You're missing the point though
FM has been used in radio broadcasting for 40 years or so. It's not quite audiophile quality, but with a good signal and decent kit, it's pretty good.

We now have the ability to transmit audio which is as good as this, or better, in a digital form. Only we don't, because the system in this country uses an outdated codec, MP2, at bit rates far lower than it was designed for.

So we have had a step backwards in audio quality. And it's primarily because the government wants to raise as much money as possible from licensing the spectrum.

And I do listen to the quality. If it's annoyingly bad, I'll switch off. Which is why I sold my DAB receiver. It just sat there gathering dust because I never used it.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 13:38, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

I appreciate I'm being quite obtuse about this,
Yes, we could have better quality sound, however I'm just grateful to have a radio station that a) plays music I want to listen to, b) has presenters that I don't want to punch repeatedly in the face and c) has no adverts.

In an ideal world it'd be CD quality sound. But I can compromise on that, given that it's usually not being played in a situation where sound quality is key (eg - wake-up, bed-time, in the kitchen etc.) Once I can afford my own, soundproofed, listening room, then I'll start getting worried!
( The Teviot Moose major 5th., Mon 5 Jul 2010, 13:41, Reply)

OK, I accept that
Most of the time when you're listening to the radio, it's on a crappy kitchen set, or the like. It's the same whether it's FM or DAB. But at least with FM, given a half decent hi-fi (and we're not talking ridiculous esoterica here) you have the option to get pretty good sound quality. Try to do that with DAB and if anything it just enhances the failings of the platform.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Mon 5 Jul 2010, 13:44, Reply)