Paul Martin wrote:
> In article <8V9sbwOKvIRKFw95@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
Then likely as not, its because its heavily trafficked. Broadcast, by
definition, is exactly trafficked to the number of stations being
transmitted.
In article <7ahvvcF1v9imvU1@mid.individual.net>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote:
> 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?
--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers
In article <xoCdnYiUsuIEUt7XnZ2dnUVZ8jCdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >,
JN <jim@home> wrote:
> But then people do seem
> willing to part with around £50/month for satellite services so I could
> well be wrong, again.
Paul Martin wrote:
> In article <so2dnUqKDqA-Ld_XnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Kráftéé 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?
>
>> 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).
>
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.
In article <YvidnZyq4cW7f97XnZ2dnUVZ8kudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >,
Ian Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
> 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.
--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees
In article <h2238t$qrp$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <h218qh$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.
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
>> 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.
>
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
>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 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?..
>
>
>
>
In article <h223p0$r7l$3@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>bugbear wrote:
>> Graham Murray wrote:
>>> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes:
>>>
>>>> There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current
>>>> DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations
>>>> you dream of?
>>>
>>> So why do they not increase the bitate of the stations that are
>>> transmitting, thus increasing the quality?
>>
>> Good question - I wish they would.
>>
>Maybe the recievers or the modulators they have cannot cope?
>
>
>> BugBear
For FM not problem .. but dab these only so many bits in the MUX...
--
Tony Sayer
In article <qjdJWIMOX+QKFwVw@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher
> >than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever
> >tried it). Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to
> >FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
> >
> >regards, Ian
> Blimey!, do you live next door to Dave Plowman;?..
Heh heh - my comments about poor FM reception round here didn't of course
refer to all FM stations - and were also about when DAB was introduced.
Since then the FM has been improved by a fill in transmitter. But I'm
using FreeView now anyway for R4.
--
*When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded *
In article <9d9be9a7-f689-4b01-a7f3-5e6c4fc49ba2@l32g2000vba.googlegroup
s.com>, galaxyguy <northerts@yahoo.co.uk> scribeth thus
>On 26 June, 09:52, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <h211f9$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.
You go and tell our Dave P that, after all he's a sound recordist for TV
so should know all about this;!...
--
Tony Sayer
In message <h224oq$ssg$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
>charles wrote:
>> In article <h2238t$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.
>
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.
--
Ian
In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.kluo5a2.pminews@srv1.howhill.n et>, Dave
Liquorice <allsortsnotthisbit@howhill.com> scribeth thus
>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.
>
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;!..
--
Tony Sayer
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:-
>In article <69e7cca7-5500-470a-9e44-6a5aa05d69ef@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Eps wrote:
>
>>> 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? :-)
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....
--
Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris
On 26 June, 10:58, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <h223p0$r7...@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> <t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>
>
>
> >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?
>
> >> * BugBear
>
> For FM not problem .. but dab these only so many bits in the MUX...
> --
> 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.
In article <h224n7$ssg$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
> > 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.
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.
In article <xoCdnYiUsuIEUt7XnZ2dnUVZ8jCdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >, Jn wrote:
> 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.
In article <nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.kltsum3.pminews@srv1.howhill.n et>, Dave
Liquorice 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?
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...?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:06:12 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>
>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;!..
>
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,
--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net
charles wrote:
> In article <h225s5$ubs$1@news.albasani.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> the real solution is to go higher in frequency. Much more space, and not
>> already allocated. AND it doesn't hop skip and jump all over the world.
>
> trouble is that the higher frequency the less the 'bending' round obstacles
> and the less penetration through building materials.
>
Thats what broadband is for! BUT GHz stuff bounces OFF buildings and
diffracts through gaps. so its not all bad!
tony sayer wrote:
> In article <h2238t$qrp$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>> tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <h218qh$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.
>
> 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.
>>
>> 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;!..
>
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
>>> 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.
>>
>
> 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
>> 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 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
> 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 ..
>
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
>> 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?..
Never ever a dish!
Get a bit of digital breakup now and again. Must realign the aerial again
Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <h224oq$ssg$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
>> charles wrote:
>>> In article <h2238t$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.
>>
> 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.
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.
galaxyguy wrote:
> On 26 June, 10:58, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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.
"we write in Engish".
Yeah, people who "rely on spell check" are idiots.
In article <5071670d98charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
<charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <h225s5$ubs$1@news.albasani.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> 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?..
--
Tony Sayer
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:-
>>In article <69e7cca7-5500-470a-9e44-6a5aa05d69ef@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>> Eps wrote:
>>
>>>> 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? :-)
>
>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....
>
>
>
>
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!..
--
Tony Sayer
Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <h224n7$ssg$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
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...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <xoCdnYiUsuIEUt7XnZ2dnUVZ8jCdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >, Jn wrote:
>> 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 kindof
> 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.
>
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..
"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ax8jC4SMRLRKFwIg@bancom.co.uk...
> 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.
"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bBLl+tSTPLRKFwJE@bancom.co.uk...
> In article <5071670d98charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>In article <h225s5$ubs$1@news.albasani.net>,
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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?..
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.
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h22c9k$7as$1@news.albasani.net...
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> In article <h224n7$ssg$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 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.
>
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
> 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.
>
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.
In article <ufPtuJFWbKRKFwe1@x.x>,
Roy Brown <Roy_now_free_from_spam@acanthus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> But plain stereo over headphones certainly won't work....
Never had done even with two good ears. ;-)
--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?
Re: Petition to stop FM being switched off 
..
Linear Mode
