Bill Wright wrote:
> "Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:h251h6$ik$1@news.albasani.net...
>> It's simple enough to calculate a 1/4 wave aerial
>> 300 / F x 0.95 (velocity factor in a conductor) then / 4 for a
>> quarterwave.
>> So 300 / 226MHz = 1.3274 x 0.95 = 1.26106 / 4 = 0.31526m or 315mm
>
> Presumably you're 'telling the audience'. I've been working out aerial
> dimensions and building arrays since 1960. Here's a basic template I use for
> BII aerials. It's based on practical experiment. This design matches 75ohm
> cable and as long as the cable is taken off carefully a 75/75 balun does not
> improve gain, although it does of course reduce pick up on the cable.
> http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/ourwork...dimensions.pdf
>
>
>> Your 275mm is a bit short, just over a foot is more like it
>
> Always best to work out the theory, then cut a bit long and do a practical
> test, then repeat it about 20 times(!). Never believe theory. There are
> factors other than the ones you list, such as the type of ground plane and
> its angle to the dipole (not all groundplanes are flat and level; not all
> are 'perfect'). The assumption of 95% for velocity factor is not good
> enough. It varies quite a lot with material and diameter. Also an inclined
> dipole (like the Blaupunct DAB one) will peak at a different length to an
> upright one. The exact physical way the bottom of the quarterwave is
> connected will have an effect.
>
Tell it like it is!
waving your hand NEAR a tune HF whip makes a huge difference..
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h2238t$qrp$1@news.albasani.net
>> 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.
The BBC's Internet radio streams (launched last week) are using 128
and 192 kbps AAC - they're the best quality available on any of the
digtial platforms.
> I suppose what I am saying is, whilst in theory an FM signal is
> superior
> to a bad DAB signal, the reality of MOST peoples experience is that
> neither the signal strength, nor the quality of the receiving
> equipment
> is good enough to make that a fact in practice.
I really do disagree on both counts - I think there are tens of
millions of people with adequate FM reception quality, and IMO FM
devices (excluding DAB radios where the FM is deliberately screwed up
to help DA are pretty good on the whole - why are you excluding the
possibility for FM receivers have improved over time as technology
advanced?
> With digits, the chipsets take all the hard work out of the quality:
> you
> get a predictable performance at far lower production costs.
But DAB is damaged at source, and no amount of electronics at the
receiver could ever hope to repair that damage.
--
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
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > Frankly though, who would really take 909/693 over DAB? Its such a
> > > tough fatiguing listen even in daylight hours.
> >
> > Oh really! When I was young AM was the only type of radio there was. We just accepted the audio quality for what it was. Things like that are only 'fatiguing' if you let the quality wind you up. Just relax, say to yourself 'it's AM' and let the mellow sound wash over you.
>
> When we were young there wasn't broadband trashing all over MW. nor so many stations, and those were at pretty high power.
Or Optimod speach processors being pushed to their design limits.
> > > The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still
> > > sounds better on FM.
> >
> > No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it.
>
>
> Yeah, I've only been reviewing tuners for a hi-fi magazine for the last 3 - 4 years, and I obviously spend a lot of time comparing R3 on DAB and FM because the readership disproportinoately consists of R3 listeners, so WTF do I know about it?
This means fuck all, any fool can write for a magazine and pass themselves
off as being an expert, look no further than the crap which is written about
Oxygen free cables and so called sound improvement devices which turn out
to be no more than £200 low pass filter.
In article <h24o5o$isq$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>
>>
>> Really, just how many comm stations do you think can be sustained?..
>
>From a technological point of view, the available bandwidth divided by
>the bit rate times the desired S/N ratio.
>
Mate they can't afford the DAB club;!..
>From a commercial POV..no idea.
Lets say its bloody hard going for most all of them apart from those in
deprived areas who attract a lot more grant funding..
>
>>> regards, Ian
>>
In article <wNKdnZ6SuP8a0dvXnZ2dnUVZ8oJi4p2d@brightview.co.uk >, Ian
Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Funny that but my wife is a bit too young for listening to the Archers
>> but shes critical of the sound of FM and low rate DAB!...
>
>
>I'm glad that she appreciates the benefit of higher rate DAB!
>
>regards, Ian
Yes oddly enough she does .. but it comes via satellite from over in
mainland Europe..
--
Tony Sayer
In article <5071e7aba2dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <FFgiPzY+2dRKFwLE@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <5071abd2d7dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
>> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> >In article <7aktmkF1t6aedU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> > DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote:
>> >> > Radio 3 uses 192kbps.
>> >
>> >
>> >> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still
>> >> sounds better on FM.
>> >
>> >No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it.
>> >
>
>> It makes me wonder what you use for listening, can't or don't you notice
>> that odd metallic quality?..
>
>On R3? No. My tuner is a very early one from Videologic and when I first
>got it thought everything sounded brighter than FM so added an equaliser
>to bring it in line.
>
>For a crappo portable, its probably easier to get better DAB than FM.
>
NP you may not realise that you almost live -under- a DAB
transmitter;!...
>You are making the reverse point, that at current levels of whatever, a
>really good radio will sound better on FM than on DAB.
>
>I dont see there is inconsistency here at all.
>
>>
>>> Add to this that the trade-off between hiss and
>>> over-modulation with classical and operatic content is impossible to
>>> 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.
Christ mate!, I'll see what the levels are like out your way next!...
In article <Ic6dnTEL3OunY9jXnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@pipex.net>, Bill Wright
<insertmybusinessname@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>
>"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:N1qgj9YV9dRKFwpS@bancom.co.uk...
>> In article <5071aa47a4charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
>> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>Since 12" isn't the correct length for Band II, I assume its been
>>>'frigged'
>>>for that band - perhaps to the severe detriment of Band III
>>>
>>
>> No in fact lets assume 300 divide by say mid Band 2 say 98 MHz that
>> should be 28.5 inches for that assuming a bit for velocity factor in
>> presumably stainless steel for the aerial whip. So for say 226 MHz thats
>> around 12.4 inches so its way off for FM and almost spot on for DAB
>> assuming 226 MHz..
>
>I made my own DAB aerial by trimming and observing gain on 12B and the
>length came out at 275mm (from memory; just looked at it out the winder and
>it looks about that length).
>
>Bill
>
>
Thats a real pro at work that is..
Was the aerial insulator made out of some glass spun from a bottle of
old slaughter;?...
--
Tony Sayer
In article <2Dp1m.313$BA7.169@newsfe05.ams2>, Ato_Zee
<ato_zee@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
>
>On 27-Jun-2009, "Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> > Fibre will come, but to roll it out to every home and premises is an
>> > order
>> > of magnitude or two more expensive than sticking DSLAMS in the
>> > exchanges.
>
>But if Ian Vallance had started a rolling program of FTC instead
>of being more interested in his golf and pension, BT would have
>about 80% UK coverage with fibre by now, and with their
>monopoly on the ducts (rather than have to dig them) BT
>would be the only game in town.
>A missed opportunity.
>Now they are facing rising competition with an ageing
>copper network.
>And he got a knighthood !!!!!
>It's the most classic an example of the Peter Principle that
>I've ever seen.
What they -really- fucked up on was selling off Cellnet or their stake
in a mobile Telco thats where the future lies for telecoms..
--
Tony Sayer
In article <e91b4b9f-5f43-41ef-918b-5af9046e7627@n21g2000vba.googlegroup
s.com>, automaticgaincontrol <automaticgaincontrol@googlemail.com>
scribeth thus
>
>>
>> From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few
>> people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to
>> 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
>
>
>Frankly though, who would really take 909/693 over DAB? Its such a
>tough fatiguing listen even in daylight hours.
Well I very rarely listen to it, but for the bandwidth limitations of AM
it seems fine in this neck of the woods in my car... Intelligible enough
that is..
--
Tony Sayer
In article <7amvf7F207qeaU1@mid.individual.net>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote:
> >> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still
> >> sounds better on FM.
> >
> > No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it.
> Yeah, I've only been reviewing tuners for a hi-fi magazine for the
> last 3 - 4 years, and I obviously spend a lot of time comparing R3 on
> DAB and FM because the readership disproportinoately consists of R3
> listeners, so WTF do I know about it?
Very, very, little if you review such things for a 'Hi-Fi magazine'.
In article <Voadnc_OacBk3NvXnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@pipex.net>, Bill Wright
<insertmybusinessname@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>
>"Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
>news:h251h6$ik$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> It's simple enough to calculate a 1/4 wave aerial
>> 300 / F x 0.95 (velocity factor in a conductor) then / 4 for a
>> quarterwave.
>> So 300 / 226MHz = 1.3274 x 0.95 = 1.26106 / 4 = 0.31526m or 315mm
>
>Presumably you're 'telling the audience'. I've been working out aerial
>dimensions and building arrays since 1960. Here's a basic template I use for
>BII aerials. It's based on practical experiment. This design matches 75ohm
>cable and as long as the cable is taken off carefully a 75/75 balun does not
>improve gain, although it does of course reduce pick up on the cable.
>http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/ourwork...dimensions.pdf
>
>
Does my learned friend make that many vehicle aerials of the marconi
quarter wave type?..
>>
>> Your 275mm is a bit short, just over a foot is more like it
>
>Always best to work out the theory, then cut a bit long and do a practical
>test, then repeat it about 20 times(!). Never believe theory. There are
>factors other than the ones you list, such as the type of ground plane and
>its angle to the dipole (not all groundplanes are flat and level; not all
>are 'perfect').
Indeed hence the cut long and adjust for best VSWR in apps like 2 way
radio for general FM and Dabble a bit less critical unless your
partially interested in a smaller part of Band 2 or 3 ..
>The assumption of 95% for velocity factor is not good
>enough. It varies quite a lot with material and diameter.
Yeabut for vehicle aerials the metal and diameter doesn't vary that much
at all, whereas for Yagi's it can well do . We've just designed a couple
one using 30 mm dia ally the other 12 mm copper..
>Also an inclined
>dipole (like the Blaupunct DAB one) will peak at a different length to an
>upright one. The exact physical way the bottom of the quarterwave is
>connected will have an effect.
How are you going to alter that in practice exactly?..
>
>Bill
>
>
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h25i5o$oh3$7@news.albasani.net...
> Bill Wright wrote:
>> "automaticgaincontrol" <automaticgaincontrol@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:e91b4b9f-5f43-41ef-918b-5af9046e7627@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>>> From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few
>>>> people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is
>>>> to
>>>> receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not
>>>> that
>>>> good!..
>>>>
>>>> Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car...
>>>> --
>>>> Tony Sayer
>>>
>>> Frankly though, who would really take 909/693 over DAB? Its such a
>>> tough fatiguing listen even in daylight hours.
>>
>> Oh really! When I was young AM was the only type of radio there was. We
>> just accepted the audio quality for what it was. Things like that are
>> only 'fatiguing' if you let the quality wind you up. Just relax, say to
>> yourself 'it's AM' and let the mellow sound wash over you.
>
> When we were young there wasn't broadband trashing all over MW. nor so
> many stations, and those were at pretty high power.
I can receive many AM stations without a trace of interference. So can amny
others.
"Bill Wright" <insertmybusinessname@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:Voadnc_OacBk3NvXnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Steve Terry" <gFOURwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:h251h6$ik$1@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> It's simple enough to calculate a 1/4 wave aerial
>> 300 / F x 0.95 (velocity factor in a conductor) then / 4 for a
>> quarterwave.
>> So 300 / 226MHz = 1.3274 x 0.95 = 1.26106 / 4 = 0.31526m or 315mm
>
> Presumably you're 'telling the audience'. I've been working out aerial
> dimensions and building arrays since 1960. Here's a basic template I use
> for BII aerials. It's based on practical experiment. This design matches
> 75ohm cable and as long as the cable is taken off carefully a 75/75 balun
> does not improve gain, although it does of course reduce pick up on the
> cable.
> http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/ourwork...dimensions.pdf
>
>> Your 275mm is a bit short, just over a foot is more like it
>
> Always best to work out the theory, then cut a bit long and do a practical
> test, then repeat it about 20 times(!). Never believe theory. There are
> factors other than the ones you list, such as the type of ground plane and
> its angle to the dipole (not all groundplanes are flat and level; not all
> are 'perfect'). The assumption of 95% for velocity factor is not good
> enough. It varies quite a lot with material and diameter. Also an inclined
> dipole (like the Blaupunct DAB one) will peak at a different length to an
> upright one. The exact physical way the bottom of the quarterwave is
> connected will have an effect.
> Bill
>
>
For receiving cutting it a bit short is fine, i'm used to trimming 145 and
433MHz
1/4 1/2 and 5/8 wave groundplanes for best SWR on transmit, and the above
calculations usually match what's achieved cutting for best SWR.
"automaticgaincontrol" <automaticgaincontrol@googlemail.com> wrote in
message
news:e91b4b9f-5f43-41ef-918b-5af9046e7627@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>> 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
>
> Frankly though, who would really take 909/693 over DAB?
> Its such a tough fatiguing listen even in daylight hours.
>
>
I would take DRM over AM on 909/693
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.
>
>
Done and will post link on myh facebook. I don't want to listen to
Classic Fm on DAB, it is awful
Steve Terry wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote in message
> news:7afjm6F1vb133U1@mid.individual.net...
>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>> Please sign. Thanks.
>>
>>
> What's your fecking name, King Canute?
>
> the future is DRM, good job too
>
Not in this flipping country it is not.
The government know that DAb have failed and that is why they are trying
to force us to use it, DRM will never happen.
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <qI6dnbKCMckmKdjXnZ2dnUVZ8hednZ2d@bt.com>,
> jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> If it's bubbling you need a stronger signal. There is no
>>> transmission system which works perfectly with an inadequate
>>> signal. And FM can sound quite diabolical with a poor one too.
>
>> However, fm simply works less well or switches noiselessly to mono,
>> digital gives up.
>
> Thought you said you got a bubbling noise?
"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V+hWRDb6amRKFw6O@bancom.co.uk...
> In article <Ic6dnTEL3OunY9jXnZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@pipex.net>, Bill Wright
> <insertmybusinessname@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>>
>>"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:N1qgj9YV9dRKFwpS@bancom.co.uk...
>>> In article <5071aa47a4charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
>>> <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>>Since 12" isn't the correct length for Band II, I assume its been
>>>>'frigged'
>>>>for that band - perhaps to the severe detriment of Band III
>>>>
>>>
>>> No in fact lets assume 300 divide by say mid Band 2 say 98 MHz that
>>> should be 28.5 inches for that assuming a bit for velocity factor in
>>> presumably stainless steel for the aerial whip. So for say 226 MHz thats
>>> around 12.4 inches so its way off for FM and almost spot on for DAB
>>> assuming 226 MHz..
>>
>>I made my own DAB aerial by trimming and observing gain on 12B and the
>>length came out at 275mm (from memory; just looked at it out the winder
>>and
>>it looks about that length).
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>
> Thats a real pro at work that is..
No it's a real skinflint. The alternative was a Blaupunct one at £30.
>
> Was the aerial insulator made out of some glass spun from a bottle of
> old slaughter;?...
Funnily enough, yes.
In article <KeVRZeaoSmRKFw6e@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >On R3? No. My tuner is a very early one from Videologic and when I first
> >got it thought everything sounded brighter than FM so added an equaliser
> >to bring it in line.
> >
> What's the rest of the line up?...
Depends on where I'm listening. ;-) In this room, a pair of LS3/5s driven
by a Linsey Hood.
--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:50721ac177dave@davenoise.co.uk
> In article <7amvf7F207qeaU1@mid.individual.net>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote:
>>>> The only station in the UK that uses 192 kbps. Yet Radio 3 still
>>>> sounds better on FM.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. Not that you ever listen to it.
>
>
>> Yeah, I've only been reviewing tuners for a hi-fi magazine for the
>> last 3 - 4 years, and I obviously spend a lot of time comparing R3
>> on
>> DAB and FM because the readership disproportinoately consists of R3
>> listeners, so WTF do I know about it?
>
> Very, very, little if you review such things for a 'Hi-Fi magazine'.
Ah, good old Plowman logic at work: if you work on something therefore
you have low knowledge of what you're working on. Patently absurd,
just like all of Plowman's logic.
--
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
In article <slrnh4el7m.5fc.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk>,
Paul Martin <pm@nowster.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <h258nu02dps@news5.newsguy.com>,
> Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL wrote:
> > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>
> >> Again, that's a particular crap chipset.
> >>
> >> Better ones are around..
> > I'd be interested to see consumption figures for the best and worst of
> > each type of radio. All I can find are averages.
> I have anecdotal evidence that Pure's little portable doesn't eat
> batteries too much.
tony sayer wrote:
> In article <wNKdnZ6SuP8a0dvXnZ2dnUVZ8oJi4p2d@brightview.co.uk >, Ian
> Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>> tony sayer wrote:
>>
>>> Funny that but my wife is a bit too young for listening to the Archers
>>> but shes critical of the sound of FM and low rate DAB!...
>>
>> I'm glad that she appreciates the benefit of higher rate DAB!
>>
>> regards, Ian
>
> Yes oddly enough she does .. but it comes via satellite from over in
> mainland Europe..
Is that DAB?
I've tried the DVB audio feed from both Freeview boxes I have -
neither are listenable through the HiFi, simply because of poor
circuitry. Theoretically, they should be OK, but the quality level
is clearly aimed at flat screen speakers!
Paul Martin wrote:
> In article <h258nu02dps@news5.newsguy.com>,
> Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> Again, that's a particular crap chipset.
>>>
>>> Better ones are around..
>
>> I'd be interested to see consumption figures for the best and worst of
>> each type of radio. All I can find are averages.
>
> I have anecdotal evidence that Pure's little portable doesn't eat
> batteries too much.
>
Their older stuff was pretty heavy on power, and the problem is
added to because they have shied away from switching supplies. Even
their chip supplier was keen that they use linear power bricks to
avoid the noise problems.
In article <7ap2sfF1rp9esU1@mid.individual.net>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote:
> > Very, very, little if you review such things for a 'Hi-Fi magazine'.
> Ah, good old Plowman logic at work: if you work on something therefore
> you have low knowledge of what you're working on. Patently absurd,
> just like all of Plowman's logic.
Ok then, what test equipment do you posses or have access to, to ensure a
thorough review? Or is it all just subjective? The reason I stopped
reading such things ago - the hyperbole just went on and on.
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <KeVRZeaoSmRKFw6e@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On R3? No. My tuner is a very early one from Videologic and when I first
>>> got it thought everything sounded brighter than FM so added an equaliser
>>> to bring it in line.
>>>
>
>> What's the rest of the line up?...
>
> Depends on where I'm listening. ;-) In this room, a pair of LS3/5s driven
> by a Linsey Hood.
>
Linsley Hood.
Ian Smith wrote:
> tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <wNKdnZ6SuP8a0dvXnZ2dnUVZ8oJi4p2d@brightview.co.uk >, Ian
>> Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny that but my wife is a bit too young for listening to the Archers
>>>> but shes critical of the sound of FM and low rate DAB!...
>>>
>>> I'm glad that she appreciates the benefit of higher rate DAB!
>>>
>>> regards, Ian
>>
>> Yes oddly enough she does .. but it comes via satellite from over in
>> mainland Europe..
>
> Is that DAB?
>
> I've tried the DVB audio feed from both Freeview boxes I have - neither
> are listenable through the HiFi, simply because of poor circuitry.
> Theoretically, they should be OK, but the quality level is clearly aimed
> at flat screen speakers!
>
Odd that. I've got sony STB's and TV and the sound is pretty damned good.
In article <h27rea$fjn$2@news.albasani.net>,
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Depends on where I'm listening. ;-) In this room, a pair of LS3/5s
> > driven by a Linsey Hood.
> >
> Linsley Hood.
> Not the best, but not too bad.
Better than most have in a bedroom. ;-)
--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.
Re: Petition to stop FM being switched off 
are pretty good on the whole - why are you excluding the
..
..
Linear Mode
