Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Croiset claims 4 = 1

3 views
Skip to first unread message

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 4:29:30 AM2/3/07
to
The background to this is that the EBU published a like-for-like comparison
of required field strengths for DVB-H and T-DMB for mobile TV:

http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3317-2006_tcm6-48865.pdf

and on pages 25 & 33 these are the field strengths it gives for the 2
systems for transmission in Band III, indoor coverage, same population
coverage - i.e. everything the same, and the only differences are due to the
systems themselves:

DVB-H: 3.27 Mbps per mux at 88.2 dBuV/m at 7 MHz
T-DMB: 1.06 Mbps per mux at 88.0 dBuV/m at 1.7 MHz

The field strength is *directly* related to transmitter power, so those
figures clearly show that for virtually identical transmitter power levels
(0.2 dB difference), DVB-H can carry 3 times as much data in a multiplex as
T-DMB can, and transmission costs are proportional to transmitter powers, so
the transmission cost per channel on DVB-H is 3 times cheaper than on T-DMB.

BUT Croiset never letting facts and figures get in the way of his argument,
he's invented a perpetual motion machine, because he's claiming (on the "Is
there any info ...." thread) that it takes the same amount of electricity to
transmit 4 T-DMB multiplexes in parallel as it does for 1 T-DMB
multiplex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's possibly Croiset's most audacious claim ever:

"Me > You've just contradicted yourseelf, because you just said that a
multiblock
> DAB transmitter costs the same as a DVB-T transmitter *for the same RF
> output power*. But transmitting 4 DAB multiplexes would imply 4 times
> higher
> transmitter power than DVB-H, because if your memory is so incredibly
> short,
> I'll repeat the field strength figures from the EBU document:
>

Croiset: 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."


Although his claim is rather unintelligible, he is basically claiming the
following:

Say you have a 10 kW transmitter for a single T-DMB multiplex, then you need
the same input electricity for that as you'd need for a 40 kW transmitter
that transmits 4 x T-DMB multiplexes in parallel! Or in other words, he's
claiming that:

4 = 1

Croiset has solved global warming! His discovery will allow all coal and
nuclear power stations to be replaced by a single T-DMB transmitter, because
they have the power to magically produce as much electricity as you could
possibly hope! I'm going to nominate him for a Nobel prize.


And not content with a Nobel prize-winning discovery, he then goes on in the
same post to try and justify why he claimed that DVB-H requires 30 dB higher
transmitter powers than T-DMB when DVB-H is transmitted at UHF and T-DMB in
Band III. Remember that 30 dB is a factor of 1,000, so if you take a typical
BBC DAB transmitter using 10 kW he's claiming that DVB-H would need to use
plenty of 10 MW transmitters!!

I wrote this:

"Pages 27 & 30:

DVB-H, Class B (indoor coverage, highest transmitter power class out of the
ones quoted), C/N = 11.5 dB, capacity = 3.74 Mbps:

DVB-H min field strength at 500 MHz = 100.7 dBuV/m
DVB-H min field strength at 800 MHz = 100.8 dBuV/m

Page 33:

T-DMB, Class B (indoor coverage, highest transmitter power Class out of the
ones quoted), C/N = 16.6 dB, capacity = 1.06 Mbps:

T-DMB min field strength at 200 MHz = 88.0 dB

So, for your claim to stand up to scrutiny there is an outstanding 17.3 dB
that you need to account for. Where is this other 17.3 dB????????????"

to which The Croiset replied:

"You find in this document 17.3 dB which is already quiet high. As I said
before we can discuss about some values like the C/N which is higher
than DAB, this is wrong, due to the RS applied, the C/N is a little bit
lower than DAB, cf annex 1. We currently estimate the C/N is around 14
dB instead of 15dB (RRC 06 value). I think also the height loss is too
high for the band III, it could be around 14dB instead of 19dB.
I think also the loss of antenna is a little bit high, it will be more
around 14dB.

17.3 + (16.6-14) + (19-14) + (17-14) = 27.9 dB.

So I am not so wrong..."


So let's got through the numbers in that sum one by one:

17.3 dB

That should actually be 12.7 dB, so he's just bumped up that value by about
5 dB, which is convenient.

(16.6 - 14)

He claims that they're overstating the required C/N for T-DMB, but the DVB-H
people would obviously claim exactly the same thing, and with
justification, because Dibcom's DVB-H chipset performs about 2 dB better
than the DVB-H reference receiver (i.e. no tweaks implemented), which is the
receiver the EBU are using for the figures. So I'm afraid this isn't allowed

(19 - 14)

Here's he's claiming the height loss is lower in Band III in France -
presumably France has different physics to the rest of the world. Obviously
he can't expect to just invent this nonsense and for me to take it
seriously.

(17 - 14)

Here's he's claiming that the antenna loss is too high - again, very
convenient, but I'm afraid it's just another invention.

To recap then, the sum is as follows:

12.7 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 12.7 dB

So he's still 17.3 dB short. 17.3 doesn't sound like a very big number, but
that's because it's in decibel form, and in linear terms it is 10^1.73 =
53.7, so I think he needs to account for this, or else he should admit to
being extremely dishonest.


--
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

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 5:13:12 AM2/3/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :


>DVB-H: 3.27 Mbps per mux at 88.2 dBuV/m at 7 MHz
>T-DMB: 1.06 Mbps per mux at 88.0 dBuV/m at 1.7 MHz
>
>The field strength is *directly* related to transmitter power, so those
>figures clearly show that for virtually identical transmitter power levels
>(0.2 dB difference), DVB-H can carry 3 times as much data in a multiplex as
>T-DMB can, and transmission costs are proportional to transmitter powers, so
>the transmission cost per channel on DVB-H is 3 times cheaper than on T-DMB.
>
>BUT Croiset never letting facts and figures get in the way of his argument,
>he's invented a perpetual motion machine, because he's claiming (on the "Is
>there any info ...." thread) that it takes the same amount of electricity to
>transmit 4 T-DMB multiplexes in parallel as it does for 1 T-DMB
>multiplex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you create a new thread ? There is one already one about that.


No I didn't said that !!! I said you can use A DVB-T 7MHz transmitter or
4*1.7MHz DAB transmitter. This solution exist and already used in some
transmitter sites when you have adjacent blocks.

You forget the fact that DVB-H is less efficient spectrally than DMB.

DVB-H efficiency : 0.46 bit/Hz/s
T-DMB efficiency : 0.62 bit/Hz/s



>
>Here's possibly Croiset's most audacious claim ever:
>
>"Me > You've just contradicted yourseelf, because you just said that a
>multiblock
>> DAB transmitter costs the same as a DVB-T transmitter *for the same RF
>> output power*. But transmitting 4 DAB multiplexes would imply 4 times
>> higher
>> transmitter power than DVB-H, because if your memory is so incredibly
>> short,
>> I'll repeat the field strength figures from the EBU document:
>>
>
>Croiset: 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."
>

Yes it is equivealent in price. Same RF modules, same rack, you just
change the DVB-T modulator with 4 DAB modulators.


>Say you have a 10 kW transmitter for a single T-DMB multiplex, then you need
>the same input electricity for that as you'd need for a 40 kW transmitter
>that transmits 4 x T-DMB multiplexes in parallel! Or in other words, he's
>claiming that:
>

I think you don't understand really. I give you an example. With a RF
module which could provide 250W in band III DAB (1 block) you have only
125W on DVB-T band III with the same module.

I already said that you are right for this case, I wrote my message too
fast.


>
>(16.6 - 14)
>
>He claims that they're overstating the required C/N for T-DMB, but the DVB-H
>people would obviously claim exactly the same thing, and with
>justification, because Dibcom's DVB-H chipset performs about 2 dB better
>than the DVB-H reference receiver (i.e. no tweaks implemented), which is the
>receiver the EBU are using for the figures. So I'm afraid this isn't allowed
>

For your information at ITU RRC 06 we used 15 dB not 16.6dB
so you claims something wrong.

>(19 - 14)
>
>Here's he's claiming the height loss is lower in Band III in France -
>presumably France has different physics to the rest of the world. Obviously
>he can't expect to just invent this nonsense and for me to take it
>seriously.

For your information at ITU RRC 06 we used 12dB not 19dB
so you claims something wrong.

>
>(17 - 14)
>
>Here's he's claiming that the antenna loss is too high - again, very
>convenient, but I'm afraid it's just another invention.
>

At RRC 06 we used -2.2dB


>To recap then, the sum is as follows:
>
>12.7 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 12.7 dB


If I make the recap like RRC 06 :

12.7 + (16.6-15) + (19-12) + (17-2.2) = 34.5 dB

I think an antenna loss of 14dB in band III is largely enough because we
don't usde full integrated antenna and the headphone is generally the
antenna also. In this case I obtain 22.7 dB of difference between DAB in
band III and DVB-H in band IV.

In this case we didn't take into account about the gain on the C/N due
to the RS code (you alaways said before it is important and now you want
to negligate that).

Nicolas Croiset VDL
http://www.vdl.fr/

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 6:21:19 AM2/3/07
to
Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
>
>> DVB-H: 3.27 Mbps per mux at 88.2 dBuV/m at 7 MHz
>> T-DMB: 1.06 Mbps per mux at 88.0 dBuV/m at 1.7 MHz
>>
>> The field strength is *directly* related to transmitter power, so
>> those figures clearly show that for virtually identical transmitter
>> power levels (0.2 dB difference), DVB-H can carry 3 times as much
>> data in a multiplex as T-DMB can, and transmission costs are
>> proportional to transmitter powers, so the transmission cost per
>> channel on DVB-H is 3 times cheaper than on T-DMB.
>>
>> BUT Croiset never letting facts and figures get in the way of his
>> argument, he's invented a perpetual motion machine, because he's
>> claiming (on the "Is there any info ...." thread) that it takes the
>> same amount of electricity to transmit 4 T-DMB multiplexes in
>> parallel as it does for 1 T-DMB multiplex!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Why do you create a new thread ? There is one already one about that.


Because it's important that people see how ridiculous a claim you're making.


> No I didn't said that !!! I said you can use A DVB-T 7MHz transmitter
> or 4*1.7MHz DAB transmitter. This solution exist and already used in
> some transmitter sites when you have adjacent blocks.


Nicolas, the field strengths for a 7 MHz DVB-H multiplex and a 1.7 MHz T-DMB
multiplex are virtually identical (0.2 dB difference), so you are claiming
that you need the same power for 4 multiplexes as you need for one, i.e.:

4 = 1

Ridiculous, and an obvious lie.


> You forget the fact that DVB-H is less efficient spectrally than DMB.
>
> DVB-H efficiency : 0.46 bit/Hz/s
> T-DMB efficiency : 0.62 bit/Hz/s


That is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of transmitter powers.


>> Here's possibly Croiset's most audacious claim ever:
>>
>> "Me > You've just contradicted yourseelf, because you just said that
>> a multiblock
>>> DAB transmitter costs the same as a DVB-T transmitter *for the same
>>> RF output power*. But transmitting 4 DAB multiplexes would imply 4
>>> times higher
>>> transmitter power than DVB-H, because if your memory is so
>>> incredibly short,
>>> I'll repeat the field strength figures from the EBU document:
>>>
>>
>> Croiset: 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."
>>
>
> Yes it is equivealent in price. Same RF modules, same rack, you just
> change the DVB-T modulator with 4 DAB modulators.


But because one 1.7 MHz T-DMB multiplex requires the same transmitter power
as one 7 MHz DVB-H multiplex, then you need 4 times as much power for 4
T-DMB multiplexes.

Is this difficult for you to understand? This is primary school level
mathematics, Nicolas.

Who do you think you're kidding with your lies? Do you think we're all
stupid?


>> Say you have a 10 kW transmitter for a single T-DMB multiplex, then
>> you need the same input electricity for that as you'd need for a 40
>> kW transmitter that transmits 4 x T-DMB multiplexes in parallel! Or
>> in other words, he's claiming that:
>>
> I think you don't understand really. I give you an example. With a RF
> module which could provide 250W in band III DAB (1 block) you have
> only 125W on DVB-T band III with the same module.


Hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha


No, you saw that you could not get close to 30 dB so you dishonestly changed
12.7 to 17.3 in order to get closer to 30 dB.


>> (16.6 - 14)
>>
>> He claims that they're overstating the required C/N for T-DMB, but
>> the DVB-H people would obviously claim exactly the same thing, and
>> with justification, because Dibcom's DVB-H chipset performs about 2
>> dB better than the DVB-H reference receiver (i.e. no tweaks
>> implemented), which is the receiver the EBU are using for the
>> figures. So I'm afraid this isn't allowed
>>
>
> For your information at ITU RRC 06 we used 15 dB not 16.6dB
> so you claims something wrong.


And Dibcom's DVB-H chipset performs about 2 dB better than the DVB-H
reference receiver.


>> (19 - 14)
>>
>> Here's he's claiming the height loss is lower in Band III in France -
>> presumably France has different physics to the rest of the world.
>> Obviously he can't expect to just invent this nonsense and for me to
>> take it seriously.
>
> For your information at ITU RRC 06 we used 12dB not 19dB
> so you claims something wrong.


The EBU will be using ITU P.1546 or whatever the name of the document is for
calculating height loss, so take this matter up with the EBU.


>> (17 - 14)
>>
>> Here's he's claiming that the antenna loss is too high - again, very
>> convenient, but I'm afraid it's just another invention.
>>
> At RRC 06 we used -2.2dB


Like-for-like comparisons require that everything must be the same, so that
it is only the systems themselves that provide the differences.


>> To recap then, the sum is as follows:
>>
>> 12.7 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 12.7 dB
>
>
> If I make the recap like RRC 06 :
>
> 12.7 + (16.6-15) + (19-12) + (17-2.2) = 34.5 dB
>
> I think an antenna loss of 14dB in band III is largely enough because
> we don't usde full integrated antenna and the headphone is generally
> the antenna also. In this case I obtain 22.7 dB of difference between
> DAB in band III and DVB-H in band IV.


Here's the actual calculation:

12.7 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 12.7 dB

You are 17.3 dB short. Where are you going to find this 17.3 dB from?


> In this case we didn't take into account about the gain on the C/N due
> to the RS code (you alaways said before it is important and now you
> want to negligate that).


Digital communications 101: Video requires a lower BER than audio, hence
mobile TV requires a higher C/N than digital radio requires.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 6:43:25 AM2/3/07
to
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

<snip>

Another of Croiset's recent claims is on the "DMB in Paris?" thread:

"Croiset >>>> yes a lot of companies had created DMB players for the
Terratec DR box
>>>> 1. I know more than 8 different players.
>>>
>>>
Me >>> Links, please.
>>
Croiset >> OTT, Pixtree, Videolan, Net&tv, Kai media, Mediasyscom etc...
>
Richard L > The Videolan application sounds as if it might be freeware, but
I
> can't find anything on the Videolan website about using it for DMB or
> with the DR-Box. Can you give more details? I'd be interested to try
> it.

Croiset: with windab it is possible to get the http stream of all
subchannels
(one http stream per subchannel). Videolan is able to decode a MPEG-2
TS stream in advanced mode by selecting an http input. You need
sometimes a modified dll for the video and audio decoding.

It is working with both audio subchannels and stream data subchannels.


So, could Croiset please explain IN DETAIL how this works, because unless
the Terratec DR Box-1, which Richard owns, can do something that I think it
likely cannot, then DMB services cannot be decoded by other media players,
and it was just another Croiset lie.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 7:07:28 AM2/3/07
to
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

> And not content with a Nobel prize-winning discovery, he then goes on
> in the same post to try and justify why he claimed that DVB-H
> requires 30 dB higher transmitter powers than T-DMB when DVB-H is
> transmitted at UHF and T-DMB in Band III. Remember that 30 dB is a
> factor of 1,000, so if you take a typical BBC DAB transmitter using
> 10 kW he's claiming that DVB-H would need to use plenty of 10 MW
> transmitters!!


Can you provide a link to the highest power DVB-H transmitter, please?
There's lots of DVB-H trials and services now, so for your claim to be
correct then surely it should be easy to find some documentary evidence of
10 MW DVB-H transmitters?

You can start on this page, which lists lots of DVB-H services, usually with
transmitter powers listed on the individual pages for the services:

http://www.dvb-h-online.com/services.htm

For example, there's this:

http://www.dvb-h-online.com/Services/services-Italy-3Italia.htm

1000 transmitters from 5 W to 2.5 kW covering 75% of the country - about 40
million people.

So absolute worst-case (i.e. assuming 2.5 kW for each of the 1000
transmitters, which plainly isn't actually the case) works out to be 2.5 MW,
but that covers 75% of the country.

Other than that, the highest DVB-H transmitter I could find is 80 kW
covering the whole of Greater Sydney:

http://www.dvb-h-online.com/Services/services-sydney.htm

although I gave up looking by the time I got down to Poland, so maybe you'll
find your elusive 10 MW DVB-H transmitter in the P-Z countries?

The 80 kW transmitter in Sydney is interesting, though, because, well, it's
similar in dB terms to what the EBU predicts is the difference between DMB
in Band III and DVB-H at UHF, because the difference between a 10 kW BBC DAB
transmitter and an 80 kW DVB-H transmitter is around 9 dB (2 x 2 x 2 = 9
dB), and the EBU is predicting that the difference is around 12 dB.

You on the other hand are predicting that the difference is 30 dB, and you
even had the audacity to claim that the difference is 34.5 dB:

"12.7 + (16.6-15) + (19-12) + (17-2.2) = 34.5 dB"

Might I remind you that 34.5 dB equates to a factor of 2,818, which would
mean that comparing with a 10 kW BBC DAB transmitter than DVB-H would need
to use transmitters with power levels of 28 MW.

So far the highest is 80 kW, which means that your prediction is:

10 log (28 MW / 80 kW) = 25.4 dB incorrect, or incorrect by a factor of 350.

Out of interest, did you actually pass your mathematics exams at school,
Nicolas?

I would normally in such circumstances suggest that you don't give up your
day job, but the incredible thing is that your day job is actually to do
with broadcasting transmitter powers and such like!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 10:01:48 AM2/3/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :

>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Another of Croiset's recent claims is on the "DMB in Paris?" thread:
>
>"Croiset >>>> yes a lot of companies had created DMB players for the
>Terratec DR box
>>>>> 1. I know more than 8 different players.
>>>>
>>>>
>Me >>> Links, please.
>>>
>Croiset >> OTT, Pixtree, Videolan, Net&tv, Kai media, Mediasyscom etc...
>>
>Richard L > The Videolan application sounds as if it might be freeware, but
>I
>> can't find anything on the Videolan website about using it for DMB or
>> with the DR-Box. Can you give more details? I'd be interested to try
>> it.
>
>Croiset: with windab it is possible to get the http stream of all
>subchannels
>(one http stream per subchannel). Videolan is able to decode a MPEG-2
>TS stream in advanced mode by selecting an http input. You need
>sometimes a modified dll for the video and audio decoding.
>
>It is working with both audio subchannels and stream data subchannels.
>
>
>So, could Croiset please explain IN DETAIL how this works, because unless
>the Terratec DR Box-1, which Richard owns, can do something that I think it
>likely cannot, then DMB services cannot be decoded by other media players,
>and it was just another Croiset lie.

Why do you change the subject ?

You can create a new thread for that, you are specialist in that.

You don't have a Terratec DR-Box 1, so you are unable to understand how
it is working.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 10:16:17 AM2/3/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :

>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>> And not content with a Nobel prize-winning discovery, he then goes on
>> in the same post to try and justify why he claimed that DVB-H
>> requires 30 dB higher transmitter powers than T-DMB when DVB-H is
>> transmitted at UHF and T-DMB in Band III. Remember that 30 dB is a
>> factor of 1,000, so if you take a typical BBC DAB transmitter using
>> 10 kW he's claiming that DVB-H would need to use plenty of 10 MW
>> transmitters!!
>
>
>Can you provide a link to the highest power DVB-H transmitter, please?
>There's lots of DVB-H trials and services now, so for your claim to be
>correct then surely it should be easy to find some documentary evidence of
>10 MW DVB-H transmitters?
>
>You can start on this page, which lists lots of DVB-H services, usually with
>transmitter powers listed on the individual pages for the services:
>
>http://www.dvb-h-online.com/services.htm
>
>For example, there's this:
>
>http://www.dvb-h-online.com/Services/services-Italy-3Italia.htm
>
>1000 transmitters from 5 W to 2.5 kW covering 75% of the country - about 40
>million people.
>
>So absolute worst-case (i.e. assuming 2.5 kW for each of the 1000
>transmitters, which plainly isn't actually the case) works out to be 2.5 MW,
>but that covers 75% of the country.
>

Once again you change the subject and give wrong information....


you have 2 choices for obtaining the right level strength :
- Very high power transmitters fo covering an area (20kW and 50kW to
cover Berlin in outdoor)
- medium power transmitters (like 1kW or 2 kW) but in large quantities
with a distance between transmitters very low.

The last example I have for the second case is Italy with 75% population
covered in outdoor but only 34% covered in indoor. cf :
http://www.satexpo.it/documenti/200629ven_capuzzello.pdf to obtain only
34% of people covered in indoor you need 1000 transmitters...

So you said : INDOOR = OUTDOOR


---> Remember all values I gave was for indoor coverage not outdoor
where you need less power to receive the signal.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 10:35:14 AM2/3/07
to


I asked you to EXPLAIN IN DETAIL how a Terratec DR Box1 allows the VideoLAN
Client to receive a DMB stream. If you cannot do that, then you were lying.
It is that simple. Furthermore, you weren't lying to me, you were lying to
your biggest supporter, Richard L, which shows what kind of a person you
really are, you pathetic creature.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 10:40:16 AM2/3/07
to


Okay, I'll change the title of this thread to reflect what the thread is
really about.


> you have 2 choices for obtaining the right level strength :
> - Very high power transmitters fo covering an area (20kW and 50kW to
> cover Berlin in outdoor)
> - medium power transmitters (like 1kW or 2 kW) but in large quantities
> with a distance between transmitters very low.
>
> The last example I have for the second case is Italy with 75%
> population covered in outdoor but only 34% covered in indoor. cf :
> http://www.satexpo.it/documenti/200629ven_capuzzello.pdf to obtain
> only 34% of people covered in indoor you need 1000 transmitters...


But Croiset, you should be trying to provide evidence that backs up your
claim that DVB-H transmitter powers are between 30 - 34.5 dB higher than
T-DMB transmitter powers.

This means that, comparing with a 10 kW BBC DAB transmitter, you need to
find some DVB-H transmitters that are using power levels in the following
range:

10^3.0 = 1,000 x 10 kW = 10 MW

10^3.45 = 2,828 x 10 kW = 28.3 MW

And yet the example of the national DVB-H network really doesn't seem to
help you, does it:

> So you said : INDOOR = OUTDOOR
>
>
> ---> Remember all values I gave was for indoor coverage not outdoor
> where you need less power to receive the signal.
>
> Nicolas Croiset VDL
> http://www.vdl.fr/

--

hwh

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 10:53:26 AM2/3/07
to
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> Other than that, the highest DVB-H transmitter I could find is 80 kW
> covering the whole of Greater Sydney:

And a typical UHF high-power transmitting aerial can give 10-13 dB or
more of gain (taking up 10 to 18 meters of tower space). So assume 10 kW
transmitter power, considering transmission losses in the filters,
combiners and feeder.

Smaller stations will use aerials with lower gain.

gr, hwh

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 11:13:18 AM2/3/07
to
hwh wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> Other than that, the highest DVB-H transmitter I could find is 80 kW
>> covering the whole of Greater Sydney:
>
> And a typical UHF high-power transmitting aerial can give 10-13 dB or
> more of gain (taking up 10 to 18 meters of tower space).


Excellent point! So the 12.7 dB difference in ERP would actually be around
zero! Is 10-13 dB extra aantenna gain with respect to Band III usual?

BTW, what's your opinion of Croiset's claim that DVB-H would have to use
ERPs in the region of 10 MW to 28 MW? ;-)


> So assume 10
> kW transmitter power, considering transmission losses in the filters,
> combiners and feeder.


Right.


> Smaller stations will use aerials with lower gain.


Okay.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 11:15:15 AM2/3/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :

>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
y do you change the subject ?
>>
>> You can create a new thread for that, you are specialist in that.
>>
>> You don't have a Terratec DR-Box 1, so you are unable to understand
>> how it is working.
>
>
>I asked you to EXPLAIN IN DETAIL how a Terratec DR Box1 allows the VideoLAN
>Client to receive a DMB stream. If you cannot do that, then you were lying.
>It is that simple. Furthermore, you weren't lying to me, you were lying to
>your biggest supporter, Richard L, which shows what kind of a person you
>really are, you pathetic creature.

very easy :

vlc http://localhost:8000/stream/23.mpg

23 = subchannel number of the data stream you want to decode.

Now you have your answer, so you can say thank you.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 11:23:29 AM2/3/07
to


It isn't connecting, and moreover it would prove precisely nothing, because
you could be feeding ANYTHING onto that stream.

What I asked for was an explanation of how this works, because I don't think
the Terratec DR Box-1 can do what you're claiming it can do.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 11:26:33 AM2/3/07
to


Sorry about that, I pressed enter by mistake.

To continue:

http://www.dvb-h-online.com/Services/services-Italy-3Italia.htm

1,000 transmitters with powers ranging from 5 W up to 2.5 kW, so the
worst-case absolute maximum amount of power is the case where all 1,000
transmitters were using 2.5 kW, so the TOTAL NATIONAL TRANSMITTER POWER
would be:

2.5 kW x 1000 = 2.5 MW

That's for NATIONAL COVERAGE, and you're trying to suggest that DVB-H needs
between 10 MW to 28 MW FOR EACH TRANSMITTER FOR A LOCAL DVB-H
MULTIPLEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you not realise how ridiculous your claim is? Clearly you do not realise
how ridiculous your 30 dB claim was, because today or last night you even
went to the extent of INCREASING the claim to 34.5 dB.

You are an incompetent fool. You should not work with numbers. You should
not work anywhere near electricity. You should be a dustbin man.

>> So you said : INDOOR = OUTDOOR


I used Italy as an example BECAUSE IT IS A NATIONAL NETWORK, and it
perfectly demonstrates how ridiculous your claim is that DVB-H would need to
use 10 MW to 28 MW transmitter power levels.


>> ---> Remember all values I gave was for indoor coverage not outdoor
>> where you need less power to receive the signal.


Yes, but I'm waiting for you to provide some evidence that DVB-H uses 10 MW
to 28 MW transmitter power levels.

hwh

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 11:41:55 AM2/3/07
to
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> hwh wrote:
>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>> Other than that, the highest DVB-H transmitter I could find is 80 kW
>>> covering the whole of Greater Sydney:
>> And a typical UHF high-power transmitting aerial can give 10-13 dB or
>> more of gain (taking up 10 to 18 meters of tower space).
>
>
> Excellent point! So the 12.7 dB difference in ERP would actually be around
> zero! Is 10-13 dB extra aantenna gain with respect to Band III usual?

No, the quoted figure is relative to a hypothetical aerial with no gain
(isotropic radiation). I did not say that the 10-13 dB was relative to
band III.
VHF aerials will give something like 8 or 9 dB in high power
installations (using up more tower space than a typical DAB system does,
count on 12 meters). This gain will of course be the same for DMB and
DVB (or analog TV or anything else at that frequency for that matter).

> BTW, what's your opinion of Croiset's claim that DVB-H would have to use
> ERPs in the region of 10 MW to 28 MW? ;-)

Both systems have their advantages. The power use will not decide which
system is going to win, marketing and content will.
It would seem that DMB could only be implemented in L-Band, as band III
is full. DVB-H could be implemented in the space to be sold as part of
the "digital dividend", sharing its infrastructure with DVB-T. So
perhaps the calculations should be comparing about 600 Mhz with 1500 :-)

gr, hwh

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 1:04:32 PM2/3/07
to
hwh wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> hwh wrote:
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>>> Other than that, the highest DVB-H transmitter I could find is 80
>>>> kW covering the whole of Greater Sydney:
>>> And a typical UHF high-power transmitting aerial can give 10-13 dB
>>> or more of gain (taking up 10 to 18 meters of tower space).
>>
>>
>> Excellent point! So the 12.7 dB difference in ERP would actually be
>> around zero! Is 10-13 dB extra aantenna gain with respect to Band
>> III usual?
>
> No, the quoted figure is relative to a hypothetical aerial with no
> gain (isotropic radiation). I did not say that the 10-13 dB was
> relative to band III.


Okay.


> VHF aerials will give something like 8 or 9 dB in high power
> installations (using up more tower space than a typical DAB system
> does, count on 12 meters). This gain will of course be the same for
> DMB and DVB (or analog TV or anything else at that frequency for that
> matter).


If they've got the same amount of space you can work out the difference in
aerial gain by comparing the number of aerials they can get in a given
amount of space, and the number of aerials is proportional to the aerial
gain (linear gain, not decibel):

Say you've got X metres of space, so you'd have

Number of antennas = X / antenna length = X / half-wavelength

So say they've got 10m of space each, at 500 MHz there'd be room for
(ignoring spaces between antennas, because it's theoretical anyway):

Num antennas = 10 / (3 x 10^8 / 500 x 10^6) = 16 antennas

At 200 MHz there'd be:

Num antennas = 10 / (3 x 10^8 / 200 x 10^6) = 6

So aerial gain due to number of antennas at UHF relative to Band III is:

10 log (16 / 6) = 4.2 dB


>> BTW, what's your opinion of Croiset's claim that DVB-H would have to
>> use ERPs in the region of 10 MW to 28 MW? ;-)
>
> Both systems have their advantages. The power use will not decide
> which system is going to win, marketing and content will.


True, and DVB-H has basically already won, because you just have to look at
the number of countries using it or planning on using it.


> It would seem that DMB could only be implemented in L-Band, as band
> III is full. DVB-H could be implemented in the space to be sold as
> part of the "digital dividend", sharing its infrastructure with
> DVB-T. So perhaps the calculations should be comparing about 600 Mhz
> with 1500 :-)


Absolutely! But to be honest I'm more interested in getting Croiset to
finally admit that he was talking nonsense about DVB-H vs DAB/DMB in Band
III.

But doing the DVB-H/UHF vs DMB/L-band comparison, the field strength values
are:

DVB-H/UHF (3.74 Mbps) = 100.7 dBuV/m
DVB-H/L-band (2.33 Mbps) = 104.2 dBuV/m

T-DMB/L-band (1.06 Mbps) = 105.4 dBuV/m

hwh

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 1:41:50 PM2/3/07
to
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> 10 log (16 / 6) = 4.2 dB

That is within the range I would expect. By the way Bnnd III aerials can
be tuned to frequency, especially if they were build for analog TV. Most
of the time aerials used for DVB-T are wideband ones.

> True, and DVB-H has basically already won, because you just have to look at
> the number of countries using it or planning on using it.

We'll have to wait and see a bit more. Most of the Band III frequency
space for DMB or DVB will only be available from 2010-2014. The use of
that spectrum will decide in the end.

> But doing the DVB-H/UHF vs DMB/L-band comparison, the field strength values
> are:
>
> DVB-H/UHF (3.74 Mbps) = 100.7 dBuV/m
> DVB-H/L-band (2.33 Mbps) = 104.2 dBuV/m
>
> T-DMB/L-band (1.06 Mbps) = 105.4 dBuV/m

I wonder how you calculate the capacity. DMB should be able to deliver
about 1.5 Mbps with R/S and PL4A I think?

http://www.digi-tv.dk/Sendenettets_opbygning/sikkerhed_og_modulation.asp

DVB will be 4.98 Mbps in the most robust mode and 8 MHz, zo at 7 MHz it
should be around 4.36 Mbps? How much do you lose when implementing DVB-H?

gr, hwh

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 1:46:53 PM2/3/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :

>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>
>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> y do you change the subject ?
>>>>
>>>> You can create a new thread for that, you are specialist in that.
>>>>
>>>> You don't have a Terratec DR-Box 1, so you are unable to understand
>>>> how it is working.
>>>
>>>
>>> I asked you to EXPLAIN IN DETAIL how a Terratec DR Box1 allows the
>>> VideoLAN Client to receive a DMB stream. If you cannot do that, then
>>> you were lying. It is that simple. Furthermore, you weren't lying to
>>> me, you were lying to your biggest supporter, Richard L, which shows
>>> what kind of a person you really are, you pathetic creature.
>>
>> very easy :
>>
>> vlc http://localhost:8000/stream/23.mpg
>>
>> 23 = subchannel number of the data stream you want to decode.
>>
>> Now you have your answer, so you can say thank you.
>
>
>It isn't connecting, and moreover it would prove precisely nothing, because
>you could be feeding ANYTHING onto that stream.
>
>What I asked for was an explanation of how this works, because I don't think
>the Terratec DR Box-1 can do what you're claiming it can do.

You have the answer here : http://www.dabmon.de:8000/ the receiver used
is a Terratec DR-Box1. As you see you can download the stream FIDC for
example.

The terratec is able to decode the full MSC channel (D-Fire 01)...

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 1:52:11 PM2/3/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :


>


>>> So you said : INDOOR = OUTDOOR
>
>
>I used Italy as an example BECAUSE IT IS A NATIONAL NETWORK, and it
>perfectly demonstrates how ridiculous your claim is that DVB-H would need to
>use 10 MW to 28 MW transmitter power levels.
>
>>> ---> Remember all values I gave was for indoor coverage not outdoor
>>> where you need less power to receive the signal.
>
>Yes, but I'm waiting for you to provide some evidence that DVB-H uses 10 MW
>to 28 MW transmitter power levels.

34% of the population is not a national network...

If you put one transmitter every 1km, you don't need 10 or 28MW par
transmitter so your request is ridiculous.

To cover only 34% of the population in indoor with 1000 transmitters is
very high quantity... We use around 3500 TV analog transmitters to cover
100% of superficy of France.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 2:04:31 PM2/3/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :


>
>> VHF aerials will give something like 8 or 9 dB in high power
>> installations (using up more tower space than a typical DAB system
>> does, count on 12 meters). This gain will of course be the same for
>> DMB and DVB (or analog TV or anything else at that frequency for that
>> matter).
>
>
>If they've got the same amount of space you can work out the difference in
>aerial gain by comparing the number of aerials they can get in a given
>amount of space, and the number of aerials is proportional to the aerial
>gain (linear gain, not decibel):
>
>Say you've got X metres of space, so you'd have
>
>Number of antennas = X / antenna length = X / half-wavelength
>
>So say they've got 10m of space each, at 500 MHz there'd be room for
>(ignoring spaces between antennas, because it's theoretical anyway):
>
>Num antennas = 10 / (3 x 10^8 / 500 x 10^6) = 16 antennas
>
>At 200 MHz there'd be:
>
>Num antennas = 10 / (3 x 10^8 / 200 x 10^6) = 6
>
>So aerial gain due to number of antennas at UHF relative to Band III is:
>
>10 log (16 / 6) = 4.2 dB

This is partially wrong, because you forget the loss of the feeder which
are higher in band IV/V than band III...

When you have one transmitter every 1km you don't have the same place as
on a big mast, so the antenna gain is largely lower, so this assertion
is not true.

>> It would seem that DMB could only be implemented in L-Band, as band
>> III is full. DVB-H could be implemented in the space to be sold as
>> part of the "digital dividend", sharing its infrastructure with
>> DVB-T. So perhaps the calculations should be comparing about 600 Mhz
>> with 1500 :-)
>
>
>Absolutely! But to be honest I'm more interested in getting Croiset to
>finally admit that he was talking nonsense about DVB-H vs DAB/DMB in Band
>III.
>
>But doing the DVB-H/UHF vs DMB/L-band comparison, the field strength values
>are:
>
>DVB-H/UHF (3.74 Mbps) = 100.7 dBuV/m
>DVB-H/L-band (2.33 Mbps) = 104.2 dBuV/m
>
>T-DMB/L-band (1.06 Mbps) = 105.4 dBuV/m

You just forget to add the this information:

DVB-H/L-band (2.33 Mbps) 5MHz = 104.2 dBuV/m
T-DMB/L-band (1.06 Mbps) 1.7MHz = 105.4 dBuV/m

DMB : 062 bit/Hz/s
DVB-H : 0.466 bit/Hz/s

You spoke a lot of time about the efficiency of DVB-H and now you don't
say anything.

Kristoff Bonne

unread,
Feb 3, 2007, 6:21:41 PM2/3/07
to
Steve,


You are going personal again. Don't do it!

Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 1:56:35 AM2/4/07
to
hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote :

>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> 10 log (16 / 6) = 4.2 dB
>
>That is within the range I would expect. By the way Bnnd III aerials can
>be tuned to frequency, especially if they were build for analog TV. Most
>of the time aerials used for DVB-T are wideband ones.
>
>> True, and DVB-H has basically already won, because you just have to look at
>> the number of countries using it or planning on using it.
>
>We'll have to wait and see a bit more. Most of the Band III frequency
>space for DMB or DVB will only be available from 2010-2014. The use of
>that spectrum will decide in the end.
>
>> But doing the DVB-H/UHF vs DMB/L-band comparison, the field strength values
>> are:
>>
>> DVB-H/UHF (3.74 Mbps) = 100.7 dBuV/m
>> DVB-H/L-band (2.33 Mbps) = 104.2 dBuV/m
>>
>> T-DMB/L-band (1.06 Mbps) = 105.4 dBuV/m
>
>I wonder how you calculate the capacity. DMB should be able to deliver
>about 1.5 Mbps with R/S and PL4A I think?
>

Hello,

no the calulation is made in PL3A to get 1.06Mbit/s after the exclusion
of the RS code of MPEG-2 TS in the bitrate. So this is the net bitrate.

For DVB-H there is this table to do the calculation of the available
bitrate : http://home.arcor.de/saschat/dvb-t-hf.html

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 2:50:04 AM2/4/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :

>The background to this is that the EBU published a like-for-like comparison

You forgot the most biggest problem which is the compatibility between
DVB-T and DVB-H networks on the receiver side.

The protection ratio for adjacent channels, second adjacent and other
channels is one of the critical parameter to assess the compatibility
between DVB-T/RPC-1 and DVB-H networks. DVB-T receiver immunity minimum
performance, according to EMC standard IEC 62216-1, is only -27 dB
protection ratio in adjacent channel and -40 dB for other channels
(except images frequencies). ITU-R Recommendation BT 1368-6 recommends a
value for the adjacent channel protection ratio of -30 dB and does not
specify anything for other channels.

The minimal field strength on DVB-T RPC1 on UHF (650MHz) is 56dBµV/m.

The actual value provide by EBU for DVB-H in band IV for the minimal
field strength is 100.7dBµV/m

You are sure that in some locations you will be near the minimum field
strength on DVB-T with a difference of signal level more than 40dB with
DVB-H. In this case the DVB-T receiver will not decode the DVB-T signal
anymore.

hwh

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 4:18:49 AM2/4/07
to
Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> no the calulation is made in PL3A to get 1.06Mbit/s after the exclusion
> of the RS code of MPEG-2 TS in the bitrate. So this is the net bitrate.
>
> For DVB-H there is this table to do the calculation of the available
> bitrate : http://home.arcor.de/saschat/dvb-t-hf.html

Ok thanks. So DVB-H reduces the bitrate relative to DVB-T.

gr, hwh

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 4:34:16 AM2/4/07
to


Let me remind you that you are claiming that the Terratec DR Box1 can
receive T-DMB services:

"Croiset >>>> yes a lot of companies had created DMB players for the
Terratec DR box
>>>> 1. I know more than 8 different players.
>>>
>>>
Me >>> Links, please.
>>
Croiset >> OTT, Pixtree, Videolan, Net&tv, Kai media, Mediasyscom etc...
>
Richard L > The Videolan application sounds as if it might be freeware, but
I
> can't find anything on the Videolan website about using it for DMB or
> with the DR-Box. Can you give more details? I'd be interested to try
> it."

But there are ZERO T-DMB services on that multiplex. All it consists of are
MP2 radio stations plus a few data services that the Wavefinder would have
been able to receive:

http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/germany.html#Bayern

Croiset, remember that you're on a thread where I'm accusing you of
blatantly lying, because you're claiming that

4 = 1

so it isn't usually the best strategy to blatantly lie on a thread where I'm
accusing you of blatantly lying.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 4:46:23 AM2/4/07
to


Let's remind you of the facts here:

1,000 transmitters for DVB-H with powers from 5W up to 2.5 kW. Absolute
worst-case is that the total transmitted power = 1000 x 2500W = 2.5 MW to
achieve 75% population coverage of Italy with outdoor coverage, not indoor.

And you are claiming that a local DVB-H transmitter needs to use 30 - 34.5
dB higher transmitter powers than T-DMB, and I used an example of the many
BBC DAB multiplex transmitters that use 10 kW, so DVB-H transmitters would
have to therefore use transmitter powers between 10 MW and 28 MW.

So, my example merely shows that for just 25% of the power that you're
claiming that DVB-H needs for ONE TRANSMITTER, the DVB-H service in Italy is
providing outdoor coverage to 75% of the Italian population.

When I come out with examples like that, it is time to stop digging your
hole.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 4:54:05 AM2/4/07
to
hwh wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> 10 log (16 / 6) = 4.2 dB
>
> That is within the range I would expect. By the way Bnnd III aerials
> can be tuned to frequency, especially if they were build for analog
> TV. Most of the time aerials used for DVB-T are wideband ones.
>
>> True, and DVB-H has basically already won, because you just have to
>> look at the number of countries using it or planning on using it.
>
> We'll have to wait and see a bit more. Most of the Band III frequency
> space for DMB or DVB will only be available from 2010-2014. The use of
> that spectrum will decide in the end.


The page that lists all the DVB-H trials and commercial services is down at
the moment:

http://www.dvb-h-online.com/services.htm

but have a look at it when it's back up, because DVB-H is miles, miles ahead
of T-DMB/DAB-IP in terms of the number of countries that are trialing it and
plan to use it.

And one thing you didn't mention is that Nokia is backing DVB-H, and you
shouldn't underestimate their support for DVB-H and their antipathy for
T-DMB.


>> But doing the DVB-H/UHF vs DMB/L-band comparison, the field strength
>> values are:
>>
>> DVB-H/UHF (3.74 Mbps) = 100.7 dBuV/m
>> DVB-H/L-band (2.33 Mbps) = 104.2 dBuV/m
>>
>> T-DMB/L-band (1.06 Mbps) = 105.4 dBuV/m
>
> I wonder how you calculate the capacity. DMB should be able to deliver
> about 1.5 Mbps with R/S and PL4A I think?


I'm quoting the figures the EBU used in its document, and they're using PL3A
for T-DMB and QPSK CR 1/2 GI 1/4 for DVB-H - i.e. the lowest capacity DVB-H
transmission mode.


> http://www.digi-tv.dk/Sendenettets_opbygning/sikkerhed_og_modulation.asp
>
> DVB will be 4.98 Mbps in the most robust mode and 8 MHz, zo at 7 MHz
> it should be around 4.36 Mbps? How much do you lose when implementing
> DVB-H?


DVB-H's capacity is 75% of the capacity of DVB-T for the same transmission
mode, because the MPE-FEC on DVB-H is usually used with a code rate of 3/4.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 4:57:03 AM2/4/07
to
hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote :

Yes, and the reduction is quiet important.

There is this document which is very interesting and show the complexity
of DVB-H :
http://www.decontis.com/DownloadInfo/dvb_h_data_mapping.pdf

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 5:02:13 AM2/4/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :

>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>Richard L > The Videolan application sounds as if it might be freeware, but
>I
>> can't find anything on the Videolan website about using it for DMB or
>> with the DR-Box. Can you give more details? I'd be interested to try
>> it."
>
>But there are ZERO T-DMB services on that multiplex. All it consists of are
>MP2 radio stations plus a few data services that the Wavefinder would have
>been able to receive:
>
>http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/germany.html#Bayern
>
>Croiset, remember that you're on a thread where I'm accusing you of
>blatantly lying, because you're claiming that

You wants to know how the Terratec works, I reply in details and you are
not happy.

Sorry but you don't prove anything and you claim without any papers.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 5:04:49 AM2/4/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :

>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> So you said : INDOOR = OUTDOOR
>>>
>>>
>>> I used Italy as an example BECAUSE IT IS A NATIONAL NETWORK, and it
>>> perfectly demonstrates how ridiculous your claim is that DVB-H would
>>> need to use 10 MW to 28 MW transmitter power levels.
>>>
>>>>> ---> Remember all values I gave was for indoor coverage not outdoor
>>>>> where you need less power to receive the signal.
>>>
>>> Yes, but I'm waiting for you to provide some evidence that DVB-H
>>> uses 10 MW to 28 MW transmitter power levels.
>>
>> 34% of the population is not a national network...
>>
>> If you put one transmitter every 1km, you don't need 10 or 28MW par
>> transmitter so your request is ridiculous.
>>
>> To cover only 34% of the population in indoor with 1000 transmitters
>> is very high quantity... We use around 3500 TV analog transmitters to
>> cover 100% of superficy of France.
>
>
>Let's remind you of the facts here:
>
>1,000 transmitters for DVB-H with powers from 5W up to 2.5 kW. Absolute
>worst-case is that the total transmitted power = 1000 x 2500W = 2.5 MW to
>achieve 75% population coverage of Italy with outdoor coverage, not indoor.
>

I always spoke about indoor coverage, not outdoor... so your assertion
is wrong. Don't change parameters when is does not agree with you.

The indoor coverage is 34% in Italy.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 5:08:44 AM2/4/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :

>hwh wrote:
>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>> 10 log (16 / 6) = 4.2 dB
>>
>> That is within the range I would expect. By the way Bnnd III aerials
>> can be tuned to frequency, especially if they were build for analog
>> TV. Most of the time aerials used for DVB-T are wideband ones.
>>
>>> True, and DVB-H has basically already won, because you just have to
>>> look at the number of countries using it or planning on using it.
>>
>> We'll have to wait and see a bit more. Most of the Band III frequency
>> space for DMB or DVB will only be available from 2010-2014. The use of
>> that spectrum will decide in the end.
>
>
>The page that lists all the DVB-H trials and commercial services is down at
>the moment:
>
>http://www.dvb-h-online.com/services.htm
>
>but have a look at it when it's back up, because DVB-H is miles, miles ahead
>of T-DMB/DAB-IP in terms of the number of countries that are trialing it and
>plan to use it.
>
>And one thing you didn't mention is that Nokia is backing DVB-H, and you
>shouldn't underestimate their support for DVB-H and their antipathy for
>T-DMB.
>

Because DVB-H people makes a very big lobbying and there is no lobbying
in T-DMB, so you don't have any official list of trials on T-DMB, but
there is many more than you thought.

just for example USA will makes a T-DMB trial very shortly.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 5:18:21 AM2/4/07
to
Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
>
>>
>>> VHF aerials will give something like 8 or 9 dB in high power
>>> installations (using up more tower space than a typical DAB system
>>> does, count on 12 meters). This gain will of course be the same for
>>> DMB and DVB (or analog TV or anything else at that frequency for
>>> that matter).
>>
>>
>> If they've got the same amount of space you can work out the
>> difference in aerial gain by comparing the number of aerials they
>> can get in a given amount of space, and the number of aerials is
>> proportional to the aerial gain (linear gain, not decibel):
>>
>> Say you've got X metres of space, so you'd have
>>
>> Number of antennas = X / antenna length = X / half-wavelength
>>
>> So say they've got 10m of space each, at 500 MHz there'd be room for
>> (ignoring spaces between antennas, because it's theoretical anyway):
>>
>> Num antennas = 10 / (3 x 10^8 / 500 x 10^6) = 16 antennas
>>
>> At 200 MHz there'd be:
>>
>> Num antennas = 10 / (3 x 10^8 / 200 x 10^6) = 6
>>
>> So aerial gain due to number of antennas at UHF relative to Band III
>> is:
>>
>> 10 log (16 / 6) = 4.2 dB
>
> This is partially wrong, because you forget the loss of the feeder
> which are higher in band IV/V than band III...


It would be, wouldn't it.


> When you have one transmitter every 1km you don't have the same place
> as on a big mast, so the antenna gain is largely lower, so this
> assertion is not true.


1 transmitter every 1 km? Are you drunk?


>>> It would seem that DMB could only be implemented in L-Band, as band
>>> III is full. DVB-H could be implemented in the space to be sold as
>>> part of the "digital dividend", sharing its infrastructure with
>>> DVB-T. So perhaps the calculations should be comparing about 600 Mhz
>>> with 1500 :-)
>>
>>
>> Absolutely! But to be honest I'm more interested in getting Croiset
>> to finally admit that he was talking nonsense about DVB-H vs DAB/DMB
>> in Band III.
>>
>> But doing the DVB-H/UHF vs DMB/L-band comparison, the field strength
>> values are:
>>
>> DVB-H/UHF (3.74 Mbps) = 100.7 dBuV/m
>> DVB-H/L-band (2.33 Mbps) = 104.2 dBuV/m
>>
>> T-DMB/L-band (1.06 Mbps) = 105.4 dBuV/m
>
> You just forget to add the this information:
>
> DVB-H/L-band (2.33 Mbps) 5MHz = 104.2 dBuV/m
> T-DMB/L-band (1.06 Mbps) 1.7MHz = 105.4 dBuV/m
>
> DMB : 062 bit/Hz/s
> DVB-H : 0.466 bit/Hz/s
>
> You spoke a lot of time about the efficiency of DVB-H and now you
> don't say anything.


I spoke a lot about the efficiency of DVB-H for carrying digital radio
stations in Band III instead of the ultra-inefficient DABv1 system. So let's
try that, shall we?

Using figures from the EBU document:

DVB-H: 3.27 Mbps per mux at 88.2 dBuV/m
T-DMB: 1.06 Mbps per mux at 88.0 dBuV/m

And DVB-H uses AAC+, which is about 3-times as efficient as MP2. So, for
virtually identical transmitter power levels, the following number of radio
stations can be carried on DAB and DVB-H:

For 56 kbps AAC+ providing the same level of audio quality as 160 kbps MP2:

DVB-H can carry 3270 / 56 = 58 stations per 7 MHz multiplex
DAB can carry 8 stations per 1.7 MHz multiplex

So, for virtually identical transmitter power levels, DVB-H can carry
7-times as many stations as DAB can.

And in terms of number of stations per MHz:

DVB-H can carry 58 / 7 = 8.3 stations per MHz
DAB can carry 8 / 1.7 = 4.7 stations per MHz

AND the above figures are giving DAB the advantage of using RS coding, when
in fact DAB does not use RS coding, so the actual figures would be
significantly better for DVB-H than they actually are.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 5:24:45 AM2/4/07
to


You know, in recent weeks I've begun to question whether you are simply a
liar, or whether you're actually extremely unintelligent and this extreme
unintelligence leads you to get things completely wrong. This post shows
that you're not extremely unintelligent, so you are therefore just a liar -
I say "just", but I have honestly never come across anybody in my entire
life that lies more than you, and the audacity of your lies knows no bounds.

As for the comments in your post: I think we'll let history decide which was
the most successful system out of DVB-H and T-DMB for carrying mobile TV,
and I'm afraid that given the number of countries that want to adopt DVB-H,
I don't think you stand DMB stands any chance of even coming close to DVB-H.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 5:59:43 AM2/4/07
to
Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote :
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>> no the calulation is made in PL3A to get 1.06Mbit/s after the
>>> exclusion of the RS code of MPEG-2 TS in the bitrate. So this is
>>> the net bitrate.
>>>
>>> For DVB-H there is this table to do the calculation of the available
>>> bitrate : http://home.arcor.de/saschat/dvb-t-hf.html
>>
>> Ok thanks. So DVB-H reduces the bitrate relative to DVB-T.
>>
>
> Yes, and the reduction is quiet important.


Hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha!

Is the difference quite important when 16-QAM CR 1/2 GI 1/8 is used and the
DVB-H multiplex capacity is 8.3 Mbps??


> There is this document which is very interesting and show the
> complexity of DVB-H :
> http://www.decontis.com/DownloadInfo/dvb_h_data_mapping.pdf


No, that figure makes it look COMPLICATED, but you could draw a figure for
any modern system to make it look complicated.

hwh

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 6:13:57 AM2/4/07
to
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> DVB-H's capacity is 75% of the capacity of DVB-T for the same transmission
> mode, because the MPE-FEC on DVB-H is usually used with a code rate of 3/4.

Right. Then the only problem with DVB-H remaining is the 4k mode. The
allocations from the RRC-06 tend to be too large and seem to be tailored
for 8k. (or MFN).

gr, hwh

hwh

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 6:15:38 AM2/4/07
to

The extra protection does it. Seems to be the comparable to DMB (R/S).

gr, hwh

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 6:33:15 AM2/4/07
to
hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote :

The main problem with 8K is the mobility, 2K is the SFN implementation
and 4K is a good compromise. 4K could be already implement if you are in
the enveloppe of RRC06 plan.

The main actual problem is to implement DVB-H under RPC3 planning which
is not made in a lot fo countries right now. Some countries implement
one mux (or more) in RPC2 which is not enough for DVB-H.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 6:36:01 AM2/4/07
to
hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote :

The basic protection with RS on T-DMB is on the DVB-T layer of the draw,
you need nothing else.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 6:49:34 AM2/4/07
to


No lobbying in T-DMB? So WorldDMB doesn't exist then? And all these
conferences around the world that WorldDAB/WorldDMB set up are not trying to
sell DMB to people?


> just for example USA will makes a T-DMB trial very shortly.


Big deal.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 6:51:25 AM2/4/07
to
hwh wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> DVB-H's capacity is 75% of the capacity of DVB-T for the same
>> transmission mode, because the MPE-FEC on DVB-H is usually used with
>> a code rate of 3/4.
>
> Right. Then the only problem with DVB-H remaining is the 4k mode.


4K was added just to make the system more flexible, but out of the list of
trials and services, I can't remember seeing any that have used 4K.


> The
> allocations from the RRC-06 tend to be too large and seem to be
> tailored for 8k. (or MFN).


8K is the best for SFNs, because the guard interval duration is proportional
to the number of subcarriers - you want the longer the better for SFNs.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 6:53:35 AM2/4/07
to
Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> hwh <iime...@hotmail.com.nospam> wrote :
>
>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>> DVB-H's capacity is 75% of the capacity of DVB-T for the same
>>> transmission mode, because the MPE-FEC on DVB-H is usually used
>>> with a code rate of 3/4.
>>
>> Right. Then the only problem with DVB-H remaining is the 4k mode. The
>> allocations from the RRC-06 tend to be too large and seem to be
>> tailored for 8k. (or MFN).
>
> The main problem with 8K is the mobility,


No, there is no problem with mobility with 8K unless you're travelling in an
aeroplane...


> 2K is the SFN implementation


Erm, no, 2K is the worst for SFNs...


> and 4K is a good compromise. 4K could be already implement if you are
> in the enveloppe of RRC06 plan.


8K is the best.


> The main actual problem is to implement DVB-H under RPC3 planning
> which is not made in a lot fo countries right now. Some countries
> implement one mux (or more) in RPC2 which is not enough for DVB-H.


Yawn.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 7:06:24 AM2/4/07
to


Hardly!

RS on DMB: number of bytes that can be corrected = 8 out of 204 bytes

DVB-H also uses the EXACT same RS code for its midle layer of FEC coding
that DMB uses for its outer layer, but DVB-H then uses the MPE-FEC for its
outer layer of coding. See:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dvb-h_dab_dmb.htm#FEC_coding_schemes

The MPE-FEC can correct any *64* bytes out of 255 bytes! Massive, massive
difference.

And to show you how much difference the MPE-FEC makes, the required C/N for
DVB-H using QPSK CR 1/2 (i.e. the inner convolutional coding has a code rate
of 1/2, then there's the RS layer with a code rate of 188/204, then there's
the MPE-FEC code rate 3/4 layer) is 11.5 dB in the EBU document (it's only
9.6 dB in the DVB-H Implementation Guidelines) and T-DMB requires 16.6 dB in
the same EBU document.

What this means is that if the bandwidths of DVB-H and DMB were the same
then DVB-H could be transmitted at 5 dB lower transmitter power than DMB for
the exact same level of robustness, and the reason for this is that the
MPE-FEC is an extremely strong layer of error correction coding.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 7:11:53 AM2/4/07
to


That sentence sums up just how incredibly badly you understand digital
communications!

You use stronger error correction coding in order to increase the spectral
and power efficiency of the system, and suggesting that RS coding is
sufficient is very much like saying that MP2 can sound good if it's used at
high bit rates - i.e. they don't seem to understand that it's fundamentally
advantageous to use more efficient audio codecs.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 7:40:48 AM2/4/07
to


Just to repeat, in case you've forgotten: You're supposed to be showing how
the Terratec DR Box-1 can receive DMB services and play them back on the
VideoLAN Client.

I've not said what the problem with your theory is until now, because I
hoped that given a bit of rope you'd hang yourself, but bizarrely you've
actually tried to pass off DAB services as DMB services and then go on to
claim that you've actually proved something.

The problem with your theory is that the Terratec DR Box-1 is a *DAB*
receiver, so it doesn't have an RS decoder in it, so you suggesting that the
VideoLAN Client could decode a DMB stream because it'll consist of an MPEG-2
TS is obviously nonsense because the Terratec DR Box-1 hasn't performed RS
decoding, which has to be done BEFORE you can get an MPEG-2 TS stream.

Hopefully this will open Richard L's eyes to just how ridiculously dishonest
you are - or is it pure incompetence? I really don't know.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 7:43:49 AM2/4/07
to


Stop changing the subject. I've asked you to provide some evidence of the
existence of some 10 MW to 28 MW DVB-H transmitters, which is what your
claim implies are the required transmitter powers for a local DVB-H
transmitter.

I love it, I really do. Who would ever come out with a claim that implies
that you need to use 10 MW to 28 MW of power other than The Croiset?

hwh

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 7:54:33 AM2/4/07
to
Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> The main problem with 8K is the mobility, 2K is the SFN implementation
> and 4K is a good compromise. 4K could be already implement if you are in
> the enveloppe of RRC06 plan.

No, 8k is most suitable for SFN. 2k is the older mode used in the UK. It
is best suited for MFN.

> The main actual problem is to implement DVB-H under RPC3 planning which
> is not made in a lot fo countries right now. Some countries implement
> one mux (or more) in RPC2 which is not enough for DVB-H.

Yes, without causing interference to others this can only be implemented
by using many smaller transmitters.

gr, hwh

hwh

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 7:57:22 AM2/4/07
to
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> The MPE-FEC can correct any *64* bytes out of 255 bytes! Massive, massive
> difference.

Ok, but at a cost (bandwidth).

> What this means is that if the bandwidths of DVB-H and DMB were the same
> then DVB-H could be transmitted at 5 dB lower transmitter power than DMB for
> the exact same level of robustness, and the reason for this is that the
> MPE-FEC is an extremely strong layer of error correction coding.

Got it.

gr, hwh

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 8:31:59 AM2/4/07
to
hwh wrote:
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> The MPE-FEC can correct any *64* bytes out of 255 bytes! Massive,
>> massive difference.
>
> Ok, but at a cost (bandwidth).


Okay then, use DVB-H with 16-QAM, CR 1/2, GI 1/4, MPE-FEC 3/4 (page 26 of
the EBU document) in a 7 MHz channel in Band III. The C/N increases by 6 dB,
so the field strength is 94.2 dBuV/m instead of 88.2 dBuV/m, but the
capacity increases to 6.53 Mbps.

If you use 4 x T-DMB multiplexes in parallel, the field strength also
increases by 6 dB, because 10 log 4 = 6 dB, so the field strength (if one
transmitter transmitted them all in parallel) would go up to 94.0 dBuV/m.
But the capacity would only be 4 x 1.06 Mbps = 4.24 Mbps.

So does MPE-FEC cost bandwidth? No, it does not, because the spectral
efficiency is higher than if it wasn't used - remember that DVB-H's error
correction coding scheme without the MPE-FEC is the same as DMB's FEC
coding.

It is counter-intuitive that introducing redundancy in the form of extra
error correction coding actually makes a system more spectrally efficient,
but that is the case, and the reason for it is that there's a 3-way
trade-off between robustness vs power vs capacity, and stronger error
correction coding increases the robustness, so the capacity can increase.

hwh

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 8:43:13 AM2/4/07
to
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> So does MPE-FEC cost bandwidth? No, it does not, because the spectral
> efficiency is higher than if it wasn't used - remember that DVB-H's error
> correction coding scheme without the MPE-FEC is the same as DMB's FEC
> coding.

Interesting.

> It is counter-intuitive that introducing redundancy in the form of extra
> error correction coding actually makes a system more spectrally efficient,
> but that is the case, and the reason for it is that there's a 3-way
> trade-off between robustness vs power vs capacity, and stronger error
> correction coding increases the robustness, so the capacity can increase.

Can this be compared to adding R/S coding to a DMB multiplex? It would
seem PL4A with R/S coding is more efficient than PL3 without it.

gr, hwh

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 9:02:39 AM2/4/07
to


Yes, that's a good example.

PL3A without RS coding will be about the same or slightly less robust than
PL4A with RS coding when both are transmitted at the same transmitter power.

The mux capacity (ignoring the tiny overhead from the MPEG-2 TS) is the
gross mux bit rate multiplied by the product of the code rates:

PL3A without RS:

Mux capacity = gross mux bit rate x inner code rate
Mux capacity = 2.304 Mbps x 0.5 = 1.152 Mbps

PL4A with RS:

Mux capacity = gross mux bit rate x inner code rate x RS code rate
Mux capacity = 2.304 Mbps x 3/4 x 188/204 = 1.592 Mbps

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 10:12:33 AM2/4/07
to
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :

>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>
>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:

>The problem with your theory is that the Terratec DR Box-1 is a *DAB*
>receiver, so it doesn't have an RS decoder in it, so you suggesting that the
>VideoLAN Client could decode a DMB stream because it'll consist of an MPEG-2
>TS is obviously nonsense because the Terratec DR Box-1 hasn't performed RS
>decoding, which has to be done BEFORE you can get an MPEG-2 TS stream.
>

Videolan have a TS204 decoder with RS feature.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 11:42:04 AM2/4/07
to
Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote :
>>>
>>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>
>> The problem with your theory is that the Terratec DR Box-1 is a *DAB*
>> receiver, so it doesn't have an RS decoder in it, so you suggesting
>> that the VideoLAN Client could decode a DMB stream because it'll
>> consist of an MPEG-2 TS is obviously nonsense because the Terratec
>> DR Box-1 hasn't performed RS decoding, which has to be done BEFORE
>> you can get an MPEG-2 TS stream.
>>
>
> Videolan have a TS204 decoder with RS feature.


References, please.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 12:51:24 PM2/4/07
to
"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 :
>>>>
>>>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with your theory is that the Terratec DR Box-1 is a *DAB*
>>> receiver, so it doesn't have an RS decoder in it, so you suggesting
>>> that the VideoLAN Client could decode a DMB stream because it'll
>>> consist of an MPEG-2 TS is obviously nonsense because the Terratec
>>> DR Box-1 hasn't performed RS decoding, which has to be done BEFORE
>>> you can get an MPEG-2 TS stream.
>>>
>>
>> Videolan have a TS204 decoder with RS feature.
>
>
>References, please.

Source code of vlc (videolan).

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 4, 2007, 1:40:39 PM2/4/07
to
"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 :
>>>>
>>>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with your theory is that the Terratec DR Box-1 is a *DAB*
>>> receiver, so it doesn't have an RS decoder in it, so you suggesting
>>> that the VideoLAN Client could decode a DMB stream because it'll
>>> consist of an MPEG-2 TS is obviously nonsense because the Terratec
>>> DR Box-1 hasn't performed RS decoding, which has to be done BEFORE
>>> you can get an MPEG-2 TS stream.
>>>
>>
>> Videolan have a TS204 decoder with RS feature.
>
>
>References, please.

TS204 is read by videolan. reference : source code.

Nicolas Croiset

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 3:23:52 AM2/5/07
to
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 10:18:21 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
<dab.is@dead> wrote:
>
>
>> When you have one transmitter every 1km you don't have the same place
>> as on a big mast, so the antenna gain is largely lower, so this
>> assertion is not true.
>
>
>1 transmitter every 1 km? Are you drunk?

no, cf ITU-R P.1546, if you want 100dBµV/m at 600MHz with 2kW ERP at
37.5m height.


DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 4:42:26 AM2/5/07
to


Right, that's it, you won't learn your lesson, so it's time for a new
thread.

DAB sounds worse than FM

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 5:29:00 AM2/5/07
to
Nicolas Croiset wrote:
> "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 :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem with your theory is that the Terratec DR Box-1 is a
>>>> *DAB* receiver, so it doesn't have an RS decoder in it, so you
>>>> suggesting that the VideoLAN Client could decode a DMB stream
>>>> because it'll consist of an MPEG-2 TS is obviously nonsense
>>>> because the Terratec DR Box-1 hasn't performed RS decoding, which
>>>> has to be done BEFORE you can get an MPEG-2 TS stream.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Videolan have a TS204 decoder with RS feature.
>>
>>
>> References, please.
>
> Source code of vlc (videolan).


I asked for a reference. Provide one or admit that you're lying.


> Nicolas Croiset VDL
> http://www.vdl.fr/


Do VDL know that you send dishonest posts to newsgroups in work time?

Kristoff Bonne

unread,
Feb 5, 2007, 5:25:47 PM2/5/07
to
Steve,

DAB sounds worse than FM schreef:


>>>> Videolan have a TS204 decoder with RS feature.
>>> References, please.

>> Source code of vlc (videolan).

> I asked for a reference. Provide one or admit that you're lying.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-sources.html


It took me about 3 minutes to find the correct part of the source-code.
(one minute to untar it; 2 minutes to search). Now the rest is up to you.

Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

0 new messages