In message <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
<davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>>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.
>
>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.
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.
--
Clive
Clive wrote:
> In message <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
> <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
> 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.
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.
In article <h2trvt$80q$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
> 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.
In article <+E4kG4BPcmUKFwUY@yewbank.demon.co.uk>, Clive
<Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
> <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> writes
> >>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.
> >
> >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.
> 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.
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.
In article <h2trvt$80q$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Clive wrote:
> 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.
In article <VA.00000764.003b82c6@escapetime.removethisbit.myz en.co.uk>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <h2trvt$80q$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> wrote:
> > 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.
Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <h2trvt$80q$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
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.
In message <507707d39anoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>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.
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.
--
Clive
In article <Sf5fQ0ALj9UKFwAX@yewbank.demon.co.uk>, Clive
<Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <507707d39anoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
> >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.
> 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.
In message <50778a3f07noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>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:-)
--
Clive
Clive wrote:
> In message <50778a3f07noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>> 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
In message <h31tiq$j84$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
>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.
Agreed.
--
Clive
"Clive" <Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Sf5fQ0ALj9UKFwAX@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
> In message <507707d39anoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>>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.
>
> 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.
> 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" <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:h32u7g$3h4$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Clive" <Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Sf5fQ0ALj9UKFwAX@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <507707d39anoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>>>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.
>>
>> 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.
>> 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
>
I only listen to 7 listen again on reciva wi fi ......
Jim GM4DHJ/M wrote:
> "Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:h32u7g$3h4$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Clive" <Clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:Sf5fQ0ALj9UKFwAX@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <507707d39anoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>>>> I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products
>>>> are
>>>> folded back as complex intermodulation by the FM and stereo decoding
>>>> processes. Hence the distortion can indeed appear below 15kHz in the
>>>> actual
>>>> output.
>>>>
>>>> And in other cases it appears at harmonics of the intended frequency, so
>>>> a
>>>> 2kHz tone can give distortion at multiples of this up to 15kHz.
>>> Where I live FM rules. Digital may have pretences above their station
>>> (pun not intended) but in straight listening tests are rubbish compared
>>> to the FM in this part of the woods.
>>> Clive
>>>
>>>
>> BBC Radio 7 sounds great on FM, or it would if it was broadcast.
>>
>> and as it's in my top three most listened to stations, it makes FM dead
>> for me.
>>
>> Steve Terry
>>
> I only listen to 7 listen again on reciva wi fi ......
>
>
I grab it off the net, or , occasionally, on the digiTV.
Fosters is good, however I remember in the 70's the BBC doing a blind test
on speakers, and behind a large acoustic cloth were hidden some speakers.
LS5/1A, LS5/8's LS3/5A and whatever else they had. When the music was
played, the so called Sound Supervisors (Sound Balancers) complained at each
piece of music that was played "A little too much top on that one!!" "
Alittle too much distortion on that piece " Not enough bass, speakers are
rubbish". It was only at that point that the curtains were withdrawn to show
a full 16 piece orchestra!!!
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h31tiq$j84$1@news.albasani.net...
> Clive wrote:
>> In message <50778a3f07noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>>> I note your opinion and point out it has nothing to do with what I wrote
>>> that you quoted above it. :-)
>> I note what you say and maintain that FM is better here in the Lake
>> District that digital, however, anything that I said that may be
>> offensive I apologise for and blame several large cans of Fosters:-)
>
> Well I am listening to the cricket on the Beeb's digital internet stream.
> It sure is a lot better than AM!! :-)
>
> can we all agfree that
>
> - FM is better than AM
> - Good digital is better than FM
> - Current DAB is not good digital.
> - depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology
> is, current digital may or may not be better than FM
>
> And leave it at that.
In article <2lGcm.6670$Kh7.5091@newsfe03.ams2>,
Alistair Biggar <albiggar@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> 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 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.
--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same
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
--
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
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________
"Alistair Biggar" <albiggar@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:2lGcm.6670$Kh7.5091@newsfe03.ams2...
> Fosters is good, however I remember in the 70's the BBC doing a blind
> test on speakers, and behind a large acoustic cloth were hidden some
> speakers. LS5/1A, LS5/8's LS3/5A and whatever else they had. When the
> music was played, the so called Sound Supervisors (Sound Balancers)
> complained at each piece of music that was played "A little too much top
> on that one!!" " Alittle too much distortion on that piece " Not enough
> bass, speakers are rubbish". It was only at that point that the curtains
> were withdrawn to show a full 16 piece orchestra!!!
> "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:h31tiq$j84$1@news.albasani.net...
>> Clive wrote:
>>> In message <50778a3f07noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> writes
>>>> I note your opinion and point out it has nothing to do with what I
>>>> wrote
>>>> that you quoted above it. :-)
>>> I note what you say and maintain that FM is better here in the Lake
>>> District that digital, however, anything that I said that may be
>>> offensive I apologise for and blame several large cans of Fosters:-)
>>
>> Well I am listening to the cricket on the Beeb's digital internet stream.
>> It sure is a lot better than AM!! :-)
>>
>> can we all agfree that
>>
>> - FM is better than AM
>> - Good digital is better than FM
>> - Current DAB is not good digital.
>> - depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology
>> is, current digital may or may not be better than FM
>>
>> And leave it at that.
>
>
Brian Gaff wrote:
> Well, all I can tell you is that when dab first started, the quality was
> better than FM, mainly signal to noise etc it has to be said, but now its
> sounding gritty, and lacking in detail, so either their equipment is crap,
> or the bit rate really has been turned down. I assume R7 and r4 are still
> often in mono on dab to save data as well, when the freeview feed of r7 and
> the fm feed of r4 are in stereo. sigh.
>
> Mind you, if we got rid of the clone commercials, and replaced them with one
> quality commercial station there would be plenty of data bandwidth. After
> all, most of your Heart/capital/Q/ whatever, are compressed to the enth
> degree and probably sourced from rubbish mp3s in the first place.
>
> Brian
>
Well I have now got a USB digital TV stock for this computer!
Most radio stations on it are about the same as online quality as far
as I can tell. WAY better than FM noise wise.
Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news
is absolute rubbish quality.
In article <XULcm.62756$OO7.49419@text.news.virginmedia.com >,
Brian Gaff <Briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*
[]
>> Clive wrote:
[]
>> 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.
>
>
--
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")
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <2lGcm.6670$Kh7.5091@newsfe03.ams2>,
> Alistair Biggar <albiggar@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> 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 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.
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:15:18 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> 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.
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> Clive wrote:
> []
>>> 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.
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
> 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.)
>
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.
Zero Tolerance wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 05:26:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 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.
In article <h514i6$9gc$1@news.albasani.net>,
Nigel Cliffe <invalid@2mm.org.uk> wrote:
> > 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.
--
*Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:39:59 +0000, Zero Tolerance wrote:
> 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.
In article <P_qdnR-lXLRYqOnXnZ2dnUVZ8kZi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Anahata <anahata@treewind.co.uk> wrote:
> > 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.
--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.
J G Miller wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:39:59 +0000, Zero Tolerance wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
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.
Re: Petition to stop FM being switched off 
Linear Mode
