A review of UK Digital Radio from Australia
_matt_cook_
Eureka Digital Radio proponent Jeff Astle from the UK's Digital One, had
some good news for the Australian Radio Industry at the ABA conference -
consumers in the UK are finally showing some interest in Digital Radio. He
said: "Digital Radio has to get out of the hands of engineers and in to the
hands of marketers before it can progress - the UK is at that point now."
(Photo courtesy ABA)
In the UK, Digital Radio has moved out of the testing and implementation
phases into a consumer phase. Small "kitchen style" digital radios have
finally broken the price barrier (albeit with a subsidy) to prove there is
interest in the new technology if it is pitched right. Astle told of shops
where people cued outside to get the cheap sets priced below 100 UK Pounds,
which were all sold in half an hour.
The lessons of Astle's case study are: (1) offer more channels to consumers
so that they are getting more than they could get from their ordinary radios
and (2) bring the price of personal consumer radios down to a reasonable
price point.
He said: "Digital can either be seen as a threat, or as a way of growing
your market... Focus your marketing on choice of services, followed by sound
quality, then no-interference reception, easy tuning then new features."
Astle's primary conclusion, about the desirability of offering more
channels, was a contrast with Kelly's US view about restricting digital
offerings to existing services.
There are not automatic parallels between this country and the UK however,
because the UK's radio licensing regime is very different from that in
Australia.
According to Astle, digital radio has been successful because of the UK's
regulatory policy of linking progress on Digital Radio with licence
renewals - a situation that has no parallel in Australia. Broadcasters in
the UK won licences on the strength of their proposed new formats (a
'promise of performance' policy), which resulted in the development of
successful new channels such as 'Ministry of Sound,' but once again, this is
not the way Australian licences are allocated.
Astle's company, Digital One is one of two companies which won Digital
Licences, the other is the BBC. Ten digital stations are now being broadcast
on Digital One's multiplexes, seven of which are new channels offering new
content. The BBC has eleven services on its Multiplex, some existing
channels plus value added spin-offs such as Radio 5 Sport, a Hip-Hop station
called Radio 1 Xtra, and an Asian language service. Digital Radio currently
has 85% coverage and consumers are beginning to buy smaller sets priced at
200 UK Pounds. Previously sets were larger home stereo style tuners, but
smaller more personal receivers (walkmans and 'kitchen radios') are now
being offered.
Questioned about the comparison between Eureka and IBOC Astle said: "If you'
re a powerful network IBOC may look attractive, but will consumers take it
up... In the UK stations are seeing the bigger picture, that radio must
compete and that short term competition from new services may help the radio
business in the long term."
Answering a question about the IBOC and Eureka transmission standards
developing in parallel, Astle was not worried: "In the short term it is a
problem, but in the long term the chips inside receivers will allow radios
to work with any system."
Astle's comment that "the future of radio is being protected by opening up
to competition now for benefits later," is relevant to the UK radio
landscape, but may not be so relevant in Australia, where regulatory
policies over recent years have already opened the radio industry up to more
competition than has ever been allowed in the UK.
The experience of UK consumer behaviour holds relevant lessons for
Australia, but the advice about more competition may not necessarily
transfer automatically from the UK to the Australian regulatory landscape.
More work needs to be done.
http://www.amt.org.au/news.htm
Steve
"_matt_cook_" <mat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aassim$dhnuk$1...@ID-140340.news.dfncis.de...
> Answering a question about the IBOC and Eureka transmission standards
> developing in parallel, Astle was not worried: "In the short term it is a
> problem, but in the long term the chips inside receivers will allow radios
> to work with any system."
Excellent, in the long term we can look forward to AAC. Looking forward to
the MP2 switch-off already...
--
Steve
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk -- Compare DAB with digital radio via satellite
Aztech
news:aat5va$d5r$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "_matt_cook_" <mat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aassim$dhnuk$1...@ID-140340.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > Answering a question about the IBOC and Eureka transmission standards
> > developing in parallel, Astle was not worried: "In the short term it is a
> > problem, but in the long term the chips inside receivers will allow radios
> > to work with any system."
>
> Excellent, in the long term we can look forward to AAC. Looking forward to
> the MP2 switch-off already...
Don't think so... even if receivers are made in the longterm with IBOC/PAC and
Eu147 support it doesn't do us any good unless there's any broadcasts.
Nobody is planning an AAC switchover, it wouldn't do us any good either, they'd
just pushed the bitrates even lower to squeeze yet more crap in.
Az.
Steve
"Aztech" <a...@tech.com> wrote in message
news:rLyA8.19966$YF.142...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Not neshesharily.
The important sentence is this one:
"but in the long term the chips inside receivers will allow radios to work
with any system"
So my scenario goes like this:
Global Radio starts transmitting in 2005 using AAC. New receivers start to
include an AAC decoder, after 5-10 years say, the broadcasters on DAB start
to think, there's an AAC decoder in the vast majority of DAB receivers out
there and with the incredible new supercharged AAC encoder we can transmit
at 64kbps with the same audio quality as 128kbps MP2 so we can transmit
twice as many stations, and as we run the multiplexes aswell we can get
loads more revenue from that too.
So long as the RA make broadcasters stick rigidly to decent limits then we
should be okay and you never know we might get R1 at 128kbps AAC. The
commercials can do what they want. Well, I wouldn't mind Kiss at 128kbps
too.
The main thing that he said is that we're gonna get reconfigurable radios
which will be powered by software. I would also expect them to be upgradable
over the air so the difference between newer codecs and MP2 will become
wider.
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> Not neshesharily.
>
> The important sentence is this one:
>
> "but in the long term the chips inside receivers will allow radios to work
> with any system"
I think you've taken that out of context. I think what he was saying
that future radios would be multi-standard and able to receive both
IBOC and DAB. I didn't detect any suggestion that this was being
proposed as a route for upgrading Eu-147 DAB. I don't think it could
be, because there's such a strong presumption in broadcasting against
non-compatible changes to existing systems.
Richard
--
Steve
"Richard Lambley" <use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e1e9ef30...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk...
I haven't taken it out of context. I have simply said what I think are the
implications of having multi-standard receivers. If there is an MP2 decoder
for DAB and a shiny supercharged new AAC decoder sat idly next to it when
people are listening to DAB then I think it would be too good an opportunity
to pass over when about 97% of all DAB receivers contain an AAC decoder to
simply transmit at double the bit rate for no other reason that to keep a
few early uptakers such as yourself happy. And by that time the early
uptakers will actually nearly all have a shiny new receiver with a shiny new
AAC decoder next to it.
He may have only mention IBOC and DAB but he was only questioned about these
two systems and he did say *any* system could be received so assuming Global
Radio get their satellites up there then there will be a shiny new
upgradable AAC decoder sitting next to the old MP2 decoder.
Stephen Neal
Richard Lambley wrote in message ...
Yep - broadcast standards are just that - standards. Unless they are deemed
failures, like D/D2-MAC (albeit a quite successful failure in some
territories), all changes to broadcast standards are normally predicated on
reverse compatibility with all existing standard receivers.
Hence 625 PAL and 525 NTSC were both backwards compatible with 625 and 525
B&W receivers. NICAM stereo was compatible with existing analogue FM audio
TVs (in that it was an addition rather than a replacement) RDS and ARI were
both pretty much transparent for most FM radios.
Any replacement/upgrade of the existing UK DAB system would surely have to
be reverse compatible with ALL Eu147 compliant T-DAB receivers, with no
upgrade, OR possibly there would have to be a system to swap receivers at
zero cost to the consumer if the financial incentive to change standards
made sense to do this?
I think that it is unlikely that cheap, completely re-programmable software
based consumer devices will be a full solution in the mid-term, given the
need for small pocket DAB receivers with low power consumption etc. Custom,
optimised, less upgradable hardware will probably still be a better solution
for these applications. It would be interesting to see a standard based on
a common software-based model though - where a single software upgrade
stream could be used for ALL receivers...
Steve
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> I have simply said what I think are the
> implications of having multi-standard receivers. If there is an MP2 decoder
> for DAB and a shiny supercharged new AAC decoder sat idly next to it when
> people are listening to DAB then I think it would be too good an opportunity
> to pass over when about 97% of all DAB receivers contain an AAC decoder to
> simply transmit at double the bit rate for no other reason that to keep a
> few early uptakers such as yourself happy.
I'm not especially bothered about myself; it's simply that the number
of mp2-only receivers is increasing all the time and making it
politically more difficult to implement any such change. It would take
months or even years to agree an update to the standard, and by the
time you'd done it the inertia would be even greater. Besides, I don't
see that a codec upgrade offers any benefit to the broadcasters, and
they're the ones who would have to take the flak from members of the
public whose radios stopped working. Their managers are probably more
typical of the average listener than you or I are (i.e. they are
mostly of a non-technical cast of mind), and if they can't hear
anything wrong with DAB as currently practised, then they're unlikely
to press for change. As Az points out, you're much more likely to get
what you want from DVB-S, where upping the data rates won't generate
an upheaval and won't cost money.
Richard
--
Steve
> In message <aaui98$o7e$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have simply said what I think are the
> > implications of having multi-standard receivers. If there is an MP2
decoder
> > for DAB and a shiny supercharged new AAC decoder sat idly next to it
when
> > people are listening to DAB then I think it would be too good an
opportunity
> > to pass over when about 97% of all DAB receivers contain an AAC decoder
to
> > simply transmit at double the bit rate for no other reason that to keep
a
> > few early uptakers such as yourself happy.
>
> I'm not especially bothered about myself; it's simply that the number
> of mp2-only receivers is increasing all the time and making it
> politically more difficult to implement any such change. It would take
> months or even years to agree an update to the standard, and by the
> time you'd done it the inertia would be even greater. Besides, I don't
> see that a codec upgrade offers any benefit to the broadcasters,
Absolute rubbish. Lowering the bit rate while increasing the audio quality
has obvious benefits for the broadcasters because it saves them a lot of
money in transmission costs.
> and
> they're the ones who would have to take the flak from members of the
> public whose radios stopped working. Their managers are probably more
> typical of the average listener than you or I are (i.e. they are
> mostly of a non-technical cast of mind), and if they can't hear
> anything wrong with DAB as currently practised, then they're unlikely
> to press for change. As Az points out, you're much more likely to get
> what you want from DVB-S, where upping the data rates won't generate
> an upheaval and won't cost money.
I have always known that it would not be easy to get such a change
implemented and the odds are stacked against it ever happening but changes
to DAB in the longer term will be made although I would agree that it is
more likely that changes would be backwardly compatible. They really should
have started doing something about the issues that I have written about a
few years ago because it must have been apparent to a lot of engineers that
DAB was going to be out of date compared to modern codecs etc very quickly
and if they had made the changes before now then the disruption when there
were very few receivers out there could have been easily managed. It is just
another of the dire decisions that have gone to make DAB what it is.
However, I am so fed up with DAB that I am of the view that I can't really
be arsed bothering with it any more because the broadcasters couldn't care
less about audio quality and although I am not going to totally give up the
subject of bit rates etc on DAB I am going to change direction and campaign
that bit rates on satellite be increased to 256kbps and also criticise
stations on satellite that are falling below the standards that should be
expected such as Jazz FM transmitting at 128kbps with what has been reported
to be a poor audio quality.
Obviously I need satellite before I can really get stuck into all this and
I'm ready to do plenty of studying again after getting my assignments out of
the way so my posting here will be dramatically reduced.
So, Richard, you have your wish that I will stop criiticising MP2 or lower
my tone against it but can I ask you to do one thing in return, stop
hassling me over points that you know will provoke a reaction from me. For
example, saying that WS should be transmitted at 128kbps stereo when you
know very well that I have said on umpteen occasions that the Essential Mix
desperately needs more bit rate is hardly going to go down well with me.
Arguments are not productive and just take up time so please just think a
bit before you post something that is bound to wind me up and then possibly
we will be able to actually get on again.
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> Lowering the bit rate while increasing the audio quality
> has obvious benefits for the broadcasters because it saves them a lot of
> money in transmission costs.
Are you thinking of the cost of sharing an ensemble, or the cost of
linking the programme to a multiplex operator? If the latter, the cost
is pretty slight and falling all the time. Certain of the WorldSpace
channels are even linked from abroad via the Internet.
> I have always known that it would not be easy to get such a change
> implemented and the odds are stacked against it ever happening but changes
> to DAB in the longer term will be made although I would agree that it is
> more likely that changes would be backwardly compatible. They really should
> have started doing something about the issues that I have written about a
> few years ago because it must have been apparent to a lot of engineers that
> DAB was going to be out of date compared to modern codecs
Until we can get engineers who can see into the future, we will always
be saddled with technologies which are out of date. If you possess
special powers of this kind, you will have no difficulty in securing
employment when you have completed your course.
> So, Richard, you have your wish that I will stop criiticising MP2 or lower
> my tone against it but can I ask you to do one thing in return, stop
> hassling me over points that you know will provoke a reaction from me.
See below. Just please stop dreaming in public about replacing the DAB
codec; it isn't going to happen until you become the BBC's director of
engineering.
> For
> example, saying that WS should be transmitted at 128kbps stereo when you
> know very well that I have said on umpteen occasions that the Essential Mix
> desperately needs more bit rate is hardly going to go down well with me.
I mentioned this only because you have been assuming that the
Essential Mix will be the first beneficiary of any change in the
composition of the multiplex. I thought it worth pointing out that are
other ways in which the multiplex might be reconfigured. According to
audience figures which you have quoted, WS relayed overnight by the UK
network gets more listeners than the Essential Mix, and so the BBC
might reason that giving stereo to WS music programmes would please
more people than improving the quality of Radio 1. This may displease
you, but it does seem a logical conclusion. I don't make up these
things to spite you.
> Arguments are not productive and just take up time so please just think a
> bit before you post something that is bound to wind me up and then possibly
> we will be able to actually get on again.
Arguments are certainly productive, although shouting matches usually
aren't. But are you saying I mustn't post anything that you might
disagree with?
Richard
--
Steve
> In message <ab3bv4$hls$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Lowering the bit rate while increasing the audio quality
> > has obvious benefits for the broadcasters because it saves them a lot of
> > money in transmission costs.
>
> Are you thinking of the cost of sharing an ensemble, or the cost of
> linking the programme to a multiplex operator? If the latter, the cost
> is pretty slight and falling all the time. Certain of the WorldSpace
> channels are even linked from abroad via the Internet.
I have been told by engineers in a few broadcasting companies now that
reducing the bit rate saves *a lot* of money and that is the incentive.
> Until we can get engineers who can see into the future, we will always
> be saddled with technologies which are out of date.
Richard, you have turned into the most objectionable, patronising poster I
have ever had the misfortune to read.
> If you possess
> special powers of this kind, you will have no difficulty in securing
> employment when you have completed your course.
Patronising again.
> > So, Richard, you have your wish that I will stop criiticising MP2 or
lower
> > my tone against it but can I ask you to do one thing in return, stop
> > hassling me over points that you know will provoke a reaction from me.
>
> See below. Just please stop dreaming in public about replacing the DAB
> codec; it isn't going to happen until you become the BBC's director of
> engineering.
Patronising again.
Richard, you don't even understand anything but the absolute basics of
digital communications theory. You don't even understand analogue very well.
It was you who said that AM had a constant power wasn't it? How wrong is it
possible to be? You have tried to argue with me on points that require a
decent level of digital comms which from reading your posts it is obvious
you haven't the first clue aboutt. Nyquist's Sampling Theorem might aswell
have been a knitting pattern judging by your understanding of it. Yet you
follow me around and try and patronise me at every opportunity. Anybody can
see just by looking at the order of posts that you are the one following me
around even though I have asked you to stop on a number of occasions. Kindly
go back into your low bit rate low audio quality hole and stop bothering me
because I have no wish to hear your views or waste my time replying to them
Malcolm RK
> Richard, you don't even understand anything but the absolute basics of
> digital communications theory.
<snip>
> Anybody can
> see just by looking at the order of posts that you are the one
following me
> around even though I have asked you to stop on a number of occasions.
Kindly
> go back into your low bit rate low audio quality hole and stop
bothering me
> because I have no wish to hear your views or waste my time replying to
them
> again.
ISTR getting caught between you two a week ago so I should learn to be
more wary.
When I read today's batch of posts from Richard I found myself agreeing,
not for the first time, with the general drift of his statements. To see
things as he believes it to be you must put on your bean-counter's hat
and imagine you are running an apology for a public broadcaster in a
third rate country. In those circumstances money speaks louder than
quality. Your 'mistake' is to believe that the BBC could give a tinker's
cuss for quality and that the great engineers of the British Empire
still walk the land.
You know and I know that excellence (especially at the BBC) is something
that now counts for sweet FA and no one listens to engineers. Engineer
has been a debased word in the UK ever since the man who stood on a
steam locomotive footplate was so labelled and while we continue to call
the man who mends your washing machine an engineer.
Viewed from that point of view Richard seems merely to be telling it as
it is. I don't like it and quite possibly Richard doesn't like it either
but in a country (I almost said s**t hole) like this it's near
impossible to get anything done properly.
As you know, I'm very much in the 'create as big a fuss as possible'
camp and maybe Richard is more inclined to join the 'roll over and let
it happen' one, but I can't see how you can reasonably ask him not to
state his views. He's just a pessimist and you aren't. :-) And as MCL
(?) suggested yesterday, thank God for that!
The only thing Richard said that got my hackles up was the bit about
engineers not being able to see into the future. I remember my father in
the late fifties poring over blueprints that eventually became Concorde
and lecturing me on the importance of designing things that you didn't
currently have the know how to make a reality, because how else were we
going to make any progress? Pity he didn't forsee the oil crisis of 1973
which made it too expensive to fly. :-(
--
Malcolm
Chris Malme
news:ab652k$e8h$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Richard, you don't even understand anything but the absolute
> basics of digital communications theory. You don't even
> understand analogue very well. It was you who said that AM had a
> constant power wasn't it? How wrong is it possible to be? You
> have tried to argue with me on points that require a decent level
> of digital comms which from reading your posts it is obvious you
> haven't the first clue aboutt. Nyquist's Sampling Theorem might
> aswell have been a knitting pattern judging by your understanding
> of it. Yet you follow me around and try and patronise me at every
> opportunity. Anybody can see just by looking at the order of
> posts that you are the one following me around even though I have
> asked you to stop on a number of occasions. Kindly go back into
> your low bit rate low audio quality hole and stop bothering me
> because I have no wish to hear your views or waste my time
> replying to them again.
Actually, if anyone is being patronising, by its accepted meaning,
it would be the person who argues by appeal to superior knowledge;
by belittling the skills and knowledge of the person he is
conversing with, instead of the use of reasoned debate.
Pot, meet kettle.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk
Steve
"Malcolm RK" <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ab67mk$f6pki$1...@ID-134879.news.dfncis.de...
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ab652k$e8h$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Richard, you don't even understand anything but the absolute basics of
> > digital communications theory.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Anybody can
> > see just by looking at the order of posts that you are the one
> following me
> > around even though I have asked you to stop on a number of occasions.
> Kindly
> > go back into your low bit rate low audio quality hole and stop
> bothering me
> > because I have no wish to hear your views or waste my time replying to
> them
> > again.
>
> ISTR getting caught between you two a week ago so I should learn to be
> more wary.
>
> When I read today's batch of posts from Richard I found myself agreeing,
> not for the first time, with the general drift of his statements. To see
> things as he believes it to be you must put on your bean-counter's hat
> and imagine you are running an apology for a public broadcaster in a
> third rate country.
I find it quite incredible that Richard has told me probably on 50 or so
occasions or more that I cannot use listener numbers to prove my point about
getting more bit rate and then he goes and uses listener numbers to try and
prove that R4/WS deserves more bit rate.
Malcolm, as you know, I am completely sick and tired of seeing him follow me
all over and this time I mean it when I say I've had enough of him.
> In those circumstances money speaks louder than
> quality. Your 'mistake' is to believe that the BBC could give a tinker's
> cuss for quality and that the great engineers of the British Empire
> still walk the land.
No, my website and posts on here have said on many occasions that they don't
care about audio
> You know and I know that excellence (especially at the BBC) is something
> that now counts for sweet FA and no one listens to engineers. Engineer
> has been a debased word in the UK ever since the man who stood on a
> steam locomotive footplate was so labelled and while we continue to call
> the man who mends your washing machine an engineer.
Yes, an unfortunate result of the trend of people getting job titles above
what they actually do. What do they call binmen nowadays? Refuse technicians
or something?
> Viewed from that point of view Richard seems merely to be telling it as
> it is. I don't like it and quite possibly Richard doesn't like it either
Hmmm, Richard will defend DAB until the cows came home and would defend the
BBC if he thought that he wouldn't get jumped on by the entire group.
> but in a country (I almost said s**t hole) like this it's near
> impossible to get anything done properly.
Especially with people like Richard in the world......
> As you know, I'm very much in the 'create as big a fuss as possible'
> camp and maybe Richard is more inclined to join the 'roll over and let
> it happen' one, but I can't see how you can reasonably ask him not to
> state his views. He's just a pessimist and you aren't. :-) And as MCL
> (?) suggested yesterday, thank God for that!
S'pose that is what I object to, the continual negativity of his posts.
> The only thing Richard said that got my hackles up was the bit about
> engineers not being able to see into the future.
If engineers couldn't see into the future (or attempt to predict it) then
there would be nothing spent on R&D ever.
> I remember my father in
> the late fifties poring over blueprints that eventually became Concorde
> and lecturing me on the importance of designing things that you didn't
> currently have the know how to make a reality, because how else were we
> going to make any progress?
EXACTLY. That is my main problem with DAB, with Richard with all views that
just accept the crap status quo because it is easier to do so. Pathetic.
>Pity he didn't forsee the oil crisis of 1973
> which made it too expensive to fly. :-(
Aye. Pity the people who "designed" DAB didn't think of looking around at
what was going on around them *at the time it was being specified*.
Malcolm RK
>
> "Malcolm RK" <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ab67mk$f6pki$1...@ID-134879.news.dfncis.de...
> > When I read today's batch of posts from Richard I found myself
agreeing,
> > not for the first time, with the general drift of his statements. To
see
> > things as he believes it to be you must put on your bean-counter's
hat
> > and imagine you are running an apology for a public broadcaster in a
> > third rate country.
>
> I find it quite incredible that Richard has told me probably on 50 or
so
> occasions or more that I cannot use listener numbers to prove my point
about
> getting more bit rate and then he goes and uses listener numbers to
try and
> prove that R4/WS deserves more bit rate.
>
> Malcolm, as you know, I am completely sick and tired of seeing him
follow me
> all over and this time I mean it when I say I've had enough of him.
I've said to you before, whilst I believe many of Richard's points are
valid he does appear to delight in shadowing your every comment and
expressing those points in a way calculated to 'get you going'. FWIW I
thought your use of the word patronising was justfiied. Oh dear, I think
I'm showing signs of slipping off the fence. :-(
--
Malcolm
Steve
> I've said to you before, whilst I believe many of Richard's points are
> valid he does appear to delight in shadowing your every comment and
> expressing those points in a way calculated to 'get you going'. FWIW I
> thought your use of the word patronising was justfiied. Oh dear, I think
> I'm showing signs of slipping off the fence. :-(
No, you're still on the fence, it is just that your view was accurate;
nothing biased about that.
He just doesn't seem to be able to get it into his head that I'm not
interested in what he is saying because the "discussion" just goes round and
round in circles.
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> I have been told by engineers in a few broadcasting companies now that
> reducing the bit rate saves *a lot* of money and that is the incentive.
So whatever codec is available, the broadcasters will minimize their
costs by lowering the data rate to the point where it's adequate for
most of their audience. Therefore you'll never have what you're hoping
for, even if you get your advanced codec.
> Richard, you don't even understand anything but the absolute basics of
> digital communications theory. You don't even understand analogue very well.
I haven't got a copy of the fat book which has recently taught you so
much. And I'm not an engineer. But I have attended numerous technical
conferences and training courses in digital radio communications --
and I have a working, practical knowledge of radio and electronics,
which I don't think you have yet, to judge by some of the questions
you have asked me.
> It was you who said that AM had a constant power wasn't it? How
wrong is it > possible to be?
Quite. You must be confusing me with someone else.
> You have tried to argue with me on points that require a
> decent level of digital comms which from reading your posts it is obvious
> you haven't the first clue aboutt.
This is a bit much, coming from someone who, not many weeks ago,
admitted in the group that he'd failed to appreciate that broadcasting
a speech programme requires more bandwidth than is needed for simple
telephone quality. This was just one of several points of dogma on
which you've found yourself having to backtrack. So I wonder which of
my posts you have in mind. Nevertheless, you have at various times
asked me a good many technical questions by email and I have watched
as you've subsequently converted my answers into material on your
website, or into responses to other posters. I am flattered by this
endorsement.
> Nyquist's Sampling Theorem might aswell
> have been a knitting pattern judging by your understanding of it.
I have, of course, noticed your propensity to show off each new nugget
of knowledge gleaned from your book through a flurry of highly
technical postings about it. But usually it's Nicolas who finds
himself on the receiving end. Nyquist this week, eh?
> Yet you
> follow me around and try and patronise me at every opportunity.
Since you're by far the group's most prolific contributor, following
you is unavoidable except by not posting at all. You constantly harp
on about your various DAB-related obsessions, trotting out the same
old half-truths as though they were undisputed facts each time some
newcomer posts a query, and sometimes I feel it's time to respond. But
you don't appear to be able to tolerate adverse criticism or
contradiction of your ideas, even the obviously ridiculous ones. If I
do it mildly you accuse me of being patronising and you take umbrage.
If I do it more directly, you threaten to lose your temper and then
follow up with another bout of logorrhoea. Would you prefer to have
the group entirely to yourself? It could perhaps be arranged.
Richard
--
Richard Lambley
"Malcolm RK" <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote:
> Viewed from that point of view Richard seems merely to be telling it as
> it is. I don't like it and quite possibly Richard doesn't like it either
Indeed I don't like it, and have said so. But I think Steve should try
to get his head round the idea that not everyone listens in the same
way that he does, not everyone shares his priorities, and that there
are ways in which DAB can be more satisfactory than FM even though
it's not configured as an audiophile service.
> The only thing Richard said that got my hackles up was the bit about
> engineers not being able to see into the future.
Sorry, Malcolm -- a heavy-handed bit of irony. All I meant was that
the engineers who designed DAB were presumably giving it their best,
and that progress sometimes brings developments which nobody
predicted. Steve could redesign DAB to be software-upgradable, but
then we might then see some other unforeseen development overtaking
the system. And some future Steve would start attacking his
predecessors for being so myopic.
Richard
--
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> I find it quite incredible that Richard has told me probably on 50 or so
> occasions or more
...not exaggerating at all, Steve?.....
> that I cannot use listener numbers to prove my point about
> getting more bit rate and then he goes and uses listener numbers to try and
> prove that R4/WS deserves more bit rate.
This is paranoia again. I didn't seek to prove it, and I didn't say I
supported it; all I said was that it was an argument that could be
made. But to my surprise, I see that, in another post, you seem to
have accepted that this argument is valid.
Richard
--
Steve
This is where your argument falls down though. If you design everything to
be upgradable and modular then everything can be replaced when some future
me comes along and starts attacking his predecessors for being so myopic. We
can't do that with DAB you fool.
Steve
> In message <ab652k$e8h$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have been told by engineers in a few broadcasting companies now that
> > reducing the bit rate saves *a lot* of money and that is the incentive.
>
> So whatever codec is available, the broadcasters will minimize their
> costs by lowering the data rate to the point where it's adequate for
> most of their audience. Therefore you'll never have what you're hoping
> for, even if you get your advanced codec.
Hopeful assumption.
> > Richard, you don't even understand anything but the absolute basics of
> > digital communications theory. You don't even understand analogue very
well.
>
> I haven't got a copy of the fat book which has recently taught you so
> much.
Which fat book is that then Richard? I've probably got a couple of hundred
fat engineering books that I've accumulated while being at uni. I am a big
believer in buying all set books and reading them. This fat book you refer
to is just a drop in the ocean of my engineering knowledge, just as your
knowledge of engineering would not amount to more than a drop in the ocean
of my knowledge because you studied Animal Physiology or something similar
to this.
>And I'm not an engineer. But I have attended numerous technical
> conferences and training courses in digital radio communications --
> and I have a working, practical knowledge of radio and electronics,
> which I don't think you have yet, to judge by some of the questions
> you have asked me.
You don't know the first thing about digital communications theory. YOu have
said you maths isn't very good so you cannot have a good understanding of
any of the theories that I ever mention because you need to have quite a
high level of engineering maths to understand them.
> > It was you who said that AM had a constant power wasn't it? How
> wrong is it > possible to be?
>
> Quite. You must be confusing me with someone else.
No, that was you, most definitely.
For example, the powerful Google Groups search engine provided me with the
following from:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Richard+Lambley+AM+power+group:alt.radio.d
igital&hl=en&selm=4d3ee211.0202010926.7b109cb7%40posting.google.com&rnum=2
"Anyway won't the power demand of a DAB TX be the same regardless of
the modulation?"
How wrong is it possible to be Richard???
> > You have tried to argue with me on points that require a
> > decent level of digital comms which from reading your posts it is
obvious
> > you haven't the first clue aboutt.
>
> This is a bit much, coming from someone who, not many weeks ago,
> admitted in the group that he'd failed to appreciate that broadcasting
> a speech programme requires more bandwidth than is needed for simple
> telephone quality.
Oh my God, you are now just downright lying and/or just displaying your
really really poor knowledge of digital communications and DSP theory. I
have always said that broadcast speech requires more bandwidth than
telephone quality. After all, how many times was it that I said that LSF
could handle up to 11.5kHz bandwidth and then made sure I said every time
that "so long as speech's bandwidth falls within this then the audio quality
should be better with LSF". The theory was aboslutely correct, but the
bandwidth required for speech turned out to be 15kHz.
Richard, I don't lie, please don't lie yourself as for a 50-something you
are certainly acting rather childish.
> This was just one of several points of dogma on
> which you've found yourself having to backtrack. So I wonder which of
> my posts you have in mind. Nevertheless, you have at various times
> asked me a good many technical questions by email and I have watched
> as you've subsequently converted my answers into material on your
> website, or into responses to other posters. I am flattered by this
> endorsement.
I knew nothing about DSat, but even when I knew virtually nothing I knew
that you could transmit at a higher power so that reception was possible in
cars. You didn't know this, or the fact that the gain of a dish is
absolutely enormous in comparison with a normal receiving aerial. How bad
can your knowledge on your specialised subject be Richard?
> > Nyquist's Sampling Theorem might aswell
> > have been a knitting pattern judging by your understanding of it.
>
> I have, of course, noticed your propensity to show off each new nugget
> of knowledge gleaned from your book through a flurry of highly
> technical postings about it.
I knew what Nyquist's Sampling Theorem was in 3rd year at university. That
makes it that I've known it for over 4 years.
My knowledge of engineering theory is very high and hardly ever have to
resort to looking in books.
> But usually it's Nicolas who finds
> himself on the receiving end. Nyquist this week, eh?
Richard, you *really* don't know what you're talking about you crank troll.
> > Yet you
> > follow me around and try and patronise me at every opportunity.
>
> Since you're by far the group's most prolific contributor, following
> you is unavoidable except by not posting at all. You constantly harp
> on about your various DAB-related obsessions, trotting out the same
> old half-truths as though they were undisputed facts each time some
> newcomer posts a query, and sometimes I feel it's time to respond. But
> you don't appear to be able to tolerate adverse criticism or
> contradiction of your ideas, even the obviously ridiculous ones. If I
> do it mildly you accuse me of being patronising and you take umbrage.
> If I do it more directly, you threaten to lose your temper and then
> follow up with another bout of logorrhoea. Would you prefer to have
> the group entirely to yourself? It could perhaps be arranged.
I would prefer it if you didn't come back Richard. You certainly don't take
the hint that I really dislike you with what is now a pashion.
a...@redhat.invalid
> This is where your argument falls down though. If you design everything to
> be upgradable and modular then everything can be replaced when some future
> me comes along and starts attacking his predecessors for being so myopic.
To some extent that's true. However, with software upgradability you
need to some extent to predict future CPU and memory demands, and
that's never been easy.
Andrew.
Steve
<a...@redhat.invalid> wrote in message
news:ab915e$n0r$1...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
If you want to take it to extremes (and Richard seems to want to) then you
could have replacable CPUs and memory so long as the number of pins was the
same on all the boards. You just get a chip with loads and loads of pins in
the first place. It is hardly going to take much more space.
a...@redhat.invalid
There has been quite a long history of upgradable hardware in the
computer business, and it has not always been successful. What often
seems to happen is that when a hardware upgrade is introduced, very
soon afterwards an entire replacement unit is priced at a little bit
more than the upgrade. [This has also to do with Moore's law, of
course.] So few people then buy the upgrade that it becomes a
specialized thing, and its price goes up.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it was cheaper to replace the whole
board than a plug in module. It's more expensive to make a field
upgradable unit than a single board with a few surface mount chips.
Andrew.
Steve
<a...@redhat.invalid> wrote in message
news:ab96ak$ocm$1...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
This is only hypothetical Andrew. Just allowing the decoder to be upgradable
should really extend the lifetime of the system for a long time although it
wouldn't satisfy Richard's claims that some idiot like myself coming along
and criticising it. With new decoders, although the decoder will be more
complex, it should really be easy to over-specify the CPU and memory and
then allow the decoder to be upgradable and because the bit rates will fall
with the new decoders there is a bit of negative feedback on the
computational complexity required so such an arrangement should be able to
last donkey's years, well a lot longer than DAB could before it is outdated,
oh no, sorry, it already is outdated. Anyway, you know what I mean.
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Richard, you don't even understand anything but the absolute basics of
> > > digital communications theory. You don't even understand analogue very
> well.
No, of course not, Steve.
> > I haven't got a copy of the fat book which has recently taught you so
> > much.
>
> Which fat book is that then Richard?
The one that you have so frequently alluded to in your recent posts
about DAB. I could check back on Google, but I can't be bothered.
> You don't know the first thing about digital communications theory. YOu have
> said you maths isn't very good so you cannot have a good understanding of
> any of the theories that I ever mention because you need to have quite a
> high level of engineering maths to understand them.
I don't trouble to read your more mathematical screeds, because
they're mainly concerned with your fantasies about re-writing the DAB
standard. And you only drag this kind of matter in when you're trying
to impress someone with your extensive knowledge and deep insights. If
only you could couple these with the same amount of common sense, they
might perhaps be worth persevering with.
> "Anyway won't the power demand of a DAB TX be the same regardless of
> the modulation?"
>
> How wrong is it possible to be Richard???
That was a question, not an assertion. I don't know about COFDM
exciters because I don't need to. It's still a somewhat arcane area of
knowledge, unless you happen to be using it every day.
> Oh my God, you are now just downright lying and/or just displaying your
> really really poor knowledge of digital communications and DSP theory.
It doesn't take a degree-level knowledge of digital communications to
know when you are writing tosh and generating a smoke screen of
technobabble to disguise it.
> I knew nothing about DSat, but even when I knew virtually nothing I knew
> that you could transmit at a higher power so that reception was possible in
> cars. You didn't know this, or the fact that the gain of a dish is
> absolutely enormous in comparison with a normal receiving aerial. How bad
> can your knowledge on your specialised subject be Richard?
I don't know why you think that is my specialized subject. But I do
know a little about it, and seemingly more than you do, despite your
bluster and windbaggery. Of course satellite reception is possible in
vehicles; we've even had discussions here, I think, of commercial
sources of antennas. You can carve up the link budget any way you
like, so long as you are prepared to accept the implications. I am
well aware that dishes have a large gain -- I've been using microwave
equipment, on and off, for nearly 25 years. What makes you suppose I
didn't know this, and why does it matter to you so?
> I knew what Nyquist's Sampling Theorem was in 3rd year at university. That
> makes it that I've known it for over 4 years.
Well, congratulations. I think I can beat you by at least 20 years
there. But why have we suddenly dragged poor Nyquist into this? To
give you an excuse to flaunt a few equations in your next rant?
> My knowledge of engineering theory is very high and hardly ever have to
> resort to looking in books.
Then that should save you a great deal of trouble and expense in your
chosen career. Clearly you are not a man overburdened by modesty. But
I think you also ought to make a study of elementary politeness before
taking on any clients for your services. You'll find there are books
about that, too.
> I would prefer it if you didn't come back Richard. You certainly don't take
> the hint that I really dislike you with what is now a pashion.
With a *what*, Napoleon ?
Richard
--
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> This is where your argument falls down though. If you design everything to
> be upgradable and modular then everything can be replaced when some future
> me comes along and starts attacking his predecessors for being so myopic. We
> can't do that with DAB you fool.
Plenty of products have been advertised to us as being future-proof,
but somehow technology doesn't always seem to work out as expected. I
can't be the only one to have observed this, so kindly have the grace
not to call me a fool.
Richard
--
Steve
I didn't read a word of that so that was a bit of a waste of time wasn't it
Richard. Try and get the message. GO AWAY.
stev...@daviesfam.org
Steve <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>This is where your argument falls down though. If you design everything to
>be upgradable and modular then everything can be replaced when some future
>me comes along and starts attacking his predecessors for being so myopic. We
>can't do that with DAB you fool.
This argument for software upgradeable receivers has been repeated ad-nauseum.
Presumably the theory is that the on-air decoding can be changed by sending a
new decoder program over the air or something.
Given that improved audio coding algorithms always come at the expense of
increased processor and/or memory requirements this idea is entirely
impractical.
Lets mentally rewind 20 years. State of the art processors were 6502 and
8080/Z80, maybe 6800 series. Processors running at 2-4MHz clock, maybe
1 MIPS and that's being generous.
Desktop machines ran with no more than 16KB of memory, embedded designs
would have much less.
Compare to current embedded designs. Frequently a 200MHz strongarm -
lets call that 100 MIPS, and say 8MB of RAM.
So in twenty years our typical platform has 100 times the processing
power and 500 times the memory.
We look forward to continued performance improvement. And indeed
will need it in order to continue to implement improved audio coding.
Of course, a 1980s embedded system could never have implemented the mp2
algorithm, and that's the point.
How useful would a software upgradeable 1980s design be today? How
useful will a 2001 design be in 2020?
MP2 achieves a good quality/performance performance in reasonable
processor/memory usage. Newer algorithms will do better no doubt,
but before long todays DAB radios wouldn't have the horsepower to run
the algorithms in real time.
That's even imagining that in this competitive world we could just
wave a magic wand and give every receiver the same instruction set,
and cast THAT in stone, an even more onerous constraint on progress
than the use of MP2 coding.
The real issue is that more spectrum needs to be allocated for DAB
and that broadcasters need to act responsibly in allocating bandwidth.
All this written whilst I listen to 6Music - received at home as 128k
MP2 over DAB with a Wavefinder, recoded from mp2 into 96k mp3 and
sent to work over the Internet so I can listen here. Took me 10
minutes to implement thanks to DABBar and the open source tools wget,
the lame mp3 encoder.
Should be pretty butchered, eh? The dreaded Wavefinder (which works
great for me), 128k mp2 to start with. Wavefinder running on an
old Celeron 266MHz. Further compressed down to 96k. Cheap sound-card.
But subjectively to this listener it sounds great.
I get similar power and flexibility with DVB-T digital video.
I for one have no interest in going back to the analogue world.
One last point - be grateful we don't have software upgradeable
receivers. Media companies would just use it to limit our
own access rights. Refer DVD, refer Digital Millenium
Copyright Act, refer copy-protected CDs.
You can be sure that in the world where the media companies have
control of both ends of the DAB link I would never be able to use
a couple of open-source tools to extend my DAB listening to work,
or distribute it around the house over wireless LAN, etc etc etc.
You wouldn't be able to capture received streams to disc.
Steve
Steve
<stev...@daviesfam.org> wrote in message
news:abb282$hc0$1...@bob.daviesfam.org...
> In article <ab8mpp$qb4$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Steve <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >This is where your argument falls down though. If you design everything
to
> >be upgradable and modular then everything can be replaced when some
future
> >me comes along and starts attacking his predecessors for being so myopic.
We
> >can't do that with DAB you fool.
>
> This argument for software upgradeable receivers has been repeated
ad-nauseum.
So why are you bringing it up again?......
> Presumably the theory is that the on-air decoding can be changed by
sending a
> new decoder program over the air or something.
Yes, or replaceable chips.
> Given that improved audio coding algorithms always come at the expense of
> increased processor and/or memory requirements this idea is entirely
> impractical.
No it's not.
> Lets mentally rewind 20 years. State of the art processors were 6502 and
> 8080/Z80, maybe 6800 series. Processors running at 2-4MHz clock, maybe
> 1 MIPS and that's being generous.
Well, rewinding 20 years is somewhat stupid don't you think seeing as DAB
was standardised in the same year as MP3 was standardised, 91, 92 or 93.
Can't remember which year it was, all I know is that if they'd taken some
time to look to see what was going on around them then we wouldn't be in
this mess. MP3 would have allowed 128kbps to sound okay. As it is DAB sounds
crap, apart from for people with no or low standards of audio quality.
> Desktop machines ran with no more than 16KB of memory, embedded designs
> would have much less.
And 50 years ago there were virtually no computers, what a sad example you
are trying to use.
> Compare to current embedded designs. Frequently a 200MHz strongarm -
> lets call that 100 MIPS, and say 8MB of RAM.
Wooo, aren't they powerful.
> So in twenty years our typical platform has 100 times the processing
> power and 500 times the memory.
You can divide too, well done.
> We look forward to continued performance improvement. And indeed
> will need it in order to continue to implement improved audio coding.
And what is wrong with changing an ASIC?
> Of course, a 1980s embedded system could never have implemented the mp2
> algorithm, and that's the point.
But making a point that 20 years ago an embedded system couldn't have
implemented mp2 is rather pathetic.
> How useful would a software upgradeable 1980s design be today? How
> useful will a 2001 design be in 2020?
The DAB spec was written in the same year as the year that MP3 was
standardised. If they had bothered to even implement this decoder which can
be backwardly compatible with MP2 then we wouldn't be in the mess that we
are in at the moment on DAB. At the time DAB was standardised developments
in codec technology were going through massive changes and fixing on a codec
that could easily have been predicted to be out of date very soon, or at the
very least it had already been superseded by MP3, was absolutely stupid.
Think about what has happened; in the 10 or so years from standardisation,
at ANY POINT the standardisation bodies could have held up their hands and
said "look, AAC is such an enormous improvement over MPEG Layer 2, and there
is obviously a law of diminishing returns because let's face it you cannot
send zero bits per second, AAC allows double the number of radio stations
for a given bandwidth and the number of radio stations has mushroomed,
therefore there will be bandwidth problems, so to ease these bandwidth
problems, while very very few receivers have been sold, it would make sense
to change to AAC to avoid the problems that are going to happen when/if DAB
takes off."
> MP2 achieves a good quality/performance performance in reasonable
> processor/memory usage. Newer algorithms will do better no doubt,
> but before long todays DAB radios wouldn't have the horsepower to run
> the algorithms in real time.
That is not the issue here. Using MP2 does not give a good diff-grade/Hz
value, AAC does. So it makes far far far more sense to use AAC than MP2.
There have only been about 10,000 receivers sold in the UK up until now,
they could have seen this coming years ago. They have just stood back and
done nothing which is contemptuous. Global Radio and WorldSpace both
complained 2.5 years ago that MPEG Layer 2 was outdated and wanted to change
to AAC yet they stuck with their original decision which was made about 10
years ago. You have to wonder whether the same people who made the original
decision weren't just being pig-headed so that they didn't admit to being
wrong in the first place.
> That's even imagining that in this competitive world we could just
> wave a magic wand and give every receiver the same instruction set,
> and cast THAT in stone, an even more onerous constraint on progress
> than the use of MP2 coding.
Hardly a more onerous constraint than using MP2 seeing as *the* problem with
DAB *is* MP2.
> The real issue is that more spectrum needs to be allocated for DAB
> and that broadcasters need to act responsibly in allocating bandwidth.
Oh yeah, and when are the BBC going to get another multiplex? Never is the
answer to that. The only new bandwidth that will be available for DAB will
be in L-band which makes having a national SFN multiplex too expensive to
implement. So look at my web page about BBC Bit Rates. All the stations' bit
rates will be at the minimum bit rate that is defined in the RA's
guidelines, apart from R3 of course. What a joke.
> All this written whilst I listen to 6Music - received at home as 128k
> MP2 over DAB with a Wavefinder, recoded from mp2 into 96k mp3 and
> sent to work over the Internet so I can listen here. Took me 10
> minutes to implement thanks to DABBar and the open source tools wget,
> the lame mp3 encoder.
>
> Should be pretty butchered, eh? The dreaded Wavefinder (which works
> great for me), 128k mp2 to start with. Wavefinder running on an
> old Celeron 266MHz. Further compressed down to 96k. Cheap sound-card.
>
> But subjectively to this listener it sounds great.
And you obviously have extremely low audio quality requirements. Please
don't inflict your cheap views on a newsgroup where the primary interest is
and always has been the reception of digital radio at good audio quality
levels. You're in the WRONG group, go away.
> I get similar power and flexibility with DVB-T digital video.
> I for one have no interest in going back to the analogue world.
You have cheap tastes, so what.
> One last point - be grateful we don't have software upgradeable
> receivers. Media companies would just use it to limit our
> own access rights. Refer DVD, refer Digital Millenium
> Copyright Act, refer copy-protected CDs.
Copy protected CDs will be the record business's downfall. DAB transmitting
at the present bit rates will also be its downfall. It is haemmoraging cash,
it has no listeners, it will not take off for years, it will ultimately go
bust. Good, serves them right.
> You can be sure that in the world where the media companies have
> control of both ends of the DAB link I would never be able to use
> a couple of open-source tools to extend my DAB listening to work,
> or distribute it around the house over wireless LAN, etc etc etc.
> You wouldn't be able to capture received streams to disc.
Why on earth would the media companies know how to design receivers? They
don't even understand that high levels of audio processing degrade the audio
quality so how on earth could they be trusted to design and implement
receivers?
Find another group. This is not the one for you, goodbye. Try ukmedia where
people with similar audio quality tastes such as your own hang out and
discuss different radio stations.
Nicolas Croiset
>> Presumably the theory is that the on-air decoding can be changed by
>sending a
>> new decoder program over the air or something.
>Yes, or replaceable chips.
All people have not the capabilities to change a chip in a box....
If you compare wit PC, when there is a new generation of microprocessor
it's totally impossible to mount it in old motherboard, so your idea is
totaly out. If you are the best create a receiver with this capability !
At this time there is no equipement where we can change the encoding
mode without changing the equipment. As I say a few days ago the example
of global radio you say each time, this receiver does not exist so it's
impossible to verify the limits of this "possible" capability.
>
>> Given that improved audio coding algorithms always come at the expense of
>> increased processor and/or memory requirements this idea is entirely
>> impractical.
>No it's not.
Run AAC on a 10 years old PC it's impossible !!!!
>The DAB spec was written in the same year as the year that MP3 was
>standardised. If they had bothered to even implement this decoder which can
>be backwardly compatible with MP2 then we wouldn't be in the mess that we
>are in at the moment on DAB. At the time DAB was standardised developments
>in codec technology were going through massive changes and fixing on a codec
>that could easily have been predicted to be out of date very soon, or at the
>very least it had already been superseded by MP3, was absolutely stupid.
There was some differences between MP2 and MP3, if you add all necessary
ancillary datas in the stream and so on your differences between MP2 and
MP3 is very very little at the same bitrate. you compare without these
ancillary datas in MP3, so your idea is false.
MP2 had been choose, because it's a standard in radios for soring and
working MP3 is not the standard in radios. For example the well known
Digigram cards which be used in the majotity of radios and television
have a MP2 Codec include in it.
MP3 have also an "equalised" mode whickes the result no linear, MP2 does
not have this feature. This difference is very important that's why a
lot of systems have choose MP2 instread of MP3, like these equipments
services :
- Audio special links or over ISDN.
- DVD
- Professional audio/video storage
- Audio/video production
- DAB / DVB
>
>Hardly a more onerous constraint than using MP2 seeing as *the* problem with
>DAB *is* MP2.
You create the problem in your head, it's not a problem for dAB.
>Oh yeah, and when are the BBC going to get another multiplex? Never is the
>answer to that. The only new bandwidth that will be available for DAB will
>be in L-band which makes having a national SFN multiplex too expensive to
>implement. So look at my web page about BBC Bit Rates. All the stations' bit
>rates will be at the minimum bit rate that is defined in the RA's
>guidelines, apart from R3 of course. What a joke.
The problem is not L-band it's band III in UK, there is 36 blocks
available on DAB in band III, why these others blocks can't be used ?
This is the real question.
We also ask this question to the french government...
A very big job had been made in UK and in France to reorganise the
frequencies for DVB, but there is no work at this time for reorganise
the band III.
At the eyes of governments, radios is not important it's something which
works with nothing since 100 years so why modifying this. Radios does
not have the same impact as the television...
When you will have answers about the band III in UK you will find the
real problem.
>> But subjectively to this listener it sounds great.
>
>
>And you obviously have extremely low audio quality requirements. Please
>don't inflict your cheap views on a newsgroup where the primary interest is
>and always has been the reception of digital radio at good audio quality
>levels. You're in the WRONG group, go away.
I see, when some people disagree with you, this people must go somewhere
else, it's not a good solution. Why this "law" is not available for you?
Because I disagree with you, and I am not the only one. I really does
not like your attitude in this answer.
Just for your information it's not 10 000 receivers sold last year in
the UK, but 100 000... You have missed one zero !
Nicolas VDL diffusion - VDL soft
http://www.vdl.fr/
Nicolas Croiset
>> Presumably the theory is that the on-air decoding can be changed by
>sending a
>> new decoder program over the air or something.
>Yes, or replaceable chips.
All people have not the capabilities to change a chip in a box....
If you compare wit PC, when there is a new generation of microprocessor
it's totally impossible to mount it in old motherboard, so your idea is
totaly out. If you are the best create a receiver with this capability !
At this time there is no equipement where we can change the encoding
mode without changing the equipment. As I say a few days ago the example
of global radio you say each time, this receiver does not exist so it's
impossible to verify the limits of this "possible" capability.
>
>> Given that improved audio coding algorithms always come at the expense of
>> increased processor and/or memory requirements this idea is entirely
>> impractical.
>No it's not.
Run AAC on a 10 years old PC it's impossible !!!!
>The DAB spec was written in the same year as the year that MP3 was
>standardised. If they had bothered to even implement this decoder which can
>be backwardly compatible with MP2 then we wouldn't be in the mess that we
>are in at the moment on DAB. At the time DAB was standardised developments
>in codec technology were going through massive changes and fixing on a codec
>that could easily have been predicted to be out of date very soon, or at the
>very least it had already been superseded by MP3, was absolutely stupid.
There was some differences between MP2 and MP3, if you add all necessary
ancillary datas in the stream and so on your differences between MP2 and
MP3 is very very little at the same bitrate. you compare without these
ancillary datas in MP3, so your idea is false.
MP2 had been choose, because it's a standard in radios for storing and
working MP3 is not the standard in radios. For example the well known
Digigram cards which be used in the majority of radios and televisions
have a MP2 Codec include in it.
MP3 have also an "equalised" mode which makes the result not linear, MP2
does not have this feature. This difference is very important that's why
a lot of systems have choose MP2 instead of MP3, like these equipments
services :
- Audio special links or over ISDN.
- DVD
- Professional audio/video storage
- Audio/video production
- DAB / DVB
>
>Hardly a more onerous constraint than using MP2 seeing as *the* problem with
>DAB *is* MP2.
You create the problem in your head, it's not a problem for dAB.
>Oh yeah, and when are the BBC going to get another multiplex? Never is the
>answer to that. The only new bandwidth that will be available for DAB will
>be in L-band which makes having a national SFN multiplex too expensive to
>implement. So look at my web page about BBC Bit Rates. All the stations' bit
>rates will be at the minimum bit rate that is defined in the RA's
>guidelines, apart from R3 of course. What a joke.
The problem is not L-band it's band III in UK, there is 36 blocks
available on DAB in band III, why these others blocks can't be used ?
This is the real question.
We also ask this question to the french government...
A very big job had been made in UK and in France to reorganise the
frequencies for DVB, but there is no work at this time for reorganise
the band III.
At the eyes of governments, radios is not important it's something which
works with nothing since 100 years so why modifying this. Radios does
not have the same impact as the television...
When you will have answers about the band III in UK you will find the
real problem.
>> But subjectively to this listener it sounds great.
>
>
>And you obviously have extremely low audio quality requirements. Please
>don't inflict your cheap views on a newsgroup where the primary interest is
>and always has been the reception of digital radio at good audio quality
>levels. You're in the WRONG group, go away.
I see, when some people disagree with you, this people must go somewhere
else, it's not a good solution. Why this "law" is not available for you?
Because I disagree with you, and I am not the only one. I really does
not like your attitude in this answer. I hope you will not have it once
again in the futur.
a...@redhat.invalid
> Oh yeah, and when are the BBC going to get another multiplex? Never is the
> answer to that.
Where do you get that from?
> And you obviously have extremely low audio quality requirements. Please
> don't inflict your cheap views on a newsgroup where the primary interest is
> and always has been the reception of digital radio at good audio quality
> levels. You're in the WRONG group, go away.
This is way over the top. His view are just as valid and legitimate
as anyone else's, and surely groups benefit from diversity of opinion.
You're not Torquemada addressing a heretic.
Andrew.
tony sayer
writes
lowest bitrate whatever system, and cram in more...
>The real issue is that more spectrum needs to be allocated for DAB
>and that broadcasters need to act responsibly in allocating bandwidth.
>
The real long term answer. Pity it couldn't be cleared for a bit
sooner.
>All this written whilst I listen to 6Music - received at home as 128k
>MP2 over DAB with a Wavefinder, recoded from mp2 into 96k mp3 and
>sent to work over the Internet so I can listen here. Took me 10
>minutes to implement thanks to DABBar and the open source tools wget,
>the lame mp3 encoder.
>
>Should be pretty butchered, eh? The dreaded Wavefinder (which works
>great for me), 128k mp2 to start with. Wavefinder running on an
>old Celeron 266MHz. Further compressed down to 96k. Cheap sound-card.
>
>But subjectively to this listener it sounds great.
>
Fine, my old dad still likes the sound of his Bush Radiogram on AM nice
*tone* doncha know. Customer is always right :-))...
>I get similar power and flexibility with DVB-T digital video.
>I for one have no interest in going back to the analogue world.
>
>One last point - be grateful we don't have software upgradeable
>receivers. Media companies would just use it to limit our
>own access rights. Refer DVD, refer Digital Millenium
>Copyright Act, refer copy-protected CDs.
>
>You can be sure that in the world where the media companies have
>control of both ends of the DAB link I would never be able to use
>a couple of open-source tools to extend my DAB listening to work,
>or distribute it around the house over wireless LAN, etc etc etc.
>You wouldn't be able to capture received streams to disc.
>
>Steve
Well if they did on radio and seeing that Joe Public doesn't like to pay
for it and expects it free, then they might be shooting themselves in
the foot a tad. Still if the music is wanted enough, then I suppose it
will be paid for, but I cant for the life of me see it happening...
--
Tony Sayer
Steve
"Nicolas Croiset" <nicolas...@radio-campus.org> wrote in message
news:3cda1e2e...@news.nerim.net...
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote :
> >> Presumably the theory is that the on-air decoding can be changed by
> >sending a
> >> new decoder program over the air or something.
> >Yes, or replaceable chips.
>
> All people have not the capabilities to change a chip in a box....
> If you compare wit PC, when there is a new generation of microprocessor
> it's totally impossible to mount it in old motherboard, so your idea is
> totaly out. If you are the best create a receiver with this capability !
> At this time there is no equipement where we can change the encoding
> mode without changing the equipment. As I say a few days ago the example
> of global radio you say each time, this receiver does not exist so it's
> impossible to verify the limits of this "possible" capability.
I'm bored of replying to posts that are just knit-picking and I want to get
on with some work so I can start applying for jobs so I'll be brief:
The problem at the moment given the lack of bandwidth in band 3 *is* MP2.
Not allowing any upgrades in the DAB spec and not even spotting that it was
out of date before receivers had sold more than a few thousand is downright
unacceptable and those in charge should be sacked immediately.
AAC allows broadcasters to use half the bandwidth to achieve the same audio
quality. It could have been designed into the spec but hasn't been. This has
led to DAB sounding worse than FM when it is used at 128kbps. This is not
acceptable because DAB is DEFINITELY supposed to offer a better audio
quality than FM but doesn't. Therefore, DAB has failed to meet one of, if
not the main, objective when it was first designed.
> >> Given that improved audio coding algorithms always come at the expense
of
> >> increased processor and/or memory requirements this idea is entirely
> >> impractical.
> >No it's not.
> Run AAC on a 10 years old PC it's impossible !!!!
You've used this very poor argument before. NOBODY uses 10 year old PCs
apart from you.
> >The DAB spec was written in the same year as the year that MP3 was
> >standardised. If they had bothered to even implement this decoder which
can
> >be backwardly compatible with MP2 then we wouldn't be in the mess that we
> >are in at the moment on DAB. At the time DAB was standardised
developments
> >in codec technology were going through massive changes and fixing on a
codec
> >that could easily have been predicted to be out of date very soon, or at
the
> >very least it had already been superseded by MP3, was absolutely stupid.
>
> There was some differences between MP2 and MP3, if you add all necessary
> ancillary datas in the stream and so on your differences between MP2 and
> MP3 is very very little at the same bitrate. you compare without these
> ancillary datas in MP3, so your idea is false.
In your opinion it is false, not in mine.
> >Hardly a more onerous constraint than using MP2 seeing as *the* problem
with
> >DAB *is* MP2.
>
> You create the problem in your head, it's not a problem for dAB.
What I am the only one that thinks DAB sounds crap? I don't think so. Start
reading other people's posts occasionally and you'll soon hear that most
people think the audio quality of DAB is bad.
> >Oh yeah, and when are the BBC going to get another multiplex? Never is
the
> >answer to that. The only new bandwidth that will be available for DAB
will
> >be in L-band which makes having a national SFN multiplex too expensive to
> >implement. So look at my web page about BBC Bit Rates. All the stations'
bit
> >rates will be at the minimum bit rate that is defined in the RA's
> >guidelines, apart from R3 of course. What a joke.
> The problem is not L-band it's band III in UK, there is 36 blocks
> available on DAB in band III, why these others blocks can't be used ?
> This is the real question.
> We also ask this question to the french government...
> A very big job had been made in UK and in France to reorganise the
> frequencies for DVB, but there is no work at this time for reorganise
> the band III.
> At the eyes of governments, radios is not important it's something which
> works with nothing since 100 years so why modifying this. Radios does
> not have the same impact as the television...
>
> When you will have answers about the band III in UK you will find the
> real problem.
The rest of band 3 is in use by the military.
> >> But subjectively to this listener it sounds great.
> >
> >
> >And you obviously have extremely low audio quality requirements. Please
> >don't inflict your cheap views on a newsgroup where the primary interest
is
> >and always has been the reception of digital radio at good audio quality
> >levels. You're in the WRONG group, go away.
> I see, when some people disagree with you, this people must go somewhere
> else, it's not a good solution. Why this "law" is not available for you?
> Because I disagree with you, and I am not the only one. I really does
> not like your attitude in this answer.
>
> Just for your information it's not 10 000 receivers sold last year in
> the UK, but 100 000... You have missed one zero !
50,000 actually, don't exagerate.
Steve
<a...@redhat.invalid> wrote in message
news:abdbh8$h36$1...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
> Steve <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> > Oh yeah, and when are the BBC going to get another multiplex? Never is
the
> > answer to that.
>
> Where do you get that from?
I don't think the BBC will ever get another multiplex. I've now found out
that it most certainly won't be in L-band because it would be like rolling
out a GSM network. I don't know for certain that blocks in band 3 are out of
bounds forever but now that I know that L-band is for anything that I'm
interested in then band 3 is where we have to look to. And I've been told
that the likelihood of getting any of band 3 is about as possible as Richard
supporting a move to using an AAC codec.
> > And you obviously have extremely low audio quality requirements. Please
> > don't inflict your cheap views on a newsgroup where the primary interest
is
> > and always has been the reception of digital radio at good audio quality
> > levels. You're in the WRONG group, go away.
>
> This is way over the top. His view are just as valid and legitimate
> as anyone else's, and surely groups benefit from diversity of opinion.
> You're not Torquemada addressing a heretic.
I personally do not want this group to turn into a group that is full of
people who don't care about audio quality. I first found this group (apart
from one post years ago) last summer and came back around last October. It
has always been a group that has contained people who are interested in
getting good quality audio from digital radio. If we're not careful when the
Goodmans products come out this group could turn into Billy with his
Wavefinder saying how good he finds the programming to be on Cube....
Maybe I was over the top but his example was also over the top because he
was harking back 20 years when CPU speed was about 4Hz and memory was 3
bits.
My point about disallowing upgrades is not so much that upgradable decoders
are that important, but more that disallowing upgrades was a mistake which
has had the effect of allowing the broadcasters to reduce bit rates to such
an extent that is IMO unacceptable seeing as DAB was meant to offer better
audio quality than on FM, which it simply doesn't on Radio 1 or Kiss.
Using MP2 this makes the attraction of lowering the bit rates to 128kbps far
too attractive because for 2 stations reduced from 192kbps you can fit
another 128kbps station in. If you used AAC and there was a minimum bit rate
of say 84kbps but some were transmitting at 96kbps then the attraction is
nowhere near as great because you would need to lower 7 stations to fit one
more in. Plus 84kbps will very likely be as good if not better than MP2 at
160kbps.
I am not interested in hearing just how good DAB is when mine and plenty
other people's view is that it sounds crap. It is okay for you listening to
R3 at 192kbps or even 6 Music where at least some care is taken of the
processing. The stations I primarily listen to have had their audio quality
slashed by the reduction in bit rates, I feed aggrieved and cannot be
bothered listening to just how good it sounds to Joe Below Average.
Malcolm RK
> I am not interested in hearing just how good DAB is when mine and
plenty
> other people's view is that it sounds crap. It is okay for you
listening to
> R3 at 192kbps or even 6 Music where at least some care is taken of the
> processing. The stations I primarily listen to have had their audio
quality
> slashed by the reduction in bit rates, I feed aggrieved and cannot be
> bothered listening to just how good it sounds to Joe Below Average.
Since the influx of Wavefinder owners to this NG there seems to be a lot
of Joe Average about. My turn to be philosopher and make up for my
recent lack of posts. :-)
When Tony, Richard, myself and others were nippers and interested in the
new craze of Hi Fi there were regular exhibitions of the latest gear all
across the country which were packed out with people eager to hear 'The
Closest Approach To The Original Sound'. We not only heard that but to
prove it there were live music comparisons at audio exhibitions.
Wharfedale ran several big demos at the Festival Hall in London and
repeated them in New York. I think Quad did something similar but I
don't have any photos to prove it as I do for the Wharfedale concerts.
The BBC did its bit too. I recall them sponsoring a 50 (approx) piece
Big Band at an exhibition and I think I'm right in saying it was going
out live on FM. It may have been elitist because you had to have
enthusiasm and cash to buy the gear but one way or another we got to
learn what sounded right and what didn't. Back then there were almost as
many Hi Fi magazines in WH Smith as there are PC mags today, so those
inclined to do so could learn a lot about the emerging technologies.
Today things have changed. Because I've always been an audio dabbler
I've several times been hauled along to electrical shops to help people
choose a Ł300 Sony, JVC etc. For that money you get a couple of
speakers, a CD player, a MiniDisc, Cassette, AM/FM radio and Amplifier.
Maybe an Equalizer too. I took such a trip recently and was asked my
opinion of a Ł300 Sony sound centre, my ill chosen words were "it sounds
total crap to me" for which I've not yet been completely forgiven. When
asked to explain I said something about it sounding superficially
pleasant and that the manufacturer seemed to have provided a level of
THD which made things sound warm in an unrealistic larger than life sort
of way. Incidentally the THD IIRC approached double figures of % whereas
my own amp is rated at 0.009% THD at full output. Its seems to be a fact
of life that there are far fewer people around who have any idea what
good sound is than used to be the case - where have all the specialist
Hi Fi shops gone?
In part that will be because the cheap stuff has got better. Even a car
stereo sounds pleasant enough much of the time whereas it used to be the
case that if you could get FM at all in a car it was ruined by all the
unsuppressed ignition systems. The incentive to get really good sound
systems seems to have disappeared now that Joe Average's gear isn't all
that bad, without being anything very remarkable.
Not long ago I foolishy mastered an LP to CD transfer using Ł70 Yamaha
speakers attached to my PC. Sounded OK to me but not on a big pair of
B&Ws it didn't!. I fear that the availability of cheap pleasant sounding
'Hi Fi' and the relative absence of people who have heard better is
debasing the comments on DAB quality; and of course the Wavefinder is
going to encourage listening on the speakers bundled with their PC.
There are no doubt exceptions but that is what it was designed for.
IMO, my DAB tuner often sounds quite pleasant when part of an audio
system (aerial, tuner, amp and speakers) costing close to, err, should I
admit to this folly?, err, six grand! Far too often it sounds quite
awful as Steve and others have noted. What my DAB system doesn't do is
give me the sonic thrill and gut pounding realism that a CD (or LP) can
give. The owner of the 'crap' Ł300 Sony system, which he bought anyway,
comes around moaning that however loud he turns it up and whatever the
setting on the equalizer it doesn't sound like the Genesis, Pink Floyd,
Santana etc. concerts he used to attend in his youth. My system will
punch him in the guts and, so he says, "the only thing missing is the
stench of cannabis".
I quite often disagree with how Steve expresses his views but he's too
often right to ignore. To me DAB never sounds better than a limp
average - and I include 6 Radio in that. So as far as I am concerned the
more often he says so the better. Another thing newcomers might remember
is that some of us have been around long enough to remember the
identical test transmissions going out simultaneously at 256, 192 and
160. 192 was generally good enough but there was an obvious degradation
at 160 and now we have 128 with nothing to compare it with apart from
our memories and our CD collection. I'll stop now before I start ranting
in a way which would get me mistaken for Steve. :-)
--
Malcolm
Steve
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:abdkq3$497$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Today things have changed. Because I've always been an audio dabbler
> I've several times been hauled along to electrical shops to help people
> choose a £300 Sony, JVC etc. For that money you get a couple of
> speakers, a CD player, a MiniDisc, Cassette, AM/FM radio and Amplifier.
> Maybe an Equalizer too. I took such a trip recently and was asked my
> opinion of a £300 Sony sound centre, my ill chosen words were "it sounds
> total crap to me"
Next time I go into Manchester I think I will go to a few Sony Centres etc
to have a quick demo just so I can say those immortal words. I think it
could be a pretty entertaining afternoon.
> Not long ago I foolishy mastered an LP to CD transfer using £70 Yamaha
> speakers attached to my PC. Sounded OK to me but not on a big pair of
> B&Ws it didn't!. I fear that the availability of cheap pleasant sounding
> 'Hi Fi' and the relative absence of people who have heard better is
> debasing the comments on DAB quality; and of course the Wavefinder is
> going to encourage listening on the speakers bundled with their PC.
> There are no doubt exceptions but that is what it was designed for.
Quite, and you think it is bad now, wait 'til the Goodmans range comes
out..... Joe Below Average will suddenly think he is Mr effing Hi-Fi.
> IMO, my DAB tuner often sounds quite pleasant when part of an audio
> system (aerial, tuner, amp and speakers) costing close to, err, should I
> admit to this folly?, err, six grand! Far too often it sounds quite
> awful as Steve and others have noted. What my DAB system doesn't do is
> give me the sonic thrill and gut pounding realism that a CD (or LP) can
> give. The owner of the 'crap' £300 Sony system, which he bought anyway,
So what was the point in you giving advice if he went ahead and bought it
anyway?
I think in future, if anyone asks you to give advice on hi-fi, insist that
for the money they have they must take it to Richer Sounds so that they at
least get separates. I've converted quite a few people in my time and all
have been happy that I did.
> I quite often disagree with how Steve expresses his views but he's too
> often right to ignore. To me DAB never sounds better than a limp
> average - and I include 6 Radio in that.
6 Music is highly processed. Even though I was slagged off for saying it was
highly processed on the first day it started, it is highly processed. The
only difference is that they probably bought a new encoder, a new DAB
processor etc, so it sounds better than R1 etc at 128k.
> So as far as I am concerned the
> more often he says so the better. Another thing newcomers might remember
> is that some of us have been around long enough to remember the
> identical test transmissions going out simultaneously at 256, 192 and
> 160. 192 was generally good enough but there was an obvious degradation
> at 160 and now we have 128 with nothing to compare it with apart from
> our memories and our CD collection. I'll stop now before I start ranting
> in a way which would get me mistaken for Steve. :-)
Thankyou. That last paragraph sums up what the broadcasters are doing.
Homogenise to 128k while the only listeners are "anoraks" and if they
complain call them anoraks. Then ban anybody who complains about the same
thing more than once, job done. Effing charming.
Nicolas Croiset
>
>I'm bored of replying to posts that are just knit-picking and I want to get
>on with some work so I can start applying for jobs so I'll be brief:
>
>The problem at the moment given the lack of bandwidth in band 3 *is* MP2.
>Not allowing any upgrades in the DAB spec and not even spotting that it was
>out of date before receivers had sold more than a few thousand is downright
>unacceptable and those in charge should be sacked immediately.
>
The problem is definitively not MP2.
For example in Paris the requirements is for more than 225 programms it
represent approximatively 28 blocks. In Paris there is only 9 blocks
free if you change the encoding mode the problem will not change you
will not have enough to put all radios.
9 blocks permit to put around 70 radios. If you admit AAC can make about
20% of gain this clearly not enough, if you admit there is a technology
which permit to divide by 2 the bitrate, this is not enough also !!! So
the problem is not MP2, The problem is the lack of frequencies for more
blocks free for DAB in L band and band III.
Bye.
Nick Jeffery
> Next time I go into Manchester I think I will go to a few Sony Centres etc
> to have a quick demo just so I can say those immortal words. I think it
> could be a pretty entertaining afternoon.
The spotty YTS boy will just look at you in a perplexed fashion.
> Quite, and you think it is bad now, wait 'til the Goodmans range comes
> out..... Joe Below Average will suddenly think he is Mr effing Hi-Fi.
It didn't happen with FM tuners, MD recorders integrated in minisystems,
etc. Most people who purchase Sky Digiboxes don't think they're Mr Home
Cinema...
> 6 Music is highly processed. Even though I was slagged off for saying it was
> highly processed on the first day it started, it is highly processed. The
> only difference is that they probably bought a new encoder, a new DAB
> processor etc, so it sounds better than R1 etc at 128k.
I've been listening to 6Music this afternoon, and I think it sounds
quite alright. Remember, this is radio, not DVD-A. The primary purpose
is *entertainment*, not reproducing bit-perfect audio.
--
Nick Jeffery - Durham, England Station Manager, Purple FM
http://durham.easytiger.ws/ http://www.purplefm.com/
Telephone 07941 349 444 Durham.St...@dur.ac.uk
Lat: N54:45:47 Long: W1:34:53 Dunelm House, DURHAM, DH1 3AN
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> And you obviously have extremely low audio quality requirements. Please
> don't inflict your cheap views on a newsgroup where the primary interest is
> and always has been the reception of digital radio at good audio quality
> levels.
It's hardly my place to stick my oar into a disagreement between two
Steves, but wherever did you get that idea from? I don't know whether
this group has a charter (I haven't succeeded in locating one), but
the title tells us that it is about digital radio, and that's all.
It does not say anything about high fidelity. We may choose to discuss
audio quality within the group, but high audio quality is not the only
aspect of digital radio that is of interest. You seem to have somehow
overlooked this point.
Steve D is therefore most certainly not in the wrong group, and you
have no business to tell him to go away. I think perhaps an apology is
due.
Richard
--
Steve
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote :
>
> >
> >I'm bored of replying to posts that are just knit-picking and I want to
get
> >on with some work so I can start applying for jobs so I'll be brief:
> >
> >The problem at the moment given the lack of bandwidth in band 3 *is* MP2.
> >Not allowing any upgrades in the DAB spec and not even spotting that it
was
> >out of date before receivers had sold more than a few thousand is
downright
> >unacceptable and those in charge should be sacked immediately.
> >
>
> The problem is definitively not MP2.
It most certainly is the problem taking into consideration the bandwidth
available at present in the UK. Admittedly, if more bandwidth was made
available then it would not be a problem so long as they increased the bit
rate.
> For example in Paris the requirements is for more than 225 programms it
> represent approximatively 28 blocks. In Paris there is only 9 blocks
> free if you change the encoding mode the problem will not change you
> will not have enough to put all radios.
>
> 9 blocks permit to put around 70 radios. If you admit AAC can make about
> 20% of gain this clearly not enough,
You know very well that I have never mentioned the figure 20%. I have
mentioned that there could be 60% more stations and have an improvement in
audio quality or 100% more stations with the same audio quality. That is
twice as many stations using 64kbps AAC than the same audio quality stations
using MP2.
> if you admit there is a technology
> which permit to divide by 2 the bitrate, this is not enough also !!!
It improves the situation. What do you want to do, transmit using zero bits
per second?
>So
> the problem is not MP2, The problem is the lack of frequencies for more
> blocks free for DAB in L band and band III.
This is one of the main problems, yes. The other being MP2 which makes it
too expensive for broadcasters to transmit with a high audio quality so they
all want to go to lower audio quality because it saves them money and allows
loads and loads of extra crap stations like Smash Hits Radio............
Steve
Not read this either.
Nicolas Croiset
>
>>So
>> the problem is not MP2, The problem is the lack of frequencies for more
>> blocks free for DAB in L band and band III.
>
>This is one of the main problems, yes. The other being MP2 which makes it
>too expensive for broadcasters to transmit with a high audio quality so they
>all want to go to lower audio quality because it saves them money and allows
>loads and loads of extra crap stations like Smash Hits Radio............
Hello,
I don't know how much does it cost to broadcast on DAB in UK, but in
France it cost the same price as FM. I had listen a few years ago about
prices for UK and it was 10 more than we ask for our customers.
In normal case the broadcast cost will also drop because new equipments
cost less than it was a few years ago.
No i think, media groups prefer to launch new media now with less
bitrates only for a presence, then when there will be more blocks
available a reorganisation will be possible.
In France, Radio France had choose to have 2 blocks instead the one they
have at this time because they have too much programms which can't be
broadcast in one block. Perhaps BBC will make this choice also when
their coverage for the first block will be better.
I think you might be a little patient, Your position will be settled if
you will not be so critical but constructive.
I think the major job is making some blocks free in band III in the UK.
I think this is not impossible.
Steve
"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CDA9365...@dur.ac.uk...
> Steve wrote:
> > Next time I go into Manchester I think I will go to a few Sony Centres
etc
> > to have a quick demo just so I can say those immortal words. I think it
> > could be a pretty entertaining afternoon.
>
> The spotty YTS boy will just look at you in a perplexed fashion.
It'd still be fun to confuse him.
> > Quite, and you think it is bad now, wait 'til the Goodmans range comes
> > out..... Joe Below Average will suddenly think he is Mr effing Hi-Fi.
>
> It didn't happen with FM tuners, MD recorders integrated in minisystems,
> etc. Most people who purchase Sky Digiboxes don't think they're Mr Home
> Cinema...
Sky digibox owners start thinking they're Mr Football. I refer you to the
quote by Roy Keane about "prawn sandwich eaters".
> > 6 Music is highly processed. Even though I was slagged off for saying it
was
> > highly processed on the first day it started, it is highly processed.
The
> > only difference is that they probably bought a new encoder, a new DAB
> > processor etc, so it sounds better than R1 etc at 128k.
>
> I've been listening to 6Music this afternoon, and I think it sounds
> quite alright. Remember, this is radio, not DVD-A. The primary purpose
> is *entertainment*, not reproducing bit-perfect audio.
Since when was listening to decent audio quality not classed as
entertainment?
Anyway, my comments were about processing and I didn't say it didn't sound
alright. I got slagged off on the first day for saying that 6 Music was
highly processed, and I think it is. But what I've said above just says that
6 Music probably has better equipment so it sounds better than the likes of
R1 (see last sentence above).
Steve
> I think the major job is making some blocks free in band III in the UK.
> I think this is not impossible.
I agree! :)
Nick Jeffery
> Anyway, my comments were about processing and I didn't say it didn't sound
> alright. I got slagged off on the first day for saying that 6 Music was
> highly processed, and I think it is. But what I've said above just says that
> 6 Music probably has better equipment so it sounds better than the likes of
> R1 (see last sentence above).
I think, provided it sounds better than FM, that's all that should
count. I find *many* DAB stations listenable, although not all - Xfm
uses very heavy processing and is Tx'd at 128kbps, but it's still an
enjoyable listening experience. The artefacts don't irritate me, the
sound is bright and lively, and the programming is good. Xfm still play
out from CD; many other stations are playing out from compressed file
servers. And as was said here earlier this week, tandem-encoding MPEG
audio is lethal.
I'd quite like to hear 6 Music on DSat, but won't have that option until
we have our dish re-aligned from 19.2 to 28.2. Some of the radio
stations on analogue Astra 19.2degE sound excellent - but they're
largely coming from Germany, where their engineers are treated with respect.
Nicolas Croiset
>
>"Nicolas Croiset" <nicolas...@radio-campus.org> wrote in message
>news:3cdac390...@news.nerim.net...
>
>> I think the major job is making some blocks free in band III in the UK.
>> I think this is not impossible.
>
>
>I agree! :)
I think the method adopt by broadcasters in Uk (and in some other
countries), by putting more and more programs on DAB will demonstrate to
the radio authority the need of more frequencies.
This the method regurlaly adpoted for asking more places.
Steve
> Steve wrote:
> > Anyway, my comments were about processing and I didn't say it didn't
sound
> > alright. I got slagged off on the first day for saying that 6 Music was
> > highly processed, and I think it is. But what I've said above just says
that
> > 6 Music probably has better equipment so it sounds better than the likes
of
> > R1 (see last sentence above).
>
> I think, provided it sounds better than FM, that's all that should
> count.
Although I agree with what you say I would go a bit furhter in that they
should actually try their best to improve audio quality which seems to be
totally ignored. Just saying "provided it is better than FM" sounds a bit
like a compromise, and the broadcasters would take that to mean that so long
as it is a *tiny* bit better than FM then that is okay. I don't think that
is okay because DAB is capable of taking the piss out of FM if they wanted
it to.
> I find *many* DAB stations listenable, although not all - Xfm
> uses very heavy processing and is Tx'd at 128kbps, but it's still an
> enjoyable listening experience. The artefacts don't irritate me, the
> sound is bright and lively, and the programming is good. Xfm still play
> out from CD; many other stations are playing out from compressed file
> servers. And as was said here earlier this week, tandem-encoding MPEG
> audio is lethal.
I'd agree here. I think some of the nasty sounds are probably not caused by
128kbps MP2, although it doesn't help at all. It is the combination of a few
things like playback off MD, crap links etc, compounded by 128kbps MP2.
> I'd quite like to hear 6 Music on DSat, but won't have that option until
> we have our dish re-aligned from 19.2 to 28.2. Some of the radio
> stations on analogue Astra 19.2degE sound excellent - but they're
> largely coming from Germany, where their engineers are treated with
respect.
Hye a CS student saying that! I like it. :)
tony sayer
digitalradiotech.co.uk> writes
>
>"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:3CDACCD2...@dur.ac.uk...
>> Steve wrote:
>> > Anyway, my comments were about processing and I didn't say it didn't
>sound
>> > alright. I got slagged off on the first day for saying that 6 Music was
>> > highly processed, and I think it is. But what I've said above just says
>that
>> > 6 Music probably has better equipment so it sounds better than the likes
>of
>> > R1 (see last sentence above).
>>
>> I think, provided it sounds better than FM, that's all that should
>> count.
>
>
>Although I agree with what you say I would go a bit furhter in that they
>should actually try their best to improve audio quality which seems to be
>totally ignored. Just saying "provided it is better than FM" sounds a bit
>like a compromise, and the broadcasters would take that to mean that so long
>as it is a *tiny* bit better than FM then that is okay. I don't think that
>is okay because DAB is capable of taking the piss out of FM if they wanted
>it to.
>
Objection!. When I get a moment we'll have this SAT T-DAB and FM
comparison. I think you'd be surprised just how good FM can be provided
that the input signal is clean. I can tell you that DAB won't piss all
over FM, in fact I had some excellent FM transmitting gear here a few
years ago, and a few people were hard pressed to tell it apart from the
CD source! And that was with one output going into the amp and the other
SPDIF going into the FM Tx with the tuner output going into another
input on the pre-amp with levels set to within .2dB and no processing.
Don't forget that MPEG chucks some of the info away, remember that new
coder and the WAV file the other day!...
>> I'd quite like to hear 6 Music on DSat, but won't have that option until
>> we have our dish re-aligned from 19.2 to 28.2. Some of the radio
>> stations on analogue Astra 19.2degE sound excellent - but they're
>> largely coming from Germany, where their engineers are treated with
>respect.
Yes, that is the *big* difference.
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<nicolas...@radio-campus.org> writes
>"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote :
>
>>
>>>So
>>> the problem is not MP2, The problem is the lack of frequencies for more
>>> blocks free for DAB in L band and band III.
>>
>>This is one of the main problems, yes. The other being MP2 which makes it
>>too expensive for broadcasters to transmit with a high audio quality so they
>>all want to go to lower audio quality because it saves them money and allows
>>loads and loads of extra crap stations like Smash Hits Radio............
>
>Hello,
>
>I don't know how much does it cost to broadcast on DAB in UK, but in
>France it cost the same price as FM. I had listen a few years ago about
>prices for UK and it was 10 more than we ask for our customers.
>
Yes I can well believe that. The big UK transmission providers certainly
know how to charge!..
>In normal case the broadcast cost will also drop because new equipments
>cost less than it was a few years ago.
>
The equipment isn't the real cost, maintenance charges, power and above
all site rentals and links, are a very big contributor...
>No i think, media groups prefer to launch new media now with less
>bitrates only for a presence, then when there will be more blocks
>available a reorganisation will be possible.
>
>In France, Radio France had choose to have 2 blocks instead the one they
>have at this time because they have too much programms which can't be
>broadcast in one block. Perhaps BBC will make this choice also when
>their coverage for the first block will be better.
>
>I think you might be a little patient, Your position will be settled if
>you will not be so critical but constructive.
>
>I think the major job is making some blocks free in band III in the UK.
>I think this is not impossible.
>
Yes we do have a problem with that...
>Nicolas VDL diffusion - VDL soft
>http://www.vdl.fr/
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
Totally agree with you on all of that Malcolm. It was a different time
audio some years ago, and to think that one day we'd all have that
direct digital link to the broadcaster that was going to be the great
leap like FM stereo was over Mono AM...
Boo Hooooo............
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> writes
>In message <abd5ah$c8b$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> And you obviously have extremely low audio quality requirements. Please
>> don't inflict your cheap views on a newsgroup where the primary interest is
>> and always has been the reception of digital radio at good audio quality
>> levels.
>
>It's hardly my place to stick my oar into a disagreement between two
>Steves, but wherever did you get that idea from? I don't know whether
>this group has a charter (I haven't succeeded in locating one), but
>the title tells us that it is about digital radio, and that's all.
Well so much has been claimed about the crystal clear quality so I put
it to you that most people would interpret that to be hi-fi...
>It does not say anything about high fidelity. We may choose to discuss
>audio quality within the group, but high audio quality is not the only
>aspect of digital radio that is of interest. You seem to have somehow
>overlooked this point.
>
No. But its been CD quality for quite some while, and this has been a
major claim crystal quality interference free near/almost/near/not quite
near/somewhere near...nowhere fecking near CD quality, and now its
digital quality, that I suppose most of Joe Pubic would take to mean Hi-
fi.....whatever that means define that how you want..
>Steve D is therefore most certainly not in the wrong group, and you
>have no business to tell him to go away. I think perhaps an apology is
>due.
Well I do agree that Steve G should tone it down a bit, and I have told
him this....
>
>Richard
Nb: I bet the BEEB engineer's who developed it had that *well* in mind
though...
--
Tony Sayer
Steve
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aBfl+cHd...@bancom.co.uk...
Fair enough. You caught me in a "we both listen to Radio 1" type mode. What
I meant was, using R1 as an example, on FM the processing is super
heavyweight, on DAB, even with high processing, at 192kbps it still sounded
fine and a lot better than FM. Using high processing on DAB at 160k sounds
good and better than FM (which may be down to the different sound on FM and
on DAB), but at 128k FM always sounds better, far better. That's taking into
consideration that I've got a good FM R1 signal.
So, it probably wasn't a fair comparison of the 2 systems because it was
taking the kind of stations that we listen into consideration which are
primarily highly processed.
> I can tell you that DAB won't piss all
> over FM,
But at 192k it should do. That's all I'm saying. New digital radio system,
we should be getting more than we are getting and accepting just better than
a highly processed FM station is not aiming high enough.
> in fact I had some excellent FM transmitting gear here a few
> years ago, and a few people were hard pressed to tell it apart from the
> CD source! And that was with one output going into the amp and the other
> SPDIF going into the FM Tx with the tuner output going into another
> input on the pre-amp with levels set to within .2dB and no processing.
>
> Don't forget that MPEG chucks some of the info away, remember that new
> coder and the WAV file the other day!...
Yes. R1 on FM is not distorted or muffled apart from the high levels of
processing, DAB is.
> >> I'd quite like to hear 6 Music on DSat, but won't have that option
until
> >> we have our dish re-aligned from 19.2 to 28.2. Some of the radio
> >> stations on analogue Astra 19.2degE sound excellent - but they're
> >> largely coming from Germany, where their engineers are treated with
> >respect.
>
> Yes, that is the *big* difference.
More band 3 spectrum, that is the only solution that is going to revive DAB
from the depths to which it has plunged.
Steve
Band 3 spectrum. If we get more band 3 spectrum then none of 'em have got an
excuse not to provide good quality audio and if they don't they will lose
listeners cos once the content is there (and let's face it, how many bloody
stations do they want to give us?), what is next on the customer preference
list? It is audio quality! Get more band 3 spectrum, the BBC are bound to
get another SFN mux, shame the commercial "broadcasters" over how poor their
audio quality is, they will have to improve it or lose massive market share,
and we all lived happily ever after in high quality audio heaven. Job done.
Paul Webster
>I'm bored of replying to posts that are just knit-picking
knitting ... but one of the descriptions to apply this message is
"nit-picking"
--
Rgds
Paul Webster
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3CDA9365...@dur.ac.uk...
> > The primary purpose
> > is *entertainment*, not reproducing bit-perfect audio.
>
> Since when was listening to decent audio quality not classed as
> entertainment?
All cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows.
Richard
--
Steve
Not read this one either.
Nick Jeffery
> "Richard Lambley" <use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4a9d1a34...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk...
>
> Not read this one either.
Richard has a point, Steve.
Please stop your pointless "Not read this" posts - they're a waste of
bandwidth, and a waste of my time.
People who waste my time tend to get kill filed, and lose out on my
assistance.
Richard Lambley
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> Well so much has been claimed about the crystal clear quality so I put
> it to you that most people would interpret that to be hi-fi...
But what do most radio listeners understand hi-fi to be? Most radio
listeners are not especially interested in hi-fi, and 'crystal clear'
is probably enough for them -- i.e., if it's free from noise,
interference, crosstalk and the obvious distortions of AM, it does all
that they expect. For Steve, digital radio ought automatically to mean
hi-fi radio, and anyone who suggests otherwise gets ordered out of the
group. But it seems to me that there's nothing divinely ordained about
this. We may feel it's a waste of an opportunity that DAB should be
anything less than hi-fi, but we are a minority interest.
> But its been CD quality for quite some while, and this has been a
> major claim crystal quality interference free near/almost/near/not quite
> near/somewhere near...
That's undoubtedly a disappointment for the early adopters. But surely,
for most of the listening public, DAB still is hi-fi quality. Most of
the listening public hasn't trained itself to detect the subtleties
that Steve is complaining about -- it just hears the silent backgrounds
(not on R1, of course), the lack of interference, the crisp speech and
the bright music, and that's what it understands by hi-fi.
> nowhere fecking near CD quality
To provide anything approaching digital quality would, as you're well
aware, be considered far too expensive. The old DSR system in Germany
came closest to that, but it was closed down because it required a
whole 25MHz satellite transponder to deliver just 16 radio stations.
Nobody is likely to try that again. It was nice, though.
> Nb: I bet the BEEB engineer's who developed it had that *well* in mind
> though...
No doubt, Tony. Probably they listen via satellite when they're at
home; but when they're not, it probably doesn't bother them so much.
Richard
--
Richard Lambley
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> Objection!. When I get a moment we'll have this SAT T-DAB and FM
> comparison. I think you'd be surprised just how good FM can be provided
> that the input signal is clean.
I wouldn't be surprised by that in the least. But, all too often,
people's input signal is not clean, and that's why digital scores.
Richard
--
Steve
> Steve wrote:
> > "Richard Lambley" <use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:4a9d1a34...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk...
> >>All cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows.
> >
> > Not read this one either.
>
> Richard has a point, Steve.
>
> Please stop your pointless "Not read this" posts - they're a waste of
> bandwidth, and a waste of my time.
>
> People who waste my time tend to get kill filed, and lose out on my
> assistance.
I did read his post which was no different than I would expect from an out
and out troll. Look at the following:
> > The primary purpose
> > is *entertainment*, not reproducing bit-perfect audio.
>
> Since when was listening to decent audio quality not classed as
> entertainment?
All cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows.
Richard is just showing his dislike for my music. He has said before that he
doesn't class dance music as entertainment, but that is just showing that he
is a snob. Whatever.
I have asked him on many occasions to stop following me about. He doesn't
get the message so saying that I haven't read his post is an affective way
of letting him know that I'm not interested in his views. I am not at all
interested in his views until he just changes the bloody record. AFAIAC his
record is still firmly stuck in the groove and until he sorts his head out I
am not going to give him the time of day. Funny how I get the blame for his
provocative posting in response to my views again.
Steve
> In message <gS7b6BIM...@bancom.co.uk>
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Well so much has been claimed about the crystal clear quality so I put
> > it to you that most people would interpret that to be hi-fi...
>
> But what do most radio listeners understand hi-fi to be? Most radio
> listeners are not especially interested in hi-fi, and 'crystal clear'
> is probably enough for them -- i.e., if it's free from noise,
> interference, crosstalk and the obvious distortions of AM, it does all
> that they expect.
My DAB signal is not free from interference and fading unless the 'birdies'
are part of most of the songs that I hear on the radio. How is that
crystal-clear? Drastically distorted disgraceful audio quality sounds, how
is that crystal-clear?
> For Steve, digital radio ought automatically to mean
> hi-fi radio, and anyone who suggests otherwise gets ordered out of the
> group.
Look at this newsgroup as a club with a door policy. Those with insufficient
standards shouldn't get in.
> But it seems to me that there's nothing divinely ordained about
> this. We may feel it's a waste of an opportunity that DAB should be
> anything less than hi-fi, but we are a minority interest.
Don't include yourself in our "minority". Your views are incompatible with
entry to our minority club.
> > But its been CD quality for quite some while, and this has been a
> > major claim crystal quality interference free near/almost/near/not quite
> > near/somewhere near...
>
> That's undoubtedly a disappointment for the early adopters. But surely,
> for most of the listening public, DAB still is hi-fi quality.
Don't be stupid.
> Most of
> the listening public hasn't trained itself to detect the subtleties
> that Steve is complaining about -- it just hears the silent backgrounds
> (not on R1, of course), the lack of interference, the crisp speech and
> the bright music, and that's what it understands by hi-fi.
>
> > nowhere fecking near CD quality
>
> To provide anything approaching digital quality would, as you're well
> aware, be considered far too expensive.
192kbps MP2 is "approaching digital quality". It seemed to be okay before
Cristmas.
> The old DSR system in Germany
> came closest to that, but it was closed down because it required a
> whole 25MHz satellite transponder to deliver just 16 radio stations.
> Nobody is likely to try that again. It was nice, though.
>
> > Nb: I bet the BEEB engineer's who developed it had that *well* in mind
> > though...
>
> No doubt, Tony. Probably they listen via satellite when they're at
> home; but when they're not, it probably doesn't bother them so much.
--
Malcolm RK
news:abgke9$2q9$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Richard Lambley" <use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5e725b344...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk...
> > In message <gS7b6BIM...@bancom.co.uk>
> > tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Well so much has been claimed about the crystal clear quality so I
put
> > > it to you that most people would interpret that to be hi-fi...
> >
> > But what do most radio listeners understand hi-fi to be? Most radio
> > listeners are not especially interested in hi-fi, and 'crystal
clear'
> > is probably enough for them -- i.e., if it's free from noise,
> > interference, crosstalk and the obvious distortions of AM, it does
all
> > that they expect.
>
> My DAB signal is not free from interference and fading unless the
'birdies'
> are part of most of the songs that I hear on the radio. How is that
> crystal-clear? Drastically distorted disgraceful audio quality sounds,
how
> is that crystal-clear?
It'll be interesting to see how cheap DAB wirelesses pan out in
practice. Just before the advent of DTV (ONdigital) the electrical
traders journal (off hand I can't recall its exact title) contained a
lot of information for their members on how DTT reception was going to
be either perfect or wouldn't work at all and what advice should be
offered in the latter case. I'd have predicted the same myself but it
was of course total bollox in practice.
Although I'm no more than 10 miles from Crystal Palace, my Arcam is
useless with the supplied indoor aerial. Messing around with bits of
wire will give reception of sorts but the Arcam's error reporting
display gives the game away, as will Joe Average's lugs.
--
Malcolm
a...@redhat.invalid
> I have asked him on many occasions to stop following me about. He
> doesn't get the message so saying that I haven't read his post is an
> affective way of letting him know that I'm not interested in his
> views. I am not at all interested in his views until he just changes
> the bloody record.
You're not interested in his views until he changes them to be more
like yours. However, some of us may be interested, and this is a
public forum.
> AFAIAC his record is still firmly stuck in the groove and until he
> sorts his head out I am not going to give him the time of day. Funny
> how I get the blame for his provocative posting in response to my
> views again.
You're not getting the blame for his postings. You're getting the
blame for re-posting every one of them, quoting the whole damn thing,
and not adding anything of substance. That's net abuse, pure and
simple.
Andrew.
a...@redhat.invalid
> Although I'm no more than 10 miles from Crystal Palace, my Arcam is
> useless with the supplied indoor aerial. Messing around with bits of
> wire will give reception of sorts but the Arcam's error reporting
> display gives the game away, as will Joe Average's lugs.
Indeed, which is why DAB tuners without a proper error rate display
are IMO virtually unsuitable for sale. I don't hear many of the audio
problems reported on this group, but I've got an excellent antenna and
I see a typical raw BER of zero. Without some real error rate numbers
I don't see how anyone can tell whether the artefacts are due to an
insufficient bit rate or corruption.
Andrew.
Malcolm RK
news:abgn1a$4k8$2...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
> Malcolm RK <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Although I'm no more than 10 miles from Crystal Palace, my Arcam is
> > useless with the supplied indoor aerial. Messing around with bits of
> > wire will give reception of sorts but the Arcam's error reporting
> > display gives the game away, as will Joe Average's lugs.
>
> Indeed, which is why DAB tuners without a proper error rate display
> are IMO virtually unsuitable for sale. I don't hear many of the audio
> problems reported on this group, but I've got an excellent antenna and
> I see a typical raw BER of zero.
Ditto here but there is a certain dullness about many of the (128)
transmissions and some of the low bit rate speech stations are dire -
which doesn't explain why some aren't. I have R5 on now and quite happy
with it. As I said yesterday, I could hear the degradation between 192
and 160 on the old DRAFFT tests so logic tells me I'm being
short-changed now and I've not seen anything worthwhile in exchange.
> Without some real error rate numbers
> I don't see how anyone can tell whether the artefacts are due to an
> insufficient bit rate or corruption.
And does Steve's Videologic display the numbers? :-)
--
Malcolm
Steve
news:abgmiq$4k8$1...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
> That's net abuse, pure and simple.
a...@redhat.invalid
> <a...@redhat.invalid> wrote in message
> news:abgn1a$4k8$2...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
>> Malcolm RK <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Although I'm no more than 10 miles from Crystal Palace, my Arcam is
>> > useless with the supplied indoor aerial. Messing around with bits of
>> > wire will give reception of sorts but the Arcam's error reporting
>> > display gives the game away, as will Joe Average's lugs.
>>
>> Indeed, which is why DAB tuners without a proper error rate display
>> are IMO virtually unsuitable for sale. I don't hear many of the audio
>> problems reported on this group, but I've got an excellent antenna and
>> I see a typical raw BER of zero.
> Ditto here but there is a certain dullness about many of the (128)
> transmissions
Right, and I've heard enough corruption artefacts to be pretty sure
that dullness is not a typical symptom of corruption.
> and some of the low bit rate speech stations are dire - which
> doesn't explain why some aren't.
My money would be on either bad coders or bad pre-coder processing.
> I have R5 on now and quite happy with it. As I said yesterday, I
> could hear the degradation between 192 and 160 on the old DRAFFT
> tests so logic tells me I'm being short-changed now and I've not
> seen anything worthwhile in exchange.
Right, true.
Andrew.
Steve
<a...@redhat.invalid> wrote in message
news:abgn1a$4k8$2...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
By your theory, you are implying that Radio 1's signal is corrupted as Radio
1 has been quoted as having poor audio quality more than any other station.
BUT, if Radio 1 being corrupted then Radio 3 must also be corrupted because
as DAB uses OFDM they are just part of the same signal and will therefore
have almost identical respective BER values. BUT Radio 3 sounds absolutely
excellent on my VideoLogic tuner which doesn't display BER values but Radio
1, especially during the dance shows sounds absolutely dreadful.
Please explain why a high BER is to blame for the poor audio quality on
Radio 1. Also, is it likely that so many people have all reported the same
dreadful audio quality on Radio 1 and ALL have a poor DAB signal? I don't
think Malcolm has a poor DAB signal and he described the audio quality of
the Essential Selection a couple of weeks ago as "off the scale of
dreadfulness" IIRC.
BER is not even an important function. I would personally be interested in
having it for my tuner because I am foremost a digital communications
engineer and BER is part of an engineer's vocabulary. But to say that a DAB
tuner is virtually unsuitable for sale is absurd I'm afraid. It is like
saying that every FM radio is not fit its purpose which a lot of them
certainly are. For example, to extrapolate your desire to see a BER value on
all DAB tuners onto analogue tuners you would have to calculate the signal
to noise ratio at the receiver input of an FM tuner which is not a simple
function and would make FM receivers far more expensive than they are
(relatively speaking for the cheaper FM receivers anyway).
Nick Jeffery
> My DAB signal is not free from interference and fading unless the 'birdies'
> are part of most of the songs that I hear on the radio. How is that
> crystal-clear? Drastically distorted disgraceful audio quality sounds, how
> is that crystal-clear?
You get 'birdies' on DAB?
Birdies are usually a result of overload on the RF stages of FM receivers.
> Look at this newsgroup as a club with a door policy. Those with insufficient
> standards shouldn't get in.
You have the wrong idea about this newsgroup; we are a public house.
Anyone can come in and demand service. If they become unruly, we can
call the police (ISP) to remove them.
If this "club" had a newsgroup, it would be moderated. It isn't; it just
expects people to behave sensibly and in good spirit. You are in breach
of these loose guidelines when you start personally attacking people, in
my opinion.
Nick Jeffery
> "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3CDBB05D...@dur.ac.uk...
>>Steve wrote:
>>Since when was listening to decent audio quality not classed as
>>entertainment?
>
> "All cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows."
>
> Richard is just showing his dislike for my music. He has said before that he
> doesn't class dance music as entertainment, but that is just showing that he
> is a snob. Whatever.
I interpreted that as Richard saying that audio quality is a part of the
entertainment, but the entertainment is not the audio quality.
> I have asked him on many occasions to stop following me about.
Use your Killfile. I have no sympathy for those who cannot control
themselves on Usenet.
I'm normally adverse to killfiling folk, but if someone is wasting my
time, I'll killfile them - they won't "benefit" from my thoughts,
advice, or help.
Nick Jeffery
> Indeed, which is why DAB tuners without a proper error rate display
> are IMO virtually unsuitable for sale.
The flappy things on the side of my head tell me what the error rate is,
just as they tell me the amount of background noise on analogue
transmissions. My eyes do similar things for television.
Malcolm RK
> a...@redhat.invalid wrote:
> > Indeed, which is why DAB tuners without a proper error rate display
> > are IMO virtually unsuitable for sale.
>
> The flappy things on the side of my head tell me what the error rate
is,
I defy anyone to be able to put a number on the error rate just by
listening, not at least until it passes through a threshold beyond which
the tuner just cannot hope to offer correction.
--
Malcolm
Malcolm RK
I'm sure Andrew didn't mean to imply that or make any reference to any
individual. Certainly I didn't interpret his remarks the way you have.
Unless I missed something, you criticised something Richard said (no
change there then!). I backed up one of the points you made, Andrew
enlarged on my remarks and you think he's directing a complaint at you.
I know NG conversations can take very strange turns but I see no real
evidence that Andrew disputes our view on R1's universally observed
problems.
--
Malcolm
Nick Jeffery
> I defy anyone to be able to put a number on the error rate just by
> listening, not at least until it passes through a threshold beyond which
> the tuner just cannot hope to offer correction.
If the tuner can cope, and render good quality audio, what's the problem?
It will be apparent to you when the tuner can't cope.
Malcolm RK
> Malcolm RK wrote:
> > I defy anyone to be able to put a number on the error rate just by
> > listening, not at least until it passes through a threshold beyond which
> > the tuner just cannot hope to offer correction.
>
> If the tuner can cope, and render good quality audio, what's the problem?
>
> It will be apparent to you when the tuner can't cope.
It will become apparent to different people with different expectations at
different error rates. I suppose as a broadcaster you are happy to transmit CDs
scratched to within a whisker of uncorrectability and assume you are giving your
audience the very best listening experience. There's a job waiting for you at
the Beeb. ;-)
--
Malcolm
a...@redhat.invalid
> a...@redhat.invalid wrote:
>> Indeed, which is why DAB tuners without a proper error rate display
>> are IMO virtually unsuitable for sale.
> The flappy things on the side of my head tell me what the error rate is,
They don't. They tell you how bad the sound is. Bad sound may or may
not be caused by data errors.
Andrew.
a...@redhat.invalid
> <a...@redhat.invalid> wrote in message
> news:abgn1a$4k8$2...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
>> Malcolm RK <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > Although I'm no more than 10 miles from Crystal Palace, my Arcam is
>> > useless with the supplied indoor aerial. Messing around with bits of
>> > wire will give reception of sorts but the Arcam's error reporting
>> > display gives the game away, as will Joe Average's lugs.
>>
>> Indeed, which is why DAB tuners without a proper error rate display
>> are IMO virtually unsuitable for sale. I don't hear many of the audio
>> problems reported on this group, but I've got an excellent antenna and
>> I see a typical raw BER of zero. Without some real error rate numbers
>> I don't see how anyone can tell whether the artefacts are due to an
>> insufficient bit rate or corruption.
> By your theory, you are implying that Radio 1's signal is corrupted as Radio
> 1 has been quoted as having poor audio quality more than any other station.
> BUT, if Radio 1 being corrupted then Radio 3 must also be corrupted because
> as DAB uses OFDM they are just part of the same signal and will therefore
> have almost identical respective BER values. BUT Radio 3 sounds absolutely
> excellent on my VideoLogic tuner which doesn't display BER values but Radio
> 1, especially during the dance shows sounds absolutely dreadful.
Absolutely -- that's why I think that your R1 problems aren't caused
by errors.
> BER is not even an important function. I would personally be
> interested in having it for my tuner because I am foremost a digital
> communications engineer and BER is part of an engineer's
> vocabulary. But to say that a DAB tuner is virtually unsuitable for
> sale is absurd I'm afraid. It is like saying that every FM radio is
> not fit its purpose which a lot of them certainly are.
The BER tells you how good the signal at the front end of the reciver
is, which allows you to set up an antenna with some certainty that
it's right. Without knowing the BER, you might set up the antenna in
such a way that it's fine in some weather but fails miserably when the
weather changes.
This happens because DAB can withstand a fairly high BER without any
audible failures at all. This is not a property that FM has, and it's
quite practical to adjust an FM antenna by just listening to the noise
level.
> For example, to extrapolate your desire to see a BER value on all
> DAB tuners onto analogue tuners you would have to calculate the
> signal to noise ratio at the receiver input of an FM tuner which is
> not a simple function and would make FM receivers far more expensive
> than they are (relatively speaking for the cheaper FM receivers
> anyway).
This is something that DAB can do and FM can't. It's a DAB advantage.
Andrew.
Nicolas Croiset
>> vocabulary. But to say that a DAB tuner is virtually unsuitable for
>> sale is absurd I'm afraid. It is like saying that every FM radio is
>> not fit its purpose which a lot of them certainly are.
>
>The BER tells you how good the signal at the front end of the reciver
>is, which allows you to set up an antenna with some certainty that
>it's right. Without knowing the BER, you might set up the antenna in
>such a way that it's fine in some weather but fails miserably when the
>weather changes.
Hello,
the BER is generally represented by a signal strength which is present
in all or quasi all DAB receivers.
If you want to have more details you have two differents BER on DAB you
have a BER in the MSC (Main Service Channel) and a BER on the FIC (Fast
Information Channel).
On the Videologic the BER is enough when you have only two bar on it.
Bye.
Nicolas VDL diffusion - VDL soft
http://www.vdl.fr/
Nick Jeffery
> It will become apparent to different people with different expectations at
> different error rates. I suppose as a broadcaster you are happy to transmit CDs
> scratched to within a whisker of uncorrectability and assume you are giving your
> audience the very best listening experience. There's a job waiting for you at
> the Beeb. ;-)
Up until very recently, we were using Denon cartridge CD players.
We're now using Tascam CD-450 units, which appear to be very good. I've
not noticed any of our CDs (even the 10 year old ones) having any issues
wrt being scratched. The record decks are also in tip-top condition,
with top-of-the-range Ortofon Concorde "Nightclub" styli.
Mark Carver
"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3CDBEBA5...@dur.ac.uk...
> You get 'birdies' on DAB?
>
> Birdies are usually a result of overload on the RF stages of FM receivers.
'Birdies' are the audible product of RF intermodulation. That certainly can come from
an overloaded RF circuit, but commonly with FM reception they usually appear when another
station is present on the same frequency, or there is a more powerful adjacent carrier.
With co-channel interference you'll hear birdies in both mono, and stereo modes, with
adjacent channel interference they are only normally present in stereo.
If you hear them on DAB, either the DAB encoding equipment is being fed
with a poor quality off -air FM feed, (not impossible to believe!)
or it is the result of anti-aliasing not working properly.
> You have the wrong idea about this newsgroup; we are a public house.
> Anyone can come in and demand service. If they become unruly, we can
> call the police (ISP) to remove them.
Nice analogy
Steve
"Malcolm RK" <validwithmy...@spam-trap.co.uk> wrote in message
news:abgrp8$9np$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> I'm sure Andrew didn't mean to imply that or make any reference to any
> individual. Certainly I didn't interpret his remarks the way you have.
>
> Unless I missed something, you criticised something Richard said (no
> change there then!). I backed up one of the points you made, Andrew
> enlarged on my remarks and you think he's directing a complaint at you.
> I know NG conversations can take very strange turns but I see no real
> evidence that Andrew disputes our view on R1's universally observed
> problems.
Hey, it's my turn to say chill out! :)
All I was disputing is that the BER should be available on receivers to make
them saleable. Although it would almost certainly be a trivial task to make
this value available it is not necessary to have it. For example, if you
apply this criterion to personal stereos it would increase the relative
price to the consumer as each additional feature costs something.
I've heard Andrew say yesterday that you need a good external aerial. I
disagree. A good external aerial is desirable but not absolutely necessary
because DAB has been designed using error correction and does things like
not output uncorrectable errors just as CDs do, so I don't think the error
rate has that much to do with it. With a high number of errors the audio
screws up big time, but with a low number of errors I don't think the audio
quality problems are down to this.
Malcolm RK
>
> "Malcolm RK" <validwithmy...@spam-trap.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:abgrp8$9np$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> > I'm sure Andrew didn't mean to imply that or make any reference to any
> > individual. Certainly I didn't interpret his remarks the way you have.
> >
> > Unless I missed something, you criticised something Richard said (no
> > change there then!). I backed up one of the points you made, Andrew
> > enlarged on my remarks and you think he's directing a complaint at you.
> > I know NG conversations can take very strange turns but I see no real
> > evidence that Andrew disputes our view on R1's universally observed
> > problems.
>
> Hey, it's my turn to say chill out! :)
Yes Sir. I'll bugger off and listen to this Tong fella. Oi, it doesn't sound as
bad as usual right now. You bin 'avin a word with Jowell or summat?
--
Malcolm
Steve
> Steve wrote:
> > "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3CDBB05D...@dur.ac.uk...
> >>Steve wrote:
> >>Since when was listening to decent audio quality not classed as
> >>entertainment?
> >
> > "All cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows."
> >
> > Richard is just showing his dislike for my music. He has said before
that he
> > doesn't class dance music as entertainment, but that is just showing
that he
> > is a snob. Whatever.
>
> I interpreted that as Richard saying that audio quality is a part of the
> entertainment, but the entertainment is not the audio quality.
Maybe you're right. Maybe I've become so accustomed to Richard's snipes that
I misread it although I am well aware that he hates dance music whether he
will admit it or not.
> > I have asked him on many occasions to stop following me about.
>
> Use your Killfile. I have no sympathy for those who cannot control
> themselves on Usenet.
>
> I'm normally adverse to killfiling folk, but if someone is wasting my
> time, I'll killfile them - they won't "benefit" from my thoughts,
> advice, or help.
I just want Richard to stop being so annoying when he replies to me. He also
badly distorts my views so I have to watch what he is saying although I
haven't been reading his posts recently, or not many of them because I take
one look at his first paragraph and I see that he is just word twisting
Steve
> Steve wrote:
> > My DAB signal is not free from interference and fading unless the
'birdies'
> > are part of most of the songs that I hear on the radio. How is that
> > crystal-clear? Drastically distorted disgraceful audio quality sounds,
how
> > is that crystal-clear?
>
> You get 'birdies' on DAB?
Maybe the wrong word, I dunno. I get semi-dropouts quite often which sound
strange.
> Birdies are usually a result of overload on the RF stages of FM receivers.
>
> > Look at this newsgroup as a club with a door policy. Those with
insufficient
> > standards shouldn't get in.
>
> You have the wrong idea about this newsgroup; we are a public house.
All the pubs round here have doormen. ;)
> Anyone can come in and demand service. If they become unruly, we can
> call the police (ISP) to remove them.
>
> If this "club" had a newsgroup, it would be moderated. It isn't; it just
> expects people to behave sensibly and in good spirit. You are in breach
> of these loose guidelines when you start personally attacking people, in
> my opinion.
Fair enough.
Steve
<a...@redhat.invalid> wrote in message
news:abgtgl$5rr$2...@hammerfield.cambridge.redhat.com...
> Steve <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> > By your theory, you are implying that Radio 1's signal is corrupted as
Radio
> > 1 has been quoted as having poor audio quality more than any other
station.
> > BUT, if Radio 1 being corrupted then Radio 3 must also be corrupted
because
> > as DAB uses OFDM they are just part of the same signal and will
therefore
> > have almost identical respective BER values. BUT Radio 3 sounds
absolutely
> > excellent on my VideoLogic tuner which doesn't display BER values but
Radio
> > 1, especially during the dance shows sounds absolutely dreadful.
>
> Absolutely -- that's why I think that your R1 problems aren't caused
> by errors.
Okay.
> > BER is not even an important function. I would personally be
> > interested in having it for my tuner because I am foremost a digital
> > communications engineer and BER is part of an engineer's
> > vocabulary. But to say that a DAB tuner is virtually unsuitable for
> > sale is absurd I'm afraid. It is like saying that every FM radio is
> > not fit its purpose which a lot of them certainly are.
>
> The BER tells you how good the signal at the front end of the reciver
> is, which allows you to set up an antenna with some certainty that
> it's right. Without knowing the BER, you might set up the antenna in
> such a way that it's fine in some weather but fails miserably when the
> weather changes.
Okay, but on other receivers such as the VideoLogic I have they have signal
strength which is related to BER although not proportional to it. I don't
know if you say a post a couple of weeks ago that said that signal got worse
when the signal strength went higher, this is theoretically possible as
higher power on certain subcarriers could do that while the BER could
increase overall. However, there is such a small probability of this
happening that signal strength is vvery nearly as good as BER at saying how
good the signal quality is, although as BER is so simply calculated it
should be made available I agree.
> This happens because DAB can withstand a fairly high BER without any
> audible failures at all. This is not a property that FM has, and it's
> quite practical to adjust an FM antenna by just listening to the noise
> level.
Yes.
> > For example, to extrapolate your desire to see a BER value on all
> > DAB tuners onto analogue tuners you would have to calculate the
> > signal to noise ratio at the receiver input of an FM tuner which is
> > not a simple function and would make FM receivers far more expensive
> > than they are (relatively speaking for the cheaper FM receivers
> > anyway).
>
> This is something that DAB can do and FM can't. It's a DAB advantage.
Yes, it is, and it should be made more widely available on DAB becuase it is
so simple to calculate.
Steve
"Malcolm RK" <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:abh51b$i0kfa$1...@ID-134879.news.dfncis.de...
I think they are finally making progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think they sorted it out last week and certainly sounds a lot better than
it has done than EVERY OTHER WEEK FOR MONTHS!!!! :(
Still, at least they have done something, even if it has taken 4 whole
months to do something about it...
I did send an email a few weeks ago to a bloke at the BBC who can get these
things sorted if he wants to and he said he had contacted the relevant
people to have a look at it. It only took them a month. That ispretty rapid
by the BBC's standards. I also rang Reception Advice up at 4pm today
although I very much doubt they rushed into action to sort Steve's complaint
out. ;)
I also notice though that they have not increased it again to 160kbps and I
will put a bet that it will be at 160kbps by the time that prick Westwood is
on-air dropping his bombs or whatever it is he likes to do. The bar
stewards.
a...@redhat.invalid
> I've heard Andrew say yesterday that you need a good external aerial. I
> disagree.
It depends where you are. *I* need a good external aerial. :-)
And so might a lot of other people.
Andrew.
Malcolm RK
>
> "Malcolm RK" <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:abh51b$i0kfa$1...@ID-134879.news.dfncis.de...
> > Yes Sir. I'll bugger off and listen to this Tong fella. Oi, it doesn't
> sound as
> > bad as usual right now. You bin 'avin a word with Jowell or summat?
>
> I think they are finally making progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I think they sorted it out last week and certainly sounds a lot better than
> it has done than EVERY OTHER WEEK FOR MONTHS!!!! :(
This act of treachery could get me into serious trouble, but I listened to it
from 8 through til 9 and at pretty high volume. Not bad. :-)
I quite got into this repetitive beat thing, sorry Richard. :-))
And the audio was far better than when I last listened two or three weeks ago.
Same equipment but in a bigger room. Last time it was an impenetrable wodge of
noise. I hate to give succour to Bit Burgling lurkers but this time I could
follow the various strands of the music. It had a respectable stereo sound stage
too. I was particularly impressed by the clarity of Tong's voice (sometimes a
female too) over the pounding bass. The latter I could feel deep inside my skull
but it came across pretty well. I can imagine it might screw up inadequate
speakers and cause all sorts of nasty harmonics but mine fortunately could take
it. I could feel the draught a foot away from the cones (actually my speakers
haven't got cones but that's a diversion).
So I have to admit I rather liked it and will try it again next week. Not bland
and limp as I suggested only yesterday. Does this make me a traitor Steve, you
seem inclined to agree it was OK, and if you do, are we in for a quiet week on
alt.radio.digital? :-)
> I did send an email a few weeks ago to a bloke at the BBC who can get these
> things sorted if he wants to and he said he had contacted the relevant
> people to have a look at it. It only took them a month. That ispretty rapid
> by the BBC's standards. I also rang Reception Advice up at 4pm today
> although I very much doubt they rushed into action to sort Steve's complaint
> out. ;)
If it helps, I'm more than happy to give you the credit, but let's not count our
chickens yet. :-)
> I also notice though that they have not increased it again to 160kbps
Agreed, it was 128.
> and I
> will put a bet that it will be at 160kbps by the time that prick Westwood is
> on-air dropping his bombs or whatever it is he likes to do. The bar
> stewards.
Not sure my neighbours would enjoy an 11pm awakening. I have an immigrant family
living at the back of me who play ear splitting music during the day. Currently
my neighbours are blaming them for the occasional deep bass in the evening. I
don't want them to find out it's me. ;-)
--
Malcolm
Steve
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:abh8e7$jv2$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Malcolm RK" <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:abh51b$i0kfa$1...@ID-134879.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > Yes Sir. I'll bugger off and listen to this Tong fella. Oi, it doesn't
> > sound as
> > > bad as usual right now. You bin 'avin a word with Jowell or summat?
> >
> > I think they are finally making progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > I think they sorted it out last week and certainly sounds a lot better
than
> > it has done than EVERY OTHER WEEK FOR MONTHS!!!! :(
>
> This act of treachery could get me into serious trouble, but I listened to
it
> from 8 through til 9 and at pretty high volume. Not bad. :-)
Good innit! :) You'll be jetting off to Ibiza next to 'ave it large on
Space terrace.
> I quite got into this repetitive beat thing, sorry Richard. :-))
He's too inflexible.
> And the audio was far better than when I last listened two or three weeks
ago.
To be honest, that aint saying a lot is it...
> Same equipment but in a bigger room. Last time it was an impenetrable
wodge of
> noise.
I must say I like your descriptions. To anyone who didn't hear what you
heard they might think you're joking a bit but that is actually a very good
description.
I'm pretty sure they started playing with the processing or whatever they
were playing with last week at around 6.30pm. I heard one track that WAS
DEFINITELY the worst sound I've ever heard coming out of my stereo so I
reckon they just turned a few dials the wrong way. Later on it improved so
they must have been doing somet. The bad sound left me open mouthed in
astonishment at just how bad it was (honest). The sound was like it would be
coming out of a speaker whose base and tweeter where covered in Glastonbury
mud. You couldn't make anything out at all!
> I hate to give succour to Bit Burgling lurkers but this time I could
> follow the various strands of the music. It had a respectable stereo sound
stage
> too. I was particularly impressed by the clarity of Tong's voice
(sometimes a
> female too) over the pounding bass. The latter I could feel deep inside my
skull
> but it came across pretty well. I can imagine it might screw up inadequate
> speakers and cause all sorts of nasty harmonics but mine fortunately could
take
> it. I could feel the draught a foot away from the cones (actually my
speakers
> haven't got cones but that's a diversion).
>
> So I have to admit I rather liked it and will try it again next week. Not
bland
> and limp as I suggested only yesterday. Does this make me a traitor Steve,
you
> seem inclined to agree it was OK, and if you do, are we in for a quiet
week on
> alt.radio.digital? :-)
Relatively quiet yes. I've finally started getting my head stuck into my
books and I've rung loads of offices re DAB's poor audio quality and people
can now register for my newsletter/group, so I think it is about time that I
did some serious study so that I can watch the World Cup, have an holiday
and then apply for jobs. As for the Essential Selection (and Essential Mix,
I assume this has now been sorted too although I didn't hear last weeks), my
moaning seems to have FINALLY paid off. Anyway, the sooner I can get a job
and move, the sooner I can get DSat and start moaning to the BBC about
increasing the bit rates to 256kbps. :)
> > I did send an email a few weeks ago to a bloke at the BBC who can get
these
> > things sorted if he wants to and he said he had contacted the relevant
> > people to have a look at it. It only took them a month. That ispretty
rapid
> > by the BBC's standards. I also rang Reception Advice up at 4pm today
> > although I very much doubt they rushed into action to sort Steve's
complaint
> > out. ;)
>
> If it helps, I'm more than happy to give you the credit, but let's not
count our
> chickens yet. :-)
Unless they deliberately change the bloody levels back to what they were or
forget to save the settings I'd hope that that was the end of this debacle.
> > I also notice though that they have not increased it again to 160kbps
>
> Agreed, it was 128.
Still 128k! I will bet you that it goes to 160k when Westwood comes on.
> > and I
> > will put a bet that it will be at 160kbps by the time that prick
Westwood is
> > on-air dropping his bombs or whatever it is he likes to do. The bar
> > stewards.
>
> Not sure my neighbours would enjoy an 11pm awakening. I have an immigrant
family
> living at the back of me who play ear splitting music during the day.
I had a Greek girl above me (not in that way, no) last year and she played
bloody Greek ballads pretty loud which was pretty dire. Then again, last
summer I downloaded a load of Acid House MP3s and played them continuously
at high volume so she deserved her time to have a bit of a blast. I was late
handing in my MSc project because of downloading and playing house too much.
I had to blag that one a bit I can tell ya.
> Currently
> my neighbours are blaming them for the occasional deep bass in the
evening. I
> don't want them to find out it's me. ;-)
Carry on blaming it on the neighbours. :)
Malcolm RK
>
> "Malcolm RK" <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:abhan8$i8nml$1...@ID-134879.news.dfncis.de...
> > This act of treachery could get me into serious trouble, but I listened to
> it
> > from 8 through til 9 and at pretty high volume. Not bad. :-)
>
> Good innit! :) You'll be jetting off to Ibiza next to 'ave it large on
> Space terrace.
Went there in '84. Nothing to see but building sites and a few fat Germans.
> > I quite got into this repetitive beat thing, sorry Richard. :-))
>
> He's too inflexible.
You are both as bad as each other for unnecessary jibes. :-)
> > And the audio was far better than when I last listened two or three weeks
> ago.
>
> To be honest, that aint saying a lot is it...
What bothered me is that after 10pm (R1 still on 128, R2 on 160 and R3 on 192)
R1 sounded worst of the lot to me. Worse than Saga Radio too (which I heard
courtesy of hitting the wrong button on the remote). It may not have been
'dreadful' but not as clear as the others. Could have been the source of course.
> I'm pretty sure they started playing with the processing or whatever they
> were playing with last week at around 6.30pm. I heard one track that WAS
> DEFINITELY the worst sound I've ever heard coming out of my stereo so I
> reckon they just turned a few dials the wrong way. Later on it improved so
> they must have been doing somet. The bad sound left me open mouthed in
> astonishment at just how bad it was (honest). The sound was like it would be
> coming out of a speaker whose base and tweeter where covered in Glastonbury
> mud. You couldn't make anything out at all!
That's last week you are talking about, right? This week I sometimes heard the
crackle of vinyl grooves. If I am right and that can be heard within the mix
then something must be getting better. Credit where it's due, but WTF (see how
I'm learning your lingo?) they are doing wasting bits on BBC Test and an advert
on R5 SportsX God, and the keeper of the BH asylum, alone knows.
--
Malcolm
Steve
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:abhdnh$79b$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Malcolm RK" <myiniti...@no-spam.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:abhan8$i8nml$1...@ID-134879.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > This act of treachery could get me into serious trouble, but I
listened to
> > it
> > > from 8 through til 9 and at pretty high volume. Not bad. :-)
> >
> > Good innit! :) You'll be jetting off to Ibiza next to 'ave it large on
> > Space terrace.
>
> Went there in '84. Nothing to see but building sites and a few fat
Germans.
What you went to Space terrace in '84? ;) BTW, Space is a club that opens
about 8am for clubbers to carry on dancing until the following afternoon if
they want to. I heard it mentioned that it was the best club in the world
last year but that crown seems to change every couple of years.
> > > And the audio was far better than when I last listened two or three
weeks
> > ago.
> >
> > To be honest, that aint saying a lot is it...
>
> What bothered me is that after 10pm (R1 still on 128, R2 on 160 and R3 on
192)
> R1 sounded worst of the lot to me. Worse than Saga Radio too (which I
heard
> courtesy of hitting the wrong button on the remote). It may not have been
> 'dreadful' but not as clear as the others. Could have been the source of
course.
Well the bit rates account for why R3 > R2 > R1 in terms of audio quality.
Also, I was told that the BBC transmission equipment was 2 generations
behind that of some of the commercial multiplex operator's equipment. How
many years behind that means I don't know but 2 generations sounds a lot. I
think for the sake of £2k or £3k I reckon R1 deserve a new encoder.
> > I'm pretty sure they started playing with the processing or whatever
they
> > were playing with last week at around 6.30pm. I heard one track that WAS
> > DEFINITELY the worst sound I've ever heard coming out of my stereo so I
> > reckon they just turned a few dials the wrong way. Later on it improved
so
> > they must have been doing somet. The bad sound left me open mouthed in
> > astonishment at just how bad it was (honest). The sound was like it
would be
> > coming out of a speaker whose base and tweeter where covered in
Glastonbury
> > mud. You couldn't make anything out at all!
>
> That's last week you are talking about, right?
Yep.
> This week I sometimes heard the
> crackle of vinyl grooves. If I am right and that can be heard within the
mix
> then something must be getting better.
You can normally hear that at some point in the show. I wouldn't be
surprised if the processor and encoder combine to accentuate the crackle cos
you know how intelligent these systems are...
> Credit where it's due, but WTF (see how
> I'm learning your lingo?)
WTF is a very flexible saying though isn't it. ;)
>they are doing wasting bits on BBC Test and an advert
> on R5 SportsX God, and the keeper of the BH asylum, alone knows.
Is BBC Test actually used ever or what? Has anybody ever heard anything on
it? ISTR reading that it had WS 64kbps LSF a bit ago. I think that was on
Carey's site. Does that mean somebody heard it or what? Otherwise what a
waste. But they deliberately transmit with a big chunk of capacity unused
anyway so BBC Test is just one of a number of grossly sly things that they
do. WS being duplicated on WS and R4 is another. That's one of the main
reasons why I've always been so pissed off about the Essential Mix being so
poor because there simply is no reason for such a gross waste of bandwidth.
The DAB Listeners Group will sort that one out, mark my words. ;) I hope
you've subscribed Malcolm. Even if you've already read all the material in
every newsletter anybody who contributes to this group must subscribe or
action will be taken! :)
Malcolm RK
>
> Is BBC Test actually used ever or what? Has anybody ever heard anything on
> it?
Until quite recently (maybe it was last Christmas!) it always carried R2 at
112kbs. Even went as far as announcing it on the dynamic text. AFAICR it was
like that for all the time I've had DAB, more than two years.112 was always a
worrying sign.
> ISTR reading that it had WS 64kbps LSF a bit ago. I think that was on
> Carey's site. Does that mean somebody heard it or what?
You may be right but it's not as I remember it. Carey fills in his own data on
the national muxes. He relies on 'spies' for the regions though he does get
around quite a bit himself.
> Otherwise what a
> waste. But they deliberately transmit with a big chunk of capacity unused
> anyway so BBC Test is just one of a number of grossly sly things that they
> do. WS being duplicated on WS and R4 is another. That's one of the main
> reasons why I've always been so pissed off about the Essential Mix being so
> poor because there simply is no reason for such a gross waste of bandwidth.
> The DAB Listeners Group will sort that one out, mark my words. ;) I hope
> you've subscribed Malcolm.
Within 15 minutes of your announcement but I changed my name to dab@ (I'm the
new dabman!) so you probably won't have recognised me. If I get spam sent to
dab@ I'll know who to blame and I'll reroute it to sender. :-)
--
Malcolm
Steve
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:abhgtj$3cp$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Is BBC Test actually used ever or what? Has anybody ever heard anything
on
> > it?
>
> Until quite recently (maybe it was last Christmas!) it always carried R2
at
> 112kbs. Even went as far as announcing it on the dynamic text. AFAICR it
was
> like that for all the time I've had DAB, more than two years.112 was
always a
> worrying sign.
Yes, very worrying. DAB Fan cheered me up no end when he said that some of
the BBC music stations will be using 112kbps and using dynamic bit rate
allocation. Now I wonder which of the network music stations will be reduced
to 112kbps?....... Essential Mix at 112kbps, I'd better get a job and have
Sky before that happens I can tell ya. Oh and BTW, I've just flicked R1 on,
guess what bit rate it was on at? 160k obviously. For fecking rap crap.
BTW Carey has updated his web page to include services that the RA has
approved. The UK page is just wall to wall 128kbps homogenised crap.
> > ISTR reading that it had WS 64kbps LSF a bit ago. I think that was on
> > Carey's site. Does that mean somebody heard it or what?
>
> You may be right but it's not as I remember it. Carey fills in his own
data on
> the national muxes.
I think this is more recent that I read that. I;ve just had a look but
couldn't find it but I quoted it on here once after I had read it somewhere.
>He relies on 'spies' for the regions though he does get
> around quite a bit himself.
I felt a right cheeky get when I rang the multiplex manager at Now Digital
and told her that her multiplexes were half full, and she reeled off a list
saying that they were all full. :( I think I'll have to update my
Commercial Bit Rates page.
> > Otherwise what a
> > waste. But they deliberately transmit with a big chunk of capacity
unused
> > anyway so BBC Test is just one of a number of grossly sly things that
they
> > do. WS being duplicated on WS and R4 is another. That's one of the main
> > reasons why I've always been so pissed off about the Essential Mix being
so
> > poor because there simply is no reason for such a gross waste of
bandwidth.
> > The DAB Listeners Group will sort that one out, mark my words. ;) I
hope
> > you've subscribed Malcolm.
>
> Within 15 minutes of your announcement but I changed my name to dab@ (I'm
the
> new dabman!)
Nooo, not another.
Richard Lambley
"Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
> I did read his post which was no different than I would expect from an out
> and out troll. Look at the following:
>
> > > The primary purpose
> > > is *entertainment*, not reproducing bit-perfect audio.
> >
> > Since when was listening to decent audio quality not classed as
> > entertainment?
>
> All cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows.
>
> Richard is just showing his dislike for my music. He has said before that he
> doesn't class dance music as entertainment, but that is just showing that he
> is a snob. Whatever.
I was merely pointing out some false logic. What possible connection
can that have with anyone's taste in music? Music wasn't even mentioned.
BTW, I've admitted previously that I don't find your kind of dance
music enjoyable, but it would be absurd to pretend that it isn't
entertainment. Plenty of people do like it; I just don't happen to be
among them, that's all. Snobbery doesn't come into it.
> and until he sorts his head out I
> am not going to give him the time of day.
And if the time of day on your premises is still three seconds slow, I
shall be grateful for that ;-)
Richard
--
brittannica
wrote:
>In article <ab8mpp$qb4$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>Steve <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>This is where your argument falls down though. If you design everything to
>>be upgradable and modular then everything can be replaced when some future
>>me comes along and starts attacking his predecessors for being so myopic. We
>>can't do that with DAB you fool.
>
>This argument for software upgradeable receivers has been repeated ad-nauseum.
>
>Presumably the theory is that the on-air decoding can be changed by sending a
>new decoder program over the air or something.
>
>Given that improved audio coding algorithms always come at the expense of
>increased processor and/or memory requirements this idea is entirely
>impractical.
This doesn't sound right to me. From my experience with MP3 and
epecially the LAME implementation of the codec the demands on system
resources have in fact lessened as the codec has improved. Two years
ago, directly encoding FM broadcasts via line-in was problematic at
160kbps CBR unless I killed almost every other running process, - and
using VBR was out of the question. Now, with the most recent stable
version (3.92) of LAME, and on exactly the same PC/OS I can directly
encode line-in at VBR and not have to worry too much about what else
is running.
Another consideration is that decoders need to run on small portable
devices which are always likely to impose fairly tight limits on cpu
power.
ß
brittannica
<info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bBIlO1HB...@bancom.co.uk...
>> <Superb meaningful words snipped a bit>
>>
>> Totally agree with you on all of that Malcolm. It was a different time
>> audio some years ago, and to think that one day we'd all have that
>> direct digital link to the broadcaster that was going to be the great
>> leap like FM stereo was over Mono AM...
>>
>> Boo Hooooo............
>
>
>Band 3 spectrum. If we get more band 3 spectrum then none of 'em have got an
>excuse not to provide good quality audio and if they don't they will lose
>listeners cos once the content is there (and let's face it, how many bloody
>stations do they want to give us?), what is next on the customer preference
>list? It is audio quality! Get more band 3 spectrum, the BBC are bound to
>get another SFN mux, shame the commercial "broadcasters" over how poor their
>audio quality is, they will have to improve it or lose massive market share,
>and we all lived happily ever after in high quality audio heaven. Job done.
What 'market share' ? The Beeb aren't chasing a market - they're
supposed to be providing a public service and t's the Beeb's
interpretation of that obligation that is causing the problem.
If they were allowed to double their bandwidth for DAB I'll bet there
would be a host of political/ethnic minority groups clamouring for
airspace and in the current political climate they would surely get
it.
Perhaps the 'shaming' might be better done by a national commercial
broadcaster who would have much to gain by building a reputation for
excellent audio quality and content that satisfied a wide audience.
ß
Steve
"Richard Lambley" <use...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b1910b35...@wireless.globalnet.co.uk...
> In message <abgk0o$n7g$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>
> "Steve" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I did read his post which was no different than I would expect from an
out
> > and out troll. Look at the following:
> >
> > > > The primary purpose
> > > > is *entertainment*, not reproducing bit-perfect audio.
> > >
> > > Since when was listening to decent audio quality not classed as
> > > entertainment?
> >
> > All cows are mammals, but not all mammals are cows.
> >
> > Richard is just showing his dislike for my music. He has said before
that he
> > doesn't class dance music as entertainment, but that is just showing
that he
> > is a snob. Whatever.
>
> I was merely pointing out some false logic. What possible connection
> can that have with anyone's taste in music? Music wasn't even mentioned.
Whatever.
Richard, can we drop all this getting at each other business please? Please
make an effort not to hassle me and I will try and reply to you in a more
civilized fashion.
Steve
"brittannica" <brita...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:30mqdu42f2qinrjvb...@4ax.com...
They may be providing a public service but it would be very naive to think
that the BBC haven't always looked at audience figures ever since audience
figures came about.
> If they were allowed to double their bandwidth for DAB I'll bet there
> would be a host of political/ethnic minority groups clamouring for
> airspace and in the current political climate they would surely get
> it.
To take a common sense view here there are only a small number of ethnic
groups with a large population in the UK and certainly political groups
would have no chance.
If the BBC got another multiplex it would lead to the increase in bit rates
on the network stations that have had their bit rates reduced because there
are only a limited number of new stations that they would want to introduce
if they got another multiplex so I can't see what the problem is.