"Stuff the audiophiles" say GWR Digital
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
Steven from Manchester, not Stephen from Manchester :)):
http://www.radioacademy.org/techcon/4audioqualityonmpg.doc
Page 5/6 it starts getting interesting and we hear what this GWR Digital
"person" thinks about audio quality.
Oh, and if you want to see this knob there's a picture of Nick "the dick"
Piggott here:
http://www.petesipple.me.uk/mugshots.html
Unlucky some people when God gives out looks eh.... I wouldn't like to see a
picture of his girlfriend, scary thought...
--
DAB sounds worse than FM - So the BBC *needs* a 2nd DAB multiplex
Radios 1-4 now on Freeview at 192kbps
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk -- Subscribe for free to the Digital Radio
Listeners' Group Newsletter
and join the campaign to get the BBC a 2nd DAB multiplex
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
This is dynamite.
He might as well just signed DAB's death warrant.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
"Our job as broadcasters is to provide entertaining and compelling radio –
it is not a replication service for CDs. If you want CD quality without
processing, put your hand in your pocket and buy a bloody CD. Now that we
know how hard it is for pros to hear the difference in different processing
algorithms, it seems a waste of effort to concentrate all the engineering
effort in your station for the top 1% of audiophiles who just happen to
generate 100% of the audio quality complaints. Stuff ‘em."
and
"We have a very compelling package of entertainment to offer consumers –
between 35 and 50 audio channels, all free to air. It’s a dead simple
proposition to understand. And soon we’ll be able to match our compelling
audio with compelling interactive data services – a new source of revenue
for radio.
We’ve achieved that by using bitrates at the right level for the majority of
listeners and the majority of the equipment they listen on. We may make the
case to go down lower again if we can show that the audience can’t tell –
that will almost certainly require the broadcasters to keep the audio
cleaner for longer."
So they've just admitted that they're likely to lower the bit rates again in
the future.
Scum.
Aztech
wrote in message news:b3isqj$ng2$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Read this, very interesting (and notice that he spelt my name wrong, I'm
> Steven from Manchester, not Stephen from Manchester :)):
>
> http://www.radioacademy.org/techcon/4audioqualityonmpg.doc
>
> Page 5/6 it starts getting interesting and we hear what this GWR Digital
> "person" thinks about audio quality.
There's no need for unwarranted personal attacks.
There's a solution to this problem, namely Clear Channel, they have a habit of
'firing their asses', which will leave many in here inconsolable.
Az.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b3isqj$ng2$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Read this, very interesting (and notice that he spelt my name wrong, I'm
>> Steven from Manchester, not Stephen from Manchester :)):
>>
>> http://www.radioacademy.org/techcon/4audioqualityonmpg.doc
>>
>> Page 5/6 it starts getting interesting and we hear what this GWR Digital
>> "person" thinks about audio quality.
>
> There's no need for unwarranted personal attacks.
I know, but it's theraputic to know that he's an ugly bastard.
> There's a solution to this problem, namely Clear Channel, they have a
> habit of 'firing their asses', which will leave many in here inconsolable.
Yep, come on Clear Channel, take 'em all over and sack the lot of the twats.
Automate EVERYTHING.
Hissing Sid
UK" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>
>http://www.radioacademy.org/techcon/4audioqualityonmpg.doc
>
I agree with his every word..
The problem with you is that you are too inexperienced to make the
correct commercial and technical judgement. I suggest you go out and
do something else with your life.. like... get off your arse, get a
job and sample the outside world. Should be easy if you are as smart
as you seem to think, all you need to improve on is your attitude.
>http://www.petesipple.me.uk/mugshots.html
>
>Unlucky some people when God gives out looks eh.... I wouldn't like to see a
>picture of his girlfriend, scary thought...
I would imagine his girlfriend is more attractive than your box of
wankers tissues...
HissingSid
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:17:11 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the
> UK" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.radioacademy.org/techcon/4audioqualityonmpg.doc
>>
>
> I agree with his every word..
Then you're a tw*t as well then intchya.
> The problem with you is that you are too inexperienced to make the
> correct commercial and technical judgement.
Inexperienced doesn't come into it. The fact is that you shouldn't even be
allowed to use 128kbps in the first place. That is the fault of the Radio
"Authority", and this is a separate argument.
I know exactly why the commercial radio groups have made the decision to use
128kbps. They have assumed that it is good enough for the vast majority and
fuck the rest, as he nicely explains in his speech.
I can't really be arsed explaining this to someone like yourself, but
basically you have the choice to use whatever bit rate you want to and you
just decide to use the minimum on cost purposes in order to maximise profit,
er, thanks.
The FACT of the matter is that increasing some stations to 160kbps WOULD NOT
AFFECT the perception of choice on DAB. In most cities up and down the
country you can probably get about 35-40 radio stations, and in London you
can get 60 odd. Now if you lot had an ounce of respect for your listeners
then some of the stations would use 160kbps, or dare I say it, 192kbps?
You see changing 4 stations on a multiplex from 128kbps to 160kbps would
only imply taking one station off that multiplex. This would imply reducing
the number of stations from 35-40 to 31-36, or in London from 60 to 54 or
so.
Big fucking deal.
I'm sure that would put everybody off DAB wouldn't it.
No, that is the simple answer, and the reason for you using 128kbps across
the board is because you can, and you can always advertise and spin your way
out of the situation where you're getting complaints.
Basically you're tight-fisted wankers and you put profit far far far ahead
of people's enjoyment.
You say that everybody is happy with DAB apart from a small minority. Did
you tell them that it could sound miles better? Would they still be as
happy? Erm, no.
> I suggest you go out and
> do something else with your life.. like... get off your arse, get a
> job and sample the outside world. Should be easy if you are as smart
> as you seem to think,
I don't think I'm smart, I am smart.
> all you need to improve on is your attitude.
Go fuck yourself!!!
>> http://www.petesipple.me.uk/mugshots.html
>>
>> Unlucky some people when God gives out looks eh.... I wouldn't like to
>> see a picture of his girlfriend, scary thought...
>
> I would imagine his girlfriend is more attractive than your box of
> wankers tissues...
Oh please....
> HissingSid
Oooh, there's a funny name isn't it.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
Hey Sid, being an Essex man, you might like this joke:
"It was this Essex's blokes first morning as a married man, and he'd had a
wild night of mad sex with his new wife. Absent-mindedly forgetting where he
was, he got up silently, dressed quickly, left fifty quid on the dresser and
headed for the door. On the way out, he realised his mistake and sheepishly
went back into the honeymoon suite. His new wife was there, tucking the cash
into her bra."
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
From:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:Hissing+Sid&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=U
TF-8&selm=942834590.7536.0.nnrp-07.d4e5c68a%40news.demon.co.uk&rnum=16
"I experienced a similar event to the one described; a driver cut me up
badly
as he was in a great hurry whilst negotiating a round about. I initially
gave no response, although I did note him checking his mirrors looking for
one.
When he then started to harass the next car in front, I gave a gentle shake
of my head. He then immediately stopped his vehicle, jumped out and started
all kinds of verbal abuse and threatening behaviour towards me. I locked my
doors, pointed at my car phone and asked him if I should call the police.
He then proceeded to kick the wheels and bumpers of my car. I then called
the police, and seeing this, he gave one last bang on my window and
screeched off in his old van.
I gave a statement to the police. They interviewed him, and he stated that
I had held him across the bonnet of my car and threatened to kill him. He
also claimed to have a witness. (I kicked myself as I had no details of any
witnesses). The police asked me how I wished to proceed, and I never
actually got back to them as I was quite dismayed at the whole situation.
About 6 weeks later, I was informed that the case was going to court and a
public order offence was being applied to the other driver. Apparently, the
'witness' would actually sign a statement knowing that the case may go to
court, and two other drivers had made reports along the lines of my own to
the police. I never knew who those drivers were, but was extremely
grateful.
When the case went to court, the other driver pleaded guilty and received
fines and I suppose a criminal record. Because of the witness statements
and his plead of guilty, I did not even have to attend court.
I guess the morale of the story is STAY IN YOUR CAR. Believe me, I was
tempted to get out, but was once cautioned after stopping a youth setting
fire to children's toilets in a local park, and so am very cautious to any
direct action now.
Strange that when things looked bleak, I remember wishing that I had got out
and given him a slap. I am so pleased that I didn't."
Bit of a wimp and a grass aintchya Sid really.
Sid
UK" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>Hey Sid, being an Essex man, you might like this joke:
>
>"It was this Essex's blokes first morning as a married man, and he'd had a
>wild night of mad sex with his new wife. Absent-mindedly forgetting where he
>was, he got up silently, dressed quickly, left fifty quid on the dresser and
>headed for the door. On the way out, he realised his mistake and sheepishly
>went back into the honeymoon suite. His new wife was there, tucking the cash
>into her bra."
I know some better than that but I'm from Leeds not Essex. I think you
get the wrong impression I don't know the bloke, never heard of him.
You seem to think I know him or I'm involved somehow. no no it's you,
you just irritate me! sorry it's as simple as that.. but on the other
hand you do amuse me, which is why you're not in my kill filter.
I think I represent the silent majority, anyone else agree?
Sid (BTW I'll take the hissing bit out for you now)
Remy
"Sid" <nospa...@noway.com> wrote in message
> I think I represent the silent majority, anyone else agree?
>
Me for one.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 20:18:53 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the
> UK" <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hey Sid, being an Essex man, you might like this joke:
>>
>> "It was this Essex's blokes first morning as a married man, and he'd had
>> a wild night of mad sex with his new wife. Absent-mindedly forgetting
>> where he was, he got up silently, dressed quickly, left fifty quid on
>> the dresser and headed for the door. On the way out, he realised his
>> mistake and sheepishly went back into the honeymoon suite. His new wife
>> was there, tucking the cash into her bra."
>
> I know some better than that but I'm from Leeds not Essex.
Says it all then really dunnit. I know what a like an a like what a bloody
well ses. Lids, Lids, Lids. Dickhead.
>I think you
> get the wrong impression I don't know the bloke, never heard of him.
Whatever.
> You seem to think I know him or I'm involved somehow. no no it's you,
> you just irritate me! sorry it's as simple as that..
What do you mean sorry? I am glad that someone like you dislikes me. I'd be
doing a very bad job if people like you liked me....
> but on the other
> hand you do amuse me, which is why you're not in my kill filter.
S'alright with me. I will carry on regardless.
Oh, and BTW, how long have you owned your Evoke mono shit and massively
overpriced radio?
> I think I represent the silent majority, anyone else agree?
How will you ever know? They're bloody silent you ignoramus.
> Sid (BTW I'll take the hissing bit out for you now)
Oh, and?
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
Oh noooo, not Remy.
Shit, they're all crawling out of the woodwork now, there'll be a stampede
in a minute and the silent majority will all flood the newsgroup with posts.
Remy
"DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
news:b3j91k$rn8$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Oh noooo, not Remy.
>
> Shit, they're all crawling out of the woodwork now, there'll be a stampede
> in a minute and the silent majority will all flood the newsgroup with
posts.
>
Sorry to disappoint you. I don't think there will be a stampede though - not
for a silent majority - it would make too much noise.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
How's your Evoke? Still mono with a very small speaker?
Why do we have to put up with crap audio quality just because people like
you think it is good enough for them so it should be good enough for
everybody else?
Sling your hook if you don't like my posts because I've no intention of
going anywhere just because some Evoke-loving prick likes DAB. Got that?
Remy
>
> Why do we have to put up with crap audio quality just because people like
> you think it is good enough for them so it should be good enough for
> everybody else?
>
> Sling your hook if you don't like my posts because I've no intention of
> going anywhere just because some Evoke-loving prick likes DAB. Got that?
>
radio in, something I can't do with my Digibox or PC, or a DTT box either
come to that. Beyond that, I can plug it into one of my stereo units.
I'm not forcing crap quality on you. I simply enjoy listening to the radio.
I certainly wouldn't object to the bit rates being increased. My point has
been that I think the BBC realised that their original incarnation of DAB
was not attracting sufficient listeners and, within the remit of their
broadcasting licence felt it appropriate to produce a wider range of
programming.
BTW I quite enjoy your posts. Carry on by all means.
Stephen
> Page 5/6 it starts getting interesting and we hear what this GWR Digital
> "person" thinks about audio quality.
>
> Oh, and if you want to see this knob there's a picture of Nick "the dick"
> Piggott here:
>
> http://www.petesipple.me.uk/mugshots.html
>
> Unlucky some people when God gives out looks eh.... I wouldn't like to see a
> picture of his girlfriend, scary thought...
>
I've read some rubbish on this newsgroup but this this tops the lot. Personal
attacks like this one are beyond the pale. There is no place for such mindless
abuse in our debate here and I'm apalled at your personal comments about Mr
Piggott. You owe the man a personal apology.
If there is an argument here then its centred on the professional position which
Mr Piggott takes. So let's debate that.
Nick Piggott, in his presentation, accepts the trade-off between a few stations
which aim to superserve a tiny minority of potential listeners and a broader
range of services which may appeal, even at a lower bitrate, do a larger number
of consumers. He, as a professional in the radio industry, makes that choice
based on his knowledge of the audience, their attitudes towards new technology,
perception of digital radio and demand for a greater range of services.
Ultimately, if he gets this judgement wrong his business will fail but he's
prepared to share with everyone the reality of making such choices.
Beyond that business decision, Nick Piggott appears to be a champion of high
quality sound and exposes in his paper many of the problems faced by
broadcasters in being able to deliver that to listeners. Given that his audience
at this Radio Academy event will have comprised leading production, technical
and editorial staff from across the industry that is a well-targeted message
delivered at an opportune moment.
Far from being the hatchet-man of quality, Mr Piggott is impressing on his
colleagues within the radio industry the importanc of avoiding multiple,
concatanated coding paths, sensible use of audio processing and, in his own
words, "cleaning up the programme chain". If his words are taken to heart across
the industry we will hear better quality sound on all our radios, digital and
analogue.
The man has researched the market, understands the balance between commercial
and artistic ambition and knows how broadcasters can best serve potential
listeners in this context. If you are arguing for better sound from digital
radio he should be your friend.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b3isqj$ng2$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Page 5/6 it starts getting interesting and we hear what this GWR Digital
>> "person" thinks about audio quality.
>>
>> Oh, and if you want to see this knob there's a picture of Nick "the dick"
>> Piggott here:
>>
>> http://www.petesipple.me.uk/mugshots.html
>>
>> Unlucky some people when God gives out looks eh.... I wouldn't like to
>> see a picture of his girlfriend, scary thought...
>>
>
> I've read some rubbish on this newsgroup but this this tops the lot.
> Personal attacks like this one are beyond the pale. There is no place for
> such mindless abuse in our debate here and I'm apalled at your personal
> comments about Mr Piggott. You owe the man a personal apology.
Well, he's going to have to wait a long time to get one.....
> If there is an argument here then its centred on the professional
> position which Mr Piggott takes. So let's debate that.
>
> Nick Piggott, in his presentation, accepts the trade-off between a few
> stations which aim to superserve a tiny minority of potential listeners
> and a broader range of services which may appeal, even at a lower
> bitrate, do a larger number of consumers. He, as a professional in the
> radio industry, makes that choice based on his knowledge of the audience,
> their attitudes towards new technology, perception of digital radio and
> demand for a greater range of services.
I'm falling asleep already....
> Ultimately, if he gets this judgement wrong his business will fail but
> he's prepared to share with everyone the reality of making such choices.
>
> Beyond that business decision, Nick Piggott appears to be a champion of
> high quality sound
A champion of high quality sound??? Don't think you read what he said
Stephen. Try these quotes for instance:
"Our job as broadcasters is to provide entertaining and compelling radio –
it is not a replication service for CDs. If you want CD quality without
processing, put your hand in your pocket and buy a bloody CD. Now that we
know how hard it is for pros to hear the difference in different processing
algorithms, it seems a waste of effort to concentrate all the engineering
effort in your station for the top 1% of audiophiles who just happen to
generate 100% of the audio quality complaints. Stuff ‘em."
Stuff 'em? Is that a champion of high quality sound in action? Or is that
just a commercial radio prick who cares far more about profit and loss than
his listeners?
Remember one very simple fact of MPEG audio, higher bit rates will only
improve the audio quality.
Oh, and here's the "champion of high audio quality" in action again:
"We’ve achieved that by using bitrates at the right level for the majority
of listeners and the majority of the equipment they listen on. We may make
the case to go down lower again if we can show that the audience can’t
tell – that will almost certainly require the broadcasters to keep the audio
cleaner for longer."
If you're not bright enough to interpret what he's saying here, he's saying
that once Ofcom come into being and regulation is lighter than it already
is, we're going to lower the bit rates again.
Champion of high audio quality?
Yeah, course.
> and exposes in his paper many of the problems faced by
> broadcasters in being able to deliver that to listeners. Given that his
> audience at this Radio Academy event will have comprised leading
> production, technical and editorial staff from across the industry that
> is a well-targeted message delivered at an opportune moment.
Any dickhead who knows a tiny bit about digital audio can tell you that
using a linear source is better than a compressed source. He keeps repeating
himself over and over as if he's revealing some startling revelation that
will solve all the audio quality ills on DAB. It's just a simple fact, and
if they're so tight-fisted or thick that they haven't all installed linear
sources yet then there's pretty much no hope for them when Mr Clear Channel
comes round to gobble them up because they obviously haven't got the sense
they were born with.
> Far from being the hatchet-man of quality, Mr Piggott is impressing on his
> colleagues within the radio industry the importanc of avoiding multiple,
> concatanated coding paths, sensible use of audio processing and, in his
> own words, "cleaning up the programme chain". If his words are taken to
> heart across the industry we will hear better quality sound on all our
> radios, digital and analogue.
Why can people not understand this so simple of issues? Why are there so
many Sachas out there?
Please tell me, what can improve once the source is clean, the audio
processing optimised for the encoder, and it still sounds shit at 128kbps?
Is that all we deserve? They seem to think so. They think that DAB is about
the same audio quality as FM so that's good enough for the unwashed masses,
stuff 'em.
> The man has researched the market, understands the balance between
> commercial and artistic ambition and knows how broadcasters can best
> serve potential listeners in this context. If you are arguing for better
> sound from digital radio he should be your friend.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha. Oh yeah, I want a friend who is promising
us bit rate reductions in the future.
Go away and understand the issues, you don't know what the hell you're
talking about.
DAB is more than just bitrates
"And so to today's thorny subject - audio processing for Digital
Radio. If anyone in the room believes that DAB Digital Radio stations
should broadcast at 256kbit/s, using unprocessed audio down linear
links - now would be a good time to leave. This is going to hurt.
Our job as broadcasters is to provide entertaining and compelling
radio - it is not a replication service for CDs. If you want CD
quality without processing, put your hand in your pocket and buy a
bloody CD. Now that we know how hard it is for pros to hear the
difference in different processing algorithms, it seems a waste of
effort to concentrate all the engineering effort in your station for
the top 1% of audiophiles who just happen to generate 100% of the
audio quality complaints. Stuff 'em.
What punters want is entertainment, and lots of it, and usually for
free. We can't afford to clog up the tiny amount of precious spectrum
we have transmitting a handful of stations which satisfy the
audiophiles."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The DAB Digital Radio forum - http://www.dabi.co.uk
Sample digital radio for free now - http://www.dabi.co.uk/samples
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
Oh? So Sacha is on the side of this GWR prick is he? I'll remember that.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> You always know you've hit the truth when people start raining abuse
> instead of arguments.
I shouldn't lose my rag, but they just wind me up with this unbelievable con
trick they're playing on 60,000,000 people and there's nothing we can do
about it.
> One thing: In the 20th century the BBC built-up broadcasting in the UK
> based on the twin principles of service and quality.
>
> I sadly doubt whether the protagonists of DAB (at any 'standard') who dare
> not reveal the truth about audio quality can even begin to understand what
> those two laudable objectives meant to people in this country, or around
> the world. They have little understanding as others have pointed
> out. Neither, I surmise, would they be able to write out a simple equation
> relating frequency to the time-domain, neither would they be able to
> understand lossless versus lossy compression, nor explain S/N ratio,
I did notice that one of the Board of Governors is a Professor of
Communications, but none of the other people with the purse strings would be
able to tell you any of the above.
And that Professor of Communications should hang his head in shame.
> nor 1,000 other things to do with transmission technology. Come on, prove
me
> wrong and explain in precise terms why DAB, as we have it today, is even
> worth a second thought, but please leave this from the equation:
>
> Lower bit rate + More Channels = More cash for me, Yours Truly, a
> Broadcaster
<tick>
> Lower bit rate + More Channels = More cash for me, Yours Truly, the
> Exchequer.
<tick>
> OK, leave those out and now explain your wonderful DAB hypothesis.
>
> Only be sure to include how the end-user benefits, won't you.
They're relying on the fact that most people won't even question whether it
could be better.
Aztech
in message news:2dgq5vopp8qat4ue5...@4ax.com...
<
> Our job as broadcasters is to provide entertaining and compelling
> radio - it is not a replication service for CDs. If you want CD
> quality without processing, put your hand in your pocket and buy a
> bloody CD.
I agree with those sentiments, I don't believe the vastly majority of members in
this group are asking for that. However a new system should at least match the
quality provided by its 40 year old predecessor, that's the issue, at the moment
DAB is regressing into an extremely low quality mono service with a quality that
rivals AM radio.
Even if they did provide transparent CD quality it's of little use unless you're
really into Shakira or Robbie Williams, in which case you already have more
money than sense.
Az.
DAB is more than just bitrates
wrote:
<sorry for hopping onto your post Firhog, but I don't normally get
Steve's humour delivered to my news reader>
>"DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
><info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in
>news:b3jdc9$65m$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
>>> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:b3isqj$ng2$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>> Page 5/6 it starts getting interesting and we hear what this GWR
>>>> Digital "person" thinks about audio quality.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and if you want to see this knob there's a picture of Nick "the
>>>> dick" Piggott here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.petesipple.me.uk/mugshots.html
>>>>
>>>> Unlucky some people when God gives out looks eh.... I wouldn't like
>>>> to see a picture of his girlfriend, scary thought...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've read some rubbish on this newsgroup but this this tops the lot.
>>> Personal attacks like this one are beyond the pale. There is no place
>>> for such mindless abuse in our debate here and I'm apalled at your
>>> personal comments about Mr Piggott. You owe the man a personal
>>> apology.
>>
>>
>> Well, he's going to have to wait a long time to get one.....
No, I suspect all he'll have to do is make one small gesture to you,
and you'll cease all criticism of him, his stations and group. ;-)
Haven't heard much about the 'national disgrace' recently :D
>>> Far from being the hatchet-man of quality, Mr Piggott is impressing
>>> on his colleagues within the radio industry the importanc of avoiding
>>> multiple, concatanated coding paths, sensible use of audio processing
>>> and, in his own words, "cleaning up the programme chain". If his
>>> words are taken to heart across the industry we will hear better
>>> quality sound on all our radios, digital and analogue.
>>
>> <snip>
>> Why can people not understand this so simple of issues? Why are there
>> so many Sachas out there?
Oh well, we'll go on the basis of your arguments then Steve. You say
people care so much about audio quality, and also how certain
technical changes will improve both FM and DAB. Well, if people care
*so much* about audio quality, why haven't all stations created this
optimum FM sound you say they could have, I mean FM has been around
for ages so if these small details really affected listener numbers it
would have had an impact already. Perhaps this Piggott guy is right
when he says that most people don't notice some of these small
details.
Or perhaps the truth is that its harder to achieve a decent sound with
the current DAB implementation so low bitrates will only be acceptable
if other factors in the audio production process are improved. If
these things were going to make the 'oh so good' FM so much better and
make a big difference to people listening to FM, they would have
already been done.
>>
>> Please tell me, what can improve once the source is clean, the audio
>> processing optimised for the encoder, and it still sounds shit at
>> 128kbps?
>>
>> Is that all we deserve? They seem to think so. They think that DAB is
>> about the same audio quality as FM so that's good enough for the
>> unwashed masses, stuff 'em.
Interesting how he talked about working on the processing on Core for
18 months or something. <Plots getting same samples from two GWR
stations that will make them sound very different>
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:26:43 +0000 (UTC), Firblog <fir...@nicht.net>
> wrote:
>
> <sorry for hopping onto your post Firhog, but I don't normally get
> Steve's humour delivered to my news reader>
At least get his name right then.
>>>> I've read some rubbish on this newsgroup but this this tops the lot.
>>>> Personal attacks like this one are beyond the pale. There is no place
>>>> for such mindless abuse in our debate here and I'm apalled at your
>>>> personal comments about Mr Piggott. You owe the man a personal
>>>> apology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, he's going to have to wait a long time to get one.....
>
> No, I suspect all he'll have to do is make one small gesture to you,
> and you'll cease all criticism of him, his stations and group. ;-)
Don't really understand that. Unless you're trying to say he'd bribe me?
> Haven't heard much about the 'national disgrace' recently :D
It depends on whether they want a 2nd mux or not. If they want one and get
one then they're a bunch of jolly good eggs, if they don't want one or can't
get one then they a national disgrace.
>>>> Far from being the hatchet-man of quality, Mr Piggott is impressing
>>>> on his colleagues within the radio industry the importanc of avoiding
>>>> multiple, concatanated coding paths, sensible use of audio processing
>>>> and, in his own words, "cleaning up the programme chain". If his
>>>> words are taken to heart across the industry we will hear better
>>>> quality sound on all our radios, digital and analogue.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> Why can people not understand this so simple of issues? Why are there
>>> so many Sachas out there?
>
> Oh well, we'll go on the basis of your arguments then Steve. You say
> people care so much about audio quality,
No, I say they wouldn't turn it down and they think that they're provided
with the best audio quality and don't question this because they don't
understand the technology. That's slightly different to what you're saying.
> and also how certain
> technical changes will improve both FM and DAB. Well, if people care
> *so much* about audio quality, why haven't all stations created this
> optimum FM sound you say they could have, I mean FM has been around
> for ages so if these small details really affected listener numbers it
> would have had an impact already. Perhaps this Piggott guy is right
> when he says that most people don't notice some of these small
> details.
Er, 45,000,000 listeners to FM, 135,000 listeners to DAB. Next question.
> Or perhaps the truth is that its harder to achieve a decent sound with
> the current DAB implementation so low bitrates will only be acceptable
> if other factors in the audio production process are improved. If
> these things were going to make the 'oh so good' FM so much better and
> make a big difference to people listening to FM, they would have
> already been done.
Not really sure what you're banging on about, and I'm not sure you know
either.
Sacha, I've said I don't disagree with you that audio processing and linear
playout systems are important, but once they're installed DAB will still
sound shit at 128kbps.
So then what's your plan of action Sacha?
Mikeapollo
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK's computer spewed out data that
apparently looked something like this :
> Hissing Sid wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:17:11 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the
May I suggest that this attack is taken to a more appropriate newsgroup?
... I think BOTH of you need to spend some time chilling out in uk.rec.sheds
;-)
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
Aztech's computer spewed out data that apparently looked something like this
:
Agreed too.. It is not the fact that I want CD or better than CD quality,
however - stations at the moment really are (to me personally) painful to
listen to on DAB due to the audiable artefacts etc.
I don't class myself as an "audiophile" and agree that DAB isn't going to
please everyone - however as you say, it should at least match the quality
of it's predecessor (FM) and not drop to try and match AM.
Mikeapollo
Heckler 埠翰
"DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
news:b3isqj$ng2$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Steven from Manchester, not Stephen from Manchester :)):
I heard you had to suck the editor's cock to get the article entered.
>
> http://www.radioacademy.org/techcon/4audioqualityonmpg.doc
>
> Page 5/6 it starts getting interesting and we hear what this GWR Digital
> "person" thinks about audio quality.
>
> Oh, and if you want to see this knob there's a picture of Nick "the dick"
> Piggott here:
>
> http://www.petesipple.me.uk/mugshots.html
>
> Unlucky some people when God gives out looks eh.... I wouldn't like to see
a
> picture of his girlfriend, scary thought...
He is seeing you mother, if that is any help to you, at least you need not
bother the orphanage anymore.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b3isqj$ng2$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Read this, very interesting (and notice that he spelt my name wrong, I'm
>> Steven from Manchester, not Stephen from Manchester :)):
>
> I heard you had to suck the editor's cock to get the article entered.
Woohooo.
>> http://www.radioacademy.org/techcon/4audioqualityonmpg.doc
>>
>> Page 5/6 it starts getting interesting and we hear what this GWR Digital
>> "person" thinks about audio quality.
>>
>> Oh, and if you want to see this knob there's a picture of Nick "the dick"
>> Piggott here:
>>
>> http://www.petesipple.me.uk/mugshots.html
>>
>> Unlucky some people when God gives out looks eh.... I wouldn't like to
>> see a picture of his girlfriend, scary thought...
>
> He is seeing you mother, if that is any help to you, at least you need not
> bother the orphanage anymore.
Wooo wooooo, you must be on form tonight.
Go and rest your braincell.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
Weird thing is though, all the 128kbps GWR stations that I can receive sound
absolutely shite, so WTF is he going on about audiophiles for?
I wouldn't play Core or Planet Rock to my dog if I had one, let alone
audiophiles.
The man is an out and out amateur.
Play Core or Planet Rock for more 3 minutes and see how many times you
wince, they sound fucking awful.
Oh well, Emap are let off for the time-being, new enemies = GWR shite.
--
DAB sounds worse than FM - So the BBC *needs* a 2nd DAB multiplex
Clear Channel should take over GWR and lay the fucker off.
Nick Jeffery
> Piggott here:
You clearly have absolutely no idea whatsoever.
Nick Piggott is a very nice chap, who happens to know a lot about what
he does. He's even good enough to give up his time to share his
knowledge and experience to those of us who are involved in student
broadcasting.
Unwarranted personal attacks seriously dent your credibility. You are
rapidly losing what little respect I had left for you.
--
Nick Jeffery.
Mikeapollo
"DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
news:b3jsnp$kh$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK wrote:
>
> Weird thing is though, all the 128kbps GWR stations that I can receive
sound
> absolutely shite, so WTF is he going on about audiophiles for?
>
> I wouldn't play Core or Planet Rock to my dog if I had one, let alone
> audiophiles.
>
> The man is an out and out amateur.
>
> Play Core or Planet Rock for more 3 minutes and see how many times you
> wince, they sound fucking awful.
>
> Oh well, Emap are let off for the time-being, new enemies = GWR shite.
Steve you're really taking this *way* to far. Which I don't necessarily
agree with Nick's viewpoint he has clearly explained the reasons behind the
it and the fact that it's his job (ie. he gets paid) to try and bridge the
compromise between what the consumer wants, what GWR have to offer and the
cost of providing the services.
Crap audio is *NOT* all his fault - it is the bean counters at the station
that you should attack - if Nick had more money and more spectrum available
then I'm sure things would be different, but they are not. Also the stations
want audio processing - it's his job to try and balance what the station
wants and what is technically "acceptable".
If you've ever been a sound engineer in a studio doing a "late" with a band,
you'll know that the producer wants one type of sound, and each band member
wants another - and it's up to the engineer to try and produce a mixdown
which sounds good to all while taking onboard the comments of the clients.
It's VERY hard.... and IMO most of the stuff I did could have been much
better to *my* ear and to the ears of the people who got the bands CD's
etc... but you have to please the majority, not the minority.
The main things I would disagree with Nick about though are the facts that
most consumers can't tell the difference between mono and stereo.... No they
can, and it can be disturbing...
As for turning up the bitrate on the encoder. yet keeping the feed to the
encoder low - and people start congratulating them - that is true. I've seen
this happen with internet feeds - no difference in audio quality, but a
higher bit rate and yes - people DO write in and say it now sounds great
when it hasn't actually changed! And that's because many people are guilty
of just looking at the numbers and not trusting their ears...
Anyway - whether Nick is right or wrong in your opinion, you are still
*very* wrong to launch such a personal attack on him, especially at the
level you did. It's a good way to make people in the industry completely
disregard your views and not take you seriously.
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
> Heckler 硎熔 wrote:
> Wooo wooooo, you must be on form tonight.
>
> Go and rest your braincell.
Hasn't it died of loneliness yet?
Mikeapollo
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
news:8sf7a.8646$Lq.631295@stones...
>
> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b3jsnp$kh$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK wrote:
> >
> > Weird thing is though, all the 128kbps GWR stations that I can receive
> sound
> > absolutely shite, so WTF is he going on about audiophiles for?
> >
> > I wouldn't play Core or Planet Rock to my dog if I had one, let alone
> > audiophiles.
> >
> > The man is an out and out amateur.
> >
> > Play Core or Planet Rock for more 3 minutes and see how many times you
> > wince, they sound fucking awful.
> >
> > Oh well, Emap are let off for the time-being, new enemies = GWR shite.
>
> Steve you're really taking this *way* to far. Which I don't necessarily
> agree with Nick's viewpoint he has clearly explained the reasons behind
the
> it and the fact that it's his job (ie. he gets paid) to try and bridge the
> compromise between what the consumer wants, what GWR have to offer and the
> cost of providing the services.
>
> Crap audio is *NOT* all his fault - it is the bean counters at the station
> that you should attack -
Absolute crap. He said screw 'em, no bean counter was stood there holding a
gun at his head. So screw him.
> if Nick had more money and more spectrum available
> then I'm sure things would be different, but they are not. Also the
stations
> want audio processing - it's his job to try and balance what the station
> wants and what is technically "acceptable".
I am not having a go at audio processing, that's Sacha's argument. Mine is
bit rates, and I'm right, and he's a fking tight twat.
> If you've ever been a sound engineer in a studio doing a "late" with a
band,
> you'll know that the producer wants one type of sound, and each band
member
> wants another - and it's up to the engineer to try and produce a mixdown
> which sounds good to all while taking onboard the comments of the clients.
I don't give a toss. The bit rate is independent of what time it is, you
just fking set it and leave it. It's too low, and he seems to take delight
in the fact that it is too low and sod the fuckers who complain.
He mentioned that it is only the top 1% of the population that complain.
Fucking right it is, 1% of the population is 600,000 people, so there
switchboard would be a little bit jammed if anybody else started
complaining.
1% is waayy too low anyway. The figure that will notice that it is anything
but the CD-quality type audio that they expected will be high. But I can
remember when I first started coming on this group because I didn't know
pretty much anything about the workings of a radio station, and although I
could tell that say Radio 1 didn't sound like a CD, but I put that down to
having to do certain things to the signal because the signal is analogue,
and that was the reason to get DAB, because I knew that this kind of thing
didn't need to be done for that. The thing was obviously audio processing,
and I certainly didn't know they didn't have to apply it.
But me, as a qualified engineer who understands communications and signal
processing, and I wouldn't have been able to complain to a radio station.
What would I complain about? If I was asked to describe what I didn't like
about the audio I wouldn't have been able to explain what was wrong. So how
the fk do they expect your average Joe to complain about the audio quality
on DAB? They're a bunch of dreamers who think that just because they get
some old Evoke owners that praise their new-fangled radio system that has no
hiss on it then everything is fine. They're ignoring all the people who have
passed through this group over the last year, they're ignoring the probably
300 odd people who've emailed me directly via my website, they're ignoring
all the people who own DAB but just accept that it is how it is but are not
at all impressed because it has not lived up to what it was supposed to
offer. They're ONLY relying on those dickheads that fell for their own hype.
Basically they're full of shit and I think they tell themselves that it is
alright for the majority enough times so that they believe it.
> The main things I would disagree with Nick about though are the facts that
> most consumers can't tell the difference between mono and stereo.... No
they
> can, and it can be disturbing...
Is that all you disagree with him about? So you agree that they should sod
all the fuckers who can actually tell that it sounds far worse than FM? And
you agree that in future they will lower the bit rates again? I do hope you
don't agree with him.
> As for turning up the bitrate on the encoder. yet keeping the feed to the
> encoder low - and people start congratulating them - that is true. I've
seen
> this happen with internet feeds - no difference in audio quality, but a
> higher bit rate and yes - people DO write in and say it now sounds great
> when it hasn't actually changed! And that's because many people are
guilty
> of just looking at the numbers and not trusting their ears...
Sure. There's "experimenter's expectancy" on our behalf too, but our ears DO
NOT LIE for a full fucking year. We may be fooled briefly by something, but
not for long. And this isn't helped by some tracks compressing easier than
others because on easier to encode track at 128k can sound better than a
hard to encode track at 160k, which is something that they know helps their
cause.
> Anyway - whether Nick is right or wrong in your opinion, you are still
> *very* wrong to launch such a personal attack on him, especially at the
> level you did. It's a good way to make people in the industry completely
> disregard your views and not take you seriously.
I don't give a shit.
They can disregard my views all they want to, but if they do disregard my
views then I intend to cause as much harm to the DAB industry as possible
over a sustained period. I must admit that just ranting on on here is about
as effective as Jenny Abramsky taking a blind subjective listening test, but
when we have data that shows that DAB sounds crap compared to other formats
then it's off to spread the word to the Great British public.
--
DAB sounds worse than FM - So the BBC *needs* a 2nd DAB multiplex
Radios 1-4 now on Freeview at 192kbps
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
"Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:b3jrcm$m8c$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
> DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK wrote:
> > Oh, and if you want to see this knob there's a picture of Nick "the
dick"
> > Piggott here:
>
> You clearly have absolutely no idea whatsoever.
>
> Nick Piggott is a very nice chap,
Oh yeah, he's obviously a thouroughly decent chap in a Tim Nice But Dim kind
of way. Go and lick his arse Nick.
> who happens to know a lot about what
> he does.
Does he? So why do his stations sound absolutely abysmal on DAB? I'd say
he's an incompetent fool who has zero regard for his listeners.
>He's even good enough to give up his time to share his
> knowledge and experience to those of us who are involved in student
> broadcasting.
Whooooooooooo.
> Unwarranted personal attacks seriously dent your credibility. You are
> rapidly losing what little respect I had left for you.
Oh Nick, do shut up, I don't give a flying fk if you have *any* respect for
me. Now there's a good lad and go and cosy up to your broadcasting pals.
Mark Carver
> Our job as broadcasters is to provide entertaining and compelling
> radio -
Compelling? ummm. I challenge anyone to provide me with evidence
of anything that could be described as *Compelling* coming from any
of GWR's (or for that matter Capital, EMAP, or the Guardian's) radio
stations.
What's happened to radio, is actually no different to any other public
'entertainment'. Most pubs are dominated by a handful of companies.
You go in to them and see the same food menu from Cornwall to Caithness.
They're staffed by people who do not care (or even realise) that the
quality of the beer they're serving might be sub standard.
Doesn't matter to them, 99% of the punters just want to go in there and
get pissed, and won't notice. See any parallels ?
At the end of the day, it almost doesn't matter. The pubs and the radio stations
simply get the 'customers' they deserve, because anybody with any discretion
keeps away.
Where things differ though is that (with all due respect to Mr Piggott and IMHO)
I'm still forced to pay for his junk output, regardless on whether or not I consume it.
Maybe taking his argument to it's logical conclusion, GWR should be financed by subscription?
David Robinson
> Read this, very interesting (and notice that he spelt my name wrong, I'm
> Steven from Manchester, not Stephen from Manchester :)):
>
1. Steve - stop slagging people off personaly. Please.
2. I would notice if a Beatles recording were changed to mono in less
than one second at home. I know it depends where you are sitting etc
etc, but stereo effects on Beatles records are hardly subtle - who are
these people who don't notice?!
3. His comments about avoiding transcoding are spot on. The comparison
with visual transcoding (though not explicitly made) is flawed: you
can send a picture through a JPEG process 100x, but unless you crop or
re-size it, the block boundaries will always be in the same place. In
this instance, there's some truth in this...
"The good news is that the effect of decoding and re-coding stuff is
sometimes not quite as devastating. That's because the decoder hazards
a guess at what was missing and makes up some old rubbish which might
look convincing. Luckily in some cases, the encoder throws most of
that trash away again so it doesn't compound too badly."
In audio, this is largely nonesense. Firstly, the "decoder" doesn't
make anything up. This is completely wrong. Secondly, the "blocks"
never hit the encoder in the same way on one pass and the next. So the
coding noise that was in this frequency band and at this time will
almost always straggle two time domain blocks when it's re-encoded.
Even in the frequency domain, they're not really block, they're
overlapping windows, so the noise can easily spread from the intended
"block" to another, and then another, and then another when
transcoding.
4. "It would be pretty pointless feeding a 192kbit/s broadcast channel
with stuff off a 128kbit/s Joint Stereo ISDN."
Maybe. But it would still sound better than a 128kbps broadcast
channel fed with a 128kbps ISDN!
5. There are technological answers to some of the problems. If you
have to use a 128kbps ISDN link for a whole show, make sure that it's
the actual broadcast mpeg stream that's sent down this link, and
switch it in at the studio without transcoding. MPEG layer 2 is
designed for stuff like this. While it's important to avoid bouncing
MD > MD, it's even more important to understand that there's no need
to transcode incomming lossy streams if they're originated correctly.
6. "If anyone in the room believes that DAB Digital Radio stations
should broadcast at 256kbit/s, using unprocessed audio down linear
links – now would be a good time to leave."
I would have stayed, purely out of interest.
7. "This is going to hurt"
Yes, but who? ...
6. "Our job as broadcasters is to provide entertaining and compelling
radio – it is not a replication service for CDs. If you want CD
quality without processing, put your hand in your pocket and buy a
bloody CD."
You don't mean that. Really, you don't. Why? Because it puts you out
of bussiness. If all the listeners who care, and who can afford it
(and are hence the most lucrative listeners for many advertisers)
decide to chuck all their CDs onto a PC jukebox system, augment this
with mp3s from the net, and never listen to radio again (because it
sounds so bad) then you're stuffed! And if you think I can't do this
in the car too, then you haven't seen the size of some of these
jukebox systems!
7. "We have a very compelling package of entertainment to offer
consumers – between 35 and 50 audio channels, all free to air. It's a
dead simple proposition to understand."
When they all sound basically the same, it's pointless. And STILL, in
the DAB era, I bet most people just listen to one station!
8. "I'm betting my job on the fact that most Core listeners aged 15-24
years old, currently listening on their TVs through Sky and hopefully
about to listen on a £99 unit from Goodmans, would prefer the
processed sound."
If you match the RMS levels, it's the opposite. Seriously - even on
the worst equipment you can imagine. It sounds better "processed" just
because it's louder.
Where the processing is a genuine advantage is where there's
background noise. It helps overcome it. It's great in the car. But at
home, even if you're doing something else and not really listening,
the "in yer face" processing just makes the sound fatiguing in the
end. Then you switch off.
It seems clear that commercial DAB will be just like commercial FM in
its audio quality: it'll be as bad as they can make it, without
causing most people to turn off. This shouldn't be a surprise.
What is a surprise is that no one wants to buck the trend. Not even
the BBC.
Cheers,
David.
Aztech
<
> Where things differ though is that (with all due respect to Mr Piggott and
IMHO)
> I'm still forced to pay for his junk output, regardless on whether or not I
consume it.
> Maybe taking his argument to it's logical conclusion, GWR should be financed
by subscription?
Indeed, we're all forced to pay a surreptitious levy every time we walk into a
shop, many times over the cost of the official licence. It seems the market is
an utter failure when it comes to broadcasting, or possibly it works too well
considering we pay more get and get less.
Az.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> "Mikeapollo" <use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote in
> news:EWc7a.6686$Vx2.592612@wards:
> it? I would wager than your average listener, whether in a car or at home,
> if the question was put:
>
> Q Do you want radio in future to at least sound as good as FM today?
>
> would answer Yes. I doubt very much that they would answer Yes to this:
>
> Q Do you want poorer quality sound with DAB? !!!
>
> I think, therefore, that for the average listener Dab should guarantee to
> be at LEAST as good as FM,
The broadcasters say that it is already at least as good as an average
person's present FM audio quality.
All they are actually doing is relying on the elimination of hiss as a way
to improve the overall sound, but that is not an improvement in audio
quality, that is an improvement in reception.
> and that the BBC should follow and stick to
> their own advice for high-quality stereo on some channels:
>
> "256 bit/s is needed for a high-quality sterephonic program" (se new
> posting on this)
Even if they got a 2nd DAB multiplex I'd be surprised if they used 256kbps.
> THEREFORE:
>
> A) *TRUE* FM equivalence as a BARE MINIMUM with real regulatory teeth to
> enfoit and to fine companies who fall below this minimum standard
That's the way it should be worded. You have to compare DAB with a good FM
signal, and it is certainly miles away from that at 128kbps.
The problem with the regulator is that their remit is to provide as wide a
range of stations as possible, and they're a light-touch regulator, which
means that they don't get involved in commercial decisions unless they have
to, but they use the latter as an excuse for the former.
With the Comms Bill going through parliament the regulation is going towards
self-regulation!!!!!
And to make the commercial radio groups transmit at a higher bit rate would
require an Act of Parliament, which won't happen when the attitude towards
regulation is going lighter with the introduction of the Comms Bill.
Basically the Radio "Authority" cannot make them increase their bit rates
because they got the licence for the multiplex when the minimum bit rates
were set at 128kbps.
> B) 256 kbit/s for high-quality stereo programming; e.g. music (jazz,
> classical, country and western etc.)
All music, not just jazz, classical and country & western. Classical and the
other genres you mention are no harder to encode than pop music, so it's
unfair to provide these genres at a higher audio quality than pop etc IMO.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> At the end of the day, it almost doesn't matter. The pubs and the radio
> stations simply get the 'customers' they deserve, because anybody with any
> discretion
> keeps away.
I agree with your other points, but I disagree with this one.
I don't consume any of GWR's offerings, and on listening to their 128kbps
stations last night they sound dire anyway, but I do listen to some of
Kiss's late night shows, and I'm forced to put up with whatever level of
audio quality they provide me with. I cannot listen to some of the DJs on
Kiss anywhere else so they've got us over a barrel, and that is wrong.
You've got the Government trying to apply market forces to broadcasting, but
really, because each DJ is nearly always only on one radio station, then
that radio station has a monopoly on that DJ, so this is completely
contradictory to market theory.
The broadcasters say that we've got the option to switch off, but we don't
have that option if we want to listen to that show.
The DAB industry is a national disgrace.
Dave P.
Robinson) wrote:
Stuff 'em eh? Steve obviously got under his skin! (Well done Steve)
As you said, he does make some valid points about making the best use
of what bandwidth they do have. "Concatenation of codecs"
(daisy-chaining them) has been a hot potato since the inception of
digital production.
>
>It seems clear that commercial DAB will be just like commercial FM in
>its audio quality: it'll be as bad as they can make it, without
>causing most people to turn off. This shouldn't be a surprise.
Indeed it is not. A commercial radio man must think like this.
Unfortunately for him, people may well turn off even though he thinks
it sounds OK. The effect of bad mpeg audio is "wearing" on the
listener. It seems OK at first but prolonged exposure makes one tired
of it, and so more likely to turn it off.
>
>
>What is a surprise is that no one wants to buck the trend. Not even
>the BBC.
>
It didn't happen in DTT and it hasn't happened in DAB. There are a lot
people within the BBC (not least the programme makers) who are unhappy
with the quality offered in the "digital revolution" but policy-makers
and acountants rule.
Dave P.
(Remove the numbers to mail me)
Mark Carver
> On 27 Feb 2003 02:46:20 -0800, davidr...@postmaster.co.uk (David
> Robinson) wrote:
>
> Stuff 'em eh? Steve obviously got under his skin! (Well done Steve)
>
> As you said, he does make some valid points about making the best use
> of what bandwidth they do have. "Concatenation of codecs"
> (daisy-chaining them) has been a hot potato since the inception of
> digital production.
Indeed it was. Almost ten years ago Channel 4 TV objected to the use
of the DigiBeta VTR format because it compressed the video signal from
the original 270Mb/s to 155Mb/s. They were worried about the effects
of cascading this with their 34Mb/s distribution network.
How times have changed eh ? :-(
>> It seems clear that commercial DAB will be just like commercial FM in
>> its audio quality: it'll be as bad as they can make it, without
>> causing most people to turn off. This shouldn't be a surprise.
>
> Indeed it is not. A commercial radio man must think like this.
> Unfortunately for him, people may well turn off even though he thinks
> it sounds OK. The effect of bad mpeg audio is "wearing" on the
> listener. It seems OK at first but prolonged exposure makes one tired
> of it, and so more likely to turn it off.
>>
>>
>> What is a surprise is that no one wants to buck the trend. Not even
>> the BBC.
>>
> It didn't happen in DTT and it hasn't happened in DAB. There are a lot
> people within the BBC (not least the programme makers) who are unhappy
> with the quality offered in the "digital revolution" but policy-makers
> and acountants rule.
'fraid so :-(
Nick Jeffery
Conway's Game of Life can be used to model brain cells now?
--
Nick Jeffery.
Nick Jeffery
> What's happened to radio, is actually no different to any other public
> 'entertainment'. Most pubs are dominated by a handful of companies.
> You go in to them and see the same food menu from Cornwall to Caithness.
> They're staffed by people who do not care (or even realise) that the
> quality of the beer they're serving might be sub standard.
> Doesn't matter to them, 99% of the punters just want to go in there and
> get pissed, and won't notice. See any parallels ?
There are countless wonderful pubs in Durham; the bar of the nearest one
is 24 seconds walk from my front door.
There isn't even a JDW in this city, thankfully.
--
Nick Jeffery.
Mark Carver
> There are countless wonderful pubs in Durham; the bar of the nearest
> one is 24 seconds walk from my front door.
>
> There isn't even a JDW in this city, thankfully.
We've got two JDWs in Basingstoke :-(
Fortunately the surrounding villages have some excellent establishments,
a couple just about walking distance from home.
(Always seems to take longer coming back ;-) )
DAB is more than just bitrates
Well, he's refrained almost entirely from attacking the BBC under that
shady deal which most of us don't know the terms of, so he has nothing
better to do and moves the focus onto attacking somebody in the
commercial sector. I wonder what ever happened to the plan he had to
actually get a job, perhaps he could enlighten us :-)
Stephen
> Nick Piggott of GWR is quoted as saying:-
>
> > Our job as broadcasters is to provide entertaining and compelling
> > radio -
>
> Compelling? ummm. I challenge anyone to provide me with evidence
> of anything that could be described as *Compelling* coming from any
> of GWR's (or for that matter Capital, EMAP, or the Guardian's) radio
> stations.
Stephen Fry's incomplete and utter history of classical music on Classic FM is a
joy. I'd call that compelling. In fact it is the one programme I made a point of
listening to in the car the other week. That's a GWR station if I'm not
mistaken. Just to bring this post back on topic, the DAB signal was perfect all
the way from London to Walsall.
Mark Carver
>>
>> Compelling? ummm. I challenge anyone to provide me with evidence
>> of anything that could be described as *Compelling* coming from any
>> of GWR's (or for that matter Capital, EMAP, or the Guardian's) radio
>> stations.
>
> Stephen Fry's incomplete and utter history of classical music on
> Classic FM is a joy. I'd call that compelling. In fact it is the one
> programme I made a point of listening to in the car the other week.
Fair point then.
I remember years ago Stephen Fry presenting LBC's breakfast show for a week.
IMHO a superb and very well informed interviewer and presenter. You could detect
he'd 'done his homework' on the topics discussed. Better than any equivalent
I've heard on BBC Network radio.
> That's a GWR station if I'm not mistaken.
It is. And what a contrast with nonsense, and semi articulates you'll hear on their
'local' stations.
Diphthong
> Secondly, the "blocks"
> never hit the encoder in the same way on one pass and the next. So the
> coding noise that was in this frequency band and at this time will
> almost always straggle two time domain blocks when it's re-encoded.
> Even in the frequency domain, they're not really block, they're
> overlapping windows, so the noise can easily spread from the intended
> "block" to another, and then another, and then another when
> transcoding.
Thanks for that, it's obvious now but I hadn't really thought about it
before. Thanks for highlighting that!
Out of interest, in video systems, is the sound 'blocked' in synch with
the video frames, so that sort of thing doesn't happen?
Stephen
> Fair point then.
> I remember years ago Stephen Fry presenting LBC's breakfast show for a week.
> IMHO a superb and very well informed interviewer and presenter. You could
detect
> he'd 'done his homework' on the topics discussed. Better than any equivalent
> I've heard on BBC Network radio.
>
> > That's a GWR station if I'm not mistaken.
>
> It is. And what a contrast with nonsense, and semi articulates you'll hear on
their
> 'local' stations.
>
And, may I say, how refreshing to be discussing the content of digital radio on
this group. Sometimes you'd think people are more interested in the technology
than the programmes. Another station I enjoy is The Arrow. Knowledgeable
presenters and some really great music. Or perhaps I'm getting old.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<b3isqj$ng2$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> Read this, very interesting (and notice that he spelt my name wrong, I'm
>> Steven from Manchester, not Stephen from Manchester :)):
>>
>> http://www.radioacademy.org/techcon/4audioqualityonmpg.doc
>
> 1. Steve - stop slagging people off personaly. Please.
Yes, sorry.
> 3. His comments about avoiding transcoding are spot on.
Yes, but I think the majority of broadcast engineers already knew this and
it sounded like he was coming out with some revolutionary ideas which he
repeated over and over, but it is common sense not to transcode.
> 4. "It would be pretty pointless feeding a 192kbit/s broadcast channel
> with stuff off a 128kbit/s Joint Stereo ISDN."
>
> Maybe. But it would still sound better than a 128kbps broadcast
> channel fed with a 128kbps ISDN!
Very true. I think he might have got his degree in Stating the Obvious.
> 6. "Our job as broadcasters is to provide entertaining and compelling
> radio - it is not a replication service for CDs. If you want CD
> quality without processing, put your hand in your pocket and buy a
> bloody CD."
>
> You don't mean that. Really, you don't. Why? Because it puts you out
> of bussiness. If all the listeners who care, and who can afford it
> (and are hence the most lucrative listeners for many advertisers)
> decide to chuck all their CDs onto a PC jukebox system, augment this
> with mp3s from the net, and never listen to radio again (because it
> sounds so bad) then you're stuffed! And if you think I can't do this
> in the car too, then you haven't seen the size of some of these
> jukebox systems!
Absolutely right.
> 7. "We have a very compelling package of entertainment to offer
> consumers - between 35 and 50 audio channels, all free to air. It's a
> dead simple proposition to understand."
>
> When they all sound basically the same, it's pointless. And STILL, in
> the DAB era, I bet most people just listen to one station!
And IMO they'd have a far more compelling package of *ENTERTAINMENT* if they
used higher bit rates so that we actually enjoyed the audio of the shows,
and the tiny reduction in choice of stations would not put anybody off.
> 8. "I'm betting my job on the fact that most Core listeners aged 15-24
> years old, currently listening on their TVs through Sky and hopefully
> about to listen on a £99 unit from Goodmans, would prefer the
> processed sound."
>
> If you match the RMS levels, it's the opposite. Seriously - even on
> the worst equipment you can imagine. It sounds better "processed" just
> because it's louder.
Doh, that's him sacked then. :)
> Where the processing is a genuine advantage is where there's
> background noise. It helps overcome it. It's great in the car. But at
> home, even if you're doing something else and not really listening,
> the "in yer face" processing just makes the sound fatiguing in the
> end. Then you switch off.
Yep, and there's DRC for this function, but will they use it? Will they
hell.
> It seems clear that commercial DAB will be just like commercial FM in
> its audio quality: it'll be as bad as they can make it, without
> causing most people to turn off. This shouldn't be a surprise.
That just about sums DAB up really.
> What is a surprise is that no one wants to buck the trend. Not even
> the BBC.
Yes, BBC DAB is a national disgrace, but see my new thread about campaign
objectives.
--
DAB sounds worse than FM - So the BBC *needs* a 2nd DAB multiplex
Radios 1-4 now on Freeview at 192kbps, but BBC DAB is a national disgrace
Mikeapollo
"Firblog" <fir...@nicht.net> wrote in message
news:b3kkkn$j34$1$8300...@news.beeb.net...
> Mike, that's really a tremendously sound statement! Who could diasgree wit
> it? I would wager than your average listener, whether in a car or at home,
> if the question was put:
>
> Q Do you want radio in future to at least sound as good as FM today?
>
> would answer Yes. I doubt very much that they would answer Yes to this:
>
> Q Do you want poorer quality sound with DAB? !!!
>
> I think, therefore, that for the average listener Dab should guarantee to
> their own advice for high-quality stereo on some channels:
>
> "256 bit/s is needed for a high-quality sterephonic program" (se new
> posting on this)
>
>
> A) *TRUE* FM equivalence as a BARE MINIMUM with real regulatory teeth to
> enfoit and to fine companies who fall below this minimum standard
> classical, country and western etc.)
True FM equivalence should be the minimum aim regardless as for 256kbits for
high-quality programming - that would be another arguement. A lot of the
programme material suggested for such a high bit rate would work adequately
at a medium bit rate - however, as I enjoy Jazz I'm agree with you ;-)
Serously though the industry faces a few key problems :
1) Bombarding the market with stations, all virtually identical, purely to
ensure that most of the time the listener is a "captive audience" to a
particular broadcaster.
2) Not defining it's market correctly. DAB at the moment is definetly
fit-for-purpose in vehicles and while out with a portable/mobile, but does
not serve the home user particularly well - even on poor equipment there is
a distinction between "FM" and DAB. On a cheap FM tuner in a midi system -
and a fairly mid-spec DAB tuner attached to that midi system, the FM still
usually sounds "better". I could understand people hearing a difference on a
hi-fi setup, but on a cheap (sub £150) midi system, there should be little
difference, but there is!
Unfortunately, I've got a few home truths for the audiophiles out there...
There is *NO NEED* for CD quality transport on the whole! What there is a
need for is *HIGH QUALITY* transport!
You will never please everyone with the quality or the station output,
however what the broadcasters need to do is find a balance of quality that
is acceptable in the home environment (as FM is now) as well as serving
other users. The present system does not serve any particular user at a
"good" quality.
FM quality should be the aim - better if possible and affordable, but CD
quality would open too many issues in terms of cost of delivery, equipment,
bandwidth and potential PRS (copyright) issues.
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
> Firblog wrote:
>
> > You always know you've hit the truth when people start raining abuse
> > instead of arguments.
>
>
> I shouldn't lose my rag, but they just wind me up with this unbelievable
con
> trick they're playing on 60,000,000 people and there's nothing we can do
> about it.
There is a *lot* you can do about it, but it's about voicing your opinions
in a carefully constructed way to point out the issues, potential remedies
and how the market should serve everyone.
It should *NOT* be about :
1) Personal attacks because someone doesn't agree with you
2) Suggesting a market only aimed at audiophiles - although they are an
important part of the market
3) Attacking Evoke owners and suggesting that they are causing the problem
4) Dismissing anything other than CD quality as unacceptable
5) Dismissing the fact that some people *like* jukebox stations
6) Dismissing that many radio presenters know how to make good radio, but
don't know how to create good audio - hence there will always be some
argument for compression and limiters - however the use of such devices
should be carefully exercised.
7) Dismissing that simply having al least FM quality on DAB would serve the
whole market in a fair way (it is currently NOT FM quality for the fixed
receiver market)
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
> Remy wrote:
> > "Sid" <nospa...@noway.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> I think I represent the silent majority, anyone else agree?
> >>
> > Me for one.
>
>
> How's your Evoke? Still mono with a very small speaker?
>
> Why do we have to put up with crap audio quality just because people like
> you think it is good enough for them so it should be good enough for
> everybody else?
>
> Sling your hook if you don't like my posts because I've no intention of
> going anywhere just because some Evoke-loving prick likes DAB. Got that?
Steve... Have you heard the sound quality from an Evoke?
If you have, are you really going to tell me that it's "Not fit for
purpose?"... It is excellent for *it's application* - by design.
However, you are correct that DAB is not acceptable in a home listening
environment. It is not the fault of Evoke owners that DAB sounds crap - that
is the broadcasters dear ;-)
Unless someone plugs their Evoke into any type of amplifier or uses
headphones they will find *nothing* wrong with it's output on the whole...
So if you were to ask 100 Evoke owners are they satisfied, then you would
get a majority saying YES.
Ask 100 bottom-end DAB users (like myself) and you'd probably get a 50-50
split...
Ask 100 Arcam owners, or true Hi-Fi owners and you'd probably a huge
majority saying "NO".
It depends on the *MARKET* and their *EXPECTATIONS*. Evoke owners are NOT
responsible for the rest of the userbase getting crap and as such their
views are as valid and valuable as anyone elses.
As I have said before, the portable market is served reasonably well for
various technical reasons - however the trouble with people complaining at
the moment is that no-one from the "middle ground" (people who are neither
using portables or Hi-Fi) are really complaining and as such the
broadcasters can't see that this "middle-market" is bitterly being
underserved - and the top end of the market is simply being shafted.
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
He also (farily) pointed out that his job is to deliver what the station
bosses want... in an way acceptable to THEM and within a budget requirement.
You've never worked in that position have you Steve?
Having worked at BT - and having to work to similar parameters and within a
budget, every single little thing like a setting change or increase in
carrier bit rates etc has to be formally justified and explained to the
people financially responsible. Unfortuantely many of these people don't see
any benefits and therefore would not authorise change - even if recommended.
In that situation you have to work to your best compromise.
This is the job that Nick has.... It is essentially being devils advocate.
He has to justify things to the bean counters... and they do not see things
in the same light you do. You make some extremely valid points, however
aiming the market too high is potentially as bad than aiming standards too
low in terms of the financial gains to the station.
> > if Nick had more money and more spectrum available
> > then I'm sure things would be different, but they are not. Also the
> stations
> > want audio processing - it's his job to try and balance what the station
> > wants and what is technically "acceptable".
>
> I am not having a go at audio processing, that's Sacha's argument. Mine is
> bit rates, and I'm right, and he's a fking tight twat.
Don't be personal!! If you were aiming the market at car and portable use,
wouldn't you say that 128kbps was acceptable? I think it is - and agree
with Nick that it could even be lowered in that situation but the thing Nick
has overlooked here is that the market comprises of people right at the
bottom rung (portables) and people at the top rung (audiophiles) and then
the biggest listenership - the people in the middle.
The service should appeal to the majority but equally should be acceptable
to the minority of high-end users. Hence FM quality would be a good level to
aim at - and the marketing tool you've already got for that is "increased
station choice" at FM quality.
Presently, it's "Station Choice" but all at a low quality - so its "Ideal
for in the Car" but not really good at home or in a quiet office - and as
for people at the top end.... Oh dear ;-)
> > If you've ever been a sound engineer in a studio doing a "late" with a
> band,
> > you'll know that the producer wants one type of sound, and each band
> member
> > wants another - and it's up to the engineer to try and produce a mixdown
> > which sounds good to all while taking onboard the comments of the
clients.
>
> I don't give a toss. The bit rate is independent of what time it is, you
> just fking set it and leave it. It's too low, and he seems to take delight
> in the fact that it is too low and sod the fuckers who complain.
Yes you do set it and leave it... Once you've paid your carriers more to
transmit your higher bitrate signal to the tx op, and then paid the tx op
for your higher bandwidth channel...
It's all about money - and at the moment until there is a fairly large chunk
of users then it's pointless investing as the stations themselves aren't
making money!
However, I agree with you in principle since the low-quality is driving
users away from DAB (I've seen people demo DAB and reject it).
> He mentioned that it is only the top 1% of the population that complain.
> Fucking right it is, 1% of the population is 600,000 people, so there
> switchboard would be a little bit jammed if anybody else started
> complaining.
That aside... He also isn't taking into account that the majority of
listeners just would not complain and would accept it "as is"... The British
are generally terrible at complaining - and when they do complain they
either make unreasonable requests for a resolution or just simply fail to
suggest a resolution - and most times they definetly don't follow up their
complaints.
Like yourself Steve, you are arguing some extremely valid points, however
the way you present your arguments is, on the whole, terrible. You suggest
solutions that would only really benefit you and a few others. You dismiss
other suggestions instantly that would raise the standard for the majority
because they are unacceptable to you - and if all else fails you will just
either brand the whole DAB system "crap" or launch into a personal attack on
someone.
This is why the industry will pay little regard to you - Sorry, I don't mean
that as a personal attack but as an observation of how your arguments come
across - like I say, your reasoning is sound but your implementation is
awful at times.
Example :
> They're a bunch of dreamers who think that just because they get
> some old Evoke owners that praise their new-fangled radio system that has
> no
> hiss on it then everything is fine. They're ignoring all the people who
> have
> passed through this group over the last year, they're ignoring the
> probably
> 300 odd people who've emailed me directly via my website, they're ignoring
> all the people who own DAB but just accept that it is how it is but are
> not
> at all impressed because it has not lived up to what it was supposed to
> offer. They're ONLY relying on those dickheads that fell for their own
> hype.
> Basically they're full of shit and I think they tell themselves that it is
> alright for the majority enough times so that they believe it.
Oh dear... The poor Evoke users *WONT* hear any difference, and on the whole
probably will find that DAB sounds superior to the sound of their existing
portable radio. The people you should be pointing this out to is the
broadcasters themselves - in a sensible way!
Stop blaming the Evoke users and their equipment and start looking for the
compromise!!! Any person with a standard midi system and DAB tuner can
*HEAR* that DAB has problems with the audio that FM doesn't suffer from - it
doesn't need a technical description, it just sounds poorer.
As the market grows - especially with these "Goodmans" systems that Nick is
hopeing will sell well, more people will start complaining and then the
broadcasters should start seeing that a minimum of FM quality stereo should
be the bare minimum requirement of the system.
Also bear in mind that many existing FM users have never heard the true
potential of FM as a broadcast medium !
> > Anyway - whether Nick is right or wrong in your opinion, you are still
> > *very* wrong to launch such a personal attack on him, especially at the
> > level you did. It's a good way to make people in the industry completely
> > disregard your views and not take you seriously.
>
> I don't give a shit.
Well, if you did then maybe people would in the industry would listen to you
more and your points would be more objective.
Changing the existing system won't happen by shouting the loudest or
dismissing people because you feel they are "wrong". It is done by pointing
out deficiencies in teh system and demonstrating how an improvement would
benefit everyone - rather than trying to get the broadcasters to fund a
system aimed at the top few users who would be a very small minority. Appeal
and demonstrate for the majority of users - not just yourself!
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
Don't knock JDW - They have some wonderful guest beers - but agreed - the
atmosphere and decor of many of them is seriously quite lacking.
However, some JDW's in London are very small, nice community-type-pubs
instead of the "city-centre drinking den" type that are so typical here in
the north!
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
> Mark Carver wrote:
>
> > At the end of the day, it almost doesn't matter. The pubs and the radio
> > stations simply get the 'customers' they deserve, because anybody with
any
> > discretion
> > keeps away.
>
>
> I agree with your other points, but I disagree with this one.
>
> I don't consume any of GWR's offerings, and on listening to their 128kbps
> stations last night they sound dire anyway, but I do listen to some of
> Kiss's late night shows, and I'm forced to put up with whatever level of
> audio quality they provide me with. I cannot listen to some of the DJs on
> Kiss anywhere else so they've got us over a barrel, and that is wrong.
I disagree.
Just because the quality of the medium used to transmit the programme to you
is not acceptable to you, why should the *DJ* move to another station, or be
available on many other stations?
In the broadcasting world - each station needs something to make you tune
in - otherwise what is the difference between one station and another? This
particular DJ's show on Kiss is the point which makes you tune in therefore
you listen to the station.
If he was available on all stations, suddenly Kiss has lost it's appeal,
talant like your DJ wouldn't be picked up and you'd end up with another
station that sounded like "Smash Hits".
What you're implying is that just because you like this programme on Kiss,
his programme should be made available elsewhere on another station - which
would invariably be someone elses turn off...
You are guilty of wanting to switch off GWR's stations (in my opinion)
simply because you've got a grievence against them and because they offer
nothing that you can't get elsewhere.
> You've got the Government trying to apply market forces to broadcasting,
but
> really, because each DJ is nearly always only on one radio station, then
> that radio station has a monopoly on that DJ, so this is completely
> contradictory to market theory.
You're assuming that Kiss has the monopoly on that DJ Steve!!!
He may simply like being at kiss! Why *should* he want to move if he
doesn't have to?
You're simply looking at YOUR side of the argument again and not taking into
account other factors. Maybe I don't want this particular DJ on the station
I want to listen to? In which case, I'd switch off or change channels!
I accept that you're issue is being forced to listen to his show being
broadcast in a sub-standard quality - however it's the way it's broadcast
that is your problem - not the station or it's offerings!
> The broadcasters say that we've got the option to switch off, but we don't
> have that option if we want to listen to that show.
Quite! But it's still a valid option - and if you like this DJ's output so
much then see if he's got a CD available - if not get in touch with him via
the station and suggest that you (and potentially many others) would be
interested if he has one.
That's how Mark from Hed Kandi started pushing CD's like Disco Heaven, Hed
Kandi and StereoSushi... Because his listeners liked it, his club stuff was
popular and people asked for CDs - and fortunately in his case JFM were
right behind him.
> The DAB industry is a national disgrace.
Agreed without argument.
Mikeapollo
DAB is more than just bitrates
>much then see if he's got a CD available - if not get in touch with him via
>the station and suggest that you (and potentially many others) would be
>interested if he has one.
>
>That's how Mark from Hed Kandi started pushing CD's like Disco Heaven, Hed
>Kandi and StereoSushi... Because his listeners liked it, his club stuff was
>popular and people asked for CDs - and fortunately in his case JFM were
>right behind him.
Indeed. The Very Best of Jazz FM and The Late Lounge CD's on the same
label are particularly good IMO. Not particularly inpressed by
Inspired 2, which I bought last week in the HMV sale, but I guess you
can' win 'em all.
(Something which I'm sure will please Steve and the other bitrate
obsessives; I bought the portable MoS DAB player yesterday (Saturday)
and thus far I'm not that impressed. Full evaluation coming when I can
be bothered)
Nick Jeffery
> "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:b3lnm0$gip$5...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
>
>>is 24 seconds walk from my front door.
>>
>>There isn't even a JDW in this city, thankfully.
>
> Don't knock JDW - They have some wonderful guest beers - but agreed - the
> atmosphere and decor of many of them is seriously quite lacking.
If you're ever up this way, Durham Brewery make some good ales. They've
just started brewing one called Van Mildert -- my housemate reliably
informs me that it's top notch.
> However, some JDW's in London are very small, nice community-type-pubs
> instead of the "city-centre drinking den" type that are so typical here in
> the north!
When I'm down in London, I invariably pop in to that one by Camden Lock.
Walk down the high street, peruse the shops, have a cheeky one, pop in
to SBN and say hello, then up Primrose Hill for a romantic momnent(!)
It was snowing when I was last there -- beautiful view over London, and
you could even see CP and Croydon! ;)
--
Nick Jeffery.
Northern, living further up north, often visits London.
Mark Carver
> When I'm down in London, I invariably pop in to that one by Camden
> Lock. Walk down the high street, peruse the shops, have a cheeky
> one, pop in
> to SBN and say hello, then up Primrose Hill for a romantic momnent(!)
> It was snowing when I was last there -- beautiful view over London,
> and
> you could even see CP and Croydon! ;)
I can recommend one of my local pubs, The Vine in Hannington, good
food and an interesting view :-)
Richard L.
"Mikeapollo" <use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote:
> Serously though the industry faces a few key problems :
>
> 1) Bombarding the market with stations, all virtually identical, purely to
> ensure that most of the time the listener is a "captive audience" to a
> particular broadcaster.
If that's really what they are trying to do, it doesn't seem like a
very promising strategy to me. The soundalike stations would simply
cannibalize each other's audiences. Those who didn't like them would
find something else to listen to.
Of course, the sales team could be selling time across the whole of
the group's output, so they could total the audience figures when
quoting cost per 1000, etc.; but on the other hand, it would multiply
the cost of promoting the group's stations in other media while
ensuring that none of them looked particularly successful in the Rajar
charts.
Richard
--
Nick Jeffery
>
> I can recommend one of my local pubs, The Vine in Hannington, good
> food and an interesting view :-)
Well, it's not as if you can't see Pontop Pike from everywhere in
Durham.... (apart from the viaduct area.)
--
Nick Jeffery.
Mikeapollo
Richard L.'s computer spewed out data that apparently looked something like
this :
Well, yes - part of the idea of having 12 stations all cannibalizing each
others audience would be to ensure the listener was locked to the output
from one particular broadcaster... Effectively increasing the parent
companies market share.
As an example, lets say at the Mikeapollo Radio Group launches 4 stations -
Smooch Fm, Nebula 102, Mashed Bits and Phore! - MRG offers an extremely
similar output on all four stations (pooling resources to drive costs down),
but it also offers some degree of "speciality" at certain times on Smooch
and Nebula (which are it's main FM licences)
So for people who like the type of output that the MRG produces (which is
aimed at the pop/dance sector - hence has the biggest listenership in region
X) when Phore starts getting a bit too repetitive for the listener, they can
change to Mashed Bits - because it's a similar station, and likewise with
Nebula and Smooch FM and so on... While the individual listening audience
and amount of time spent listening to individual stations will be lower, MRG
will (hopefully) have a larger market share - which is the selling point to
advertisers.
So then you can make attractive propositions to advertisers - advertise with
us, your commercial will be played on 4 stations, where in region X we hold
the top 3 stations listened too. It also helps you back claims like "70% of
listeners in Region X are listening to a Mikeapollo Radio Group station"
It gets even more interesting when you consider FM licences in some areas...
For example, the fact that certain areas of the country that have only 2 or
3 ILR stations end up with 2 stations owned by the same parent company...
and hence can not only make better deals with advertising, but also can use
the fact that it's got a higher share of the audience mainly because it has
2 stations outputting the same blurb.
It's a good strategy on FM where the number of stations is naturally
limited, but I don't think it quite works where there is extra station
choice - as you say, it starts looking very bad when the RAJAR figures start
being compiled for DAB - especially when *ALL* the big parent groups are
trying the same stunt - all with similar output! ;-)
Mikeapollo.
Mikeapollo
Nick Jeffery's computer spewed out data that apparently looked something
like this :
> Mark Carver wrote:
Or Winter Hill from Manchester... Mind you - I must say that Holme Moss is
well hidden which is a shame - it's a much nicer mast than the Winter Hill
"pole" - mind you it doesn't "wobble" as much ;-) [1]
Mikeapollo (extremely sad at times!)
[1] Winter Hill has a bit of a wobble factor when the weather gets really
*really* rough - since it was built the same way as Emley Mk II, whats the
betting that it will fall down in the next 10 years or so - even if they
have "strengthened" it ;-)
Mikeapollo
Nick Jeffery's computer spewed out data that apparently looked something
like this :
> Mikeapollo wrote:
>> "Nick Jeffery" <n.s.j...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:b3lnm0$gip$5...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
>>
>>> There are countless wonderful pubs in Durham; the bar of the
>>> nearest one is 24 seconds walk from my front door.
>>>
>>> There isn't even a JDW in this city, thankfully.
>>
>> Don't knock JDW - They have some wonderful guest beers - but agreed
>> - the atmosphere and decor of many of them is seriously quite
>> lacking.
>
> If you're ever up this way, Durham Brewery make some good ales.
> They've just started brewing one called Van Mildert -- my housemate
> reliably informs me that it's top notch.
Sounds rather interesting... Don't be giving me ideas - I haven't been to
Durham for quite a while (2 years ago with BT) so I may be overdue a trip
sometime later in the year ;-)
>> However, some JDW's in London are very small, nice
>> community-type-pubs instead of the "city-centre drinking den" type
>> that are so typical here in the north!
>
> When I'm down in London, I invariably pop in to that one by Camden
> Lock. Walk down the high street, peruse the shops, have a cheeky
> one, pop in
> to SBN and say hello, then up Primrose Hill for a romantic momnent(!)
> It was snowing when I was last there -- beautiful view over London,
> and
> you could even see CP and Croydon! ;)
Yeah - I know the one down at Camden Lock
*giggle*
CP and Croydon are often quite hard to miss... I take it you've never been
right under the mast at Croydon at Beulah Heights? - Quite a nice stretch
of scenic "parkland" just around the back of there (it's on the ridge from
CP and some of the views are fantastic on a sunny/snowy day)
As for romantic moments on Primrose Hill - I won't ask!
<g>
Mikeapollo (bored, cold and hung-over)
Mark Carver
> Well, it's not as if you can't see Pontop Pike from everywhere in
> Durham.... (apart from the viaduct area.)
I tried to spot it from the A1M on a trip to Newcastle almost a year ago.
I also tuned to 107 hoping to hear you on Purple Radio, nuffink :-( I guess
the station was off air then ? (March 26 2002)
Mikeapollo wrote:
> Or Winter Hill from Manchester... Mind you - I must say that Holme
> Moss is well hidden which is a shame - it's a much nicer mast than
> the Winter Hill "pole" - mind you it doesn't "wobble" as much ;-)
I must confess I did stop off once at Rivington Services on the M61 for a view,
(better reason than the food on offer there!)
> Mikeapollo (extremely sad at times!)
>
> [1] Winter Hill has a bit of a wobble factor when the weather gets
> really
> *really* rough - since it was built the same way as Emley Mk II,
> whats the betting that it will fall down in the next 10 years or so -
> even if they have "strengthened" it ;-)
Well Waltham is the same design as EM Mk II and that collapsed to.
Belmont, Mendip, and Bilsdale are also 'clones'.
Keep at least 1200 ft from any of those masts on rough days :-)
Mikeapollo
> Nick Jeffery wrote :
>
> > Well, it's not as if you can't see Pontop Pike from everywhere in
> > Durham.... (apart from the viaduct area.)
>
> I tried to spot it from the A1M on a trip to Newcastle almost a year ago.
> I also tuned to 107 hoping to hear you on Purple Radio, nuffink :-( I
guess
> the station was off air then ? (March 26 2002)
>
> Mikeapollo wrote:
> > Or Winter Hill from Manchester... Mind you - I must say that Holme
> > Moss is well hidden which is a shame - it's a much nicer mast than
> > the Winter Hill "pole" - mind you it doesn't "wobble" as much ;-)
>
> I must confess I did stop off once at Rivington Services on the M61 for a
view,
> (better reason than the food on offer there!)
ROFL! I got stuck at Rivington for about 6 hours once when my "mates" drove
off without me!!
(long story - we were going up to Radio Wave in Blackpool in a minibus,
stopped there and the guys never did a head count when they got back in,
leaving 3 of us behind... one person is understandable, but *3*!!!)
> > Mikeapollo (extremely sad at times!)
> >
> > [1] Winter Hill has a bit of a wobble factor when the weather gets
> > really
> > *really* rough - since it was built the same way as Emley Mk II,
> > whats the betting that it will fall down in the next 10 years or so -
> > even if they have "strengthened" it ;-)
>
> Well Waltham is the same design as EM Mk II and that collapsed to.
> Belmont, Mendip, and Bilsdale are also 'clones'.
> Keep at least 1200 ft from any of those masts on rough days :-)
Yes ;-)
Surely these masts must be nearing the end of their lives now... Mendip
looked awful last time I saw it - paint flaking off and everything. Mind
you, NTL haven't really got the money to rebuild them at the moment have
they?
On the subject of NTL, I'm am planning a trip up to Emley Moor next week,
weather permitting. Excuse for a nice day out to the middle of nowhere with
a bike - and will include a bit of mast-spotting! Anyone that fancies
meeting up is more than welcome - don't forget anoraks ;-)
Mikeapollo
(lets all blame Masking-Pattern Universal Subband Intergrated Coding And
Multiplexing algorithms for everything)
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b3lbt2$ha1$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>>> At the end of the day, it almost doesn't matter. The pubs and the radio
>>> stations simply get the 'customers' they deserve, because anybody with
>>> any discretion
>>> keeps away.
>>
>>
>> I agree with your other points, but I disagree with this one.
>>
>> I don't consume any of GWR's offerings, and on listening to their 128kbps
>> stations last night they sound dire anyway, but I do listen to some of
>> Kiss's late night shows, and I'm forced to put up with whatever level of
>> audio quality they provide me with. I cannot listen to some of the DJs on
>> Kiss anywhere else so they've got us over a barrel, and that is wrong.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Just because the quality of the medium used to transmit the programme to
> you is not acceptable to you, why should the *DJ* move to another
> station, or be available on many other stations?
No, you don't get what I mean. I mean that each station has a monopoly on a
certain DJ (ignoring the few DJs that are on more than one station),
therefore if I want to listen to that DJ then I have to put up with the
audio quality that that station chooses to provide.
The Government are bringing in the Communications Bill which assumes that
market theory (i.e. supply and demand and all that economics stuff) can be
applied to broadcasting. They are even promoting self-regulation in
broadcasting because they think that market forces can act on broadcasters
just like market forces act on the sale of Heinz Baked Beans.
But applying market forces to the broadcasting industry in the digital age
has already been shown to fail on delivering quality, as can be seen/heard
on DAB in the UK.
Allowing a lot of choice should not mean that low audio quality should be
acceptable on the radio, but that is how the Radio "Authority" has
interpretted its remit, and the consumer can only suffer while the
broadcaster benefits because they can push quality to the minimum and
thereby saving itself transmission costs and it allows more of its identifit
stations to get onto DAB.
The fact that 95% of all the UK stereo music stations use 128kbps clearly
shows that light-touch regulation in the digital age has completely failed.
I was told by someone at GWR last week that the Radio "Authority" would
prefer it if more stations used higher bit rates. No shit, they're getting a
load of abuse from me because of the shite decision to use 128kbps as the
minimum bit rate for stereo music, and then they're bloody surprised that
all the tight-arsed commercial radio stations use 128kbps, so now they're
getting shit for the fact that all the commercial radio groups are using the
minimum. Aww, poor Radio "Authority".
What I want to know is, how on earth anybody could miss the fact that the
audio quality of 128kbps stations sounds like they're playing vinyl with a
big piece of mud on the needle?
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b3jgn1$seg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Firblog wrote:
>>
>>> You always know you've hit the truth when people start raining abuse
>>> instead of arguments.
>>
>>
>> I shouldn't lose my rag, but they just wind me up with this unbelievable
>> con trick they're playing on 60,000,000 people and there's nothing we
>> can do about it.
>
> There is a *lot* you can do about it, but it's about voicing your opinions
> in a carefully constructed way to point out the issues, potential remedies
> and how the market should serve everyone.
>
> It should *NOT* be about :
>
> 1) Personal attacks because someone doesn't agree with you
Do fogrive me, but he just happened to be taking the piss out of ME in a
speech to the Radio Academy.
> 2) Suggesting a market only aimed at audiophiles - although they are an
> important part of the market
I never said it is a market just for audiophiles, but the point is that if
you serve the audiophiles then everybody who has lower expectations are also
provided with a better audio quality.
What is happening at the moment is that the broadcasters are just abusing
DAB for their own perceived gains and taking the attitude to anybody who
wants radio to sound better, er, well it was nicely summed up by Mr Nick
Piggott: "Screw 'em".
> 3) Attacking Evoke owners and suggesting that they are causing the problem
But it is mainly Evoke owners who are sticking up for DAB being good enough,
and that it wrong, because that is like Nick Piggott saying "Screw the
audiophiles".
DAB WAS ALWAYS about providing high audio quality, and nobody loses out if
they do so apart from the broadcasters themselves.
And any arguments about stations needing to be taken off is virtually
irrelevant because the difference in choice between DAB with pretty good
audio quality (say 160kbps stations instead of 128kbps stations for music)
is tiny, and it wouldn't put anybody off DAB if they used higher bit rates,
in fact it would attract more people.
> 4) Dismissing anything other than CD quality as unacceptable
I am not expecting CD-quality. But I do not expect audio quality so poor
that I will not listen to it, and since Radios 1-4 have gone on Freeview
I've noticed that I've not wanted to listen to the shows on Kiss much.
> 5) Dismissing the fact that some people *like* jukebox stations
I don't make any comments about jukebox stations so I don't know where you
got that from.
> 6) Dismissing that many radio presenters know how to make good radio, but
> don't know how to create good audio - hence there will always be some
> argument for compression and limiters - however the use of such devices
> should be carefully exercised.
Again, I haven't complained about audio processing for ages.
> 7) Dismissing that simply having al least FM quality on DAB would serve
> the whole market in a fair way (it is currently NOT FM quality for the
> fixed receiver market)
Er, I am well aware that it is not FM quality on DAB. See my screen name....
Mark Parrott
I really thought I was the only person in the world who looked at
transmitters, until I discovered Mike Brown's web site.
BTW, anyone know if Emily Moor is visible from the A1 near Hull? I
was up there last year and saw a very distant tx that looked a similar
shape to Emily Moor. I'm up there again next week. Off to Amsterdam
:-)
Marky P
Mark Carver
Mark Carver
>
> ROFL! I got stuck at Rivington for about 6 hours once when my "mates"
> drove off without me!!
>
> (long story - we were going up to Radio Wave in Blackpool in a
> minibus, stopped there and the guys never did a head count when they
> got back in, leaving 3 of us behind... one person is understandable,
> but *3*!!!)
Ah Radio Wave. A friend of mine part timed there as an Engineer/Gofer/Weather presenter
while he was a student. Always amazed me how they managed to find a building that had the
same street number as their FM frequency (965 Mowbray Drive, Blackpool)
>> Well Waltham is the same design as EM Mk II and that collapsed to.
>> Belmont, Mendip, and Bilsdale are also 'clones'.
>> Keep at least 1200 ft from any of those masts on rough days :-)
>
> Yes ;-)
>
> Surely these masts must be nearing the end of their lives now...
> Mendip looked awful last time I saw it - paint flaking off and
> everything. Mind you, NTL haven't really got the money to rebuild
> them at the moment have they?
Mendip does look in a state. The UHF aerial cylinder got cracked a couple of years ago
in a thunderstorm. Bilsdale looks good. Check out the latest shots of it on mb21
<pedant mode on>
Mendip, Waltham and Bilsdale are Crown Castle sites
<pedant mode off>
> On the subject of NTL, I'm am planning a trip up to Emley Moor next
> week, weather permitting. Excuse for a nice day out to the middle of
> nowhere with a bike - and will include a bit of mast-spotting! Anyone
> that fancies meeting up is more than welcome - don't forget anoraks
If I was up there, I'd join you.
Mark Carver
> I really thought I was the only person in the world who looked at
> transmitters, until I discovered Mike Brown's web site.
You're not Mark, but it is a condition that only seems to affect Marks, Mikes, and Nick :-)
Nick Jeffery
It was a lovely day up here today. I was considering grabbing the
digicam and having a walk over to the Durham relay (and snarfing a view
at DLR whilst I was at it.)
--
Nick Jeffery.
Mikeapollo
Well, I might grab some shots of NTL Saddleworth tomorrow if it is as nice
weatherwise as it was today... Saddleworth isn't on Mike Browns site...
yet - and has a very directional set of aerials on the top - triangular
shaped. It boasts 4 FM radio services (1 is circular - that's Key103) and a
full TV relay (only 4w tho!)
How sad are Marks, Mikes and Nicks then?
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
It is actually quite a popular activity although few will admit to doing it!
For some people, television and radio (including the means of beaming it
out) are still quite magical. One day, hopefully they'll open the
observation deck at Emley to the public - once NTL starts doing anything for
cash!
> BTW, anyone know if Emily Moor is visible from the A1 near Hull? I
> was up there last year and saw a very distant tx that looked a similar
> shape to Emily Moor. I'm up there again next week. Off to Amsterdam
> :-)
Not sure, but old Emley certainly is very distinctive - there is nothing
else like her in the UK ;-)
As for Amsterdam - have a nice time! (don't expect to see Emley from there
tho - it's big but not that big!)
Mikeapollo
Nick Jeffery
> Well, I might grab some shots of NTL Saddleworth tomorrow if it is as nice
> weatherwise as it was today... Saddleworth isn't on Mike Browns site...
> yet - and has a very directional set of aerials on the top - triangular
> shaped. It boasts 4 FM radio services (1 is circular - that's Key103) and a
> full TV relay (only 4w tho!)
What are the other three radio services? Century comes from Winter
Hill, Galaxy 102 from Sunley Building, GMR from Holme Moss...
Or is it BBC network radio, less one?
--
Nick Jeffery.
Mikeapollo
> Mikeapollo wrote:
>
> > ROFL! I got stuck at Rivington for about 6 hours once when my "mates"
> > drove off without me!!
> >
> > (long story - we were going up to Radio Wave in Blackpool in a
> > minibus, stopped there and the guys never did a head count when they
> > got back in, leaving 3 of us behind... one person is understandable,
> > but *3*!!!)
>
> Ah Radio Wave. A friend of mine part timed there as an
Engineer/Gofer/Weather presenter
> while he was a student. Always amazed me how they managed to find a
building that had the
> same street number as their FM frequency (965 Mowbray Drive, Blackpool)
I think most of the North-West who have an interest in radio have been to
Radio Wave or Piccadilly Radio (before Mr. Oysten took over) at some point!
I was going up there to be interviewed on-air promoting a Michael Jackson
look-a-like show that I <gulp> was involved with for a while!
Why I ever got involved in that I don't know! (I was the promoter/audio
engineer for the group)
> >> Well Waltham is the same design as EM Mk II and that collapsed to.
> >> Belmont, Mendip, and Bilsdale are also 'clones'.
> >> Keep at least 1200 ft from any of those masts on rough days :-)
> >
> > Yes ;-)
> >
> > Surely these masts must be nearing the end of their lives now...
> > Mendip looked awful last time I saw it - paint flaking off and
> > everything. Mind you, NTL haven't really got the money to rebuild
> > them at the moment have they?
>
> Mendip does look in a state. The UHF aerial cylinder got cracked a couple
of years ago
> in a thunderstorm. Bilsdale looks good. Check out the latest shots of it
on mb21
Hmmm... Had a nice lick of paint ;-)
> <pedant mode on>
>
> Mendip, Waltham and Bilsdale are Crown Castle sites
>
> <pedant mode off>
Are you implying those ex-BBC types aren't taking care of their erections?
> > On the subject of NTL, I'm am planning a trip up to Emley Moor next
> > week, weather permitting. Excuse for a nice day out to the middle of
> > nowhere with a bike - and will include a bit of mast-spotting! Anyone
> > that fancies meeting up is more than welcome - don't forget anoraks
>
> If I was up there, I'd join you.
Well, anyone is welcome on my strange quests to the top of the largest hills
when I do them! Here in Manchester we're quite lucky as you're only a
stones-throw from quite a few sites - even by bike! (although bike is hard
work going up hill all the way - but you can set speed records coming back
down!)
Used to take a tent up near Holme Moss and use it as a base while exploring
up that way... Very nice way to explore the moors in summer.
Mikeapollo
tony sayer
<markc...@onetel.net.uk> writes
Could have sworn that the ITA built this..but in me advancing dotage....
>
><pedant mode off>
--
Tony Sayer
Mikeapollo
This is from Daniel Mathews at NTL - looks like it's turning into quite a
popular little site! It's boasting 8 services now, with Wire FM expected on
107.1 later this year.
99.3 - BBC Radio 1 (fill-in from Holme Moss)
89.8 - BBC Radio 2 (fill-in from Holme Moss)
91.9 - BBC Radio 3 (fill-in from Holme Moss)
94.1 - BBC Radio 4 (fill-in from Holme Moss)
103.0 - Key 103 Manchester
104.6 - BBC GMR (fed from Holme Moss - 95.1)
105.6 - Oldham Community Radio (LPFM)
107.9 - Home FM (Huddersfield - fill-in from Emley Moor)
The fill-ins BTW serve the area between Saddleworth and North Oldham (where
BBC radio is relayed again as the other side of Oldham and Rochdale are
shielded from Saddleworth and Holme Moss - and bacup doesn't quite reach).
Dunno how GMR justifies gobbling 2 frequencies aimed at Manchester!
Actually, from my point of view here - Saddleworth seems to serve Manchester
slightly better than Holme Moss does - simply because Holme Moss has a ruddy
big hill in front of it from where I am (hence BBC FM is even more of a
challenge). North Oldham is quite a large tower, visible from here - but is
extremely low powered.
When I go out and about with a walkman, Saddleworth is easier to pick up -
Key103 and GMR 104.6 are much stronger than any of the BBC stations from
Holme Moss including GMR on 95.1.
Saying that though, I can see why Holme Moss was chosen as it's got a huge
coverage area for FM - but with a slight yorkshire bias - and I'm not sure
people realise just how close Saddleworth, Holme Moss and Emley Moor are to
each other!
All in all, there are about 12 relays all within a few miles of each other
dotted across the Saddleworth - Rochdale - Ovenden ridge.
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:K4TxwfBW...@bancom.co.uk...
> ><pedant mode on>
> >
> >Mendip, Waltham and Bilsdale are Crown Castle sites
>
> Could have sworn that the ITA built this..but in me advancing dotage....
It's possible I suppose - didn't the BBC and ITA decide to work together and
co-locate to help get UHF rolled out quickly?
Mind you - saying that, this particular "design" (complete with it's flaws)
was the work of EMI wasn't it? - Sort of off the shelve, quick fix mast,
unlike the quality masts like Sandy Heath, Holme Moss, etc.
Mikeapollo
tony sayer
<use...@mikeapollo.net> writes
IIRC it wasn't EMI I believe its all on the mb21 site somewhere. Holme
moss was rebuilt some years ago, and IIRC Sandy Heath was put up in
1966. A relative of mine actually helped build it!..
--
Tony Sayer
Mikeapollo
Yup, Holme Moss was rebuilt - but with a similar type of tower (I remember
seeing both the old and new tower side by side a few moons ago!)
As for the type of design used at Emley MkII, Winter Hill and the rest of
the "pole" type tx's... I assumed it was some company that EMI may have
gobbled up given the statement from MB21
(http://tx.mb21.co.uk/emley/emley.asp)
"Assessing where the blame lay took rather longer than replacing the fallen
structure. The Authority sued the main contractor, EMI, and the mast
designers, BICC. After hearings in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and
the House of Lords, a final judgment was delivered on 15-Mar-1980. EMI was
found to be in breach of contract and BICC in breach of warranty and
negligent. This established liability, but the size of damages remained the
subject further litigation. Under an out-of-court settlement reached in the
autumn of 1983 the Authority accepted £3.2 million to cover damages, costs
and interest."
So it was infact a BICC design... and an EMI build - Oh dear :-)
And you can instantly see the flaws in the design at
http://www.winterhill.org/transmitter.htm - where there are some slides half
way down the page showing the building of Winter Hill... No wonder
Wrotham collapsed before it was finished!
I much prefer the nice Holme Moss / Sandy Heath type lattice towers - more
expensive to build, but they look nicer and must be easier for the engineers
to climb!
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
> Mikeapollo wrote:
> > "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> > <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:b3jgn1$seg$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >> Firblog wrote:
> >>
> >>> You always know you've hit the truth when people start raining abuse
> >>> instead of arguments.
> >>
> >>
> >> I shouldn't lose my rag, but they just wind me up with this
unbelievable
> >> con trick they're playing on 60,000,000 people and there's nothing we
> >> can do about it.
> >
> > There is a *lot* you can do about it, but it's about voicing your
opinions
> > in a carefully constructed way to point out the issues, potential
remedies
> > and how the market should serve everyone.
> >
> > It should *NOT* be about :
> >
> > 1) Personal attacks because someone doesn't agree with you
>
>
> Do fogrive me, but he just happened to be taking the piss out of ME in a
> speech to the Radio Academy.
Ok - fair enough, but you shouldn't really drop down to his level, although
I appreciate it's not nice when someone takes the provervial out of you...
> > 2) Suggesting a market only aimed at audiophiles - although they are an
> > important part of the market
>
> I never said it is a market just for audiophiles, but the point is that if
> you serve the audiophiles then everybody who has lower expectations are
also
> provided with a better audio quality.
Again, a fair point, but sometimes (IMO) you are guilty of overlooking
certain compromises - like the fact that most potential DAB listeners aren't
going to have top quaility (or even quailty) gear to play it through, and
therefore in terms of broadcasting costs something along the lines of
160-192kbps would be acceptable for the majority of programme output.
No-one is disputing your campaign that bit-rates are presently inadequate
though!!
> What is happening at the moment is that the broadcasters are just abusing
> DAB for their own perceived gains and taking the attitude to anybody who
> wants radio to sound better, er, well it was nicely summed up by Mr Nick
> Piggott: "Screw 'em".
In fairness to Nick though, a lot of people are guilty of basically trying
to demand 256kbps and suggest that anything at all lower is completely
unacceptable. Now even you don't go this far most of the time...
Since I don't know the story behind you and Nick, I'm not going to even
speculate on what's behind it - but I feel that he did have a fair point
with regard to upping to 256kb/s just to satisfy a minority... However, I
feel Nick was wrong in his attitude to simply dismiss them in the way he
did...
50/50 on that one...
> > 3) Attacking Evoke owners and suggesting that they are causing the
problem
>
> But it is mainly Evoke owners who are sticking up for DAB being good
enough,
> and that it wrong, because that is like Nick Piggott saying "Screw the
> audiophiles".
I disagree slightly.. (only slightly) - Evoke owners don't know any better,
and so if you ask them "is it ok" then they have nothing to match it to
unless they bung it through their stereo or use a pair of headphones - which
the majority I suspect wouldn't do.
However, for an Evoke owner to claim it's OK for everyone without attempting
to listen through his stereo for more than a quick half hour *is* wrong -
accepted.
This one is more about perceptions - and as Dr. David Robinson correctly
stated in his report - you will always get people who will say "it sounds
good to me" - simply because (as you've said in other posts) some people do
have equipment that is extremely poor, or do have hearing deficiencies.
> DAB WAS ALWAYS about providing high audio quality, and nobody loses out if
> they do so apart from the broadcasters themselves.
True.
> And any arguments about stations needing to be taken off is virtually
> irrelevant because the difference in choice between DAB with pretty good
> audio quality (say 160kbps stations instead of 128kbps stations for music)
> is tiny, and it wouldn't put anybody off DAB if they used higher bit
rates,
> in fact it would attract more people.
Agreed. This is where the industry has got it's knickers in a knot. They are
trying to do two things simultaniously which are inherently incompatible.
They are attempting to a) drive take up and
b) the big players are trying to increase their market share by offering
lots of "choice".
However, these two issues conflict simply because take up requires a quality
product - and you can't have the quality if the bandwidth is spread too
thinly.
160kbps should be a minimum for all stations aiming stereo music programming
at the general population. 128kbps may (only MAY) suffice for some stereo
speech programming or reduced bandwidth programming (say the stuff aimed at
people over 65 who wouldn't notice the artefacts so badly).
> > 4) Dismissing anything other than CD quality as unacceptable
>
> I am not expecting CD-quality. But I do not expect audio quality so poor
> that I will not listen to it, and since Radios 1-4 have gone on Freeview
> I've noticed that I've not wanted to listen to the shows on Kiss much.
Well, in the past you have specified that the service should be "CD like in
quality". Which I have (maybe wrongly) interpreted as "CD quality is all I
expect" . If I have got that wrong then I apologise.
However, everyone is agreed (more-or-less) that the current services - feeds
and audio processing aside - are far from "fit-for-purpose".
> > 5) Dismissing the fact that some people *like* jukebox stations
>
> I don't make any comments about jukebox stations so I don't know where you
> got that from.
Comments you've made in the past about Smash Hits and Core spring to mind...
But again - that could simply be because the content is not to your taste -
not due to the "format" of the station...
> > 6) Dismissing that many radio presenters know how to make good radio,
but
> > don't know how to create good audio - hence there will always be some
> > argument for compression and limiters - however the use of such devices
> > should be carefully exercised.
>
> Again, I haven't complained about audio processing for ages.
ie... last week - BBC linear feeds ;-)
> > 7) Dismissing that simply having al least FM quality on DAB would serve
> > the whole market in a fair way (it is currently NOT FM quality for the
> > fixed receiver market)
>
> Er, I am well aware that it is not FM quality on DAB. See my screen
name....
Sorry, what was it again? ;-)
You missed the issue I was trying to raise there - the fact that you have in
the past specifically fought for a service which is better than FM
quality... Rightly so - however maybe starting at just trying to get what
we've got at FM quality would be a start!
I must admit, sometimes the way you come across makes me wonder what you'd
do if you saw a bulldozer parked outside GWR's headquarters ;-)
But then again - that's got to be better than some peoples attempts which
are the equivelent of flicking baked beans at a charging Rhino...
Mikeapollo
Richard L.
"Mikeapollo" <use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote:
> In message 0b5ad2cc...@wireless.demon.co.uk,
> Richard L.'s computer spewed out data that apparently looked something like
> this :
>
> > In message <Dga8a.9687$Lq.715391@stones>
> > "Mikeapollo" <use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Serously though the industry faces a few key problems :
> >>
> >> 1) Bombarding the market with stations, all virtually identical,
> >> purely to ensure that most of the time the listener is a "captive
> >> audience" to a particular broadcaster.
> >
> > If that's really what they are trying to do, it doesn't seem like a
> > very promising strategy to me. The soundalike stations would simply
> > cannibalize each other's audiences. Those who didn't like them would
> > find something else to listen to.
> >
> > Of course, the sales team could be selling time across the whole of
> > the group's output, so they could total the audience figures when
> > quoting cost per 1000, etc.; but on the other hand, it would multiply
> > the cost of promoting the group's stations in other media while
> > ensuring that none of them looked particularly successful in the Rajar
> > charts.
>
> Well, yes - part of the idea of having 12 stations all cannibalizing each
> others audience would be to ensure the listener was locked to the output
> from one particular broadcaster... Effectively increasing the parent
> companies market share.
But it would only do so if the broadcaster in question could exclude
other broadcasters from that particular market (and the listener might
then hope that media ownership rules would come into effect).
Otherwise, it would simply cost money and waste resources.
Richard
--
Richard L.
Mark Parrott <mark....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> BTW, anyone know if Emily Moor is visible from the A1 near Hull?
The A1 doesn't go anywhere near Hull. But she's a lovely girl, that
Emily Moor ;-)
Richard
--
Mikeapollo
Richard L.'s computer spewed out data that apparently looked something like
this :
> In message <bqo8a.9785$Lq.732147@stones>
> "Mikeapollo" <use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote:
>> Well, yes - part of the idea of having 12 stations all cannibalizing
>> each others audience would be to ensure the listener was locked to
>> the output from one particular broadcaster... Effectively increasing
>> the parent companies market share.
>
> But it would only do so if the broadcaster in question could exclude
> other broadcasters from that particular market (and the listener might
> then hope that media ownership rules would come into effect).
> Otherwise, it would simply cost money and waste resources.
Quite.. This is why it's a pointless exercise on DAB... However the model
works on FM - and continues to do so.
On DAB you've got all the big players trying this - meaning that yes, it is
wasteful, it's costing *real* money and it's lowering quality standards.
Mikeapollo
Mikeapollo
Richard L.'s computer spewed out data that apparently looked something like
this :
> In message <vrh46v8rphod89tk6...@4ax.com>
Maybe it's the M1 then? <g>
(scary thing is I got an A* in geography)
As for Emily - I hope to ask her one day to marry me, only there is a tiny
problem in my case....
<g>
Mikeapollo (this is going too far!)
Mikeapollo
> Mikeapollo wrote:
> > I disagree.
> >
> > Just because the quality of the medium used to transmit the programme to
> > you is not acceptable to you, why should the *DJ* move to another
> > station, or be available on many other stations?
>
>
> No, you don't get what I mean. I mean that each station has a monopoly on
a
> certain DJ (ignoring the few DJs that are on more than one station),
> therefore if I want to listen to that DJ then I have to put up with the
> audio quality that that station chooses to provide.
No, I do understand what you mean. As I was trying to point out, if a
station manages to get a good DJ, why shouldn't the station make them sign a
contract to bind them to that station? It's the stations "Star Attraction".
The DJ is being paid for his work - and probably doesn't know about, or
doesn't care - about the quaility of the transmission you receive. I'm sure
if that DJ got a better offer from another radio station, he'd move.
Working for a radio station (IMO) is no different to how I worked at BT, and
how most people work in their jobs. BT paid *thousands* to train me up to do
my job, and in return I had to sign a contract saying I wouldn't use these
skills elsewhere while I worked at BT.
Where's the problem?
> The Government are bringing in the Communications Bill which assumes that
> market theory (i.e. supply and demand and all that economics stuff) can be
> applied to broadcasting. They are even promoting self-regulation in
> broadcasting because they think that market forces can act on broadcasters
> just like market forces act on the sale of Heinz Baked Beans.
Quite. The Comms Bill is going to be very bad news in my opinion... OBTW -
We'd just like to point out that being a public service, this newsgroup
doesn't condone any particular brand of baked beans ;-)
> But applying market forces to the broadcasting industry in the digital age
> has already been shown to fail on delivering quality, as can be seen/heard
> on DAB in the UK.
Definetely... The regulators need some bite - but unfortunately I fear that
any type of "bite" disappeared along with the IBA (who weren't that vicious
but expected slightly higher standards than the idiots of today)
[snipped - agreed entirely]
> I was told by someone at GWR last week that the Radio "Authority" would
> prefer it if more stations used higher bit rates. No shit, they're getting
a
> load of abuse from me because of the shite decision to use 128kbps as the
> minimum bit rate for stereo music, and then they're bloody surprised that
> all the tight-arsed commercial radio stations use 128kbps, so now they're
> getting shit for the fact that all the commercial radio groups are using
the
> minimum. Aww, poor Radio "Authority".
Quite - the Radio Authority have brought this on themselves. The whole
introduction of digital radio was rushed through without consideration for
many issues, such as proper spectrum planning, "public/community access
(RSL)" access to multiplexes, commercial aspects of having station owners
ALSO operate the mux's and the decision of course to set minimum bit rates
that are dire for stereo music programming yet over generous for mono speech
programming.
They have broght any single complaint about the system upon themselves - and
I hope they drown in their own mess for it. What *SHOULD* have happened in
my opinion is that the bit rate should have been set to maximum to get the
service started, then - after extensive tests, the bit rate could have been
gradually reduced until it settled at a compromise where audio quality and
station choice were balanced in a way that the majority of users were happy
with.
Take up would have been higher too I expect...
> What I want to know is, how on earth anybody could miss the fact that the
> audio quality of 128kbps stations sounds like they're playing vinyl with a
> big piece of mud on the needle?
I've got a lot of vinyl here - much of it abused and dirty... Likewise, my
record deck needs a new cartridge and stylus - yet, at times, it still
sounds better than Radio 1 during the night. Maybe the BBC should give their
78's a go...
Mikeapollo
tony sayer
>> moss was rebuilt some years ago, and IIRC Sandy Heath was put up in
>> 1966. A relative of mine actually helped build it!..
>
>Yup, Holme Moss was rebuilt - but with a similar type of tower (I remember
>seeing both the old and new tower side by side a few moons ago!)
>
>As for the type of design used at Emley MkII, Winter Hill and the rest of
>the "pole" type tx's... I assumed it was some company that EMI may have
>gobbled up given the statement from MB21
>(http://tx.mb21.co.uk/emley/emley.asp)
Ah it was BICC I was thinking of!..
>
>"Assessing where the blame lay took rather longer than replacing the fallen
>structure. The Authority sued the main contractor, EMI, and the mast
>designers, BICC. After hearings in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and
>the House of Lords, a final judgment was delivered on 15-Mar-1980. EMI was
>found to be in breach of contract and BICC in breach of warranty and
>negligent. This established liability, but the size of damages remained the
>subject further litigation. Under an out-of-court settlement reached in the
>autumn of 1983 the Authority accepted £3.2 million to cover damages, costs
>and interest."
>
>So it was infact a BICC design... and an EMI build - Oh dear :-)
>
>And you can instantly see the flaws in the design at
>http://www.winterhill.org/transmitter.htm - where there are some slides half
>way down the page showing the building of Winter Hill...
What do you mean the curved panels?. Wasn't the failure of EM to do with
Ice load and oscillations?.
It appears that the structure, winter hill, isn't allowed to pivot with
that ring sort of base...
> No wonder
>Wrotham collapsed before it was finished!
No that was Waltham . I was working at PYE TvT when that happened 1967
IIRC..
>
>I much prefer the nice Holme Moss / Sandy Heath type lattice towers - more
>expensive to build, but they look nicer and must be easier for the engineers
>to climb!
>
Dunno about that at least your inside the mast un-exposed to the worst
of the wind...
>Mikeapollo
>
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
Nick Jeffery
> In message 4ea613cd...@wireless.demon.co.uk,
> Richard L.'s computer spewed out data that apparently looked something like
> this :
>
>>In message <vrh46v8rphod89tk6...@4ax.com>
>> Mark Parrott <mark....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>BTW, anyone know if Emily Moor is visible from the A1 near Hull?
>>
>>The A1 doesn't go anywhere near Hull. But she's a lovely girl, that
>>Emily Moor ;-)
>
> Maybe it's the M1 then? <g>
M1 is London to Leeds. Perhaps you're thinking of the M62, which runs
from Hull to Leeds, then over to the dirty side of the hills. Or maybe
it's the other way. I can't remember which way the ordering of the
junctions is.
--
Nick Jeffery.
- just a kid off england's eastern bloc
Mikeapollo
> >So it was infact a BICC design... and an EMI build - Oh dear :-)
> >
> >And you can instantly see the flaws in the design at
> >http://www.winterhill.org/transmitter.htm - where there are some slides
half
> >way down the page showing the building of Winter Hill...
>
> What do you mean the curved panels?. Wasn't the failure of EM to do with
> Ice load and oscillations?.
>
> It appears that the structure, winter hill, isn't allowed to pivot with
> that ring sort of base...
Same sort of base ;-)
No I'm thinking of the central "core" of the mast which the panels go
around. Before it was strengthened I'm sure it would be possible for an
oscillation to start in the centre, breaking the core and leaving the load
on the outside of the shaft/pole.... leading to it collapsing. Same with
weight etc of ice at the top and on the support lines etc...
All nasty stuff... I would like to see this type of mast rebuilt...
> > No wonder
> >Wrotham collapsed before it was finished!
>
> No that was Waltham . I was working at PYE TvT when that happened 1967
> IIRC..
It was, I got my "W"'s mixed up there!
Delayed things a bit didn't it ;-) I'd love to see the remains of one of
those collapsed masts just to get an idea of the scale of the destruction!
> >I much prefer the nice Holme Moss / Sandy Heath type lattice towers -
more
> >expensive to build, but they look nicer and must be easier for the
engineers
> >to climb!
>
> Dunno about that at least your inside the mast un-exposed to the worst
> of the wind...
Well, they are still quite open - just at least you can get the service lift
to the top in many of hte lattice types... or go up the "staircase" ;-)
Mikeapollo
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b3td62$k3b$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Mikeapollo wrote:
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> Just because the quality of the medium used to transmit the programme to
>>> you is not acceptable to you, why should the *DJ* move to another
>>> station, or be available on many other stations?
>>
>>
>> No, you don't get what I mean. I mean that each station has a monopoly
>> on a certain DJ (ignoring the few DJs that are on more than one station),
>> therefore if I want to listen to that DJ then I have to put up with the
>> audio quality that that station chooses to provide.
>
> No, I do understand what you mean. As I was trying to point out, if a
> station manages to get a good DJ, why shouldn't the station make them
> sign a contract to bind them to that station? It's the stations "Star
> Attraction".
Well you obviously don't understand what I'm saying then because if you did
you wouldn't have written the above paragraph.
Obviously stations want to get good DJs exclusively as a way of attracting
listeners.
My point is that if we want to listen to a certain show on a certain radio
station we then have to put up with whatever audio quality that station
*chooses* to provide us with.
So, to give you a real example, if I want to listen to Dave Mothersole on
Kiss then I HAVE TO put up with listening to Kiss at 128kbps on Freeview or
on DAB.
>> The Government are bringing in the Communications Bill which assumes that
>> market theory (i.e. supply and demand and all that economics stuff) can
>> be applied to broadcasting. They are even promoting self-regulation in
>> broadcasting because they think that market forces can act on
>> broadcasters just like market forces act on the sale of Heinz Baked
>> Beans.
>
> Quite. The Comms Bill is going to be very bad news in my opinion... OBTW -
> We'd just like to point out that being a public service, this newsgroup
> doesn't condone any particular brand of baked beans ;-)
I do; Heinz. HP are horrible.
>> I was told by someone at GWR last week that the Radio "Authority" would
>> prefer it if more stations used higher bit rates. No shit, they're
>> getting a load of abuse from me because of the shite decision to use
>> 128kbps as the minimum bit rate for stereo music, and then they're
>> bloody surprised that all the tight-arsed commercial radio stations use
>> 128kbps, so now they're getting shit for the fact that all the
>> commercial radio groups are using the minimum. Aww, poor Radio
>> "Authority".
>
> Quite - the Radio Authority have brought this on themselves. The whole
> introduction of digital radio was rushed through without consideration for
> many issues, such as proper spectrum planning, "public/community access
> (RSL)" access to multiplexes, commercial aspects of having station owners
> ALSO operate the mux's and the decision of course to set minimum bit rates
> that are dire for stereo music programming yet over generous for mono
> speech programming.
Yes, the multiplexes shouldn't be allocated on the basis of providing lots
of stations.
> They have broght any single complaint about the system upon themselves -
> and I hope they drown in their own mess for it. What *SHOULD* have
> happened in my opinion is that the bit rate should have been set to
> maximum to get the service started, then - after extensive tests, the bit
> rate could have been gradually reduced until it settled at a compromise
> where audio quality and station choice were balanced in a way that the
> majority of users were happy with.
We all know that the minimum bit rate for stereo music should be 160kbps.
> Take up would have been higher too I expect...
We wouldn't be having this discussion, there wouldn't have been any negative
press about the crap audio quality of DAB etc etc, so absolutely, take-up
would have been much better.
>> What I want to know is, how on earth anybody could miss the fact that the
>> audio quality of 128kbps stations sounds like they're playing vinyl with
>> a big piece of mud on the needle?
>
> I've got a lot of vinyl here - much of it abused and dirty... Likewise, my
> record deck needs a new cartridge and stylus - yet, at times, it still
> sounds better than Radio 1 during the night. Maybe the BBC should give
> their 78's a go...
I take it your 36p hasn't bought you a Freeview box yet, because on Freeview
Radio 1 sounds simply superb. ;)
Mark Carver
>>> In message <vrh46v8rphod89tk6...@4ax.com>
>>> Mark Parrott <mark....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, anyone know if Emily Moor is visible from the A1 near Hull?
>>>
>>> The A1 doesn't go anywhere near Hull. But she's a lovely girl, that
>>> Emily Moor ;-)
>>
>> Maybe it's the M1 then? <g>
>
> M1 is London to Leeds. Perhaps you're thinking of the M62, which runs
> from Hull to Leeds, then over to the dirty side of the hills. Or
> maybe it's the other way. I can't remember which way the ordering of the
> junctions is.
You can see EM from the M1 just after Sheffield (going north). It suddenly
pokes its head up over a ridge. ISTR also visible straight ahead coming out of
Bradford southbound on the M606.
Mark (who really should spend more time looking at the traffic in front while driving)
tony sayer
<use...@mikeapollo.net> writes
>
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:xUq$rhAwGq...@bancom.co.uk...
>> >So it was infact a BICC design... and an EMI build - Oh dear :-)
>> >
>> >And you can instantly see the flaws in the design at
>> >http://www.winterhill.org/transmitter.htm - where there are some slides
>half
>> >way down the page showing the building of Winter Hill...
>>
>> What do you mean the curved panels?. Wasn't the failure of EM to do with
>> Ice load and oscillations?.
>>
>> It appears that the structure, winter hill, isn't allowed to pivot with
>> that ring sort of base...
>
>Same sort of base ;-)
>
>No I'm thinking of the central "core" of the mast which the panels go
>around. Before it was strengthened I'm sure it would be possible for an
>oscillation to start in the centre, breaking the core and leaving the load
>on the outside of the shaft/pole.... leading to it collapsing. Same with
>weight etc of ice at the top and on the support lines etc...
I wasn't sure that sure that they used a core all the way up?..
>
>All nasty stuff... I would like to see this type of mast rebuilt...
Well they've been fine now for quite some time. Just cos Mendip needs
some paint doesn't mean it isn't maintained otherwise..
>
>> > No wonder
>> >Wrotham collapsed before it was finished!
>>
>> No that was Waltham . I was working at PYE TvT when that happened 1967
>> IIRC..
>
>It was, I got my "W"'s mixed up there!
>
>Delayed things a bit didn't it ;-) I'd love to see the remains of one of
>those collapsed masts just to get an idea of the scale of the destruction!
>
Well there's quite a bit on EM on MB's site. And there was then one that
collapsed in the states a while ago quite nasty killed some
engineers:-((..
>> >I much prefer the nice Holme Moss / Sandy Heath type lattice towers -
>more
>> >expensive to build, but they look nicer and must be easier for the
>engineers
>> >to climb!
>>
>> Dunno about that at least your inside the mast un-exposed to the worst
>> of the wind...
>
>Well, they are still quite open - just at least you can get the service lift
>to the top in many of hte lattice types... or go up the "staircase" ;-)
>
>Mikeapollo
>
>
Well I know that Sandy Heath hasn't got a lift or Tacolneston or Sudbury
unless they've put them in, in recent years. Can't say I've seen the
staircase either unless you mean the self supporting types....
--
Tony Sayer
Diphthong
> davidr...@postmaster.co.uk (David Robinson) wrote in message news:<cd71db10.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> > Secondly, the "blocks"
> > never hit the encoder in the same way on one pass and the next. So the
> > coding noise that was in this frequency band and at this time will
> > almost always straggle two time domain blocks when it's re-encoded.
> > Even in the frequency domain, they're not really block, they're
> > overlapping windows, so the noise can easily spread from the intended
> > "block" to another, and then another, and then another when
> > transcoding.
>
> Thanks for that, it's obvious now but I hadn't really thought about it
> before. Thanks for highlighting that!
>
> Out of interest, in video systems, is the sound 'blocked' in synch with
> the video frames, so that sort of thing doesn't happen?
Either we've no great experts here or I've been sent to Coventry...
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
How's the weather in Coventry today? ;)
Mikeapollo
> My point is that if we want to listen to a certain show on a certain radio
> station we then have to put up with whatever audio quality that station
> *chooses* to provide us with.
Yes and that is technically there right!!
> So, to give you a real example, if I want to listen to Dave Mothersole on
> Kiss then I HAVE TO put up with listening to Kiss at 128kbps on Freeview
or
> on DAB.
So? Complain to Dave Mothersole - he is probably very happy working at that
station but no-one is making him work there with a gun against his head!!!
Your angry about WHY someone you like to listen to is stuck in poor quality
and locked into a station contract with Kiss... The reason is that if
stations LIKE Kiss didn't sign up people like that then they would not have
any thing to offer anyone. They'd become Galaxy or Smash Hits...
> I take it your 36p hasn't bought you a Freeview box yet, because on
Freeview
> Radio 1 sounds simply superb. ;)
Sadly not... Looks like I now have a serious risk of bankrupcy at the the
moment... But, as if life!
Mikeapollo
Nick Jeffery
> Well there's quite a bit on EM on MB's site. And there was then one that
> collapsed in the states a while ago quite nasty killed some
> engineers:-((..
And not forgetting the WTC, obviously.
--
Nick Jeffery.
DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK
> "DAB sounds worse than FM, in the UK"
> <info@remove_this.digitalradiotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b3v0ch$cl$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> My point is that if we want to listen to a certain show on a certain
>> radio station we then have to put up with whatever audio quality that
>> station
>> *chooses* to provide us with.
>
> Yes and that is technically there right!!
Er, "their right".
>> So, to give you a real example, if I want to listen to Dave Mothersole on
>> Kiss then I HAVE TO put up with listening to Kiss at 128kbps on Freeview
>> or on DAB.
>
> So? Complain to Dave Mothersole - he is probably very happy working at
> that station but no-one is making him work there with a gun against his
> head!!!
WTF are you going on about? How is Dave Mothersole going to increase the bit
rate of Kiss on DAB or Freeview?????
> Your angry
"You're angry", not "your angry".
> about WHY someone you like to listen to is stuck in poor
> quality and locked into a station contract with Kiss...
No, you still don't get it. I've got no problem with him being on Kiss, I've
got a problem with the fact that Kiss uses 128kbps. Isn't that abundantly
clear?
> The reason is
> that if stations LIKE Kiss didn't sign up people like that then they
> would not have any thing to offer anyone. They'd become Galaxy or Smash
> Hits...
Galaxy has some decent DJs at the weekend actually.
But I never accept the argument that we should be thankful for what we're
provided with.
Mark Parrott
I know it doesn't, but for me to get to hull I go up the A1 & turn off
near Doncaster. Bit of a long way round, but it's quicker than the
A15 through Lincolnshire.
Marky P.