In article <EoqdnYJKWcnS9trXnZ2dnUVZ8sWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk >, Ian
Smith <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>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?
>
Well most everyone refers to Terrestrial digital broadcast radio
generally in Band 3 in the UK as 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!
>
>regards, Ian
Well you can take the SPDIF outputs to an external converter unit but
they are running Radios 1,2,3, and 4 at 192 K/Bits IIRC.
And oddly enough domestic terrestrial TV sound is transmitted on
terrestrial digital at 256 K/bits!..
On satellite where there are bags of room they could run them at 256 or
higher like some other broadcasters do.
For instance Bayern in Germany transmit their main services at 320
K/Bits leaving the 192 rate for just traffic and other info services!..
In article <507269c7fedave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>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
Good boxes those, I've got them either side of the PC for computer sound
driven by an Audiolab 8000 and a Digigram card)..
I thought hyperbole had to go on and on 'cos otherwise it'd be ellipsis
PS
Respect for the LS3/5As. I sold a pair many many moons ago in order to
buy Quad ESL57s. Much regretted ever since I moved out of the rooms
large enough for them.
--
R
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
> 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.
I suspect Dave's comment is specifically about hi-fi magazines, and I'd
tend to agree with him. They, after all, seem to have swallowed all of
the cobblers spouted about expensive interconnects and the like.
L
--
---------------------------------------------------
"He's got arms like legs
He's got hands on his feet
He's got a nose like a doughnut
He's got a tendency to over eat"
---------------------------------------------------
Louis Barfe
- www.louisbarfe.com
- cheeseford.blogspot.com
> For instance Bayern in Germany transmit their main services at 320
> K/Bits leaving the 192 rate for just traffic and other info
> services!..
Tush! I wouldn't expect anything better from a country which has a head
of government who studied physics, has a doctorate in quantum chemistry
and worked as a researcher. Now we are blessed with a beloved leader
whose doctoral thesis was "The Labour Party and Political Change in
Scotland 1918-29" and so is much better equipped to lead such things.
--
R
In article <LhEhGWeuR4RKFw5u@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >Depends on where I'm listening. ;-) In this room, a pair of LS3/5s
> Good boxes those, I've got them either side of the PC for computer sound
> driven by an Audiolab 8000 and a Digigram card)..
They are a remarkable little design that somehow cons you into thinking
they're producing decent deep bass - which they aren't. I've got another
pair in the kitchen.
--
*If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?
On 28-Jun-2009, "neverwas" <notahasbeen@all.all> wrote:
> Tush! I wouldn't expect anything better from a country which has a head
> of government who studied physics, has a doctorate in quantum chemistry
> and worked as a researcher. Now we are blessed with a beloved leader
> whose doctoral thesis was "The Labour Party and Political Change in
> Scotland 1918-29" and so is much better equipped to lead such things
Of course. Sending all our FM receivers to landfill will boost the
economy and the retail sector, generate more income from VAT
on the sale of DAB replacements, please the Chinese who will
make the replacements, and they will start buying our waste
cardboard again, which will please the councils who are desparate
to get rid of it. The banks will lend the money which will help
lift us out of recession.
Makes sound economic sense.
Mr. Bean strikes again.
In article <94f5a67250.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
<davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>In message <_PSdnX9ofaRRDdvXnZ2dnUVZ8kFi4p2d@bt.com>
> Ade <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I don't want to listen to Classic Fm on DAB, it is awful
>
>Classic FM on FM sounds awful. Not a patch on R3 - too much
>processing.
>
>Dave
Listened to the broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. Worthy FM, just
an annoying pumping over compressed mess;((..
Doesn't anyone understand anything about musical dynamics anymore?...
--
Tony Sayer
In message <h225dt$tq8$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> writing at 10:46:36 in his/her local time opines:-
>The arguments that 'DAB is CRAP' relate not to it being digital per se,
>but to the intense amount of compression, both analogue and digital,
>applied to it to squeeze a lot of channels out of a small spectrum.
No, that's important, but it's not the main thing.
DAB is digital. Which means it's supposed to be able to tell if it's
working or not. Which means that if your DAB set sounds like someone is
squeezing a hot water bottle in the background, then it should know it's
doing this, that the results are likely to be found unacceptable, and
politely decline to supply the affected channel.
My wife's Pure Evoke burbles on both R2 and Classic FM, with three bars
showing. Ridiculous.
I can't stand it, and have to retune to the FM band to get these, when
it's entirely acceptable. On the same radio, in the same position,
without touching the aerial at all.
I can (and do) listen the R2 on the kitchen TV via Freeview for
preference; I don't know how the bit rates compare via the three
delivery mechanisms, but whatever they are, the Freeview is the
best-sounding, though this may be the set rather than the signal here.
The Evoke is the only way to get Classic FM in the kitchen, though.
In the lounge, I can compare R2 over the FM tuner in the home cinema
system with R2 off the TV Freeview through the same system, with R2 via
a good Sony tuner in a stereo hi-fi setup; nothing to choose between
them to my ears.
High bit-rate or low bit-rate, none of them burble. The last time I
heard FM do that was back in the 60's, with the Northampton 'birdies' on
stereo FM, which was thankfully diagnosed and fixed reasonably quickly.
--
Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris
"Roy Brown" <Roy_now_free_from_spam@acanthus.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news5wMXqCrk9RKFwNg@x.x...
> In message <h225dt$tq8$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> writing at 10:46:36 in his/her local time opines:-
>
>>The arguments that 'DAB is CRAP' relate not to it being digital per se,
>>but to the intense amount of compression, both analogue and digital,
>>applied to it to squeeze a lot of channels out of a small spectrum.
>
> No, that's important, but it's not the main thing.
>
> DAB is digital. Which means it's supposed to be able to tell if it's
> working or not. Which means that if your DAB set sounds like someone is
> squeezing a hot water bottle in the background, then it should know it's
> doing this, that the results are likely to be found unacceptable, and
> politely decline to supply the affected channel.
Maybe what it should is switch to the FM version if it is available and
continue playing the DAB version if there is no alternative. Noisy,
distorted sound is better than no sound.
In article <vrOIkAgGQ9RKFwNj@bancom.co.uk>,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >Classic FM on FM sounds awful. Not a patch on R3 - too much
> >processing.
> >
> >Dave
> Listened to the broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. Worthy FM, just
> an annoying pumping over compressed mess;((..
> Doesn't anyone understand anything about musical dynamics anymore?...
When Mr DAB goes on and on and on about how much better FM sounds than DAB
- and qualifies it by saying he really means the pop stations with the
lowest bitrates - and then others talk about soundstage and stereo
separation etc. All I really hear on those is some incredibly nasty
processor set on kill. Regardless of what transmission medium I use.
Of course what we actually hear - and what distresses us - are individual.
It's exactly the same with most pop CDs. Totally over processed - after
the studio recording. Perhaps someone would explain why a medium like CD
with a dynamic range well in excess of what is possible domestically ends
up with one of 2/10ths of FA - when plenty of 'pop' LPs didn't.
--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *
In article <5072b4843fdave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In article <vrOIkAgGQ9RKFwNj@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Classic FM on FM sounds awful. Not a patch on R3 - too much
>> >processing.
>> >
>> >Dave
>
>> Listened to the broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. Worthy FM, just
>> an annoying pumping over compressed mess;((..
>
>> Doesn't anyone understand anything about musical dynamics anymore?...
>
>When Mr DAB goes on and on and on about how much better FM sounds than DAB
>- and qualifies it by saying he really means the pop stations with the
>lowest bitrates - and then others talk about soundstage and stereo
>separation etc. All I really hear on those is some incredibly nasty
>processor set on kill. Regardless of what transmission medium I use.
>Of course what we actually hear - and what distresses us - are individual.
>It's exactly the same with most pop CDs. Totally over processed - after
>the studio recording. Perhaps someone would explain why a medium like CD
>with a dynamic range well in excess of what is possible domestically ends
>up with one of 2/10ths of FA - when plenty of 'pop' LPs didn't.
>
Let me put that differently .. perhaps I was a tad over the top in the
original comment this was not prolly an audio processor as such, more a
maladjusted compressor on the streaming feed that was giving a rather
audible pumping effect on most all of the music audio, spoiling what
otherwise was an excellent broadcast....
"Ian Smith" <news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
news:EoqdnYJKWcnS9trXnZ2dnUVZ8sWdnZ2d@brightview.c o.uk
> 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!
You haven't got a clue - virtually everything you say is wrong.
--
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
"Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5072806debdave@davenoise.co.uk
> 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?
The tuners are tested at the magazine's offices in London.
> Or is it all just subjective? The reason I stopped
> reading such things ago - the hyperbole just went on and on.
Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test
results as well.
If you do think that subjective hi-fi reviewing is a waste of time
then I totally disagree - there's a lot more difference in the sound
quailty - or in reception quality - between different tuners than I
was expecting there would be. Also spending more money does usually,
but not always, give you better quality, whereas I thought that the
law of diminishign returns would have kicked in so much that it
wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make
a difference.
And I'll tell you one thing, my experience of listening to DAB and FM
on tuners costing Ł200 and upwards is that what you say is completely
wrong. FM kicks DAB's arse, it really does.
--
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
"Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <usenetNOSPAM@louisbarfe.com> wrote in
message news:h280j7028n8@news7.newsguy.com
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I suspect Dave's comment is specifically about hi-fi magazines, and
> I'd
> tend to agree with him. They, after all, seem to have swallowed all
> of
> the cobblers spouted about expensive interconnects and the like.
I do write for one, but thankfully I'll never be asked to write about
interconnects or anything like that. I do maintain though that
subjective reviewing of hi-fi seperates is a worthwhile thing to do
because there are quite large differences in sound and/or performance,
and that people who do read the mags do end up with better kit than
those that just chance their luck when they're buying separates, so I
would always read a mag first if just to narrow things down before
having a listen myself.
--
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
tony sayer wrote:
> In article <5072b4843fdave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>> In article <vrOIkAgGQ9RKFwNj@bancom.co.uk>,
>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Classic FM on FM sounds awful. Not a patch on R3 - too much
>>>> processing.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>> Listened to the broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. Worthy FM, just
>>> an annoying pumping over compressed mess;((..
>>> Doesn't anyone understand anything about musical dynamics anymore?...
>> When Mr DAB goes on and on and on about how much better FM sounds than DAB
>> - and qualifies it by saying he really means the pop stations with the
>> lowest bitrates - and then others talk about soundstage and stereo
>> separation etc. All I really hear on those is some incredibly nasty
>> processor set on kill. Regardless of what transmission medium I use.
>> Of course what we actually hear - and what distresses us - are individual.
>> It's exactly the same with most pop CDs. Totally over processed - after
>> the studio recording. Perhaps someone would explain why a medium like CD
>> with a dynamic range well in excess of what is possible domestically ends
>> up with one of 2/10ths of FA - when plenty of 'pop' LPs didn't.
>>
>
> Let me put that differently .. perhaps I was a tad over the top in the
> original comment this was not prolly an audio processor as such, more a
> maladjusted compressor on the streaming feed that was giving a rather
> audible pumping effect on most all of the music audio, spoiling what
> otherwise was an excellent broadcast....
>
I can only say that from where I was sitting, the Internet feeds were
superb.
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> "Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" <usenetNOSPAM@louisbarfe.com> wrote in
> message news:h280j7028n8@news7.newsguy.com
>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I suspect Dave's comment is specifically about hi-fi magazines, and
>> I'd
>> tend to agree with him. They, after all, seem to have swallowed all
>> of
>> the cobblers spouted about expensive interconnects and the like.
>
>
> I do write for one, but thankfully I'll never be asked to write about
> interconnects or anything like that. I do maintain though that
> subjective reviewing of hi-fi seperates is a worthwhile thing to do
> because there are quite large differences in sound and/or performance,
> and that people who do read the mags do end up with better kit than
> those that just chance their luck when they're buying separates, so I
> would always read a mag first if just to narrow things down before
> having a listen myself.
>
>
The trouble with subjective listening, is that sometimes it doesn't tell
you much about the kit, more about how its set up, and the prejudices of
the listener.
Having been involved in designing HiFi many years ago, I discovered that
some people actually like distortion. And in A-B testing, if you didn't
get the gains exactly right, there was a strong tendency to prefer the
'louder' system.
As far as post processing goes, my few excursions to the recording
studios revealed that as well as the 'studio monitors' a lot of them
also had a small pair of loudspeakers of indifferent design to 'mix for
the tranny'. A LOT of pop tracks were deliberately pre-emphasised to
sound good on indifferent kit, and never intended to be sold to people
with expensive kit and aural discernment anyway.
Going back to FM, for me the killer source that always revealed whether
a given setup was doing the business, was to listen to live applause.
On a good set, it didn't sound like applause, its sounded like people
clapping.. Probably the tendency to record it with a single pair if
audience facing crossed mikes rather than balance it up with individual
mikes, helps there, as well.
And when it comes to loudspeakers..well. Just don't EVER expect a
transmission line bass to sound good on a bass guitar from a reggae band..
"Mortimer" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2O6dnYjpSbs7fNrXnZ2dnUVZ8tmdnZ2d@brightview.c o.uk...
> "Roy Brown" <Roy_now_free_from_spam@acanthus.demon.co.uk> wrote
> in message news5wMXqCrk9RKFwNg@x.x...
>> In message <h225dt$tq8$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural
>> Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writing at 10:46:36 in
>> his/her local time opines:-
>>
>>>The arguments that 'DAB is CRAP' relate not to it being
>>>digital per se, but to the intense amount of compression, both
>>>analogue and digital, applied to it to squeeze a lot of
>>>channels out of a small spectrum.
>>
>> No, that's important, but it's not the main thing.
>>
>> DAB is digital. Which means it's supposed to be able to tell
>> if it's working or not. Which means that if your DAB set
>> sounds like someone is squeezing a hot water bottle in the
>> background, then it should know it's doing this, that the
>> results are likely to be found unacceptable, and politely
>> decline to supply the affected channel.
>
> Maybe what it should is switch to the FM version if it is
> available and continue playing the DAB version if there is no
> alternative. Noisy, distorted sound is better than no sound.
>
But surely that's the point? For most of populated Britain FM is
not noisy or distorted - the signal is good enough that it is
essentially clean and clear. OK I accept that there may be a
little background hiss but that is more often down to poor
receiver (or rather stereo decoder) design than absolute signal.
Put a DAB radio in the same place, even on the same aerial if it
is a DAB/FM radio, and for an unacceptably large proportion of
the country the signal is sufficiently low as to cause the
'bubbling mud' syndrome.
Until the Government get to understand that they have to provide
signals that are good enough for full DAB-FM compatibility then
they must keep FM running.
Having said that, this is surely 'the World from within the M25'
myopia again?
In article <h29j3r$qo0$2@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <5072b4843fdave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
>> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>> In article <vrOIkAgGQ9RKFwNj@bancom.co.uk>,
>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Classic FM on FM sounds awful. Not a patch on R3 - too much
>>>>> processing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave
>>>> Listened to the broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. Worthy FM, just
>>>> an annoying pumping over compressed mess;((..
>>>> Doesn't anyone understand anything about musical dynamics anymore?...
>>> When Mr DAB goes on and on and on about how much better FM sounds than DAB
>>> - and qualifies it by saying he really means the pop stations with the
>>> lowest bitrates - and then others talk about soundstage and stereo
>>> separation etc. All I really hear on those is some incredibly nasty
>>> processor set on kill. Regardless of what transmission medium I use.
>>> Of course what we actually hear - and what distresses us - are individual.
>>> It's exactly the same with most pop CDs. Totally over processed - after
>>> the studio recording. Perhaps someone would explain why a medium like CD
>>> with a dynamic range well in excess of what is possible domestically ends
>>> up with one of 2/10ths of FA - when plenty of 'pop' LPs didn't.
>>>
>>
>> Let me put that differently .. perhaps I was a tad over the top in the
>> original comment this was not prolly an audio processor as such, more a
>> maladjusted compressor on the streaming feed that was giving a rather
>> audible pumping effect on most all of the music audio, spoiling what
>> otherwise was an excellent broadcast....
>>
>I can only say that from where I was sitting, the Internet feeds were
>superb.
>
Didn't you hear that on a lot of the music content last nite?. It
sounded like what Kiss FM is like quite a bit of the time, a very short
time constant AGC in use ?..
>Probably better sound than being there..
Wanna go next year?. Can't be doing with all this tent stuff, a motor
home at least and a couple of armchairs preferably elevated to listen on
ands see the goings on.
Fridge for the Budwisers and a separate van for the groupies..
--
Tony Sayer
In article <7aqj0lF20fab9U1@mid.individual.net>,
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@fooked.com> wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5072806debdave@davenoise.co.uk
>
[Snip]
> > Ok then, what test equipment do you posses or have access to, to
> > ensure a thorough review?
> The tuners are tested at the magazine's offices in London.
> Everything I write is subjectively, although I might refer to the test
> results as well.
>
> If you do think that subjective hi-fi reviewing is a waste of time
> then I totally disagree - there's a lot more difference in the sound
> quailty - or in reception quality - between different tuners than I
> was expecting there would be. Also spending more money does usually,
> but not always, give you better quality, whereas I thought that the
> law of diminishign returns would have kicked in so much that it
> wouldn't be worth spending quite a bit extra, but it does tend to make
> a difference.
sujective hi-fi reviewing has always been wrong, because it is subjective.
Who wants to read what some reviewer _feels_ is a good tuner etc? Double
blind tests plus comparative technical data are, and have always been the
right way.
--
Vista: the hd dvd player that thinks it's an operating system ŠJC 2009
All men are islands
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> It's exactly the same with most pop CDs. Totally over processed - after
> the studio recording. Perhaps someone would explain why a medium like CD
> with a dynamic range well in excess of what is possible domestically ends
> up with one of 2/10ths of FA - when plenty of 'pop' LPs didn't.
I can recommend Greg Milner's new book 'Perfecting Sound Forever', which
goes into great detail on the skewed logic behind the so-called
'Loudness War'.
L
--
---------------------------------------------------
"He's got arms like legs
He's got hands on his feet
He's got a nose like a doughnut
He's got a tendency to over eat"
---------------------------------------------------
Louis Barfe
- www.louisbarfe.com
- cheeseford.blogspot.com
In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myz en.co.uk>
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a
reduction of quality, which is all down to perception.
You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
few parts per million.
In article <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
<davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myz en.co.uk>
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a
>reduction of quality, which is all down to perception.
>
>You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
>being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
>introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
>distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
>that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
>few parts per million.
>
>Dave
Yes of course the DAB system should be better, how many bits do you
think it needs in practice?..
Mind you good FM demod systems don't have -that- much distortion..
--
Tony Sayer
In article <cf9ba57150.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
<davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>In message <3IH+8+WinTRKFwMD@bancom.co.uk>
> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Yeabut do you actually listen to FM and Dab tho?..
>
>Not very much; but since I installed the DAB antenna in the loft
>(yes, I installed the FM one some years ago), I haven't bothered
>with FM any more. DAB sounds cleaner.
>
>Dave
Err right.. Nothing else you've noticed then?..
--
Tony Sayer
In article <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton wrote:
> > The main criticisam of DAB is that information *is* thrown away in such
> > a manner that it can never be completely recovered, not even
> > theoretically, and this is done by the broadcasters themselves before
> > the signal even gets to the transmitter.
>
> Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a
> reduction of quality, which is all down to perception.
Whose perception?
My perception is that it doesn't sound as good as the system we've been
accustomed to for the past half century. Why change to a worse one? Why
should my listening be compromised by decisions made by people with cloth
ears?
> You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
> being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
> introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
> distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
> that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
> few parts per million.
All true, but all that's happened is that we've swapped analogue
distortions for digital ones. Some of the analogue distortions are similar
to things that occur in nature, whereas the digital distortions,
particularly the ones resulting from bit-rate reduction, are highly
unnatural. Maybe that's why FM sounds tolerable while DAB sounds so awful.
Dave Higton wrote:
> In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myz en.co.uk>
> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a
> reduction of quality, which is all down to perception.
>
> You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
> being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
> introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
> distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
> that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
> few parts per million.
>
Sadly though, it isn't.
tony sayer wrote:
> In article <2ee3287350.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton
> <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> scribeth thus
>> In message <VA.00000751.00af3130@escapetime.removethisbit.myz en.co.uk>
>> Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> Yes, it's thrown away. But it doesn't necessarily result in a
>> reduction of quality, which is all down to perception.
>>
>> You appear to be avoiding my point that FM, being analogue and
>> being demodulated by a system that is non-linear, inevitably
>> introduces non-linear distortions: intermodulation and harmonic
>> distortion, to the audio. The DAB system can be engineered so
>> that the non-linearities are arbitrarily small, perhaps just a
>> few parts per million.
>>
>> Dave
>
> Yes of course the DAB system should be better, how many bits do you
> think it needs in practice?..
>
> Mind you good FM demod systems don't have -that- much distortion..
No. 0.1% mono and 0.3% stereo was what I got with the RCA chipset. In 1975.
Re: Petition to stop FM being switched off 
..
)..
5wMXqCrk9RKFwNg@x.x...
Linear Mode
