Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / August 2009
Petition to stop FM being switched off
|
|
Thread rating:  |
DAB sounds worse than FM - 24 Jun 2009 22:21 GMT There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
Please sign. Thanks.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Jimbo GM4DHJ .... - 24 Jun 2009 22:37 GMT > There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > > http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ > > Please sign. Thanks. cool thanks ......
Kráftéé - 24 Jun 2009 22:47 GMT || There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: || [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] || | cool thanks ...... Maybe some more bandwidth to play with.......Naah I doubt it (it'll be sold to the highest bidder)
Jimbo GM4DHJ .... - 24 Jun 2009 22:51 GMT > || There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > || [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Maybe some more bandwidth to play with.......Naah I doubt it (it'll be > sold to the highest bidder) the modern world stinks.....apart from all the things I like about it that is......
Ian Jackson - 25 Jun 2009 08:22 GMT >|| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >|| [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Maybe some more bandwidth to play with.......Naah I doubt it (it'll be >sold to the highest bidder) Who IS going to buy that part of the spectrum? There's not a lot of activity between (say) 30 and 87MHz at the moment, so I don't think that there will be as great a demand for the FM radio spectrum as some people think.
 Signature Ian
tony sayer - 25 Jun 2009 10:27 GMT In article <CQIA3QFTXyQKFwTk@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET HISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>|| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>|| [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >there will be as great a demand for the FM radio spectrum as some people >think. There are tracts of spectrum from around 30 to 87 MHz that are hardly used as no one wants them;!...
 Signature Tony Sayer
Ian Jackson - 25 Jun 2009 11:29 GMT >In article <CQIA3QFTXyQKFwTk@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET >HISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >There are tracts of spectrum from around 30 to 87 MHz that are hardly >used as no one wants them;!... Offhand, I'm not sure what one might expect to find. Old FM cordless phones 30 to 33MHz. IF region 33 to 40MHz 'protected'. Some radio control around 49MHz (?), plus old toy walkie talkies and baby alarms. Amateur 50 to 52MHz. There used to be a blind landing system on 75MHz. Some council, gas and electricity board stuff around 80Mhz? OK, all of the spectrum will be allocated, but the actual usage is very low.
Of course, one of the problems with these relatively low frequencies is the size of the aerial, especially for handheld portable use (even if loading is used). And, there's also a severe problem with sporadic-E interference - especially around this time of year. It is not without good reason that, some time ago, Band 1 was abandoned for TV transmissions in many European countries.
 Signature Ian
Jimbo GM4DHJ .... - 25 Jun 2009 17:49 GMT > Of course, one of the problems with these relatively low frequencies is > the size of the aerial, especially for handheld portable use I like big rubber duckies .....
Dave Higton - 25 Jun 2009 22:18 GMT > I like big rubber duckies ..... It figures.
Dave
tony sayer - 25 Jun 2009 21:19 GMT In article <LyRiv+Q1F1QKFwgY@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET HISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>In article <CQIA3QFTXyQKFwTk@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET >>HISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Amateur 50 to 52MHz. There used to be a blind landing system on 75MHz. >Some council, gas and electricity board stuff around 80Mhz? All gone now to phones;(..
>OK, all of >the spectrum will be allocated, but the actual usage is very low. Vert very low..
>Of course, one of the problems with these relatively low frequencies is >the size of the aerial, especially for handheld portable use (even if >loading is used). And, there's also a severe problem with sporadic-E >interference - especially around this time of year. It is not without >good reason that, some time ago, Band 1 was abandoned for TV >transmissions in many European countries. Interference needed be that much a problem and aerial size .. well you can get around that..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Steve Terry - 25 Jun 2009 15:12 GMT > In article <CQIA3QFTXyQKFwTk@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET > HISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > used as no one wants them;!... > Tony Sayer Broadcasters need consistantancy, 30 to 80MHz suffers from Sporadic E, high ignition interference QRN. Digital DRM will offer some immunity.
Steve Terry
Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 00:13 GMT >>|| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>|| http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > think. > Ian Ofcom have obviously given up trying to police Band 2 FM pirates, and see DAB, DAB+ or any future form of Digital broadcasting as being Pirate proof
Steve Terry
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 09:47 GMT In article <h23knp$35r$1@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> scribeth thus
>>>|| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>>|| http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Steve Terry So you might think but there is a design on the net for a complete DAB MUX coder and Band three transmitter;!..
Pirates only use FM as theses where the receivers and hence the listeners are;)..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Alan - 24 Jun 2009 22:47 GMT >There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > >http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ > >Please sign. Thanks. Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
 Signature Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
jasee - 24 Jun 2009 23:02 GMT >> 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?
Kráftéé - 25 Jun 2009 00:02 GMT ||| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: ||| [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | 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!
Steve Terry - 25 Jun 2009 00:08 GMT > ||| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > ||| [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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
Steve Terry
DAB sounds worse than FM - 25 Jun 2009 01:40 GMT >>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched >>>>> off: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 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 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.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Steve Terry - 25 Jun 2009 15:22 GMT >>>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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
Paul Martin - 26 Jun 2009 10:41 GMT >||| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >||| [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >| 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 greater bandwidth? The trend has been to crank down the bitrates, from 128kbps, to 112kbps, and even 96kbps. Of the commercial stations, only Classic FM has used a half-decent bitrate (160kbps).
 Signature Paul Martin <pm@nowster.org.uk>
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 10:54 GMT >> ||| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >> ||| [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > from 128kbps, to 112kbps, and even 96kbps. Of the commercial stations, > only Classic FM has used a half-decent bitrate (160kbps). That is probably because of spectrum limitations.
As I said in an earlier post, I calculate the raw CD quality bitrate as about 1.2Mbps.
Now using the whole of a 200KHZ FM channel for that at indifferent quality, is wasteful.
I think that my 'online' stations are around 250Kbps. Quality is pretty good.
the real solution is to go higher in frequency. Much more space, and not already allocated. AND it doesn't hop skip and jump all over the world.
charles - 26 Jun 2009 11:07 GMT > the real solution is to go higher in frequency. Much more space, and not > already allocated. AND it doesn't hop skip and jump all over the world. trouble is that the higher frequency the less the 'bending' round obstacles and the less penetration through building materials.
 Signature From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 12:05 GMT >> the real solution is to go higher in frequency. Much more space, and not >> already allocated. AND it doesn't hop skip and jump all over the world. > > trouble is that the higher frequency the less the 'bending' round obstacles > and the less penetration through building materials. Thats what broadband is for! BUT GHz stuff bounces OFF buildings and diffracts through gaps. so its not all bad!
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 12:41 GMT In article <5071670d98charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> the real solution is to go higher in frequency. Much more space, and not >> already allocated. AND it doesn't hop skip and jump all over the world. > >trouble is that the higher frequency the less the 'bending' round obstacles >and the less penetration through building materials. Reflection around perhaps?..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Fredxx - 26 Jun 2009 13:05 GMT > In article <5071670d98charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles > <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Reflection around perhaps?.. Look up diffraction, very good at low frequencies where the wavelength is long in comparison with obstacles, but not so good at high frequencies. Having said that OFDM, the transmission standard for DAB, is very good at reducing fading and multipath interference you'd get from GHz's transmissions in a built up area.
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 19:00 GMT In article <h22dmv$1ld$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.com> scribeth thus
>> In article <5071670d98charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles >> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Look up diffraction, very good at low frequencies where the wavelength is >long in comparison with obstacles, but not so good at high frequencies. Read that again .. reflections .. diffraction is a known we use it for path and proprogation predictions etc..
>Having said that OFDM, the transmission standard for DAB, is very good at >reducing fading and multipath interference you'd get from GHz's >transmissions in a built up area.
 Signature Tony Sayer
DAB sounds worse than FM - 26 Jun 2009 16:33 GMT >>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched >>>>> off: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > bitrates, > from 128kbps, to 112kbps, and even 96kbps. Or to switch from stereo to mono to save even more bandwidth...
>Of the commercial stations, > only Classic FM has used a half-decent bitrate (160kbps). Literally 98% of stereo stations on DAB in the UK use a bit rate of 112 or 128 kbps (counting multiple instances of the same station when they're on different multiplexes).
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 19:01 GMT >Or to switch from stereo to mono to save even more bandwidth... They are offering some community licences as Mono services;!..
>>Of the commercial stations, >> only Classic FM has used a half-decent bitrate (160kbps). Tho they could reduce the processing a bit.. Well quite a bit really;!...
 Signature Tony Sayer
Ian Smith - 26 Jun 2009 19:14 GMT >>>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched >>>>>> off: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 112 or 128 kbps (counting multiple instances of the same station when > they're on different multiplexes). Radio 3 uses 192kbps. So there you go, much better and sensible use of valuable bandwidth: 192kbps for R3, where high quality is essential, 64kbps for R4 where it is mainly mono speech, and close to that for modern music which is mainly speech and percussion. Ideal.
You can't do that with FM. The sooner it gets switched over the community radio the better.
regards, Ian
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 21:15 GMT In article <l8Sdnba0C_C8jdjXnZ2dnUVZ8uGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>>>>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched >>>>>>> off: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >essential, 64kbps for R4 where it is mainly mono speech, and close >to that for modern music which is mainly speech and percussion. Ideal. Yep but why degrade Radio 4 speech anyway?..
If its an issue why don't they turn off FM and got back to 198 kHz?..
>You can't do that with FM. Why would they want 2 ?..
>The sooner it gets switched over the >community radio the better. Really, just how many comm stations do you think can be sustained?..
>regards, Ian
 Signature Tony Sayer
Ian Smith - 27 Jun 2009 08:55 GMT > Why would they want 2 ?.. > >> The sooner it gets switched over the >> community radio the better. > > Really, just how many comm stations do you think can be sustained?.. Providing the stations are low power - a huge number! The principle is the same as running a cellular network.
Whether anyone wants them ... ?
regards, Ian
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 09:49 GMT In article <Y62dnXx9vPD6TdjXnZ2dnUVZ8lWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>> Why would they want 2 ?.. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >regards, Ian Sorry but you know little or nowt about what's involved in running a community radio station, its not just a transmitter hooked up to some automated music player.
Ofcom have some rather stringent licensing criteria especially what they call "Social Gain" .....
 Signature Tony Sayer
South Downs - 27 Jun 2009 11:38 GMT > >> Why would they want 2 ?.. > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Ofcom have some rather stringent licensing criteria especially what they > call "Social Gain" ..... Well you know sweet FA about broadcasting, but you seem to happily tour various groups spouting shite.
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 10:18 GMT > Really, just how many comm stations do you think can be sustained?.. From a technological point of view, the available bandwidth divided by the bit rate times the desired S/N ratio.
From a commercial POV..no idea.
>> regards, Ian tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 19:26 GMT In article <h24o5o$isq$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>> Really, just how many comm stations do you think can be sustained?.. > >From a technological point of view, the available bandwidth divided by >the bit rate times the desired S/N ratio. Mate they can't afford the DAB club;!..
>From a commercial POV..no idea. Lets say its bloody hard going for most all of them apart from those in deprived areas who attract a lot more grant funding..
>>> regards, Ian
 Signature Tony Sayer
neverwas - 26 Jun 2009 22:42 GMT > Radio 3 uses 192kbps. So there you go, much better and sensible use > of valuable bandwidth: 192kbps for R3, where high quality is > essential, 64kbps for R4 where it is mainly mono speech, and close > to that for modern music which is mainly speech and percussion. Ideal. You are risking life and limb suggesting that The Archers be broadcast in MP2 at such an execrable bitrate. It's not just the tum-te-tum-te-tums. There are the bells, the cows lowing, the glugging of the cider .......
Where would H2G2 have been in 64 kbps mono?
And then there's all the live events from Armistice Day through the Festival of Carols (which I don't begrudge the G Squad) to the Reith Lectures.
Bah! Humbug!
 Signature R
Ian Smith - 27 Jun 2009 09:07 GMT >> Radio 3 uses 192kbps. So there you go, much better and sensible use >> of valuable bandwidth: 192kbps for R3, where high quality is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tum-te-tum-te-tums. There are the bells, the cows lowing, the glugging > of the cider ....... Ah, yes. Memories of my visit to the Archer's studio at Pebble Mill!
> Where would H2G2 have been in 64 kbps mono? > > And then there's all the live events from Armistice Day through the > Festival of Carols (which I don't begrudge the G Squad) to the Reith > Lectures. That is the whole point. They can switch it up to 128 or 192kbps when they want to!
Now, this a sensitive topic with me. My wife loves the Archers and I loathe it. The point is that the vast majority or Archers listeners will have no interest in stereo or spacial separation. My wife listens on DAB and she has absolutely no clue of any alleged 'reduction in quality' or absence of stereo effect. She is listening to the story line. With DAB she gets crystal clear speech, no messing about with tuning - she loves it.
You also make a good point about coverage for fairy believers. With DAB, there is ample space for a (64k mono maybe) national 'minorities interest' channel that could carry that drivel to free up R4 for more factual programming.
If you are trying to make a case for more bandwidth for DAB transmissions, then I'm with you. Whether I'd waste it on the Archers...
regards, Ian
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 09:51 GMT >> And then there's all the live events from Armistice Day through the >> Festival of Carols (which I don't begrudge the G Squad) to the Reith [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >to the story line. With DAB she gets crystal clear speech, no >messing about with tuning - she loves it. Funny that but my wife is a bit too young for listening to the Archers but shes critical of the sound of FM and low rate DAB!...
>You also make a good point about coverage for fairy believers. With >DAB, there is ample space for a (64k mono maybe) national [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >regards, Ian
 Signature Tony Sayer
Ian Smith - 27 Jun 2009 17:44 GMT > Funny that but my wife is a bit too young for listening to the Archers > but shes critical of the sound of FM and low rate DAB!... I'm glad that she appreciates the benefit of higher rate DAB!
regards, Ian
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 19:27 GMT In article <wNKdnZ6SuP8a0dvXnZ2dnUVZ8oJi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>> Funny that but my wife is a bit too young for listening to the Archers >> but shes critical of the sound of FM and low rate DAB!... > >I'm glad that she appreciates the benefit of higher rate DAB! > >regards, Ian Yes oddly enough she does .. but it comes via satellite from over in mainland Europe:)..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Ian Smith - 28 Jun 2009 14:08 GMT > In article <wNKdnZ6SuP8a0dvXnZ2dnUVZ8oJi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian > Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yes oddly enough she does .. but it comes via satellite from over in > mainland Europe:).. Is that DAB?
I've tried the DVB audio feed from both Freeview boxes I have - neither are listenable through the HiFi, simply because of poor circuitry. Theoretically, they should be OK, but the quality level is clearly aimed at flat screen speakers!
regards, Ian
The Natural Philosopher - 28 Jun 2009 14:34 GMT >> In article <wNKdnZ6SuP8a0dvXnZ2dnUVZ8oJi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian >> Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Theoretically, they should be OK, but the quality level is clearly aimed > at flat screen speakers! Odd that. I've got sony STB's and TV and the sound is pretty damned good.
> regards, Ian tony sayer - 28 Jun 2009 15:54 GMT In article <EoqdnYJKWcnS9trXnZ2dnUVZ8sWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>> In article <wNKdnZ6SuP8a0dvXnZ2dnUVZ8oJi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian >> Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Is that DAB? Well most everyone refers to Terrestrial digital broadcast radio generally in Band 3 in the UK as DAB..
>I've tried the DVB audio feed from both Freeview boxes I have - >neither are listenable through the HiFi, simply because of poor >circuitry. Theoretically, they should be OK, but the quality level >is clearly aimed at flat screen speakers! > >regards, Ian Well you can take the SPDIF outputs to an external converter unit but they are running Radios 1,2,3, and 4 at 192 K/Bits IIRC.
And oddly enough domestic terrestrial TV sound is transmitted on terrestrial digital at 256 K/bits!..
On satellite where there are bags of room they could run them at 256 or higher like some other broadcasters do.
For instance Bayern in Germany transmit their main services at 320 K/Bits leaving the 192 rate for just traffic and other info services!..
 Signature Tony Sayer
neverwas - 28 Jun 2009 16:09 GMT > For instance Bayern in Germany transmit their main services at 320 > K/Bits leaving the 192 rate for just traffic and other info > services!.. Tush! I wouldn't expect anything better from a country which has a head of government who studied physics, has a doctorate in quantum chemistry and worked as a researcher. Now we are blessed with a beloved leader whose doctoral thesis was "The Labour Party and Political Change in Scotland 1918-29" and so is much better equipped to lead such things.
 Signature R
Ato_Zee - 28 Jun 2009 16:53 GMT > Tush! I wouldn't expect anything better from a country which has a head > of government who studied physics, has a doctorate in quantum chemistry > and worked as a researcher. Now we are blessed with a beloved leader > whose doctoral thesis was "The Labour Party and Political Change in > Scotland 1918-29" and so is much better equipped to lead such things Of course. Sending all our FM receivers to landfill will boost the economy and the retail sector, generate more income from VAT on the sale of DAB replacements, please the Chinese who will make the replacements, and they will start buying our waste cardboard again, which will please the councils who are desparate to get rid of it. The banks will lend the money which will help lift us out of recession. Makes sound economic sense. Mr. Bean strikes again.
Graham Murray - 01 Jul 2009 13:25 GMT > Tush! I wouldn't expect anything better from a country which has a head > of government who studied physics, has a doctorate in quantum chemistry > and worked as a researcher. Now we are blessed with a beloved leader > whose doctoral thesis was "The Labour Party and Political Change in > Scotland 1918-29" and so is much better equipped to lead such things. Did we do any better with a Prime Minister who had degrees in chemistry and had previously worked as a researcher?
Fredxx - 01 Jul 2009 17:11 GMT >> Tush! I wouldn't expect anything better from a country which has a head >> of government who studied physics, has a doctorate in quantum chemistry [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Did we do any better with a Prime Minister who had degrees in chemistry > and had previously worked as a researcher? But she saw the error in her ways, gave up science to do a degree in law. After all law is far easier and better paid than either science or engineering!
DAB sounds worse than FM - 29 Jun 2009 02:06 GMT >> In article <wNKdnZ6SuP8a0dvXnZ2dnUVZ8oJi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian >> Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > circuitry. Theoretically, they should be OK, but the quality level > is clearly aimed at flat screen speakers! You haven't got a clue - virtually everything you say is wrong.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
DAB sounds worse than FM - 26 Jun 2009 22:43 GMT >>>>>> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds >>>>>> worse [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Radio 3 uses 192kbps. The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still sounds better on FM.
> So there you go, much better and sensible use > of valuable bandwidth: 192kbps for R3, where high quality is > essential, 64kbps for R4 where it is mainly mono speech, and close > to that for modern music which is mainly speech and percussion. > Ideal. In other words, you want good quality for the station you listen to and sod EVERYBODY else.
Nice and selfless attitude.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Ato_Zee - 26 Jun 2009 23:15 GMT > and sod EVERYBODY else. No that's the government policy. The advantages of DAB We send all our FM radios to landfill We buy Chniese made DAB radios. This helps the Chinese economy. The Chinese start buying our waste cardboard again to pack them in, reducing our scrap mountain that nobody else wants. The government gets money from flogging off the FM spectrum. The government gets the VAT from all the DAB radio sales. The government can say how well we have embraced the cutting edge of digital technology. Everybody wins, the Exchequer, the Chinese, the retailers who are selling the DAB radios, the wholesalers and shippers. Everybody wins. So it's
> sod EVERYBODY else. No point in a petition. Just like elections, shread the votes that you don't agree with. Works in Zimbabwe, and many other countries, nod, wink.
Dave Plowman (News) - 26 Jun 2009 23:38 GMT > > Radio 3 uses 192kbps.
> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still > sounds better on FM. No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it.
 Signature *Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 09:52 GMT In article <5071abd2d7dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> > Radio 3 uses 192kbps. > >> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still >> sounds better on FM. > >No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it. It makes me wonder what you use for listening, can't or don't you notice that odd metallic quality?..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News) - 27 Jun 2009 10:32 GMT > In article <5071abd2d7dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) > <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > >No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it.
> It makes me wonder what you use for listening, can't or don't you notice > that odd metallic quality?.. On R3? No. My tuner is a very early one from Videologic and when I first got it thought everything sounded brighter than FM so added an equaliser to bring it in line.
 Signature *Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
South Downs - 27 Jun 2009 11:40 GMT > > >> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still > > >> sounds better on FM. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > got it thought everything sounded brighter than FM so added an equaliser > to bring it in line. I have a cheap Sony portable DAB radio which I use everyday and have never heard metallic noises. I think it might be time for Tony to have his ears tested.
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 19:27 GMT In article <5071e7aba2dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> In article <5071abd2d7dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) >> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >got it thought everything sounded brighter than FM so added an equaliser >to bring it in line. What's the rest of the line up?...
 Signature Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News) - 28 Jun 2009 10:13 GMT > >On R3? No. My tuner is a very early one from Videologic and when I first > >got it thought everything sounded brighter than FM so added an equaliser > >to bring it in line.
> What's the rest of the line up?... Depends on where I'm listening. ;-) In this room, a pair of LS3/5s driven by a Linsey Hood.
 Signature *Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
The Natural Philosopher - 28 Jun 2009 14:32 GMT >>> On R3? No. My tuner is a very early one from Videologic and when I first >>> got it thought everything sounded brighter than FM so added an equaliser [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Depends on where I'm listening. ;-) In this room, a pair of LS3/5s driven > by a Linsey Hood. Linsley Hood.
Not the best, but not too bad.
Dave Plowman (News) - 28 Jun 2009 14:50 GMT > > Depends on where I'm listening. ;-) In this room, a pair of LS3/5s > > driven by a Linsey Hood. > > > Linsley Hood.
> Not the best, but not too bad. Better than most have in a bedroom. ;-)
 Signature *It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
tony sayer - 28 Jun 2009 15:55 GMT In article <507269c7fedave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> >On R3? No. My tuner is a very early one from Videologic and when I first >> >got it thought everything sounded brighter than FM so added an equaliser [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Depends on where I'm listening. ;-) In this room, a pair of LS3/5s Good boxes those, I've got them either side of the PC for computer sound driven by an Audiolab 8000 and a Digigram card;))..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News) - 28 Jun 2009 16:33 GMT > >Depends on where I'm listening. ;-) In this room, a pair of LS3/5s
> Good boxes those, I've got them either side of the PC for computer sound > driven by an Audiolab 8000 and a Digigram card;)).. They are a remarkable little design that somehow cons you into thinking they're producing decent deep bass - which they aren't. I've got another pair in the kitchen.
 Signature *If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
DAB sounds worse than FM - 27 Jun 2009 17:25 GMT >>> Radio 3 uses 192kbps. > >> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still >> sounds better on FM. > > No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it. Yeah, I've only been reviewing tuners for a hi-fi magazine for the last 3 - 4 years, and I obviously spend a lot of time comparing R3 on DAB and FM because the readership disproportinoately consists of R3 listeners, so WTF do I know about it?
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Alan - 27 Jun 2009 18:53 GMT > > > The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still > > > sounds better on FM. > > > > No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it. > > Yeah, I've only been reviewing tuners for a hi-fi magazine for the last 3 - 4 years, and I obviously spend a lot of time comparing R3 on DAB and FM because the readership disproportinoately consists of R3 listeners, so WTF do I know about it? This means f.ck all, any fool can write for a magazine and pass themselves off as being an expert, look no further than the crap which is written about Oxygen free cables and so called sound improvement devices which turn out to be no more than £200 low pass filter.
Dave Plowman (News) - 27 Jun 2009 19:49 GMT > >> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still > >> sounds better on FM. > > > > No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it.
> Yeah, I've only been reviewing tuners for a hi-fi magazine for the > last 3 - 4 years, and I obviously spend a lot of time comparing R3 on > DAB and FM because the readership disproportinoately consists of R3 > listeners, so WTF do I know about it? Very, very, little if you review such things for a 'Hi-Fi magazine'.
 Signature *All generalizations are false.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
DAB sounds worse than FM - 28 Jun 2009 12:35 GMT >>>> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still >>>> sounds better on FM. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Very, very, little if you review such things for a 'Hi-Fi magazine'. Ah, good old Plowman logic at work: if you work on something therefore you have low knowledge of what you're working on. Patently absurd, just like all of Plowman's logic.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Dave Plowman (News) - 28 Jun 2009 14:20 GMT > > Very, very, little if you review such things for a 'Hi-Fi magazine'.
> Ah, good old Plowman logic at work: if you work on something therefore > you have low knowledge of what you're working on. Patently absurd, > just like all of Plowman's logic. Ok then, what test equipment do you posses or have access to, to ensure a thorough review? Or is it all just subjective? The reason I stopped reading such things ago - the hyperbole just went on and on.
 Signature *Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
neverwas - 28 Jun 2009 15:58 GMT > the hyperbole just went on and on. I thought hyperbole had to go on and on 'cos otherwise it'd be ellipsis
:) PS Respect for the LS3/5As. I sold a pair many many moons ago in order to buy Quad ESL57s. Much regretted ever since I moved out of the rooms large enough for them.
 Signature R
DAB sounds worse than FM - 29 Jun 2009 02:17 GMT >>> Very, very, little if you review such things for a 'Hi-Fi >>> magazine'. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ensure a > thorough review? The tuners are tested at the magazine's offices in London.
> Or is it all just subjective? The reason I stopped > reading such things ago - the hyperbole just went on and on. Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test results as well.
If you do think that subjective hi-fi reviewing is a waste of time then I totally disagree - there's a lot more difference in the sound quailty - or in reception quality - between different tuners than I was expecting there would be. Also spending more money does usually, but not always, give you better quality, whereas I thought that the law of diminishign returns would have kicked in so much that it wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make a difference.
And I'll tell you one thing, my experience of listening to DAB and FM on tuners costing £200 and upwards is that what you say is completely wrong. FM kicks DAB's arse, it really does.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
charles - 29 Jun 2009 08:37 GMT [Snip]
> > Ok then, what test equipment do you posses or have access to, to > > ensure a thorough review?
> The tuners are tested at the magazine's offices in London. which doesn't answer the question Dave asked.
 Signature From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
jasee - 29 Jun 2009 08:42 GMT > Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test > results as well. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make > a difference. sujective hi-fi reviewing has always been wrong, because it is subjective. Who wants to read what some reviewer _feels_ is a good tuner etc? Double blind tests plus comparative technical data are, and have always been the right way.
 Signature Vista: the hd dvd player that thinks it's an operating system ©JC 2009 All men are islands
J. P. Gilliver (John) - 02 Jul 2009 08:38 GMT >> Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test >> results as well. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >blind tests plus comparative technical data are, and have always been the >right way. I think you're pursuing different lines of argument. I think DwF is in effect saying that subjective listening can pick out subtleties that cannot be _measured_ with current measuring equipment and techniques. I tend to agree with that (though subjective reviewers can get carried away, with terms like "musicality", and are easily mocked, often justifiably). What you (jasee) are saying is that double-blind tests are among the best ways - and I'd certainly agree with that, but these are double-blind _subjective_ tests. (And as an engineer/scientist I'd certainly agree that the technical data should be presented too.)
 Signature J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Boss: We must maintain a sense of urgency. Speed is the key. We must be faster than the competition. Dilbert: Does that mean you'll sign the stuff that's been on your desk for a month? (Scott Adams, 1998-12-26)
The Natural Philosopher - 02 Jul 2009 09:02 GMT >>> Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test >>> results as well. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > effect saying that subjective listening can pick out subtleties that > cannot be _measured_ with current measuring equipment and techniques. It can be, but you have to devise some interesting tests. Viz, As I saif before the difference between a good phase shift in the IF strip and a poor one with truncation of signal at 125Khz or more from the band centre makes an audible difference: You can measure that, but very few reviewers would know how. Or have the equipment.
> I > tend to agree with that (though subjective reviewers can get carried [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > double-blind _subjective_ tests. (And as an engineer/scientist I'd > certainly agree that the technical data should be presented too.) As an engineer, all I can say is that double blind tests merely ensure that what gets picked is the equipment most like what the audience 'has at home' and has got used to.
It took me over a year listening to various parts of what I was working on to finally understand what all the various imperfections did, and learn to like real quality. At first it simply sounded as it it was lacking in character. I eventually realised that that was indeed the whole point. I couldn't hear the electronics, I had instead to listen to the material ;-)
Oh, and the things that are easy to measure, like frequency response, step response stereo separation and harmonic distortion, are the things that make the least difference. Its intermodulation distortion that muddies up complex sounds, but without a spectrum analyser that's a hard thing to measure.
J. P. Gilliver (John) - 02 Jul 2009 23:29 GMT []
>As an engineer, all I can say is that double blind tests merely ensure >that what gets picked is the equipment most like what the audience 'has >at home' and has got used to. (-:
>It took me over a year listening to various parts of what I was working >on to finally understand what all the various imperfections did, and >learn to like real quality. At first it simply sounded as it it was >lacking in character. I eventually realised that that was indeed the >whole point. I couldn't hear the electronics, I had instead to listen >to the material ;-) I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the 1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe.
>Oh, and the things that are easy to measure, like frequency response, >step response stereo separation and harmonic distortion, are the things >that make the least difference. Its intermodulation distortion that >muddies up complex sounds, but without a spectrum analyser that's a >hard thing to measure. Indeed, though such instruments for audio bandwidths, especially as PC cards, are a lot cheaper than they were, and of course CDs are a good source of test tones (I have one with several pairs of tones for measuring HID). If you have a good CD player of course!
 Signature J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Now, don't worry. We'll be right behind you. Hiding. (First series, fit the sixth.)
Roderick Stewart - 03 Jul 2009 09:14 GMT > I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the > 1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design > them), there was much coverage that they sounded flat and lifeless; it > took a while for the penny to drop, as you describe. I remember that too. Funnily there wasn't the same criticism of the earlier ones. They looked like electric fires but didn't sound like loudspeakers at all - you'd just hear musical instruments the way they really sounded. Maybe when they were made there was less electronically generated music around to poison the expectations of listeners.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
jasee - 03 Jul 2009 11:23 GMT >> I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the >> 1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > really sounded. Maybe when they were made there was less electronically > generated music around to poison the expectations of listeners. I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in certain organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't see what the fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I bought becoming so noisy that I sent it back.
Dave Plowman (News) - 03 Jul 2009 12:57 GMT > I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad > electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in > certain organ concertos, really almost disappeared. I really couldn't > see what the fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I > bought becoming so noisy that I sent it back. You're a few years apart. The original '57 would have been driven with Quad II valve amps. Or even just one. The first Quad transistor amp was the 303. Early 405s used a poor op amp which was changed for a better one shortly after introduction.
The original '57 was very room sensitive. Was your room approaching a cube? The bass output seemed to disappear in those. Worked best in a long room with the speakers across the narrow wall. Of course it only went down to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And the lack of resonances made it appear bass light compared to a honky cabinet speaker.
 Signature *Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
jasee - 03 Jul 2009 15:56 GMT >> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad >> electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And the lack of resonances > made it appear bass light compared to a honky cabinet speaker. I borrowed the quads for about a couple of weeks in London and they were with valve amps and yes the room was more of less square and the particular organ had a low 32cycle (IIRC) note which you simply couldn't hear at all. The 405 I bought myself later but changed for a Raford transistor amp which was simply worlds better. Never did like valves anyway.
The Natural Philosopher - 03 Jul 2009 19:42 GMT >>> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad >>> electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The 405 I bought myself later but changed for a Raford transistor amp which > was simply worlds better. Never did like valves anyway. The Radford WAS good, from distant hazy memory.
These days, with FET outputs and as long as you are prepared fr an amp that runs fairly hot, you can beat bipolars hands down really, and knock valves into the middle of the last century, where they belong ;-)
But there is no incentive to do that. People Want Valves, and a tranny amp handbuilt and tuned costing £700 is simply not there marketing wise when it come to the pure red glow of a few EL34's..
I liked the ELS for classical at modest volume, but they were hopeless for jazz or rock. My favorites were horns..good horns, with either bass reflex for the bottom, or infinite baffle. Never did build any concrete bass horns..
jasee - 03 Jul 2009 19:55 GMT >>>> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original >>>> quad electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > knock valves into the middle of the last century, where they belong > ;-) Quite right!
> But there is no incentive to do that. People Want Valves, and a tranny > amp handbuilt and tuned costing £700 is simply not there marketing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bass reflex for the bottom, or infinite baffle. Never did build any > concrete bass horns.. Transmission lines were the answer, Radford built a good one as did IMF (IIRC), but there were lots of homemade designs.
Alan White - 03 Jul 2009 22:59 GMT >Transmission lines were the answer, Radford built a good one as did IMF >(IIRC), but there were lots of homemade designs. I had a pair of TDL Monitors for some time driven by a QUAD 606 but changed them for ATC SCM 20SLs driven by AVI monoblocks for reasons which I can't remember. At that time we were listening to a lot of live classical music and the ATC/AVI combination was the only set up I've owned which didn't disappoint after returning home from a concert. We still have them, fourteen years on.
 Signature Alan White Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent. Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland. Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather
The Natural Philosopher - 04 Jul 2009 00:53 GMT >>>>> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original >>>>> quad electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Transmission lines were the answer, Radford built a good one as did IMF > (IIRC), but there were lots of homemade designs. Not for rock they weren't.
Too much dealy in em. Bass drums and guitar sounded crap...
The Natural Philosopher - 03 Jul 2009 19:37 GMT >> I can't remember being particularly impressed with the original quad >> electrostatics particularly with full orchestras and organs, as in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to about 40 Hz in the best of circumstances. And the lack of resonances > made it appear bass light compared to a honky cabinet speaker. IIRC they didn't go down that far at any power at all. ISTR about 100Hz plus..always needed a subwoofer IMHO, and sensitivity was pretty shocking.
I always felt the quad valves were good, but neither the 303 nor the 405 were in any way special: Certainly I was able to beat them with my own designs.
No idea what they are like now.
Clive - 05 Jul 2009 00:20 GMT >I always felt the quad valves were good, but neither the 303 nor the >405 were in any way special: Certainly I was able to beat them with my >own designs. H.W.Hellier wrote about the designs and the Quad triples, I seem to remember that these were more glowing than the later "feed forward" 405. When ever has there been a good Hi-Fi amp without a lot of feedback and a virtual earth point?
 Signature Clive
The Natural Philosopher - 05 Jul 2009 10:19 GMT >> I always felt the quad valves were good, but neither the 303 nor the >> 405 were in any way special: Certainly I was able to beat them with my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > When ever has there been a good Hi-Fi amp without a lot of feedback and > a virtual earth point? My own experience was that in chasing paper specs, a lot of relevant stuff got missed. By far and a way the largest issue with a transistor amp is the crossover distortion in a typical class B or AB style design. Unlike calves, this gets much worse at low levels..but due to the way valves work, it was usual to measure distortion at high power. And IKhz.
Whereas using a small 10KHz signal could often show ghastly distortion of several percent..
The key is to use modified class AB with bipolars, and run in class A for small signals, and also to try never to actually switch one side OFF, as that led to issues with time delay switching it back on: A nasty problem of thermal stability was then encountered.
The adoption of power FETS with much better frequency responses, negative temperature coefficients and low switch on delays made that almost a non problem.
Everyone used feedforward at some point to sharpen up transient response, and compensate for overall lag. .
Jim Lesurf - 06 Jul 2009 12:10 GMT > Whereas using a small 10KHz signal could often show ghastly distortion > of several percent..
> The key is to use modified class AB with bipolars, and run in class A > for small signals, and also to try never to actually switch one side > OFF, as that led to issues with time delay switching it back on: That was true in early days. However by the early 1980s I found that the main problem with audio power bipolars tended to be the switch-off time due to carrier storage in the base region.
That said, during that time the good japanese bipolars had pretty well cracked this and even with designs that delivered over 100wpc you could get negligable crossover problems even with bias of the order of 10mA per pair.
> A nasty problem of thermal stability was then encountered. Again, that was certainly a serious problem in early days, particularly if you used Ge devlces like the beloved <sic> AL102. :-) But provided you knew how to work out the stability margin and select the emitter resistor it wasn't so much of a problem by the early 1980s in my experience. By then makers could produce devices with consistent specs, unlike in earlier days when every device seemed like a 'one off special'. 8-]
> The adoption of power FETS with much better frequency responses, > negative temperature coefficients and low switch on delays made that > almost a non problem. Must admit I never liked power FETs for audio as the ones I tried years ago all liked to hoot at HF, had a habit of current limiting, and shoved capacitance where I didn't want it. But again this was in the 1980s so I imagine they rapidly improved and have been fine for some years.
Overall, I'd be happy to use amplifiers that employ either bipolar or fet if the designer has produced a decent result.
> Everyone used feedforward at some point to sharpen up transient > response, and compensate for overall lag. . Not sure I am "everyone" then. But my memory is fallible. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
 Signature Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
The Natural Philosopher - 06 Jul 2009 13:05 GMT >> The adoption of power FETS with much better frequency responses, >> negative temperature coefficients and low switch on delays made that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > capacitance where I didn't want it. But again this was in the 1980s so I > imagine they rapidly improved and have been fine for some years. That was merely a question of adapting your driving circuits.
A bit of gate resistance cured the hoot, and you just ended a lot of gate current to wake them up..
The 80's was when I gave up the whole game as not paying a decent wage, and turned to computers for income...
> Overall, I'd be happy to use amplifiers that employ either bipolar or fet > if the designer has produced a decent result. Well.. yes.
As with most things 'Hi-Fi' turned from being a high value specialist product sold to at least the semblance of a discerning public, to a mass market price sensitive product, where bullshit sold more amps than quality,.
Personally I blame socialism. Too much disposable income in the hands of people with no taste and even less discretion ;-)
Its the same with cars..until you actually drive a car that has any sort of handling at all, you cant work out what the fuss is about.
Having said that, I no longer do, nor do I really care much about the quality of the audio equipment I have.
In the end, I want to listen to the music, not the equipment. Being 'in the business' ruined the experience of a live rock concert for many years..
Jim Lesurf - 06 Jul 2009 15:28 GMT > >> The adoption of power FETS with much better frequency responses, > >> negative temperature coefficients and low switch on delays made that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > the 1980s so I imagine they rapidly improved and have been fine for > > some years.
> That was merely a question of adapting your driving circuits.
> A bit of gate resistance cured the hoot, and you just ended a lot of > gate current to wake them up.. Plus having engineered in another RC rolloff, probably with some included inductance. :-)
Yes, I did find that stopping the hoot that way was easy. Alas, my experience at the time was using that time-honoured method (as per grid stoppers of a pervious age) then fouled up the performance in some other way. So you then spent your time chasing other problems. There were other 'solutions' but again I decided they just shoved around where a snag popped up.
I'm sure FETs got better and this became a non-problem. But I decided in the 1980s that at that time they were more of a pain than bipolars, particularly when the japanese started producing some really superb audio power ones. so you could almost forget about secondary breakdown and carrier storage. And at that time I'd have needed quite a few FETs in parallel to get me the peak currents I wanted and the bipolars cheerfully provided. That was the days of apogees, etc. 8-]
> The 80's was when I gave up the whole game as not paying a decent wage, > and turned to computers for income... I went back into academia. If you can't beat em, teach em... er, I mean, learn more. :-)
> > Overall, I'd be happy to use amplifiers that employ either bipolar or > > fet if the designer has produced a decent result.
> Well.. yes.
> As with most things 'Hi-Fi' turned from being a high value specialist > product sold to at least the semblance of a discerning public, to a mass > market price sensitive product, where bullshit sold more amps than > quality,.
> Personally I blame socialism. Too much disposable income in the hands of > people with no taste and even less discretion ;-) I tend to point at the dealers who valued an exclusive dealership with a 40 percent markup over actually selling gear that simply did the job with no hype or an inflated price. But I guess 40 percent of a high price, and no local competition, was simply too tempting.
And of course 'reviewers' who moved to fantasy island when writing their articles. :-) The result was a decade or more where anyone who doubted the magic brands and bull was obviously not to be taken seriously. Hate to think how much damage that did to many makers and engineers who simply wanted to produce decent kit, but weren't in the magic circle. Jim Sugden springs to mind as an example I recall of someone who decided that the bull made the game one worth walking away from.
The remains are with us still. e.g. Mains cables that cost over a 1000 quid and have pretty blue lights on them to 'improve the sound', etc. <sigh>
> Having said that, I no longer do, nor do I really care much about the > quality of the audio equipment I have. It matters a lot to me for the reason you give below...
> In the end, I want to listen to the music, not the equipment. That's why I still care about the audio gear I use, and that I should use it in an optimum way. It allows me to enjoy the results more. But I do that in ways that do make engineering sense to me. Not by buying eyecandy or jewellery for audiophiles. :-)
> Being 'in the business' ruined the experience of a live rock concert for > many years.. Fortunately I realised after a few years that I was focussing on things like watching waveforms on a scope or trying to hear the quack from LS cones to find problems, not listening to music. Once I'd realised this I changed tack. I now rarely buy equipment and mostly just enjoy the music.
Most of the main gear I use for audio is decades old. Still works fine. And unlike a lot of modern kit is easy to fiddle with if needed.
I do still experiment and try to learn more, though. Most recent example being a look at using Linux boxes for playing audio. I was not surprised to find some problems, but pleased that they could be sorted out OK. If anyone is interested, the results are here
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Linux/Sound1/SoundComputing.html
However I do wonder how many people are listening to systems that are fudging up the sounds without them knowing this or that they can be improved. I was able to generate and measure test files to find the problems. But I guess most people can't/don't do this, and then presumably either think it is OK or if not, may blame something else.
Slainte,
Jim
 Signature Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Roy Brown - 06 Jul 2009 17:49 GMT In message <5076a55ba7noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writing at 15:28:44 in his/her local time opines:-
>> As with most things 'Hi-Fi' turned from being a high value specialist >> product sold to at least the semblance of a discerning public, to a mass [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >Jim Ah the Armstrong 223! I had one of these, and I well remember buying the stereo decoder add-on and installing it - thus becoming one of the pioneers in hearing the Northampton stereo 'birdies'.
Funny how 10 (genuine, RMS) watts could practically make your ears bleed back then, and my home cinema, today, alleges it puts out 850.
But the Rogers Cadet Mk III could certainly drive that pair of 8in Wharfedale RS/DDs, in their kit cabinet, and the Garrard SP25 with its cheap Goldring cartridge did the business.
That was entry level hi-fi back then, IIRC; but the gap between that and the 'finest' radiogram was a yawning chasm, populated by more coloration than a Disney cartoon.
And the finest radiogram was dearer than that system - though it did have space to store some LPs at least.
For me, it was never 'money no object' - it was always 'how cheap can I get good sound?'
What did for the old-style 'hi-fi', IMHO, was a closing of the gap - to the point where the second-best system in our house, a £180 JVC micro setup, needs close A/B listening to distinguish it from the Arcam CD/ Audiolab amp/ Spendor BC1s setup I now have; at 'normal' listening levels at least.
So no wonder hi-fi went three ways - cheap mug's-eyeful stuff that is no better than it should be; £kkk bling that says 'look at me' instead of 'listen to me'; and the honest but narrowing middle ground where the good stuff still wins out over the mass-produced - but you have to concentrate to hear the difference.
Hell, even the best MP3 players sounded like they were underwater until a few years back - but my iPod Touch (with Sennheiser PX200s, of course) beats my last-generation Sony Walkman cassette player into a cocked hat (and doesn't skip like my portable CD player, even though that may be a little better, objectively and subjectively, if I can keep it still while I play it).
But what about the modern, subjective, 'hi-fi' review? I have to confess they send me screaming as being just too unscientific and sometimes outright bullsh; but even back in the old days, I knew the 'B&K graph' reviews in HI-FI News were missing something, when the graphs from the Shure 75EJ stylus looked just like those from the 75ED - yet two seconds was all it took to tell them apart when you swapped them over.
And it was pretty 'subjective' when I took the Cadet to the local hi-fi repairer and said that it sounded sort of 'like a lorry struggling up a hill instead of the car cresting it that it always used to' - and he found the main power supply capacitor had failed, which sounded like a pretty plausible explanation.
Do cables make a difference? Sure they do. With Litz cables on my Luxman M300, whacking the treble over to full would make it oscillate rather badly.
Do they ever make a *good* difference? Pass. But to put the £30 Tesco DVD player with HDMI, on our 20in Bravia TV in the bedroom, I wasn't going to spend the same again on an HDMI cable (let alone the twice that, like the QEDs that feed BluRay to the 46in behemoth in the lounge), so I bought a £3.50 one.
Just for grins, though, I tried it in the lounge. None of us could see any difference, even on my THX demo disc (though in fairness that isn't BluRay, but other discs we tried were).
OTOH, £20 SCARTs showed a visible difference over in-box freebies.
But none of this was double-blind of course, so don't take my word for it :-)
 Signature Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris
The Natural Philosopher - 03 Jul 2009 13:37 GMT >>> I remember when the Quad electrostatic 65s finally came out (in the >>> 1970s, despite the name, which was based on when they started to design [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > fuss was about. And I remember the quad 405 amplifier I bought becoming so > noisy that I sent it back. Early quad transistor amps were crap really. I had one on the bench..
jasee - 02 Jul 2009 23:53 GMT >>> Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test >>> results as well. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > _subjective_ tests. (And as an engineer/scientist I'd certainly agree that > the technical data should be presented too.) A double blind test is a double blind test, whatever it is attempting to measure!
From the scientific point of view, you can test for anything and the results should show whether 'it' exists of not. And it doesn't matter if the human test subjects _are_ the sort of people who actually pay thousands of pounds on interconnections or dogged 'traditionalists'.
I think you're confusing the issue by mentioning subjectivity in connection with double blind tests: its simply not in it. Thats the point, subjectivity is ruled out. There has to be an objective difference for a postive result to show in a double blind test. If some aspect of musicality (or whatever) can be reliably observed in double blind tests, then it exists! There's no subjectivity about it. Of course it's always useful if you can back it up with some comparative technical data.
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL - 28 Jun 2009 16:00 GMT > Ah, good old Plowman logic at work: if you work on something therefore > you have low knowledge of what you're working on. Patently absurd, > just like all of Plowman's logic. I suspect Dave's comment is specifically about hi-fi magazines, and I'd tend to agree with him. They, after all, seem to have swallowed all of the cobblers spouted about expensive interconnects and the like.
L
 Signature --------------------------------------------------- "He's got arms like legs He's got hands on his feet He's got a nose like a doughnut He's got a tendency to over eat" --------------------------------------------------- Louis Barfe - www.louisbarfe.com - cheeseford.blogspot.com
DAB sounds worse than FM - 29 Jun 2009 02:22 GMT >> Ah, good old Plowman logic at work: if you work on something >> therefore [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of > the cobblers spouted about expensive interconnects and the like. I do write for one, but thankfully I'll never be asked to write about interconnects or anything like that. I do maintain though that subjective reviewing of hi-fi seperates is a worthwhile thing to do because there are quite large differences in sound and/or performance, and that people who do read the mags do end up with better kit than those that just chance their luck when they're buying separates, so I would always read a mag first if just to narrow things down before having a listen myself.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
The Natural Philosopher - 29 Jun 2009 06:37 GMT >>> Ah, good old Plowman logic at work: if you work on something >>> therefore [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > would always read a mag first if just to narrow things down before > having a listen myself. The trouble with subjective listening, is that sometimes it doesn't tell you much about the kit, more about how its set up, and the prejudices of the listener.
Having been involved in designing HiFi many years ago, I discovered that some people actually like distortion. And in A-B testing, if you didn't get the gains exactly right, there was a strong tendency to prefer the 'louder' system.
As far as post processing goes, my few excursions to the recording studios revealed that as well as the 'studio monitors' a lot of them also had a small pair of loudspeakers of indifferent design to 'mix for the tranny'. A LOT of pop tracks were deliberately pre-emphasised to sound good on indifferent kit, and never intended to be sold to people with expensive kit and aural discernment anyway.
Going back to FM, for me the killer source that always revealed whether a given setup was doing the business, was to listen to live applause. On a good set, it didn't sound like applause, its sounded like people clapping.. Probably the tendency to record it with a single pair if audience facing crossed mikes rather than balance it up with individual mikes, helps there, as well.
And when it comes to loudspeakers..well. Just don't EVER expect a transmission line bass to sound good on a bass guitar from a reggae band..
But superb for orchestral work.
Ian Smith - 27 Jun 2009 09:10 GMT > The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still > sounds better on FM. You undermine your own case by showing that don't actually listen to quality music and don't understand the real issues.
regards, Ian
DAB sounds worse than FM - 27 Jun 2009 17:29 GMT >> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still >> sounds better on FM. > > You undermine your own case by showing that don't actually listen to > quality music and don't understand the real issues. You think you know it all just because you made an FM receiver years ago and that automatically makes you an expert on DAB - er, no, pal, it does not, and the suggestion that I don't understand the real issues is laughable. I've literally forgotten more about this than you know.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Dave Plowman (News) - 26 Jun 2009 23:31 GMT > Radio 3 uses 192kbps. So there you go, much better and sensible use > of valuable bandwidth: 192kbps for R3, where high quality is > essential, 64kbps for R4 where it is mainly mono speech, and close > to that for modern music which is mainly speech and percussion. Ideal.
> You can't do that with FM. The sooner it gets switched over the > community radio the better. ;-)
 Signature *Many people quit looking for work when they find a job *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL - 27 Jun 2009 12:06 GMT > 64kbps for R4 where it is mainly mono speech, and close to that for > modern music which is mainly speech and percussion. Ideal. Mainly mono speech, but what about drama, which often makes full use of stereo?
L
 Signature --------------------------------------------------- "He's got arms like legs He's got hands on his feet He's got a nose like a doughnut He's got a tendency to over eat" --------------------------------------------------- Louis Barfe - www.louisbarfe.com - cheeseford.blogspot.com
Ian Smith - 25 Jun 2009 19:37 GMT >>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do you want > anyway? I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine. Better by far than the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM aerial. I gave my FM tuner away.
FM isn't being switched off. National networks are being transferred to DAB (+ DVB etc etc) and FM re-allocated to local 'community' radio.
There's no way I would sign - the faster we switch the better.
regards, Ian
DAB sounds worse than FM - 25 Jun 2009 19:57 GMT >>> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse >>> than [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine. I have a good tuner and the sound of DAB is absolutely dire compared to FM.
> Better by far than > the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM > aerial. I gave my FM tuner away. In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.
Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive higher qulaity on FM.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Ian Smith - 25 Jun 2009 21:46 GMT > In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area. There is some truth in that.
> Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has > reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive > higher qulaity on FM. Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning or not, I don't know.
I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near hiss-free on FM.
This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me crackly playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher.
Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it). Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
regards, Ian
tony sayer - 25 Jun 2009 22:02 GMT In article <YvidnZyq4cW7f97XnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >regards, Ian Blimey!, do you live next door to Dave Plowman;?..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News) - 26 Jun 2009 10:59 GMT > >Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher > >than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever > >tried it). Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to > >FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience. > > > >regards, Ian
> Blimey!, do you live next door to Dave Plowman;?.. Heh heh - my comments about poor FM reception round here didn't of course refer to all FM stations - and were also about when DAB was introduced. Since then the FM has been improved by a fill in transmitter. But I'm using FreeView now anyway for R4.
 Signature *When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
DAB sounds worse than FM - 25 Jun 2009 22:05 GMT >> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area. > > There is some truth in that. You said that you receive hissy FM even with a good aerial - that's basically the definition of crap FM reception quality.
>> Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who >> has >> reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive >> higher qulaity on FM. > > Well, most people don't agree with you. Sorry, what I said there is fact.
>Whether they are discerning > or not, I don't know. > > I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent > sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near > hiss-free on FM. The quality of your hi-fi system doesn't have any bearing on your reception quality - that's all to do with signal strength (and if you've got a decent aerial, which you said you have).
> This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Loads of people say that, but it's actually nothing like the CD vs vinyl discussion - both of those deliver high quality, whereas DAB doesn't deliver high quality but FM does.
>Vinyl have me > crackly playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD > gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag > says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher. I'm not commenting on this because it's a completely different argument.
> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher > than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever > tried it). Yeah, that's for YOU. But for anybody with good reception quality on both DAB and FM the quality on FM is better. Basically, if you understood the technologies that are used then FM basically can't be worse than DAB.
> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to > FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience. Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have stereo than mono.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Eps - 26 Jun 2009 09:45 GMT > Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's > in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have > stereo than mono. I am deaf in one ear, I wish all audio broadcasts were in mono.
In theory its easy to force mono on the receiving device but not that many actually let you.
Paul Martin - 26 Jun 2009 10:38 GMT >> Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's >> in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have >> stereo than mono.
> I am deaf in one ear, I wish all audio broadcasts were in mono.
> In theory its easy to force mono on the receiving device but not that > many actually let you. You're not Brian Wilson, are you? :-)
 Signature Paul Martin <pm@nowster.org.uk>
Roy Brown - 26 Jun 2009 11:45 GMT In message <slrnh495oh.8ma.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk>, Paul Martin <pm@nowster.org.uk> writing at 10:38:24 in his/her local time opines:-
>>> Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's >>> in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You're not Brian Wilson, are you? :-) It's a fallacy that someone who is deaf in one ear can't hear in stereo; and it's a fallacy that deprived us of stereo Beach Boys recordings for a long time :-(
While you indeed need two eyes for stereoscopic vision, the hearing mechanism works rather differently, and can perfectly well detect the phase and timing differences inherent in the sound from spread-out live sources arriving via different paths - including reflected paths.
It may well be, though, that the simulation of stereo obtained by pan-potting between two fixed point sources (loudspeakers) does not work so well for the single ear - though turning side on to them is worth trying.
But plain stereo over headphones certainly won't work....
 Signature Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 12:43 GMT In article <ufPtuJFWbKRKFwe1@x.x>, Roy Brown <Roy_now_free_from_spam@aca nthus.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In message <slrnh495oh.8ma.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk>, Paul Martin ><pm@nowster.org.uk> writing at 10:38:24 in his/her local time opines:- [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >But plain stereo over headphones certainly won't work.... A mate of mine is deaf in the one ear and has been that way since birth but how he can tell if something is stereo or not over speakers .. dunno quite how he does it!..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Bill Wright - 26 Jun 2009 13:03 GMT > In article <ufPtuJFWbKRKFwe1@x.x>, Roy Brown <Roy_now_free_from_spam@aca > nthus.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus > A mate of mine is deaf in the one ear and has been that way since birth > but how he can tell if something is stereo or not over speakers .. dunno > quite how he does it!.. You can do it if you move your head about. I had an infection and was as good as deaf in one ear but I could tell stereo once I wagged my head about a bit.
Nill
Dave Plowman (News) - 26 Jun 2009 13:23 GMT > But plain stereo over headphones certainly won't work.... Never had done even with two good ears. ;-)
 Signature *Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Ian Smith - 26 Jun 2009 19:43 GMT > Yeah, that's for YOU. But for anybody with good reception quality on > both DAB and FM the quality on FM is better. Basically, if you > understood the technologies that are used then FM basically can't be > worse than DAB. I designed and built by first stereo FM tuner when I was still at school, so I probably do understand it.
I have lived in many locations and I have never ever had what I consider to be an adequately listenable (HiFi) FM reception (for classical and operatic music, where very quiet periods can be common). Even with an FM feed over cable (where over modulation from the head-end kit causes problems with high-peak-level content) the overall listener experience is unacceptable. My experience is that FM will always have hiss if listened to on good equipment in any real-world situation. DAB doesn't. With a good aerial I have never heard any drop-out, burbling or twanging to interrupt my listening even with the most demanding programmes and the widest dynamic range over DAB.
Yes 'perfect' and 'idealised' FM is fairly good, but you just don't get it very often. Add to this that the trade-off between hiss and over-modulation with classical and operatic content is impossible to reconcile with FM. You can also frequently hear tearing of the high audio frequencies where the demodulator is unable to follow the HF audio content - even with good tuners. The average Pure Evoke DAB portable will produce better audio performance on this sort of programme content when plumbed through a good system.
The majority of people rate DAB quality to be higher than FM. Fact. This is also my experience.
>> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to >> FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience. > > Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's > in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have > stereo than mono. You obviously didn't read what I wrote, did you? You responded with the same futile point.
regards, Ian
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 21:17 GMT In article <vt-dnT9ylJYki9jXnZ2dnUVZ8oOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>> Yeah, that's for YOU. But for anybody with good reception quality on >> both DAB and FM the quality on FM is better. Basically, if you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >even with the most demanding programmes and the widest dynamic range >over DAB. Jeezzzz just where do you, and have you lived?..
>Yes 'perfect' and 'idealised' FM is fairly good, but you just don't >get it very often. Add to this that the trade-off between hiss and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >regards, Ian
 Signature Tony Sayer
DAB sounds worse than FM - 26 Jun 2009 23:24 GMT >> Yeah, that's for YOU. But for anybody with good reception quality >> on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I designed and built by first stereo FM tuner when I was still at > school, so I probably do understand it. If you do understand FM then you'd know that the BBC uses NICAM to distribute the audio to the transmitters around teh country, so that anybody who receives an FM signal with a high signal to noise ratio is effectively listening to NICAM-encoded audio. NICAM uses a bit rate of 728 kbps, whereas DAB typically uses a bit rate of 128 kbps. Hopefully I don't need to spell out to you which one is going to sound better. Hint: it ain't DAB.
And if you understand how digital audio coding works then you'd be able to see from the plots on the following page why it's so obvious that NICAM provides higher quality than MP2 even at 192 kbps (because the plots for MP2 are for 192 kbps):
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/nicam_vs_mp2.htm
Basically, audio artefacts (i.e. degradation of quality in other words) are caused by the level of quantisation noise being too high. As you can see from those plots the quantisation noise is far, far higher on MP2 than it is on NICAM.
> I have lived in many locations and I have never ever had what I > consider to be an adequately listenable (HiFi) FM reception (for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > FM will always have hiss if listened to on good equipment in any > real-world situation. I've been reviewing radio products for a hi-fi magazine for the last 3 - 4 years, so I've probably reviewed about 10 DAB/FM tuners and a handful of FM/AM tuners. Radio 3 sounds dull and lacking in detail on DAB, whereas it sounds very good on FM. The biggest difference is on the other music stations though which use bit rates of 128 or 112 kbps, because they simply sound dire on DAB.
> DAB doesn't. With a good aerial I have never > heard any drop-out, burbling or twanging to interrupt my listening > even with the most demanding programmes and the widest dynamic range > over DAB. All I can say is that you clearly aren't aware what you're missing on FM.
BTW, Radio 3's Internet radio stream is now using 192 kbps AAC, and that's at far higher quality than DAB, so if you do like listening digitally you're not even listening to the best digtial source!
> Yes 'perfect' and 'idealised' FM is fairly good, Utterly ridiculous. I've heard FM sound fantastic on a good tuner. What you've just said proves that you can't ever have heard good let alone perfect FM reception. Either that or you've simply got a bad memory, or you're just making things up to try and prove a point.
> but you just don't > get it very often. Funny that, because I've lived in various parts of the country and I've never had a problem receiving the BBC's stations.
> Add to this that the trade-off between hiss and > over-modulation with classical and operatic content is impossible to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > portable will produce better audio performance on this sort of > programme content when plumbed through a good system. Now you're just being ridiculous.
> The majority of people rate DAB quality to be higher than FM. Fact. > This is also my experience. The vast majority of DAB owners have a DAB portable radio where the audio quality isn't so much of an issue.
>>> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to >>> FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You obviously didn't read what I wrote, did you? You responded with > the same futile point. What, so it's "futile point" for people to want to hear programmes on Radio 4 in stereo when they've been made in stereo, not in mono, which Radio 4 is frequently in teh evenings when Radio 5 Sports Extra is on-air.
Anywaym, you enjoy the low quality on DAB.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 10:39 GMT > If you do understand FM then you'd know that the BBC uses NICAM to > distribute the audio to the transmitters around teh country, so that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't need to spell out to you which one is going to sound better. > Hint: it ain't DAB. Well knowing how FM works doed NOT imply that you therefore know about NICAM, cos I do understand FM, but didnt know that. 728Lbps sounds to me like 'almost CD quality'
> And if you understand how digital audio coding works then you'd be > able to see from the plots on the following page why it's so obvious [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > As you can see from those plots the quantisation noise is far, far > higher on MP2 than it is on NICAM. Sounds about right..
> I've been reviewing radio products for a hi-fi magazine for the last > 3 - 4 years, so I've probably reviewed about 10 DAB/FM tuners and a > handful of FM/AM tuners. Radio 3 sounds dull and lacking in detail on > DAB, whereas it sounds very good on FM. The biggest difference is on > the other music stations though which use bit rates of 128 or 112 > kbps, because they simply sound dire on DAB. I bet you listen on some bloody expensive kit..all my output sounds dull and lacking in detail because my studio monitors died...;-)
> All I can say is that you clearly aren't aware what you're missing on > FM. I never was able to get much better than a rated 65dB S/n ratio on FM mono, degrading to about 60dB on stereo.
Thats not CD quality. Which is our digital target. Presumably.
> BTW, Radio 3's Internet radio stream is now using 192 kbps AAC, and > that's at far higher quality than DAB, so if you do like listening > digitally you're not even listening to the best digtial source! Yes, I did put on some radio 23 online, and even over the cheapest PC speakers, it was remarkably good.
> Utterly ridiculous. I've heard FM sound fantastic on a good tuner. > What you've just said proves that you can't ever have heard good let > alone perfect FM reception. Either that or you've simply got a bad > memory, or you're just making things up to try and prove a point. I can agree. FM can be remarkably good if you spend a lot of money on the kit. If you dont, it can be vile. I've got a Sony mini hifi (sic!) system here - cost about 100 quid..and even plugged into the main aerial it hisses and burbles. The proper Sony tuner in the living room is *way* better.
> Funny that, because I've lived in various parts of the country and > I've never had a problem receiving the BBC's stations. BUT you probably spend the money on a decent aerial coax and tuner. If uyou dont, a rabbits ears portable is going to sound a lot better on DAB. And that is a very serious point.
For a crappo portable, its probably easier to get better DAB than FM.
You are making the reverse point, that at current levels of whatever, a really good radio will sound better on FM than on DAB.
I dont see there is inconsistency here at all.
>> Add to this that the trade-off between hiss and >> over-modulation with classical and operatic content is impossible to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Now you're just being ridiculous. No, that is the exact symptoms of a crappo portable FM radio.
>> The majority of people rate DAB quality to be higher than FM. Fact. >> This is also my experience. > > The vast majority of DAB owners have a DAB portable radio where the > audio quality isn't so much of an issue. Now you begin to see the issue. A portable DAB outperforms a cheap portable FM.
> What, so it's "futile point" for people to want to hear programmes on > Radio 4 in stereo when they've been made in stereo, not in mono, which > Radio 4 is frequently in teh evenings when Radio 5 Sports Extra is > on-air. > > Anywaym, you enjoy the low quality on DAB. As many do.
Look, you have all the technical answers..why not petition to get say 512Kbps quality stations instead?
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 19:33 GMT >For a crappo portable, its probably easier to get better DAB than FM. NP you may not realise that you almost live -under- a DAB transmitter;!...
>You are making the reverse point, that at current levels of whatever, a >really good radio will sound better on FM than on DAB. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> portable will produce better audio performance on this sort of >>> programme content when plumbed through a good system. Christ mate!, I'll see what the levels are like out your way next!...
 Signature Tony Sayer
Dave Higton - 26 Jun 2009 21:13 GMT > Basically, if you understood the technologies that are used then FM > basically can't be worse than DAB. I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM broadcasts, once received, are subject to intermodulation and harmonic distortions. DAB isn't. It is very much like the vinyl versus CD and valves versus transistors arguments.
Dave
Roderick Stewart - 26 Jun 2009 21:47 GMT > I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB > because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM > broadcasts, once received, are subject to intermodulation and > harmonic distortions. DAB isn't. It is very much like the vinyl > versus CD and valves versus transistors arguments. My apologies for repeating myself, but this silly argument seems to have been repeated a few times and needs nailing down.
Saying that a comparison between FM and DAB is like a comparison between vinyl and CD is nuts. DAB uses destructive digital bit-rate reduction; CD doesn't. CD audio is sampled at more than twice the highest frequency most people can hear, with enough bits to give a dynamic range greater than any mechanical gramophone system and certainly well beyond that of a typical living room, and then no information is thrown away. None at all. It's better than FM, better than gramophone records, better than tape cassetes, and it stays that way all the way to the customer.
The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before the signal even gets to the transmitter.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
Dave Higton - 26 Jun 2009 22:36 GMT > The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such > a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even > theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before > the signal even gets to the transmitter. Absolutely. What's removed is the stuff you can't hear anyway.
Dave
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 10:16 GMT >> The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such >> a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even >> theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before >> the signal even gets to the transmitter. > > Absolutely. What's removed is the stuff you can't hear anyway. No, that's not true.
You can hear the results of highly compressed audio as you can see the effects of highly compressed video.
But the question remains as to why they do DESTRUCTIVE compression when actually they don't need to do it if they use a little bit MORE bandwidth.
As I said earlier, the only thing you cant compress non destructively is full power white noise. Remarkably similar to applause as it happens..;-)
Everything else can be with total silence being teh most compressible thing there is :-)
Neither do they use modulation schemas that would allow variable channel bandwidths AFAIK.
> Dave Roderick Stewart - 27 Jun 2009 11:32 GMT > > The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such > > a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even > > theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before > > the signal even gets to the transmitter. > > Absolutely. What's removed is the stuff you can't hear anyway. That's the theory. Unfortunately in reality the "stuff you can't hear" depends on what sort of stuff it is, and who's doing the hearing of it.
Another issue is the damage done to the stuff that's left behind by the action of removing the stuff you allegedly can't hear. Nothing like it happens when an analogue signal gathers a little bit of superimposed hiss.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
DAB sounds worse than FM - 27 Jun 2009 17:38 GMT >>> The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in >>> such [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > depends on what sort of stuff it is, and who's doing the hearing of > it. You hear lots of stuff that shouldn't be there - just look at the following graph:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/images/soulodre_listening_test_500w.gif
Quality always goes down with bit rate, so if it only removes bits we can't hear then why aren't all those graphs at CD-quality level?
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
DAB sounds worse than FM - 27 Jun 2009 17:35 GMT > In message > <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Absolutely. What's removed is the stuff you can't hear anyway. What complete and utter nonsense. Here's a figure of audio quality for a few different audio codecs versus bit rate:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/images/soulodre_listening_test_500w.gif
If MP2 only "removed the stuff you can't hear anyway" ALL audio codecs at ALL bit rates would produce CD-quality, which is utter nonsense.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Dave Higton - 29 Jun 2009 21:00 GMT > > I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB > > because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before > the signal even gets to the transmitter. Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a reduction of quality, which is all down to perception.
You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a few parts per million.
Dave
tony sayer - 29 Jun 2009 21:50 GMT In article <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>> > I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB >> > because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Dave Yes of course the DAB system should be better, how many bits do you think it needs in practice?..
Mind you good FM demod systems don't have -that- much distortion;)..
 Signature Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher - 30 Jun 2009 10:38 GMT > In article <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton > <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Mind you good FM demod systems don't have -that- much distortion;).. No. 0.1% mono and 0.3% stereo was what I got with the RCA chipset. In 1975.
tony sayer - 30 Jun 2009 11:10 GMT In article <h2cmf5$49k$6@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>> In article <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton >> <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >No. 0.1% mono and 0.3% stereo was what I got with the RCA chipset. In 1975. Its improved a bit since then .. 'tho the bits have dropped otherwise;!..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Roderick Stewart - 30 Jun 2009 07:04 GMT > > The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such > > a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a > reduction of quality, which is all down to perception. Whose perception?
My perception is that it doesn't sound as good as the system we've been accustomed to for the past half century. Why change to a worse one? Why should my listening be compromised by decisions made by people with cloth ears?
> You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and > being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably > introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic > distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so > that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a > few parts per million. All true, but all that's happened is that we've swapped analogue distortions for digital ones. Some of the analogue distortions are similar to things that occur in nature, whereas the digital distortions, particularly the ones resulting from bit-rate reduction, are highly unnatural. Maybe that's why FM sounds tolerable while DAB sounds so awful.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
The Natural Philosopher - 30 Jun 2009 10:37 GMT >>> I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB >>> because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a > few parts per million. Sadly though, it isn't.
> Dave Dave Higton - 30 Jun 2009 16:14 GMT > > You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and > > being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > Sadly though, it isn't. Please explain what you mean.
Dave
The Natural Philosopher - 01 Jul 2009 02:19 GMT >>> You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and >>> being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dave "The DAB system *can* be engineered..." " Sadly though, it isn't."
Fredxx - 30 Jun 2009 17:19 GMT > In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> > Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a > few parts per million. The point is that analogue systems are generally very linear by design, even if individual components aren't. The major distortion as such is that the bandwidth may not be perfectly flat, but our ears are fairly tolerant to such errors.
Don't forget that our ears aren't entirely linear!
DAB on the other hand has an alarmingly low bit rate. The consequence is where the decoded signal doesn't follow the original.
The Natural Philosopher - 01 Jul 2009 02:25 GMT >> In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> >> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > The point is that analogue systems are generally very linear by design, even > if individual components aren't. Not really. We are lucky that we have one relatively linear component - the resistor, and by using feedback with THOSE we can achieve pretty low distortion set-ups from VERY badly distorting components..transistors and FETS.
>The major distortion as such is that the > bandwidth may not be perfectly flat, That is not a distortion.
And its pretty possible to build an amplifier flat from DC to well over 100Khz.
In the video game, flat to 50Mhz is on the cards, but the power is not as high. A few watts, not a few hundred.
but our ears are fairly tolerant to
> such errors. Indeed. What our ears really do NOT like is high order harmonics and intermodulation products. The harmonics we hear as 'edginess' and the intermodulation we hear as lack of clarity or muddiness.
> Don't forget that our ears aren't entirely linear! > > DAB on the other hand has an alarmingly low bit rate. The consequence is > where the decoded signal doesn't follow the original. Precisely. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the digits: the implementation is just crap, thats all.
Fredxx - 01 Jul 2009 11:38 GMT >>> In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> >>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > distortion set-ups from VERY badly distorting components..transistors and > FETS. I was thinking of demodualtors, which don't rely upon resisitors to give a linear response. It's normally inherent in their transfer characteristic.
>>The major distortion as such is that the bandwidth may not be perfectly >>flat, > > That is not a distortion. Anything where the output does not follow an input IS a distortion. That includes frequency response. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion
> And its pretty possible to build an amplifier flat from DC to well over > 100Khz. > > In the video game, flat to 50Mhz is on the cards, but the power is not as > high. A few watts, not a few hundred. Video does not demand the same dynamic range as audio.
> but our ears are fairly tolerant to >> such errors. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Precisely. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the digits: the > implementation is just crap, thats all. Agreed. And the idea of having 2 different DAB systems!
Clive - 06 Jul 2009 22:05 GMT >>The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such >> a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a >few parts per million. A lot of this is rubbish, so what if curtailed sidebands cause distortion in FM The filters in the receiver filter out everything over 15kHz, leaving a nice clean signal for the listeners.
 Signature Clive
The Natural Philosopher - 06 Jul 2009 22:57 GMT >>> The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such >>> a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > distortion in FM The filters in the receiver filter out everything over > 15kHz, leaving a nice clean signal for the listeners. I see you simply have not followed the technical details.
ALL of the stereo information is at 38Khz +-, and has sidebqands going out to god knows where.
Any phase shifts over the IF passband lead to quite sever distortion all over the place.
FM is better than AM, but real quality it ain't. Wiki reckons its about 96Kbps equivalent data rate, and I reckon that's not far off.
Roderick Stewart - 07 Jul 2009 05:35 GMT > FM is better than AM, but real quality it ain't. Wiki reckons its about > 96Kbps equivalent data rate, and I reckon that's not far off. Does this mean that FM is supposed to have audio quality that is "equivalent" to that of audio encoded at 96kbps. If this is the case, then I wonder how they are judging it, because my ears tell me otherwise. It's easy to make up numbers that "prove" things, but unless it can be shown how the numbers relate to real life, they are meaningless.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
Jim Lesurf - 07 Jul 2009 09:40 GMT > > FM is better than AM, but real quality it ain't. Wiki reckons its > > about 96Kbps equivalent data rate, and I reckon that's not far off.
> Does this mean that FM is supposed to have audio quality that is > "equivalent" to that of audio encoded at 96kbps. If this is the case, > then I wonder how they are judging it, because my ears tell me > otherwise. It's easy to make up numbers that "prove" things, but unless > it can be shown how the numbers relate to real life, they are > meaningless. If you ignore nonlinearity problems then you can estimate the inherent information bandwidth from Shannon. The result depends on what value you think is appropriate for the output dynamic range. But for the sake of example if we assume a range equivalent to 13 bits per LPCM sample, and a minimim sampling rate (per channel) of 30ksamples/sec you end up with 13 x 30000 x 2 = 780 kbps.
The real value will certainly be different to that. But the channel capacity of a decent TX/RX link should be rather more than 96kbps.
If the above is based on assuming some specific lossy coding system and type of audible material, then it may tell us more about the choice of coding system and test material than it does about FM. :-)
FWIW I do now tend to prefer both DTTV and the aac iPlayer to FM for my listening to BBC R3, R4, etc. But I would not use that to argue that FM has an information bandwidth below, say, 192kbps.
Slainte,
Jim
 Signature Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
The Natural Philosopher - 07 Jul 2009 12:24 GMT >> FM is better than AM, but real quality it ain't. Wiki reckons its about >> 96Kbps equivalent data rate, and I reckon that's not far off. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > easy to make up numbers that "prove" things, but unless it can be shown > how the numbers relate to real life, they are meaningless. Well I don't know the answer to that. But certainly even on a good antenna system here, FM is nothing to write home about.
> Rod. Jim Lesurf - 07 Jul 2009 09:32 GMT > FM is better than AM, but real quality it ain't. Wiki reckons its about > 96Kbps equivalent data rate, and I reckon that's not far off. I would not be as critical as that of FM provided it is broadcast with care and the link/RX work well. It can deliver excellent sounding results. I've certainly enjoyed broadcasts for many years. Only real anoyance for me tends to be the limited dynamic range and the tendency for ignition interference to be audible in quite passages on R3.
If you ignore the nonlinearity problems then the nominal information bandwidth is rather more than 96kbps. Assuming good RX SNR, etc.
Slainte,
Jim
 Signature Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Jim Lesurf - 07 Jul 2009 09:24 GMT > >>The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in > >> such a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > distortion in FM The filters in the receiver filter out everything over > 15kHz, leaving a nice clean signal for the listeners. I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products are folded back as complex intermodulation by the FM and stereo decoding processes. Hence the distortion can indeed appear below 15kHz in the actual output.
And in other cases it appears at harmonics of the intended frequency, so a 2kHz tone can give distortion at multiples of this up to 15kHz.
Slainte,
Jim
 Signature Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Clive - 08 Jul 2009 00:22 GMT >I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products are >folded back as complex intermodulation by the FM and stereo decoding [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >And in other cases it appears at harmonics of the intended frequency, so a >2kHz tone can give distortion at multiples of this up to 15kHz. Where I live FM rules. Digital may have pretences above their station (pun not intended) but in straight listening tests are rubbish compared to the FM in this part of the woods.
 Signature Clive
Jim Lesurf - 08 Jul 2009 09:08 GMT > >I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products > >are folded back as complex intermodulation by the FM and stereo [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And in other cases it appears at harmonics of the intended frequency, > >so a 2kHz tone can give distortion at multiples of this up to 15kHz.
> Where I live FM rules. Digital may have pretences above their station > (pun not intended) but in straight listening tests are rubbish compared > to the FM in this part of the woods. I note your opinion and point out it has nothing to do with what I wrote that you quoted above it. :-)
My point was to inform you and others that your earlier assertion that
> A lot of this is rubbish, so what if curtailed sidebands cause > distortion in FM The filters in the receiver filter out everything over > 15kHz, leaving a nice clean signal for the listeners. Is simply incorrect or misleading. I've re-quoted you here as you snipped away the context which may have mislead people again.
The simple engineering reality is that the use of a finite bandwidth for real-world TX and RX reasons leads to distortion for FM links. This arises from the defined nature of FM. The details of the distortion depend on the details of the modulation and link.
If you doubt this you can look at the maths, and/or get yourself some IF filters of various widths and flatness/phase specs and see what they do to a stereo FM signal. My comments are based on having done both of these things on a number of occasions in the past. Plus knowing the results of other engineers who have done so.
Provided signal modulation levels and frequencies are kept modest this distortion can be kept to a very low level. But higher modulation levels, etc, particularly for stereo, can lead to higher distortion. Some of this will appear in the region below 15kHz when the signals are demodulated and presented as stereo.
Alas, there is a tendency in recent years for broadcasters to level compress the modulation to make it 'louder'. This will tend to increase the distortion generated by the FM link. Although I can't say if this is more of a pest than the way the level compression itself fudges up the sound.
:-) That said, my own opinion is that - having enjoyed FM for many decades - I find that nowdays I have come to prefer either DTTV or the aac iPlayer [1] for listening to BBC radio. Both of these are 'digital'. However this personal preference isn't because of the distortion that can arise on FM, so also has nothing to do with the above. It is for other reasons like interference, background noise level, etc, for R3. Also because in recent years there has been a tendency for R3 on FM to have more level compression applied than on DTTV.
Slainte,
Jim
[1] Tennis permitting. :-)
 Signature Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Clive - 08 Jul 2009 11:06 GMT >I note your opinion and point out it has nothing to do with what I wrote >that you quoted above it. :-) I note what you say and maintain that FM is better here in the Lake District that digital, however, anything that I said that may be offensive I apologise for and blame several large cans of Fosters:-)
 Signature Clive
The Natural Philosopher - 08 Jul 2009 11:48 GMT >> I note your opinion and point out it has nothing to do with what I wrote >> that you quoted above it. :-) > I note what you say and maintain that FM is better here in the Lake > District that digital, however, anything that I said that may be > offensive I apologise for and blame several large cans of Fosters:-) Well I am listening to the cricket on the Beeb's digital internet stream. It sure is a lot better than AM!! :-)
can we all agfree that
- FM is better than AM - Good digital is better than FM - Current DAB is not good digital. - depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology is, current digital may or may not be better than FM
And leave it at that.
Clive - 08 Jul 2009 17:32 GMT >Well I am listening to the cricket on the Beeb's digital internet >stream. It sure is a lot better than AM!! :-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >And leave it at that. Agreed.
 Signature Clive
Alistair Biggar - 31 Jul 2009 19:02 GMT Fosters is good, however I remember in the 70's the BBC doing a blind test on speakers, and behind a large acoustic cloth were hidden some speakers. LS5/1A, LS5/8's LS3/5A and whatever else they had. When the music was played, the so called Sound Supervisors (Sound Balancers) complained at each piece of music that was played "A little too much top on that one!!" " Alittle too much distortion on that piece " Not enough bass, speakers are rubbish". It was only at that point that the curtains were withdrawn to show a full 16 piece orchestra!!!
>>> I note your opinion and point out it has nothing to do with what I wrote >>> that you quoted above it. :-) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And leave it at that. Dave Plowman (News) - 01 Aug 2009 01:15 GMT > Fosters is good, however I remember in the 70's the BBC doing a blind > test on speakers, and behind a large acoustic cloth were hidden some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > enough bass, speakers are rubbish". It was only at that point that the > curtains were withdrawn to show a full 16 piece orchestra!!! I worked for the BBC TV in the sound department in the '70s and that's the first I've heard of that one. Apart from anything else do you know the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra?
If it had happened it would soon have been reported throughout the industry.
 Signature *Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Nigel Cliffe - 01 Aug 2009 11:14 GMT >> Fosters is good, however I remember in the 70's the BBC doing a >> blind test on speakers, and behind a large acoustic cloth were [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If it had happened it would soon have been reported throughout the > industry. It sounds to me like a tale which grew with each re-telling, but may have truth in the origins. The real beginning could have been one of the demonstrations of Quad Electrostatic speakers from (I think) the 1950's, with an A-B comparison from live to recording and speakers. I'm pretty sure that happened, though I can't put my hand on any documentation.
- Nigel
 Signature Nigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Dave Plowman (News) - 01 Aug 2009 15:03 GMT > > I worked for the BBC TV in the sound department in the '70s and > > that's the first I've heard of that one. Apart from anything else do > > you know the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra? > > > > If it had happened it would soon have been reported throughout the > > industry.
> It sounds to me like a tale which grew with each re-telling, but may > have truth in the origins. The real beginning could have been one of > the demonstrations of Quad Electrostatic speakers from (I think) the > 1950's, with an A-B comparison from live to recording and speakers. > I'm pretty sure that happened, though I can't put my hand on any > documentation. The 16 piece orchestra would have had to play *very* quietly if a single Quad '57 were to match it. Plus the fact that anyone could have told by the spread of sound that one was a mono source.
If you make it a single instrument, things change. I remember being impressed with just how close a sax sounded when recorded on a 4038 and played back on an LUS10 - both '50s technology.
IMHO, speech is the real giveaway.
 Signature *Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Nigel Cliffe - 01 Aug 2009 16:04 GMT >>> I worked for the BBC TV in the sound department in the '70s and >>> that's the first I've heard of that one. Apart from anything else do [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > single Quad '57 were to match it. Plus the fact that anyone could > have told by the spread of sound that one was a mono source. It may have been a solo instrument. As I said, I won't be able to find the documentation on this, though suspect its in an article of about 25 years ago. Around that time I had an extensive tour of Quad's facilities in Huntingdon with a few other students interested in achoustics from Cambridge University (I was studying perception of audio at the time).
I'm also quite prepared to be shown to have a faulty memory on it. I was only putting it forward as a possible source for an urban myth.
> If you make it a single instrument, things change. I remember being > impressed with just how close a sax sounded when recorded on a 4038 > and played back on an LUS10 - both '50s technology. > > IMHO, speech is the real giveaway. I agree on both counts, good single instruments are hard to tell apart, speech seems surprisingly easy. I suspect that is in part internal psycho-achoustics, people have massive perceptual resources devoted to speech processing.
- Nigel
 Signature Nigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Anahata - 01 Aug 2009 13:32 GMT > Apart from anything else do you know > the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra? The BBC employ several orchestras already. It wouldn't have been hard to borrow 16 players from the radio orchestra for example (which is a recordings-only 9-5 job) for a stunt like this.
 Signature Anahata anahata@treewind.co.uk -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
Dave Plowman (News) - 01 Aug 2009 15:14 GMT > > Apart from anything else do you know > > the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra?
> The BBC employ several orchestras already. It wouldn't have been hard to > borrow 16 players from the radio orchestra for example (which is a > recordings-only 9-5 job) for a stunt like this. You obviously never worked for the BBC if you think TV could easily borrow things from radio...
Besides, it still doesn't explain how it's been kept such a secret. Until now.
 Signature *I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
PeterC - 01 Aug 2009 17:07 GMT >>> Apart from anything else do you know >>> the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You obviously never worked for the BBC if you think TV could easily borrow > things from radio... A friend who was also a senior sound engineer for BBC TV lent one of his chaps to R3. The chap came back rather shaken at the lax attitude towards times - 2 sec. on TV would be poor; 2 min. on R3 is normal.
 Signature Peter. The head of a pin will hold more angels if it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.
J. P. Gilliver (John) - 02 Aug 2009 16:33 GMT []
>A friend who was also a senior sound engineer for BBC TV lent one of his >chaps to R3. The chap came back rather shaken at the lax attitude towards >times - 2 sec. on TV would be poor; 2 min. on R3 is normal. Ah, those were the days ... several minutes out (usually late, and with trailers left in to ad to the insult) is now far from unusual in TV; if anything, radio's probably _better_ (though I admit I'm not much of an R3 listener).
 Signature J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I hate the guys that criticize the enterprise of other guys whose enterprise has made them rise above the guys who criticize!" (W9BRD, former editor of "How's DX?" column in "QST")
Brian Gaff - 01 Aug 2009 01:22 GMT Well, all I can tell you is that when dab first started, the quality was better than FM, mainly signal to noise etc it has to be said, but now its sounding gritty, and lacking in detail, so either their equipment is crap, or the bit rate really has been turned down. I assume R7 and r4 are still often in mono on dab to save data as well, when the freeview feed of r7 and the fm feed of r4 are in stereo. sigh.
Mind you, if we got rid of the clone commercials, and replaced them with one quality commercial station there would be plenty of data bandwidth. After all, most of your Heart/capital/Q/ whatever, are compressed to the enth degree and probably sourced from rubbish mp3s in the first place.
Brian
 Signature Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Fosters is good, however I remember in the 70's the BBC doing a blind > test on speakers, and behind a large acoustic cloth were hidden some [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> And leave it at that. The Natural Philosopher - 01 Aug 2009 05:26 GMT > Well, all I can tell you is that when dab first started, the quality was > better than FM, mainly signal to noise etc it has to be said, but now its [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Brian Well I have now got a USB digital TV stock for this computer!
Most radio stations on it are about the same as online quality as far as I can tell. WAY better than FM noise wise.
Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news is absolute rubbish quality.
Zero Tolerance - 01 Aug 2009 11:39 GMT >Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news >is absolute rubbish quality. Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate channels on Freeview......
--
The Natural Philosopher - 01 Aug 2009 14:53 GMT >> Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news >> is absolute rubbish quality. > > Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate > channels on Freeview...... Yes. Surprised me too.
It looks to me like its sent precompressed down to a satellite channel..;-)
You notice it when e.g. sky sports clips of cricket pop up in BBC news 24. Way lower quality.
Zero Tolerance - 02 Aug 2009 17:58 GMT >It looks to me like its sent precompressed down to a satellite channel..;-) > >You notice it when e.g. sky sports clips of cricket pop up in BBC news >24. Way lower quality. That's because News 24 record Sky Sports off-air from a digibox. (And then for some inexplicable reason subject the footage to a series of unnecessary aspect ratio conversions - or at least they used to...)
Nonetheless neither of those things would explain an alleged poor picture quality on Sky News itself. --
J G Miller - 01 Aug 2009 15:12 GMT > Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate channels > on Freeview......
Maybe he was referring to the program content or presentation.
And just because a station is transmitted with high bitrate, does not mean that the audio/video quality of the feed which goes to the high bitrate transmission is of the finest quality.
The Natural Philosopher - 01 Aug 2009 15:20 GMT > > Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate channels > > on Freeview...... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the audio/video quality of the feed which goes to the high bitrate > transmission is of the finest quality. I can only conclude that that is indeed the case.
Having a full screen telly on this 1280 x 1024 screen has been a bit of a revelation. F1 coverage is rather poor, picture wise. Then cut back to the studio, and its suddenly much higher definition.
I've just stuck SKY Sports news on
the reported codec/resolutin is
25 frames a second MPEG audio, 720x576pixels.
None of the other channels report the resolution.
Mark Carver - 01 Aug 2009 16:23 GMT se.
> Having a full screen telly on this 1280 x 1024 screen has been a bit of > a revelation. F1 coverage is rather poor, picture wise. Then cut back to > the studio, and its suddenly much higher definition. Yes, but if the studio picture isn't very 'busy' it will look better than lots of movement and detail on the F1 track. Detail and movement is bad news for MPEG coding, random movement such as running water or smoke a disaster.
> I've just stuck SKY Sports news on > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > None of the other channels report the resolution. I don't understand that. Are you saying that your receiver can only report the resolution on SSN, and no other channel ? There's nothing in the channel's data stream that can inhibit a receiver to report such detail.
FWIW BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, ITV 1, C4, and 5 were all at either 720x576 or 704x576 on DTT last time I looked.
 Signature Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
www.paras.org.uk
The Natural Philosopher - 01 Aug 2009 16:51 GMT > se. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > FWIW BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, ITV 1, C4, and 5 were all at either 720x576 or > 704x576 on DTT last time I looked. Probably software then. Its pretty basic on this machine. Totem-Xine.
Kennedy McEwen - 02 Aug 2009 02:39 GMT >I don't understand that. Are you saying that your receiver can only >report the resolution on SSN, and no other channel ? There's nothing in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >FWIW BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, ITV 1, C4, and 5 were all at either 720x576 or >704x576 on DTT last time I looked. That is only the intended final display format. It says nothing at all about the compression/corruption prior to transmission at any stage of the link.
 Signature Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
PeterC - 01 Aug 2009 17:10 GMT > > Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate channels > > on Freeview...... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the audio/video quality of the feed which goes to the high bitrate > transmission is of the finest quality. This was very noticeable during le Tour on ITV4: motorbikes adequate when in the clear, helicopter good on scenery, then a bit better for the commentators. The feed from the 'bikes was from lightweight cameras and had many stages to pass through.
 Signature Peter. The head of a pin will hold more angels if it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.
Andy Burns - 01 Aug 2009 16:21 GMT >> Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news >> is absolute rubbish quality. > > Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate > channels on Freeview...... Is it?
http://dtt.me.uk/
Channel Min Avg Max ======= === === === Sky News 0.86 Mbit/s 2.52 Mbit/s 4.39 Mbit/s ITV1 1.38 Mbit/s 3.19 Mbit/s 4.99 Mbit/s BBC Two 1.99 Mbit/s 3.96 Mbit/s 6.30 Mbit/s CBBC 2.42 Mbit/s 4.20 Mbit/s 8.04 Mbit/s
Dave Plowman (News) - 01 Aug 2009 08:42 GMT > Well, all I can tell you is that when dab first started, the quality was > better than FM, mainly signal to noise etc it has to be said, but now > its sounding gritty, and lacking in detail, so either their equipment > is crap, or the bit rate really has been turned down. I assume R7 and > r4 are still often in mono on dab to save data as well, when the > freeview feed of r7 and the fm feed of r4 are in stereo. sigh. R4 is usually in stereo on DAB.
> Mind you, if we got rid of the clone commercials, and replaced them with > one quality commercial station there would be plenty of data > bandwidth. After all, most of your Heart/capital/Q/ whatever, are > compressed to the enth degree and probably sourced from rubbish mp3s in > the first place. But Mr DAB obviously likes this sound since you never hear him complain about it.
 Signature *Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
J. P. Gilliver (John) - 01 Aug 2009 11:06 GMT [] []
>> can we all agfree that >> >> - FM is better than AM Given adequate signal, yes. (Though AM _can_ be surprisingly good - but, with the current bandwidth allocations, there's no way it can match current FM with a good enough signal and receiver.)
>> - Good digital is better than FM Hmm. This is like the old "Cd vs. vinyl" debate. I suspect that, if the FM has adequate signal and is properly set up, digital can't be _better_, but can equal; and, in _most_ circumstances, it _will_ be better. (In the case of vinyl, the signal-to-noise combined with the dynamic range probably _do_ give CD the edge.) In both cases (CD and digital), the convenience and ease of setup of course work in favour of the digital media, but I think the premise of this discussion is sound quality.
>> - Current DAB is not good digital. Most definitely, as used in this country, now. The encoding (mp2 isn't it?) of UK DAB (not DAB+, AAC or any of the others) is less efficient than more modern encoders, but that's more politics than engineering; it's _capable_ of very high quality (and apparently used to that level in some countries). But certainly not here (UK) and now. (Though for many _listeners_, it's not as bad as some here make out, especially when the convenience aspects are considered. But again, if we're talking sound quality.)
>> - depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology >> is, current digital may or may not be better than FM If by "current digital" you mean: DAB as currently used in the UK: sound quality no (except where the FM signal is weak), convenience probably yes. FreeView radio channels: sound quality probably on a par or better, convenience arguable. Satellite: as FreeView. CD: probably better _and_ more convenient. MP3: quality varies widely, more convenient.
>> And leave it at that. >  Signature J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I hate the guys that criticize the enterprise of other guys whose enterprise has made them rise above the guys who criticize!" (W9BRD, former editor of "How's DX?" column in "QST")
The Natural Philosopher - 01 Aug 2009 14:51 GMT > [] > [] [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > _better_, but can equal; and, in _most_ circumstances, it _will_ be > better. Nope. FM is limited to at best 16-17Khz because of the pilot tone. S/N is at best about 70dB. Both those can be bettered with digital, given adequate bit rates.
(In the case of vinyl, the signal-to-noise combined with the
> dynamic range probably _do_ give CD the edge.) In both cases (CD and > digital), the convenience and ease of setup of course work in favour of > the digital media, but I think the premise of this discussion is sound > quality. The thing about digital is that you can always incerase sampling frequency and/or number of bits to make sure that once digital, there is both no more degradation with a decent error correcting channel, and that such degaradation as the digitisation process introduces is infinitesimal compared with the original recording noise and distortion.
>>> - Current DAB is not good digital. > Most definitely, as used in this country, now. The encoding (mp2 isn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the convenience aspects are considered. But again, if we're talking > sound quality.) I'm listening to radio 5 live sports extra right now on terrestrial TV channel Its FULL of compression, other digital material at very low bandwidth, and so on, but heck, its a lot better than AM ;-)
>>> - depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology >>> is, current digital may or may not be better than FM > > If by "current digital" you mean: DAB as currently used in the UK: sound > quality no (except where the FM signal is weak), convenience probably > yes. Hvae never actualklly heard a DAB set.,
FreeView radio channels: sound quality probably on a par or better,
> convenience arguable. For me now, its more convenient than anything else, thanks to a USB TV adaptor. Brilliant. Have yet to wire it up to a decent set of speakers.
> Satellite: as FreeView. CD: probably better _and_ > more convenient. Degionitely.
MP3: quality varies widely, more convenient.
Agreed.
>>> And leave it at that. Kennedy McEwen - 02 Aug 2009 02:42 GMT >Hvae never actualklly heard a DAB set., > >FreeView radio channels: sound quality probably on a par or better, >> convenience arguable. > >Brilliant. Have yet to wire it up to a decent set of speakers. On the subject of noise, stop adding. Nuff said!
 Signature Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
J. P. Gilliver (John) - 02 Aug 2009 16:40 GMT []
>>>> - Good digital is better than FM >> Hmm. This is like the old "Cd vs. vinyl" debate. I suspect that, if [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >S/N is at best about 70dB. Both those can be bettered with digital, >given adequate bit rates. True, I'd forgotten about the pilot cutoff (and I don't think anyone broadcasts mono any more).
>(In the case of vinyl, the signal-to-noise combined with the >> dynamic range probably _do_ give CD the edge.) In both cases (CD and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that such degaradation as the digitisation process introduces is >infinitesimal compared with the original recording noise and distortion. Very true. I'd say I have mid-range ears, neither golden nor cloth, and don't think I've ever heard _good_ digital where I could hear the distortions; even NICAM I'm happy with (I used to notice the hiss on the Newsnight theme music before they cut it down to three clings and a clang in duration). []
>I'm listening to radio 5 live sports extra right now on terrestrial TV >channel Its FULL of compression, other digital material at very low >bandwidth, and so on, but heck, its a lot better than AM ;-) I suspect that part of that is that the AM transmitter network for it is somewhat half-hearted, but you're probably right. (The compression, of course, is not the fault of the digital medium.) []
>FreeView radio channels: sound quality probably on a par or better, >> convenience arguable. > >For me now, its more convenient than anything else, thanks to a USB TV >adaptor. Brilliant. Have yet to wire it up to a decent set of speakers. You must be one of those people whose PC is on all the time, and you have one in every room - and can take it into the shower (-: [or out jogging, with a gimbal-balanced aerial ...] Oh, you said _for you_, from which I take out you don't jog. [I don't either (-;!] []
 Signature J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I hate the guys that criticize the enterprise of other guys whose enterprise has made them rise above the guys who criticize!" (W9BRD, former editor of "How's DX?" column in "QST")
The Natural Philosopher - 02 Aug 2009 20:55 GMT >> For me now, its more convenient than anything else, thanks to a USB TV >> adaptor. Brilliant. Have yet to wire it up to a decent set of speakers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > which I take out you don't jog. [I don't either (-;!] > [] No, I don't need to do jogging. Dogs get at least a mile a day walk, and doing gardening and D-I-Y is more than enough. Id cycle down the shops if I could be arsed, but its uphill all the way back..
Computers are such work as there is, so always in front of one.
Bill Wright - 03 Aug 2009 01:24 GMT > I'd cycle down the shops if I could be arsed, but its uphill all the way > back.. Can't you set off from somewhere else?
Bill
Steve Terry - 03 Aug 2009 01:39 GMT >> I'd cycle down the shops if I could be arsed, but its uphill all the way >> back.. > > Can't you set off from somewhere else? > Bill Routemasters were great for that, one hand on the bikes handlebars and one on the buses grab handle
Steve Terry
Steve Terry - 08 Jul 2009 21:05 GMT >>I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products >>are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the FM in this part of the woods. > Clive BBC Radio 7 sounds great on FM, or it would if it was broadcast.
and as it's in my top three most listened to stations, it makes FM dead for me.
Steve Terry
Jim GM4DHJ/M - 08 Jul 2009 21:30 GMT >>>I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products >>>are [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Steve Terry I only listen to 7 listen again on reciva wi fi ......
The Natural Philosopher - 08 Jul 2009 21:42 GMT Jim GM4DHJ/M wrote:
>>>> I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products >>>> are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> > I only listen to 7 listen again on reciva wi fi ...... I grab it off the net, or , occasionally, on the digiTV.
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 22:13 GMT In article <ba9c9e7150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>> Basically, if you understood the technologies that are used then FM >> basically can't be worse than DAB. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Dave Yeabut do you actually listen to FM and Dab tho?..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Dave Higton - 26 Jun 2009 22:30 GMT > In article <ba9c9e7150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton > <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yeabut do you actually listen to FM and Dab tho?.. Not very much; but since I installed the DAB antenna in the loft (yes, I installed the FM one some years ago), I haven't bothered with FM any more. DAB sounds cleaner.
Dave
tony sayer - 29 Jun 2009 21:51 GMT In article <cf9ba57150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>> In article <ba9c9e7150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton >> <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Dave Err right.. Nothing else you've noticed then?..
 Signature Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 10:11 GMT >> Basically, if you understood the technologies that are used then FM >> basically can't be worse than DAB. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Dave Absolutely.
In all case people confuse comparisons between state of the art old technology, and the very first of the new.
The very first transistor amps were pretty dire. Today's are pretty cheap. If you spend enough on the circuitry - as much as you would spend on a valve amp - transistors are much BETTER. Particularly MOSFET types.
Likewise early CD players. That suffered from non linear DACS. And drifted with temperature too.
Now its DAB versus FM. Same applies. DAB will get better. If people demand it.
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL - 27 Jun 2009 12:16 GMT > Now its DAB versus FM. Same applies. DAB will get better. If people > demand it. Not enough people will notice or care to demand it, and the rest of us will have to suffer for their compromised lugholes.
L
 Signature --------------------------------------------------- "He's got arms like legs He's got hands on his feet He's got a nose like a doughnut He's got a tendency to over eat" --------------------------------------------------- Louis Barfe - www.louisbarfe.com - cheeseford.blogspot.com
DAB sounds worse than FM - 27 Jun 2009 17:42 GMT >>> Basically, if you understood the technologies that are used then >>> FM [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Now its DAB versus FM. Same applies. DAB will get better. If people > demand it. No, it can't get better because they allocated all the spectrum in 2006, so all the spectrum available for DAB to use in the UK is already in use apart from one channel that was going to be used for the second national commercial multiplex that fell through last year. Basically, the bit rates aren't going to go up, so the audio quality can't go up either because DAB uses the MP2 audio codec that's around 20 years old, so it's been optimised to death already.
Take the BBC's national DAB multiplex for instance. The BBC has to reduce Radio 4 to mono just to allow the part-time Radio 5 Sports Extra station to go on-air - i.e. its multiplex is full to bursting, so it would be impossible to increase the bit rates of the BBC's stations, so the audio quailty is as good as it's going to get.
The *only* way to improve the quality on DAB is by switching to DAB+.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Fredxx - 26 Jun 2009 02:36 GMT >> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag says, the 'quality' of > my CD experience is higher. On paper the CD should be miles ahead of vinyl. Most CDs uses 2 channels of 16 bits at 44.1kSamples/sec. There is no sompression so there are no artifacts. The data rate is an astounding 1.4Mb/s. 16 bits give 72dB audio range which is better than my ears.
> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I > could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it). > Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to FM are just > futile and don't relate to any real user experience. It's easy to show that performance of FM is generally superior to DAB, however it just goes to show how subjective the human ear-brain interface is that it can be fooled into thinking otherwise so easily.
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 09:06 GMT In article <h218qh$bq1$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.com> scribeth thus
>>> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area. >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >artifacts. The data rate is an astounding 1.4Mb/s. 16 bits give 72dB audio >range which is better than my ears. I remember once being given a demonstration of Vinyl-v-CD by Derek Scotland of Audiolab fame.
I was amazed at how good he got the Vinyl to sound, and that it seems was due to the right equipment and some Japanese pressings. OK not quite the same in terms of distortion and absolute signal to noise ratio but very impressive indeed;!..
>> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I >> could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >however it just goes to show how subjective the human ear-brain interface is >that it can be fooled into thinking otherwise so easily. Well FM given a sufficient signal, and remember too that DAB needs a sufficient signal to work properly, can be very good indeed. And unlike DAB where that is degraded due to the "cost of bits" FM degrades to Mono only because of the signal level.
I've had a FM versus CD setup here using a first class NCO type modulator and only about one person could reliably tell the difference and that was on solo soprano voice!.
 Signature Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 10:09 GMT > In article <h218qh$bq1$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Fredxx > <fredxx@spam.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the same in terms of distortion and absolute signal to noise ratio but > very impressive indeed;!.. Early D to A chips suffered from 'crossover distortion' (actually MSB inaccuracy). That was one reason for the myth of 'CD sounds worse'
By the early 80's that was all history.
>>> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I >>> could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > DAB where that is degraded due to the "cost of bits" FM degrades to Mono > only because of the signal level. I prefer a GOOD digital implementation, mostly because the common problems with FM are because the signal is NOT good.
Unless you lose frames completely, the response of a decent digital system in noise is better.
So a hissy FM signal becomes a perfectly clean digital signal.
Also, the problems of audio distortion only start after what is in decent signal conditions a 'perfect' decoder. Misaligned IF strips wont affect the sound quality at all as long as the decoder can decode, it will decode 'perfectly'
> I've had a FM versus CD setup here using a first class NCO type > modulator and only about one person could reliably tell the difference > and that was on solo soprano voice!. Odd that. I got the worst FM degradations when I played with it years ago on complex upper register stuff..mainly due to phase shifts at high modulation depthsh and pretty high frequencies..upset the stereo decoding as well.
In the days when it was only the home service, the light program etc etc. and guaranteed 400KHZ spacings a very broadband IF strip gave you very decent performance: the necessity to pull that down to reject adjacent channels in a more crowded spectrum bolloxed up the audio performance. Add in cheap ceramic IF filters instead of tuneable cans, and for most people, the performance wasn't that good. OK you COULD get very expenisve tailored filters that were both fast cutoff and minimal phase shift, but that was serious money..
I suppose what I am saying is, whilst in theory an FM signal is superior to a bad DAB signal, the reality of MOST peoples experience is that neither the signal strength, nor the quality of the receiving equipment is good enough to make that a fact in practice.
With digits, the chipsets take all the hard work out of the quality: you get a predictable performance at far lower production costs.
Frankly here, I get a better audio performance out of audio streaming over the internet than I do for all but my most expensive tuner.
I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM. Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak atmospherics I suppose.
charles - 26 Jun 2009 10:24 GMT > I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM. > Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak > atmospherics I suppose. It was short wave broadcasts being picked up in the IF strip. 10.7MHz is on the edge of the 25 metre band.
 Signature From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 10:35 GMT >> I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM. >> Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak >> atmospherics I suppose. > > It was short wave broadcasts being picked up in the IF strip. 10.7MHz is on > the edge of the 25 metre band. You may very well be right.
Ian Jackson - 26 Jun 2009 11:33 GMT >>> I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on >>>FM. Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >You may very well be right. At the moment, propagation at the lower SW frequencies, and signals are poor. However, for higher HF and low VHF, it's the sporadic-E season. Only yesterday, I was hearing Italy and France on the FM radio band. You could have been receiving Poland (but could be one of the other Slavic/Balkan countries - and even possibly Russia). [Most have moved their FM transmissions from 70Mhz to the 'normal' FM band.] This is one of the reasons why NOT to re-allocate the FM band to digital.
 Signature Ian
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 12:26 GMT >>>> I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on >>>> FM. Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > their FM transmissions from 70Mhz to the 'normal' FM band.] This is one > of the reasons why NOT to re-allocate the FM band to digital. Polish would fit. I'll say that I am on top of the highest point in suffolk more or less, and though it aint high, the way that set had its aerial was pointing straight over the north sea, with 40 miles of Essex or Norfolk in between.
When I was developing FM radios, I could get a LOT of stuff off the continent on occasion.
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 10:56 GMT In article <h2238t$qrp$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>> In article <h218qh$bq1$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Fredxx >> <fredxx@spam.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >I prefer a GOOD digital implementation, mostly because the common >problems with FM are because the signal is NOT good. Wouldn't have thought that where you lived they'd be any problems but there is a DAB transmitter in your backyard;!..
>Unless you lose frames completely, the response of a decent digital >system in noise is better. > >So a hissy FM signal becomes a perfectly clean digital signal. Whereas an FM signal goes to mono then a bit of hiss, a DAB signal goes to bubblin mud then silence;!..
>Also, the problems of audio distortion only start after what is in >decent signal conditions a 'perfect' decoder. Misaligned IF strips wont >affect the sound quality at all as long as the decoder can decode, it >will decode 'perfectly' Misaligned FM strips are long gone now..
>> I've had a FM versus CD setup here using a first class NCO type >> modulator and only about one person could reliably tell the difference [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >modulation depthsh and pretty high frequencies..upset the stereo >decoding as well. This was a very good transmitter driver unit a Harris CD which has specs more like a very good audio amp;)..
>In the days when it was only the home service, the light program etc >etc. and guaranteed 400KHZ spacings a very broadband IF strip gave you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >very expenisve tailored filters that were both fast cutoff and minimal >phase shift, but that was serious money.. I think a lot of that was -then- rather than now;!..
>I suppose what I am saying is, whilst in theory an FM signal is superior >to a bad DAB signal, the reality of MOST peoples experience is that >neither the signal strength, nor the quality of the receiving equipment >is good enough to make that a fact in practice. Compared to that irritating noise that is UK DAB not quite so..
Not that I'm against digital modes of transmission for instance for home use on satellite the German broadcasters are very generous with the bits and it shows .. well rather sounds:)
>With digits, the chipsets take all the hard work out of the quality: you >get a predictable performance at far lower production costs. In fact some car radios now used DSP..for FM ..
>Frankly here, I get a better audio performance out of audio streaming >over the internet than I do for all but my most expensive tuner. Something wring there then.. tho net streaming with the best stations can be very good..
>I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM. >Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak >atmospherics I suppose. Yes also affects DAB badly to due to that time of year again as I'm sure your digital telly will be playing up where you are and your aerials pointing unless you've got a sky dish now?..
 Signature Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 12:19 GMT > In article <h2238t$qrp$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher > <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Wouldn't have thought that where you lived they'd be any problems but > there is a DAB transmitter in your backyard;!.. Is there? Tacolneston is a LONG way away mate. No decent FM here.
>> Unless you lose frames completely, the response of a decent digital >> system in noise is better. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Whereas an FM signal goes to mono then a bit of hiss, a DAB signal goes > to bubblin mud then silence;!.. Ah, but it does that when the FM has already gone..That's the thing with digits. A lot easier to pull them out of noise.
>> Also, the problems of audio distortion only start after what is in >> decent signal conditions a 'perfect' decoder. Misaligned IF strips wont >> affect the sound quality at all as long as the decoder can decode, it >> will decode 'perfectly' > > Misaligned FM strips are long gone now.. As are decent ones. Its all a ceramic filter innit? sound HORRIBLE by comparison.
>>> I've had a FM versus CD setup here using a first class NCO type >>> modulator and only about one person could reliably tell the difference [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I think a lot of that was -then- rather than now;!.. I am not so sure Tony. My best ever IF strip was one 6 pole filter, we replacee with 2 x 4 pole to get selectivity up, but it weren't as good..now you cant do (IMHO ) the real banana without 1east least an 8 pole for selectivity and unless you go mad, really 10 or 12 poles to both preserve the quality and kill the next door channels.
There may be commercial SAW stuff that emulates that level, don't know, BUT the point remains that necessary sidebands are out there +- 200KHz for quality, as are other stations. The final conclusion I came to was that the actual theoretical quality would never be achieved - you either had adjacent channel burbles, OR knocked the clarity out of the top end.
The great think about DAB is that adjacent channel burble gets stamped on. As long as its below the main signal level, you will never hear it.
The move from AM to FM was really about exchanging a direct reflection of S/N ratio in an AM baseband modulated channel with a better S/N ratio by using more channel width than the audio was. So more bandwidth, less noise.
But then the BBC WAS the only transmission agency.,
Times change.
>> I suppose what I am saying is, whilst in theory an FM signal is superior >> to a bad DAB signal, the reality of MOST peoples experience is that >> neither the signal strength, nor the quality of the receiving equipment >> is good enough to make that a fact in practice. > > Compared to that irritating noise that is UK DAB not quite so.. Well I haven't tried DAB on radio..its fine on the TV channels tho.
> Not that I'm against digital modes of transmission for instance for home > use on satellite the German broadcasters are very generous with the bits [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > In fact some car radios now used DSP..for FM .. Yep. An area I was looking into when I decided there was no future in circuit design any more..
>> Frankly here, I get a better audio performance out of audio streaming >> over the internet than I do for all but my most expensive tuner. >> > Something wring there then.. tho net streaming with the best stations > can be very good.. No, juts te most expensive tuner has a decent S/N and senitivity. The rest are crap and/or portables. Signal is not good here.
>> I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM. >> Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your digital telly will be playing up where you are and your aerials > pointing unless you've got a sky dish now?.. Never ever a dish!
Get a bit of digital breakup now and again. Must realign the aerial again ;)
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 19:09 GMT >Is there? Tacolneston is a LONG way away mate. No decent FM here. It is some 30 miles but seeing where you are;!..Not exactly in a dip..
>>> Unless you lose frames completely, the response of a decent digital >>> system in noise is better. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Ah, but it does that when the FM has already gone..That's the thing with >digits. A lot easier to pull them out of noise. Mate of mine has a factory fit DABble radio comparing FM from Madingley near Cambridge 500 watts of FM out performs 4 kW of DAB!..
Been in the car and seen it myself!..
>>> Also, the problems of audio distortion only start after what is in >>> decent signal conditions a 'perfect' decoder. Misaligned IF strips wont [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >either had adjacent channel burbles, OR knocked the clarity out of the >top end. Ever tried a tuner like the modest Denon TU260 MK2 ?..
Let alone an Audiolab T8000 or a Kenwood LOT-2
>The great think about DAB is that adjacent channel burble gets stamped >on. As long as its below the main signal level, you will never hear it. Ummm ... sure about that on a fine summers day with a few MUX's coming over the horizon;!..
>The move from AM to FM was really about exchanging a direct reflection >of S/N ratio in an AM baseband modulated channel with a better S/N ratio [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >Well I haven't tried DAB on radio..its fine on the TV channels tho. Perhaps you should...
>> Not that I'm against digital modes of transmission for instance for home >> use on satellite the German broadcasters are very generous with the bits [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Get a bit of digital breakup now and again. Must realign the aerial again ;) It'll be dizzy if its tweaked again;!..
 Signature Tony Sayer
charles - 26 Jun 2009 19:31 GMT > Mate of mine has a factory fit DABble radio comparing FM from Madingley > near Cambridge 500 watts of FM out performs 4 kW of DAB!..
> Been in the car and seen it myself!.. Sound as though the aerial system in the car doesn't work properly at Band III.
 Signature From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 21:18 GMT In article <507195408fcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> Mate of mine has a factory fit DABble radio comparing FM from Madingley >> near Cambridge 500 watts of FM out performs 4 kW of DAB!.. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Sound as though the aerial system in the car doesn't work properly at Band >III. Quarter wave around 12 inches long. Mounted to the rear of the roof....
 Signature Tony Sayer
charles - 26 Jun 2009 22:01 GMT > In article <507195408fcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles > <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Sound as though the aerial system in the car doesn't work properly at > >Band III.
> Quarter wave around 12 inches long. Mounted to the rear of the roof.... and then what happens? (I did write 'aerial system')
 Signature From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 22:24 GMT In article <5071a2f859charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> In article <507195408fcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles >> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >and then what happens? (I did write 'aerial system') A lump of coax goes from that to the radio a Blaupunt wood stick thing IIRC..
Reception on FM is very good ....
 Signature Tony Sayer
charles - 26 Jun 2009 23:21 GMT > In article <5071a2f859charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles > <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > >and then what happens? (I did write 'aerial system')
> A lump of coax goes from that to the radio a Blaupunt wood stick thing > IIRC..
> Reception on FM is very good .... then so should reception of DAB be. So - what's wrong with the aerial system?
Since 12" isn't the correct length for Band II, I assume its been 'frigged' for that band - perhaps to the severe detriment of Band III
 Signature From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 09:59 GMT In article <5071aa47a4charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> In article <5071a2f859charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles >> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >Since 12" isn't the correct length for Band II, I assume its been 'frigged' >for that band - perhaps to the severe detriment of Band III No in fact lets assume 300 divide by say mid Band 2 say 98 MHz that should be 28.5 inches for that assuming a bit for velocity factor in presumably stainless steel for the aerial whip. So for say 226 MHz thats around 12.4 inches so its way off for FM and almost spot on for DAB assuming 226 MHz..
What I have noticed that anywhere slightly hilly mainly to the South and East its Fens the other way!, it breaks up and anywhere with a lot of trees as well all assuming some 10 miles or more from the TX which is an array of Kathrien panel's just below the FM Lindenblad array..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Bill Wright - 27 Jun 2009 12:10 GMT > In article <5071aa47a4charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles > <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > around 12.4 inches so its way off for FM and almost spot on for DAB > assuming 226 MHz.. I made my own DAB aerial by trimming and observing gain on 12B and the length came out at 275mm (from memory; just looked at it out the winder and it looks about that length).
Bill
Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 12:58 GMT >> In article <5071aa47a4charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles >> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and it looks about that length). > Bill It's simple enough to calculate a 1/4 wave aerial 300 / F x 0.95 (velocity factor in a conductor) then / 4 for a quarterwave. So 300 / 226MHz = 1.3274 x 0.95 = 1.26106 / 4 = 0.31526m or 315mm
Your 275mm is a bit short, just over a foot is more like it
Steve Terry
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 14:01 GMT >>> In article <5071aa47a4charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles >>> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Your 275mm is a bit short, just over a foot is more like it Dpends on any extra stray inductance.
> Steve Terry Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 14:10 GMT >>>> In article <5071aa47a4charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles >>>> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> > Depends on any extra stray inductance. In a straight rod should be negligible, if you started winding it into coils that's different
Steve Terry
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 17:37 GMT >>>>> In article <5071aa47a4charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles >>>>> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > In a straight rod should be negligible, if you started winding it into coils > that's different You would be surprised. Stick a straight rod thorough anything with iron it it...
> Steve Terry Bill Wright - 27 Jun 2009 16:59 GMT > It's simple enough to calculate a 1/4 wave aerial > 300 / F x 0.95 (velocity factor in a conductor) then / 4 for a > quarterwave. > So 300 / 226MHz = 1.3274 x 0.95 = 1.26106 / 4 = 0.31526m or 315mm Presumably you're 'telling the audience'. I've been working out aerial dimensions and building arrays since 1960. Here's a basic template I use for BII aerials. It's based on practical experiment. This design matches 75ohm cable and as long as the cable is taken off carefully a 75/75 balun does not improve gain, although it does of course reduce pick up on the cable. http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/ourwork/images/yagi-dimensions.pdf
> Your 275mm is a bit short, just over a foot is more like it Always best to work out the theory, then cut a bit long and do a practical test, then repeat it about 20 times(!). Never believe theory. There are factors other than the ones you list, such as the type of ground plane and its angle to the dipole (not all groundplanes are flat and level; not all are 'perfect'). The assumption of 95% for velocity factor is not good enough. It varies quite a lot with material and diameter. Also an inclined dipole (like the Blaupunct DAB one) will peak at a different length to an upright one. The exact physical way the bottom of the quarterwave is connected will have an effect.
Bill
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 17:43 GMT >> It's simple enough to calculate a 1/4 wave aerial >> 300 / F x 0.95 (velocity factor in a conductor) then / 4 for a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > upright one. The exact physical way the bottom of the quarterwave is > connected will have an effect. Tell it like it is!
waving your hand NEAR a tune HF whip makes a huge difference..
> Bill tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 19:53 GMT In article <Voadnc_OacBk3NvXnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@pipex.net>, Bill Wright <insertmybusinessname@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>> It's simple enough to calculate a 1/4 wave aerial >> 300 / F x 0.95 (velocity factor in a conductor) then / 4 for a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >improve gain, although it does of course reduce pick up on the cable. >http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/ourwork/images/yagi-dimensions.pdf Does my learned friend make that many vehicle aerials of the marconi quarter wave type?..
>> Your 275mm is a bit short, just over a foot is more like it > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >its angle to the dipole (not all groundplanes are flat and level; not all >are 'perfect'). Indeed hence the cut long and adjust for best VSWR in apps like 2 way radio for general FM and Dabble a bit less critical unless your partially interested in a smaller part of Band 2 or 3 ..
>The assumption of 95% for velocity factor is not good >enough. It varies quite a lot with material and diameter. Yeabut for vehicle aerials the metal and diameter doesn't vary that much at all, whereas for Yagi's it can well do . We've just designed a couple one using 30 mm dia ally the other 12 mm copper..
>Also an inclined >dipole (like the Blaupunct DAB one) will peak at a different length to an >upright one. The exact physical way the bottom of the quarterwave is >connected will have an effect. How are you going to alter that in practice exactly?..
>Bill
 Signature Tony Sayer
Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 21:57 GMT >> It's simple enough to calculate a 1/4 wave aerial >> 300 / F x 0.95 (velocity factor in a conductor) then / 4 for a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > connected will have an effect. > Bill For receiving cutting it a bit short is fine, i'm used to trimming 145 and 433MHz 1/4 1/2 and 5/8 wave groundplanes for best SWR on transmit, and the above calculations usually match what's achieved cutting for best SWR.
Steve Terry
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 19:36 GMT In article <Ic6dnTEL3OunY9jXnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@pipex.net>, Bill Wright <insertmybusinessname@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>> In article <5071aa47a4charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles >> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Bill Thats a real pro at work that is;)..
Was the aerial insulator made out of some glass spun from a bottle of old slaughter;?...
 Signature Tony Sayer
Bill Wright - 28 Jun 2009 02:40 GMT > In article <Ic6dnTEL3OunY9jXnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@pipex.net>, Bill Wright > <insertmybusinessname@f2s.com> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thats a real pro at work that is;).. No it's a real skinflint. The alternative was a Blaupunct one at £30.
> Was the aerial insulator made out of some glass spun from a bottle of > old slaughter;?... Funnily enough, yes.
Bill
DAB sounds worse than FM - 27 Jun 2009 17:48 GMT >> Well FM given a sufficient signal, and remember too that DAB needs >> a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I prefer a GOOD digital implementation, mostly because the common > problems with FM are because the signal is NOT good. The BBC's Internet radio streams (launched last week) are using 128 and 192 kbps AAC - they're the best quality available on any of the digtial platforms.
> I suppose what I am saying is, whilst in theory an FM signal is > superior > to a bad DAB signal, the reality of MOST peoples experience is that > neither the signal strength, nor the quality of the receiving > equipment > is good enough to make that a fact in practice. I really do disagree on both counts - I think there are tens of millions of people with adequate FM reception quality, and IMO FM devices (excluding DAB radios where the FM is deliberately screwed up to help DAB) are pretty good on the whole - why are you excluding the possibility for FM receivers have improved over time as technology advanced?
> With digits, the chipsets take all the hard work out of the quality: > you > get a predictable performance at far lower production costs. But DAB is damaged at source, and no amount of electronics at the receiver could ever hope to repair that damage.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Stephen Howard - 26 Jun 2009 11:03 GMT <snip>
>I remember once being given a demonstration of Vinyl-v-CD by Derek >Scotland of Audiolab fame. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the same in terms of distortion and absolute signal to noise ratio but >very impressive indeed;!.. I had much the same demonstration given to me at Grahams of Islington back on the '90s. I'd pitched up with a couple of grand fully intending to buy a spiffing CD deck. The chap asked me a few questions and we discussed options, and then he asked me if I'd ever heard a decent record deck. I told him I'd heard a Rega Planar 3, so he suggested - just for fun - that I have a listen to a couple of decks.
I wasn't expecting much, and to be honest I was quite keen to walk out with a posh CD deck...but as they'd asked me to bring both vinyl and CD albums along it seemed like a good idea. I had a few albums on both media, so he started off with the CD versions - all of which sounded amazing...and then he played the vinyl, first on a Rega, then on a more expensive deck and finally on a Linn. I was shocked at the difference. Listening to the Eric Dolphy album on CD was, I thought, a revelation - but on the Linn my chair had moved from in front of the band to within it. I remember saying to the chap that I couldn't understand how anyone who'd had this demonstration would buy a CD deck.
The odd thing is that although the vinyl had a few pops and crackles I simply didn't notice them - which was rather ironic considering that I'd gone there with the purpose of buying a bit of kit that eliminated the problem. I left with a Linn, and I still have it to this day.
Regards,
 Signature Steve ( out in the sticks ) Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net
Stephen Howard - 26 Jun 2009 09:38 GMT >> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near >hiss-free on FM. I can manage a hiss-free FM reception on my old Leak Troughline 3 ( a valve tuner ). The difference between an FM broadcast via good tuner and a digital one is chalk and cheese - and if your kit was up to any kind of scratch you'd understand why the spatial separation was important.
You know that popular video technique of zooming in on the central object ( they do it to death on Top Gear ), and the way it takes you from 'outside' the shot to right inside it? That's the difference, but in audio terms.
Regards,
 Signature Steve ( out in the sticks ) Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net
Roderick Stewart - 26 Jun 2009 10:25 GMT > I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent > sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag > says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher. Hiss, the presence or absence of, is not the only measure of "quality". The hiss on FM is simply superimposed on the sound, and doesn't alter what it sounds like. Digital sound with bit-rate reduction is quite a different situation.
The comparison between FM and DAB is nothing like the comparison between gramophone recordings and compact discs. The digital bit rate on CD is about 10 times the best rates we are now using on DAB and is not subject to any destructive bit-rate reduction.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 10:34 GMT >> I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent >> sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > on CD is about 10 times the best rates we are now using on DAB and is > not subject to any destructive bit-rate reduction. And that resolves to how much the compression algorithms suit teh material being played.
Its possible to do intelligible speech at 50 baud..it must be, because you can read a telex at 50 baud and speak it out in real time
> Rod. :-) You cant do teh nunaces of a full orchestra like that, though.
Must take at least 300 baud to transmit the score, and have an orchestra play it, but that loses the nuances altogether ;-)
Roderick Stewart - 26 Jun 2009 11:59 GMT > > The comparison between FM and DAB is nothing like the comparison > > between gramophone recordings and compact discs. The digital bit rate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And that resolves to how much the compression algorithms suit teh > material being played. I'm sure compression algorithms can be tailored for various types of material, but the result can never be as good as something that doesn't use any compression at all.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 12:43 GMT >>> The comparison between FM and DAB is nothing like the comparison >>> between gramophone recordings and compact discs. The digital bit rate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > material, but the result can never be as good as something that doesn't > use any compression at all. Lossless compression does exist. If there is total silence, you dont need a full bandwidth to carry it.. The real point is, what is the information content?
Say you do a standard sample to say 14 bits. All the time the music/speech is less than 14 bits deep, because its quieter, you don't need to send the full signal.
As long as you accept delay, you can use - say - delta modulation. That's lossless, but its 'compressed', it works because you are guaranteed NOT to have high treble energy....which is how vinyl works anyway. Its pre-emphasised.
The ZIP algorithm works without loss of data. For example. Because there is redundancy in data..and repetition. I applied compression to some HTML web forms, and got 4:1 bandwidth increase without affecting anything.
The only thing you cant compress without loss is full power full spectrum white noise.
Anything else can be.
Whether it IS, is another matter.. I know that BBC world service, which goes out on short wave, is MASSIVELY shaped and filtered even in the digital online feeds. I can hear it!. There's a sharp as hell low pass filter in there probably around 4Khz, and it gives a metallic edge to the female voice. Of course, on a standard AM set, it may well help it to punch through what is after all barely a 3Khz audio channel. I've done that on AM radio as well..put in a peaking filter to get the last scrap of bandwith out of it. helps a little.
The real argument should be about waht types of compression algorithm are to be used. In graphics, there are many. Most code recognises most of them. A GIF is great for black and white line art. Its crap for a photo. Full 24 bit color goes well with JPEG, BUT beware, it copes brilliant with fine tonal variation, but puts artefacts around small contrasting detail.
So arguably you need different codecs for say - classical music- than rock.
Thats the way of the future. Multiple adapting codecs. Like a standard computer media player has. And maybe plug it into the internet to get flash updates...
> Rod. Fredxx - 26 Jun 2009 13:20 GMT >>>> The comparison between FM and DAB is nothing like the comparison >>>> between gramophone recordings and compact discs. The digital bit rate [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > is less than 14 bits deep, because its quieter, you don't need to send the > full signal. That sounds like NICAM to me, where the data is carried in 10 bits, which slide up and down according to volume by a further 3 bits, giving a dyanamic range of 18 bits. BICBW
> As long as you accept delay, you can use - say - delta modulation. That's > lossless, but its 'compressed', it works because you are guaranteed NOT to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The only thing you cant compress without loss is full power full spectrum > white noise. You have to remember that all these standards were written when "cheap" number crunching in a low cost set top box or radio wasn't feasible.
The zip compression type standard gives a variable output according to the data being compressed. As you say, if I gave you white noise, I guess there'd be very little compression. A similar analogy, is to watch a film over Freeview or Sky which has a scene of falling rain, where the picture because unpleasant and blocky.
Audio compression is generally fine as it anticipates the response of the ear-brain which has characteristics we all suffer, the part we're going to quibble over is the degree of compression which in DAB is squeezed to say the least.
Paul Martin - 26 Jun 2009 16:21 GMT > That sounds like NICAM to me, where the data is carried in 10 bits, which > slide up and down according to volume by a further 3 bits, giving a dyanamic > range of 18 bits. BICBW NICAM is 10/14. There are two exponent bits and ten of mantissa, with a sample rate of 32kHz.
NICAM3 was used on the PCM links to main transmitters. The new RAMEN distribution system *might* use uncompressed 16-bit linear PCM.
NICAM728 is used on analogue TV. It's still 14 bits compressed to 10 (with one exponent of two bits per data block).
 Signature Paul Martin <pm@nowster.org.uk>
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 16:38 GMT >>>>> The comparison between FM and DAB is nothing like the comparison >>>>> between gramophone recordings and compact discs. The digital bit rate [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > You have to remember that all these standards were written when "cheap" > number crunching in a low cost set top box or radio wasn't feasible. Which, in a nutshell, is my point. Times change. Digital need not equal crap.
Argue for quality, not FM.
Write to the beeb and demand that you get 250kbps + digital radio, on at least Radio 3 and 4...
> The zip compression type standard gives a variable output according to the > data being compressed. As you say, if I gave you white noise, I guess > there'd be very little compression. A similar analogy, is to watch a film > over Freeview or Sky which has a scene of falling rain, where the picture > because unpleasant and blocky. Yup. Ot fractal haloes rounmd DF1
> Audio compression is generally fine as it anticipates the response of the > ear-brain which has characteristics we all suffer, the part we're going to > quibble over is the degree of compression which in DAB is squeezed to say > the least. tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 19:12 GMT >> You have to remember that all these standards were written when "cheap" >> number crunching in a low cost set top box or radio wasn't feasible. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Write to the beeb and demand that you get 250kbps + digital radio, on >at least Radio 3 and 4... NP .. go and bang your head against a few Leylandii .. it will be a far more productive use of your time;!....
 Signature Tony Sayer
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL - 27 Jun 2009 12:02 GMT > Which, in a nutshell, is my point. > Times change. Digital need not equal crap. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Write to the beeb and demand that you get 250kbps + digital radio, on > at least Radio 3 and 4... You're right that digital need not equal crap. However, the sound quality is only part of my objection to the FM switch-off. There's also the rampant energy inefficiency of the receivers. Look at the Freeplay Devo wind-up radio. A minute's winding will give you an hour on FM, but only 3-5 minutes on DAB. Most people won't buy clockwork DAB radios, so just think how much worse their energy consumption's going to be when they have to swap their analogue radios for DAB. Not to mention the hideous waste of so much perfectly good analogue kit. It's not easy being green...
L
 Signature --------------------------------------------------- "He's got arms like legs He's got hands on his feet He's got a nose like a doughnut He's got a tendency to over eat" --------------------------------------------------- Louis Barfe - www.louisbarfe.com - cheeseford.blogspot.com
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 14:01 GMT >> Which, in a nutshell, is my point. >> Times change. Digital need not equal crap. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > hideous waste of so much perfectly good analogue kit. It's not easy > being green... Again, that's a particular crap chipset.
Better ones are around..
> L Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL - 27 Jun 2009 15:01 GMT > Again, that's a particular crap chipset. > > Better ones are around.. I'd be interested to see consumption figures for the best and worst of each type of radio. All I can find are averages.
L
 Signature --------------------------------------------------- "He's got arms like legs He's got hands on his feet He's got a nose like a doughnut He's got a tendency to over eat" --------------------------------------------------- Louis Barfe - www.louisbarfe.com - cheeseford.blogspot.com
Paul Martin - 28 Jun 2009 12:33 GMT >> Again, that's a particular crap chipset. >> >> Better ones are around..
> I'd be interested to see consumption figures for the best and worst of > each type of radio. All I can find are averages. I have anecdotal evidence that Pure's little portable doesn't eat batteries too much.
 Signature Paul Martin <pm@nowster.org.uk>
charles - 28 Jun 2009 14:08 GMT > >> Again, that's a particular crap chipset. > >> > >> Better ones are around..
> > I'd be interested to see consumption figures for the best and worst of > > each type of radio. All I can find are averages.
> I have anecdotal evidence that Pure's little portable doesn't eat > batteries too much. and I've first hand knowledge of that.
 Signature From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Ian Smith - 28 Jun 2009 14:15 GMT >>> Again, that's a particular crap chipset. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have anecdotal evidence that Pure's little portable doesn't eat > batteries too much. Their older stuff was pretty heavy on power, and the problem is added to because they have shied away from switching supplies. Even their chip supplier was keen that they use linear power bricks to avoid the noise problems.
regards, Ian
Roderick Stewart - 26 Jun 2009 21:33 GMT > > I'm sure compression algorithms can be tailored for various types of > > material, but the result can never be as good as something that doesn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If there is total silence, you dont need a full bandwidth to carry it.. > The real point is, what is the information content? Oh it exists all right, but it's not being used for broadcasting.
As far as I know, the only non-compressed digital audio available to the public is on CDs. It's a good job the CD was invented when it was; a few years later and it would have been cheapened by cloth-eared philistines like all the other formats.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
Dave Plowman (News) - 26 Jun 2009 10:55 GMT > Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher > than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever > tried it). Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to > FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience. 'Mr DAB' only listens to pop music.
 Signature *If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Ian Smith - 26 Jun 2009 19:48 GMT >> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher >> than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever >> tried it). Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to >> FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience. > > 'Mr DAB' only listens to pop music. That much is crystal clear.
regards, Ian
tony sayer - 25 Jun 2009 21:21 GMT In article <Ytadnajofv-ZWd7XnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM >aerial. I gave my FM tuner away. I had a DAB tuner too but I swapped mine for a laptop, which was an item of some use;)..
 Signature Tony Sayer
nemo@address.invalid - 25 Jun 2009 21:43 GMT >>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM >aerial. I gave my FM tuner away. So you have a good DAB tuner. Well goody for you!
I have: an FM tuner in the lounge an FM radio in the kitchen an FM radio in the dining room an FM radio in the study an FM radio in bedroom 1 an FM radio in bedroom 2 an FM radio in bedroom 3 an FM radio in the garage/workshop an FM radio in the car an FM radio in my mobile phone ##
that's 10 reasons why I don't want national channels taken off FM.
## can the power consumption of DAB receivers *ever* be reduced sufficiently to be incorporated in a mobile phone?
Bigguy - 26 Jun 2009 16:00 GMT >>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM aerial. I gave > my FM tuner away. I have a very good FM tuner and it sounds FAR better than DAB. 90% of DAB is awful, phasey, bubbling, gritty rubbish. 10% is OK but still worse than FM.
I have an FM tuner, 2 x portables and 2 x car radios. I do not want to buy 5 x DAB radios.
> FM isn't being switched off. National networks are being transferred to > DAB (+ DVB etc etc) and FM re-allocated to local 'community' radio. > > There's no way I would sign - the faster we switch the better. > > regards, Ian Guy
Dave Plowman (News) - 26 Jun 2009 18:44 GMT > > I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine. Better by far than > > the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM aerial. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > DAB is awful, phasey, bubbling, gritty rubbish. 10% is OK but still > worse than FM. If it's bubbling you need a stronger signal. There is no transmission system which works perfectly with an inadequate signal. And FM can sound quite diabolical with a poor one too.
 Signature *A plateau is a high form of flattery*
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
jasee - 27 Jun 2009 06:57 GMT >> > I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine. Better by far than >> > the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM aerial. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > system which works perfectly with an inadequate signal. And FM can sound > quite diabolical with a poor one too. However, fm simply works less well or switches noiselessly to mono, digital gives up.
Dave Plowman (News) - 27 Jun 2009 10:10 GMT > > If it's bubbling you need a stronger signal. There is no transmission > > system which works perfectly with an inadequate signal. And FM can > > sound quite diabolical with a poor one too.
> However, fm simply works less well or switches noiselessly to mono, > digital gives up. Thought you said you got a bubbling noise?
 Signature *Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool*
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
jasee - 27 Jun 2009 23:08 GMT >>> If it's bubbling you need a stronger signal. There is no >>> transmission system which works perfectly with an inadequate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thought you said you got a bubbling noise? Not me
DAB sounds worse than FM - 24 Jun 2009 23:42 GMT > In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse > than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting > hundreds of radio stations on DAB? What you say is wrong for the following reasons:
* The Digital Britain report said that the FM band would be used for "ultra-local" FM stations once all of the bigger FM radio stations have been switched off. So FM actually isn't planned to be switched off, so the FM band couldn't be freed up for DAB anyway
* DAB uses frequencies of around 200 MHz, whereas FM uses frequencies of around 100 MHz - i.e. DAB couldn't be transmitted in the FM band anyway
* DAB won't be getting any more spectrum than it's already got, because DAB spectrum was all allocated to Europeam countries in 2006 (there is one unused DAB channel at the moment that was going to be used for a 2nd national commercial multiplex which fell through when Channel 4 decided against entering radio last year, but I think that's just going to be pretty much wasted when they replan the spectrum)
* Apart from in London, where I think the figure is around 55 stations, people can typically receive about 35 radio stations on DAB. DAB could never carry hundreds of radio stations. DAB was designed in the 1980s. It is an incredibly inefficient system because the technologies it uses are so old.
Some other things that you might like to bear in mind which it sounds like you're probably unaware of at the moment are that
* DAB provides lower audio quality than FM, Internet radio and radio via digital TV
* DAB's audio quality isn't going to get any better in future because the MP2 audio codec it uses is 20 years old so they've obviously been optimising it for years but it still sounds crap at the low bit rates that it's used at in the UK
* DAB's audio quality is actually only likely to go down, because as more people get DAB then that makes it more appealing to commercial radio stations to launch new stations because there's more potential revenue. The downside of that is that the bit rate levels of existing stations have to be reduced to fit new stations in, so the audio quality goes down as a result
* 98% of stereo stations on DAB in the UK use a bit rate of either 112 or 128 kbps with the MP2 codec - in comparison, the BBC uses a bit rate of 256 kbps MP2 for the audio on its TV channels, and the vast majority of TV channels tend to use a bit rate of 192 kbps MP2 for the audio. Basically, the UK radio broadcasters are using bit rates that the MP2 audio codec wasn't designed to be used at.
* One thing that might surprise quite a few people is that the digital platform that carries digital radio at the highest audio quality is now the Internet, because the BBC launched new 128 kbps AAC live streams for the stereo stations apart from Radio 3 and 192 kbps AAC for Radio 3 last week - 128 kbps AAC is the equivalent of around 224 kbps MP2, so it's far higher quality than 128 kbps MP2 that the BBC uses on DAB. Also most of the bigger commercial radio stations also provide far higher qulaity online streams than they provide on DAB. And the audio quality on Internet radio's only likely to increase over time as Internet speeds get faster and cost per Mbps falls.
* If you actually do want hundreds of radio stations there are over 10,000 Internet radio stations, so DAB obviously can't compete with that
* DAB cannot deliver on-demand content - only broadband (and cable) can deliver true on-demand streams
So if you were thinking that DAB's going to turn into a good digital radio system, I'm afraid it's basically just FM done digitally but at lower audio quality and you get a few more stations. If you have sh.t FM reception then you'd benefit, otherwise you'll actually get lower audio quality on DAB than on FM.
The reason why DAB is being backed by the government is because it's to bail out the commercial radio groups who don't want to pay to transmit both analogue and digital for the next few decades - DAB was just a few years from failing, because sales have been really sh.t since 2006 (that's why DAB nearly collapsed last year when GCap Media said it wanted to withdraw from DAB completely). The BBC's Director of Radio Tim Davie said recently that at the rate we're going FM wouldn't be switched off "in our lifetime", which is correct, because it's only selling at 2 millino per year with 6% growth last year (which is sh.t) and basically it would have taken about 30 - 40 years to switch FM off, so we have to all be forced to get DAB like good little citizens to bail out the commercial radio groups so that they don't have to pay dual analogue and digital transmission costs.
The radio broadcasters also have another reason why they want everyone to listen via DAB, which is that it's the platform where their stations face the least amount of competition - so they'd lose the least amount of listeners and hence revenue - whereas if Internet radio became popular they're scared that people would desert their stations and listen to others, and they can't allow that, and neither can the government. It's just pure protectionism, basically.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Kráftéé - 25 Jun 2009 00:04 GMT || In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse || than [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] | that, and neither can the government. It's just pure protectionism, | basically. I doff my cap to your superior knowledge on this subject and shall withdraw from the argument.
Fredxx - 25 Jun 2009 00:16 GMT > || In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse > || than [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > | frequencies of around 100 MHz - i.e. DAB couldn't be transmitted in > | the FM band anyway DAB can be transmitted at any frequency, it doesn't have to be 200MHz. It's just what was available.
The bandwidth for DAB and FM aren't much different.
> | * DAB won't be getting any more spectrum than it's already got, > | because DAB spectrum was all allocated to Europeam countries in 2006 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > | obviously been optimising it for years but it still sounds crap at > | the low bit rates that it's used at in the UK Agreed - DAB bit rates are embarrasingly low. I have no idea why MP2 was chosen. Even DAB+ isn't compatible with old DAB. All in all, a complete mess!
> | * DAB's audio quality is actually only likely to go down, because as > | more people get DAB then that makes it more appealing to commercial [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > I doff my cap to your superior knowledge on this subject and shall > withdraw from the argument. DAB sounds worse than FM - 25 Jun 2009 01:35 GMT >>>> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse >>>> than [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > DAB can be transmitted at any frequency, it doesn't have to be > 200MHz. It's just what was available. Yes, but DAB receivers can only receive signals that are transmitting in Band III or L-band - and there are no multiplexes in L-band in the UK.
> The bandwidth for DAB and FM aren't much different. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > MP2 was > chosen. They held listening tests in 1990 at Swedish Radio where they compared a load of codecs and boiled it down to 2, which went on to become MP2 and MP3. They chose MP2 because - get this - MP2 provided higher quality than MP3 at high bit rate levels - above 192 kbps basically. Also, MP2 decoders have a lower computational complexity than MP3, and MP2 allowed lower error correction coding with a computational complexity as well. In 1990 when electronics were extremely slow and expensive compared to today the difference in computational complexity might have mattered, but it was a bad long term decision. And as for the decision to go with MP2 because it provided higher quality than MP3 at high bit rates that was an even worse decision. What they should have done IMO was implement MP3, which was designed to be backwardly compatible with MP2 anyway, then let the broadcasters decide. What they did was cripple the whole system by adopting MP2 - and the fools didn't even bother to upgrade the codec since even though AAC was standardised in 1997, and development of it began in 1994. Basically, it's a textbook lesson of incompetence.
Apparently the BBC R&D dept were recommending AAC to be used in the late 1990s, but the BBC execs obviously ignored them.
> Even DAB+ isn't compatible with old DAB. All in all, a complete > mess! It's definitely a complete mess - the fact that DAB+ had to be designed just 3 years after the BBC had properly launched DAB in 2002 shows how incompetent the broadcasters were in choosing to go with DAB without upgrading it first.
To be fair to them about DAB+ though, DAB+ was designed to solve DAB's problems, so they added the AAC+ audio codec to make DAB more efficient and added RS error correction coding to make receptino more robust - but DAB receivers produced up to that point didn't support AAC+ or RS coding, so they had to accept non-compatibility.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Paul Martin - 26 Jun 2009 10:33 GMT >> DAB can be transmitted at any frequency, it doesn't have to be >> 200MHz. It's just what was available.
> Yes, but DAB receivers can only receive signals that are transmitting > in Band III or L-band - and there are no multiplexes in L-band in the > UK. Except that only the initial batch of receivers had L-band capability. Newer receivers are Band III only, and I'm told that some on sale can't cope with bitrates over 192kbps.
>> The bandwidth for DAB and FM aren't much different. Except that you can't use DAB in Band II for fear of interfering with FM stations on the continent. It certainly couldn't be used for a national MUX.
 Signature Paul Martin <pm@nowster.org.uk>
DAB sounds worse than FM - 26 Jun 2009 17:21 GMT >>> DAB can be transmitted at any frequency, it doesn't have to be >>> 200MHz. It's just what was available. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > capability. > Newer receivers are Band III only, Just looked at the spec of some Pure products and they were Band III only. It looks like it's gone full circle, because they started out without L-band support in 2002/3, then L-band was added to most receivers, but it must have gone back to Band III only.
> and I'm told that some on sale can't > cope with bitrates over 192kbps. I think the vast majority can these days - there was a bug with early receivers in 2002, which they didn't realise existed at first because they tested the receivers by receiving signals off air, and there wasn't any stations using bit rates above 192 kbps.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
JN - 25 Jun 2009 11:02 GMT > || In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse > || than [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > I doff my cap to your superior knowledge on this subject and shall > withdraw from the argument. This Internet Radio sounds like the dogs b#ll#cks, how can I receive it in my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen to the radio in a car).
JN
alexd - 25 Jun 2009 13:46 GMT > This Internet Radio sounds like the dogs b#ll#cks, how can I receive it > in my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen to the radio > in a car). It's certainly not at the same cost, but I've listened to 96k streams in the car with my Nokia E61 plugged into the AUX on the car stereo through Vodafone 3G. I have found it somewhat unreliable once in city centres, but I have managed to drive from Leeds to Manchester along the M62 listening to a stream without any drops. But right now it's nowhere near as seamless as FM+RDS, and you'll need to pay for 3G and something to receive it on.
AFAIK there is no satellite radio in the UK as yet. I should have thought there'd be a market for it. What ever happened to Worldspace?
 Signature <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx) 13:38:44 up 49 days, 20:31, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.16, 0.16 A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
Steve Terry - 25 Jun 2009 15:25 GMT >> || 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/ <snip>
> This Internet Radio sounds like the dogs b#ll#cks, how can I receive it in > my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen to the radio in a > car). > JN I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g dongle, 5 quid per month.
Steve Terry
jasee - 25 Jun 2009 15:41 GMT >>>>> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse >>>>> than [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g > dongle, 5 quid per month. I've also used a 3g dongle with 3g: it's pretty crap here and also over vast areas of the UK (even by 3g's own map)
JN - 25 Jun 2009 17:04 GMT >>>>>> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse >>>>>> than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I've also used a 3g dongle with 3g: it's pretty crap here and also over vast > areas of the UK (even by 3g's own map) I was not serious about Internet Radio but some seem to believe the Internet is the holy grail for everything no matter how impractical (setting up laptop and mobile in my car before setting off each morning ). To have decent programmes usually requires a reasonable investment in talent and I don't see how tiny internet stations can achieve this without a mass market. As far as I can see the more stations we have the worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm often seeing the same programmes on that I watched in the 1960/70's.
Most current commercial radio stations are fairly dire, usually playing almost continuous music or having intentionally provocative presenters to generate revenue from phone ins.
JN
Roderick Stewart - 25 Jun 2009 19:37 GMT > >> I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g > >> dongle, 5 quid per month. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I was not serious about Internet Radio but some seem to believe the > Internet is the holy grail for everything no matter how impractical What's impractical today will be commonplace tomorrow if enough people want it, or if somebody sees a marketing possibility. A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need us to invent anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've already got. With literally thousands of radio stations, everybody can have their choice of quality or quantity.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
DAB sounds worse than FM - 25 Jun 2009 20:04 GMT >>>> I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g >>>> dongle, 5 quid per month. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > With literally thousands of radio stations, everybody can have their > choice of quality or quantity. A couple of demo Internet radio car stereos came out earlier this year:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/2009/01/first_internet_radio_car_stereos.php
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
JN - 25 Jun 2009 20:27 GMT >>>> I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g >>>> dongle, 5 quid per month. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rod. You'll probably find someone has already a patent out on the idea. Watching the IT press there appears to be companies out there who just patent everything they can think of so they can sue any successful product producer.
I don't personally believe there would be enough people who want this unless you can have some killer content/facility (just having thousands of music/talk stations isn't that attractive). But then people do seem willing to part with around £50/month for satellite services so I could well be wrong, again.
JN
Dave Plowman (News) - 26 Jun 2009 10:52 GMT > But then people do seem > willing to part with around £50/month for satellite services so I could > well be wrong, again. Mainly for the footie, though.
 Signature *Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Roderick Stewart - 26 Jun 2009 11:59 GMT > I don't personally believe there would be enough people who want this > unless you can have some killer content/facility (just having thousands > of music/talk stations isn't that attractive). But then people do seem > willing to part with around £50/month for satellite services so I could > well be wrong, again. Comparing my internet radio at home with other sources of the same kind of thing, instead of having a choice of just *two* classical music stations on FM, the same two on DAB at poorer quality, or only *one* on freeview, I have *dozens* from all over the world, some concentrating on particular styles of music, some of them at much better quality than any of the alternatives. If that isn't a selling point, I don't know what is. If it's available at reasonable cost as an option the next time I buy a car, I'll definitely go for it. DAB doesn't offer me anything I haven't already got, but internet radio does. Simple as that.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 12:46 GMT >> I don't personally believe there would be enough people who want this >> unless you can have some killer content/facility (just having thousands [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > definitely go for it. DAB doesn't offer me anything I haven't already got, > but internet radio does. Simple as that. Absofuckinglutely.
I am thinking of getting a freeview card for this computer, because by happenstance, there's a TV outlet right by it, and listening to the radio on it. May have to spend ,more on speaker its true..
And I am spending a fortune on bandwidth watching TV on it online..
No sure where internet multicasting is at right now, but that's another way ..radio is for people who don't have broadband..
> Rod. alexd - 26 Jun 2009 14:45 GMT > I am thinking of getting a freeview card for this computer, because by > happenstance, there's a TV outlet right by it, and listening to the > radio on it. May have to spend ,more on speaker its true.. I use mine to record radio programs, but rarely use it live.
> And I am spending a fortune on bandwidth watching TV on it online.. Perhaps you should change the tariff you're on?
 Signature <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx) 14:43:59 up 50 days, 21:46, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.12, 0.11 A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 17:11 GMT >> I am thinking of getting a freeview card for this computer, because by >> happenstance, there's a TV outlet right by it, and listening to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Perhaps you should change the tariff you're on? makes little difference. However once I have the data I will shop around for the best deal.
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 19:14 GMT In article <h22cfh$7as$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>>> I don't personally believe there would be enough people who want this >>> unless you can have some killer content/facility (just having thousands [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >> Rod. You ought try a satellite card and get a dish .. doesn't have to be a big one out in the yard and try some programme feeds from Europe they still have broadcast engineers over there especially in Germany:))
 Signature Tony Sayer
Dave Liquorice - 25 Jun 2009 23:11 GMT > A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need > us to invent anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've > already got. With literally thousands of radio stations, everybody can > have their choice of quality or quantity. Untill they are all trying to listen through one cell in a traffic jam on the M6...
As a broadcast medium the internet is not upto it, at least with todays system. If multicast ever gets out there in a meaningful way things might be different but how many connections can a single 3G cell support at say 128kbps each susutained?
 Signature Cheers Dave.
nemo@address.invalid - 25 Jun 2009 23:23 GMT >> A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need >> us to invent anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Untill they are all trying to listen through one cell in a traffic >jam on the M6... I've listened to an internet music station on a 3G phone driving around London. You hardly notice handoff between cells during phone calls, but in the middle of music the discontinuity is quite annoying.
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 09:50 GMT In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.kltsum3.pminews@srv1.howhill.net>, Dave Liquorice <allsortsnotthisbit@howhill.com> scribeth thus
>> A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need >> us to invent anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >things might be different but how many connections can a single 3G >cell support at say 128kbps each susutained? I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a 40 megabit capacity wi-fi point and that was just that cell of which there're rolling out more and more as time goes by!...
 Signature Tony Sayer
Paul Martin - 26 Jun 2009 10:26 GMT > I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was > talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a > 40 megabit capacity wi-fi point and that was just that cell of which > there're rolling out more and more as time goes by!... Strange that I only ever get a patchy 64kbps equivalent out of my Orange connection on 3G.
 Signature Paul Martin <pm@nowster.org.uk>
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 10:49 GMT >> I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was >> talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Strange that I only ever get a patchy 64kbps equivalent out of my > Orange connection on 3G. Then likely as not, its because its heavily trafficked. Broadcast, by definition, is exactly trafficked to the number of stations being transmitted.
Mark Carver - 26 Jun 2009 20:10 GMT >> I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was >> talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Strange that I only ever get a patchy 64kbps equivalent out of my > Orange connection on 3G. I've just been given a Vodafone 3G dongle by my company, as a trial for internet and VPN access on my laptop when abroad and/or away from any usable WiFi. Anyway, had a play with it yesterday in the office, and couldn't pull more than 400kb/s down, or push more than 200 kb/s up. Not impressive, but mind you nor was bog standard voice GSM when I tried that in 1996.
 Signature Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
www.paras.org.uk
Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 00:31 GMT >>> I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was >>> talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > in 1996. > Mark Get it unlocked and try a selection of PAYG 3g Sims in it
BTW it's not some old obsolete non HSDPA 3g dongle is it? non HSDPA will only go up to nearly 400kbps
Steve Terry
Mark Carver - 27 Jun 2009 08:05 GMT > "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Get it unlocked and try a selection of PAYG 3g Sims in it Best not, when it's a loan/rental device from a Vodafone reseller on a corporate account. I've seen a friend's T-Mobile one in action, and that was far more impressive, but I came up against a giant wall in our company's purchasing section when I dared suggest we try networks other than VF.
> BTW it's not some old obsolete non HSDPA 3g dongle is it? > non HSDPA will only go up to nearly 400kbps It's locked in my draw at work currently, but it's this:-
http://www.itpro.co.uk/607902/vodafone-launches-compact-broadband-dongle
 Signature Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
www.paras.org.uk
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 10:00 GMT In article <7alum4F1vvre0U1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >far more impressive, but I came up against a giant wall in our company's >purchasing section when I dared suggest we try networks other than VF. I'm coming to the conclusion that their all getting as bad as each other now Voda once did seem to be the Biz and Pro network, but I sometimes wonder having been kept on hold for up to 20 mins recently;(...
>> BTW it's not some old obsolete non HSDPA 3g dongle is it? >> non HSDPA will only go up to nearly 400kbps > >It's locked in my draw at work currently, but it's this:- > >http://www.itpro.co.uk/607902/vodafone-launches-compact-broadband-dongle
 Signature Tony Sayer
Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 14:06 GMT >> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > http://www.itpro.co.uk/607902/vodafone-launches-compact-broadband-dongle > Mark It says up to 7.2mbps so it is HSDPA, but you may be in a Voda area that hasn't yet been upgraded to 3.5g, you need 3.5g updated cells to get above 400kbps
I'm using Three at this moment on 5quid a month, but i've tried T Mobile with a Virgin Sim on Virgins 30p per day deal which works fine, T Mobiles 3G BB coverage is good
I'd hate to be stuck with only one 3g BB service, get it unlocked and try you own sims in it
Steve Terry
Mark Carver - 02 Jul 2009 06:22 GMT >>> BTW it's not some old obsolete non HSDPA 3g dongle is it? >>> non HSDPA will only go up to nearly 400kbps [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hasn't > yet been upgraded to 3.5g, you need 3.5g updated cells to get above 400kbps Well, here in Cairo I was getting about 4 Megs on Voadfone Egypt yesterday :-) Better performance than back home in the Thames Valley just 15 miles from VF's HQ !
 Signature Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
http://www.paras.org.uk/
Dave Liquorice - 26 Jun 2009 10:27 GMT >> As a broadcast medium the internet is not upto it, at least with >> todays system. If multicast ever gets out there in a meaningful way
>> things might be different but how many connections can a single 3G >> cell support at say 128kbps each susutained? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 40 megabit capacity wi-fi point and that was just that cell of which > there're rolling out more and more as time goes by!... So backhaul froma individual cell site appears not to be a bottle neck but where does that cell site connect? What happens further up the chain and how much capacity does the "broadcaster" have on their servers and connection?
Then of course I very much doubt that a single cell can support 40Mbps/128kbps = 300+ users at a time.
 Signature Cheers Dave.
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 11:41 GMT In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.kluo5a2.pminews@srv1.howhill.net>, Dave Liquorice <allsortsnotthisbit@howhill.com> scribeth thus
>>> As a broadcast medium the internet is not upto it, at least with >>> todays system. If multicast ever gets out there in a meaningful [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Then of course I very much doubt that a single cell can support >40Mbps/128kbps = 300+ users at a time. Dunno .. didn't get time for a full tech discussion we were both there to attend the aftermath of a lightning strike and M8!, you just don't want to be at those sort of places whilst Jove is still dishing his bolts out;!..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Roderick Stewart - 26 Jun 2009 11:59 GMT > > A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need > > us to invent anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > things might be different but how many connections can a single 3G > cell support at say 128kbps each susutained? You're talking about today. I'm talking about tomorrow. Who would have thought when the telephone was invented in the days of Queen Victoria that the same twisted copper wires intended for 3kHz audio could one day carry moving colour pictures and stereo sound...?
Where there's a will there's a way.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 00:34 GMT >> > A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't >> > need [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the same twisted copper wires intended for 3kHz audio could one day carry > moving colour pictures and stereo sound...? It's a shame such cost and effort has been put into dead end ADSL. Effort that should have been put into Fibre
Steve Terry
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 10:42 GMT > It's a shame such cost and effort has been put into dead end ADSL. > Effort that should have been put into Fibre Shows how little you understand the economics of it.
Fibre will come, but to roll it out to every home and premises is an order of magnitude or two more expensive than sticking DSLAMS in the exchanges.
> Steve Terry Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 14:13 GMT >> It's a shame such cost and effort has been put into dead end ADSL. >> Effort that should have been put into Fibre [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fibre will come, but to roll it out to every home and premises is an order > of magnitude or two more expensive than sticking DSLAMS in the exchanges. Which will all instantly become scrap along with everyone's ADSL modems once Fibre is installed, so what's the long term economics of that?
Steve Terry
Ato_Zee - 27 Jun 2009 15:01 GMT > > Fibre will come, but to roll it out to every home and premises is an > > order > > of magnitude or two more expensive than sticking DSLAMS in the > > exchanges. But if Ian Vallance had started a rolling program of FTC instead of being more interested in his golf and pension, BT would have about 80% UK coverage with fibre by now, and with their monopoly on the ducts (rather than have to dig them) BT would be the only game in town. A missed opportunity. Now they are facing rising competition with an ageing copper network. And he got a knighthood !!!!! It's the most classic an example of the Peter Principle that I've ever seen.
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 17:39 GMT >>> Fibre will come, but to roll it out to every home and premises is an >>> order [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's the most classic an example of the Peter Principle that > I've ever seen. No. What would have happened is that 10% would have fibre, and the rest have modems..
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 19:42 GMT In article <2Dp1m.313$BA7.169@newsfe05.ams2>, Ato_Zee <ato_zee@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
>> > Fibre will come, but to roll it out to every home and premises is an >> > order [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >It's the most classic an example of the Peter Principle that >I've ever seen. What they -really- f.cked up on was selling off Cellnet or their stake in a mobile Telco thats where the future lies for telecoms..
 Signature Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 17:38 GMT >>> It's a shame such cost and effort has been put into dead end ADSL. >>> Effort that should have been put into Fibre [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Which will all instantly become scrap along with everyone's ADSL modems > once Fibre is installed, so what's the long term economics of that? There are no long term economics. There is only looking 5 years ahead, and working out the best profit in respect of outlay.
> Steve Terry Roderick Stewart - 27 Jun 2009 11:32 GMT > > You're talking about today. I'm talking about tomorrow. Who would have > > thought when the telephone was invented in the days of Queen Victoria that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's a shame such cost and effort has been put into dead end ADSL. > Effort that should have been put into Fibre ADSL enabled a service to be provided immediately to a great many people using a distribution system that already existed. It's not perfect but it's available, and where it works, it works well.
The same can't be said for any system that requires recabling the entire nation with something new, especially when it's being done by commercial interests and won't be available everywhere.
Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.
Rod.
 Signature Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
DAB sounds worse than FM - 25 Jun 2009 20:04 GMT >>>>>>> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds >>>>>>> worse [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > (setting up laptop and mobile in my car before setting off each > morning ). If you're refering to what I wrote about Internet radio, I'm pretty sure I didn't mention in-car, so I didn't say it's the holy grail for everywhere.
> To have decent programmes usually requires a reasonable investment > in > talent and I don't see how tiny internet stations can achieve this > without a mass market. Why does a radio station always need to have DJs or individual programmes? Internet radio is excellent for people who like genres of music that are poorly covered on bigger radio stations - and there's a lot of different genres taht are covered poorly.
> As far as I can see the more stations we have the > worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > presenters > to generate revenue from phone ins. Commercial radio is also obviouosly profit-oriented so they play music that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Small Internet radio stations aren't in it for the profit, and they're in it to play the music they like.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
JN - 25 Jun 2009 21:41 GMT >>>>>>>> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds >>>>>>>> worse [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > sure I didn't mention in-car, so I didn't say it's the holy grail for > everywhere. No, it wasn't yourself but the 3G laptop reply that I was referring to.
>> To have decent programmes usually requires a reasonable investment >> in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > music that are poorly covered on bigger radio stations - and there's a > lot of different genres taht are covered poorly. True, but it will almost certainly be a minority interest (my opinion).
>> As far as I can see the more stations we have the >> worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > stations aren't in it for the profit, and they're in it to play the > music they like. I believe we will still need a number large broadcasters with sufficient resources to deliver high quality content and a robust news service. Without these we are down to unresearched comment (you may think some of our broadcasters are already like this). If we rely on blogs and rumour only we will soon be burning witches again.
JN
DAB sounds worse than FM - 25 Jun 2009 22:09 GMT >>>>>>>>> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds >>>>>>>>> worse [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > True, but it will almost certainly be a minority interest (my > opinion). Only because the BBC doesn't want anybody to know about what's available, because there's a conflict of interest between the BBC promoting digital radio and them actually promoting the kind of Internet radio that they're opposed to because if a lot of people listened to it the BBC would lose listeners.
>>> As far as I can see the more stations we have the >>> worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > sufficient > resources to deliver high quality content and a robust news service. We'll have that anyway even if it means consolidation between commercial broadcasters.
> Without these we are down to unresearched comment (you may think > some of > our broadcasters are already like this). If we rely on blogs and > rumour > only we will soon be burning witches again. Radio is in steep decline, but it'll never get as bad as only having to rely on blogs.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
J. P. Gilliver (John) - 27 Jun 2009 05:46 GMT []
>I believe we will still need a number large broadcasters with >sufficient resources to deliver high quality content and a robust news [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >JN We have been already, for some time, metaphorically speaking.
 Signature J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Every time I think I know where it's at, they move it.
Dave Plowman (News) - 26 Jun 2009 10:51 GMT > Small Internet radio stations aren't in it for the profit, and they're > in it to play the music they like. How do they pay for that music?
 Signature *You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
JonPhred - 26 Jun 2009 01:14 GMT Steve Terry has written: <snip>
> I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g dongle, > 5 quid per month. > > Steve Terry Anywhere? Really?
 Signature JonPhred
Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 00:18 GMT > Steve Terry has written: > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Anywhere? Really? > JonPhred OK, DAB has a few less dead spots but not many
Steve Terry
2Bdecided - 25 Jun 2009 19:53 GMT > This Internet Radio sounds like the dogs b#ll#cks, how can I receive it > in my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen to the radio > in a car). iPlayer > iPod
iPod > Car
No good for live, but I still have R4 FM for live. Don't use it - choice of previous week's R4 much more useful!
Cheers, David.
Dave Liquorice - 25 Jun 2009 23:13 GMT > iPlayer > iPod > > iPod > Car > > No good for live, but I still have R4 FM for live. Don't use it - > choice of previous week's R4 much more useful! Aye I listen to far more radio now than I have done in a long time and I've found some very interesting programmes that I didn't even know existed. Podcasts from the BBC, love 'em.
 Signature Cheers Dave.
Alan - 25 Jun 2009 00:19 GMT >> In message <7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse >> than [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >What you say is wrong for the following reasons: <snip>
So there is no need for the petition! FM isn't going to be switched off.
 Signature Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
DAB sounds worse than FM - 25 Jun 2009 01:36 GMT > In message <7afod6F1vg9u0U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse > than [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > So there is no need for the petition! FM isn't going to be switched > off. The only FM stations that will still be on FM will be "ultra-local" stations, which most people don't care about.
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Ian Jackson - 25 Jun 2009 08:34 GMT >* DAB uses frequencies of around 200 MHz, whereas FM uses frequencies >of around 100 MHz - i.e. DAB couldn't be transmitted in the FM band >anyway Surely there's no technical reason why DAB cannot be transmitted at the present 'FM' frequencies? It is arguable that propagation and RF penetration is better than at 200MHz. All you will need is a new radio. This will be no great hardship as, the way things are going, if they change DAB to DAB+ I'm going to have to change my DAB/FM radio anyway in order to receive anything at all.
 Signature Ian
DAB sounds worse than FM - 25 Jun 2009 13:48 GMT > In message <7afod6F1vg9u0U1@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse > than [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the > present 'FM' frequencies? It says in the DAB spec that DAB can be transmitted at any frequency from (IIRC) about 100 MHz up to 2 or 3 GHz, but receivers aren't designed to receive DAB at 100 MHz, so it wouldn't be used there.
>It is arguable that propagation and RF > penetration is better than at 200MHz. All you will need is a new [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anyway in > order to receive anything at all. Yeah, but there are no plans to add the FM band to the frequencies that DAB receivers support (in terms of support for receiving DAB signals - most can receive FM as well).
 Signature Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Steve Terry - 24 Jun 2009 23:45 GMT >>There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ >>Please sign. Thanks. >> > Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting > hundreds of radio stations on DAB? Dab !!! Dab is dead, mpeg 2 crap. Keep up at the back
Steve Terry
Fredxx - 24 Jun 2009 23:46 GMT >>There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting > hundreds of radio stations on DAB? I don't see the comparison. I want freedom of choice. DAB gives me an extra freedom, but that's all.
My experience of digital, such as Freeview and the like, is that quality of transmission is actually worse than the equivalent analogue transmission!
As a comparison, do you think the multitude of TV channels has really given us more choice? I now watch less TV than ever before!
Kráftéé - 25 Jun 2009 00:00 GMT || There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: || [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting | hundreds of radio stations on DAB? Don't forget, better quality as well
J B - 25 Jun 2009 08:13 GMT > Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting > hundreds of radio stations on DAB? Well, I already have 4 FM radios as well as one in each of our families cars.
We don't have a DAB radio.
Is that a good enough reason???
 Signature J B
bugbear - 25 Jun 2009 11:18 GMT >> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting > hundreds of radio stations on DAB? There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations you dream of?
BugBear
Graham Murray - 25 Jun 2009 13:54 GMT > There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current > DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations > you dream of? So why do they not increase the bitate of the stations that are transmitting, thus increasing the quality?
bugbear - 26 Jun 2009 10:07 GMT >> There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current >> DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations >> you dream of? > > So why do they not increase the bitate of the stations that are > transmitting, thus increasing the quality? Good question - I wish they would.
BugBear
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 10:18 GMT >>> There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current >>> DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Good question - I wish they would. Maybe the recievers or the modulators they have cannot cope?
> BugBear tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 10:58 GMT In article <h223p0$r7l$3@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>> There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current >>>> DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> BugBear For FM not problem .. but dab these only so many bits in the MUX...
 Signature Tony Sayer
galaxyguy - 26 Jun 2009 11:52 GMT > In article <h223p0$r7...@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher > <t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > Tony Sayer Perhaps I need to make my point more bluntly. I won't sign any petition that is not written in English. Too many people these days rely on spell check and disregard their own knowledge of our language or are too idle to look in an English dictionary. The number of people who will put their name to a petition written in American about UK national British radio will be hugely reduced because it was written in haste and without care. We should care for our language and for our national broadcasters and ensure that in the UK we write in Engish. I for one will not sign this scruffy document.
bugbear - 26 Jun 2009 12:28 GMT > Perhaps I need to make my point more bluntly. I won't sign any > petition that is not written in English. Too many people these days [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > national broadcasters and ensure that in the UK we write in Engish. I > for one will not sign this scruffy document. "we write in Engish".
Yeah, people who "rely on spell check" are idiots.
BugBear
Steve Terry - 24 Jun 2009 23:42 GMT > There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ > Please sign. Thanks. What's your fecking name, King Canute?
the future is DRM, good job too
Steve Terry
tony sayer - 25 Jun 2009 10:31 GMT In article <h1ua5g$kk3$1@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> scribeth thus
>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Steve Terry Theres one who doesn't have much to do with the radio industry;!..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Ade - 27 Jun 2009 22:37 GMT >> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > the future is DRM, good job too Not in this flipping country it is not. The government know that DAb have failed and that is why they are trying to force us to use it, DRM will never happen.
Mike Tomlinson - 25 Jun 2009 06:45 GMT >There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: I've not been following this, but if FM is switched off, what happens to the millions of car radios fitted? What about those that are built into the console and can't be swapped out?
 Signature (\__/) (='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded. (")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
jasee - 25 Jun 2009 08:25 GMT >> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > > I've not been following this, but if FM is switched off, what happens > to the millions of car radios fitted? What about those that are > built into the console and can't be swapped out? The government will offer us an extra £1000 plus to crush them and the cars they're in on enviromental grounds :-)
Dave Plowman (News) - 25 Jun 2009 09:48 GMT > I've not been following this, but if FM is switched off, what happens to > the millions of car radios fitted? What about those that are built into > the console and can't be swapped out? You can often get adaptor plates to allow a 'standard' size radio to be fitted. Plenty want to upgrade the unit fitted as standard. Or use a DAB to FM convertor - just like plugging a FreeView box into the TV aerial input.
 Signature *If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Paul D.Smith - 25 Jun 2009 11:13 GMT > You can often get adaptor plates to allow a 'standard' size radio to be > fitted. Plenty want to upgrade the unit fitted as standard. Or use a DAB > to FM convertor - just like plugging a FreeView box into the TV aerial > input. Perhaps we all need to get into the "retro fit radios" business. I have 5 perfectly good FM/AM radios, none of which could be retrofitted for DAB.
And why would I want to purchase something that only works in the UK? From my kitchen, most DAB reception is simply too bad to listen to but I can happily get the same stations on FM. Also, my DAB radio uses significantly more power that my old FM/AM sets.
Paul DS
charles - 25 Jun 2009 12:04 GMT > And why would I want to purchase something that only works in the UK? why not, your TV only worked in the UK?
> From my kitchen, most DAB reception is simply too bad to listen to but I > can happily get the same stations on FM. Also, my DAB radio uses > significantly more power that my old FM/AM sets. Do not forget that if DAB beomes the normal broadcast medium, there will be more transmitters
 Signature From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
Dave Liquorice - 25 Jun 2009 13:35 GMT > Do not forget that if DAB beomes the normal broadcast medium, there will > be more transmitters You hope... The Beeb currently quote 86% of UK population covered for DAB with plans to 90%. Not that is "UK population" not land mass. Anyone have the figures for the coverage of the national networks on FM?
 Signature Cheers Dave.
Mark Carver - 25 Jun 2009 15:21 GMT >> Do not forget that if DAB beomes the normal broadcast medium, there will >> be more transmitters [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Anyone have the figures for the coverage of the national networks on > FM? ISTR it's about 96% of the UK population (for BBC R1-4), Classic FM is 85-90% ish I think.
BobC - 25 Jun 2009 16:10 GMT > >> Do not forget that if DAB beomes the normal broadcast medium, there will > >> be more transmitters [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ISTR it's about 96% of the UK population (for BBC R1-4), Classic FM is > 85-90% ish I think. DAB certainly hasn't reached our area yet, and it seems no concrete plans for it in the near future. Presumably they'll have to START it in our area before they can consider switching FM off. Could be quite a long wait according to this...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/local_radio/bbc_radio_derby_digital_dab_feature.shtml
Dave Liquorice - 25 Jun 2009 23:08 GMT >>> You hope... The Beeb currently quote 86% of UK population covered for >>> DAB with plans to 90%. Not that is "UK population" not land mass. >>> Anyone have the figures for the coverage of the national networks on >>> FM? >> >> ISTR it's about 96% of the UK population (for BBC R1-4), And there are notable holes in FM coverage at that level.
>> Classic FM is 85-90% ish I think. And Classic FM can be poor over quite large areas.
> DAB certainly hasn't reached our area yet, and it seems no concrete > plans for it in the near future. Presumably they'll have to START it in > our area before they can consider switching FM off. One would hope so. No DAB here either, at least not with the bit of damp string supplied with the mini-hifi set. No problem with R1-4, Classic FM or Radio Scotland. The two regional stations CFM and R.Cumbria aren't so good.
 Signature Cheers Dave.
Pete Zahut - 26 Jun 2009 14:10 GMT >> And why would I want to purchase something that only works in the UK? > > why not, your TV only worked in the UK? Because I don't drive my TV around europe!!!
I may not be able to understand the languages as I drive through Belgium, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, but I do like to listen to their music.
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 14:27 GMT >>> And why would I want to purchase something that only works in the UK? >> why not, your TV only worked in the UK? > > Because I don't drive my TV around europe!!! I did. Until I realised it only gave me sound..
> I may not be able to understand the languages as I drive through Belgium, > Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, but I do like to listen to > their music. Er..well..no, not really.
I remember driving through france, and endless succession of soppy ballads.
In germany its beer drinking brass band muzak for die wurkahs.
At least Holland gave us Golden Earring and so on..
Jimbo GM4DHJ .... - 25 Jun 2009 09:50 GMT >>There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > > I've not been following this, but if FM is switched off, what happens to > the millions of car radios fitted? What about those that are built into > the console and can't be swapped out? as I have said before..."new technology...squandering the worlds resources".......
Andy Dee - 25 Jun 2009 15:37 GMT > There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > > http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ > > Please sign. Thanks. <mad> So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition?
PLEASE why can't we remain British and use ENGLISH in this country.... </mad> A
Steve Terry - 25 Jun 2009 15:39 GMT >> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > </mad> > A Because most of these pointless petitions are written by idiots
Steve Terry
Bill Wright - 25 Jun 2009 19:29 GMT >> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > </mad> > A I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'.
Bill
Chas Gill - 25 Jun 2009 21:12 GMT >>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bill Personally I don't give a f**k how it's spelled (spelt?) - the whole point is that I have a serious investment in FM radio in my life and I don't want to have to scrap it at someone else's whim. Telly converters are one thing - telly's tend to be fixed objects in our lives. All my radios, bar one, are portable devices. One is even a wind-up jobbie that I intend to save the planet with (sic.) and I sure as hell don't want to have to consign all of these very efficient and perfectly satisfactory units to the skip unless they cease to work (internally) - unless, of course, HM Govt. would like to replace them all (at their expense) with the DAB equivalents (most of which don't friggin' work without an external aerial at present). If they want to do that I'll be happy to withdraw my sig. from the petition.
Chas
Steve Terry - 26 Jun 2009 00:31 GMT >>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > is that I have a serious investment in FM radio in my life and I don't > want to have to scrap it at someone else's whim. I'm sure milions of people are in your boat
But i look around and now almost none of my radio listening is using FM or AM. In the kitchen i listen to my DAB portable, in the living room via DVB-T freeview box, or on Astra 2, mostly so i can get BBC Radio 7
and on my laptop i mostly listen to US Talk radio on internet radio.
If i could get BBC Radio 7 on Band 2 FM I would have a use for FM
Steve Terry
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 09:52 GMT In article <h211f9$eau$1@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> scribeth thus
>>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Steve Terry From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not that good!..
Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car...
 Signature Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 10:17 GMT > From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few > people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to > receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not that > good!.. Its brilliant online! Well coaapred with AM. seems to be absolutely cut to about 5khz and compressed digitally to teh neth degree, but still better than AM.
My father in law wqas delighted when I put the cricket on, on his digital telly..
> Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car... Its very scratchy here. But you can make the words out.
galaxyguy - 26 Jun 2009 10:25 GMT > In article <h211f9$ea...@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry > <gFOUR...@tesco.net> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > -- > Tony Sayer The importance of maintaining Radio 4 in stereo cannot be underestimated. If one listens on a decent stereo FM tuner to the drama, be it the Afternoon Play or weekend ones it is incredible to hear how the two channels are used so expertly for voice and background sound. It makes the difference between watching b+w TV and watching colour. DAB radio sets are principally mono (to match most of the output). All tonality and depth has been scrubbed away from voices and music to leave them sounding 'surgically clean' when you have a signal. Even 30 miles from London, I find that in some rooms and on some days if I happen to be listening to DAB I have to change to FM because of the gurgling 'hot water bottle' noise that replaces what is being broadcast. Then again, the BBC itself have had a number of recent times when they have been broadcasting DAB and every 4th or 5th word has been lost due to some error before the signal reaches the transmitter. FM must not be left as a third rate junk yard. We need it for our main national broadcasters. Incidentally, concerning the petition it is a major error that it was composed by someone unable to spell analogue correctly. I would willingly sign any FM/AM petition written in English. Presenting American spelling is something of a disaster and shoots us in the foot. Please rectify it at once.
The Natural Philosopher - 26 Jun 2009 10:46 GMT >> In article <h211f9$ea...@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry >> <gFOUR...@tesco.net> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > disaster and shoots us in the foot. > Please rectify it at once. Your argument is not an argument for FM, it is an argument to maintain quality.
Now let me reason a little:
The only place where you need quality is in a fixed environment. A car is a noisy place, and so it outside so portable radios needn't be high quality. BUT if you can get a high quality ONLINE radio signal via broadband..is that enough?
The arguments that 'DAB is CRAP' relate not to it being digital per se, but to the intense amount of compression, both analogue and digital, applied to it to squeeze a lot of channels out of a small spectrum.
Ergo, if we go up the spectrum to the Ghz bands, there is room for lots of audio channels of high quality, as long as we realise that we need transmitters everywhere. A la phone cells etc.
There is also perssure to move to entirely digital transmissions simply on account of teh fact that the Internet is also a valid transmission medium for many..my Ex-apt sister LOVES hearing the BBC in greece..world service reaches further on the 'net than anything else..LW/MW stops at Stuttgart as it were..and SW stuff is vile.
So by all means pressure for quality: thats is a desirable. HOW it is done is actually not the issue. WE know thet digital CAN be as good or better than FM..its a question of making sure that it is.
I am not sure what the bitrate of a raw CD is..I guess 44 x 2 x 14 kpbs? is it 14 bits?
So 1.2Mbps.
With a decent S/N on a radio, that ought to fit EASILY into a few Khz of bandwith..less than 100 anyway.
Paul Martin - 26 Jun 2009 16:13 GMT > The only place where you need quality is in a fixed environment. A car > is a noisy place, and so it outside so portable radios needn't be high > quality. That argument doesn't wash with me. I copied some 128kbps MP3 streams over to a player for use in the car (BBC podcasts). The compression artefacts were objectionable, even with traffics noise (sic: PS EMI).
 Signature Paul Martin <pm@nowster.org.uk>
Roy Brown - 28 Jun 2009 21:57 GMT In message <h225dt$tq8$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writing at 10:46:36 in his/her local time opines:-
>The arguments that 'DAB is CRAP' relate not to it being digital per se, >but to the intense amount of compression, both analogue and digital, >applied to it to squeeze a lot of channels out of a small spectrum. No, that's important, but it's not the main thing.
DAB is digital. Which means it's supposed to be able to tell if it's working or not. Which means that if your DAB set sounds like someone is squeezing a hot water bottle in the background, then it should know it's doing this, that the results are likely to be found unacceptable, and politely decline to supply the affected channel.
My wife's Pure Evoke burbles on both R2 and Classic FM, with three bars showing. Ridiculous.
I can't stand it, and have to retune to the FM band to get these, when it's entirely acceptable. On the same radio, in the same position, without touching the aerial at all.
I can (and do) listen the R2 on the kitchen TV via Freeview for preference; I don't know how the bit rates compare via the three delivery mechanisms, but whatever they are, the Freeview is the best-sounding, though this may be the set rather than the signal here.
The Evoke is the only way to get Classic FM in the kitchen, though.
In the lounge, I can compare R2 over the FM tuner in the home cinema system with R2 off the TV Freeview through the same system, with R2 via a good Sony tuner in a stereo hi-fi setup; nothing to choose between them to my ears.
High bit-rate or low bit-rate, none of them burble. The last time I heard FM do that was back in the 60's, with the Northampton 'birdies' on stereo FM, which was thankfully diagnosed and fixed reasonably quickly.
 Signature Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris
Mortimer - 28 Jun 2009 22:34 GMT > In message <h225dt$tq8$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher > <tnp@invalid.invalid> writing at 10:46:36 in his/her local time opines:- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > doing this, that the results are likely to be found unacceptable, and > politely decline to supply the affected channel. Maybe what it should is switch to the FM version if it is available and continue playing the DAB version if there is no alternative. Noisy, distorted sound is better than no sound.
Woody - 29 Jun 2009 07:32 GMT >> In message <h225dt$tq8$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural >> Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writing at 10:46:36 in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > available and continue playing the DAB version if there is no > alternative. Noisy, distorted sound is better than no sound. But surely that's the point? For most of populated Britain FM is not noisy or distorted - the signal is good enough that it is essentially clean and clear. OK I accept that there may be a little background hiss but that is more often down to poor receiver (or rather stereo decoder) design than absolute signal.
Put a DAB radio in the same place, even on the same aerial if it is a DAB/FM radio, and for an unacceptably large proportion of the country the signal is sufficiently low as to cause the 'bubbling mud' syndrome.
Until the Government get to understand that they have to provide signals that are good enough for full DAB-FM compatibility then they must keep FM running.
Having said that, this is surely 'the World from within the M25' myopia again?
 Signature Woody
harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
tony sayer - 26 Jun 2009 11:00 GMT In article <9d9be9a7-f689-4b01-a7f3-5e6c4fc49ba2@l32g2000vba.googlegroup s.com>, galaxyguy <northerts@yahoo.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> In article <h211f9$ea...@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry >> <gFOUR...@tesco.net> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >disaster and shoots us in the foot. >Please rectify it at once. You go and tell our Dave P that, after all he's a sound recordist for TV so should know all about this;!...
 Signature Tony Sayer
jasee - 26 Jun 2009 14:24 GMT Incidentally, concerning the
> petition it is a major error that it was composed by someone unable to > spell analogue correctly. I would willingly sign any FM/AM petition > written in English. Presenting American spelling is something of a > disaster and shoots us in the foot. > Please rectify it at once. If they did that then all the existing signatories would have to be contacted to resign the 'new' petition, or they'd all have to be removed.
galaxyguy - 26 Jun 2009 18:09 GMT > Incidentally, concerning the > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If they did that then all the existing signatories would have to be > contacted to resign the 'new' petition, or they'd all have to be removed. Well that would be much better than presenting something which will be ignored because it is so badly presented. A huge percentage of people who would sign this if it were written correctly will not sign because they'll think its been written by an anorak airhead. I almost believe this present petition has been written by people in favour of digital who want to show up the signatories instead of taking them seriously. It needs re-writing in English to attract British radio listeners to sign it. The American spelling is not good enough and thousands of us will ignore this. What a shame? Maybe it would be better to get in early now before the BBC starts advertisng DAB on TV again and tell all your friends and relatives NOT to buy DAB. If they seriously want to hear BBC7 or 5 then there is Freeview, digital satellite and cable. Encourage people to refuse DAB and complain about the unbalanced adverts on 'Planet Rock'. Let's face it GCap folded because of DAB and Channel 4 Radio failed to emerge either. FM rules OK (and AM).
automaticgaincontrol - 27 Jun 2009 15:48 GMT > From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few > people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Tony Sayer Frankly though, who would really take 909/693 over DAB? Its such a tough fatiguing listen even in daylight hours.
Bill Wright - 27 Jun 2009 16:34 GMT >> From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few >> people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Frankly though, who would really take 909/693 over DAB? Its such a > tough fatiguing listen even in daylight hours. Oh really! When I was young AM was the only type of radio there was. We just accepted the audio quality for what it was. Things like that are only 'fatiguing' if you let the quality wind you up. Just relax, say to yourself 'it's AM' and let the mellow sound wash over you.
Bill
The Natural Philosopher - 27 Jun 2009 17:42 GMT >>> From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few >>> people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 'fatiguing' if you let the quality wind you up. Just relax, say to yourself > 'it's AM' and let the mellow sound wash over you. When we were young there wasn't broadband trashing all over MW. nor so many stations, and those were at pretty high power.
> Bill South Downs - 27 Jun 2009 18:41 GMT > > > > From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few > > > > people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > When we were young there wasn't broadband trashing all over MW. nor so many stations, and those were at pretty high power. Or Optimod speach processors being pushed to their design limits.
Bill Wright - 27 Jun 2009 20:58 GMT >>>> From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few >>>> people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > When we were young there wasn't broadband trashing all over MW. nor so > many stations, and those were at pretty high power. I can receive many AM stations without a trace of interference. So can amny others.
Bill
tony sayer - 27 Jun 2009 19:44 GMT In article <e91b4b9f-5f43-41ef-918b-5af9046e7627@n21g2000vba.googlegroup s.com>, automaticgaincontrol <automaticgaincontrol@googlemail.com> scribeth thus
>> From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few >> people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Frankly though, who would really take 909/693 over DAB? Its such a >tough fatiguing listen even in daylight hours. Well I very rarely listen to it, but for the bandwidth limitations of AM it seems fine in this neck of the woods in my car... Intelligible enough that is..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Steve Terry - 27 Jun 2009 22:20 GMT >> From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few >> people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Frankly though, who would really take 909/693 over DAB? > Its such a tough fatiguing listen even in daylight hours. I would take DRM over AM on 909/693
Steve Terry
Ato_Zee - 25 Jun 2009 21:23 GMT > Telly converters are one > thing - telly's tend to be fixed objects in our lives. All my > radios, bar one, are portable devices Speaking of that, are there any digital portables with rabbit ears or wire loop aerials around yet? Or do all our existing portables, beloved of students, nurses, and flat dwellers have to go to landfill as well? Just so our crap government can sell of the spectrum, whilst we get yet another stealth tax from the fat cat at the top of the s**t pile.
Owain - 03 Jul 2009 20:15 GMT > > So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition? > I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'. The Times style guide says "analog (in computer context); but keep analogue as in an analogous or parallel thing"
Owain
alexd - 25 Jun 2009 21:28 GMT
> <mad> > So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition? > > PLEASE why can't we remain British and use ENGLISH in this country.... > </mad> English as she is spoke.
 Signature <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx) 21:27:59 up 50 days, 4:24, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.20, 0.15 A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
Ade - 27 Jun 2009 22:36 GMT > There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > > http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ > > Please sign. Thanks. Done and will post link on myh facebook. I don't want to listen to Classic Fm on DAB, it is awful
Dave Higton - 28 Jun 2009 21:21 GMT > I don't want to listen to Classic Fm on DAB, it is awful Classic FM on FM sounds awful. Not a patch on R3 - too much processing.
Dave
tony sayer - 28 Jun 2009 21:35 GMT In article <94f5a67250.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>> I don't want to listen to Classic Fm on DAB, it is awful > >Classic FM on FM sounds awful. Not a patch on R3 - too much >processing. > >Dave Listened to the broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. Worthy FM, just an annoying pumping over compressed mess;((..
Doesn't anyone understand anything about musical dynamics anymore?...
 Signature Tony Sayer
Dave Plowman (News) - 28 Jun 2009 23:49 GMT > >Classic FM on FM sounds awful. Not a patch on R3 - too much > >processing. > > > >Dave
> Listened to the broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. Worthy FM, just > an annoying pumping over compressed mess;((..
> Doesn't anyone understand anything about musical dynamics anymore?... When Mr DAB goes on and on and on about how much better FM sounds than DAB - and qualifies it by saying he really means the pop stations with the lowest bitrates - and then others talk about soundstage and stereo separation etc. All I really hear on those is some incredibly nasty processor set on kill. Regardless of what transmission medium I use. Of course what we actually hear - and what distresses us - are individual. It's exactly the same with most pop CDs. Totally over processed - after the studio recording. Perhaps someone would explain why a medium like CD with a dynamic range well in excess of what is possible domestically ends up with one of 2/10ths of FA - when plenty of 'pop' LPs didn't.
 Signature *If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
tony sayer - 29 Jun 2009 00:25 GMT In article <5072b4843fdave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> >Classic FM on FM sounds awful. Not a patch on R3 - too much >> >processing. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >with a dynamic range well in excess of what is possible domestically ends >up with one of 2/10ths of FA - when plenty of 'pop' LPs didn't. Let me put that differently .. perhaps I was a tad over the top in the original comment this was not prolly an audio processor as such, more a maladjusted compressor on the streaming feed that was giving a rather audible pumping effect on most all of the music audio, spoiling what otherwise was an excellent broadcast:)....
 Signature Tony Sayer
The Natural Philosopher - 29 Jun 2009 06:23 GMT > In article <5072b4843fdave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) > <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > audible pumping effect on most all of the music audio, spoiling what > otherwise was an excellent broadcast:).... I can only say that from where I was sitting, the Internet feeds were superb.
Probably better sound than being there..
tony sayer - 29 Jun 2009 08:31 GMT In article <h29j3r$qo0$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>> In article <5072b4843fdave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News) >> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >I can only say that from where I was sitting, the Internet feeds were >superb. Didn't you hear that on a lot of the music content last nite?. It sounded like what Kiss FM is like quite a bit of the time, a very short time constant AGC in use ?..
>Probably better sound than being there.. Wanna go next year?. Can't be doing with all this tent stuff, a motor home at least and a couple of armchairs preferably elevated to listen on ands see the goings on;).
Fridge for the Budwisers and a separate van for the groupies;)..
 Signature Tony Sayer
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL - 29 Jun 2009 14:37 GMT > It's exactly the same with most pop CDs. Totally over processed - after > the studio recording. Perhaps someone would explain why a medium like CD > with a dynamic range well in excess of what is possible domestically ends > up with one of 2/10ths of FA - when plenty of 'pop' LPs didn't. I can recommend Greg Milner's new book 'Perfecting Sound Forever', which goes into great detail on the skewed logic behind the so-called 'Loudness War'.
L
 Signature --------------------------------------------------- "He's got arms like legs He's got hands on his feet He's got a nose like a doughnut He's got a tendency to over eat" --------------------------------------------------- Louis Barfe - www.louisbarfe.com - cheeseford.blogspot.com
Nigel Cliffe - 30 Jun 2009 09:37 GMT > There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off: > > http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/ > > Please sign. Thanks. Thanks for link. Signed and links to petition added to a couple of websites I manage.
regards
- Nigel
 Signature Nigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
|
|
|