinions and it's not worth it to take them as anything serious or worth considering.
Many of us here have been telling you that it's you that is out of step with the majority. I can't help it if you refuse to acknowledge the reality. DAB/DAB+ is universally despised by anyone with an interest in quality. It has the technical advantage of a 20Hz to 20kHZ frequency range (FM is 30Hz to 15kHz*), and the possibility of bit rates that could match CD resolution -
and yet all this is squandered because the broadcast model is set up to support a high number of stations rather than high fidelity audio.
* The limited audio range is something of a moot point since most domestic audio and in-car sound systems have speakers that cannot reproduce sound between 20Hz-and 30Hz. Also, age related hearing loss in the average human adult means that sound above 15kHz can't be heard for large portions of the world's population