Nicolas Croiset lies coming back to haunt him
DAB sounds worse than FM
couple more of Nicolas Croiset's more blatant lies that I've forgotten about
until today. You can see them in here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/6dccd93ccffdef7b?hl=en&
He made the following 3 claims in one paragraph when he was trying to argue
in favour of sticking with his favourite MP2 codec instead of adopting
AAC/AAC+:
1. If there is a bit error in the AAC bitstream you then have to listen to 1
to 2 seconds of silence.
2. You have to put the AAC bitstream into an MPEG-2 Transport Stream, which
he claimed consumes 8% of the total bit rate.
3. You have to use extra error correction coding, which consumes another
8-10% of the total bit rate.
Addressing these points:
1. The DAB+ spec says that the AAC audio frames used for a sampling
frequency of 48 kHz are 20 ms in duration. I would suggest that 20 ms is
slightly shorter than 1 to 2 seconds - 50 to 100 times shorter, to be exact.
2. The new DAB+ spec shows that the MPEG-2 Transport Stream is not used on
DAB+, so clearly it wasn't necessary to use it, not to mention the fact that
a transport stream should have as little overheard as possible, so wasting
8% of the overall bit rate on a transport stream was always a ridiculous
lie.
3. Er, yeah, he's right, the RS coding does consume around 8% of the bit
rate, but what he failed to say (because despite telling him umpteen times
he still doesn't actually even understand this point) is that adding RS
coding actually allows a DAB multiplex to use a HIGHER capacity, not a lower
capacity, so the 8% of redudancy can hardly be described as being wasted.
Therefore, 3 more lies to add to his long list of blatant lies.
I can remember saying at the time that his lies would come back to haunt him
in the not too distant future, and even though some of you may not like me
starting new threads about him lying, I'm simply getting my own back on him
because he lied and I wasted a hell of a lot of time trying to correct his
lies - basically he should not have lied in the first place, so don't have a
go at me when I throw his lies back in his face.
--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info
Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview/freeview_receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php
Nicolas Croiset
<dab.is@dead> wrote:
>I've just been having a look at the new DAB+ spec, and it reminded me of a
>couple more of Nicolas Croiset's more blatant lies that I've forgotten about
>until today. You can see them in here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/6dccd93ccffdef7b?hl=en&
>
>He made the following 3 claims in one paragraph when he was trying to argue
>in favour of sticking with his favourite MP2 codec instead of adopting
>AAC/AAC+:
>
>1. If there is a bit error in the AAC bitstream you then have to listen to 1
>to 2 seconds of silence.
>
>2. You have to put the AAC bitstream into an MPEG-2 Transport Stream, which
>he claimed consumes 8% of the total bit rate.
>
>3. You have to use extra error correction coding, which consumes another
>8-10% of the total bit rate.
>
>
>Addressing these points:
>
>1. The DAB+ spec says that the AAC audio frames used for a sampling
>frequency of 48 kHz are 20 ms in duration. I would suggest that 20 ms is
>slightly shorter than 1 to 2 seconds - 50 to 100 times shorter, to be exact.
Wrong, you need 5 DAB frames to transport one superframe so it is
120ms not 20ms. If you loose one DAB frame you need to resynchronise
so you can loose one superframe more so 240ms of sound.
>
>2. The new DAB+ spec shows that the MPEG-2 Transport Stream is not used on
>DAB+, so clearly it wasn't necessary to use it, not to mention the fact that
>a transport stream should have as little overheard as possible, so wasting
>8% of the overall bit rate on a transport stream was always a ridiculous
>lie.
>
Yes it is a new transport stream which does not exist before it had
been develop for this purpose only and the overhead had been follow
very carrefuly.
>3. Er, yeah, he's right, the RS coding does consume around 8% of the bit
>rate, but what he failed to say (because despite telling him umpteen times
>he still doesn't actually even understand this point) is that adding RS
>coding actually allows a DAB multiplex to use a HIGHER capacity, not a lower
>capacity, so the 8% of redudancy can hardly be described as being wasted.
>
You use 10 bytes for the RS code every 110 bytes, so I am not wrong.
Silk
> I've just been having a look at the new DAB+ spec, and it reminded me of a
> couple more of Nicolas Croiset's more blatant lies that I've forgotten about
> until today. You can see them in here:
I'd rather not. I'm wondering if anyone, other than you, actually cares
about this.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:06:02 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>
>> I've just been having a look at the new DAB+ spec, and it reminded
>> me of a couple more of Nicolas Croiset's more blatant lies that I've
>> forgotten about until today. You can see them in here:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/6dccd93ccffdef7b?hl=en&
>>
>> He made the following 3 claims in one paragraph when he was trying
>> to argue in favour of sticking with his favourite MP2 codec instead
>> of adopting AAC/AAC+:
>>
>> 1. If there is a bit error in the AAC bitstream you then have to
>> listen to 1 to 2 seconds of silence.
>>
>> 2. You have to put the AAC bitstream into an MPEG-2 Transport
>> Stream, which he claimed consumes 8% of the total bit rate.
>>
>> 3. You have to use extra error correction coding, which consumes
>> another 8-10% of the total bit rate.
>>
>>
>> Addressing these points:
>>
>> 1. The DAB+ spec says that the AAC audio frames used for a sampling
>> frequency of 48 kHz are 20 ms in duration. I would suggest that 20
>> ms is slightly shorter than 1 to 2 seconds - 50 to 100 times
>> shorter, to be exact.
>
> Wrong, you need 5 DAB frames to transport one superframe so it is
> 120ms not 20ms. If you loose one DAB frame you need to resynchronise
> so you can loose one superframe more so 240ms of sound.
Firstly, thank you for admitting that your claim that there would be 1 to 2
seconds of silence was a lie, because you have now changed the claim to just
240 ms.
Secondly, your original claim was this:
"in the event of error it is necessary to accept cuts of sound of 1 [to] 2s"
That is a lie, as I will demonstrate below:
In the DAB+ spec:
http://webapp.etsi.org/action/PU/20070213/ts_102563v010101p.pdf
it defines an AAC audio frame (AU = Access Units) as follows (Introduction,
page 6):
"For AAC, two transforms are specified. For DAB, only the 960 transform is
permitted with sampling rates of 48 kHz, 32 kHz, 24 kHz and 16 kHz. Each AU
(audio frame) contains samples for 20 ms, 30 ms, 40 ms or 60 ms
respectively."
So 20 ms for a 48 kHz sampling rate. And in "Appendix D Processing a
superframe" on page 23 it says:
"From au_start[n] and au_start[n + 1] the decoder derives offset and length
of the AU within the audio super frame. Then the au_crc is checked. If the
CRC check detects an error, then the AU is concealed. If the CRC is correct,
then the AU is decoded, see annex A."
Therefore, if there are errors in one 20 ms AU, then the other AUs will be
decoded. So your claim that:
"in the event of error it is necessary to accept cuts of sound"
for 120 ms, 240 ms, 1 seconds or 2 seconds is simply wrong, because cuts of
sound can be limited to just 20 ms if the errors are limited to one AU.
QED.
>> 2. The new DAB+ spec shows that the MPEG-2 Transport Stream is not
>> used on DAB+, so clearly it wasn't necessary to use it, not to
>> mention the fact that a transport stream should have as little
>> overheard as possible, so wasting 8% of the overall bit rate on a
>> transport stream was always a ridiculous lie.
>>
>
> Yes it is a new transport stream which does not exist before it had
> been develop for this purpose only and the overhead had been follow
> very carrefuly.
The reason you brought up the subject of "having to use" MPEG-2 TS was to
introduce this 8% overhead (blatant FUD) to make AAC/AAC+ less efficient
than I was suggesting.
But this 8% overhead can also be proven to be an outrageous lie by looking
at the DAB+ spec:
Page 24 "Annex E Bit-rate available for audio":
Taking the maximum bit rate available for audio in the bottom row of the
table for a channel bit rate of 192 kbps (the sampling frequency doesn't
matter, because all I'm doing is calculating the overheard due to the
"transport stream"):
175,400 bps
175.4 kbps / 192 kbps = 0.91354
The RS code rate = 110/120 = 0.916666667
Therefore, the overhead due to the "transport stream" is:
overhead due to "TS" = 0.91667 - 0.91354 = 0.003127
or the percentage overhead due to the "TS" = 0.3%
That is, your claim that the overhead was 8% was a blatant lie.
QED.
>> 3. Er, yeah, he's right, the RS coding does consume around 8% of the
>> bit rate, but what he failed to say (because despite telling him
>> umpteen times he still doesn't actually even understand this point)
>> is that adding RS coding actually allows a DAB multiplex to use a
>> HIGHER capacity, not a lower capacity, so the 8% of redudancy can
>> hardly be described as being wasted.
>>
>
> You use 10 bytes for the RS code every 110 bytes, so I am not wrong.
I'll say this slowly, try and keep up, and re-read it if you don't
understand it: the multiplex capacity when using RS coding is higher than
the mulitplex capacity when RS coding is not used, because the inner
convolutional coding code rate can be increased.
e.g. Digital One using PL4A for its DAB-IP mobile TV channels and only PL3
for the radio stations.
Richard Evans
> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> I'll say this slowly, try and keep up, and re-read it if you don't
> understand it: the multiplex capacity when using RS coding is higher than
> the mulitplex capacity when RS coding is not used, because the inner
> convolutional coding code rate can be increased.
>
> e.g. Digital One using PL4A for its DAB-IP mobile TV channels and only PL3
> for the radio stations.
Perhaps I'll try and simplify this.
Adding RS coding makes it possible to reduce the level of FEC error
correction. This frees up more bits than are used by the RS coding.
So for example if you take a 64k mp2 stream using pl3 error protection,
and you reduce the error correction to pl4, then you get 96k. For a DAB+
service it would actually pl4a, but it would still be 96k data channel.
Then adding RS coding uses some of this 96k leaving an over all bit rate
of around about 88k (so I've been told).
The over all level of error protection is actually better than the
original 64k pl3 stream, because RS coding is more efficient, while we
now have 88k instead of 64k.
now 88 is a bigger number than 64 isn't it.
Richard E.
Richard Evans
Humm.
Well you at least cared enough to read this thread and write a reply.
Silk
Of course *I* care. I was just wondering if anyone else does. Can I add
your name to the list?
Richard Evans
Ermm..... OK.
Not that I really have much time to get involved in this thread, but I
don't agree with lieing.
Silk
> Not that I really have much time to get involved in this thread, but I
> don't agree with lieing.
Same here, lying is very naughty. I'm not sure that there is any actual
lying going on though. One or the other may have their facts wrong, who
knows, but I doubt anyone is deliberately saying something that they
don't believe to be true themselves.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
> change some parameters to have better values than you can obtain
> before with a standard existing transport stream. My claim was on
> EXISTING transport streams.
Coincidentally, I wrote a Visual C++ program before Xmas that strips off the
MPEG-2 Transport Stream, because DVB-T PC cards don't strip off the MPEG-2
TS from either the TV channels nor the radio stations when recording. TV
channels play in all the media players okay, but the radio stations don't,
hence why I wrote the program (and some versions of PVAstrumento don't
work).
Unfortunately, because my copy of MS Visual Studio is a Student or
Introductory Edition, it doesn't allow me to produce non-debug versions of
MFC applications, so only people with MS Visual Studio can run this app:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/mpg_cutter_winap.exe
(I've been told that if you don't have Visual Studio on your machine it
gives some error message about not being able to find some MFC debug file,
and it won't run)
My program proves that your 8% claim is simply a lie. Here's the file sizes
for a number of files both before and after removing the MPEG-2 TS headers:
w/o TS - w/ TS = % TS overhead
59,326 KB - 59,546 KB = 0.37% o/h
159,687 - 160,323 = 0.40% o/h
70,414 - 70,704 = 0.41% o/h
42,093 - 42,266 = 0.41% o/h
11,631 - 11,680 = 0.42% o/h
And here's a file that I've just recorded and the demultiplexed version so
that you can check this for yourself:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/R4.mpg 201 KB
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/R4.mp2 200 KB
Open the MPG file in a hex editor and search for
00 00 01 C0
which is the start of the MPEG-2 TS header. The first instance is at address
0, then at D8E (3470 decimal), then 1B1C (6940 decimal) and it'll carry on
like that with TS packets of length 3470.
The TS header length is 14 bytes, so the overhead is:
% TS overhead = 14 / 3470 = 0.40%
Your 8% overhead for an MPEG-2 TS was always utterly ridiculous, because
common sense shows that the point of a transport stream is, erm, to
transport data, so anybody trying to suggest that 8% of the multiplex
capacity on a transport stream overhead is just a moron or a liar or both,
because no way on this earth would they waste 8% of the bit rate on just a
bloody transport stream.
> In case of one AU error the sound is not mute (cf A1.2), the sound is
> mute in case of multiples consecutive AU errors, the receiver must
> synchronise once again on a new superframe so you must wait at least
> more than 120ms with no sound.
This is what you originally said:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/6dccd93ccffdef7b?hl=en
"sans colpter qu'en cas d'erreur il faut accepter des coupures de son de 1 à
2s."
"in the event of error it is necessary to accept cuts of sound of 1 [to] 2s"
Now you're simply changing things to when there's a severe number of errors
which leads to the whole audio superframe being lost and you need to
resynchronise. Sorry, you lied.
This claim of 1 to 2 seconds of silence was always pure nonsense just like
all your other lies. You know, what bloody planet do you live in where an
audio format called Advanced Audio Coding is designed so incredibly badly
that it would basically be impossible to use it on a broadcasting system
because cuts in sound of 1 to 2 seconds are completely unacceptable.
What kind of idiots do you take us for? The problem here is that you're the
bloody idiot.
> The RS code concern multiple AU simultaneously and there is interleave
> inside the audio super frame, in case of a burst of errors (more than
> 6 erroneous bytes), all AU inside should have some erroneous bytes,
> so you will certainly loss all the superframe of 120ms.
Which bit of this don't you understand exactly:
"From au_start[n] and au_start[n + 1] the decoder derives offset and length
of the AU within the audio super frame. Then the au_crc is checked. If the
CRC check detects an error, then the AU is concealed. If the CRC is correct,
then the AU is decoded, see annex A."
Can you not understand what this means:
"If the CRC check detects an error, then the AU is concealed. If the CRC is
correct,
then the AU is decoded"
How incredibly stupid are you, exactly?
> TS have an overhead more than 8% in case MPEG-2TS, you don't have only
> the RS, you have all the information inside like PID etc..., it
> depends how you create your TS stream and which bitrate for each
> object, I mentioned an overhead of around 40-60kbps not a percentage.
This is what you originally claimed:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/6dccd93ccffdef7b?hl=en
"Si l'on prends le cas de l'AAC par exemple, il faut que celui-ci soit
icorporé dans du mpeg 2-TS (8% en plus) il faut ensuite passer un code
FEC pour le rendre plus robuste et cela rajoute encore une perte de
débit de l'ordre de 8 à 10%. sans colpter qu'en cas d'erreur il faut
accepter des coupures de son de 1 à 2s."
Google English translation:
"If one take the case of the AAC for example, this one has to be
icorporé in the mpeg 2-TS (8 % in more) it is then necessary to
cross(spend) a code FEC to make him(it) sturdier and it adds another
loss of debit(output) of the order of 8 to 10 %. Without colpter that in
case of error it is necessary to accept cuts of sound of 1 in 2s."
So you didn't mention an overhead of 40 - 60 kbps at all, so that is yet
another lie.
Also, you clearly claimed that there's an 8%+ overhead for using MPEG-2 TS
and then you added the RS FEC overhead of 8 to 10%, or a total overhead of
16 - 18%.
The paragraph you wrote was simply one multi-faceted complete lie. You are a
pathological liar, and you do need help from a psychiatrist.
>>>> 3. Er, yeah, he's right, the RS coding does consume around 8% of
>>>> the bit rate, but what he failed to say (because despite telling
>>>> him umpteen times he still doesn't actually even understand this
>>>> point) is that adding RS coding actually allows a DAB multiplex to
>>>> use a HIGHER capacity, not a lower capacity, so the 8% of
>>>> redudancy can hardly be described as being wasted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You use 10 bytes for the RS code every 110 bytes, so I am not wrong.
>>
>>
>> I'll say this slowly, try and keep up, and re-read it if you don't
>> understand it: the multiplex capacity when using RS coding is higher
>> than the mulitplex capacity when RS coding is not used, because the
>> inner convolutional coding code rate can be increased.
>>
>> e.g. Digital One using PL4A for its DAB-IP mobile TV channels and
>> only PL3 for the radio stations.
>
> So you accept that you have a better C/N with the RS than without a
> RS, you said a few days before it was not the case !!
I've *always* said that using RS coding allows you to use a higher
convolutional code rate than if you don't use RS coding, thus the multiplex
capacity can be increased. And considering that you tried to suggest that
the 8% overhead for using RS coding was a net loss, then which of these two
mutually exclusive arguments are you putting forward?
> Remember also you said I was lying when I said there is is an
> additional error code, you can show there is a fire code.
Yes, you were right, they are using a fire code to protect bytes 2 to 10 of
the audio superframe. But given your record of being a pathological liar -
which this post amply demonstrates is true - and considering that they
didn't include any details of this fire code in their press release, and as
Simon Mason told me via email that they weren't using any other additional
error correction code other than the RS code, then I feel justified in
accusing you of lying.
> QED, you were lying, I was right.
No, I honestly thought you were lying, so I was not lying about this.
Understand this: I will STOP accusing you of lying IF AND ONLY IF you STOP
LYING. I feel perfectly justified in accusing you of lying about something
whenever there's no evidence to support your claim - because you lie all the
time. End of story.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> Not that I really have much time to get involved in this thread, but
>> I don't agree with lieing.
>
> Same here, lying is very naughty. I'm not sure that there is any
> actual lying going on though.
That's only because you're a clueless travelling toilet roll salesman.
> One or the other may have their facts
> wrong, who knows, but I doubt anyone is deliberately saying
> something that they don't believe to be true themselves.
Croiset claimed the following:
In the event of bit errors you have to put up with 1 to 2 seconds of silence
with AAC. That was a blatant lie. He just made that "fact" up, because it
sounded good. No modern audio format like AAC would be designed so
ridiculously as to rule it out from being used on broadcasting systems.
He claimed that you have to put up with an 8% overhead because you have to
use the MPEG-2 Transport Stream. Ignoring the fact that the MPEG-2 TS isn't
being used on DAB, anybody that suggests that a transport stream - whose job
is just to transport data - would consume such a large percentage of the
overall bit rate of a channel is just a lunatic.
Both of these claims are completely ridiculous, and anybody with a cursory
knowledge of the subject and an ounce of common sense can see how ridiculous
they are. Therefore he must be lying - fabrication of information with the
sole intention of making something look far worse than reality has to be
classified as being a lie.
He is a pathological liar, and if it was anybody other than myself showing
him to be a pathological liar then there would be no opposition to this
fact.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Indeed.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> MPEG-2TS I don't find the sync byte 0x47 every 188 bytes or 204 bytes.
Don't forget that you actually claimed that you HAD TO use MPEG-2 TS with an
overhead of 8%, and in reality DAB+ is using an overhead of just 0.3%. So
whichever way you look at it, you were lying.
But you are actually correct in that that radio station stream is an MPEG-2
PES stream, but by saying what you've just said you MUST also therefore KNOW
that the MPEG-2 TS overhead is NOT 8%. Because if you know the details of
the MPEG-2 TS then you must also know how they work, and you will also know
that they do not have an overhead of 8%.
From the "Digital Television, MPEG-1, MPEG-2 and principles of the DVB
system" book, it says:
"4.2.1 Composition of the MPEG-2 transport packet
A transport packet of 188 bytes is made up of a packet header of 4 bytes and
a payload of up to 184 bytes, preceded by an optional adaptation field."
"As transport packets (188 bytes including 4-byte header) are generally
(much) shorter than PES packets (e.g. 2048 bytes), PES packets will have to
be divided into data blocks of 184 bytes. Since the length of PES packets is
not generally an exact multiple of 184 bytes, the last transport packet
carrying a PES packet will have to start with an adaptation field, the
length of which will be qual to 184 bytes less the number of bytes remaining
in the PES packet (Fig 4.7)."
Using the above MPG file as an example, the PES packet length is 3470 bytes.
3470 / 184 = 18.8
So there'll be 19 TS packets carrying this PES packet.
Therefore, the overall overhead is:
overall % overhead = 100 * (1 - (3470 / (19 x 188))) = 2.9%
That is miles less than 8%. But as I say, this is irrelevant, because you
said that they *had to* incur an overhead of 8% when in fact DAB+ is using
an overhead of just 0.3%.
Furthermore, you have not admitted that you were lying when you said the
following:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/6dccd93ccffdef7b?hl=en
"sans colpter qu'en cas d'erreur il faut accepter des coupures de son de 1 à
2s."
"in the event of error it is necessary to accept cuts of sound of 1 [to] 2s"
Admit that you were lying about this.
DAB sounds worse than FM
<snip>
Out of interest, do you actually enjoy being proved wrong time after time
after time after time after time after time after time?
Mark Harper
says...
> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Out of interest, do you actually enjoy being proved wrong time after time
> after time after time after time after time after time?
>
Unlike you...who seems to spend more time maliciously setting out to
prove someone a liar (not that I'm saying NC is)...who cares...!..are
you getting some kind of odd pleasure from this ?
Can we all go back to talking about DAB/WS/DRM etc...please?
DAB sounds worse than FM
> In article <jrYDh.35810$wP3....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net>, dab.is@dead
> says...
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Out of interest, do you actually enjoy being proved wrong time after
>> time after time after time after time after time after time?
>>
>
> Unlike you...who seems to spend more time maliciously setting out to
> prove someone a liar (not that I'm saying NC is)...who cares...!
I don't care whether you care.
>..are
> you getting some kind of odd pleasure from this ?
The reason I'm doing it is simply because he's continually lied about these
things over the last 2-3 years, and there's been 2 documents published in
the last couple of weeks: an EBU document that compares the required field
strengths for DVB-H and T-DMB, DAB+ specification.
The EBU document proved that he had been lying about transmitter powers to
make DVB-H look bad, and the DAB+ specification proves that what he said
about things like the overhead due to the transport stream and how much
silence there would be if there were any errors in an AAC bitstream were
more lies.
I'm simply getting my own back for him wasting a considerable amount of my
time in the past. And I'm also demonstrating to other regulars (whether
they're interested or not) just how much and how blatantly he does lie,
because I'm sick to death of having to argue against him when he just makes
figures up out of thin air.
> Can we all go back to talking about DAB/WS/DRM etc...please?
Nobody is forcing you to read any of my posts.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>> And here's a file that I've just recorded and the demultiplexed
>>>> version so that you can check this for yourself:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/R4.mpg 201 KB
>>>> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/documents/R4.mp2 200 KB
>>>
>>>
>>> Your statistics are wrong because you did it on a stream which is
>>> not MPEG-2TS I don't find the sync byte 0x47 every 188 bytes or 204
>>> bytes.
>>
>>
>> Don't forget that you actually claimed that you HAD TO use MPEG-2 TS
>> with an overhead of 8%, and in reality DAB+ is using an overhead of
>> just 0.3%. So whichever way you look at it, you were lying.
>>
>
> transport system (like MPEG-2 TS or ADTS) or create a new one... Your
> memory is very selective...
No, you did not say anything like that - therefore you've come out with YET
ANOTHER LIE. Why do you lie about this when I have already provided a quote
from Google Groups?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/6dccd93ccffdef7b?hl=en
"Si l'on prends le cas de l'AAC par exemple, il faut que celui-ci soit
icorporé dans du mpeg 2-TS (8% en plus)"
English translation:
"If one take the case of the AAC for example, this one has to be
icorporé in the mpeg 2-TS (8 % in more)"
Note: "has to be incorporated in".
Anyway, the issue was always the PERCENTAGE OVERHEAD, because you were
trying to add on overheads to make AAC/AAC+ look less efficient than it
actually is, because you were against using AAC/AAC+, and you wanted to use
MP2.
And I notice in the VDL press release about Le Radio in Paris you are now
describing MP2 audio services as being "DMB services" - more lies! And I
note that NRJ is in favour of using DMB for radio because this reduces the
amount of competition they will face in future.
> DAB+ creates a new transport stream.
Correct, so your claim that you have to use MPEG-2 TS was false.
> Your example in your last message is incorrect and you search to
> demonstrate something with a wrong source file. You file R4.mpg is
> not a MPEG-2 TS file.
I've already agreed that it is actually an MPEG-2 PES stream.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> !!!
I've already posted the full paragraph. But it's here if you want to see it
again:
"Si l'on prends le cas de l'AAC par exemple, il faut que celui-ci soit
icorporé dans du mpeg 2-TS (8% en plus) il faut ensuite passer un code
FEC pour le rendre plus robuste et cela rajoute encore une perte de
débit de l'ordre de 8 à 10%. sans colpter qu'en cas d'erreur il faut
accepter des coupures de son de 1 à 2s."
English translation:
"If one take the case of the AAC for example, this one has to be
icorporé in the mpeg 2-TS (8 % in more) it is then necessary to
cross(spend) a code FEC to make him(it) sturdier and it adds another
loss of debit(output) of the order of 8 to 10 %. Without colpter that in
case of error it is necessary to accept cuts of sound of 1 in 2s."
>Automatic translators from french to english are quiet bad and the
> result is a lot of times very strange.
I'm afraid I do understand what "mpeg 2-TS (8% en plus)" means, which is all
that matters here. You lied, that's all there is to it.
>>> DAB+ creates a new transport stream.
>>
>>
>> Correct, so your claim that you have to use MPEG-2 TS was false.
>>
>>
>>> Your example in your last message is incorrect and you search to
>>> demonstrate something with a wrong source file. You file R4.mpg is
>>> not a MPEG-2 TS file.
>>
>>
>> I've already agreed that it is actually an MPEG-2 PES stream.
>
> So you admit that your demonstration is wrong and your calculation
> about overhead is wrong.
Yes, I agree that I made a mistake in calling the Radio 4 recording an
MPEG-2 TS stream.
But this is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The point here is that you claimed that you
had to use MPEG-2 TS and that the overhead is 8%. The reality is that MPEG-2
TS did not have to be used, and DAB+ is not using it, and the actual
overhead is about 0.3%.
Just to simplify this so that you can understand it: 0.3% much less than 8%.
You lied.
QED.
Rayzor
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message
news:e0zDh.19212$tz6....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
No lies at all its only you and your twisted warped mind
and who gives a fick what you think anyway shit for brains
DAB sounds worse than FM
Our discussions are only infinite loops because you will NEVER admit that
you were wrong and you just come out with LIE AFTER LIE in order to avoid
admitting that you were wrong.
For example, here's a list of lies that you have not admitted that you lied
about:
1. You said if there's any errors on AAC that results in 1 to 2 seconds of
silence. The actual figure is 20 ms.
2. You said that you have to use the MPEG-2 TS to carry AAC audio and that
the overhead was 8%. DAB+ is not using MPEG-2 TS, so it's obviously not
necessary, the overhead for using MPEG-2 TS turns out to be about 3%, not
8%, and the actual overhead used on DAB+ is 0.3%. Please remember that the
ONLY reason you were trying to say that the MPEG-2 TS "had to be used" was
in order to make my calculations of the efficiency of whichever system that
used AAC would be lower than what I was saying because you and VDL want to
use MP2, and you STILL want to use MP2 even though DAB+ has now been
released.
3. You said that RS coding adds 8 - 10% overhead. The reality is that using
RS coding increases the spectral efficiency because a higher code rate can
be used for the inner convolutional coding. This wasn't actually a lie, it
was just that you have an incredibly bad understanding of digital
communications systems.
4. You said, and you still maintain, that DVB-H requires 30 - 34.5 dB higher
transmitter powers than DMB, despite the fact that the transmitter powers
this implies are in the MW to GW levels, and yet the highest DVB-H
transmitter power I've been able to find so far is just 80 kW.
5. You claim that DVB-H transmitters need to be separated by just 1km. I've
just had another look at this, and it turns out you were either lying or you
didn't understand what the curves are actually referring to. See below for
more on this.
6. You claimed that the same amount of electricity is needed to power 4
T-DMB multiplex transmitters as is needed for just one T-DMB multiplex
transmitters, thus inventing the first ever perpetual motion machine
transmitter and solving global warming, and yet you've not patented this
idea and made billions.
7. You claimed that the Terratec DR Box1 (a DAB receiver) can receive T-DMB
services and that the VideoLAN Client could then decode these services. But
T-DMB services are RS coded, and the VLC doesn't support RS decoding.
8. In the past you've claimed that MP2 is more robust than othere audio
codecs such as MP3 and AAC, but the program I wrote proves that MP2 is not
more robust than other codecs, but it is the UEP error correction used on
DAB that makes it appear as though it is more robust - i.e. you want to
allow MP2 to use additional error correction coding but you disallow AAC and
MP3 to use any additional error correction coding.
9. In the past you have claimed that MP2 sounds as good as MP3 at the same
bit rate.
10. In the past you have disputed that AAC is twice as efficient as MP2.
I could go on forever here. But the reason why we have "infinite loop
discussions" is quite simply that you NEVER admit that you are wrong about
anything. All of the above are just blatant lies or a combination of
dishonest representations mixed with an almost total lack of understanding
of the technologies.
Going back to point (5) above about your claim that DVB-H transmitters have
to be 1km apart at most, and you referred to the ITU-R P.1546 document to
back up your claim. I've just had another look at that, because although I
couldn't see what was wrong when I first looked at it, it just didn't ring
true. And I was right. On paage 2 it says this:
"1 The propagation curves
The propagation curves in Annexes 2, 3 and 4 represent field-strength values
for 1 kW effective radiated power (e.r.p.) at nominal frequencies of 100,
600 and 2 000 MHz, respectively"
Now you did not say ANYTHING about 1kW transmitters being used, so it's
obviously wrong to say that all DVB-H transmitters have to be spaced 1km
apart when they could be using much higher power transmitters, such as the
80kW one in Sydney and the 50kW one in Berlin.
Silk
> He is a pathological liar, and if it was anybody other than myself showing
> him to be a pathological liar then there would be no opposition to this
> fact.
Perhaps that paragraph answers your own question. You *are* the only one
saying it. Time to take the conversation elsewhere or simply give up.
The more you go on, the more you make yourself look a fool. I don't
believe anyone but yourself cares about this anymore, if they ever did
in the first place. Move on.
Maybe if you were to get yourself a job, you would have a different
perspective on life.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>> He is a pathological liar, and if it was anybody other than myself
>> showing him to be a pathological liar then there would be no
>> opposition to this fact.
>
> Perhaps that paragraph answers your own question. You *are* the only
> one saying it. Time to take the conversation elsewhere or simply give
> up. The more you go on, the more you make yourself look a fool.
Oh, I look a fool because I point out someone else is a pathological liar?
Yeah, right.
>I don't believe anyone but yourself cares about this anymore, if they
> ever did in the first place. Move on.
I intend to move on, and I'm pretty much done with it now, but I just wanted
to press home the fact that if he lies then these lies will come back to
haunt him. Most of the lies I'm referring to in these recent threads are
from 1-3 years ago, and it's just that 2 documents have been published in
the last couple of weeks that prove that what he was saying were lies. I'm
afraid he does deserve all that's coming to him.
It's like rubbing a puppy's nose in its shit, if you don't do it it'll carry
on shitting in the house.
Silk
> Oh, I look a fool because I point out someone else is a pathological liar?
Yes, you do. It's simply a petty and pointless argument between yourself
and NC. I don't understand why it's so important to you. No one else cares.
> I intend to move on, and I'm pretty much done with it now
Good, maybe we're getting somewhere.
, but I just wanted
> to press home the fact that if he lies then these lies will come back to
> haunt him. Most of the lies I'm referring to in these recent threads are
> from 1-3 years ago, and it's just that 2 documents have been published in
> the last couple of weeks that prove that what he was saying were lies. I'm
> afraid he does deserve all that's coming to him.
Yawn, bore... Seems we're still going nowhere after all.
>
> It's like rubbing a puppy's nose in its shit, if you don't do it it'll carry
> on shitting in the house.
No. You simply put the puppy outside and close the door, it will then
learn to shit somewhere else.
Ken
>> Oh, I look a fool because I point out someone else is a pathological liar?
>
> Yes, you do. It's simply a petty and pointless argument between
> yourself and NC. I don't understand why it's so important to you.
> No one else cares.
Wrong. I care.
Silk
Silk
> Which is the actual coverage on DAB with 10kW ERP ? 30-40km around the
> transmitter ?
You are as bad as the other idiot. Maybe you two should become
pen-friends or something.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>>
>>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>> But this is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The point here is that you claimed
>>>> that you had to use MPEG-2 TS and that the overhead is 8%. The
>>>> reality is that MPEG-2 TS did not have to be used, and DAB+ is not
>>>> using it, and the actual overhead is about 0.3%.
>>>>
>>>> Just to simplify this so that you can understand it: 0.3% much less
>>>> than 8%.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Infinite loop discussion !!
>>
>>
>> Our discussions are only infinite loops because you will NEVER admit
>> that you were wrong and you just come out with LIE AFTER LIE in
>> order to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
>>
>> For example, here's a list of lies that you have not admitted that
>> you lied about:
>>
>> 1. You said if there's any errors on AAC that results in 1 to 2
>> seconds of silence. The actual figure is 20 ms.
>
> transport stream but between 120 to 240ms. If there is an error on
> only one AU (20ms), we don't mute the sound.
Another pure lie.
>> 2. You said that you have to use the MPEG-2 TS to carry AAC audio
>> and that the overhead was 8%. DAB+ is not using MPEG-2 TS, so it's
>> obviously not necessary, the overhead for using MPEG-2 TS turns out
>> to be about 3%, not 8%, and the actual overhead used on DAB+ is
>> 0.3%. Please remember that the ONLY reason you were trying to say
>> that the MPEG-2 TS "had to be used" was in order to make my
>> calculations of the efficiency of whichever system that used AAC
>> would be lower than what I was saying because you and VDL want to
>> use MP2, and you STILL want to use MP2 even though DAB+ has now been
>> released.
>
> This discussion was made a few months ago and I spoke about EXISTING
> transport stream.
You said AAC "has to" use MPEG-2 TS. But the more important lie was that you
were claiming 8%, and now DAB+ is using an overhead of just 0.3%.
>> 3. You said that RS coding adds 8 - 10% overhead. The reality is
>> that using RS coding increases the spectral efficiency because a
>> higher code rate can be used for the inner convolutional coding.
>> This wasn't actually a lie, it was just that you have an incredibly
>> bad understanding of digital communications systems.
>>
>
> A RS code make an overhead this is a reality. If you don't need the RS
> in this case you don't use it.
If there is a net gain in capacity then what you were saying was pure
nonsense.
>> 4. You said, and you still maintain, that DVB-H requires 30 - 34.5
>> dB higher transmitter powers than DMB, despite the fact that the
>> transmitter powers this implies are in the MW to GW levels, and yet
>> the highest DVB-H transmitter power I've been able to find so far is
>> just 80 kW.
>
> I maintain this, when you need 101dBµV/m you have 2 solutions, you
> add a lot of little transmitters or you need very big power on one or
> more transmitters.
> You find 80kW it does not mean that the outdoor coverage is good and
> the indoor coverage is good.
History will prove that DVB-H will definitely not use 30 - 34.5 dB higher
powers than T-DMB for the same coverage.
You are lying, and when more information comes out about commercial
services, I will make you regret saying what you've said.
>> 5. You claim that DVB-H transmitters need to be separated by just
>> 1km. I've just had another look at this, and it turns out you were
>> either lying or you didn't understand what the curves are actually
>> referring to. See below for more on this.
>
> It is right with 101dBµV/m in band IV with an antenna height of 37.5m
> and 1kWERP. the ITU P.1546 provide this value.
But you dishonestly failed to mention that this was just for 1 kW
transmitter power, e.g.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/49759fb21883fddb?hl=en&
Obviously the distance between transmitters can be much higher if higher
powers were used.
>> 6. You claimed that the same amount of electricity is needed to
>> power 4 T-DMB multiplex transmitters as is needed for just one T-DMB
>> multiplex transmitters, thus inventing the first ever perpetual
>> motion machine transmitter and solving global warming, and yet
>> you've not patented this idea and made billions.
>
> I didn't write that.
I'm afraid you did.
>> 7. You claimed that the Terratec DR Box1 (a DAB receiver) can
>> receive T-DMB services and that the VideoLAN Client could then
>> decode these services. But T-DMB services are RS coded, and the VLC
>> doesn't support RS decoding.
>>
>
> It is right and working. You are unable to prove the contrary. Be
> carreful, VLC don't manage the RS does not mean it does not support
> TS-204 TS stream.
The Terratec DR Box1 doesn't perform RS decoding, so it cannot work.
>> 8. In the past you've claimed that MP2 is more robust than othere
>> audio codecs such as MP3 and AAC, but the program I wrote proves
>> that MP2 is not more robust than other codecs, but it is the UEP
>> error correction used on DAB that makes it appear as though it is
>> more robust - i.e. you want to allow MP2 to use additional error
>> correction coding but you disallow AAC and MP3 to use any additional
>> error correction coding.
>
> Ye I confirm that, if AAC is so robust why do you need RS + fire code
> to protect it ? You don't need any fire code and RS for MP2. In some
> case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong.
Hooraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, a new classic:
"In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong."
That is as illogical as saying "I'd prefer to listen to audio at a lower bit
rate". Why would any *commercial* service (i.e. NOT a test service) use MP2
with EEP when UEP would make transmission much more robust and the capacity
consumed is the same? That is quite simply utter nonsense, which means I'm
forced to add it to your list of lies:
10. You claimed that EEP has been used for MP2 services.
You ARE a pathological liar, and I claim my five pounds. You really CANNOT
help yourself, can you? You're a disgrace.
>> 9. In the past you have claimed that MP2 sounds as good as MP3 at
>> the same bit rate.
>
> some good audio codec used very carrefully can provide a very good
> quality. you don't have a good MP2 encoder and you compare with
> encoders which are not used in good conditions.
MP3 performs far better than MP2 at 128 kbps. QED.
>> Going back to point (5) above about your claim that DVB-H
>> transmitters have to be 1km apart at most, and you referred to the
>> ITU-R P.1546 document to back up your claim. I've just had another
>> look at that, because although I couldn't see what was wrong when I
>> first looked at it, it just didn't ring true. And I was right. On
>> paage 2 it says this:
>>
>> "1 The propagation curves
>>
>> The propagation curves in Annexes 2, 3 and 4 represent
>> field-strength values for 1 kW effective radiated power (e.r.p.) at
>> nominal frequencies of 100, 600 and 2 000 MHz, respectively"
>>
>> Now you did not say ANYTHING about 1kW transmitters being used, so
>> it's obviously wrong to say that all DVB-H transmitters have to be
>> spaced 1km apart when they could be using much higher power
>> transmitters, such as the 80kW one in Sydney and the 50kW one in
>> Berlin.
>
> It is an example of network implementation.
> You can use higher power, for exemapl like 2kW ERP you just have to
> move the curve with 3dB and you have the result.
>
> If you read this document from Dibcom which are involved in DVB-H :
> http://www1.dibcom.info/Images/Upload/pdf/Publications/DiBcom_DVBH_Paper_final.pdf
>
> On page 7, in Berlin, the coverage of 100kW EIRP is between 7 an 9 km
> around the transmitter with a mast at 120m height.... It is really
> very efficient....
And your claim that T-DMB requires 34.5 dB less power than DVB-H implies
that this 100 kW transmitter can be replaced by a T-DMB transmitter using:
100 kW / 10^3.45 = 35W
How confident are you that a 35 W T-DMB transmitter will be able to provide
indoor coverage over a 7 - 9 km radius? Utterly ridiculous. You fool.
> Which is the actual coverage on DAB with 10kW ERP ? 30-40km around the
> transmitter ?
Oh yeah, and I'm just definitely going to believe the word of a pathological
liar.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Thank you Ken.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
>> In the event of bit errors you have to put up with 1 to 2 seconds of
>> silence with AAC. That was a blatant lie. He just made that "fact"
>> up, because it sounded good. No modern audio format like AAC would
>> be designed so ridiculously as to rule it out from being used on
>> broadcasting systems.
>>
>> He claimed that you have to put up with an 8% overhead because you
>> have to use the MPEG-2 Transport Stream. Ignoring the fact that the
>> MPEG-2 TS isn't being used on DAB, anybody that suggests that a
>> transport stream - whose job is just to transport data - would
>> consume such a large percentage of the overall bit rate of a channel
>> is just a lunatic.
>
MPEG-2 TS is NOT used on DAB+. And MPEG-2 TS does not incur the 8% overhead
that you claimed it did!
You lied on two counts.
QED.
Silk
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 16:23:20 +0000, Silk <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh, I look a fool because I point out someone else is a
>>>> pathological liar?
>>> Yes, you do. It's simply a petty and pointless argument between
>>> yourself and NC. I don't understand why it's so important to you.
>>> No one else cares.
>> Wrong. I care.
>
>
> Thank you Ken.
>
>
I think he may have been joking. Well, I laughed, anyway.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>
>>
>>>> 2. You said that you have to use the MPEG-2 TS to carry AAC audio
>>>> and that the overhead was 8%. DAB+ is not using MPEG-2 TS, so it's
>>>> obviously not necessary, the overhead for using MPEG-2 TS turns out
>>>> to be about 3%, not 8%, and the actual overhead used on DAB+ is
>>>> 0.3%. Please remember that the ONLY reason you were trying to say
>>>> that the MPEG-2 TS "had to be used" was in order to make my
>>>> calculations of the efficiency of whichever system that used AAC
>>>> would be lower than what I was saying because you and VDL want to
>>>> use MP2, and you STILL want to use MP2 even though DAB+ has now
>>>> been released.
>>>
>>> This discussion was made a few months ago and I spoke about EXISTING
>>> transport stream.
>>
>>
>> You said AAC "has to" use MPEG-2 TS. But the more important lie was
>> that you were claiming 8%, and now DAB+ is using an overhead of just
>> 0.3%.
>
> discussion was done.
The old DAB system does not use MPEG-2 TS, so that alone proves that you
don't have to use MPEG-2 TS.
All that is required is that you have some header saying "here's the start
etc". You OBVIOUSLY do not need to waste 8% in overhead to do that.
>>>> 4. You said, and you still maintain, that DVB-H requires 30 - 34.5
>>>> dB higher transmitter powers than DMB, despite the fact that the
>>>> transmitter powers this implies are in the MW to GW levels, and yet
>>>> the highest DVB-H transmitter power I've been able to find so far
>>>> is just 80 kW.
>>>
>>> I maintain this, when you need 101dBµV/m you have 2 solutions, you
>>> add a lot of little transmitters or you need very big power on one
>>> or more transmitters.
>>> You find 80kW it does not mean that the outdoor coverage is good and
>>> the indoor coverage is good.
>>
>>
>> History will prove that DVB-H will definitely not use 30 - 34.5 dB
>> higher powers than T-DMB for the same coverage.
>
> Yes I confirm, the history will prove that and certainly not in the
> way you could think.
I look forward to the future. I will make you pay for your lies.
>>>> 5. You claim that DVB-H transmitters need to be separated by just
>>>> 1km. I've just had another look at this, and it turns out you were
>>>> either lying or you didn't understand what the curves are actually
>>>> referring to. See below for more on this.
>>>
>>> It is right with 101dBµV/m in band IV with an antenna height of
>>> 37.5m and 1kWERP. the ITU P.1546 provide this value.
>>
>>
>> But you dishonestly failed to mention that this was just for 1 kW
>> transmitter power, e.g.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/49759fb21883fddb?hl=en&
>>
>> Obviously the distance between transmitters can be much higher if
>> higher powers were used.
>
> Yes you are right and you can use the same curves from P.1546 for all
> ERP power to determine the distance of reception.
But you dishonestly tried to suggest that the maximum separation between
DVB-H transmitters was 1 km. That is false and therefore a lie.
>>>> 6. You claimed that the same amount of electricity is needed to
>>>> power 4 T-DMB multiplex transmitters as is needed for just one
>>>> T-DMB multiplex transmitters, thus inventing the first ever
>>>> perpetual motion machine transmitter and solving global warming,
>>>> and yet you've not patented this idea and made billions.
>>>
>>> I didn't write that.
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid you did.
>
> Where ?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/84dd98c26f69d489?hl=en&
>>>> 7. You claimed that the Terratec DR Box1 (a DAB receiver) can
>>>> receive T-DMB services and that the VideoLAN Client could then
>>>> decode these services. But T-DMB services are RS coded, and the VLC
>>>> doesn't support RS decoding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is right and working. You are unable to prove the contrary. Be
>>> carreful, VLC don't manage the RS does not mean it does not support
>>> TS-204 TS stream.
>>
>>
>> The Terratec DR Box1 doesn't perform RS decoding, so it cannot work.
>
> You really don't know how the Terratec is working and how VLc is
> working.
>
> You don't have this receiver so you are unable to verify something.
> This receiver had been used by a lot of companies around the world to
> demonstrate T-DMB before there is any hardware receivers.
YOU made the claim so YOU have to prove that YOU were not LYING.
>>>> 8. In the past you've claimed that MP2 is more robust than othere
>>>> audio codecs such as MP3 and AAC, but the program I wrote proves
>>>> that MP2 is not more robust than other codecs, but it is the UEP
>>>> error correction used on DAB that makes it appear as though it is
>>>> more robust - i.e. you want to allow MP2 to use additional error
>>>> correction coding but you disallow AAC and MP3 to use any
>>>> additional error correction coding.
>>>
>>> Ye I confirm that, if AAC is so robust why do you need RS + fire
>>> code to protect it ? You don't need any fire code and RS for MP2.
>>> In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong.
>>
>>
>> Hooraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, a new classic:
>>
>> "In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong."
>>
>> That is as illogical as saying "I'd prefer to listen to audio at a
>> lower bit rate". Why would any *commercial* service (i.e. NOT a test
>> service) use MP2 with EEP when UEP would make transmission much more
>> robust and the capacity consumed is the same? That is quite simply
>> utter nonsense, which means I'm forced to add it to your list of
>> lies:
>
> Please check in EN300401, there is some bitrates in MP2 where you MUST
> use EEP.
Whoooooooooaaaaaah there. You said this:
"In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong."
Please now provide an example of a radio station using EEP with MP2 (tests
are not allowed).
> Is it for outdoor or indoor ?
Whichever Dibcom is using for DVB-H, OBVIOUSLY.
> What is the coverage of Kendal transmitter for example ?
??
> Admit with 100kW EIRP you have a DVB-H coverage around 7-9km.... This
> is a fact.
I ask again: will T-DMB be able to provide 7-9km radius coverage area with a
35W transmitter? If not, you are lying. End of story.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>>
>>>> Silk wrote:
>>>> In the event of bit errors you have to put up with 1 to 2 seconds
>>>> of silence with AAC. That was a blatant lie. He just made that
>>>> "fact" up, because it sounded good. No modern audio format like
>>>> AAC would be designed so ridiculously as to rule it out from being
>>>> used on broadcasting systems.
>>>>
>>>> He claimed that you have to put up with an 8% overhead because you
>>>> have to use the MPEG-2 Transport Stream. Ignoring the fact that the
>>>> MPEG-2 TS isn't being used on DAB, anybody that suggests that a
>>>> transport stream - whose job is just to transport data - would
>>>> consume such a large percentage of the overall bit rate of a
>>>> channel is just a lunatic.
>>>
>>> MPEG-2 TS is used on DAB, cf TS 102 427.
>>
>>
>> MPEG-2 TS is NOT used on DAB+. And MPEG-2 TS does not incur the 8%
>> overhead that you claimed it did!
>>
>
>
> When you are able to make a confusion between MPEG-2 PS and MPEG-2
> TS... I am not sure if you are able to prove your assertion abtou
> MPEG-2 TS does not provide an overhead of 8%.
Considering that you have a negative IQ and you claim that DVB-H requires
34.5 dB higher transmitter powers than T-DMB, you are not allowed to
criticise me in any way ever.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I sometimes chuckle when I think of you touring the cuntry selling your
toilet rolls.
DAB sounds worse than FM
MP2 is NOT carried in the MPEG-2 TS, i.e. you do not NEED to use it. QED.
> MPEG-1/2 layer II hve its own transport stream integrated.
EXACTLY. So why did you dishonestly claim that you HAD TO use MPEG-2 TS?
And why did you dishonestly claim that the overhead for MPEG-2 TS is 8%??
>>>>>> 5. You claim that DVB-H transmitters need to be separated by just
>>>>>> 1km. I've just had another look at this, and it turns out you
>>>>>> were either lying or you didn't understand what the curves are
>>>>>> actually referring to. See below for more on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is right with 101dBµV/m in band IV with an antenna height of
>>>>> 37.5m and 1kWERP. the ITU P.1546 provide this value.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you dishonestly failed to mention that this was just for 1 kW
>>>> transmitter power, e.g.
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/49759fb21883fddb?hl=en&
>>>>
>>>> Obviously the distance between transmitters can be much higher if
>>>> higher powers were used.
>>>
>>> Yes you are right and you can use the same curves from P.1546 for
>>> all ERP power to determine the distance of reception.
>>
>>
>> But you dishonestly tried to suggest that the maximum separation
>> between DVB-H transmitters was 1 km. That is false and therefore a
>> lie.
>
> I said also the power, not only the distance.
You lying, lying bastard. God I hate you.
>>>>>> 6. You claimed that the same amount of electricity is needed to
>>>>>> power 4 T-DMB multiplex transmitters as is needed for just one
>>>>>> T-DMB multiplex transmitters, thus inventing the first ever
>>>>>> perpetual motion machine transmitter and solving global warming,
>>>>>> and yet you've not patented this idea and made billions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't write that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid you did.
>>>
>>> Where ?
>>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/84dd98c26f69d489?hl=en&
>
> It is not written what you said :
>
> "Yes I confirm what I said !! When you have 4 blocks to broadcast
> simultaneously, you need more electrical amplifiers to obtain in final
> for each block the right DAB power, but the electrical power (RF
> modules) needed for 7MHz (or 4*1.7MHz) is the same... So that's why
> the price of a DVB-T at 7MHz or 4*1.7MHz in DAB is equivalent. "
>
> It is perhaps not clear for you because you don't know how works a DAB
> multiblock transmitter.
EBU document:
DVB-H at 200 MHz, 7 MHz channel, min field strength = 88.2 dBuV/m
T-DMB at 200 MHz, 1.7 MHz channel, min field strength = 88.0 dBuV/m
So you are claiming that 4 = 1. QED.
>>>>>> 7. You claimed that the Terratec DR Box1 (a DAB receiver) can
>>>>>> receive T-DMB services and that the VideoLAN Client could then
>>>>>> decode these services. But T-DMB services are RS coded, and the
>>>>>> VLC doesn't support RS decoding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is right and working. You are unable to prove the contrary. Be
>>>>> carreful, VLC don't manage the RS does not mean it does not
>>>>> support TS-204 TS stream.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Terratec DR Box1 doesn't perform RS decoding, so it cannot
>>>> work.
>>>
>>> You really don't know how the Terratec is working and how VLc is
>>> working.
>>>
>>> You don't have this receiver so you are unable to verify something.
>>> This receiver had been used by a lot of companies around the world
>>> to demonstrate T-DMB before there is any hardware receivers.
>>
>>
>> YOU made the claim so YOU have to prove that YOU were not LYING.
>
> It is working. We made the demonstration at Paris during le Radio! in
> february where we have 2 Dr-Box 1 and we play, DAB+, T-DMB and DAB.
Provide some EVIDENCE. There's no way on this earth that I'm going to
believe the word of a pathlogical liar.
>>>>>> 8. In the past you've claimed that MP2 is more robust than othere
>>>>>> audio codecs such as MP3 and AAC, but the program I wrote proves
>>>>>> that MP2 is not more robust than other codecs, but it is the UEP
>>>>>> error correction used on DAB that makes it appear as though it is
>>>>>> more robust - i.e. you want to allow MP2 to use additional error
>>>>>> correction coding but you disallow AAC and MP3 to use any
>>>>>> additional error correction coding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ye I confirm that, if AAC is so robust why do you need RS + fire
>>>>> code to protect it ? You don't need any fire code and RS for MP2.
>>>>> In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hooraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, a new classic:
>>>>
>>>> "In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong."
>>>>
>>>> That is as illogical as saying "I'd prefer to listen to audio at a
>>>> lower bit rate". Why would any *commercial* service (i.e. NOT a
>>>> test service) use MP2 with EEP when UEP would make transmission
>>>> much more robust and the capacity consumed is the same? That is
>>>> quite simply utter nonsense, which means I'm forced to add it to
>>>> your list of lies:
>>>
>>> Please check in EN300401, there is some bitrates in MP2 where you
>>> MUST use EEP.
>>
>>
>> Whoooooooooaaaaaah there. You said this:
>>
>> "In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong."
>>
>> Please now provide an example of a radio station using EEP with MP2
>> (tests are not allowed).
>
> You don't say that before, You said that Audio on DAB use ONLY UEP. I
> prove that we also use EEP in some circumstances and EN300401 is the
> reference document for that.
This is what YOU said:
"In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong."
Provide evidence of ANY radio station transmitted on DAB (excluding test
transmissions) that are using EEP for MP2.
You just made that up out of thin air. You were lying AGAIN!!!
>>> Admit with 100kW EIRP you have a DVB-H coverage around 7-9km....
>>> This is a fact.
>>
>>
>> I ask again: will T-DMB be able to provide 7-9km radius coverage
>> area with a 35W transmitter? If not, you are lying. End of story.
>
> Don't change the question !!! DVB-H with 100kW EIRP cover only 7 to
> 9km around the transmitter it is a fact and you MUST recognize that.
Answer the question that I asked you: will a 35W T-DMB transmitter provide
the same coverage as a 100 kW DVB-H transmitter? If not, you are lying about
DVB-H requiring 34.5 dB higher power than T-DMB.
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> newsgroup to create your own law.
>
> There is a fact, at Berlin with 100kW EIRP with a mast 120 m height,
> they cover from 7 to 9km around the DVB-H transmitter in band IV. This
> is a ridiculous coverage.
And your claim is that a 35W T-DMB transmitter will be able to provide the
same coverage area with a 7-9km radius. THAT is incredibly ridiculous.
Only an utter fool would believe you, but that doesn't stop you lying.
Ken
>>>>> Oh, I look a fool because I point out someone else is a
>>>>> pathological liar?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, you do. It's simply a petty and pointless argument
>>>> between yourself and NC. I don't understand why it's so
>>>> important to you.
>>>> No one else cares.
>>>
>>> Wrong. I care.
>>
>> Thank you Ken.
>
> I think he may have been joking. Well, I laughed, anyway.
No joke.
Silk
Gosh!
Silk
> You lying, lying bastard. God I hate you.
Get over it, you moron.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>>>> discussion was done.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The old DAB system does not use MPEG-2 TS, so that alone proves
>>>> that you don't have to use MPEG-2 TS.
>>>
>>> DAB use also MPEG-2 TS, cf TS102427.
>>
>>
>> MP2 is NOT carried in the MPEG-2 TS, i.e. you do not NEED to use it.
>> QED.
>
Dumbo, you said MPEG-2 TS *had to be used*.
>>> MPEG-1/2 layer II hve its own transport stream integrated.
>>
>>
>> EXACTLY. So why did you dishonestly claim that you HAD TO use MPEG-2
>> TS?
>>
>> And why did you dishonestly claim that the overhead for MPEG-2 TS is
>> 8%??
>
> What is the relation ship ?
?
>>>>>>>> 6. You claimed that the same amount of electricity is needed to
>>>>>>>> power 4 T-DMB multiplex transmitters as is needed for just one
>>>>>>>> T-DMB multiplex transmitters, thus inventing the first ever
>>>>>>>> perpetual motion machine transmitter and solving global
>>>>>>>> warming, and yet you've not patented this idea and made
>>>>>>>> billions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't write that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm afraid you did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/84dd98c26f69d489?hl=en&
>>>
>>> It is not written what you said :
>>>
>>> "Yes I confirm what I said !! When you have 4 blocks to broadcast
>>> simultaneously, you need more electrical amplifiers to obtain in
>>> final for each block the right DAB power, but the electrical power
>>> (RF modules) needed for 7MHz (or 4*1.7MHz) is the same... So that's
>>> why the price of a DVB-T at 7MHz or 4*1.7MHz in DAB is equivalent. "
>>>
>>> It is perhaps not clear for you because you don't know how works a
>>> DAB multiblock transmitter.
>>
>>
>> EBU document:
>>
>> DVB-H at 200 MHz, 7 MHz channel, min field strength = 88.2 dBuV/m
>> T-DMB at 200 MHz, 1.7 MHz channel, min field strength = 88.0 dBuV/m
>>
>> So you are claiming that 4 = 1. QED.
>
> No sorry but you made a mistake, I said same electical power for the
> sum of 4*1.7MHz and 1*7MHz, it does not mean that you have the same
> signal strength at the recetpion side, so your assertion is wrong. I
> spoke about price of transmitter which is equivalent in this case and
> only that.
I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't even understand simple mathematics. Let
me spell this out for you:
DVB-H at 200 MHz: min field strength = 88.2 dBuV/m, bandwidth = 7 MHz
T-DMB at 200 MHz: min field strength = 88.0 dBuV/m, bandwidth = 1.7 MHz
Transmitter powers are directly related to the required field strength, and
both are proportional to bandwidth. Therefore if you're going to transmit 4
x 1.7 MHz T-DMB multiplexes in a 7 MHz channel then the transmitter power
increases by 4.
Therefore you are claiming that 4 = 1.
QED.
> Cf EN300401 (release 1.4.1) chapter 6.2.1, you will see that we can
> use both EEP or UEP for audio stream even in layer II.
I repeat, you said this:
"In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong."
Therefore, you are claiming that EEP is sometimess used with MP2. This is a
million miles away from the fact - which I do not dispute - that MP2 *could
be* sent over a data channel using EEP.
So I say again: provide some evidence of an MP2 radio station using EEP
(test transmissions are excluded), or admit that you lied.
>>>>> Admit with 100kW EIRP you have a DVB-H coverage around 7-9km....
>>>>> This is a fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I ask again: will T-DMB be able to provide 7-9km radius coverage
>>>> area with a 35W transmitter? If not, you are lying. End of story.
>>>
>>> Don't change the question !!! DVB-H with 100kW EIRP cover only 7 to
>>> 9km around the transmitter it is a fact and you MUST recognize that.
>>
>>
>> Answer the question that I asked you: will a 35W T-DMB transmitter
>> provide the same coverage as a 100 kW DVB-H transmitter? If not, you
>> are lying about DVB-H requiring 34.5 dB higher power than T-DMB.
>>
>
> If I do this, it means that I agree with the radius of 7-9km with
> 100kW EIRP, because you did this assertion on this base.
>
> For the independant assertion wich is 35W EIRP with a radius of 7-9km
> with a mast at 120m height with the right signal strength for T-DMB it
> could be possible.
Thanks for confirming that you have a negative IQ.
> But the better value could be around 2-3km.
What, so you're admitting that you lied?
DAB sounds worse than FM
> coverage with 100kEIRP is enough to have indoor reception with a
> radius around 7 to 9 km.
> I am unable to say if your affirmation is wrong or not for this DVB-H
> transmitter.
>
> I personally think that it could be possible to cover a radius around
> 7-9 km with 35W EIRP in band III at 120m height, because the value of
> 88dBµV/m is wrong (EBU document).
Again, thanks for confirming that you have a negative IQ.
DAB sounds worse than FM
STFU.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab.is@dead> wrote:
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>
>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>>>>> Yes because there was no other existing transport stream when this
>>>>>> discussion was done.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The old DAB system does not use MPEG-2 TS, so that alone proves
>>>>> that you don't have to use MPEG-2 TS.
>>>>
>>>> DAB use also MPEG-2 TS, cf TS102427.
>>>
>>>
>>> MP2 is NOT carried in the MPEG-2 TS, i.e. you do not NEED to use it.
>>> QED.
>>
>> Audio MP2 not but DAB we can say YES.
>
>
>Dumbo, you said MPEG-2 TS *had to be used*.
You extract one paragraph from a full thread and use it as a reference
but you forget everything else. I said that because, you need a
TRANSPORT STREAM existing or NOT. I just demonstrate the MPEG-2 TS is
not the right one for audio only.
Where did I make this assertion (field-strength is the same for 1 DAB
and 4 DAB contiguous blocks with the same transmitter), you makes an
interpetation wich is fully wrong.
I said it is possible, you transform that in prove it in commercial
situation... You said something wrong when you said MP2 use only UEP.
MP2 should use EEP also because E300401 accept that (the commercial
situation is a different thing).
>
>
>>>>>> Admit with 100kW EIRP you have a DVB-H coverage around 7-9km....
>>>>>> This is a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask again: will T-DMB be able to provide 7-9km radius coverage
>>>>> area with a 35W transmitter? If not, you are lying. End of story.
>>>>
>>>> Don't change the question !!! DVB-H with 100kW EIRP cover only 7 to
>>>> 9km around the transmitter it is a fact and you MUST recognize that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Answer the question that I asked you: will a 35W T-DMB transmitter
>>> provide the same coverage as a 100 kW DVB-H transmitter? If not, you
>>> are lying about DVB-H requiring 34.5 dB higher power than T-DMB.
>>>
>>
>> If I do this, it means that I agree with the radius of 7-9km with
>> 100kW EIRP, because you did this assertion on this base.
>>
>> For the independant assertion wich is 35W EIRP with a radius of 7-9km
>> with a mast at 120m height with the right signal strength for T-DMB it
>> could be possible.
>
>
>> But the better value could be around 2-3km.
>
>
>What, so you're admitting that you lied?
No I just said the original value is not verified (100kWEIRP = 7-9 km
around the transmitter). So everything else is pure interpetation from
your side.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:03:48 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>>
>>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>>>>>> Yes because there was no other existing transport stream when
>>>>>>> this discussion was done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The old DAB system does not use MPEG-2 TS, so that alone proves
>>>>>> that you don't have to use MPEG-2 TS.
>>>>>
>>>>> DAB use also MPEG-2 TS, cf TS102427.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MP2 is NOT carried in the MPEG-2 TS, i.e. you do not NEED to use
>>>> it. QED.
>>>
>>> Audio MP2 not but DAB we can say YES.
>>
>>
>> Dumbo, you said MPEG-2 TS *had to be used*.
>
> You extract one paragraph from a full thread and use it as a reference
> but you forget everything else. I said that because, you need a
> TRANSPORT STREAM existing or NOT. I just demonstrate the MPEG-2 TS is
> not the right one for audio only.
If what you're saying is true, then you would NOT have added the 8% overhead
value. The reason why you added the 8% overhead was to try and make AAC look
less efficient than it actually is. I told you that you were talking out of
your arse, and DAB+ is only using an overhead of 0.3%, so I was bloody well
right.
The transmitter powers for one 1.7 MHz T-DMB multiplex and one 7 MHz DVB-H
multiplex transmitted in Band III are almost equal (0.2 dB difference), but
you claim that transmitting 4 T-DMB multiplexes uses the same amount of
electricity as is needed for one DVB-H multiplex.
Therefore 4 = 1.
No, you said this:
"In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your demonstration is wrong."
"Possible" was not in that sentence, and nor could it be construed that you
meant "possible". That sentence says that in some cases EEP for MP2 IS USED.
> you transform that in prove it in commercial
> situation... You said something wrong when you said MP2 use only UEP.
> MP2 should use EEP also because E300401 accept that (the commercial
> situation is a different thing).
I give up. I do look forward to meeting you in person, you know. That should
be interesting.
>>>>>>> Admit with 100kW EIRP you have a DVB-H coverage around 7-9km....
>>>>>>> This is a fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask again: will T-DMB be able to provide 7-9km radius coverage
>>>>>> area with a 35W transmitter? If not, you are lying. End of story.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't change the question !!! DVB-H with 100kW EIRP cover only 7
>>>>> to 9km around the transmitter it is a fact and you MUST recognize
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Answer the question that I asked you: will a 35W T-DMB transmitter
>>>> provide the same coverage as a 100 kW DVB-H transmitter? If not,
>>>> you are lying about DVB-H requiring 34.5 dB higher power than
>>>> T-DMB.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I do this, it means that I agree with the radius of 7-9km with
>>> 100kW EIRP, because you did this assertion on this base.
>>>
>>> For the independant assertion wich is 35W EIRP with a radius of
>>> 7-9km with a mast at 120m height with the right signal strength for
>>> T-DMB it could be possible.
>>
>>
>>> But the better value could be around 2-3km.
>>
>>
>> What, so you're admitting that you lied?
>
> No I just said the original value is not verified (100kWEIRP = 7-9 km
> around the transmitter). So everything else is pure interpetation from
> your side.
No, this is simple MATHEMATICS. For example, it is as DEFINITE as the
following bit of code:
Croisets_db_claim = -34.5; // T-DMB power relative to DVB-H power in dB
dvb_h_power = 100e3; // DVB-H transmitter power in watts
if (dvb_h_tx_location == t_dmb_tx_location && dvb_h_tx_height ==
t_dmb_tx_height
&& dvb_h_coverage_area == t_dmb_coverage_area)
t_dmb_power = dvb_h_power * pow(10, Croisets_db_claim / 10);
The answer is t_dmb_power = 35.48 W
There is no room for interpretation in mathematics just as there is no room
for interpretation in a computer program - if A then B and so on.
You see, you make these ridiculous claims, and then you try and wriggle out
of them when they're shown to be completely absurd and lacking even the
smallest amount of common sense. But you CANNOT wriggle out of claims that
can be demolished using MATHS.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab.is@dead> wrote:
There is one major change between before and now. The development of a
new transport stream dedicated to DAB.
When I wrote that I was not wrong, because it was the only way to
broadcast AAC.
Where did I said the field strength is equal between 4*1.7MHz and
1*7MHz on one transmitter for each system ?
Sorry but you didn't demonstrate anything.
In some case YOU MUST use EEP, for example if you choose 144 kbit/s
for your MP2 audio stream.
This demonstration is OK, but it does not mean the initial DVB-H
coverage is perfect in indoor or outdoor, so the final result have
this same unknown result. so it is impossible to reply to your
question with a so big unknown parameter.
So yes 100kW - 34.5dB = 35.48W, but that's all.
DAB sounds worse than FM
So the old DAB system's transport stream doesn't count as a transport stream
then?
All you need is for there to be a header saying: "here's the start, here's a
few parameters, the packet is X bytes long". And you seem to think that
should consume 8% of the total multiplex capacity!
More proof of your negative IQ.
I'll leave this up to anybody that cares to read it to see for themselves
whether you're right or wrong.
This is how ridiculous you are where you can't even see that your claim
implies that 4 = 1 and yet you claim that you're not wrong.
Words fail me.
This is what you originally said, including the context:
">>>>>>>>>>> Ye I confirm that, if AAC is so robust why do you need RS +
>>>>>>>>>>> fire code to protect it ? You don't need any fire code and
>>>>>>>>>>> RS for MP2. In some case you use EEP for MP2, so your
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstration is wrong."
The important part was "In some case you use EEP for MP2". There's no
ambiguity about that. You lied yet again. QED.
The requirement is that the coverage is the same for both DVB-H and T-DMB.
But the fact that you're suggesting that a 35W T-DMB transmitter will
provide the same coverage as a 100 kW DVB-H transmitter shows what a lying
freak of nature you are.
Kristoff Bonne
DAB sounds worse than FM schreef:
> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:39:44 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
>> <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:03:48 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
>>>> <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>>>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>>>>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>>>>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
You know.
Why don't you two take this discussion offline and continue it via
private email?
The discussion itself is going nowhere anyway.
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Boltar
> When I wrote that I was not wrong, because it was the only way to
> broadcast AAC.
There is a saying in English you may have heard , perhaps you have it
in french too:
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and
beat you with experience."
Given he likes to throw insults at you all the time (always the sign
of a poor loser) I don't know why you bother arguing with him. He
reminds me of a yappy little dog who snarls and barks but no matter
how many times you kick it it just won't go away.
B2003
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Feb 26, 3:53 pm, Nicolas Croiset <ncroi...@vdldiffusion.com> wrote:
>> When I wrote that I was not wrong, because it was the only way to
>> broadcast AAC.
>
> There is a saying in English you may have heard , perhaps you have it
> in french too:
>
> "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and
> beat you with experience."
Considering that the large majority of your posts on this NG have consisted
of drivel that I have summarily demolished, I'm afraid that you don't get
the right to even try and patronise me.
> Given he likes to throw insults at you all the time (always the sign
> of a poor loser)
Me, lose to Croiset???
Hahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahhahhaha!!!!!!!!!!
> I don't know why you bother arguing with him. He
> reminds me of a yappy little dog who snarls and barks but no matter
> how many times you kick it it just won't go away.
At least you haven't lost your sense of humour.
Silk
> Considering that the large majority of your posts on this NG have consisted
> of drivel that I have summarily demolished, I'm afraid that you don't get
> the right to even try and patronise me.
Have you ever wondered why it always seems to be everyone else?
Mark Harper
> >
> > When you are able to make a confusion between MPEG-2 PS and MPEG-2
> > TS... I am not sure if you are able to prove your assertion abtou
> > MPEG-2 TS does not provide an overhead of 8%.
>
>
> Considering that you have a negative IQ and you claim that DVB-H requires
> 34.5 dB higher transmitter powers than T-DMB, you are not allowed to
> criticise me in any way ever.
Ooohh...them's fighting words....
Boltar
> Considering that the large majority of your posts on this NG have consisted
> of drivel that I have summarily demolished, I'm afraid that you don't get
> the right to even try and patronise me.
I don't remember putting forward any arguments to demolish. Other than
I think DABs ok and you don't.
> > Given he likes to throw insults at you all the time (always the sign
> > of a poor loser)
>
> Me, lose to Croiset???
>
> Hahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahhahhaha!!!!!!!!!!
Mind you , it is rather difficult to patronise someone who is clearly
beyond satire anyway.
B2003
DAB sounds worse than FM
Everyone else what, trying to patronise me? It's not everyone else, it's
just a small bunch of losers that try in vain to patronise me or have a go
at me in some other way.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Feb 26, 5:26 pm, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote:
>> Considering that the large majority of your posts on this NG have
>> consisted of drivel that I have summarily demolished, I'm afraid
>> that you don't get the right to even try and patronise me.
>
> I don't remember putting forward any arguments to demolish. Other than
> I think DABs ok and you don't.
When you first appeared on this NG you said on numerous occasions that the
DAB system isn't the problem, and I've certainly demolished that naive view.
>>> Given he likes to throw insults at you all the time (always the sign
>>> of a poor loser)
>>
>> Me, lose to Croiset???
>>
>> Hahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahhahhaha!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Mind you , it is rather difficult to patronise someone who is clearly
> beyond satire anyway.
Yawn.
Richard Evans
> Silk wrote:
>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>
>>> Considering that the large majority of your posts on this NG have
>>> consisted of drivel that I have summarily demolished, I'm afraid
>>> that you don't get the right to even try and patronise me.
>> Have you ever wondered why it always seems to be everyone else?
>
>
> Everyone else what, trying to patronise me? It's not everyone else, it's
> just a small bunch of losers that try in vain to patronise me or have a go
> at me in some other way.
>
>
I would have to say however that it definitely doesn't apply to everyone.
Richard E.
Silk
> I was wondering what exactly he meant by that comment.
> I would have to say however that it definitely doesn't apply to everyone.
>
No, it doesn't apply to sock puppets.
DAB sounds worse than FM
My understanding of what "sock puppet" means on Usenet is someone that
people are familiar with that posts under a different name to appear as if
it were a different person. That is, you're suggesting that me and Richard
Evans are one and the same person. Is that the case, Mr Hurley? If so, you'd
be better off sticking with your "I luv DAB in cars me" type threads.
Silk
>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering what exactly he meant by that comment.
>>> I would have to say however that it definitely doesn't apply to
>>> everyone.
>> No, it doesn't apply to sock puppets.
>
>
> My understanding of what "sock puppet" means on Usenet is someone that
> people are familiar with that posts under a different name to appear as if
> it were a different person. That is, you're suggesting that me and Richard
> Evans are one and the same person. Is that the case, Mr Hurley? If so, you'd
> be better off sticking with your "I luv DAB in cars me" type threads.
I also understand it to mean someone who agrees with someone to such an
extent that they act as if they are a puppet with no opinion of their
own. The result is the same. Endless "me too" bollocks.
DAB sounds worse than FM
There is lots and lots of "me too" bollocks on this group, because this NG
is the home of the Pro Low Audio Quality on DAB Brigade, chaired by Richard
L, with Croiset the CEO, Kristoff Bonne being the Chief Operating Officer,
seani is Director of Legal Affairs (read "chief pedant"), you're the
secretary (which includes duties such as being shagged by the chairman on
Friday afternoons after he's had a few at lunchtime), and Boltar is the
cleaner.
Richard Evans
Yes I do agree that DAB sound quality is cr*p, but so what. When they
broadcast low quality audio (and I'm being kind describing it that way)
there are bound to be people who are not satisfied with it. So not much
of a coincidence that we both think it needs to be improvement.
As for the possible solutions, well we are both looking at the same
problems here, hence no surprise in coming up with similar solutions.
Beyond that, I can't think of any other significant areas where we share
the same opinion.
> The result is the same. Endless "me too" bollocks.
Oh yes one other thing we seem to agree on. I gets very tiresome seeing
people like you trying to tell us how good DAB is, when I actually find
it sounds so poor that it is actually irritating to listen to.
Richard E.
Sean Inglis
Hilarious.
It's been a while since I had a mentions, so from this I conclude:
1) You've seen my posts in your Google Groups account, which has
annoyed you sufficiently to merit a mention
2) You've decided not to reply and pretend that you've not seen the
posts because I've been "kill-filed", as far as you understand the
purpose of that particular exercise.
So, as we know you are reading, how about answering a question
directly?
Aside from punditry, product reviews, and cracking one out over the
spec. for the latest and greatest codecs, what *actual* *practical*
*paid* experience do you have in connection with your hobby?
And here's a rider:
Did you, or did you not alter you website mid-discussion with N.
Croiset to bolster a point you were making?
Quite a "lie" I'd say, and a public one.
Kryten
Do you ever suspect that NC is just a bloke (or blokes) paid by the DAB
industry to keep you busy correcting technical statements?
If so, he seems to be succeeding.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM"
>
> Do you ever suspect that NC is just a bloke (or blokes) paid by the
> DAB industry to keep you busy correcting technical statements?
He is employed by VDL Diffusion, which is a French DAB/DMB multiplex
provider. But it is odd that he seems to have so much time to spend trying
to propagate nonsense about DAB considering that he is presumably employed
full-time, so maybe his boss allows him to do this?
> If so, he seems to be succeeding.
I think I know what you mean, but the reality is that he doesn't actually
correct anything, he just lies to hide the uncomfortable truths about the
shite old DAB system that his company still supports - i.e. they're still
trying to persuade people to use the old DAB system with MP2 even though
DAB+ is ready.