4 ms·
Yeah, it's maddening, isn't it? I would never go back to analog cell phone systems, and I could waffle for hours why analog TV is really not as great as some mi
by anyfoo 7y ago
Yeah, it's maddening, isn't it? I would never go back to analog cell phone systems, and I could waffle for hours why analog TV is really not as great as some might remember, but for radio transmission FM stereo radio was simple, elegant and with great quality. DAB+ is in many ways a step backwards, I think.
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y agoDAB+ was meant to deliver high-quality AAC above 128 Kbps, preferably 192 Kbps or higher, unfortunately it ended up being broadcasted using the lowest bitrate to squeeze as many stations as possible, usually at 64 Kbps, it's a total disaster...
- izacus 7y agoHere in one of the smaller EU countries the stations sometimes even go as low as 32kbps and use practically no error correction. That makes the station both sound awful and be significantly less reliable for reception.
- omilu 7y agoAnalog cable was superior for channel surfing. No digital buffering meant you could change channels instantly to surf back and forth like changing between browser tabs.
- nitrogen 7y agoEarlier small-dish satellite systems sort of worked around this by showing each I-block as it came in (something like , instead of waiting for the full frame to be available. You still had to wait for enough macroblocks to show up, but audio was instant. Later receivers (last time I used one a long time ago) waited for a full frame to be available instead of showing the blocks as they are displayable. I have been trying to look up what this I-frame-less encoding method is called, but it's impossible to find niche topics like this on Google or DDG these days (tried intra sweep, iframeless, progressive intra, without iframes, etc).