DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> "JN" <jim@home> wrote in message
> news:kq2dndgX_qWSPd7XnZ2dnUVZ8lmdnZ2d@brightview.c o.uk
>> jasee wrote:
>>> Steve Terry wrote:
>>>> "JN" <jim@home> wrote in message
>>>> news:3vKdnVTB34-61t7XnZ2dnUVZ8opi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>> Kráftéé wrote:
>>>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>>>>>> "Alan" <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:AtSTnMGj7pQKFwgC@amac.f2s.com
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> 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 ).
>
>
> 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.
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
>> 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.
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
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
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.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:37:50 +0100, Ian Smith
<news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>jasee wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> 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/
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>
>
>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.
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?
>
>
> 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.
In article <YvidnZyq4cW7f97XnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >, Ian
Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
Blimey!, do you live next door to Dave Plowman;?..
--
Tony Sayer
"Ian Smith" <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
news:YvidnZyq4cW7f97XnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@brightview.c o.uk
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
"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" <jim@home> wrote in message
news:Up-dnbE99L9hfd7XnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> "JN" <jim@home> wrote in message
>> news:kq2dndgX_qWSPd7XnZ2dnUVZ8lmdnZ2d@brightview.c o.uk
>>> jasee wrote:
>>>> Steve Terry wrote:
>>>>> "JN" <jim@home> wrote in message
>>>>> news:3vKdnVTB34-61t7XnZ2dnUVZ8opi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>> Kráftéé wrote:
>>>>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Alan" <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:AtSTnMGj7pQKFwgC@amac.f2s.com
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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 ).
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 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
>>> 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.
> 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
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I believe we will still need a number large broadcasters with
> 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.
--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
"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
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:10:39 -0700 (PDT), BobC wrote:
>>> 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.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:37:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> 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?
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT), 2Bdecided wrote:
> 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.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:11:10 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<allsortsnotthisbit@howhill.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:37:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> 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...
>
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.
"Chas Gill" <Chas.Gill@gollum.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:HNqdnXEDre-MR97XnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d@bt.com...
> "Bill Wright" <insertmybusinessname@f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:dMKdnVt8W82-X97XnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> "Andy Dee" <notme@honest.gov> wrote in message
>> news:SYL0m.4944$4r7.3624@newsfe24.ams2...
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>>> 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
>> I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'.
>> 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.
>
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
"Ian Smith" <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
news:YvidnZyq4cW7f97XnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@brightview.c o.uk...
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
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.
In article <h218qh$bq1$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Fredxx
<fredxx@spam.com> scribeth thus
>
>"Ian Smith" <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
>news:YvidnZyq4cW7f97XnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...
>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>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.
>
>>
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).
>> 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.
>
>
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!.
--
Tony Sayer
> 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.
In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.kltsum3.pminews@srv1.howhill.n et>, Dave
Liquorice <allsortsnotthisbit@howhill.com> scribeth thus
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:37:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
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!...
--
Tony Sayer
In article <h211f9$eau$1@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry
<gFOURwwk@tesco.net> scribeth thus
>
>"Chas Gill" <Chas.Gill@gollum.btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:HNqdnXEDre-MR97XnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Bill Wright" <insertmybusinessname@f2s.com> wrote in message
>> news:dMKdnVt8W82-X97XnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>> "Andy Dee" <notme@honest.gov> wrote in message
>>> news:SYL0m.4944$4r7.3624@newsfe24.ams2...
>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>>>
>>>>> Please sign. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>> <mad>
>>>> So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition?
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE why can't we remain British and use ENGLISH in this country....
>>>> </mad>
>>>> A
>>> I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'.
>>> Bill
>>>
>> Personally I don't give a f**k how it's spelled (spelt?) - the whole point
>> is that I have a serious investment in FM radio in my life and I don't
>> want to have to scrap it at someone else's whim.
>>
>I'm sure milions of people are in your boat
>
>But i look around and now almost none of my radio listening is using
>FM or AM.
>In the kitchen i listen to my DAB portable, in the living room via DVB-T
>freeview box, or on Astra 2, mostly so i can get BBC Radio 7
>
>and on my laptop i mostly listen to US Talk radio on internet radio.
>
>If i could get BBC Radio 7 on Band 2 FM
>I would have a use for FM
>
>Steve Terry
>
>
From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few
people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to
receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not that
good!..
Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car...
--
Tony Sayer
Graham Murray wrote:
> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes:
>
>> There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current
>> DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations
>> you dream of?
>
> So why do they not increase the bitate of the stations that are
> transmitting, thus increasing the quality?
tony sayer wrote:
> In article <h218qh$bq1$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Fredxx
> <fredxx@spam.com> scribeth thus
>> "Ian Smith" <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
>> news:YvidnZyq4cW7f97XnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@brightview.c o.uk...
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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;!..
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).
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> 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 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.
> 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.
bugbear wrote:
> Graham Murray wrote:
>> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>
Maybe the recievers or the modulators they have cannot cope?
In article <h2238t$qrp$1@news.albasani.net>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM.
> Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak
> atmospherics I suppose.
It was short wave broadcasts being picked up in the IF strip. 10.7MHz is on
the edge of the 25 metre band.
In article <YvidnZyq4cW7f97XnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >, Ian
Smith wrote:
> I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent
> sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near
> hiss-free on FM.
>
> This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me
> crackly playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD
> gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag
> says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher.
Hiss, the presence or absence of, is not the only measure of "quality".
The hiss on FM is simply superimposed on the sound, and doesn't alter
what it sounds like. Digital sound with bit-rate reduction is quite a
different situation.
The comparison between FM and DAB is nothing like the comparison
between gramophone recordings and compact discs. The digital bit rate
on CD is about 10 times the best rates we are now using on DAB and is
not subject to any destructive bit-rate reduction.
On 26 June, 09:52, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <h211f9$ea...@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry
> <gFOUR...@tesco.net> scribeth thus
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Chas Gill" <Chas.G...@gollum.btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:HNqdnXEDre-MR97XnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d@bt.com...
> >> "Bill Wright" <insertmybusinessn...@f2s.com> wrote in message
> >>news:dMKdnVt8W82-X97XnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@pipex.net...
> >>> "Andy Dee" <no...@honest.gov> wrote in message
> >>>news:SYL0m.4944$4r7.3624@newsfe24.ams2...
> >>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >>> I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'.
> >>> 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.
>
> >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
>
> 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...
> --
> 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.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:50:18 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
>> 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?
>
> 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!...
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.
Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <YvidnZyq4cW7f97XnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >, Ian
> Smith wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
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 ;-)
charles wrote:
> In article <h2238t$qrp$1@news.albasani.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM.
>> Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak
>> atmospherics I suppose.
>
> It was short wave broadcasts being picked up in the IF strip. 10.7MHz is on
> the edge of the 25 metre band.
>
You may very well be right.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:46:27 +0100, Ian Smith
<news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.
>
>There is some truth in that.
>>
>> Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
>> reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive
>> higher qulaity on FM.
>
>Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning
>or not, I don't know.
>
>I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent
>sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near
>hiss-free on FM.
>
I can manage a hiss-free FM reception on my old Leak Troughline 3 ( a
valve tuner ).
The difference between an FM broadcast via good tuner and a digital
one is chalk and cheese - and if your kit was up to any kind of
scratch you'd understand why the spatial separation was important.
You know that popular video technique of zooming in on the central
object ( they do it to death on Top Gear ), and the way it takes you
from 'outside' the shot to right inside it? That's the difference, but
in audio terms.
Regards,
--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net
galaxyguy wrote:
> On 26 June, 09:52, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <h211f9$ea...@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry
>> <gFOUR...@tesco.net> scribeth thus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Chas Gill" <Chas.G...@gollum.btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:HNqdnXEDre-MR97XnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> "Bill Wright" <insertmybusinessn...@f2s.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:dMKdnVt8W82-X97XnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>>> "Andy Dee" <no...@honest.gov> wrote in message
>>>>> news:SYL0m.4944$4r7.3624@newsfe24.ams2...
>>>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'.
>>>>> 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.
>>> 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
>> 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...
>> --
>> 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.
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.
Re: Petition to stop FM being switched off 
Linear Mode
