Superb example of Croiset lying
DAB sounds worse than FM
shows the way Croiset flagrantly lies whenever he feels like it.
"Croiset >> whe you go under a bridge except
>> tha you loose 0.5s of stream in T-DMB and you loose the burst and the
>> duration until next burs, so you loose more than 5 seconds of video
>> stream
>
>
Me > Look, I've got other things to do. You're an incompetent buffoon, and I
> don't have time to answer your lies. You've got the figures in that
document
> for time slicing delay and they quoted about 1 or 2 seconds, although it
> depends on the implementation.
Croiset: If the ime slicing is 1 or 2 s, the power consumption will be very
high."
He starts by lying that with DVB-H you lose 5 seconds of video. I reply by
saying that in the new DVB-H vs DMB system comparison document that the DVB
Project have published:
http://www.dvb-h-online.org:80/PDF/060217.DVB-H%20vs%20T-DMB%20System%20Comparison.pdf
(3.4 MB)
the time-slicing example they use would only require 1 or 2 seconds for
changing channels.
The example they give is on page 16 of the document. The "on time" for
reception is 0.25 seconds, then the receiver is switched off for 1.75
seconds until the next 0.25 seconds time for reception comes around again.
Worst case delay for switching channels is the 1.75 seconds, which would
happen if you wanted to change channels the instant just after reception
ends and the receiver has been turned off.
Therefore, his 5 seconds claims has been demolished.
But that doesn't deter Croiset, because he is a pathological liar, and
pathological liars are obviously not bound by the usual rules of discussion
/ argument as the rest of us, because they just make things up as they go
along irrespective of the truth.
So he changes issue and lies about something else instead:
"If the time slicing is 1 or 2 s, the power consumption will be very high."
Let's calculate the approximate power saving for the 2 seconds time-slice
example in the DVB document, with on time = 0.25 seconds and off time = 1.75
seconds:
% power saving = (1 - (on time / total time)) x 100%
% power saving = (1 - 0.25 / (0.25 + 1.75)) x 100%
% power saving = 87.5%
To the non-expert observer it might even seem like Croiset is getting the
upper hand in that little exchange between us. Basically, I'm always on the
defensive against Croiset's utter lies. I dread to think of the amount of
time I have simply wasted countering downright lies by Croiset.
And Croiset's technique seems to be the universally accepted way to deal
with the issues with the DAB system by the DAB proponents: they flagrantly
lie.
The problem that the DAB proponents face is that they CANNOT win any
technical arguments, so instead they simply lie.
I can remember watching a documentary/film about Noam Chomsky a few months
ago, and he summed up the way the DAB industry operates -- they basically
apply the principle that mud sticks, and the very act of putting out
negative propaganda against competing systems is all that is required for it
to be accepted by a lot of the readers of documents that contain the
propaganda. Good examples are the EBU Technical Review articles, which after
they were published I actually received a few emails from DAB proponents
quoting from these EBU Technical Review documents trying to claim that
because the claims had been published in a supposedly respectable technical
journal that their claims were true. They were obviously unaware that I had
already demolished both articles written by DAB supporters, but they weren't
to know that, because the only people aware that I'd well and truly
demolished all the arguments in the articles are people on here and the more
avid readers of my website -- everyone else that reads those articles will
probably be inclined to believe they're true.
All I can say is that any engineer (that obviously excludes Croiset) that
peddles lies about an engineering system does not deserve to call themselves
an engineer.
--
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
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
> ~ <SNIP>
>
> ~ All I can say is that any engineer (that obviously excludes Croiset)
> ~ that peddles lies about an engineering system does not deserve to
> ~ call themselves an engineer.
> ~
>
>
> Don't you think that you have flogged this topic to death? Everyone is
> very well aware of your opinion on the matter and I admire Nicolas for
> his tolerance of your insults.
You admire Nicolas's tolerance? I have just given 2 perfect examples of the
way Croiset lies. And after all that you try to suggest that *I'm* in the
wrong?
Basically, what that shows is that you support people lying. What an
absolute idiot you are.
seani
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> R K Pelligo wrote:
> > DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> >
> > ~ <SNIP>
> >
> > ~ All I can say is that any engineer (that obviously excludes Croiset)
> > ~ that peddles lies about an engineering system does not deserve to
> > ~ call themselves an engineer.
> > ~
> >
> >
> > Don't you think that you have flogged this topic to death? Everyone is
> > very well aware of your opinion on the matter and I admire Nicolas for
> > his tolerance of your insults.
>
>
> You admire Nicolas's tolerance? I have just given 2 perfect examples of the
> way Croiset lies. And after all that you try to suggest that *I'm* in the
> wrong?
>
You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. There are many reasons why
someone *may* be factually incorrect.
> Basically, what that shows is that you support people lying. What an
> absolute idiot you are.
>
Rubbish from start to finish. Once again you apply your own twisted
logic, arrive at an untenable conclusion, and attempt to foist the
result onto someone else.
Clearly, Steve Green of HiFi World, you've given up on steady
employment in the vocation of your choice by your continued behaviour
on this public newsgroup.
Doubtless your failure is everyone else's fault, eh?
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. There are many reasons why
> someone *may* be factually incorrect.
Yes, but if they're consistently incorrect, they're either incompetent,
biased, or lying.
If their errors consistently benefit one side of a discussion, I know
what conclusion most reasonable people would draw.
> Clearly, Steve Green of HiFi World, you've given up on steady
> employment in the vocation of your choice
They still seem to be publishing his articles seani!
I don't think being opinionated is going to do Steve much harm in the
world of journalism.
If he can get other people to plug the publication he freelances for,
then so much the better.
Cheers,
David.
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk
> Not at all, that's your interpretation. I have no idea or interest as
> to whether you are or not. Your behaviour in this instance is not that
> of a mature adult and yet again you failed to see the point of my
> original post; "your opinion on this matter is well established", i.e.
> we don't need reminding on a daily basis.
I don't frequent many newsgroups.
One I occasionally use is uk.d-i-y.
There is one person in there who posts, but apparently know that much!
His advice, given in great detail, ranges from the useless to the
downright dangerous.
Sometimes his advice passes off without comment. A casual reader could
take it as useful, and may even act upon it.
However, most days, his advice is followed up by one of the regulars
warning that it shouldn't be followed because he consistently talks
rubbish.
Such posts really are necessary on a daily basis. Otherwise the casual
reader could draw quite the wrong conclusion.
I don't think the posts of Nicolas could endanger life and limb, but if
Steve wants to remind anyone willing to read his posts that Nicolas is
frequently factually incorrect, and appears to state incorrect facts
purely to the benefit of DAB, I don't see why you should object.
Anyway, what did you expect to read in a thread entitled "Superb
example of Croiset lying" started by DABSWTFM? Did someone put a gun to
your head and force you to read it?
I think you can't resist Steve's posts really!
Cheers,
David.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> R K Pelligo wrote:
>> Not at all, that's your interpretation. I have no idea or interest as
>> to whether you are or not. Your behaviour in this instance is not
>> that of a mature adult and yet again you failed to see the point of
>> my original post; "your opinion on this matter is well established",
>> i.e. we don't need reminding on a daily basis.
>
> I don't frequent many newsgroups.
>
> One I occasionally use is uk.d-i-y.
>
> There is one person in there who posts, but apparently know that much!
> His advice, given in great detail, ranges from the useless to the
> downright dangerous.
>
> Sometimes his advice passes off without comment. A casual reader could
> take it as useful, and may even act upon it.
>
> However, most days, his advice is followed up by one of the regulars
> warning that it shouldn't be followed because he consistently talks
> rubbish.
>
> Such posts really are necessary on a daily basis. Otherwise the casual
> reader could draw quite the wrong conclusion.
> I don't think the posts of Nicolas could endanger life and limb, but
> if Steve wants to remind anyone willing to read his posts that
> Nicolas is frequently factually incorrect, and appears to state
> incorrect facts purely to the benefit of DAB, I don't see why you
> should object.
Thank you.
> Anyway, what did you expect to read in a thread entitled "Superb
> example of Croiset lying" started by DABSWTFM? Did someone put a gun
> to your head and force you to read it?
<to Mr Pelligo> If you answer that I'll blow your head off. Come on punk,
make my day.
> I think you can't resist Steve's posts really!
Absobleedinglutely.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> seani wrote:
>> You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. There are many reasons why
>> someone *may* be factually incorrect.
>
> Yes, but if they're consistently incorrect, they're either
> incompetent, biased, or lying.
Indeed.
> If their errors consistently benefit one side of a discussion, I know
> what conclusion most reasonable people would draw.
Absolutely. But the problem is that we can see his errors are blatant and
either deliberate or due to incompetence, whereas most people that read this
newsgroup won't know whether they're correct or incorrect. Richard L is one
of the more intelligent people on this newsgroup, but he doesn't have a good
understanding of digital comms and DSP, and he's tried to suggest on
numerous occasions that Nicolas is the expert on these matters, which
absolutely beggars belief. Anyway, I'm preaching to the converted here.
Really I should just try and avoid getting into any discussions with him at
all. He always behaves in exactly the same way, and it doesn't achieve
anything anyway, because I doubt there's anyone of influence that does read
this group, although you never know. I just couldn't resist starting a new
thread about that DMB vs DVB-H system comparison though, because it backs up
everything I've been saying for ages and that he just bullshits his way out
of each and every time. Sod him, he's a waste of space.
I'll try and avoid the subject until France declares that they're not going
to adopt DAB(v1). That I will not be able to resist!! ;-)
>> Clearly, Steve Green of HiFi World, you've given up on steady
>> employment in the vocation of your choice
FYI seani: No, I've not given up on full-time employment in engineering,
actually, although I've got far too much work on to be applying at the
moment.
> They still seem to be publishing his articles seani!
Don't wind him up like that, he'll be foaming at the mouth when he reads
that. ;-)
> I don't think being opinionated is going to do Steve much harm in the
> world of journalism.
Indeed, I do write a monthly column in the Opinion section after all.
> If he can get other people to plug the publication he freelances for,
> then so much the better.
Indeed. Thanks for the free advert seani. The more readers the merrier
AFAIAC. I'm not sure why you do it though, I thought you didn't like me?
Nicolas Croiset
>The following exchange between myself and Croiset is a perfect example that
>shows the way Croiset flagrantly lies whenever he feels like it.
>
>"Croiset >> whe you go under a bridge except
>>> tha you loose 0.5s of stream in T-DMB and you loose the burst and the
>>> duration until next burs, so you loose more than 5 seconds of video
>>> stream
>>
>>
>Me > Look, I've got other things to do. You're an incompetent buffoon, and I
>> don't have time to answer your lies. You've got the figures in that
>document
>> for time slicing delay and they quoted about 1 or 2 seconds, although it
>> depends on the implementation.
>
>Croiset: If the ime slicing is 1 or 2 s, the power consumption will be very
>high."
>
>
Why did you start a new thread ?
In this document from DVB-H, you have majors mistakes...
The antenna loss at :
200MHz is -25dBi
500MHz is -7dBi
Difference is : 18dB
Copy of one of your message last year :
---------------------------------------
The loss difference betwen band III and band IV is not like this.
0.5 * c / 200MHz = 0.75m
My mobile phone is 7cm tall. Antenna loss for mobile phone:
-10log10 (7cm / 75cm) = 10.3 dB
So 10.3 dB <> 25dB
-----------
There is something very strange also :
The DVB-H table in page 25 (detailed link budget) find a minimum field
strength of 71,3dbµV/m in urban indoor. This value is not the value
calculated by ETSI in TR102377 page 89 table 11.12, the minimal value is
between 91dBµV/m and 97 dBµV/m. difference between an oficial document
and a propaganda document is (for a C/N=6dB) : 23,7dB for the same
technology !!!!
I assume that ETSI is right and DVB-H document is wrong.
-----------
For the power consumption pourcentage does not mean anything, the only
one thing you can compare is to get 2 similar devices (1 T-DMB and 1
DVB-H) with full battery charge (same characteristics ) swhitch ON the
both receivers and watch television, the mobile which will switch OFF
the first is the one which have the higher power consumption. This test
had been made in France and the result is not in favour of DVB-H.
Other things are pure speculations.
Nicolas Croiset VDL
http://www.vdl.fr/
Nicolas Croiset
>I'll try and avoid the subject until France declares that they're not going
>to adopt DAB(v1). That I will not be able to resist!! ;-)
>
The French radio authority didn't declare anything today, they only
makes an abstract of all broadcasters requirements (which are
differents), it does not mean that the french radio authority will
follow this line.
The intermediate/final decision will come soon now, so wait and see.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>
>> I'll try and avoid the subject until France declares that they're
>> not going to adopt DAB(v1). That I will not be able to resist!! ;-)
>>
>
> The French radio authority didn't declare anything today, they only
> makes an abstract of all broadcasters requirements (which are
> differents), it does not mean that the french radio authority will
> follow this line.
I would be absolutely amazed if the French CSA chose to use the extremely
outdated and inefficient DABv1 system that the 5 biggest French radio
broadcasters are vehemently opposed to using!
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>>
>>> I'll try and avoid the subject until France declares that they're
>>> not going to adopt DAB(v1). That I will not be able to resist!! ;-)
>>>
>>
>> The French radio authority didn't declare anything today, they only
>> makes an abstract of all broadcasters requirements (which are
>> differents), it does not mean that the french radio authority will
>> follow this line.
>
>
>I would be absolutely amazed if the French CSA chose to use the extremely
>outdated and inefficient DABv1 system that the 5 biggest French radio
>broadcasters are vehemently opposed to using!
The 2 majors television company wants to use only MPEG4 on DVB-T in
France.
The french radio authority says there will be only MPEG2 on DVB-T but
the french government decided something else because there was a big
lobbying from receiver manufacturers like Sagem and Thomson for MPEG-4.
The result is that we have MPEG-2 for free television and MPEG-4 for
encrypt television.
So... wait and see.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>
>> The following exchange between myself and Croiset is a perfect
>> example that shows the way Croiset flagrantly lies whenever he feels
>> like it.
>>
>> "Croiset >> whe you go under a bridge except
>>>> tha you loose 0.5s of stream in T-DMB and you loose the burst and
>>>> the duration until next burs, so you loose more than 5 seconds of
>>>> video stream
>>>
>>>
>> Me > Look, I've got other things to do. You're an incompetent
>> buffoon, and I
>>> don't have time to answer your lies. You've got the figures in that
>>> document for time slicing delay and they quoted about 1 or 2
>>> seconds, although it depends on the implementation.
>>
>> Croiset: If the ime slicing is 1 or 2 s, the power consumption will
>> be very high."
>>
>>
>
> Why did you start a new thread ?
I started this new thread to point out to other people 2 examples where you
just make facts up as you go along and that anybody who can think logically
would be able to realise that you do make facts up as you go along from the
information given.
Basically, it is to shame you into recognising that you should not
continually lie in technical arguments. Judging by your 2 posts last night
and this morning on the DVB-H vs DMB thread, however, clearly it hasn't
worked, because you have lied in BOTH posts:
Post from last night:
"Why did you exclude the RS code (which is a part of MPEG2-TS which also
always exist on DVB-T) on T-DMB and you didn't exclude it in DVB-T part.
DVB-T bitrate = 4,354 Mbit/s included RS code in mpeg-2TS
DVB-T mux capacity after this exclusion : 4,354 *188/204 = 4.012 Mbit/s
result :
T-DMB : 1.091*4 = 4.364 Mbit/s
DVB-H : 4.012Mbit/s"
I corrected your lie by saying:
"You have just made up the fact that you have to multiply
4355 by 188/204.
Here's how I got to the value 4355 kbps:
DVB-T specification November 2004, page 49, Table E.6:
QPSK CR 2/3 GI 1/4 7 MHz channel, capacity = 5806 kbps
Multiply by 0.75 code rate for MPE-FEC:
DVB-H QPSK CR 2/3 mux capacity = 5806 x 0.75 = 4355 kbps"
And this morning's post:
"The capacity of a DVB-T multiplex is the capacity to transport the
MPEG-2TS stream.
The MPEG-2Ts stream have the RS code 188,204, cf EN 300744 chapter 4."
So, although I had already pointed out that you were wrong, because the
DVB-T capacity in the specification is after the RS decoder, you have
proceeded to lie again by saying that the DVB-T capacity is BEFORE the RS
decoder. Not only is that of absolutely no use to anybody, you have also
never read anything to suggest that this is true, so you have just
completely made it up. Thankfully, the DVB-T specification does explicitly
state that the multiplex capacity figures are AFTER the RS decoder:
DVB-T specification, Annex A, page 40:
"NOTE 2: The net bit rates after the Reed-Solomon decoder are also listed."
STOP LYING.
> In this document from DVB-H, you have majors mistakes...
>
> The antenna loss at :
>
> 200MHz is -25dBi
> 500MHz is -7dBi
> Difference is : 18dB
>
> Copy of one of your message last year :
> ---------------------------------------
> The loss difference betwen band III and band IV is not like this.
>
> 0.5 * c / 200MHz = 0.75m
>
> My mobile phone is 7cm tall. Antenna loss for mobile phone:
>
> -10log10 (7cm / 75cm) = 10.3 dB
>
> So 10.3 dB <> 25dB
As I pointed out yesterday, this is the minimum antenna loss due to the
physical dimensions of an antenna, which are governed by the laws of
physics. Other effects, such as loss due to capacitive coupling due to the
antenna being encased in plastic and surrounded by the user's hand are
excluded from this, but that will be what the DVB Project will be taking
into account.
> There is something very strange also :
>
> The DVB-H table in page 25 (detailed link budget) find a minimum field
> strength of 71,3dbµV/m in urban indoor. This value is not the value
> calculated by ETSI in TR102377 page 89 table 11.12, the minimal value
> is between 91dBµV/m and 97 dBµV/m. difference between an oficial
> document and a propaganda document is (for a C/N=6dB) : 23,7dB for
> the same technology !!!!
You always just quote total figures without actually understanding the
figures that go to make up these total figures. So you're going to have to
look at why the figures are different. That's probably beyond your
capabilities, because you don't actually understand the theory, but that's
what you're going to have to try and do.
> -----------
>
> For the power consumption pourcentage does not mean anything, the only
> one thing you can compare is to get 2 similar devices (1 T-DMB and 1
> DVB-H) with full battery charge (same characteristics ) swhitch ON the
> both receivers and watch television, the mobile which will switch OFF
> the first is the one which have the higher power consumption. This
> test had been made in France and the result is not in favour of DVB-H.
Page 5 of the DVB-H vs DMB document:
http://www.dvb-h-online.org:80/PDF/060217.DVB-H%20vs%20T-DMB%20System%20Comparison.pdf
"Time Division Multiplex Systems
T-DMB uses micro time slicing
DVB-H uses real time slicing
Conclusion: DVB-H has advantage in power consumption (average DVB-H 80mW,
T-DMB 250mW)"
This is absolutely true and it's best explained by the graph on here:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dvb-h_dab_dmb.htm#time-slicing
Using bit rate figures of 350 kbps (blue curve), which is about the same as
the bit rate you've been saying you're using, DMB, with its 1.09 Mbps
multiplex capacity (on the left hand side of the graph) only has a power
saving of 60%, whereas DVB-H with a multiplex capacity of say 6 Mbps has a
power saving of 90% also for 350 kbps blue curve.
Say power consumption without any power saving is X watts to begin with. If
the power saving is 60% then the power consumption is 0.4 X watts. If the
power saving is 90% then the power consumption is 0.1 X watts, therefore the
power consumption of DMB to the power consumption of DVB-H is:
0.4 X / 0.1 X = 4
That is, using that simple analysis, the power consumption of DMB is 4 times
higher than DVB-H, which is a similar figure to the ratio between 250 mW and
80 mW.
QED.
> Other things are pure speculations.
They provide supporting information.
And another interesting fact that I've only just noticed is this:
Page 32:
Network cost comparison
DMB VHF = 40.28 euros / bit/s
DMB L-band = 53.49 euros / bit/s
DVB-H VHF = 15.03 euros/bit/s
DVB-H UHF = 5.97 euros/bit/s
DVB-H L-band = 20.71 euros/bit/s
WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
DAB sounds worse than FM
What that actually suggests is that advances in technology are more likely
to be adopted than not.
Anyway, I'm more interested in what you have to say about this:
Page 32:
Network cost comparison
DMB VHF = 40.28 euros/bit/s
DMB L-band = 53.49 euros/bit/s
DVB-H VHF = 15.03 euros/bit/s
DVB-H UHF = 5.97 euros/bit/s
DVB-H L-band = 20.71 euros/bit/s
I'd say that's pretty conclusive.
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> I would be absolutely amazed if the French CSA chose to use the
>>> extremely outdated and inefficient DABv1 system that the 5 biggest
>>> French radio broadcasters are vehemently opposed to using!
>>
>> The 2 majors television company wants to use only MPEG4 on DVB-T in
>> France.
>>
>> The french radio authority says there will be only MPEG2 on DVB-T but
>> the french government decided something else because there was a big
>> lobbying from receiver manufacturers like Sagem and Thomson for
>> MPEG-4. The result is that we have MPEG-2 for free television and
>> MPEG-4 for encrypt television.
>>
>> So... wait and see.
>
>
>What that actually suggests is that advances in technology are more likely
>to be adopted than not.
>
>Anyway, I'm more interested in what you have to say about this:
>
>Page 32:
>
>Network cost comparison
>
>DMB VHF = 40.28 euros/bit/s
>DMB L-band = 53.49 euros/bit/s
>
>DVB-H VHF = 15.03 euros/bit/s
>DVB-H UHF = 5.97 euros/bit/s
>DVB-H L-band = 20.71 euros/bit/s
>
This CAPEX is based on parameters which are wrong before, so the
conclusion is wrong.
Nicolas Croiset
>
>>
>> The antenna loss at :
>>
>> 200MHz is -25dBi
>> 500MHz is -7dBi
>> Difference is : 18dB
>>
>> Copy of one of your message last year :
>> ---------------------------------------
>> The loss difference betwen band III and band IV is not like this.
>>
>> 0.5 * c / 200MHz = 0.75m
>>
>> My mobile phone is 7cm tall. Antenna loss for mobile phone:
>>
>> -10log10 (7cm / 75cm) = 10.3 dB
>>
>> So 10.3 dB <> 25dB
>
>
>As I pointed out yesterday, this is the minimum antenna loss due to the
>physical dimensions of an antenna, which are governed by the laws of
>physics. Other effects, such as loss due to capacitive coupling due to the
>antenna being encased in plastic and surrounded by the user's hand are
>excluded from this, but that will be what the DVB Project will be taking
>into account.
This problem exist on both technologies, it does not create a penalty of
15dB in one part and 0dB in the other part. If this value was so
important why they didn't create a specific colmun. They create a column
for Feeding loss ...
The reality you have no answer about this difference because it's only a
virtual penalty created by DVB-H group...
>
>
>> There is something very strange also :
>>
>> The DVB-H table in page 25 (detailed link budget) find a minimum field
>> strength of 71,3dbµV/m in urban indoor. This value is not the value
>> calculated by ETSI in TR102377 page 89 table 11.12, the minimal value
>> is between 91dBµV/m and 97 dBµV/m. difference between an oficial
>> document and a propaganda document is (for a C/N=6dB) : 23,7dB for
>> the same technology !!!!
>
>
>You always just quote total figures without actually understanding the
>figures that go to make up these total figures. So you're going to have to
>look at why the figures are different. That's probably beyond your
>capabilities, because you don't actually understand the theory, but that's
>what you're going to have to try and do.
You didn't answer why there is a difference of 23.7dB for the result in
minimum field strength between DVB-H group and an official organism
called ETSI for the same frequency and same modulation parameters.
When you see the detailed budget link and there is one major line
missing called "height loss". This document was made very seriously...
The conclusion about cost is fortunally wrong because the link budget is
wrong there is a problem around 23dB of difference not explained.
For the power consumption of devices, people who are really involved in
the tests already compare and know the answer. I am sure you didn't have
in your hand a DVB-H receiver and a T-DMB receiver.
For the efficiency if you use the parameters chosen in the DVB-H
document, DAB have a better efficiency than DVB-H
DVB-H : 3,28Mbit/s
DAB : 1,152Mbit/s*4*188/204 = 4,24Mbit/s.
There is also some parameters which could be very difficult to use in
the network cost comparison (page 23) :
In the DVB-H document, the parameters chosen for DVB-H network imply a
max SFN distance of 67km, but a tower of 200 m (suburban area TV tower)
the horizon distance is around 57km, so you will have interferences in
the SFN network and you won't receive anything. The same tower for DAB
does not create this kind of problem.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Nicolas, here's how technical discussions go: a claim is made and must be
backed up by relevant information that supports / validates the claim or
that claim is worthless, and should be ignored -- this supporting evidence
can either be in the form of a technical explanation, or by copying some
text that explains the matter, or by providing a link to a page or document
that provides supporting evidence.
Your claim is not backed up by any information whatsoever and is therefore
worthless and should be totally ignored.
What you need to do is to provide some figures that prove that the
parameters the DVB Project used in their document are incorrect. If you
cannot do that, and let's face it, you're a software engineer with
absolutely no understanding of engineering, so you won't be able to do this,
then the figures in the DVB Project document STAND and shall be accepted as
FACT.
Come on, Croissant, you claim you know what you're talking about, although I
KNOW you don't know what you're talking about, so let's see if you can
actually do some ... shock horror ... engineering?
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>>
>> This CAPEX is based on parameters which are wrong before, so the
>> conclusion is wrong.
>
>
>Nicolas, here's how technical discussions go: a claim is made and must be
>backed up by relevant information that supports / validates the claim or
>that claim is worthless, and should be ignored -- this supporting evidence
>can either be in the form of a technical explanation, or by copying some
>text that explains the matter, or by providing a link to a page or document
>that provides supporting evidence.
>
>Your claim is not backed up by any information whatsoever and is therefore
>worthless and should be totally ignored.
>
>What you need to do is to provide some figures that prove that the
>parameters the DVB Project used in their document are incorrect. If you
>cannot do that, and let's face it, you're a software engineer with
>absolutely no understanding of engineering, so you won't be able to do this,
>then the figures in the DVB Project document STAND and shall be accepted as
>FACT.
See on my last message in the same thread.
Message-ID: <tn8u62hiv8r3g6um6...@4ax.com>
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>>
>>> In this document from DVB-H, you have majors mistakes...
>>>
>>> The antenna loss at :
>>>
>>> 200MHz is -25dBi
>>> 500MHz is -7dBi
>>> Difference is : 18dB
>>>
>>> Copy of one of your message last year :
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> The loss difference betwen band III and band IV is not like this.
>>>
>>> 0.5 * c / 200MHz = 0.75m
>>>
>>> My mobile phone is 7cm tall. Antenna loss for mobile phone:
>>>
>>> -10log10 (7cm / 75cm) = 10.3 dB
>>>
>>> So 10.3 dB <> 25dB
>>
>>
>> As I pointed out yesterday, this is the minimum antenna loss due to
>> the physical dimensions of an antenna, which are governed by the
>> laws of physics. Other effects, such as loss due to capacitive
>> coupling due to the antenna being encased in plastic and surrounded
>> by the user's hand are excluded from this, but that will be what the
>> DVB Project will be taking into account.
>
> This problem exist on both technologies,
Is that your "engineering" explanation? You have not got a clue what you're
talking about, have you?
> it does not create a penalty
> of 15dB in one part and 0dB in the other part.
You need to be able to explain WHY it doesn't create a penalty of 18 dB (not
15 dB). Just saying that they're wrong doesn't explain anything. Welcome to
engineering, Croiset.
> If this value was so
> important why they didn't create a specific colmun. They create a
> column for Feeding loss ...
You seem to be doing the Usenet equivalent of muttering to yourself under
your breath. Please explain what on earth you are going on about.
> The reality you have no answer about this difference because it's
> only a virtual penalty created by DVB-H group...
So your explanation for why there should not be an 18 dB penalty for the DMB
transmitter is that the nasty horrible DVB-H group made it up by magic?
Croiset, you're the one that makes things appear from nowhere.
Let's have an explanation why the 18 dB difference doesn't apply, or else it
will be accepted as fact. I've found around 8 dB of the difference due to
the antenna dimensions relationship to the transmission frequency, so you
cannot disprove those 8 dB. You now have to disprove that the other 10 dB
applies to limit the difference to 8 dB, or else the 18 dB difference will
be accepted as fact.
>>> There is something very strange also :
>>>
>>> The DVB-H table in page 25 (detailed link budget) find a minimum
>>> field strength of 71,3dbµV/m in urban indoor. This value is not the
>>> value calculated by ETSI in TR102377 page 89 table 11.12, the
>>> minimal value is between 91dBµV/m and 97 dBµV/m. difference between
>>> an oficial document and a propaganda document is (for a C/N=6dB) :
>>> 23,7dB for the same technology !!!!
>>
>>
>> You always just quote total figures without actually understanding
>> the figures that go to make up these total figures. So you're going
>> to have to look at why the figures are different. That's probably
>> beyond your capabilities, because you don't actually understand the
>> theory, but that's what you're going to have to try and do.
>
> You didn't answer why there is a difference of 23.7dB for the result
> in minimum field strength between DVB-H group and an official organism
> called ETSI for the same frequency and same modulation parameters.
It's not for me to prove or disprove anything. As it stands, the documents
that the DVB-H group have published up to now have all been accurate, so I
see no reason to dispute the accuracy of the new document. Therefore, you
have to provide an explanation why the 23.7 dB does *not* apply.
I look forward to seeing Nicolas Croiset's FIRST EVER attempt at making an
engineering explanation on alt.radio.digital. This really will be very
entertaining.
> When you see the detailed budget link and there is one major line
> missing called "height loss". This document was made very seriously...
What page number? Which document? Which table? You're muttering under your
breath again.
> The conclusion about cost is fortunally wrong because the link budget
> is wrong there is a problem around 23dB of difference not explained.
No, you have to be able to prove WHY the 23 dB doesn't apply.
> For the power consumption of devices, people who are really involved
> in the tests already compare and know the answer.
Judging by the dishonesty of EVER DAB supporter I've ever come across, there
is absolutely no way I would believe a DAB supporter to be honest when
comparing power consumption, and I am even less inclined to believe you
passing on the information from a DAB supporter comparing power consumption.
> I am sure you
> didn't have in your hand a DVB-H receiver and a T-DMB receiver.
That is true, but theory strongly suggests that DVB-H will have by far the
lower power consumption, so you need to be able to explain WHY the DMB
receiver could possibly overturn the result dictated by theory. I realise
you don't understand the relevant theory, but that really suggests that you
shouldn't be discussing this with me.
> For the efficiency if you use the parameters chosen in the DVB-H
> document, DAB have a better efficiency than DVB-H
>
> DVB-H : 3,28Mbit/s
Another lie. And this lie was obviously deliberate, not as a result of your
incompetence. And the fact that you have now quoted a multiplex capacity of
3.28 Mbps shows that you do actually know how to calculate multiplex
capacities correctly from the DVB-T specification, so your post from last
night and the first post from today were also deliberate lies.
They have said in the assumptions on page 24 what the multiplex capacities
are for VHF, UHF and L-band. They're all different, whereas you are claiming
that they only use the VHF figure, because it's lower than the UHF figure.
The truth is though that the lowest network cost is for DVB-H in UHF, which
is also the highest multiplex capacity of 3.75 Mbps.
However, what myself and Pierre were discussing yesterday were figures from
MY website, which are for digital RADIO not mobile TV, and I was using QPSK
CR 2/3, not QPSK CR 1/2.
> DAB : 1,152Mbit/s*4*188/204 = 4,24Mbit/s.
>
> There is also some parameters which could be very difficult to use in
> the network cost comparison (page 23) :
>
> In the DVB-H document, the parameters chosen for DVB-H network imply a
> max SFN distance of 67km, but a tower of 200 m (suburban area TV
> tower) the horizon distance is around 57km, so you will have
> interferences in the SFN network and you won't receive anything. The
> same tower for DAB does not create this kind of problem.
CLASSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
What an absolutely superb display of utter incompetence. Words fail me. You
actually do not have a brain at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's the guard interval durations:
DAB Transmission Mode 1 = 246 us
DVB-H 8 MHz channel GI 1/4 = 224 us
DVB-H 7 MHz channel GI 1/4 = 256 us
Horizon distance? Have you been taking hallucinogens again?
DAB sounds worse than FM
So when I ask for some engineering explanations, you refer me to your last
post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.radio.digital/msg/8f77314a3a8944a2
which is the post that I was replying to where I was asking you to provide
the engineering explanations? You must have an IQ of about 40, you utter
moron.
Thanks for confirming though that you CANNOT provide any engineering
explanations.
Stick to computer science.
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>>>
>>>> In this document from DVB-H, you have majors mistakes...
>>>>
>>>> The antenna loss at :
>>>>
>>>> 200MHz is -25dBi
>>>> 500MHz is -7dBi
>>>> Difference is : 18dB
>>>>
>>>> Copy of one of your message last year :
>>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>> The loss difference betwen band III and band IV is not like this.
>>>>
>>>> 0.5 * c / 200MHz = 0.75m
>>>>
>>>> My mobile phone is 7cm tall. Antenna loss for mobile phone:
>>>>
>>>> -10log10 (7cm / 75cm) = 10.3 dB
>>>>
>>>> So 10.3 dB <> 25dB
>>>
>>>
>>> As I pointed out yesterday, this is the minimum antenna loss due to
>>> the physical dimensions of an antenna, which are governed by the
>>> laws of physics. Other effects, such as loss due to capacitive
>>> coupling due to the antenna being encased in plastic and surrounded
>>> by the user's hand are excluded from this, but that will be what the
>>> DVB Project will be taking into account.
>>
>> This problem exist on both technologies,
>
>
>Is that your "engineering" explanation? You have not got a clue what you're
>talking about, have you?
>
DVB-H group create a penalty of 15 dB without explanation. I don't have
it. I just say the antenna loss is not the one DVB-H group use in the
document.
I also understand that you don't have this answer also so this value is
wrong...
>
>> it does not create a penalty
>> of 15dB in one part and 0dB in the other part.
>
>
>You need to be able to explain WHY it doesn't create a penalty of 18 dB (not
>15 dB). Just saying that they're wrong doesn't explain anything. Welcome to
>engineering, Croiset.
I don't need to explain anything. The antenna loss calculated for T-DMB
is not the one they used...
DVB-H group must explain the difference not me.
>> The reality you have no answer about this difference because it's
>> only a virtual penalty created by DVB-H group...
>
>
>So your explanation for why there should not be an 18 dB penalty for the DMB
>transmitter is that the nasty horrible DVB-H group made it up by magic?
>Croiset, you're the one that makes things appear from nowhere.
Why not ?
>
>Let's have an explanation why the 18 dB difference doesn't apply, or else it
>will be accepted as fact. I've found around 8 dB of the difference due to
>the antenna dimensions relationship to the transmission frequency, so you
>cannot disprove those 8 dB. You now have to disprove that the other 10 dB
>applies to limit the difference to 8 dB, or else the 18 dB difference will
>be accepted as fact.
10 dB of loss for the antenna in band III could be possible in some
cases, it depends of the structure of the antenna. But 25dB is NOT
possible.
DAB infrastructrure in band III is already calculate with a field
strength for an antenna loss of 2.2dB.
>
>
>>>> There is something very strange also :
>>>>
>>>> The DVB-H table in page 25 (detailed link budget) find a minimum
>>>> field strength of 71,3db猩/m in urban indoor. This value is not the
>>>> value calculated by ETSI in TR102377 page 89 table 11.12, the
>>>> minimal value is between 91dB猩/m and 97 dB猩/m. difference between
>>>> an oficial document and a propaganda document is (for a C/N=6dB) :
>>>> 23,7dB for the same technology !!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> You always just quote total figures without actually understanding
>>> the figures that go to make up these total figures. So you're going
>>> to have to look at why the figures are different. That's probably
>>> beyond your capabilities, because you don't actually understand the
>>> theory, but that's what you're going to have to try and do.
>>
>> You didn't answer why there is a difference of 23.7dB for the result
>> in minimum field strength between DVB-H group and an official organism
>> called ETSI for the same frequency and same modulation parameters.
>
>
>It's not for me to prove or disprove anything. As it stands, the documents
>that the DVB-H group have published up to now have all been accurate, so I
>see no reason to dispute the accuracy of the new document. Therefore, you
>have to provide an explanation why the 23.7 dB does *not* apply.
Personnaly I prefer to agree with ETSI, because it's a non profit
organisation which don't makes money with one or an another one
technology. The values from ETSI are 23.7dB (transmitterpower multiply
by 234) higher than DVB-H group.
>
>I look forward to seeing Nicolas Croiset's FIRST EVER attempt at making an
>engineering explanation on alt.radio.digital. This really will be very
>entertaining.
>
>
>> When you see the detailed budget link and there is one major line
>> missing called "height loss". This document was made very seriously...
>
>
>What page number? Which document? Which table? You're muttering under your
>breath again.
>
http://www.dvb-h.org/PDF/060217.DVB-H%20vs%20T-DMB%20System%20Comparison.pdf
Page 25
>
>> The conclusion about cost is fortunally wrong because the link budget
>> is wrong there is a problem around 23dB of difference not explained.
>
>
>No, you have to be able to prove WHY the 23 dB doesn't apply.
it's proved by ETSI. I don't have to do more. if ETSI is wrong, prove
it.
>
>> I am sure you
>> didn't have in your hand a DVB-H receiver and a T-DMB receiver.
>
>
>That is true, but theory strongly suggests that DVB-H will have by far the
>lower power consumption, so you need to be able to explain WHY the DMB
>receiver could possibly overturn the result dictated by theory. I realise
>you don't understand the relevant theory, but that really suggests that you
>shouldn't be discussing this with me.
you just have theory and you use percentage, your departure is only
based on some assertions from companies. But you didn't verify in the
real world what all people claims about power consumtion is real.
Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?
>
>
>> For the efficiency if you use the parameters chosen in the DVB-H
>> document, DAB have a better efficiency than DVB-H
>>
>> DVB-H : 3,28Mbit/s
>
>
>Another lie. And this lie was obviously deliberate, not as a result of your
>incompetence. And the fact that you have now quoted a multiplex capacity of
>3.28 Mbps shows that you do actually know how to calculate multiplex
>capacities correctly from the DVB-T specification, so your post from last
>night and the first post from today were also deliberate lies.
I repeat what I said, in the DVB-H document they use these parameters
and the efficiency on DAB is better than DVB-H in this case (page 24).
>
>
>> DAB : 1,152Mbit/s*4*188/204 = 4,24Mbit/s.
>>
>> There is also some parameters which could be very difficult to use in
>> the network cost comparison (page 23) :
>>
>> In the DVB-H document, the parameters chosen for DVB-H network imply a
>> max SFN distance of 67km, but a tower of 200 m (suburban area TV
>> tower) the horizon distance is around 57km, so you will have
>> interferences in the SFN network and you won't receive anything. The
>> same tower for DAB does not create this kind of problem.
>
>
>CLASSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!
>
>What an absolutely superb display of utter incompetence. Words fail me. You
>actually do not have a brain at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Here's the guard interval durations:
>
>DAB Transmission Mode 1 = 246 us
>
>DVB-H 8 MHz channel GI 1/4 = 224 us
>DVB-H 7 MHz channel GI 1/4 = 256 us
>
>Horizon distance? Have you been taking hallucinogens again?
If you want to protect one area between an another one you must not
broadcast too far away with the transmitter. With a 200m mast height
(and power 40kWERP) the coverage of this transmitter will go far away
than the max SFN distance so you will have interferences.
In DAB, even if the signal goes higher than the guard interval it does
not generate an interference immediatly. There is a lot of examples
around Europe in DAB implementation. With 246盜 you are a little bit
more relax for the distance and it's enough for the horizon radio at
57km.
For more details cf chapter 1 :
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_295-brugger.pdf
But I forget that you know only theory not practice so you can't
understand this kind of problems in the implementation of a network.
Richard L
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> I would be absolutely amazed if the French CSA chose to use the extremely
> outdated and inefficient DABv1 system that the 5 biggest French radio
> broadcasters are vehemently opposed to using!
One might hope that the CSA will be guided mainly by the interests of
listeners, not of the broadcasters. The interests of listeners would
be served best by a well-supported technology which provides a wide
choice of receivers at reasonable cost, and which allows good coverage
of France's wide-open spaces without requiring an unaffordably dense
transmitter network.
Remember that Radio France has been broadcasting on DAB at bit rates
above 192 kbit/s, so it doesn't follow that audio quality will suffer
from a vote for DAB.
No doubt the CSA will be aware of the cost burden which was imposed on
French television viewers over several decades by the choice of a
television standard which was different from everybody else's. It
undoubtedly benefited French industry at the time, but today things
are different.
--
Richard L.
DAB sounds worse than FM
No, what I said was that I cannot provide you with detailed analysis that
accounts for the difference, but I have said that there is an 8 dB
difference due to antenna dimensions and the rest will be due to capacitive
coupling between the antenna and the plastic casing of the phone and the
user's hand when they make a phone call.
All you seem able to do is say "I don't like this result, therefore it is
wrong".
The truth is that you have not got a clue what you're talking about.
>>> it does not create a penalty
>>> of 15dB in one part and 0dB in the other part.
>>
>>
>> You need to be able to explain WHY it doesn't create a penalty of 18
>> dB (not 15 dB). Just saying that they're wrong doesn't explain
>> anything. Welcome to engineering, Croiset.
>
> I don't need to explain anything. The antenna loss calculated for
> T-DMB is not the one they used...
> DVB-H group must explain the difference not me.
The DVB Project is probably the most successful digital broadcasting body on
earth. It is responsible for DVB-S, DVB-C, DVB-T and DVB-H, all of which are
excellent systems for their respective applications.
The DVB Project has been consistently honest, whereas DAB supporters have
been consistently dishonest.
In conclusion, because of DVB's track record then they should be believed
unless you can prove that they're wrong.
When DAB supporters make claims I PROVE that they're wrong. Now it's your
turn.
>>> The reality you have no answer about this difference because it's
>>> only a virtual penalty created by DVB-H group...
>>
>>
>> So your explanation for why there should not be an 18 dB penalty for
>> the DMB transmitter is that the nasty horrible DVB-H group made it
>> up by magic? Croiset, you're the one that makes things appear from
>> nowhere.
>
> Why not ?
Why not? Because making things appear out of thin air is totally dishonest,
and there is no room for dishonesty in engineering -- there are correct and
incorrect answers in engineering, but you deliberately provide incorrect
answers because you are a liar and an incompetent but you try to pass the
answers off as true.
>> Let's have an explanation why the 18 dB difference doesn't apply, or
>> else it will be accepted as fact. I've found around 8 dB of the
>> difference due to the antenna dimensions relationship to the
>> transmission frequency, so you cannot disprove those 8 dB. You now
>> have to disprove that the other 10 dB applies to limit the
>> difference to 8 dB, or else the 18 dB difference will be accepted as
>> fact.
>
> 10 dB of loss for the antenna in band III could be possible in some
> cases, it depends of the structure of the antenna. But 25dB is NOT
> possible.
Explain why 25 dB is not possible. You cannot merely say "25dB is NOT
possible."
In an engineering exam at university, if you were asked "why is 25 dB
antenna loss not correct for Band III reception when the antenna is
integrated into the mobile phone?", how many marks out of 10 do you think
you would get for the answer "25dB is NOT possible."? If I marked your exam
paper you would receive 0/10.
> DAB infrastructrure in band III is already calculate with a field
> strength for an antenna loss of 2.2dB.
You utter fool, that is for half-wave dipoles tuned to Band III frequencies.
Mobile phones are not 75cm in length, because you'd need very long pockets
to fit them in.
The DVB-H Implementation Guidelines will have been written by the DVB-H
group, and all ETSI will do is approve the documents. So it's the same
people that wrote both documents.
>> I look forward to seeing Nicolas Croiset's FIRST EVER attempt at
>> making an engineering explanation on alt.radio.digital. This really
>> will be very entertaining.
>>
>>
>>> When you see the detailed budget link and there is one major line
>>> missing called "height loss". This document was made very
>>> seriously...
>>
>>
>> What page number? Which document? Which table? You're muttering
>> under your breath again.
>>
>
http://www.dvb-h.org/PDF/060217.DVB-H%20vs%20T-DMB%20System%20Comparison.pdf
>
> Page 25
What, so you're saying that DVB-H suffers height loss but DMB does not
suffer from height loss? Are you an imbecile?
>>> The conclusion about cost is fortunally wrong because the link
>>> budget is wrong there is a problem around 23dB of difference not
>>> explained.
>>
>>
>> No, you have to be able to prove WHY the 23 dB doesn't apply.
>
> it's proved by ETSI. I don't have to do more. if ETSI is wrong, prove
> it.
The DVB-H Implementation Guidelines will have been written by the DVB-H
group, and all ETSI will do is approve the documents. So it's the same
people that wrote both documents.
>>> I am sure you
>>> didn't have in your hand a DVB-H receiver and a T-DMB receiver.
>>
>>
>> That is true, but theory strongly suggests that DVB-H will have by
>> far the lower power consumption, so you need to be able to explain
>> WHY the DMB receiver could possibly overturn the result dictated by
>> theory. I realise you don't understand the relevant theory, but that
>> really suggests that you shouldn't be discussing this with me.
>
> you just have theory and you use percentage, your departure is only
> based on some assertions from companies. But you didn't verify in the
> real world what all people claims about power consumtion is real.
My extremely simple "ballpark" calculation suggested that DVB-H consumes
about 1/4 the power of DMB receivers, and the DVB Project's document shows
that DVB-H receivers consume about 1/3rd the power of DMB receivers,
therefore my simple calculation back up the figures quoted by the DVB
Project.
Therefore, your claim is merely of the kind "I don't like their answer,
therefore it is wrong".
You need to start justifying your claims.
> Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
> consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?
I take it you're taking the piss? Do you really expect ME to buy a DAB
personal radio?
>>> For the efficiency if you use the parameters chosen in the DVB-H
>>> document, DAB have a better efficiency than DVB-H
>>>
>>> DVB-H : 3,28Mbit/s
>>
>>
>> Another lie. And this lie was obviously deliberate, not as a result
>> of your incompetence. And the fact that you have now quoted a
>> multiplex capacity of
>> 3.28 Mbps shows that you do actually know how to calculate multiplex
>> capacities correctly from the DVB-T specification, so your post from
>> last night and the first post from today were also deliberate lies.
>
> I repeat what I said, in the DVB-H document they use these parameters
> and the efficiency on DAB is better than DVB-H in this case (page 24).
So you're repeating a lie? That doesn't surprise me.
At least this explanation shows that you are able to provide explanations on
things that you have some knowledge about -- you do work for a DAB
transmission company, after all. Unfortunately, what the explanation also
implies is that you don't understand the digital communications aspects of
DAB, DMB, DVB-H etc, because if you did then you would be able to provide
reasoned arguments rather than merely saying "I don't like their result,
therefore it is wrong".
You need to be able to back up all your claims with explanations or
documentary evidence. If you cannot do that, then don't expect me to take
anything you say seriously.
Regarding your explanation, DAB has a guard interval of 246us and DVB-H has
a guard interval of 224us for 8 MHz channels and 256us for 7 MHz channels,
and it is true that DAB is slightly more forgiving than DVB-H for signals
that arrive after the end of the guard interval. However, all you seem to be
saying is that 200m transmitters cannot be used on DVB-H for SFNs. That's
bullshit. DAB transmitters can be placed slightly farther apart than DVB-H
transmitters in an SFN, but that does not rule out DVB-H from using 200m
high transmitters in SFNs.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>
> ~
> ~ But I forget that you know only theory not practice so you can't
> ~ understand this kind of problems in the implementation of a network.
> ~
>
> Excellent Nicolas!! La France, dix points :-))
Mr Pelligo, you've been acting like a Yorkshire terrier for some time now --
i.e. following me around yapping at my feet but at the same time being
totally inconsequential.
The tried and tested technique for dealing with people like yourself is
simply to place you in my killfile, because that starves you of what you
desire: you desire to wind me up, so if I don't read your posts I'm not even
aware of your nonsense.
*plonk*
Nicolas Croiset
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>
>>>> it does not create a penalty
>>>> of 15dB in one part and 0dB in the other part.
>>>
>>>
>>> You need to be able to explain WHY it doesn't create a penalty of 18
>>> dB (not 15 dB). Just saying that they're wrong doesn't explain
>>> anything. Welcome to engineering, Croiset.
>>
>> I don't need to explain anything. The antenna loss calculated for
>> T-DMB is not the one they used...
>> DVB-H group must explain the difference not me.
>
>
>The DVB Project is probably the most successful digital broadcasting body on
>earth. It is responsible for DVB-S, DVB-C, DVB-T and DVB-H, all of which are
>excellent systems for their respective applications.
>
>The DVB Project has been consistently honest, whereas DAB supporters have
>been consistently dishonest.
>
>In conclusion, because of DVB's track record then they should be believed
>unless you can prove that they're wrong.
>
>When DAB supporters make claims I PROVE that they're wrong. Now it's your
>turn.
When you create a big difference between theory and the value you used,
you MUST explain why (in this case antenna loss difference is about
15dB).
I personnaly have no xeplanation for this difference AND you don't have
also an explanation about this. When you have an explanation you ALWAYS
search to prove it and in this case you write nothing except blah blah.
>>> Let's have an explanation why the 18 dB difference doesn't apply, or
>>> else it will be accepted as fact. I've found around 8 dB of the
>>> difference due to the antenna dimensions relationship to the
>>> transmission frequency, so you cannot disprove those 8 dB. You now
>>> have to disprove that the other 10 dB applies to limit the
>>> difference to 8 dB, or else the 18 dB difference will be accepted as
>>> fact.
>>
>> 10 dB of loss for the antenna in band III could be possible in some
>> cases, it depends of the structure of the antenna. But 25dB is NOT
>> possible.
>
>
>Explain why 25 dB is not possible. You cannot merely say "25dB is NOT
>possible."
>
>In an engineering exam at university, if you were asked "why is 25 dB
>antenna loss not correct for Band III reception when the antenna is
>integrated into the mobile phone?", how many marks out of 10 do you think
>you would get for the answer "25dB is NOT possible."? If I marked your exam
>paper you would receive 0/10.
Yes it's NOT possible and you can't prove how they find this loss.
>
>
>> DAB infrastructrure in band III is already calculate with a field
>> strength for an antenna loss of 2.2dB.
>
>
>You utter fool, that is for half-wave dipoles tuned to Band III frequencies.
>Mobile phones are not 75cm in length, because you'd need very long pockets
>to fit them in.
>
Where did I spoke about mobile phone in this part of my answer ?
>
>>>>>> There is something very strange also :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DVB-H table in page 25 (detailed link budget) find a minimum
>>>>>> field strength of 71,3dbµV/m in urban indoor. This value is not
>>>>>> the value calculated by ETSI in TR102377 page 89 table 11.12, the
>>>>>> minimal value is between 91dBµV/m and 97 dBµV/m. difference
>>>>>> between an oficial document and a propaganda document is (for a
>>>>>> C/N=6dB) : 23,7dB for the same technology !!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You always just quote total figures without actually understanding
>>>>> the figures that go to make up these total figures. So you're going
>>>>> to have to look at why the figures are different. That's probably
>>>>> beyond your capabilities, because you don't actually understand the
>>>>> theory, but that's what you're going to have to try and do.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't answer why there is a difference of 23.7dB for the result
>>>> in minimum field strength between DVB-H group and an official
>>>> organism called ETSI for the same frequency and same modulation
>>>> parameters.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not for me to prove or disprove anything. As it stands, the
>>> documents that the DVB-H group have published up to now have all
>>> been accurate, so I see no reason to dispute the accuracy of the new
>>> document. Therefore, you have to provide an explanation why the 23.7
>>> dB does *not* apply.
>>
>> Personnaly I prefer to agree with ETSI, because it's a non profit
>> organisation which don't makes money with one or an another one
>> technology. The values from ETSI are 23.7dB (transmitterpower multiply
>> by 234) higher than DVB-H group.
>
>
>The DVB-H Implementation Guidelines will have been written by the DVB-H
>group, and all ETSI will do is approve the documents. So it's the same
>people that wrote both documents.
Not exactly, the document from DVB-H group had been written by Nokia and
then this document had been labelised DVB-H.
ETSI generaly verify everything and you can't wrote wrong information.
So only the information from ETSI is good and there is 23.7dB of
difference between a lobbying document and a technical document. This
difference is not in favour of DVB-H.
>
>
>>> I look forward to seeing Nicolas Croiset's FIRST EVER attempt at
>>> making an engineering explanation on alt.radio.digital. This really
>>> will be very entertaining.
>>>
>>>
>>>> When you see the detailed budget link and there is one major line
>>>> missing called "height loss". This document was made very
>>>> seriously...
>>>
>>>
>>> What page number? Which document? Which table? You're muttering
>>> under your breath again.
>>>
>>
>http://www.dvb-h.org/PDF/060217.DVB-H%20vs%20T-DMB%20System%20Comparison.pdf
>>
>> Page 25
>
>
>What, so you're saying that DVB-H suffers height loss but DMB does not
>suffer from height loss? Are you an imbecile?
I did say that ?
I only said that there is a line missing in the link budget and by
consequence it was not seriously made.
>
>
>>>> The conclusion about cost is fortunally wrong because the link
>>>> budget is wrong there is a problem around 23dB of difference not
>>>> explained.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you have to be able to prove WHY the 23 dB doesn't apply.
>>
>> it's proved by ETSI. I don't have to do more. if ETSI is wrong, prove
>> it.
>
>
>The DVB-H Implementation Guidelines will have been written by the DVB-H
>group, and all ETSI will do is approve the documents. So it's the same
>people that wrote both documents.
DVB-H documents on the Website from http://www.dvb-h.org are not
validated by ETSI, only documents published on this website
http://portal.etsi.org are validated by ETSI.
So if the documents from http://www.dvb-h.org may have some mistakes and
it is the case for this document in particular.
>
>
>>>> I am sure you
>>>> didn't have in your hand a DVB-H receiver and a T-DMB receiver.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is true, but theory strongly suggests that DVB-H will have by
>>> far the lower power consumption, so you need to be able to explain
>>> WHY the DMB receiver could possibly overturn the result dictated by
>>> theory. I realise you don't understand the relevant theory, but that
>>> really suggests that you shouldn't be discussing this with me.
>>
>> you just have theory and you use percentage, your departure is only
>> based on some assertions from companies. But you didn't verify in the
>> real world what all people claims about power consumtion is real.
>
>
>My extremely simple "ballpark" calculation suggested that DVB-H consumes
>about 1/4 the power of DMB receivers, and the DVB Project's document shows
>that DVB-H receivers consume about 1/3rd the power of DMB receivers,
>therefore my simple calculation back up the figures quoted by the DVB
>Project.
Yes it's a document from DVB-H project, did you verify it ? Certainly
not.
Can you explain in details your calculation about the power consumption
of a DMB receiver ?
>
>Therefore, your claim is merely of the kind "I don't like their answer,
>therefore it is wrong".
>
>You need to start justifying your claims.
>
>> Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
>> consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?
>
>I take it you're taking the piss? Do you really expect ME to buy a DAB
>personal radio?
So you didn't do this so you are unable to know the answer... It just
prove that your assertion are made without any verifications.
All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions.
>
>
>>>> For the efficiency if you use the parameters chosen in the DVB-H
>>>> document, DAB have a better efficiency than DVB-H
>>>>
>>>> DVB-H : 3,28Mbit/s
>>>
>>>
>>> Another lie. And this lie was obviously deliberate, not as a result
>>> of your incompetence. And the fact that you have now quoted a
>>> multiplex capacity of
>>> 3.28 Mbps shows that you do actually know how to calculate multiplex
>>> capacities correctly from the DVB-T specification, so your post from
>>> last night and the first post from today were also deliberate lies.
>>
>> I repeat what I said, in the DVB-H document they use these parameters
>> and the efficiency on DAB is better than DVB-H in this case (page 24).
>
>
>So you're repeating a lie? That doesn't surprise me.
It's not a lie it's the real world.
>
>
>>>> DAB : 1,152Mbit/s*4*188/204 = 4,24Mbit/s.
>>>>
>>>> There is also some parameters which could be very difficult to use
>>>> in the network cost comparison (page 23) :
>>>>
>>>> In the DVB-H document, the parameters chosen for DVB-H network
>>>> imply a max SFN distance of 67km, but a tower of 200 m (suburban
>>>> area TV tower) the horizon distance is around 57km, so you will have
>>>> interferences in the SFN network and you won't receive anything. The
>>>> same tower for DAB does not create this kind of problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>CLASSIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> !
>>>
>>> What an absolutely superb display of utter incompetence. Words fail
>>> me. You actually do not have a brain at
>>> all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Here's the guard interval durations:
>>>
>>> DAB Transmission Mode 1 = 246 us
>>>
>>> DVB-H 8 MHz channel GI 1/4 = 224 us
>>> DVB-H 7 MHz channel GI 1/4 = 256 us
>>>
>>> Horizon distance? Have you been taking hallucinogens again?
>>
>> If you want to protect one area between an another one you must not
>> broadcast too far away with the transmitter. With a 200m mast height
>> (and power 40kWERP) the coverage of this transmitter will go far away
>> than the max SFN distance so you will have interferences.
>>
>> In DAB, even if the signal goes higher than the guard interval it does
>> not generate an interference immediatly. There is a lot of examples
>> around Europe in DAB implementation. With 246µs you are a little bit
>> more relax for the distance and it's enough for the horizon radio at
>> 57km.
>>
>> For more details cf chapter 1 :
>> http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_295-brugger.pdf
>>
>> But I forget that you know only theory not practice so you can't
>> understand this kind of problems in the implementation of a network.
>
>
>At least this explanation shows that you are able to provide explanations on
>things that you have some knowledge about -- you do work for a DAB
>transmission company, after all. Unfortunately, what the explanation also
>implies is that you don't understand the digital communications aspects of
>DAB, DMB, DVB-H etc, because if you did then you would be able to provide
>reasoned arguments rather than merely saying "I don't like their result,
>therefore it is wrong".
>
>You need to be able to back up all your claims with explanations or
>documentary evidence. If you cannot do that, then don't expect me to take
>anything you say seriously.
>
>Regarding your explanation, DAB has a guard interval of 246us and DVB-H has
>a guard interval of 224us for 8 MHz channels and 256us for 7 MHz channels,
>and it is true that DAB is slightly more forgiving than DVB-H for signals
>that arrive after the end of the guard interval. However, all you seem to be
>saying is that 200m transmitters cannot be used on DVB-H for SFNs. That's
>bullshit. DAB transmitters can be placed slightly farther apart than DVB-H
>transmitters in an SFN, but that does not rule out DVB-H from using 200m
>high transmitters in SFNs.
You didn't prove anything except a lot of blah blah.
"Ne cherchez pas à noyer le poisson".
When you see they made the same mistake in L band for the network
infrastructure (for DAB and DVB-H), I am laughing....
All the CAPEX is based on wrong technical values :
- Wrong implentation of SFN (so wrong costs for transmitters network)
- Wrong antenna loss for DMB band III (so wrong power for the
transmitters)
- Absence of height loss (incomplete "detailed" budget link, so wrong
power for transmitters)
So the result is fortunaly false.
End of discussion.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>
>>>>> it does not create a penalty
>>>>> of 15dB in one part and 0dB in the other part.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to be able to explain WHY it doesn't create a penalty of
>>>> 18 dB (not 15 dB). Just saying that they're wrong doesn't explain
>>>> anything. Welcome to engineering, Croiset.
>>>
>>> I don't need to explain anything. The antenna loss calculated for
>>> T-DMB is not the one they used...
>>> DVB-H group must explain the difference not me.
>>
>>
>> The DVB Project is probably the most successful digital broadcasting
>> body on earth. It is responsible for DVB-S, DVB-C, DVB-T and DVB-H,
>> all of which are excellent systems for their respective applications.
>>
>> The DVB Project has been consistently honest, whereas DAB supporters
>> have been consistently dishonest.
>>
>> In conclusion, because of DVB's track record then they should be
>> believed unless you can prove that they're wrong.
>>
>> When DAB supporters make claims I PROVE that they're wrong. Now it's
>> your turn.
>
> When you create a big difference between theory and the value you
> used, you MUST explain why (in this case antenna loss difference is
> about 15dB).
You're the one disputing the figure, so YOU HAVE TO explain what is wrong
with the figure.
> I personnaly have no xeplanation for this difference
Indeed, because you have no idea of any of this.
> AND you don't
> have also an explanation about this.
I do, I've said a few times it's to do with capacitive coupling.
> When you have an explanation you
> ALWAYS search to prove it and in this case you write nothing except
> blah blah.
I'm not the person disputing the figure, you are.
>>>> Let's have an explanation why the 18 dB difference doesn't apply,
>>>> or else it will be accepted as fact. I've found around 8 dB of the
>>>> difference due to the antenna dimensions relationship to the
>>>> transmission frequency, so you cannot disprove those 8 dB. You now
>>>> have to disprove that the other 10 dB applies to limit the
>>>> difference to 8 dB, or else the 18 dB difference will be accepted
>>>> as fact.
>>>
>>> 10 dB of loss for the antenna in band III could be possible in some
>>> cases, it depends of the structure of the antenna. But 25dB is NOT
>>> possible.
>>
>>
>> Explain why 25 dB is not possible. You cannot merely say "25dB is NOT
>> possible."
>>
>> In an engineering exam at university, if you were asked "why is 25 dB
>> antenna loss not correct for Band III reception when the antenna is
>> integrated into the mobile phone?", how many marks out of 10 do you
>> think you would get for the answer "25dB is NOT possible."? If I
>> marked your exam paper you would receive 0/10.
>
> Yes it's NOT possible and you can't prove how they find this loss.
You have to disprove it, or you must accept it.
>>> DAB infrastructrure in band III is already calculate with a field
>>> strength for an antenna loss of 2.2dB.
>>
>>
>> You utter fool, that is for half-wave dipoles tuned to Band III
>> frequencies. Mobile phones are not 75cm in length, because you'd
>> need very long pockets to fit them in.
>>
>
> Where did I spoke about mobile phone in this part of my answer ?
This is what was written:
"> Let's have an explanation why the 18 dB difference doesn't apply, or else
it
> will be accepted as fact. I've found around 8 dB of the difference due to
> the antenna dimensions relationship to the transmission frequency, so you
> cannot disprove those 8 dB. You now have to disprove that the other 10 dB
> applies to limit the difference to 8 dB, or else the 18 dB difference will
> be accepted as fact.
10 dB of loss for the antenna in band III could be possible in some
cases, it depends of the structure of the antenna. But 25dB is NOT
possible.
DAB infrastructrure in band III is already calculate with a field
strength for an antenna loss of 2.2dB."
That's obviously about mobile TV, and then all of a sudden you quote 2.2 dB.
Are you incompetent or a liar?
If ETSI verify everything, then why have you suggested that 64-QAM doesn't
work for DVB-H??????
You frequently dispute figures provided in ETSI DVB-H documents.
>>>> I look forward to seeing Nicolas Croiset's FIRST EVER attempt at
>>>> making an engineering explanation on alt.radio.digital. This really
>>>> will be very entertaining.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> When you see the detailed budget link and there is one major line
>>>>> missing called "height loss". This document was made very
>>>>> seriously...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What page number? Which document? Which table? You're muttering
>>>> under your breath again.
>>>>
>>>
>>
http://www.dvb-h.org/PDF/060217.DVB-H%20vs%20T-DMB%20System%20Comparison.pdf
>>>
>>> Page 25
>>
>>
>> What, so you're saying that DVB-H suffers height loss but DMB does
>> not suffer from height loss? Are you an imbecile?
>
> I did say that ?
My point was that height loss applies to both systems, so what is the point
in including it?
> I only said that there is a line missing in the link budget and by
> consequence it was not seriously made.
You're an idiot.
>>>>> The conclusion about cost is fortunally wrong because the link
>>>>> budget is wrong there is a problem around 23dB of difference not
>>>>> explained.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you have to be able to prove WHY the 23 dB doesn't apply.
>>>
>>> it's proved by ETSI. I don't have to do more. if ETSI is wrong,
>>> prove it.
>>
>>
>> The DVB-H Implementation Guidelines will have been written by the
>> DVB-H group, and all ETSI will do is approve the documents. So it's
>> the same people that wrote both documents.
>
> DVB-H documents on the Website from http://www.dvb-h.org are not
> validated by ETSI, only documents published on this website
> http://portal.etsi.org are validated by ETSI.
>
> So if the documents from http://www.dvb-h.org may have some mistakes
> and it is the case for this document in particular.
DVB-H documents have all been accurate up to now, unlike documents published
by DAB supporters, which have contained lie after lie after lie. I see no
reason to doubt the validity of the facts in the DVB-H document.
Also, I have not seen any errors in the document, so I very much doubt
there's any errors in the section you're referring to.
Also, you are a proven liar.
Overall, I believe the DVB-H document, and you are going to have to prove
that the figures are wrong, or accept them as true.
>>>>> I am sure you
>>>>> didn't have in your hand a DVB-H receiver and a T-DMB receiver.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is true, but theory strongly suggests that DVB-H will have by
>>>> far the lower power consumption, so you need to be able to explain
>>>> WHY the DMB receiver could possibly overturn the result dictated by
>>>> theory. I realise you don't understand the relevant theory, but
>>>> that really suggests that you shouldn't be discussing this with me.
>>>
>>> you just have theory and you use percentage, your departure is only
>>> based on some assertions from companies. But you didn't verify in
>>> the real world what all people claims about power consumtion is
>>> real.
>>
>>
>> My extremely simple "ballpark" calculation suggested that DVB-H
>> consumes about 1/4 the power of DMB receivers, and the DVB Project's
>> document shows that DVB-H receivers consume about 1/3rd the power of
>> DMB receivers, therefore my simple calculation back up the figures
>> quoted by the DVB Project.
>
> Yes it's a document from DVB-H project, did you verify it ? Certainly
> not.
You're disputing the figures, so you need to disprove them.
> Can you explain in details your calculation about the power
> consumption of a DMB receiver ?
% power saving = (1 - (on time / total time)) x 100%
For multiplex capacity = 1.091 Mbps
Stream bit rate = 384 kbps
% power saving = (1 - (384 / 1091)) x 100%
% power saving = 65%
DVB-H power saving is about 90-95%.
Normalised power consumption = 1 - power saving
DMB normalised power consumption = 0.35
DVB-H normalised power consumption = 0.1
Ratio of DMB power consumption to DVB-H consumption = 3.5
Conclusion: DMB receivers consume a huge amount of power to give you 23.456
seconds' worth of video playback, on average.
>> Therefore, your claim is merely of the kind "I don't like their
>> answer, therefore it is wrong".
>>
>> You need to start justifying your claims.
>>
>>> Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
>>> consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?
>>
>> I take it you're taking the piss? Do you really expect ME to buy a
>> DAB personal radio?
>
> So you didn't do this so you are unable to know the answer... It just
> prove that your assertion are made without any verifications.
>
> All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions.
DMB reception is not DAB reception. If this is a difficult concept for you,
TV is not the same thing as radio is an easier thing to understand.
>>>>> For the efficiency if you use the parameters chosen in the DVB-H
>>>>> document, DAB have a better efficiency than DVB-H
>>>>>
>>>>> DVB-H : 3,28Mbit/s
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another lie. And this lie was obviously deliberate, not as a result
>>>> of your incompetence. And the fact that you have now quoted a
>>>> multiplex capacity of
>>>> 3.28 Mbps shows that you do actually know how to calculate
>>>> multiplex capacities correctly from the DVB-T specification, so
>>>> your post from last night and the first post from today were also
>>>> deliberate lies.
>>>
>>> I repeat what I said, in the DVB-H document they use these
>>> parameters and the efficiency on DAB is better than DVB-H in this
>>> case (page 24).
>>
>>
>> So you're repeating a lie? That doesn't surprise me.
>
> It's not a lie it's the real world.
No, you lied the first time by using the multiplex capacity figure for 7 MHz
channels instead of the multiplex capacity for an 8 MHz channel. That is
obviously a lie. You then repeated your lie. And now you're saying that it's
not a lie, it's the real world.
So, according to you, in the real world, they transmit 7 MHz DVB-H
multiplexes in 8 MHz channels, do they?
No, they do not, you are lying again.
This newsgroup's primary language is English.
BTW, the 200m transmitter figures you were referring to on page 23 doesn't
even mention SFNs, so your original point was a lie.
> When you see they made the same mistake in L band for the network
> infrastructure (for DAB and DVB-H), I am laughing....
Which L-band mistake?
> All the CAPEX is based on wrong technical values :
> - Wrong implentation of SFN (so wrong costs for transmitters network)
I've just searched for
sfn
in the document, and that search string is only found on pages 6 and 9. The
problem you have with the CAPEX figures are on pages 23 - 25.
Therefore, they are not calculating network costs for SFNs. Therefore, you
are lying.
> - Wrong antenna loss for DMB band III (so wrong power for the
> transmitters)
Prove it.
> - Absence of height loss (incomplete "detailed" budget link, so wrong
> power for transmitters)
Irrelevant, because height loss applies to both systems.
> So the result is fortunaly false.
No, the results are true unless you can prove otherwise.
At the end of the day, just look at all the services and trials:
http://www.dvb-h.org/services.htm
Are they all choosing the wrong system? I don't think so.
> End of discussion.
Yes, please don't reply to any more of my posts until 2020.
Nicolas Croiset
It does not create 15dB of loss. perhaps 0.5dB, that's all.
>
>>>> DAB infrastructrure in band III is already calculate with a field
>>>> strength for an antenna loss of 2.2dB.
>>>
>>>
>>> You utter fool, that is for half-wave dipoles tuned to Band III
>>> frequencies. Mobile phones are not 75cm in length, because you'd
>>> need very long pockets to fit them in.
>>>
>>
>> Where did I spoke about mobile phone in this part of my answer ?
>
>
>This is what was written:
>
>"> Let's have an explanation why the 18 dB difference doesn't apply, or else
>it
>> will be accepted as fact. I've found around 8 dB of the difference due to
>> the antenna dimensions relationship to the transmission frequency, so you
>> cannot disprove those 8 dB. You now have to disprove that the other 10 dB
>> applies to limit the difference to 8 dB, or else the 18 dB difference will
>> be accepted as fact.
>
>10 dB of loss for the antenna in band III could be possible in some
>cases, it depends of the structure of the antenna. But 25dB is NOT
>possible.
>
>DAB infrastructrure in band III is already calculate with a field
>strength for an antenna loss of 2.2dB."
>
>That's obviously about mobile TV, and then all of a sudden you quote 2.2 dB.
>Are you incompetent or a liar?
>
DAB is not mobile TV, DMB is mobile TV, so.
64QAM is working, not in mobile... ETSI provide theory, practice is an
another problem.
>
>
>>>>> I look forward to seeing Nicolas Croiset's FIRST EVER attempt at
>>>>> making an engineering explanation on alt.radio.digital. This really
>>>>> will be very entertaining.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> When you see the detailed budget link and there is one major line
>>>>>> missing called "height loss". This document was made very
>>>>>> seriously...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What page number? Which document? Which table? You're muttering
>>>>> under your breath again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>http://www.dvb-h.org/PDF/060217.DVB-H%20vs%20T-DMB%20System%20Comparison.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Page 25
>>>
>>>
>>> What, so you're saying that DVB-H suffers height loss but DMB does
>>> not suffer from height loss? Are you an imbecile?
>>
>> I did say that ?
>
>
>My point was that height loss applies to both systems, so what is the point
>in including it?
Because it is not the same in band III, Band IV, band V and L band.
>
>
>> I only said that there is a line missing in the link budget and by
>> consequence it was not seriously made.
>
>
>You're an idiot.
>
It is a very good argument, you don't any technical argument ?
>
>>>>>> The conclusion about cost is fortunally wrong because the link
>>>>>> budget is wrong there is a problem around 23dB of difference not
>>>>>> explained.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you have to be able to prove WHY the 23 dB doesn't apply.
>>>>
>>>> it's proved by ETSI. I don't have to do more. if ETSI is wrong,
>>>> prove it.
>>>
>>>
>>> The DVB-H Implementation Guidelines will have been written by the
>>> DVB-H group, and all ETSI will do is approve the documents. So it's
>>> the same people that wrote both documents.
>>
>> DVB-H documents on the Website from http://www.dvb-h.org are not
>> validated by ETSI, only documents published on this website
>> http://portal.etsi.org are validated by ETSI.
>>
>> So if the documents from http://www.dvb-h.org may have some mistakes
>> and it is the case for this document in particular.
>
>
>DVB-H documents have all been accurate up to now, unlike documents published
>by DAB supporters, which have contained lie after lie after lie. I see no
>reason to doubt the validity of the facts in the DVB-H document.
>
>Also, I have not seen any errors in the document, so I very much doubt
>there's any errors in the section you're referring to.
>
>Also, you are a proven liar.
>
>Overall, I believe the DVB-H document, and you are going to have to prove
>that the figures are wrong, or accept them as true.
you can believe lobbying document if you want, but it's not an engineer
reaction. so it confirms to me that you are not engineer...
>
>You're disputing the figures, so you need to disprove them.
>
>
>> Can you explain in details your calculation about the power
>> consumption of a DMB receiver ?
>
>
>% power saving = (1 - (on time / total time)) x 100%
>
>For multiplex capacity = 1.091 Mbps
>Stream bit rate = 384 kbps
>
>% power saving = (1 - (384 / 1091)) x 100%
>
>% power saving = 65%
>
>DVB-H power saving is about 90-95%.
>
>Normalised power consumption = 1 - power saving
>
>DMB normalised power consumption = 0.35
>DVB-H normalised power consumption = 0.1
What a great demonstration !!! You don't take into account the frequency
width in your formula...
How do you do for a chipset which is able to decode the full DAB stream
and where the power consumtion is lower ?
in my mind, I thought that you put an ammeter on the receiver and
analyse the power consumption with it.
A lot of theory and no practice...
>
>>> Therefore, your claim is merely of the kind "I don't like their
>>> answer, therefore it is wrong".
>>>
>>> You need to start justifying your claims.
>>>
>>>> Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
>>>> consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?
>>>
>>> I take it you're taking the piss? Do you really expect ME to buy a
>>> DAB personal radio?
>>
>> So you didn't do this so you are unable to know the answer... It just
>> prove that your assertion are made without any verifications.
>>
>> All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions.
>
>
>DMB reception is not DAB reception. If this is a difficult concept for you,
>TV is not the same thing as radio is an easier thing to understand.
If you want to compare the power consumtion of the RF module it's one
solution. DAB RF module have the same power consumption for a radio or a
TV.
>
>
>>>>>> For the efficiency if you use the parameters chosen in the DVB-H
>>>>>> document, DAB have a better efficiency than DVB-H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DVB-H : 3,28Mbit/s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another lie. And this lie was obviously deliberate, not as a result
>>>>> of your incompetence. And the fact that you have now quoted a
>>>>> multiplex capacity of
>>>>> 3.28 Mbps shows that you do actually know how to calculate
>>>>> multiplex capacities correctly from the DVB-T specification, so
>>>>> your post from last night and the first post from today were also
>>>>> deliberate lies.
>>>>
>>>> I repeat what I said, in the DVB-H document they use these
>>>> parameters and the efficiency on DAB is better than DVB-H in this
>>>> case (page 24).
>>>
>>>
>>> So you're repeating a lie? That doesn't surprise me.
>>
>> It's not a lie it's the real world.
>
>
>No, you lied the first time by using the multiplex capacity figure for 7 MHz
>channels instead of the multiplex capacity for an 8 MHz channel. That is
>obviously a lie. You then repeated your lie. And now you're saying that it's
>not a lie, it's the real world.
>
>So, according to you, in the real world, they transmit 7 MHz DVB-H
>multiplexes in 8 MHz channels, do they?
>
>No, they do not, you are lying again.
>
Sterile discusion !!!!
copy of the page 24 :
Assumptions
DVB-H is using 8k QPSK GI=1/4 CR=1/2 MPE-FEC CR= 3/4 mode
8 MHz version @UHF 3.75Mbit/s
7 MHz version @VHF 3.28 Mbit/s
6 MHz version @L-Band 2.81Mbit/s
T-DMB is using mode 1 GI=1/4 CR=1/2
Where is it written ?
>
>BTW, the 200m transmitter figures you were referring to on page 23 doesn't
>even mention SFNs, so your original point was a lie.
>
Vous êtes de mauvaise foi !!!
So they will do MFN ? what a good idea for covering a city each part of
the city will use different frequency. It is spectrum efficient this
solution !!!
why did they made reference to SFN in this case on page 9 ???
So you confirm to me that this DVB-H network can not work in SFN.
>
>> When you see they made the same mistake in L band for the network
>> infrastructure (for DAB and DVB-H), I am laughing....
>
>
>Which L-band mistake?
max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
>
>
>> All the CAPEX is based on wrong technical values :
>> - Wrong implentation of SFN (so wrong costs for transmitters network)
>
>
>I've just searched for
>
>sfn
>
>in the document, and that search string is only found on pages 6 and 9. The
>problem you have with the CAPEX figures are on pages 23 - 25.
>
>Therefore, they are not calculating network costs for SFNs. Therefore, you
>are lying.
So the spectrum efficiency is very low if you compare with T-DAB.
If you use MFN you need minimum 7 frequencies, so for 3.75Mbit/s you
will use minimum 56MHz of spectrum... very efficient !!!
>
>
>> - Wrong antenna loss for DMB band III (so wrong power for the
>> transmitters)
>
>
>Prove it.
I don't have to prove anything, the antenna loss is a basic calculation
(already made) and other loss are very low to be taken into account.
>
>
>> - Absence of height loss (incomplete "detailed" budget link, so wrong
>> power for transmitters)
>
>
>Irrelevant, because height loss applies to both systems.
Different SFN parameters, one is working the other one is not working. I
already give you the reason.
>
>
>> So the result is fortunaly false.
>
>
>No, the results are true unless you can prove otherwise.
>
>At the end of the day, just look at all the services and trials:
>
>http://www.dvb-h.org/services.htm
>
>Are they all choosing the wrong system? I don't think so.
A trial is only to verify if it's working or not, it does not mean that
it will be choose.
The big difference between DMB and DVB-H, DVB-H have no commercial
services yet, T-DMB have commercial services in Asia already and in less
than 10 days in Europe also.
Kristoff Bonne
DAB sounds worse than FM schreef:
>>End of discussion.
> Yes, please don't reply to any more of my posts until 2020.
Even better. Why don't *you* stop posting until 2020.
It would help to get the S/N ratio of this newsgroup back to a descent
level. :-)
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> Kristoff Bonne wrote:
>
> ~ Gegroet,
> ~
> ~
> ~ DAB sounds worse than FM schreef:
> ~ ~ ~ End of discussion.
> ~
> ~ ~ Yes, please don't reply to any more of my posts until 2020.
> ~
> ~ Even better. Why don't you stop posting until 2020.
> ~
> ~
> ~ It would help to get the S/N ratio of this newsgroup back to a
> ~ descent level. :-)
> ~
>
> La Belgique vingt points, points de zéro de la Grande-Bretagne!!
Don't change your email address again to get around my killfile.
New email address *plonked*.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote :
>>>> When DAB supporters make claims I PROVE that they're wrong. Now
>>>> it's your turn.
>>>
>>> When you create a big difference between theory and the value you
>>> used, you MUST explain why (in this case antenna loss difference is
>>> about 15dB).
>>
>>
>> You're the one disputing the figure, so YOU HAVE TO explain what is
>> wrong with the figure.
>>
>>
>>> I personnaly have no xeplanation for this difference
>>
>>
>> Indeed, because you have no idea of any of this.
>>
>>
>>> AND you don't
>>> have also an explanation about this.
>>
>>
>> I do, I've said a few times it's to do with capacitive coupling.
>
>
> It does not create 15dB of loss. perhaps 0.5dB, that's all.
So we should believe a non-engineer who has no idea about engineering at
all, or Nokia (who you say wrote this document), who are the world's leading
mobile phone manufacturers?
I say again, disprove it or accept it as fact.
>> "> Let's have an explanation why the 18 dB difference doesn't apply,
>> or else it
>>> will be accepted as fact. I've found around 8 dB of the difference
>>> due to the antenna dimensions relationship to the transmission
>>> frequency, so you cannot disprove those 8 dB. You now have to
>>> disprove that the other 10 dB applies to limit the difference to 8
>>> dB, or else the 18 dB difference will be accepted as fact.
>>
>> 10 dB of loss for the antenna in band III could be possible in some
>> cases, it depends of the structure of the antenna. But 25dB is NOT
>> possible.
>>
>> DAB infrastructrure in band III is already calculate with a field
>> strength for an antenna loss of 2.2dB."
>>
>> That's obviously about mobile TV, and then all of a sudden you quote
>> 2.2 dB. Are you incompetent or a liar?
>>
>
> DAB is not mobile TV, DMB is mobile TV, so.
Therefore you lied when you quoted 2.2 dB for antenna loss, because it had
absolutely no relevance to the discussion, which was about mobile TV.
>>>>>> I look forward to seeing Nicolas Croiset's FIRST EVER attempt at
>>>>>> making an engineering explanation on alt.radio.digital. This
>>>>>> really will be very entertaining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you see the detailed budget link and there is one major
>>>>>>> line missing called "height loss". This document was made very
>>>>>>> seriously...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What page number? Which document? Which table? You're muttering
>>>>>> under your breath again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.dvb-h.org/PDF/060217.DVB-H%20vs%20T-DMB%20System%20Comparison.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Page 25
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What, so you're saying that DVB-H suffers height loss but DMB does
>>>> not suffer from height loss? Are you an imbecile?
>>>
>>> I did say that ?
>>
>>
>> My point was that height loss applies to both systems, so what is
>> the point in including it?
>
> Because it is not the same in band III, Band IV, band V and L band.
Draw up a detailed link budget analysis and I'll check it when you've
finished. Until then, the link budget stands as fact.
>>> I only said that there is a line missing in the link budget and by
>>> consequence it was not seriously made.
>>
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>>
>
> It is a very good argument, you don't any technical argument ?
Croiset, you don't have technical arguments, you lie.
Oh, *I'm* not an engineer? What does that make you then?
>> You're disputing the figures, so you need to disprove them.
>>
>>
>>> Can you explain in details your calculation about the power
>>> consumption of a DMB receiver ?
>>
>>
>> % power saving = (1 - (on time / total time)) x 100%
>>
>> For multiplex capacity = 1.091 Mbps
>> Stream bit rate = 384 kbps
>>
>> % power saving = (1 - (384 / 1091)) x 100%
>>
>> % power saving = 65%
>>
>> DVB-H power saving is about 90-95%.
>>
>> Normalised power consumption = 1 - power saving
>>
>> DMB normalised power consumption = 0.35
>> DVB-H normalised power consumption = 0.1
>
> What a great demonstration !!!
I agree.
> You don't take into account the
> frequency width in your formula...
Provide some proof that power consumption is dependent on bandwidth.
> How do you do for a chipset which is able to decode the full DAB
> stream and where the power consumtion is lower ?
That sentence does not make sense.
> in my mind, I thought that you put an ammeter on the receiver and
> analyse the power consumption with it.
>
> A lot of theory and no practice...
At least I understand the theory.
>>>> Therefore, your claim is merely of the kind "I don't like their
>>>> answer, therefore it is wrong".
>>>>
>>>> You need to start justifying your claims.
>>>>
>>>>> Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
>>>>> consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?
>>>>
>>>> I take it you're taking the piss? Do you really expect ME to buy a
>>>> DAB personal radio?
>>>
>>> So you didn't do this so you are unable to know the answer... It
>>> just prove that your assertion are made without any verifications.
>>>
>>> All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions.
>>
>>
>> DMB reception is not DAB reception. If this is a difficult concept
>> for you, TV is not the same thing as radio is an easier thing to
>> understand.
>
> If you want to compare the power consumtion of the RF module it's one
> solution. DAB RF module have the same power consumption for a radio
> or a TV.
No it does not, because using your figures the mobile TV bit rate is about
400 kbps whereas a mono radio station on DAB uses just 64 kbps, so assuming
it uses time slicing then the RF front-end would have to be kept on for
about 6-7 times as long to receive the mobile TV stream as for a mono radio
station.
Also, decoding audio for radio stations consumes far less power consumption
than decoding audio AND video for mobile TV channels.
Therefore, DAB reception **hugely** underestimates DMB power consumption.
This is how you compared DVB-H with DMB in an earlier post:
"For the efficiency if you use the parameters chosen in the DVB-H
document, DAB have a better efficiency than DVB-H
DVB-H : 3,28Mbit/s
DAB : 1,152Mbit/s*4*188/204 = 4,24Mbit/s."
DVB-H is cheapest at UHF, and at UHF 8 MHz channels are used, so you
deliberately used a figure that was lower than the true figure. In other
words, you lied.
>>> You didn't prove anything except a lot of blah blah.
>>> "Ne cherchez pas à noyer le poisson".
>>
>>
>> This newsgroup's primary language is English.
>
> Where is it written ?
No problem, please only write in French on this newsgroup from now on. At
least then when you lie the majority of people won't understand you.
>> BTW, the 200m transmitter figures you were referring to on page 23
>> doesn't even mention SFNs, so your original point was a lie.
>>
>
> Vous êtes de mauvaise foi !!!
I am a bad foi?
> So they will do MFN ?
I did not say that.
This is what you said originally:
"In the DVB-H document, the parameters chosen for DVB-H network imply a
max SFN distance of 67km, but a tower of 200 m (suburban area TV tower)
the horizon distance is around 57km, so you will have interferences in
the SFN network and you won't receive anything. The same tower for DAB
does not create this kind of problem."
So you're basically trying to suggest tht DVB-H cannot be transmitted from
200m transmitters.
Please explain what the horizon distance has to do with anything. Having
transmitter separation greater than the horizon distance is beneficial,
because the signal is attenuated more when it is non-line-of-sight, so what
is your point?
> what a good idea for covering a city each part
> of the city will use different frequency. It is spectrum efficient
> this solution !!!
Are you trying to suggest that you cannot cover a city with a single SFN
with DVB-H? If so, you are totally wrong.
> why did they made reference to SFN in this case on page 9 ???
Because page 9 is all about SFN cell sizes.
> So you confirm to me that this DVB-H network can not work in SFN.
Page 9:
"Therefore the technical capabilities are practically the same [for both
systems]."
>>> When you see they made the same mistake in L band for the network
>>> infrastructure (for DAB and DVB-H), I am laughing....
>>
>>
>> Which L-band mistake?
>
> max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
What page are you saying this mistake is on about L-band SFNs? I've already
said that SFN is only mentioned on pages 6 and 9, so how can there be a
mistake on page 23?
But let's compare guard interval durations for L-band:
DAB Transmission Mode 2, guard interval = 62 us
DVB-H 2K 5 MHz channel, GI 1/4, guard interval = 89 us
Therefore, DVB-H guard interval is 50% higher than DAB's guard interval.
Therefore, DVB-H SFN cell sizes can be larger than DAB SFN cell sizes.
So, where is this "error"?
>>> All the CAPEX is based on wrong technical values :
>>> - Wrong implentation of SFN (so wrong costs for transmitters
>>> network)
>>
>>
>> I've just searched for
>>
>> sfn
>>
>> in the document, and that search string is only found on pages 6 and
>> 9. The problem you have with the CAPEX figures are on pages 23 - 25.
>>
>> Therefore, they are not calculating network costs for SFNs.
>> Therefore, you are lying.
>
> So the spectrum efficiency is very low if you compare with T-DAB.
Page 9 about SFNs:
"Therefore the technical capabilities are practically the same [for both
systems]."
Although DVB-H can have ~50% larger SFNs at L-band.
> If you use MFN you need minimum 7 frequencies, so for 3.75Mbit/s you
> will use minimum 56MHz of spectrum... very efficient !!!
In your dreams. And anyway, if an MFN is used the minimum number of
frequencies you need is 3.
>>> - Wrong antenna loss for DMB band III (so wrong power for the
>>> transmitters)
>>
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> I don't have to prove anything, the antenna loss is a basic
> calculation (already made) and other loss are very low to be taken
> into account.
I assure you that antenna loss for an integrated mobile phone antenna at a
certain frequency is anything but simple. You would basically have to
simulate it.
As Nokia are the world leaders in mobile phones, you really ought to trust
what they say about integrated mobile phone antenna loss.
>>> - Absence of height loss (incomplete "detailed" budget link, so
>>> wrong power for transmitters)
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant, because height loss applies to both systems.
>
> Different SFN parameters, one is working the other one is not
> working. I already give you the reason.
SFNs definitely work on DVB-H, so if you're saying they don't you are lying
AGAIN.
>>> So the result is fortunaly false.
>>
>>
>> No, the results are true unless you can prove otherwise.
>>
>> At the end of the day, just look at all the services and trials:
>>
>> http://www.dvb-h.org/services.htm
>>
>> Are they all choosing the wrong system? I don't think so.
>
> A trial is only to verify if it's working or not, it does not mean
> that it will be choose.
2 national services in Italy, a service to the 30 largest US cities, a
national service in Finland.
DVB-H is going to be massive. Face the facts.
> The big difference between DMB and DVB-H, DVB-H have no commercial
> services yet,
You can say that for the next 10 days, then on 1st June you won't be able to
say that any more.
> T-DMB have commercial services in Asia already and in
> less than 10 days in Europe also.
As I say, DVB-H will be massive, whereas DMB will be an irrelevant little
system that only incompetent DAB supporters choose to use.
Kristoff Bonne
R K Pelligo schreef:
> ~ ~ ~ End of discussion.
> ~ ~ Yes, please don't reply to any more of my posts until 2020.
> ~ Even better. Why don't you stop posting until 2020.
> ~ It would help to get the S/N ratio of this newsgroup back to a
> ~ descent level. :-)
> La Belgique vingt points, points de zéro de la Grande-Bretagne!!
Well, to be honest. I know sufficient British people to know that they
are not all like our young friend; far from that!
So, I think saying "zéro points pour la Grande-Bretagne" would be quite
unfair to all the other nice people on that side of the channel.
:-)
BTW.
Thanks for trying to post in french, but I'm actually Flemish (I live on
the coast-line). My native language is dutch, not french. (althou being
a good Belgian, I do understand and speak both).
Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>
>Therefore you lied when you quoted 2.2 dB for antenna loss, because it had
>absolutely no relevance to the discussion, which was about mobile TV.
>
>
>>>>>>> I look forward to seeing Nicolas Croiset's FIRST EVER attempt at
>>>>>>> making an engineering explanation on alt.radio.digital. This
>>>>>>> really will be very entertaining.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you see the detailed budget link and there is one major
>>>>>>>> line missing called "height loss". This document was made very
>>>>>>>> seriously...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What page number? Which document? Which table? You're muttering
>>>>>>> under your breath again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>http://www.dvb-h.org/PDF/060217.DVB-H%20vs%20T-DMB%20System%20Comparison.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Page 25
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What, so you're saying that DVB-H suffers height loss but DMB does
>>>>> not suffer from height loss? Are you an imbecile?
>>>>
>>>> I did say that ?
>>>
>>>
>>> My point was that height loss applies to both systems, so what is
>>> the point in including it?
>>
>> Because it is not the same in band III, Band IV, band V and L band.
>
>
>Draw up a detailed link budget analysis and I'll check it when you've
>finished. Until then, the link budget stands as fact.
Read TR 102377 for DVB-H and RRC 06 for DAB.
You have everything.
>
>
>>>> I only said that there is a line missing in the link budget and by
>>>> consequence it was not seriously made.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're an idiot.
>>>
>>
>> It is a very good argument, you don't any technical argument ?
>
>
>Croiset, you don't have technical arguments, you lie.
Read official documents from ETSI and ITU !!!
>>> You're disputing the figures, so you need to disprove them.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can you explain in details your calculation about the power
>>>> consumption of a DMB receiver ?
>>>
>>>
>>> % power saving = (1 - (on time / total time)) x 100%
>>>
>>> For multiplex capacity = 1.091 Mbps
>>> Stream bit rate = 384 kbps
>>>
>>> % power saving = (1 - (384 / 1091)) x 100%
>>>
>>> % power saving = 65%
>>>
>>> DVB-H power saving is about 90-95%.
>>>
>>> Normalised power consumption = 1 - power saving
>>>
>>> DMB normalised power consumption = 0.35
>>> DVB-H normalised power consumption = 0.1
>>
>
>> You don't take into account the
>> frequency width in your formula...
>
>
>Provide some proof that power consumption is dependent on bandwidth.
It is physical more larger is the frequency witdth is large to decode
more you need electrical power.
>
>
>> How do you do for a chipset which is able to decode the full DAB
>> stream and where the power consumtion is lower ?
>
>
>That sentence does not make sense.
On DAB you are able to decode the full stream with a very low power
consumption, on DVB-H it is impossible.
>
>>>>> Therefore, your claim is merely of the kind "I don't like their
>>>>> answer, therefore it is wrong".
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to start justifying your claims.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
>>>>>> consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I take it you're taking the piss? Do you really expect ME to buy a
>>>>> DAB personal radio?
>>>>
>>>> So you didn't do this so you are unable to know the answer... It
>>>> just prove that your assertion are made without any verifications.
>>>>
>>>> All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions.
>>>
>>>
>>> DMB reception is not DAB reception. If this is a difficult concept
>>> for you, TV is not the same thing as radio is an easier thing to
>>> understand.
>>
>> If you want to compare the power consumtion of the RF module it's one
>> solution. DAB RF module have the same power consumption for a radio
>> or a TV.
>
>
>No it does not, because using your figures the mobile TV bit rate is about
>400 kbps whereas a mono radio station on DAB uses just 64 kbps, so assuming
>it uses time slicing then the RF front-end would have to be kept on for
>about 6-7 times as long to receive the mobile TV stream as for a mono radio
>station.
The bitrate decoded on DAB does not change the power consumption...
>
>Also, decoding audio for radio stations consumes far less power consumption
>than decoding audio AND video for mobile TV channels.
>
>Therefore, DAB reception **hugely** underestimates DMB power consumption.
It's just an assertion without practical verifications.
>
>
>>>> You didn't prove anything except a lot of blah blah.
>>>> "Ne cherchez pas à noyer le poisson".
>>>
>>>
>>> This newsgroup's primary language is English.
>>
>> Where is it written ?
>
>
>No problem, please only write in French on this newsgroup from now on. At
>least then when you lie the majority of people won't understand you.
So it's not written. So you don't have to makes any remarks about
that.
>
>> So they will do MFN ?
>
>
>I did not say that.
>
>This is what you said originally:
>
>"In the DVB-H document, the parameters chosen for DVB-H network imply a
>max SFN distance of 67km, but a tower of 200 m (suburban area TV tower)
>the horizon distance is around 57km, so you will have interferences in
>the SFN network and you won't receive anything. The same tower for DAB
>does not create this kind of problem."
>
>So you're basically trying to suggest tht DVB-H cannot be transmitted from
>200m transmitters.
>
>Please explain what the horizon distance has to do with anything. Having
>transmitter separation greater than the horizon distance is beneficial,
>because the signal is attenuated more when it is non-line-of-sight, so what
>is your point?
The path loss is not enough if you don't want to have SFN
interferences, you must choose carrefully the site for creating a
natural frontier for the waves. The horizon is a good way for that.
>
>> what a good idea for covering a city each part
>> of the city will use different frequency. It is spectrum efficient
>> this solution !!!
>
>
>Are you trying to suggest that you cannot cover a city with a single SFN
>with DVB-H? If so, you are totally wrong.
>
>
>> why did they made reference to SFN in this case on page 9 ???
>
>
>Because page 9 is all about SFN cell sizes.
And SFN network for all also....
>>>
>>> Which L-band mistake?
>>
>> max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
>
Same problem if you use a 200m mast for a SFN in L band which have a
max distance of 17km in DAB it will not work, but it will also not
work for DVB-H
But you are unable to listen to this kind of network implementation.
Pierre PANTALÉON
> Read TR 102377 for DVB-H and RRC 06 for DAB.
> You have everything.
Is there publication for audio broadcasting only ?
DAB sounds worse than FM
No.
Pierre PANTALÉON
> No.
So DVB-H is developping only for video. Consortium seems not interesting
by radio market, whereas DAB try it mutation to the video!
DAB sounds worse than FM
Croiset, YOU have to explain the similarities and differences between the
DVB-H Implementation Guidelines (TR 102 377) and this new DVB-H vs DMB
document.
>>>>> I only said that there is a line missing in the link budget and by
>>>>> consequence it was not seriously made.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a very good argument, you don't any technical argument ?
>>
>>
>> Croiset, you don't have technical arguments, you lie.
>
> Read official documents from ETSI and ITU !!!
The main contention you have is that the antenna gain for integrated DMB
antennas shouldn't be 25 dB. That won't be in a DVB-H ETSI / ITU document,
so you need to explain why the 25 dB doesn't apply.
>>>> You're disputing the figures, so you need to disprove them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can you explain in details your calculation about the power
>>>>> consumption of a DMB receiver ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> % power saving = (1 - (on time / total time)) x 100%
>>>>
>>>> For multiplex capacity = 1.091 Mbps
>>>> Stream bit rate = 384 kbps
>>>>
>>>> % power saving = (1 - (384 / 1091)) x 100%
>>>>
>>>> % power saving = 65%
>>>>
>>>> DVB-H power saving is about 90-95%.
>>>>
>>>> Normalised power consumption = 1 - power saving
>>>>
>>>> DMB normalised power consumption = 0.35
>>>> DVB-H normalised power consumption = 0.1
>>>
>>
>>> You don't take into account the
>>> frequency width in your formula...
>>
>>
>> Provide some proof that power consumption is dependent on bandwidth.
>
> It is physical more larger is the frequency witdth is large to decode
> more you need electrical power.
I want you to provide some documentary evidence to support your claim.
>>> How do you do for a chipset which is able to decode the full DAB
>>> stream and where the power consumtion is lower ?
>>
>>
>> That sentence does not make sense.
>
> On DAB you are able to decode the full stream with a very low power
> consumption, on DVB-H it is impossible.
That's another lie.
>>>>>> Therefore, your claim is merely of the kind "I don't like their
>>>>>> answer, therefore it is wrong".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to start justifying your claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
>>>>>>> consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take it you're taking the piss? Do you really expect ME to buy
>>>>>> a DAB personal radio?
>>>>>
>>>>> So you didn't do this so you are unable to know the answer... It
>>>>> just prove that your assertion are made without any verifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DMB reception is not DAB reception. If this is a difficult concept
>>>> for you, TV is not the same thing as radio is an easier thing to
>>>> understand.
>>>
>>> If you want to compare the power consumtion of the RF module it's
>>> one solution. DAB RF module have the same power consumption for a
>>> radio or a TV.
>>
>>
>> No it does not, because using your figures the mobile TV bit rate is
>> about 400 kbps whereas a mono radio station on DAB uses just 64
>> kbps, so assuming it uses time slicing then the RF front-end would
>> have to be kept on for about 6-7 times as long to receive the mobile
>> TV stream as for a mono radio station.
>
> The bitrate decoded on DAB does not change the power consumption...
Then you don't even understand how time-slicing works at all.
>> Also, decoding audio for radio stations consumes far less power
>> consumption than decoding audio AND video for mobile TV channels.
>>
>> Therefore, DAB reception **hugely** underestimates DMB power
>> consumption.
>
> It's just an assertion without practical verifications.
When time-slicing is used, the lower the bit rate the higher the power
consumption saved -- that is obvious, because the receiver can be switched
off for a greater percentage of the time. Also, video decoding is
computationally complex, and that is something that mobile TV has to do that
digital radio never has to do, so that is 100% extra power consumption
compared to DAB.
If you disagree with either of the above claims then you have no common
sense whatsoever.
>>> So they will do MFN ?
>>
>>
>> I did not say that.
>>
>> This is what you said originally:
>>
>> "In the DVB-H document, the parameters chosen for DVB-H network
>> imply a max SFN distance of 67km, but a tower of 200 m (suburban
>> area TV tower) the horizon distance is around 57km, so you will have
>> interferences in
>> the SFN network and you won't receive anything. The same tower for
>> DAB does not create this kind of problem."
>>
>> So you're basically trying to suggest tht DVB-H cannot be
>> transmitted from 200m transmitters.
>>
>> Please explain what the horizon distance has to do with anything.
>> Having transmitter separation greater than the horizon distance is
>> beneficial, because the signal is attenuated more when it is
>> non-line-of-sight, so what is your point?
>
> The path loss is not enough if you don't want to have SFN
> interferences, you must choose carrefully the site for creating a
> natural frontier for the waves. The horizon is a good way for that.
Alternatively, you just use a lower transmission power. How obvious does it
have to get before you understand this? Or if you want to use a higher power
then you have to use higher powers for distant transmitters to compensate
for the higher interference levels -- interference is all relative.
>>> what a good idea for covering a city each part
>>> of the city will use different frequency. It is spectrum efficient
>>> this solution !!!
>>
>>
>> Are you trying to suggest that you cannot cover a city with a single
>> SFN with DVB-H? If so, you are totally wrong.
>>
>>
>>> why did they made reference to SFN in this case on page 9 ???
>>
>>
>> Because page 9 is all about SFN cell sizes.
>
> And SFN network for all also....
I don't understand what you mean.
>>>> Which L-band mistake?
>>>
>>> max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
>>
>
>
> Same problem if you use a 200m mast for a SFN in L band which have a
> max distance of 17km in DAB it will not work, but it will also not
> work for DVB-H
So you reduce the transmitter power instead.
> But you are unable to listen to this kind of network implementation.
?
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM a écrit :
>
>> No.
>
> So DVB-H is developping only for video.
I didn't say that at all. All I said was the documents all contain
information for mobile TV.
> Consortium seems not
> interesting by radio market, whereas DAB try it mutation to the
> video!
DVB-H people are more interested in mobile TV. They will have limited
resources in terms of the number of staff that can go round promoting DVB-H
to broadcasters etc, and mobile TV is a far more lucrative proposition than
digital radio.
Richard L
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
> Pierre PANTALÉON wrote:
> > Consortium seems not
> > interesting by radio market, whereas DAB try it mutation to the
> > video!
>
>
> DVB-H people are more interested in mobile TV. They will have limited
> resources in terms of the number of staff that can go round promoting DVB-H
> to broadcasters etc, and mobile TV is a far more lucrative proposition than
> digital radio.
So despite all the excitement, passion and bombast you've displayed in
this group during the past couple of years over DVB-h and its
potential for high-bitrate radio, you've now come round to an
acceptance that this is not going to happen. Dommage.
--
Richard L.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>>> My point was that height loss applies to both systems, so what is
>>>>> the point in including it?
>>>>
>>>> Because it is not the same in band III, Band IV, band V and L band.
>>>
>>>
>>> Draw up a detailed link budget analysis and I'll check it when you've
>>> finished. Until then, the link budget stands as fact.
>>
>> Read TR 102377 for DVB-H and RRC 06 for DAB.
>> You have everything.
>
>
>Croiset, YOU have to explain the similarities and differences between the
>DVB-H Implementation Guidelines (TR 102 377) and this new DVB-H vs DMB
>document.
You just have to check the differences. You will also find one more
line in TR 102 377 for the height loss.
Sorry but this document from DVB-H group is a document with a lot of
errors, so the CAPEX ans results are wrong.
>>>>> You're disputing the figures, so you need to disprove them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you explain in details your calculation about the power
>>>>>> consumption of a DMB receiver ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> % power saving = (1 - (on time / total time)) x 100%
>>>>>
>>>>> For multiplex capacity = 1.091 Mbps
>>>>> Stream bit rate = 384 kbps
>>>>>
>>>>> % power saving = (1 - (384 / 1091)) x 100%
>>>>>
>>>>> % power saving = 65%
>>>>>
>>>>> DVB-H power saving is about 90-95%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Normalised power consumption = 1 - power saving
>>>>>
>>>>> DMB normalised power consumption = 0.35
>>>>> DVB-H normalised power consumption = 0.1
>>>>
>>>
>>>> You don't take into account the
>>>> frequency width in your formula...
>>>
>>>
>>> Provide some proof that power consumption is dependent on bandwidth.
>>
>> It is physical more larger is the frequency witdth is large to decode
>> more you need electrical power.
>
>
>I want you to provide some documentary evidence to support your claim.
I don't have time to learn this kind of thing to you.
>
>
>>>> How do you do for a chipset which is able to decode the full DAB
>>>> stream and where the power consumtion is lower ?
>>>
>>>
>>> That sentence does not make sense.
>>
>> On DAB you are able to decode the full stream with a very low power
>> consumption, on DVB-H it is impossible.
>
>
>That's another lie.
Cf a lot of chips from some european or asian companies which are able
to decode the full DAB stream.
One LG mobile phone is able to create a mosaic of videos programs
which are broadcast in one DMB ensemble and decode the all videos in
real time.
>>>>> DMB reception is not DAB reception. If this is a difficult concept
>>>>> for you, TV is not the same thing as radio is an easier thing to
>>>>> understand.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to compare the power consumtion of the RF module it's
>>>> one solution. DAB RF module have the same power consumption for a
>>>> radio or a TV.
>>>
>>>
>>> No it does not, because using your figures the mobile TV bit rate is
>>> about 400 kbps whereas a mono radio station on DAB uses just 64
>>> kbps, so assuming it uses time slicing then the RF front-end would
>>> have to be kept on for about 6-7 times as long to receive the mobile
>>> TV stream as for a mono radio station.
>>
>> The bitrate decoded on DAB does not change the power consumption...
>
>
>Then you don't even understand how time-slicing works at all.
Time slicing is for DVB-H, DAB/DMB does not need this functionnality,
because the power consumption is already very low.
>>>> So they will do MFN ?
>>>
>>>
>>> I did not say that.
>>>
>>> This is what you said originally:
>>>
>>> "In the DVB-H document, the parameters chosen for DVB-H network
>>> imply a max SFN distance of 67km, but a tower of 200 m (suburban
>>> area TV tower) the horizon distance is around 57km, so you will have
>>> interferences in
>>> the SFN network and you won't receive anything. The same tower for
>>> DAB does not create this kind of problem."
>>>
>>> So you're basically trying to suggest tht DVB-H cannot be
>>> transmitted from 200m transmitters.
>>>
>>> Please explain what the horizon distance has to do with anything.
>>> Having transmitter separation greater than the horizon distance is
>>> beneficial, because the signal is attenuated more when it is
>>> non-line-of-sight, so what is your point?
>>
>> The path loss is not enough if you don't want to have SFN
>> interferences, you must choose carrefully the site for creating a
>> natural frontier for the waves. The horizon is a good way for that.
>
>
>Alternatively, you just use a lower transmission power. How obvious does it
>have to get before you understand this? Or if you want to use a higher power
>then you have to use higher powers for distant transmitters to compensate
>for the higher interference levels -- interference is all relative.
It is not enough, when you are very high even if you have a very low
power you can be received in a very large area much more than you
want. In this case you can't manage temporary propagation due to
weather or some other things.
In the DVB-H document they didn't use a low power for DVB-H on the
200m mast, they use 40kW EIRP, so they are unable to respect the SFN
parameters.
The only way is creating a natural frontier for creating a big loss of
signal before the max distance of the SFN.
>>>>> Which L-band mistake?
>>>>
>>>> max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Same problem if you use a 200m mast for a SFN in L band which have a
>> max distance of 17km in DAB it will not work, but it will also not
>> work for DVB-H
>
>
>So you reduce the transmitter power instead.
>
It's not enough. and the power is not reduced (16kW EIRP) in the DVB-H
document, so the problem really exist.
It means that the DVB-H CAPEX is wrong once again also for L band.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:19:41 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>>>> My point was that height loss applies to both systems, so what is
>>>>>> the point in including it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it is not the same in band III, Band IV, band V and L
>>>>> band.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Draw up a detailed link budget analysis and I'll check it when
>>>> you've finished. Until then, the link budget stands as fact.
>>>
>>> Read TR 102377 for DVB-H and RRC 06 for DAB.
>>> You have everything.
>>
>>
>> Croiset, YOU have to explain the similarities and differences
>> between the DVB-H Implementation Guidelines (TR 102 377) and this
>> new DVB-H vs DMB document.
>
> You just have to check the differences. You will also find one more
> line in TR 102 377 for the height loss.
>
> Sorry but this document from DVB-H group is a document with a lot of
> errors, so the CAPEX ans results are wrong.
In other words you cannot explain the differences. Therefore, the CAPEX
figures stand as fact.
>>>>> You don't take into account the
>>>>> frequency width in your formula...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Provide some proof that power consumption is dependent on
>>>> bandwidth.
>>>
>>> It is physical more larger is the frequency witdth is large to
>>> decode more you need electrical power.
>>
>>
>> I want you to provide some documentary evidence to support your
>> claim.
>
> I don't have time to learn this kind of thing to you.
In other words, you cannot explain this, because you don't understand it.
Therefore I reject your claim entirely.
>>>>> How do you do for a chipset which is able to decode the full DAB
>>>>> stream and where the power consumtion is lower ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That sentence does not make sense.
>>>
>>> On DAB you are able to decode the full stream with a very low power
>>> consumption, on DVB-H it is impossible.
>>
>>
>> That's another lie.
>
> Cf a lot of chips from some european or asian companies which are able
> to decode the full DAB stream.
>
> One LG mobile phone is able to create a mosaic of videos programs
> which are broadcast in one DMB ensemble and decode the all videos in
> real time.
What you are trying to say is this:
DAB reception + audio decoding
has the same power consumption as mobile TV over DMB, which consists of:
DAB reception + RS decoding + audio decoding + video decoding + display
power consumption for video
That's either just a typical lie or you're so incompetent it's unbelievable.
>>>> No it does not, because using your figures the mobile TV bit rate
>>>> is about 400 kbps whereas a mono radio station on DAB uses just 64
>>>> kbps, so assuming it uses time slicing then the RF front-end would
>>>> have to be kept on for about 6-7 times as long to receive the
>>>> mobile TV stream as for a mono radio station.
>>>
>>> The bitrate decoded on DAB does not change the power consumption...
>>
>>
>> Then you don't even understand how time-slicing works at all.
>
> Time slicing is for DVB-H, DAB/DMB does not need this functionnality,
> because the power consumption is already very low.
That is definitely a lie, and DAB receivers do use the concept of
time-slicing whereby the receiver is switched off in between receiving the
transmissions.
>>> The path loss is not enough if you don't want to have SFN
>>> interferences, you must choose carrefully the site for creating a
>>> natural frontier for the waves. The horizon is a good way for that.
>>
>>
>> Alternatively, you just use a lower transmission power. How obvious
>> does it have to get before you understand this? Or if you want to
>> use a higher power then you have to use higher powers for distant
>> transmitters to compensate for the higher interference levels --
>> interference is all relative.
>
> It is not enough, when you are very high even if you have a very low
> power you can be received in a very large area much more than you
> want. In this case you can't manage temporary propagation due to
> weather or some other things.
Absolute nonsense. This is supposedly the area that you understand the best,
because you work for a DAB transmission company, and you still don't even
have a clue about this subject!
You seem to have either absolutely no common sense whatsoever, you're
deliberately lying again, or your ability to understand very simple
engineering concepts is almost nil.
> In the DVB-H document they didn't use a low power for DVB-H on the
> 200m mast, they use 40kW EIRP, so they are unable to respect the SFN
> parameters.
Using an equation we used throughout the Mobile Communications module on my
MSc course:
Pr (d) = P(d0) (d0/d)^4
Pr(d) is received power at distance d, P(d0) is the reference power close to
the transmitter, and the power of 4 results from the ground relfection 2-ray
path model (used to model mobile outdoor reception, because as well as an
LOS path the LOS path is modelled as reflecting off the ground -- we used
this model throughout the mobile communications module, and it's proved in
Wireless Communications by Rappaport).
And quoting the path loss equation using the 2-ray path model from
Rappaport:
PL (dB) = 40 log d - (10 log Gt + 10 log Gr + 20 log ht + 20 log hr)
Let's put some figures for DVB-H in that equation:
d = 60 km
Gt = 7 dB (Tx antenna gain)
Gr = -7 dB (Rx antenna gain)
ht = 200m (Tx height)
hr = 1.5m (Rx height)
PL (dB) = 40 log 60km - (7 + -7 + 20 log 200 + 20 log 1.5)
PL (dB) = 191.1 - (7 - 7 + 46 + 3.5)
PL (dB) = 141.6 dB
Then add diffraction and shadowing losses. You really do love to make a
problem out of nothing.
> The only way is creating a natural frontier for creating a big loss of
> signal before the max distance of the SFN.
Bollocks.
>>>>>> Which L-band mistake?
>>>>>
>>>>> max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Same problem if you use a 200m mast for a SFN in L band which have a
>>> max distance of 17km in DAB it will not work, but it will also not
>>> work for DVB-H
>>
>>
>> So you reduce the transmitter power instead.
>>
>
> It's not enough. and the power is not reduced (16kW EIRP) in the DVB-H
> document, so the problem really exist.
Quoting the free space path loss equation:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/radio/pathloss.htm
Loss dB = 32.44 + 20 log (dist in km) + 20 log (freq in MHz)
But changing the 2nd term to 40 log d
For f = 1450 MHz, d = 20 km
Loss dB = 32.44 + 40 log 20 + 20 log 1450
Loss dB = 147 dB
> It means that the DVB-H CAPEX is wrong once again also for L band.
You talk constant shit.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 May 2006 14:19:41 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
>> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>
>>> Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>>>>>> My point was that height loss applies to both systems, so what is
>>>>>>> the point in including it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it is not the same in band III, Band IV, band V and L
>>>>>> band.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Draw up a detailed link budget analysis and I'll check it when
>>>>> you've finished. Until then, the link budget stands as fact.
>>>>
>>>> Read TR 102377 for DVB-H and RRC 06 for DAB.
>>>> You have everything.
>>>
>>>
>>> Croiset, YOU have to explain the similarities and differences
>>> between the DVB-H Implementation Guidelines (TR 102 377) and this
>>> new DVB-H vs DMB document.
>>
>> You just have to check the differences. You will also find one more
>> line in TR 102 377 for the height loss.
>>
>> Sorry but this document from DVB-H group is a document with a lot of
>> errors, so the CAPEX ans results are wrong.
>
>
>In other words you cannot explain the differences. Therefore, the CAPEX
>figures stand as fact.
>
Already done
>
>>>>>> You don't take into account the
>>>>>> frequency width in your formula...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Provide some proof that power consumption is dependent on
>>>>> bandwidth.
>>>>
>>>> It is physical more larger is the frequency witdth is large to
>>>> decode more you need electrical power.
>>>
>>>
>>> I want you to provide some documentary evidence to support your
>>> claim.
>>
>> I don't have time to learn this kind of thing to you.
>
>
>In other words, you cannot explain this, because you don't understand it.
>Therefore I reject your claim entirely.
You have to check how works a receiver.
>
>>>>>> How do you do for a chipset which is able to decode the full DAB
>>>>>> stream and where the power consumtion is lower ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That sentence does not make sense.
>>>>
>>>> On DAB you are able to decode the full stream with a very low power
>>>> consumption, on DVB-H it is impossible.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's another lie.
>>
>> Cf a lot of chips from some european or asian companies which are able
>> to decode the full DAB stream.
>>
>> One LG mobile phone is able to create a mosaic of videos programs
>> which are broadcast in one DMB ensemble and decode the all videos in
>> real time.
>
>
>What you are trying to say is this:
>
>DAB reception + audio decoding
>
>has the same power consumption as mobile TV over DMB, which consists of:
>
>DAB reception + RS decoding + audio decoding + video decoding + display
>power consumption for video
Where did I say something for the display ? I spoke for the RF part
only... Interpretation is not good.
I spoke about the mosaic, just to show you that we are able to decode
the full MSC stream.
>
>That's either just a typical lie or you're so incompetent it's unbelievable.
>
>
>>>>> No it does not, because using your figures the mobile TV bit rate
>>>>> is about 400 kbps whereas a mono radio station on DAB uses just 64
>>>>> kbps, so assuming it uses time slicing then the RF front-end would
>>>>> have to be kept on for about 6-7 times as long to receive the
>>>>> mobile TV stream as for a mono radio station.
>>>>
>>>> The bitrate decoded on DAB does not change the power consumption...
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you don't even understand how time-slicing works at all.
>>
>> Time slicing is for DVB-H, DAB/DMB does not need this functionnality,
>> because the power consumption is already very low.
>
>
>That is definitely a lie, and DAB receivers do use the concept of
>time-slicing whereby the receiver is switched off in between receiving the
>transmissions.
Micro time slicing during NULL symbol yes, for other things no.
Time slicing is NOT necessary with DAB.
>
>> In the DVB-H document they didn't use a low power for DVB-H on the
>> 200m mast, they use 40kW EIRP, so they are unable to respect the SFN
>> parameters.
>
>
>Using an equation we used throughout the Mobile Communications module on my
>MSc course:
>
>Pr (d) = P(d0) (d0/d)^4
>
>Pr(d) is received power at distance d, P(d0) is the reference power close to
>the transmitter, and the power of 4 results from the ground relfection 2-ray
>path model (used to model mobile outdoor reception, because as well as an
>LOS path the LOS path is modelled as reflecting off the ground -- we used
>this model throughout the mobile communications module, and it's proved in
>Wireless Communications by Rappaport).
>
>And quoting the path loss equation using the 2-ray path model from
>Rappaport:
>
>PL (dB) = 40 log d - (10 log Gt + 10 log Gr + 20 log ht + 20 log hr)
>
>Let's put some figures for DVB-H in that equation:
>
>d = 60 km
>Gt = 7 dB (Tx antenna gain)
>Gr = -7 dB (Rx antenna gain)
>ht = 200m (Tx height)
>hr = 1.5m (Rx height)
>
>PL (dB) = 40 log 60km - (7 + -7 + 20 log 200 + 20 log 1.5)
>
>PL (dB) = 191.1 - (7 - 7 + 46 + 3.5)
>
>PL (dB) = 141.6 dB
The path loss equation is a good starting way, but it does not prove
if you have not enough signal or not for the interference. The formula
don't takes care about multipath which are generally the major problem
in interferences
P.1546 is better for this kind of demoonstration.
>
>Then add diffraction and shadowing losses. You really do love to make a
>problem out of nothing.
>
>
>> The only way is creating a natural frontier for creating a big loss of
>> signal before the max distance of the SFN.
>
>
>Bollocks.
No real world !!
>
>
>>>>>>> Which L-band mistake?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Same problem if you use a 200m mast for a SFN in L band which have a
>>>> max distance of 17km in DAB it will not work, but it will also not
>>>> work for DVB-H
>>>
>>>
>>> So you reduce the transmitter power instead.
>>>
>>
>> It's not enough. and the power is not reduced (16kW EIRP) in the DVB-H
>> document, so the problem really exist.
>
>
>Quoting the free space path loss equation:
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/radio/pathloss.htm
>
>Loss dB = 32.44 + 20 log (dist in km) + 20 log (freq in MHz)
>
>But changing the 2nd term to 40 log d
>
>For f = 1450 MHz, d = 20 km
>
>Loss dB = 32.44 + 40 log 20 + 20 log 1450
>
>Loss dB = 147 dB
>
See P.1546 fro ITU.
DAB sounds worse than FM
I've asked for an explanation. You've provided nothing in the way of an
explanation.
>>>>>>> You don't take into account the
>>>>>>> frequency width in your formula...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provide some proof that power consumption is dependent on
>>>>>> bandwidth.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is physical more larger is the frequency witdth is large to
>>>>> decode more you need electrical power.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I want you to provide some documentary evidence to support your
>>>> claim.
>>>
>>> I don't have time to learn this kind of thing to you.
>>
>>
>> In other words, you cannot explain this, because you don't
>> understand it. Therefore I reject your claim entirely.
>
> You have to check how works a receiver.
I don't need to check anything, because YOU are the person making the claim
that a wider bandwidth consumes a lot more power in the RF front end, not
me.
>>>>>>> How do you do for a chipset which is able to decode the full DAB
>>>>>>> stream and where the power consumtion is lower ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That sentence does not make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> On DAB you are able to decode the full stream with a very low
>>>>> power consumption, on DVB-H it is impossible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's another lie.
>>>
>>> Cf a lot of chips from some european or asian companies which are
>>> able to decode the full DAB stream.
>>>
>>> One LG mobile phone is able to create a mosaic of videos programs
>>> which are broadcast in one DMB ensemble and decode the all videos in
>>> real time.
>>
>>
>> What you are trying to say is this:
>>
>> DAB reception + audio decoding
>>
>> has the same power consumption as mobile TV over DMB, which consists
>> of:
>>
>> DAB reception + RS decoding + audio decoding + video decoding +
>> display power consumption for video
>
> Where did I say something for the display ?
You didn't, I did. Or are you denying that video needs to be seen on a
display?
You tried to suggest that the power consumption of a DAB personal radio
would be a good indicator of the power consumption of a DMB receiver used to
watch mobile TV. You are therefore either incompetent, a buffoon, stark
raving mad, or you just made it up as usual because it sounded good at the
time -- you should think things through, because I will find you out.
> I spoke for the RF part
> only... Interpretation is not good.
Stop lying. This is how this started:
"You >> I am sure you
>> didn't have in your hand a DVB-H receiver and a T-DMB receiver.
>
>
Me > That is true, but theory strongly suggests that DVB-H will have by far
the
> lower power consumption, so you need to be able to explain WHY the DMB
> receiver could possibly overturn the result dictated by theory. I realise
> you don't understand the relevant theory, but that really suggests that
you
> shouldn't be discussing this with me.
You: you just have theory and you use percentage, your departure is only
based on some assertions from companies. But you didn't verify in the
real world what all people claims about power consumtion is real.
Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?"
then you repeated it here:
"All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions."
Basically, you either lied or you are so incompetent that you didn't even
realise that the power consumption for mobile TV over DMB is far higher than
it is for DAB. Idiot.
>>>>>> No it does not, because using your figures the mobile TV bit rate
>>>>>> is about 400 kbps whereas a mono radio station on DAB uses just
>>>>>> 64 kbps, so assuming it uses time slicing then the RF front-end
>>>>>> would have to be kept on for about 6-7 times as long to receive
>>>>>> the mobile TV stream as for a mono radio station.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bitrate decoded on DAB does not change the power
>>>>> consumption...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you don't even understand how time-slicing works at all.
>>>
>>> Time slicing is for DVB-H, DAB/DMB does not need this
>>> functionnality, because the power consumption is already very low.
>>
>>
>> That is definitely a lie, and DAB receivers do use the concept of
>> time-slicing whereby the receiver is switched off in between
>> receiving the transmissions.
>
> Micro time slicing during NULL symbol yes, for other things no.
What, they turn the receiver off for the NULL symbol? Is there any point?
> Time slicing is NOT necessary with DAB.
I remember Kristoff knows that time slicing is used on DAB, so perhaps he
can tell you about it if you don't want to take my word for it....
Oh, so you're not aware that DAB, DVB-H etc use OFDM then? FYI, OFDM is
relatively tolerant of multipath. Perhaps you're used to an analogue-only
age?
> P.1546 is better for this kind of demoonstration.
I don't need to refer to P.1546 to know that you're talking out of your
arse.
>> Then add diffraction and shadowing losses. You really do love to
>> make a problem out of nothing.
>>
>>
>>> The only way is creating a natural frontier for creating a big loss
>>> of signal before the max distance of the SFN.
>>
>>
>> Bollocks.
>
> No real world !!
Only in your little world of your own, Croissant.
>>>>>>>> Which L-band mistake?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Same problem if you use a 200m mast for a SFN in L band which
>>>>> have a max distance of 17km in DAB it will not work, but it will
>>>>> also not work for DVB-H
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you reduce the transmitter power instead.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not enough. and the power is not reduced (16kW EIRP) in the
>>> DVB-H document, so the problem really exist.
>>
>>
>> Quoting the free space path loss equation:
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/radio/pathloss.htm
>>
>> Loss dB = 32.44 + 20 log (dist in km) + 20 log (freq in MHz)
>>
>> But changing the 2nd term to 40 log d
>>
>> For f = 1450 MHz, d = 20 km
>>
>> Loss dB = 32.44 + 40 log 20 + 20 log 1450
>>
>> Loss dB = 147 dB
>>
>
>
> See P.1546 fro ITU.
You are an absolute joke. You just hide behind documents but you never quote
any figures from them. You make claims but never back them up. You never
explain anything -- you're like a little child knocking on a door and
running away. In short, you are pathetic.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>>> has the same power consumption as mobile TV over DMB, which consists
>>> of:
>>>
>>> DAB reception + RS decoding + audio decoding + video decoding +
>>> display power consumption for video
>>
>> Where did I say something for the display ?
>
>
>You didn't, I did. Or are you denying that video needs to be seen on a
>display?
>
>You tried to suggest that the power consumption of a DAB personal radio
>would be a good indicator of the power consumption of a DMB receiver used to
>watch mobile TV. You are therefore either incompetent, a buffoon, stark
>raving mad, or you just made it up as usual because it sounded good at the
>time -- you should think things through, because I will find you out.
>
>
>> I spoke for the RF part
>> only... Interpretation is not good.
>
>
>Stop lying. This is how this started:
If you compare a DVB-H mobile phone and a T-DMB mobile phone, the only
difference is the RF part, everything else is the same, so the rest
have the same power consumption.
The rest is : screen, Audio and video decoder, managment the
electronic device.
So verifying the power consumption of a DAB receiver is a good start,
because you know what is the power consumption of the RF part + some
small management of the device.
so this comparison is true.
>
>"You >> I am sure you
>>> didn't have in your hand a DVB-H receiver and a T-DMB receiver.
>>
>>
>Me > That is true, but theory strongly suggests that DVB-H will have by far
>the
>> lower power consumption, so you need to be able to explain WHY the DMB
>> receiver could possibly overturn the result dictated by theory. I realise
>> you don't understand the relevant theory, but that really suggests that
>you
>> shouldn't be discussing this with me.
>
>You: you just have theory and you use percentage, your departure is only
>based on some assertions from companies. But you didn't verify in the
>real world what all people claims about power consumtion is real.
>
>Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
>consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?"
>
>then you repeated it here:
>
>"All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions."
>
>Basically, you either lied or you are so incompetent that you didn't even
>realise that the power consumption for mobile TV over DMB is far higher than
>it is for DAB. Idiot.
It's your opinion, not the reality, and you don't check it. your
argument is based on nothing.
>
>
>>>>>>> No it does not, because using your figures the mobile TV bit rate
>>>>>>> is about 400 kbps whereas a mono radio station on DAB uses just
>>>>>>> 64 kbps, so assuming it uses time slicing then the RF front-end
>>>>>>> would have to be kept on for about 6-7 times as long to receive
>>>>>>> the mobile TV stream as for a mono radio station.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bitrate decoded on DAB does not change the power
>>>>>> consumption...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you don't even understand how time-slicing works at all.
>>>>
>>>> Time slicing is for DVB-H, DAB/DMB does not need this
>>>> functionnality, because the power consumption is already very low.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is definitely a lie, and DAB receivers do use the concept of
>>> time-slicing whereby the receiver is switched off in between
>>> receiving the transmissions.
>>
>> Micro time slicing during NULL symbol yes, for other things no.
>
>
>What, they turn the receiver off for the NULL symbol? Is there any point?
>
See EBU publication for example.
There is on DVB-T/H the use of coherent modulation which is not
tolerant to echoes when these one are higher than the guard interval
For the details, you might read these chapters 1.2 and 1.3 :
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_295-brugger.pdf
The ITU P1546, taken into account a lot of parameters, more than the
theory for determining the performance of a broadcasting system.
these curves are based on theory and modified by practice.
For example at 600MHz with a mast at 200m with 1kW ERP you will have a
signal strength at 60km around 38dBµV/m, so with 30 kW EIRP, you will
have a minimal field strength of 55 dBµV/m
This transmitter is used for suburban coverage. If you use the DVB-H
document value, the minimal field strength is 67.3dB and the C/N is
6.4 dB according to DVB-H document.
If you add 55+6.4=61.4dB, and the difference with the minimal value
needed is very closest, so if you add an obstacle which makes an
attenuation on the other signal you will automatically have an
interference in the area.
This problem is a well known one with the DVB-T network called R1
because the distances are in the upper limits of the SFN network, and
the reception is lower than other multiplexes in Paris and you have a
lot of complaints about this problem like these ones for this month
only :
http://www.csa.fr/outils/forum/forum_detail.php?id=17409&idD=116729
http://www.csa.fr/outils/forum/forum_detail.php?id=17409&idD=116302
>>>>>>>>> Which L-band mistake?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same problem if you use a 200m mast for a SFN in L band which
>>>>>> have a max distance of 17km in DAB it will not work, but it will
>>>>>> also not work for DVB-H
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you reduce the transmitter power instead.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not enough. and the power is not reduced (16kW EIRP) in the
>>>> DVB-H document, so the problem really exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting the free space path loss equation:
>>>
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/radio/pathloss.htm
>>>
>>> Loss dB = 32.44 + 20 log (dist in km) + 20 log (freq in MHz)
>>>
>>> But changing the 2nd term to 40 log d
>>>
>>> For f = 1450 MHz, d = 20 km
>>>
>>> Loss dB = 32.44 + 40 log 20 + 20 log 1450
>>>
>>> Loss dB = 147 dB
>>>
>>
>>
>> See P.1546 fro ITU.
>
>
>You are an absolute joke. You just hide behind documents but you never quote
>any figures from them. You make claims but never back them up. You never
>explain anything -- you're like a little child knocking on a door and
>running away. In short, you are pathetic.
cf ITU R P.1546
you just have to download it.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 01:46:43 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
> <dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>
>>>> has the same power consumption as mobile TV over DMB, which
>>>> consists of:
>>>>
>>>> DAB reception + RS decoding + audio decoding + video decoding +
>>>> display power consumption for video
>>>
>>> Where did I say something for the display ?
>>
>>
>> You didn't, I did. Or are you denying that video needs to be seen on
>> a display?
>>
>> You tried to suggest that the power consumption of a DAB personal
>> radio would be a good indicator of the power consumption of a DMB
>> receiver used to watch mobile TV. You are therefore either
>> incompetent, a buffoon, stark raving mad, or you just made it up as
>> usual because it sounded good at the time -- you should think things
>> through, because I will find you out.
>>
>>
>>> I spoke for the RF part
>>> only... Interpretation is not good.
>>
>>
>> Stop lying. This is how this started:
You snipped these comments that I copied and pasted from earlier in the
thread on this, which was how this sub-discussion started:
"Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?"
then you repeated it here:
"All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions."
You dishonestly or incompetently suggested that DAB walkman power
consumption was a good guide to DMB power consumption. Absolute nonsense.
> If you compare a DVB-H mobile phone and a T-DMB mobile phone, the only
> difference is the RF part, everything else is the same, so the rest
> have the same power consumption.
Correct.
> The rest is : screen, Audio and video decoder, managment the
> electronic device.
>
> So verifying the power consumption of a DAB receiver is a good start,
No, because the display, RS decoder and video decoder are not there on a DAB
receiver. Duh.
> because you know what is the power consumption of the RF part + some
> small management of the device.
>
> so this comparison is true.
It could not be further from the truth. It's comparing apples and oranges.
>> "You >> I am sure you
>>>> didn't have in your hand a DVB-H receiver and a T-DMB receiver.
>>>
>>>
>> Me > That is true, but theory strongly suggests that DVB-H will have
>> by far the
>>> lower power consumption, so you need to be able to explain WHY the
>>> DMB receiver could possibly overturn the result dictated by theory.
>>> I realise you don't understand the relevant theory, but that really
>>> suggests that you shouldn't be discussing this with me.
>>
>> You: you just have theory and you use percentage, your departure is
>> only based on some assertions from companies. But you didn't verify
>> in the
>> real world what all people claims about power consumtion is real.
>>
>> Did you makes just one time the calculation of the real power
>> consumption on some DAB walkman for example ?"
>>
>> then you repeated it here:
>>
>> "All people who have a DAB walkman can easily verify my assertions."
>>
>> Basically, you either lied or you are so incompetent that you didn't
>> even realise that the power consumption for mobile TV over DMB is
>> far higher than it is for DAB. Idiot.
>
> It's your opinion, not the reality, and you don't check it. your
> argument is based on nothing.
What's the point in arguing over something so amazingly obvious as this?
Words fail me how you can have the audacity to suggest that the display, RS
decoder and video decoder (the latter two are relatively computationally
complex, and the former drains a lot of power) can just be ignored. Typical
Croiset though isn't it.
>> Oh, so you're not aware that DAB, DVB-H etc use OFDM then? FYI, OFDM
>> is relatively tolerant of multipath. Perhaps you're used to an
>> analogue-only age?
>>
>>
>>> P.1546 is better for this kind of demoonstration.
>>
>>
>> I don't need to refer to P.1546 to know that you're talking out of
>> your arse.
>
> There is on DVB-T/H the use of coherent modulation which is not
> tolerant to echoes when these one are higher than the guard interval
Coherent modulation has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the guard
interval, so God only knows why you mentioned coherent modulation in that?
And this is what you originally said:
"> The path loss equation is a good starting way, but it does not prove
> if you have not enough signal or not for the interference. The formula
> don't takes care about multipath which are generally the major problem
> in interferences"
You were saying that multipath is the major problem in terms of
interference. It's not multipath you're referring to, you're talking about
signals coming from a different transmitter.
> For the details, you might read these chapters 1.2 and 1.3 :
> http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_295-brugger.pdf
There are no chapters 1.2 and 1.3 in that document. Why did you just make up
chapters 1.2 and 1.3? How does your brain work?
> The ITU P1546, taken into account a lot of parameters, more than the
> theory for determining the performance of a broadcasting system.
>
> these curves are based on theory and modified by practice.
>
> For example at 600MHz with a mast at 200m with 1kW ERP you will have a
> signal strength at 60km around 38dBµV/m, so with 30 kW EIRP, you will
> have a minimal field strength of 55 dBµV/m
>
> This transmitter is used for suburban coverage. If you use the DVB-H
> document value, the minimal field strength is 67.3dB and the C/N is
> 6.4 dB according to DVB-H document.
>
> If you add 55+6.4=61.4dB, and the difference with the minimal value
> needed is very closest, so if you add an obstacle which makes an
> attenuation on the other signal you will automatically have an
> interference in the area.
I've never disputed that it is beneficial to have obstacles to reduce
interference. What I'm disputing is your apparent claim that DVB-H cannot
use SFNs, which is patently ridiculous. I'm not disputing that DAB can have
slightly higher transmitter separation distances either. Big deal, DVB-H is
so much cheaper than DAB or DMB that this is almost irrelevant.
So what *are* you trying to say here?
> This problem is a well known one with the DVB-T network called R1
> because the distances are in the upper limits of the SFN network, and
> the reception is lower than other multiplexes in Paris and you have a
> lot of complaints about this problem like these ones for this month
> only :
> http://www.csa.fr/outils/forum/forum_detail.php?id=17409&idD=116729
> http://www.csa.fr/outils/forum/forum_detail.php?id=17409&idD=116302
Okay, here's a reception complaint of my own:
Dear BBC,
I live 5 miles away from my local CE Manchester DAB multiplex transmitter.
This multiplex has a coverage area that supposedly spreads out to around 30
miles further out from Manchester than I am, yet I have lots of bubbling mud
on my signal.
Come on BBC, this is outrageous.
Disgruntled,
Tunbridge Stockport
Reception complaints? Try any UK DAB Internet forum to find hundreds. Read
emails people send to me about it.
2 complaints about DVB-H reception and all of a sudden DVB-H has some
massive problem? Do me a favour you plonker.
>>>>>>>>>> Which L-band mistake?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> max SFN distance. Are you engineer ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same problem if you use a 200m mast for a SFN in L band which
>>>>>>> have a max distance of 17km in DAB it will not work, but it will
>>>>>>> also not work for DVB-H
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you reduce the transmitter power instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not enough. and the power is not reduced (16kW EIRP) in the
>>>>> DVB-H document, so the problem really exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting the free space path loss equation:
>>>>
>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/radio/pathloss.htm
>>>>
>>>> Loss dB = 32.44 + 20 log (dist in km) + 20 log (freq in MHz)
>>>>
>>>> But changing the 2nd term to 40 log d
>>>>
>>>> For f = 1450 MHz, d = 20 km
>>>>
>>>> Loss dB = 32.44 + 40 log 20 + 20 log 1450
>>>>
>>>> Loss dB = 147 dB
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See P.1546 fro ITU.
>>
>>
>> You are an absolute joke. You just hide behind documents but you
>> never quote any figures from them. You make claims but never back
>> them up. You never explain anything -- you're like a little child
>> knocking on a door and running away. In short, you are pathetic.
>
>
> cf ITU R P.1546
>
> you just have to download it.
Merely writing "cf ITU R P.1546" proves precisely nothing. I've even
forgotten WTF your point is here.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>
>> If you compare a DVB-H mobile phone and a T-DMB mobile phone, the only
>> difference is the RF part, everything else is the same, so the rest
>> have the same power consumption.
>
>
>Correct.
>
>
>> The rest is : screen, Audio and video decoder, managment the
>> electronic device.
>>
>> So verifying the power consumption of a DAB receiver is a good start,
>
>
>No, because the display, RS decoder and video decoder are not there on a DAB
>receiver. Duh.
Yes the video décoder and RS decoder does not exist on DAB, but you
need to compare 2 different RF systems, video decoder is necessary in
both video systems so the power consumption is equivallent. The RS
decoder is needed on both system (T-DMB and DVB-T part of DVB-H) so
the power consumption of this part is equivalent and negligeable in
comparison with video decoder power consumption.
So the use of a DAB receiver for taking the idea of the power
consumption of a RF part of a DAB receiver is a very good start to
know the power consumption of a T-DMB receiver.
I am repeating what I said, except RF part every other parts are the
same on both technologies.
you can ignore it because on BOTH technologies (T-DMB and DVB-H),
these chips have the SAME power consumption.
Remember the arguments from DVB-H group is low power consumption on
the RF. So you need to compare both RF power consumption. In this case
if you take a DAB walkman, you can easily compare the power
consumption of the DAB module with the values said by DVB-H group.
>
>
>>> Oh, so you're not aware that DAB, DVB-H etc use OFDM then? FYI, OFDM
>>> is relatively tolerant of multipath. Perhaps you're used to an
>>> analogue-only age?
>>>
>>>
>>>> P.1546 is better for this kind of demoonstration.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't need to refer to P.1546 to know that you're talking out of
>>> your arse.
>>
>> There is on DVB-T/H the use of coherent modulation which is not
>> tolerant to echoes when these one are higher than the guard interval
>
>
>Coherent modulation has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the guard
>interval, so God only knows why you mentioned coherent modulation in that?
>
>And this is what you originally said:
>
>"> The path loss equation is a good starting way, but it does not prove
>> if you have not enough signal or not for the interference. The formula
>> don't takes care about multipath which are generally the major problem
>> in interferences"
>
>You were saying that multipath is the major problem in terms of
>interference. It's not multipath you're referring to, you're talking about
>signals coming from a different transmitter.
Multipath from one transmitter OR signal delayed from one to an
another one transmitter have the same results for the receiver side,
it looks like an echo.
If the delayed signal is received in a delay higher than the guard
interval, this one will be destructive signal, instead pf
constructive.
>
>> For the details, you might read these chapters 1.2 and 1.3 :
>> http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_295-brugger.pdf
>
>
>There are no chapters 1.2 and 1.3 in that document. Why did you just make up
>chapters 1.2 and 1.3? How does your brain work?
>
>
Yes they are in this document, I check right now on pages 3 and 4.
>> The ITU P1546, taken into account a lot of parameters, more than the
>> theory for determining the performance of a broadcasting system.
>>
>> these curves are based on theory and modified by practice.
>>
>> For example at 600MHz with a mast at 200m with 1kW ERP you will have a
>> signal strength at 60km around 38dBµV/m, so with 30 kW EIRP, you will
>> have a minimal field strength of 55 dBµV/m
>>
>> This transmitter is used for suburban coverage. If you use the DVB-H
>> document value, the minimal field strength is 67.3dB and the C/N is
>> 6.4 dB according to DVB-H document.
>>
>> If you add 55+6.4=61.4dB, and the difference with the minimal value
>> needed is very closest, so if you add an obstacle which makes an
>> attenuation on the other signal you will automatically have an
>> interference in the area.
>
>
>I've never disputed that it is beneficial to have obstacles to reduce
>interference. What I'm disputing is your apparent claim that DVB-H cannot
>use SFNs, which is patently ridiculous. I'm not disputing that DAB can have
>slightly higher transmitter separation distances either. Big deal, DVB-H is
>so much cheaper than DAB or DMB that this is almost irrelevant.
>
>So what *are* you trying to say here?
I didn't say that SFN can not be used in DVB-H, I said that the
particular SFN provided by DVB-H group with a mast of 200m and a power
of 30kWERP will create a SFN problem...
The DVB-H CAPEX is based on a technical assertion where some parts are
not working, so the CAPEX is false.
on L band CAPEX, they use transmitters with 16 kW ERP, this kind of
power is impossible because you have no transmitters which are able to
provide enough electrical power to get 16kW ERP. So I don't know how
they can quote the price of this kind of solution and put it in the
CAPEX.
The higher DAB transmitter I know is 1.2kW before filter so it's
around 1000W after the filter and I don't speak about the feeder loss
in these frequencies for 200m...
>
>
>> This problem is a well known one with the DVB-T network called R1
>> because the distances are in the upper limits of the SFN network, and
>> the reception is lower than other multiplexes in Paris and you have a
>> lot of complaints about this problem like these ones for this month
>> only :
>> http://www.csa.fr/outils/forum/forum_detail.php?id=17409&idD=116729
>> http://www.csa.fr/outils/forum/forum_detail.php?id=17409&idD=116302
>
>
>Okay, here's a reception complaint of my own:
>
>Dear BBC,
>
>I live 5 miles away from my local CE Manchester DAB multiplex transmitter.
>This multiplex has a coverage area that supposedly spreads out to around 30
>miles further out from Manchester than I am, yet I have lots of bubbling mud
>on my signal.
>
>Come on BBC, this is outrageous.
>
>Disgruntled,
>Tunbridge Stockport
>
>Reception complaints? Try any UK DAB Internet forum to find hundreds. Read
>emails people send to me about it.
>
>2 complaints about DVB-H reception and all of a sudden DVB-H has some
>massive problem? Do me a favour you plonker.
Not DVB-H but DVB-T complaint.
For the reception problem you spoke I don't know the network in this
part, so I can't reply. But there is certainly one good technical
reason.
When you makes this kind of complaint, why don't you said which
receiver reference you use, it's a basic information needed by all
brodcasters to write a good answer.
We know for example a receiver which always burble in some particular
case of a multiplex configuration even if the signal strength is VERY
high.
DAB sounds worse than FM
No, you're just massively wrong. Did you pass your maths exam at school? You
don't seem to have *any* common sense when it comes to numbers and
proportions. This is simple, simple stuff.
Here's what you have (ignoring the RS decoder):
DAB radio:
RF + audio decoder
DVB-H/DMB mobile TV:
RF + audio decoder + video decoder + display
The power consumption of mobile TV *will* be much higher than DAB because of
the extra processing and display.
>>>> Basically, you either lied or you are so incompetent that you
>>>> didn't even realise that the power consumption for mobile TV over
>>>> DMB is far higher than it is for DAB. Idiot.
>>>
>>> It's your opinion, not the reality, and you don't check it. your
>>> argument is based on nothing.
>>
>>
>> What's the point in arguing over something so amazingly obvious as
>> this? Words fail me how you can have the audacity to suggest that
>> the display, RS decoder and video decoder (the latter two are
>> relatively computationally complex, and the former drains a lot of
>> power) can just be ignored. Typical Croiset though isn't it.
>
> you can ignore it because on BOTH technologies (T-DMB and DVB-H),
> these chips have the SAME power consumption.
No:
DAB radio:
RF + audio decoder
DVB-H/DMB mobile TV:
RF + audio decoder + video decoder + display
Very different power consumptions.
> Remember the arguments from DVB-H group is low power consumption on
> the RF. So you need to compare both RF power consumption.
Agreed. But your original point of using DAB personal radios as a guide to
DMB power consumption is totally incorrect.
> In this case
> if you take a DAB walkman, you can easily compare the power
> consumption of the DAB module with the values said by DVB-H group.
You're simply an idiot.
>> And this is what you originally said:
>>
>> "> The path loss equation is a good starting way, but it does not
>> prove
>>> if you have not enough signal or not for the interference. The
>>> formula don't takes care about multipath which are generally the
>>> major problem in interferences"
>>
>> You were saying that multipath is the major problem in terms of
>> interference. It's not multipath you're referring to, you're talking
>> about signals coming from a different transmitter.
>
>
> Multipath from one transmitter OR signal delayed from one to an
> another one transmitter have the same results for the receiver side,
> it looks like an echo.
Yes, but you described it as "multipath", which didn't make sense.
> If the delayed signal is received in a delay higher than the guard
> interval, this one will be destructive signal, instead pf
> constructive.
Bloody hell, you've got something correct for a change.
>>> The ITU P1546, taken into account a lot of parameters, more than the
>>> theory for determining the performance of a broadcasting system.
>>>
>>> these curves are based on theory and modified by practice.
>>>
>>> For example at 600MHz with a mast at 200m with 1kW ERP you will
>>> have a signal strength at 60km around 38dBµV/m, so with 30 kW EIRP,
>>> you will have a minimal field strength of 55 dBµV/m
>>>
>>> This transmitter is used for suburban coverage. If you use the DVB-H
>>> document value, the minimal field strength is 67.3dB and the C/N is
>>> 6.4 dB according to DVB-H document.
>>>
>>> If you add 55+6.4=61.4dB, and the difference with the minimal value
>>> needed is very closest, so if you add an obstacle which makes an
>>> attenuation on the other signal you will automatically have an
>>> interference in the area.
>>
>>
>> I've never disputed that it is beneficial to have obstacles to reduce
>> interference. What I'm disputing is your apparent claim that DVB-H
>> cannot use SFNs, which is patently ridiculous. I'm not disputing
>> that DAB can have slightly higher transmitter separation distances
>> either. Big deal, DVB-H is so much cheaper than DAB or DMB that this
>> is almost irrelevant.
>>
>> So what *are* you trying to say here?
>
> I didn't say that SFN can not be used in DVB-H, I said that the
> particular SFN provided by DVB-H group with a mast of 200m and a power
> of 30kWERP will create a SFN problem...
No it does not cause a problem with SFN. Moreover, the example they used did
not even mention SFN anyway.
> The DVB-H CAPEX is based on a technical assertion where some parts are
> not working, so the CAPEX is false.
Total nonsense. You have not demonstrated anything of the kind. You have
written a load of comments that don't make sense.
> on L band CAPEX, they use transmitters with 16 kW ERP, this kind of
> power is impossible because you have no transmitters which are able to
> provide enough electrical power to get 16kW ERP.
I would imagine that whoever wrote the document knew that 16 kW ERP was
possible, and I'm definitely not taking your word for it that it is
impossible as you are a pathological liar.
> So I don't know how
> they can quote the price of this kind of solution and put it in the
> CAPEX.
You've failed to provide a an explanation let alone a coherent explanation.
Sorry , the CAPEX figures are correct.
> The higher DAB transmitter I know is 1.2kW before filter so it's
> around 1000W after the filter and I don't speak about the feeder loss
> in these frequencies for 200m...
I would imagine that whoever wrote the document knew that 16 kW ERP was
possible, and I'm definitely not taking your word for it that it is
impossible as you are a pathological liar.
>>> This problem is a well known one with the DVB-T network called R1
>>> because the distances are in the upper limits of the SFN network,
>>> and the reception is lower than other multiplexes in Paris and you
>>> have a lot of complaints about this problem like these ones for
>>> this month only :
>>> http://www.csa.fr/outils/forum/forum_detail.php?id=17409&idD=116729
>>> http://www.csa.fr/outils/forum/forum_detail.php?id=17409&idD=116302
>>
>>
>> Okay, here's a reception complaint of my own:
>>
>> Dear BBC,
>>
>> I live 5 miles away from my local CE Manchester DAB multiplex
>> transmitter. This multiplex has a coverage area that supposedly
>> spreads out to around 30 miles further out from Manchester than I
>> am, yet I have lots of bubbling mud on my signal.
>>
>> Come on BBC, this is outrageous.
>>
>> Disgruntled,
>> Tunbridge Stockport
>>
>> Reception complaints? Try any UK DAB Internet forum to find
>> hundreds. Read emails people send to me about it.
>>
>> 2 complaints about DVB-H reception and all of a sudden DVB-H has some
>> massive problem? Do me a favour you plonker.
>
> Not DVB-H but DVB-T complaint.
And your point is what exactly? The guard interval used on DVB-T in the UK
is only 7us (the lowest possible guard interval on DVB-T) yet 73% of the
population has DVB-T coverage and about 10 million Freeview set-top boxes
have been sold so far. So what is your point?
> For the reception problem you spoke I don't know the network in this
> part, so I can't reply. But there is certainly one good technical
> reason.
How do you know it was due to the guard interval and not due to insufficient
signal strength?
> When you makes this kind of complaint, why don't you said which
> receiver reference you use, it's a basic information needed by all
> brodcasters to write a good answer.
I've got about 10 DAB radios and tuners in my flat, and all of them produce
bubbling mud on the CE Manchester multiplex. Is 10 enough, or would you like
me to go out and ram raid an electrical store to get some more?
> We know for example a receiver which always burble in some particular
> case of a multiplex configuration even if the signal strength is VERY
> high.
Good for you.
The actual reason is simple: the scale factors are only protected by an 8/18
code rate convolutional code, and if bit errors occur, which they frequently
do, you get bubbling mud.
The FEC coding on DAB is extremely weak.
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
You definitvely not understand what I mean. I don't want to check the
power consumption of full DMB receiver, I want to check only (for an
idea) the power consumption of the DAB RF module.
you can actually measure the power consumption of on a walkman DAB RF+
audio decoder. So you can check if the power consumption is the one
written in the DVB-H assertion or not. As you know they spoke about
the RF module not the video decodcer part.
>
>> Remember the arguments from DVB-H group is low power consumption on
>> the RF. So you need to compare both RF power consumption.
>
>
>Agreed. But your original point of using DAB personal radios as a guide to
>DMB power consumption is totally incorrect.
No but you don't want to understand what I want to say.
We are turning once again.... If it's MFN, DVb-H is definitively a
very bad technology because they use 56 MHz for only less than 4MBit/s
You don't want to recognize that the document have big mistakes....
>> on L band CAPEX, they use transmitters with 16 kW ERP, this kind of
>> power is impossible because you have no transmitters which are able to
>> provide enough electrical power to get 16kW ERP.
>
>
>I would imagine that whoever wrote the document knew that 16 kW ERP was
>possible, and I'm definitely not taking your word for it that it is
>impossible as you are a pathological liar.
Check some manufacturers of transmitters
http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/www/dev_center.nsf/html/na6000_nl6000
Power in L band is not more than 750W in this manufacturer.
>
>
>> So I don't know how
>> they can quote the price of this kind of solution and put it in the
>> CAPEX.
>
>
>You've failed to provide a an explanation let alone a coherent explanation.
>Sorry , the CAPEX figures are correct.
you are wrong, check above.
>
>
>> The higher DAB transmitter I know is 1.2kW before filter so it's
>> around 1000W after the filter and I don't speak about the feeder loss
>> in these frequencies for 200m...
>
>
>I would imagine that whoever wrote the document knew that 16 kW ERP was
>possible, and I'm definitely not taking your word for it that it is
>impossible as you are a pathological liar.
you are wrongh check above.
In MFN it takes no problem. In Paris, R1 is in SFN with 5
transmitters.
>
>
>> For the reception problem you spoke I don't know the network in this
>> part, so I can't reply. But there is certainly one good technical
>> reason.
>
>
>How do you know it was due to the guard interval and not due to insufficient
>signal strength?
Because measurement equipments get this answer. It's a well known
problem in France and discuss a lot in TNT newsgroup or forums.
>
>
>> When you makes this kind of complaint, why don't you said which
>> receiver reference you use, it's a basic information needed by all
>> brodcasters to write a good answer.
>
>
>I've got about 10 DAB radios and tuners in my flat, and all of them produce
>bubbling mud on the CE Manchester multiplex. Is 10 enough, or would you like
>me to go out and ram raid an electrical store to get some more?
if you have all receivers with the same chip inside, you could have
the same problem on ALL receivers. It does not help.
>
>
>> We know for example a receiver which always burble in some particular
>> case of a multiplex configuration even if the signal strength is VERY
>> high.
>
>
>Good for you.
>
>The actual reason is simple: the scale factors are only protected by an 8/18
>code rate convolutional code, and if bit errors occur, which they frequently
>do, you get bubbling mud.
>
Not necessary sometimes some receivers which have a bad implementation
of the MSC decoding part, generate an artificial BER on some precise
CU position.
DAB sounds worse than FM
No, I really *do* understand what you mean.
> I don't want to check the
> power consumption of full DMB receiver, I want to check only (for an
> idea) the power consumption of the DAB RF module.
>
> you can actually measure the power consumption of on a walkman DAB RF+
> audio decoder. So you can check if the power consumption is the one
> written in the DVB-H assertion or not. As you know they spoke about
> the RF module not the video decodcer part.
You really don't know how wrong you are. The power consumption of a DAB
receiver cannot be used to compare with the power consumption of a DVB-H
receiver. That should be obvious to anybody with a brain, because DVB-H
includes a high power consumption display and a high power consumption H.264
video decoder. Missing these two things out is means that any comparison is
worthless.
You seem to think that comparing the RF front end power consumption + OFDM
etc + audio decoder of a DAB personal radio can be compared with DVB-H
mobile TV somehow. It is a worthless comparison.
>>> I didn't say that SFN can not be used in DVB-H, I said that the
>>> particular SFN provided by DVB-H group with a mast of 200m and a
>>> power of 30kWERP will create a SFN problem...
>>
>>
>> No it does not cause a problem with SFN. Moreover, the example they
>> used did not even mention SFN anyway.
>>
>
> We are turning once again.... If it's MFN, DVb-H is definitively a
> very bad technology because they use 56 MHz for only less than 4MBit/s
What an utterly audacious liar you are. 56 MHz for 4 Mbps??????
Let's get something straight: SFNs ARE DEFINITELY possible on DVB-H. The
examples at the back do not mention SFNs, but that does not mean that SFNs
are not possible.
> You don't want to recognize that the document have big mistakes....
This is a waste of my time.
>>> on L band CAPEX, they use transmitters with 16 kW ERP, this kind of
>>> power is impossible because you have no transmitters which are able
>>> to provide enough electrical power to get 16kW ERP.
>>
>>
>> I would imagine that whoever wrote the document knew that 16 kW ERP
>> was possible, and I'm definitely not taking your word for it that it
>> is impossible as you are a pathological liar.
>
> Check some manufacturers of transmitters
> http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/www/dev_center.nsf/html/na6000_nl6000
>
> Power in L band is not more than 750W in this manufacturer.
That's one manufacturer of DAB transmitters. What about all the other
manufacturers?
>>> For the reception problem you spoke I don't know the network in this
>>> part, so I can't reply. But there is certainly one good technical
>>> reason.
>>
>>
>> How do you know it was due to the guard interval and not due to
>> insufficient signal strength?
>
> Because measurement equipments get this answer. It's a well known
> problem in France and discuss a lot in TNT newsgroup or forums.
What guard interval duration is being used on DTT in France?
>>> When you makes this kind of complaint, why don't you said which
>>> receiver reference you use, it's a basic information needed by all
>>> brodcasters to write a good answer.
>>
>>
>> I've got about 10 DAB radios and tuners in my flat, and all of them
>> produce bubbling mud on the CE Manchester multiplex. Is 10 enough,
>> or would you like me to go out and ram raid an electrical store to
>> get some more?
>
> if you have all receivers with the same chip inside, you could have
> the same problem on ALL receivers. It does not help.
I've got receivers with DAB modules from Frontier-Silicon and Radioscape and
other companies, such as SBK Telecom(?) from Korea.
>>> We know for example a receiver which always burble in some
>>> particular case of a multiplex configuration even if the signal
>>> strength is VERY high.
>>
>>
>> Good for you.
>>
>> The actual reason is simple: the scale factors are only protected by
>> an 8/18 code rate convolutional code, and if bit errors occur, which
>> they frequently do, you get bubbling mud.
>>
>
> Not necessary sometimes some receivers which have a bad implementation
> of the MSC decoding part, generate an artificial BER on some precise
> CU position.
No, a code rate of 8/18 is in the DAB specification as being the code rate
used to protect the scale factors of 128kbps MP2 streams using PL3. It is
EXACTLY the same on all receivers, because it is transmitted this way.
You don't even seem to understand the absolute basics of the system you
apparently work on!
Nicolas Croiset
<dab...@loooow.quality> wrote:
>Nicolas Croiset wrote:
>>> DAB radio:
>>>
>>> RF + audio decoder
>>>
>>> DVB-H/DMB mobile TV:
>>>
>>> RF + audio decoder + video decoder + display
>>>
>>> The power consumption of mobile TV *will* be much higher than DAB
>>> because of the extra processing and display.
>>
>> You definitvely not understand what I mean.
>
>
>No, I really *do* understand what you mean.
>
No you really don't understand. I will make my last tentative in the
next lines.
>
>> I don't want to check the
>> power consumption of full DMB receiver, I want to check only (for an
>> idea) the power consumption of the DAB RF module.
>>
>> you can actually measure the power consumption of on a walkman DAB RF+
>> audio decoder. So you can check if the power consumption is the one
>> written in the DVB-H assertion or not. As you know they spoke about
>> the RF module not the video decodcer part.
>
>
>You really don't know how wrong you are. The power consumption of a DAB
>receiver cannot be used to compare with the power consumption of a DVB-H
>receiver. That should be obvious to anybody with a brain, because DVB-H
>includes a high power consumption display and a high power consumption H.264
>video decoder. Missing these two things out is means that any comparison is
>worthless.
>
>You seem to think that comparing the RF front end power consumption + OFDM
>etc + audio decoder of a DAB personal radio can be compared with DVB-H
>mobile TV somehow. It is a worthless comparison.
I agree with you about that, but the DVB-H claim is :
- Time Division Multiplex Systems
T-DMB uses micro time slicing
DVB-H uses real time slicing
Conclusion: DVB-H has advantage in power consumption (average DVB-H
80mW, T-DMB 250mW)
These theorical power consumptions exclude on BOTH systems the video
decoding AND lcd screen power consumption.
My answer is that the value of 250mW for T-DMB is wrong, and to check
this you can use a walkman with DAB and measure the power consumtion
on it.
>
>
>>>> I didn't say that SFN can not be used in DVB-H, I said that the
>>>> particular SFN provided by DVB-H group with a mast of 200m and a
>>>> power of 30kWERP will create a SFN problem...
>>>
>>>
>>> No it does not cause a problem with SFN. Moreover, the example they
>>> used did not even mention SFN anyway.
>>>
>>
>> We are turning once again.... If it's MFN, DVb-H is definitively a
>> very bad technology because they use 56 MHz for only less than 4MBit/s
>
>
>What an utterly audacious liar you are. 56 MHz for 4 Mbps??????
>
>Let's get something straight: SFNs ARE DEFINITELY possible on DVB-H. The
>examples at the back do not mention SFNs, but that does not mean that SFNs
>are not possible.
Not in the particular case where they made the CAPEX.
It's a sterile discussion
>>>> on L band CAPEX, they use transmitters with 16 kW ERP, this kind of
>>>> power is impossible because you have no transmitters which are able
>>>> to provide enough electrical power to get 16kW ERP.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would imagine that whoever wrote the document knew that 16 kW ERP
>>> was possible, and I'm definitely not taking your word for it that it
>>> is impossible as you are a pathological liar.
>>
>> Check some manufacturers of transmitters
>> http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/www/dev_center.nsf/html/na6000_nl6000
>>
>> Power in L band is not more than 750W in this manufacturer.
>
>
>That's one manufacturer of DAB transmitters. What about all the other
>manufacturers?
The major manufacturer of transmitters don't do it, so if you want to
check with others, check it directly by yourself...
>
>
>>>> For the reception problem you spoke I don't know the network in this
>>>> part, so I can't reply. But there is certainly one good technical
>>>> reason.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you know it was due to the guard interval and not due to
>>> insufficient signal strength?
>>
>> Because measurement equipments get this answer. It's a well known
>> problem in France and discuss a lot in TNT newsgroup or forums.
>
>
>What guard interval duration is being used on DTT in France?
http://morin80s.free.fr/TSReader/060305_R1.htm
>
>
>>>> When you makes this kind of complaint, why don't you said which
>>>> receiver reference you use, it's a basic information needed by all
>>>> brodcasters to write a good answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've got about 10 DAB radios and tuners in my flat, and all of them
>>> produce bubbling mud on the CE Manchester multiplex. Is 10 enough,
>>> or would you like me to go out and ram raid an electrical store to
>>> get some more?
>>
>> if you have all receivers with the same chip inside, you could have
>> the same problem on ALL receivers. It does not help.
>
>
>I've got receivers with DAB modules from Frontier-Silicon and Radioscape and
>other companies, such as SBK Telecom(?) from Korea.
Why don't you give the exact reference of your receivers ? It's the
second time as k this question to you.
>
>
>>>> We know for example a receiver which always burble in some
>>>> particular case of a multiplex configuration even if the signal
>>>> strength is VERY high.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good for you.
>>>
>>> The actual reason is simple: the scale factors are only protected by
>>> an 8/18 code rate convolutional code, and if bit errors occur, which
>>> they frequently do, you get bubbling mud.
>>>
>>
>> Not necessary sometimes some receivers which have a bad implementation
>> of the MSC decoding part, generate an artificial BER on some precise
>> CU position.
>
>
>No, a code rate of 8/18 is in the DAB specification as being the code rate
>used to protect the scale factors of 128kbps MP2 streams using PL3. It is
>EXACTLY the same on all receivers, because it is transmitted this way.
>
>You don't even seem to understand the absolute basics of the system you
>apparently work on!
Because you can't understand that some manufacturers can create also
some bugs.
We already test more than 200 different receivers in our laboratory,
and we really know a lot of details that you are unable to imagine.
Once again you react as theory man, not a practice man.
DAB sounds worse than FM
<snip>
I'm bored of going round in circles and I've got a lot to do, so rather
wasting more hours replying to your crap I'm going to get on with some work.
John Porcella
As H. Callahan once said: "An opinion is like an asshole...everybody's got
one!"
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
John Porcella
> Nicolas, here's how technical discussions go:
So you are an authority on how to make an argument?
a claim is made and must be
> backed up by relevant information that supports / validates the claim or
> that claim is worthless,
A "CLAIM" does not NEED to be backed up. A claim is not an argument, but an
assertion.
A claim could be correct, even if it is not backed up by argument or proofs.
and should be ignored
Your choice...
-- this supporting evidence
> can either be in the form of a technical explanation, or by copying some
> text that explains the matter, or by providing a link to a page or
document
> that provides supporting evidence.
Only for arguments, not for mere assertion.
> Come on, Croissant,
Needless ad hominem.
John Porcella
> which is the post that I was replying to where I was asking you to provide
> the engineering explanations? You must have an IQ of about 40, you utter
> moron.
Your personal attacks do you no good. If YOUR arguments were so strong,
surely they could stand up by themselves and you would not need to make
pointed personal attacks?
That you resort to such attacks makes me wonder if your case is weak.
Otherwise I have no interest in your discussion/disagreement with the other
poster.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Be quiet Porcella. You know nothing about this subject, so keep your
irrelevant views out of it.
John Porcella
> Be quiet Porcella. You know nothing about this subject, so keep your
> irrelevant views out of it.
The subject being discussed shows that you do not understand notions of
argument. I have a qualification in the subject and have examined critical
thinking in the past.
I am neither disagreeing nor agreeing with your technical assertions, but
you are criticising Nic in areas where you are spectacularly wrong.
Simply state why you are right and Nic is wrong, and leave it at that. It
does little good to your 'argument' to call others liars or to tell others
(like me) to desist from entering in the discourse. If you think that I am
wrong then tell me so, with reasons.
DAB sounds worse than FM
>> Be quiet Porcella. You know nothing about this subject, so keep your
>> irrelevant views out of it.
>
> The subject being discussed shows that you do not understand notions
> of argument. I have a qualification in the subject and have examined
> critical thinking in the past.
Be quiet, you silly man.
> I am neither disagreeing nor agreeing with your technical assertions,
> but you are criticising Nic in areas where you are spectacularly
> wrong.
No, I am 100% correct. The example I used in the first post in this thread
shows that Croiset lies time and time and time again:
"Croiset >> whe you go under a bridge except
>> tha you loose 0.5s of stream in T-DMB and you loose the burst and the
>> duration until next burs, so you loose more than 5 seconds of video
>> stream
>
>
Me > Look, I've got other things to do. You're an incompetent buffoon, and I
> don't have time to answer your lies. You've got the figures in that
> document
> for time slicing delay and they quoted about 1 or 2 seconds, although it
> depends on the implementation.
Croiset: If the ime slicing is 1 or 2 s, the power consumption will be very
high."
It's just lie after lie after lie. He is a pathological liar.
> Simply state why you are right and Nic is wrong,
I have already done that lots of times. But Croiset being the liar that he
is just lies. It is impossible to conduct an argument / discussion with him
because he just makes things up out of thin air.
> and leave it at
> that. It does little good to your 'argument' to call others liars
He needs to understand that it is unacceptable to lie in technical
discussions, and for as long as he does lie I will call him a liar.
> or
> to tell others (like me) to desist from entering in the discourse.
> If you think that I am wrong then tell me so, with reasons.
You're wrong because
(a) you're full of shit anyway, and
(b) you haven't got a clue about the technology anyway so you have no idea
that he is actually lying, so your whole post sticking up for him is flawed
and can be disregarded entirely.