Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
General TopicsGSMBluetooth
Providers
AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizon
Manufacturers
EricssonNokiaMotorola
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
PocketPCPalmMore Topics ...

Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / UK Group / August 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Petition to stop FM being switched off

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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/

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.