charles wrote:
> In article <h1vik5$vbp$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Paul D.Smith
> <paul_d_smith@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And why would I want to purchase something that only works in the UK?
>
> why not, your TV only worked in the UK?
Because I don't drive my TV around europe!!!
I may not be able to understand the languages as I drive through Belgium,
Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, but I do like to listen to
their music.
galaxyguy wrote:
Incidentally, concerning the
> petition it is a major error that it was composed by someone unable to
> spell analogue correctly. I would willingly sign any FM/AM petition
> written in English. Presenting American spelling is something of a
> disaster and shoots us in the foot.
> Please rectify it at once.
If they did that then all the existing signatories would have to be
contacted to resign the 'new' petition, or they'd all have to be removed.
Pete Zahut wrote:
> charles wrote:
>> In article <h1vik5$vbp$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Paul D.Smith
>> <paul_d_smith@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And why would I want to purchase something that only works in the UK?
>> why not, your TV only worked in the UK?
>
> Because I don't drive my TV around europe!!!
I did. Until I realised it only gave me sound..
>
> I may not be able to understand the languages as I drive through Belgium,
> Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, but I do like to listen to
> their music.
>
Er..well..no, not really.
I remember driving through france, and endless succession of soppy ballads.
In germany its beer drinking brass band muzak for die wurkahs.
At least Holland gave us Golden Earring and so on..
> I am thinking of getting a freeview card for this computer, because by
> happenstance, there's a TV outlet right by it, and listening to the
> radio on it. May have to spend ,more on speaker its true..
I use mine to record radio programs, but rarely use it live.
> And I am spending a fortune on bandwidth watching TV on it online..
Perhaps you should change the tariff you're on?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
14:43:59 up 50 days, 21:46, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.12, 0.11
A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
Ian Smith 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.
>
I have a very good FM tuner and it sounds FAR better than DAB.
90% of DAB is awful, phasey, bubbling, gritty rubbish.
10% is OK but still worse than FM.
I have an FM tuner, 2 x portables and 2 x car radios.
I do not want to buy 5 x DAB radios.
> FM isn't being switched off. National networks are being transferred to
> DAB (+ DVB etc etc) and FM re-allocated to local 'community' radio.
>
> There's no way I would sign - the faster we switch the better.
>
> regards, Ian
Or to switch from stereo to mono to save even more bandwidth...
>Of the commercial stations,
> only Classic FM has used a half-decent bitrate (160kbps).
Literally 98% of stereo stations on DAB in the UK use a bit rate of
112 or 128 kbps (counting multiple instances of the same station when
they're on different multiplexes).
--
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
Fredxx wrote:
> "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.
>
Which, in a nutshell, is my point.
Times change. Digital need not equal crap.
Argue for quality, not FM.
Write to the beeb and demand that you get 250kbps + digital radio, on
at least Radio 3 and 4...
> The zip compression type standard gives a variable output according to the
> data being compressed. As you say, if I gave you white noise, I guess
> there'd be very little compression. A similar analogy, is to watch a film
> over Freeview or Sky which has a scene of falling rain, where the picture
> because unpleasant and blocky.
>
Yup. Ot fractal haloes rounmd DF1
> Audio compression is generally fine as it anticipates the response of the
> ear-brain which has characteristics we all suffer, the part we're going to
> quibble over is the degree of compression which in DAB is squeezed to say
> the least.
>
>
alexd wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I am thinking of getting a freeview card for this computer, because by
>> happenstance, there's a TV outlet right by it, and listening to the
>> radio on it. May have to spend ,more on speaker its true..
>
> I use mine to record radio programs, but rarely use it live.
>
>> And I am spending a fortune on bandwidth watching TV on it online..
>
> Perhaps you should change the tariff you're on?
>
makes little difference. However once I have the data I will shop around
for the best deal.
"Paul Martin" <pm@nowster.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnh495fs.8ma.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk
> In article <7afv1qF1vdo41U1@mid.individual.net>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:h1udcv$fgc$1@news.eternal-september.org
>
>>> DAB can be transmitted at any frequency, it doesn't have to be
>>> 200MHz. It's just what was available.
>
>> Yes, but DAB receivers can only receive signals that are
>> transmitting
>> in Band III or L-band - and there are no multiplexes in L-band in
>> the
>> UK.
>
> Except that only the initial batch of receivers had L-band
> capability.
> Newer receivers are Band III only,
Just looked at the spec of some Pure products and they were Band III
only. It looks like it's gone full circle, because they started out
without L-band support in 2002/3, then L-band was added to most
receivers, but it must have gone back to Band III only.
> and I'm told that some on sale can't
> cope with bitrates over 192kbps.
I think the vast majority can these days - there was a bug with early
receivers in 2002, which they didn't realise existed at first because
they tested the receivers by receiving signals off air, and there
wasn't any stations using bit rates above 192 kbps.
--
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 26 June, 14:24, "jasee" <ja...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> galaxyguy wrote:
>
> *Incidentally, concerning the
>
> > petition it is a major error that it was composed by someone unable to
> > spell analogue correctly. I would willingly sign any FM/AM petition
> > written in English. Presenting American spelling is something of a
> > disaster and shoots us in the foot.
> > Please rectify it at once.
>
> If they did that then all the existing signatories would have to be
> contacted to resign the 'new' petition, or they'd all have to be removed.
Well that would be much better than presenting something which will be
ignored because it is so badly presented. A huge percentage of people
who would sign this if it were written correctly will not sign because
they'll think its been written by an anorak airhead. I almost believe
this present petition has been written by people in favour of digital
who want to show up the signatories instead of taking them seriously.
It needs re-writing in English to attract British radio listeners to
sign it. The American spelling is not good enough and thousands of us
will ignore this. What a shame? Maybe it would be better to get in
early now before the BBC starts advertisng DAB on TV again and tell
all your friends and relatives NOT to buy DAB. If they seriously want
to hear BBC7 or 5 then there is Freeview, digital satellite and cable.
Encourage people to refuse DAB and complain about the unbalanced
adverts on 'Planet Rock'. Let's face it GCap folded because of DAB and
Channel 4 Radio failed to emerge either. FM rules OK (and AM).
In article <7ak640F1vv3crU1@mid.individual.net>,
Bigguy <bigguy@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> I have a very good FM tuner and it sounds FAR better than DAB. 90% of
> DAB is awful, phasey, bubbling, gritty rubbish. 10% is OK but still
> worse than FM.
If it's bubbling you need a stronger signal. There is no transmission
system which works perfectly with an inadequate signal. And FM can sound
quite diabolical with a poor one too.
In article <h22dmv$1ld$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Fredxx
<fredxx@spam.com> scribeth thus
>
>"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bBLl+tSTPLRKFwJE@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <5071670d98charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
>> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>In article <h225s5$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.
Read that again .. reflections .. diffraction is a known we use it for
path and proprogation predictions etc..
>Having said that OFDM, the transmission standard for DAB, is very good at
>reducing fading and multipath interference you'd get from GHz's
>transmissions in a built up area.
>
>
>Is there? Tacolneston is a LONG way away mate. No decent FM here.
>
It is some 30 miles but seeing where you are;!..Not exactly in a dip..
>>
>>> Unless you lose frames completely, the response of a decent digital
>>> system in noise is better.
>>>
>>> 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.
Mate of mine has a factory fit DABble radio comparing FM from Madingley
near Cambridge 500 watts of FM out performs 4 kW of DAB!..
Been in the car and seen it myself!..
>
>
>>> Also, the problems of audio distortion only start after what is in
>>> decent signal conditions a 'perfect' decoder. Misaligned IF strips wont
>>> 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.
Ever tried a tuner like the modest Denon TU260 MK2 ?..
Let alone an Audiolab T8000 or a Kenwood LOT-2
>
>The great think about DAB is that adjacent channel burble gets stamped
>on. As long as its below the main signal level, you will never hear it.
>
Ummm ... sure about that on a fine summers day with a few MUX's coming
over the horizon;!..
>The move from AM to FM was really about exchanging a direct reflection
>of S/N ratio in an AM baseband modulated channel with a better S/N ratio
>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.
Perhaps you should...
>
>> Not that I'm against digital modes of transmission for instance for home
>> use on satellite the German broadcasters are very generous with the bits
>> 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
It'll be dizzy if its tweaked again;!..
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You have to remember that all these standards were written when "cheap"
>> number crunching in a low cost set top box or radio wasn't feasible.
>>
>
>Which, in a nutshell, is my point.
>Times change. Digital need not equal crap.
>
>Argue for quality, not FM.
>
>Write to the beeb and demand that you get 250kbps + digital radio, on
>at least Radio 3 and 4...
>
NP .. go and bang your head against a few Leylandii .. it will be a far
more productive use of your time;!....
In article <h22cfh$7as$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>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 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.
>>
>
>Absofuckinglutely.
>
>I am thinking of getting a freeview card for this computer, because by
>happenstance, there's a TV outlet right by it, and listening to the
>radio on it. May have to spend ,more on speaker its true..
>
>And I am spending a fortune on bandwidth watching TV on it online..
>
>No sure where internet multicasting is at right now, but that's another
>way ..radio is for people who don't have broadband..
>
>> Rod.
>
You ought try a satellite card and get a dish .. doesn't have to be a
big one out in the yard and try some programme feeds from Europe they
still have broadcast engineers over there especially in Germany)
--
Tony Sayer
Radio 3 uses 192kbps. So there you go, much better and sensible use
of valuable bandwidth: 192kbps for R3, where high quality is
essential, 64kbps for R4 where it is mainly mono speech, and close
to that for modern music which is mainly speech and percussion. Ideal.
You can't do that with FM. The sooner it gets switched over the
community radio the better.
In article <PbLA4tUT7QRKFw60@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Mate of mine has a factory fit DABble radio comparing FM from Madingley
> near Cambridge 500 watts of FM out performs 4 kW of DAB!..
> Been in the car and seen it myself!..
Sound as though the aerial system in the car doesn't work properly at Band
III.
>
> Yeah, that's for YOU. But for anybody with good reception quality on
> both DAB and FM the quality on FM is better. Basically, if you
> understood the technologies that are used then FM basically can't be
> worse than DAB.
I designed and built by first stereo FM tuner when I was still at
school, so I probably do understand it.
I have lived in many locations and I have never ever had what I
consider to be an adequately listenable (HiFi) FM reception (for
classical and operatic music, where very quiet periods can be
common). Even with an FM feed over cable (where over modulation from
the head-end kit causes problems with high-peak-level content) the
overall listener experience is unacceptable. My experience is that
FM will always have hiss if listened to on good equipment in any
real-world situation. DAB doesn't. With a good aerial I have never
heard any drop-out, burbling or twanging to interrupt my listening
even with the most demanding programmes and the widest dynamic range
over DAB.
Yes 'perfect' and 'idealised' FM is fairly good, but you just don't
get it very often. Add to this that the trade-off between hiss and
over-modulation with classical and operatic content is impossible to
reconcile with FM. You can also frequently hear tearing of the high
audio frequencies where the demodulator is unable to follow the HF
audio content - even with good tuners. The average Pure Evoke DAB
portable will produce better audio performance on this sort of
programme content when plumbed through a good system.
The majority of people rate DAB quality to be higher than FM. Fact.
This is also my experience.
>> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to
>> FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
>
>
> Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's
> in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have
> stereo than mono.
You obviously didn't read what I wrote, did you? You responded with
the same futile point.
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> 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.
>
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.
I've just been given a Vodafone 3G dongle by my company, as a trial for
internet and VPN access on my laptop when abroad and/or away from any usable
WiFi. Anyway, had a play with it yesterday in the office, and couldn't pull
more than 400kb/s down, or push more than 200 kb/s up. Not impressive, but
mind you nor was bog standard voice GSM when I tried that in 1996.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
In message <7ai749F1v5fs8U1@mid.individual.net>
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote:
> Basically, if you understood the technologies that are used then FM
> basically can't be worse than DAB.
I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB
because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM
broadcasts, once received, are subject to intermodulation and
harmonic distortions. DAB isn't. It is very much like the vinyl
versus CD and valves versus transistors arguments.
In article <vt-dnT9ylJYki9jXnZ2dnUVZ8oOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian
Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, that's for YOU. But for anybody with good reception quality on
>> both DAB and FM the quality on FM is better. Basically, if you
>> understood the technologies that are used then FM basically can't be
>> worse than DAB.
>
>I designed and built by first stereo FM tuner when I was still at
>school, so I probably do understand it.
>
>I have lived in many locations and I have never ever had what I
>consider to be an adequately listenable (HiFi) FM reception (for
>classical and operatic music, where very quiet periods can be
>common). Even with an FM feed over cable (where over modulation from
>the head-end kit causes problems with high-peak-level content) the
>overall listener experience is unacceptable. My experience is that
>FM will always have hiss if listened to on good equipment in any
>real-world situation. DAB doesn't. With a good aerial I have never
>heard any drop-out, burbling or twanging to interrupt my listening
>even with the most demanding programmes and the widest dynamic range
>over DAB.
>
Jeezzzz just where do you, and have you lived?..
>Yes 'perfect' and 'idealised' FM is fairly good, but you just don't
>get it very often. Add to this that the trade-off between hiss and
>over-modulation with classical and operatic content is impossible to
>reconcile with FM. You can also frequently hear tearing of the high
>audio frequencies where the demodulator is unable to follow the HF
>audio content - even with good tuners. The average Pure Evoke DAB
>portable will produce better audio performance on this sort of
>programme content when plumbed through a good system.
>
>The majority of people rate DAB quality to be higher than FM. Fact.
>This is also my experience.
>
>
>>> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to
>>> FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
>>
>>
>> Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's
>> in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have
>> stereo than mono.
>
>You obviously didn't read what I wrote, did you? You responded with
>the same futile point.
>
>regards, Ian
In article <507195408fcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
<charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <PbLA4tUT7QRKFw60@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Mate of mine has a factory fit DABble radio comparing FM from Madingley
>> near Cambridge 500 watts of FM out performs 4 kW of DAB!..
>
>> Been in the car and seen it myself!..
>
>Sound as though the aerial system in the car doesn't work properly at Band
>III.
>
Quarter wave around 12 inches long. Mounted to the rear of the roof....
--
Tony Sayer
In article <h22c9k$7as$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > 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?
Oh it exists all right, but it's not being used for broadcasting.
As far as I know, the only non-compressed digital audio available to the
public is on CDs. It's a good job the CD was invented when it was; a few
years later and it would have been cheapened by cloth-eared philistines like
all the other formats.
In article <ba9c9e7150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton wrote:
> I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB
> because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM
> broadcasts, once received, are subject to intermodulation and
> harmonic distortions. DAB isn't. It is very much like the vinyl
> versus CD and valves versus transistors arguments.
My apologies for repeating myself, but this silly argument seems to
have been repeated a few times and needs nailing down.
Saying that a comparison between FM and DAB is like a comparison
between vinyl and CD is nuts. DAB uses destructive digital bit-rate
reduction; CD doesn't. CD audio is sampled at more than twice the
highest frequency most people can hear, with enough bits to give a
dynamic range greater than any mechanical gramophone system and
certainly well beyond that of a typical living room, and then no
information is thrown away. None at all. It's better than FM, better
than gramophone records, better than tape cassetes, and it stays that
way all the way to the customer.
The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such
a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even
theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before
the signal even gets to the transmitter.
In article <o54pANWd0SRKFw9J@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <507195408fcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
> >In article <PbLA4tUT7QRKFw60@bancom.co.uk>,
> > tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mate of mine has a factory fit DABble radio comparing FM from Madingley
> >> near Cambridge 500 watts of FM out performs 4 kW of DAB!..
> >
> >> Been in the car and seen it myself!..
> >
> >Sound as though the aerial system in the car doesn't work properly at
> >Band III.
> >
> Quarter wave around 12 inches long. Mounted to the rear of the roof....
and then what happens? (I did write 'aerial system')
In article <ba9c9e7150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
<davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>In message <7ai749F1v5fs8U1@mid.individual.net>
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote:
>
>> Basically, if you understood the technologies that are used then FM
>> basically can't be worse than DAB.
>
>I /do/ understand the technologies involved. FM is worse than DAB
>because all the decoders we use are non-linear, therefore FM
>broadcasts, once received, are subject to intermodulation and
>harmonic distortions. DAB isn't. It is very much like the vinyl
>versus CD and valves versus transistors arguments.
>
>Dave
Yeabut do you actually listen to FM and Dab tho?..
--
Tony Sayer
In article <5071a2f859charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
<charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <o54pANWd0SRKFw9J@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <507195408fcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
>> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> >In article <PbLA4tUT7QRKFw60@bancom.co.uk>,
>> > tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Mate of mine has a factory fit DABble radio comparing FM from Madingley
>> >> near Cambridge 500 watts of FM out performs 4 kW of DAB!..
>> >
>> >> Been in the car and seen it myself!..
>> >
>> >Sound as though the aerial system in the car doesn't work properly at
>> >Band III.
>> >
>
>> Quarter wave around 12 inches long. Mounted to the rear of the roof....
>
>and then what happens? (I did write 'aerial system')
>
A lump of coax goes from that to the radio a Blaupunt wood stick thing
IIRC..
Re: Petition to stop FM being switched off 
..
Linear Mode
