Bitrate capability of DAB radios

[Scott]

Just a reminder that the BBC Trust consultation closes on Wednesday.

Could someone let me know if most DAB radios can cope with a bitrate
of 224 kbps or higher? I know they can manage 192 kbps as this is
used by Radio 3.

I can't see any point in extending this thread into a general
discussion of DAB quality, as this has been discussed many times
already and clearly there are differing views on the subject.

Thanks
Scott

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, December 18th, 2011, at 13:17:20h +0000, Scott asked:

> Could someone let me know if most DAB radios can cope with a bitrate
> of 224 kbps or higher?

I *thought* almost all models which have been sold in the UKofGB&NI
could only manage 192 kbps maximum.

Remember, the higher the bit rate, the higher the processing power
which means a more expensive chip and higher power needs (higher
drain on batteries).

[Nick_G]

The Arcam models can do up to 256k (at least the Alpha 10 can). But
yes I believe 192k is the maximum on most.

[Richard Evans]

And of course most models are built as cheaply as possible.

[Silk]

And I suppose FM radios have always been the pinacle of cost-no-object
excellence.

[Richard Evans]

No, there is a great deal of variety in the quality of FM radios.
However since FM receivers are relatively easy to build, a 20 quid FM
radio is usually far higher quality than a 20 quid DAB radio.

[Silk]

No, you can buy a cheap FM radio for a fiver and a cheap DAB radio will
cost about 20 quid. Once you start going up the price range the
production cost differential is less of an issue. A 100 quid FM radio
will be on a par, build-wise, with a 100 quid DAB radio. Besides, FM
only radios are becoming rarer these days. The general public tend to
like radios that work reliably in hostile environments such as offices,
shops and kitchens, as well as in the home as something on in the
background while they're busy doing something else - for this, DAB is a
godsend.

[Richard Evans]

On 08/01/2012 21:12, Silk wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 17:57, Richard Evans wrote:
>> On 08/01/2012 17:19, Silk wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2011 20:02, Richard Evans wrote:
>>>> On 18/12/2011 14:39, Nick_G wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The Arcam models can do up to 256k (at least the Alpha 10 can). But
>>>>> yes I believe 192k is the maximum on most.
>>>>
>>>> And of course most models are built as cheaply as possible.
>>>
>>> And I suppose FM radios have always been the pinacle of cost-no-object
>>> excellence.
>>
>> No, there is a great deal of variety in the quality of FM radios.
>> However since FM receivers are relatively easy to build, a 20 quid FM
>> radio is usually far higher quality than a 20 quid DAB radio.
>
> No, you can buy a cheap FM radio for a fiver and a cheap DAB radio will
> cost about 20 quid. Once you start going up the price range the
> production cost differential is less of an issue. A 100 quid FM radio
> will be on a par, build-wise,

I don't disagree, but this is not the point I was answering.

> with a 100 quid DAB radio. Besides, FM
> only radios are becoming rarer these days. The general public tend to
> like radios that work reliably in hostile environments such as offices,
> shops and kitchens, as well as in the home as something on in the
> background while they're busy doing something else - for this, DAB is a
> godsend.

I don't follow your logic here. For sound in the background portable FM
receivers are just as good as DAB portables. Also in poor signal areas,
in door DAB reception tends to be a lot poorer than FM reception.

Richard E.

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, January 8th, 2012, at 21:32:45h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

> Also in poor signal areas, in door DAB reception tends to
> be a lot poorer than FM reception.

Depends on what you mean by poor.

Regardless of the sound quality of what DAB offers,
DAB reception is generally much more robust than FM reception,
provided that there is sufficient signal strength.

With a weak signal, you will get hiss on FM especially
for sterephonic reception which requires a much higher
level of signal than for monophonic reproduction, whereas
on DAB you will either get the "perfect" reception and
no hiss, borderline bubbling mud, or no reception at all.

[tony sayer]

In article <jed7m6$r65$2...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
scribeth thus

>On Sunday, January 8th, 2012, at 21:32:45h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> Also in poor signal areas, in door DAB reception tends to
>> be a lot poorer than FM reception.
>
>Depends on what you mean by poor.
>
>Regardless of the sound quality of what DAB offers,
>DAB reception is generally much more robust than FM reception,
>provided that there is sufficient signal strength.

Which is the same as saying

"FM reception is robust providing there is sufficient signal strength"

>
>With a weak signal, you will get hiss on FM especially
>for sterephonic reception which requires a much higher
>level of signal than for monophonic reproduction,

Whereas FM will commute it to mono if it hasn't enough signal strength.

>whereas
>on DAB you will either get the "perfect" reception and
>no hiss, borderline bubbling mud, or no reception at all.

And more likely these days Mono, and a rather "perfickly" received
sodded up audio..
--
Tony Sayer

[J G Miller]

On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 10:26:58h +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:

> In article <jed7m6$r65$2...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
> scribeth thus
>

>>Regardless of the sound quality of what DAB offers, DAB reception is
>>generally much more robust than FM reception, provided that there is
>>sufficient signal strength.
>
> Which is the same as saying
>
> "FM reception is robust providing there is sufficient signal strength"

No it is not, because you can have lots of signal strength for an
FM broadcast but it sounds really bad because of multipath distortion.

And you still not significantly more signal strength for hiss free
FM stereophonic recption than you do for monophonic reception, whereas
with DAB it does not matter if it is stereo or monophonic, it is always
hiss free.

> Whereas FM will commute it to mono if it hasn't enough signal strength.

That is a function in the receiver, and as I keep repeating it is quite
possible for there to be enough signal to turn on the stereo pilot light
and put the receiver into stereophic mode, but there is noticeable hiss.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:53:06 +0000 (UTC)

J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:

>And you still not significantly more signal strength for hiss free
>FM stereophonic recption than you do for monophonic reception, whereas
>with DAB it does not matter if it is stereo or monophonic, it is always
>hiss free.

But still sounds shit. I'll take hiss over compression distortion any day.

>That is a function in the receiver, and as I keep repeating it is quite
>possible for there to be enough signal to turn on the stereo pilot light
>and put the receiver into stereophic mode, but there is noticeable hiss.

The FM receiver in my nokia phone exhibits the opposite problem. It hardly
ever switches into stereo mode. The only time its done it reliably is when
I was in direct line of site of a transmitter a few miles away. Frankly I
wish receiver manufacturers would go back to making mono/stereo a manual
option instead of trying to make receivers "intelligent". Because invariably
they arn't.

B2003

[tony sayer]

In article <jeev0i$1cq$1...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>

scribeth thus
>On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 10:26:58h +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:
>
>> In article <jed7m6$r65$2...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
>> scribeth thus
>>
>>>Regardless of the sound quality of what DAB offers, DAB reception is
>>>generally much more robust than FM reception, provided that there is
>>>sufficient signal strength.
>>
>> Which is the same as saying
>>
>> "FM reception is robust providing there is sufficient signal strength"
>
>No it is not, because you can have lots of signal strength for an
>FM broadcast but it sounds really bad because of multipath distortion.

Not that often 'tho.. However You can get bit rate distortion all the
time with DAB .. guaranteed;!...

>
>And you still not significantly more signal strength for hiss free
>FM stereophonic recption than you do for monophonic reception, whereas
>with DAB it does not matter if it is stereo or monophonic, it is always
>hiss free.

Unless its a 'bubblin and dropping and its always got that bitsless
sound..

>
>> Whereas FM will commute it to mono if it hasn't enough signal strength.
>
>That is a function in the receiver, and as I keep repeating it is quite
>possible for there to be enough signal to turn on the stereo pilot light
>and put the receiver into stereophic mode, but there is noticeable hiss.

What's worse, sometimes odd hiss or constant Dab bit bubble?..

--
Tony Sayer

[J G Miller]

On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 19:51:46h +0000, Tony Sayer exclaimed:

> You can get bit rate distortion all the time with DAB .. guaranteed;!...

That is not under discussion.

Which part of

"Regardless of the sound quality of what DAB offers"

did you and Silk not understand.

> Unless its a 'bubblin and dropping and its always got that bitsless
> sound..

Which part of

"whereas on DAB you will either get the "perfect" reception
and no hiss, borderline bubbling mud, or no reception at all."

did you fail to read?

> What's worse, sometimes odd hiss or constant Dab bit bubble?..

A little hiss on FM is tolerable but "sqelchies" due to multipath
is just as annoying as borderline DAB reception, but borderline
DAB reception is usually easier to remedy than multipath on FM
reception.

Again, to reiterate, there is no dispute that the final sound quality
offered by DAB as implemented in the UKofGB&NI is below standard and not
as good as can be received with a good VHF band II antenna and
quality FM tuner, but that was NOT the topic under discussion
to which I responded.

[tony sayer]

In article <jefhc9$njt$1...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
scribeth thus

>On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 19:51:46h +0000, Tony Sayer exclaimed:
>
>> You can get bit rate distortion all the time with DAB .. guaranteed;!...
>
>That is not under discussion.

Yes you mentioned distortion..

>
>Which part of
>
> "Regardless of the sound quality of what DAB offers"
>
>did you and Silk not understand.
>
>> Unless its a 'bubblin and dropping and its always got that bitsless
>> sound..
>
>Which part of
>
> "whereas on DAB you will either get the "perfect" reception
> and no hiss, borderline bubbling mud, or no reception at all."
>
>did you fail to read?

All of it and?..

>
>> What's worse, sometimes odd hiss or constant Dab bit bubble?..
>
>A little hiss on FM is tolerable but "sqelchies" due to multipath
>is just as annoying as borderline DAB reception,


>but borderline
>DAB reception is usually easier to remedy than multipath on FM
>reception.
>

Yes, switch to fM;)..

>Again, to reiterate, there is no dispute that the final sound quality
>offered by DAB as implemented in the UKofGB&NI is below standard and not
>as good as can be received with a good VHF band II antenna and
>quality FM tuner, but that was NOT the topic under discussion
>to which I responded.

Well thats all true 'tho;!...
--
Tony Sayer

[Silk]

On 09/01/2012 15:04, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 14:53:06 +0000 (UTC)
> J G Miller<mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>> And you still not significantly more signal strength for hiss free
>> FM stereophonic recption than you do for monophonic reception, whereas
>> with DAB it does not matter if it is stereo or monophonic, it is always
>> hiss free.
>
> But still sounds shit. I'll take hiss over compression distortion any day.

I'll take robustness over multi-path and intermittent hiss and drop-out
any day.

I don't know why, in this day and age, you need to listen to "off-air"
radio anyway, apart from speech based radio where bit-rate is less of a
problem. Radio 5 at 80K mono actually sounds rather good in the car. For
everything else, I have podcasts and Spotify.

[Silk]

On 09/01/2012 19:51, tony sayer wrote:

> Not that often 'tho.. However You can get bit rate distortion all the
> time with DAB .. guaranteed;!...

Radio 5 DAB doesn't sound distorted.

> Unless its a 'bubblin and dropping and its always got that bitsless
> sound..

How would you describe this imaginary "bitsless sound"?

> What's worse, sometimes odd hiss or constant Dab bit bubble?..

Sometimes hiss and lots of times multipath.

[Silk]

On 09/01/2012 20:06, J G Miller wrote:
> On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 19:51:46h +0000, Tony Sayer exclaimed:
>
>> You can get bit rate distortion all the time with DAB .. guaranteed;!...
>
> That is not under discussion.
>
> Which part of
>
> "Regardless of the sound quality of what DAB offers"
>
> did you and Silk not understand.

Oi! I'm on your side!

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:26:38 +0000
Silk <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>I don't know why, in this day and age, you need to listen to "off-air"
>radio anyway, apart from speech based radio where bit-rate is less of a
>problem. Radio 5 at 80K mono actually sounds rather good in the car. For

Compared to MW it probably does. If DAB was intended to be a MW replacement
then I don't think anyone would have cause for complaint.

B2003

[Silk]

On balance, I still say DAB is better than FM in the car. I prefer Radio
4 on DAB to FM and never find myself reaching for FM when I'm listening
to Radio 2 on DAB. Most car systems simply aren't good enough for the
differences in the front-end to be that noticable.

At home, I have the luxury of a decent HiFi and don't need to put up
with the shorcomings of either system, thanks to the Internet.

[J G Miller]

On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 21:02:59h +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:

> Yes, switch to fM;)..

That is the totally sad thing about DAB as implemented in the
UKofGB&NI -- it offers better reception and if it had been
regulated for quality rather than commercial exploitation
purely to make lots of profits for the multiplex operators,
it could have offered a sound quality better than that of FM
and near-CD quality as originally intended.

Instead as with DVB as implemented in the UKofGB&NI,
quality is ignored and as many stations crammed in as possible
resulting in a low grade service all under the deceit of
the consumer wants choice of numerous stations all sounding
the same and +1 repeats, nevermind the quality.

Now please remind us how Classic FM ruin the quality of
the music with their over-processing and just how bad that
sounds on FM ...

[tony sayer]

In article <jehpf5$kdj$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>
scribeth thus

>On 10/01/2012 16:30, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:26:38 +0000
>> Silk<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> I don't know why, in this day and age, you need to listen to "off-air"
>>> radio anyway, apart from speech based radio where bit-rate is less of a
>>> problem. Radio 5 at 80K mono actually sounds rather good in the car. For
>>
>> Compared to MW it probably does. If DAB was intended to be a MW replacement
>> then I don't think anyone would have cause for complaint.
>
>On balance, I still say DAB is better than FM in the car. I prefer Radio
>4 on DAB to FM and never find myself reaching for FM when I'm listening
>to Radio 2 on DAB. Most car systems simply aren't good enough for the
>differences in the front-end to be that noticable.
>

Get yourself a decent car and DAB receiver. The one in our A6 easily
shows up the differences between BBC Radio 2 on VHF and the short
comings of DAB reproduction ...

>At home, I have the luxury of a decent HiFi and don't need to put up
>with the shorcomings of either system, thanks to the Internet.

Humm .. for all available stations?...
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jehs9q$rhm$1...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
scribeth thus

>On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 21:02:59h +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:
>
>> Yes, switch to fM;)..
>
>That is the totally sad thing about DAB as implemented in the
>UKofGB&NI -- it offers better reception and if it had been
>regulated for quality rather than commercial exploitation
>purely to make lots of profits for the multiplex operators,
>it could have offered a sound quality better than that of FM
>and near-CD quality as originally intended.

Indeed..

>
>Instead as with DVB as implemented in the UKofGB&NI,
>quality is ignored and as many stations crammed in as possible
>resulting in a low grade service all under the deceit of
>the consumer wants choice of numerous stations all sounding
>the same and +1 repeats, nevermind the quality.

Yes...

>
>Now please remind us how Classic FM ruin the quality of
>the music with their over-processing and just how bad that
>sounds on FM ...

Take that up with who set the processor on Classic fM.

It's not the transmission equipment thats ruining it...


--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jehovt$ibm$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net> scribeth
thus

>On 09/01/2012 19:51, tony sayer wrote:
>
>> Not that often 'tho.. However You can get bit rate distortion all the
>> time with DAB .. guaranteed;!...
>
>Radio 5 DAB doesn't sound distorted.

Suggest that your standards and mine are somewhat removed from each other..

>
>
>> Unless its a 'bubblin and dropping and its always got that bitsless
>> sound..
>
>How would you describe this imaginary "bitsless sound"?

Listen to it . Its an artificial sound, it doesn't appear in nature;(..

>
>> What's worse, sometimes odd hiss or constant Dab bit bubble?..
>
>Sometimes hiss and lots of times multipath.

You really must live in a very bad area if its that much of a problem for
you..
>
>

--
Tony Sayer

[Silk]

On 10/01/2012 18:00, tony sayer wrote:
> In article<jehovt$ibm$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk<m...@privacy.net> scribeth
> thus
>> On 09/01/2012 19:51, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>>> Not that often 'tho.. However You can get bit rate distortion all the
>>> time with DAB .. guaranteed;!...
>>
>> Radio 5 DAB doesn't sound distorted.
>
> Suggest that your standards and mine are somewhat removed from each other..

Don't be ridiculous. You know full well that R5 sounds excellent on DAB.
Either your ears are in need of medical attention or you're making
things up to cause an argument.

>>
>>> Unless its a 'bubblin and dropping and its always got that bitsless
>>> sound..
>>
>> How would you describe this imaginary "bitsless sound"?
>
> Listen to it . Its an artificial sound, it doesn't appear in nature;(..

Have you parted company with your marbles? You're talking nonsense... again.

>
>>
>>> What's worse, sometimes odd hiss or constant Dab bit bubble?..
>>
>> Sometimes hiss and lots of times multipath.
>
> You really must live in a very bad area if its that much of a problem for
> you..

I have DAB in the car, you fool. I drive around the country. What do you
think I do, sit in the car listening to the radio all day without going
anywhere?

[Silk]

On 10/01/2012 17:56, tony sayer wrote:

> Get yourself a decent car and DAB receiver. The one in our A6 easily
> shows up the differences between BBC Radio 2 on VHF and the short
> comings of DAB reproduction ...

The human brain is a wonderful thing (even your somewhat limited one).
It plays tricks on you. You want DAB to sound bad, and that's what you
hear. I have an open mind, so I'm more objective.

>
>> At home, I have the luxury of a decent HiFi and don't need to put up
>> with the shorcomings of either system, thanks to the Internet.
>
> Humm .. for all available stations?...

All the ones I want to listen to.

[Scott]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:44:27 +0000, Silk <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 10/01/2012 17:56, tony sayer wrote:
>
>> Get yourself a decent car and DAB receiver. The one in our A6 easily
>> shows up the differences between BBC Radio 2 on VHF and the short
>> comings of DAB reproduction ...
>
>The human brain is a wonderful thing (even your somewhat limited one).
>It plays tricks on you. You want DAB to sound bad, and that's what you
>hear. I have an open mind, so I'm more objective.
>>

Why were the bitrates a minimum of 192 kbps when DAB was first
introduced based on research carried out in the Eureka 147 project? Is
that because all the scientists and engineers involved were
incompetent and you know better?

[Silk]

It's because when it was tested on real people using typical DAB radios,
most people couldn't tell the difference between 192K and 128K. The BBC
similcast for a time at 192K and 128K and, although I could tell the
difference on my Pure DAB seperate tuner, I couldn't really tell on my
Wavefinder running through computer speakers.

It's a similar thing with HDTV. I know pleny of people who can't tell
the difference between HD and SD, especially on a normal size TV.

For what it's worth, I can tell the difference between DAB and a better
quality Internet feed when I'm listening to my HiFi at home (which is
why I got rid of my DAB tuner), but I can't tell the difference between
DAB and FM in the car, appart from noticing the lack of multi-path
crackle and pops on R4 when I switch to DAB.

Just because something should be so in theory, doesn't make it so in
practice.

[Richard Evans]

On 08/01/2012 23:08, J G Miller wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8th, 2012, at 21:32:45h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> Also in poor signal areas, in door DAB reception tends to
>> be a lot poorer than FM reception.
>
> Depends on what you mean by poor.
>
> Regardless of the sound quality of what DAB offers,
> DAB reception is generally much more robust than FM reception,
> provided that there is sufficient signal strength.

Actually, from when I used to listen to DAB in the car, I think it
depends a lot upon whether you have signals from different directions.
Hence reception of the national multiplexes was often surprisingly
robust. However, going away from London, tuned to a London Multiplex,
hence so most of the signals were only coming from one direction, and
the signal would be very patchy.

I have a feeling that I was actually talking about indoor portable
radios here, and DAB is often very poor on indoor portables. Also since
many portable FM radios don't produce a good stereo image, you might as
well use them in mono, and FM mono tends to be very robust.

>
> With a weak signal, you will get hiss on FM especially
> for sterephonic reception which requires a much higher
> level of signal than for monophonic reproduction, whereas
> on DAB you will either get the "perfect" reception and
> no hiss, borderline bubbling mud, or no reception at all.

I think most in car FM receivers these days deal with weak FM signals,
by reducing the stereo image and/or reducing the amount of treble. Both
these techniques make it possible to receive quite weak signals without
any significant hiss.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 09/01/2012 14:53, J G Miller wrote:
> On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 10:26:58h +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:
>
>> In article<jed7m6$r65$2...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller<mil...@yoyo.ORG>
>> scribeth thus
>>
>>> Regardless of the sound quality of what DAB offers, DAB reception is
>>> generally much more robust than FM reception, provided that there is
>>> sufficient signal strength.
>>
>> Which is the same as saying
>>
>> "FM reception is robust providing there is sufficient signal strength"
>
> No it is not, because you can have lots of signal strength for an
> FM broadcast but it sounds really bad because of multipath distortion.

I don't find FM multipath to be all that bad. Obviously there could be
extreme cases, but most of the time I find it is not even noticeable
without a hi-fi system.

>
> And you still not significantly more signal strength for hiss free
> FM stereophonic recption than you do for monophonic reception, whereas
> with DAB it does not matter if it is stereo or monophonic, it is always
> hiss free.

Well previously you said "regardless of quality". But how can you ignore
quality, and not ignore hiss. I find hiss far less annoying, than the
flatness of the DAB stereo image, or the compression artifacts.

>
>> Whereas FM will commute it to mono if it hasn't enough signal strength.
>
> That is a function in the receiver, and as I keep repeating it is quite
> possible for there to be enough signal to turn on the stereo pilot light
> and put the receiver into stereophic mode, but there is noticeable hiss.

Well probably possible in theory, but I have never known my car stereo
to do that. So I reckon it must be rare for it to happen in the real world.

Richard E.

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

"Silk" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:jehoqj$ibm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> I'll take robustness over multi-path and intermittent hiss and drop-out
> any day.

FM is acceptable anywhere in the house.
DAB is intermittent unless the radio is near a window.

I can carry my FM radio up the stairs and not miss a word. Not always so
with DAB.

It's no good saying wow look DAB can manage with a much weaker signal and
then installing much weaker transmitters.
The planners are clearly idiots.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
n...@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

[Richard Evans]

On 10/01/2012 16:37, Silk wrote:

> On balance, I still say DAB is better than FM in the car. I prefer Radio
> 4 on DAB to FM and never find myself reaching for FM when I'm listening
> to Radio 2 on DAB. Most car systems simply aren't good enough for the
> differences in the front-end to be that noticable.

It was dead obvious on my Blaupunkt (or however that should be spelt).
Listening to DAB was actually tiring, and then one day I realized that
switching to FM was a huge relief.

[Richard Evans]

On 10/01/2012 20:44, Silk wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 17:56, tony sayer wrote:

>
> The human brain is a wonderful thing (even your somewhat limited one).
> It plays tricks on you. You want DAB to sound bad, and that's what you
> hear. I have an open mind, so I'm more objective.

Trouble is, the human brain gets too good at spotting the defects in
poor quality lossy audio, which is possibly why listening to it causes
fatigue. The brain ends up trying to hard, and ends up getting tired.

If there are no artifacts, then the brain relaxes much more, and the
listening experience becomes far more relaxing and enjoyable.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 10/01/2012 17:25, J G Miller wrote:
> On Monday, January 9th, 2012, at 21:02:59h +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:
>
>> Yes, switch to fM;)..
>
> That is the totally sad thing about DAB as implemented in the
> UKofGB&NI -- it offers better reception and if it had been
> regulated for quality rather than commercial exploitation
> purely to make lots of profits for the multiplex operators,
> it could have offered a sound quality better than that of FM
> and near-CD quality as originally intended.

This I totally agree with. DAB was designed to provide good sound
quality while in the car, but this is not how it ended up being used.
These days DAB ends up sounding substantially worse than FM (most of the
time), which as far as I'm concerned, defeats the object of having DAB.
If DAB sounds worse than FM, we might as well just stick with FM.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 10/01/2012 22:08, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

>
> It's no good saying wow look DAB can manage with a much weaker signal and
> then installing much weaker transmitters.
> The planners are clearly idiots.
>

The problem here is that the DAB transmissions were specifically
designed for in car reception, but they ended up being used for in door
portable reception, and in door portable requires much higher signal
level than in car.

Of course they say that plan to sort out the DAB signals, and perhaps
they will, they do seem to be adding a few DAB transmitter sites.

Although as far as I'm concerned, this is all academic, as they have
done nothing about the poor audio quality. It was the poor DAB sound
quality that dove me back to FM.

Richard E.

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, January 10th, 2012, at 18:00:54h +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:

> Suggest that your standards and mine are somewhat removed from each
> other..

But remember that for speech, it is possible to use a lower
bit rate than for music.

So BBC Radio 4 speech programs, BBC Radio 5 speech programs, and
BBC World Service speech programs (which are in monophonic anyways)
are generally acceptable at the bit rates used on DAB.

[J G Miller]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:09:10 +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

> I don't find FM multipath to be all that bad.

Not in your location for reception from Wrotham. For most
people at home with a proper VHF Band II antenna (not a horrible
bit of pink plastic coated wire dangling from the wall) then
reception of the four BBC network services will not have this
problem.

> Well previously you said "regardless of quality". But how can you ignore
> quality, and not ignore hiss.

Because the hiss is a fundamental aspect of the method of transmission
whereas encoding artifacts are dependent on the bit rate allocated by
the multiplex operator.

> I find hiss far less annoying, than the flatness of the DAB stereo image,
> or the compression artifacts.

I did not suggest that other factors as you described were not more important
overall, my comments were purely in terms of what DAB reception can provide,
not the low quality which it is used to deliver in the UKofGB&NI.

> Well probably possible in theory, but I have never known my car stereo
> to do that. So I reckon it must be rare for it to happen in the real
> world.

You do not notice it because you probably only listen to BBC network
radio and not distant local stations in your automobile.

[Scott]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 23:37:29 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

That's a matter for debate. I would agree that 128 kbps if probably
acceptable for Radio 4 speech (though there are music programmes also,
such as Desert Island Discs) but 64 kbps for World Service is grating
and sounds poor even for speech. What about music on WS? The bitrate
remains at 64 kbps which is clearly unacceptable.

[J G Miller]

On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:07:06h +0000, Scott wrote:

> That's a matter for debate.

Well it always is, is it not?

> I would agree that 128 kbps if probably acceptable for Radio 4 speech

128 kbps is not just acceptable for speech but is more than adequate,
and of course this higher rate is necessary for speech on Radio 4
because of the stereo content.

> (though there are music programmes also,

Yes and as I said my comments were only concerned with speech content.

> but 64 kbps for World Service is grating and sounds poor even for speech.

I may be wrong but the sound quality of the distributed BBC World Service
feed is not up to the same quality as BBC Radio 4. When I have heard
BBC World Service on DAB I have not noticed it to be grating as you claim,
although it is possible. But it is a definite improvement over reception
on MF and HF (and yes that is not saying anything in favor of the low
quality of DAB).

> What about music on WS?

How many times did I have to say in my original posting that my comments
only applied to speech? Also remember that music on BBC World Service
is only monophonic.

> The bitrate remains at 64 kbps which is clearly unacceptable.

I would be more concerned about the lowering of the bit rate on BBC Radio 3
when Radio 4 LW service or it is BBC Radio 5SX goes on the air, as well as
borderline quality for BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 which are music stations,
and monophonic only BBC Radio 4X, many of whose programs are stereophonic,
rather than the bonus feature of BBC World Service.

In fact it could be argued that BBC World Service should be pulled from
DAB and the bandwidth used to improve the quality of the national networks.

But would that generate more or fewer listeners for the BBC who are now
more concerned with ratings rather than audio quality or even program
content quality.

Without consistently high listening levels, the BBC regards itself as
vulnerable to attack from the anti-PSB funding brigade.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:07:06 +0000
Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>That's a matter for debate. I would agree that 128 kbps if probably
>acceptable for Radio 4 speech (though there are music programmes also,
>such as Desert Island Discs) but 64 kbps for World Service is grating
>and sounds poor even for speech. What about music on WS? The bitrate
>remains at 64 kbps which is clearly unacceptable.

If you think 64 is bad for speech try listening to music with it. They've
ruined Chill (perhaps that's the intention?) but reducing it from 128 to 80
and now 64. Any quiet ambient tracks are ruined by bubbling mud.

B2003

[tony sayer]

In article <jei7tv$pjh$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>
scribeth thus

>On 10/01/2012 17:56, tony sayer wrote:
>
>> Get yourself a decent car and DAB receiver. The one in our A6 easily
>> shows up the differences between BBC Radio 2 on VHF and the short
>> comings of DAB reproduction ...
>
>The human brain is a wonderful thing (even your somewhat limited one).

Course insults prove that your argument isn't that good a one..

>
>It plays tricks on you. You want DAB to sound bad, and that's what you
>hear. I have an open mind, so I'm more objective.

Seems however that its not only me who's thus "affected".

In the instance in question one Saturday afternoon there was a programme
on the rock band "Queen" on BBC Radio 2. Several of their prominent
tracks were being played and I had Two friends with me both work in
broadcast and audio engineering.

Switching between fM ands DAB there was a very marked contrast in the
audio. All of us thought that the fM was far closer to the CD version of
the tracks played. Now of course we couldn't compare with the original
as we simply didn't have them but these have been around since the 70's
and are very well known. The DAB sounded very different rather like it
wasn't all there..

Course I now suppose that all of us were being deluded;?...

>>
>>> At home, I have the luxury of a decent HiFi and don't need to put up
>>> with the shorcomings of either system, thanks to the Internet.

Yes fine provided that sufficient bits are being sent;!...

>>
>> Humm .. for all available stations?...
>
>All the ones I want to listen to.

--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jeibt0$3t0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>
scribeth thus

>On 10/01/2012 21:09, Scott wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:44:27 +0000, Silk<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/01/2012 17:56, tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Get yourself a decent car and DAB receiver. The one in our A6 easily
>>>> shows up the differences between BBC Radio 2 on VHF and the short
>>>> comings of DAB reproduction ...
>>>
>>> The human brain is a wonderful thing (even your somewhat limited one).
>>> It plays tricks on you. You want DAB to sound bad, and that's what you
>>> hear. I have an open mind, so I'm more objective.
>>>>
>> Why were the bitrates a minimum of 192 kbps when DAB was first
>> introduced based on research carried out in the Eureka 147 project? Is
>> that because all the scientists and engineers involved were
>> incompetent and you know better?
>
>It's because when it was tested on real people using typical DAB radios,
>most people couldn't tell the difference between 192K and 128K. The BBC
>similcast for a time at 192K and 128K and, although I could tell the
>difference on my Pure DAB seperate tuner,

You went a "real person" then;?...

> I couldn't really tell on my
>Wavefinder running through computer speakers.
>
>It's a similar thing with HDTV. I know pleny of people who can't tell
>the difference between HD and SD, especially on a normal size TV.

Yes cos the HD isn't proper HD a lot of the time...

>
>For what it's worth, I can tell the difference between DAB and a better
>quality Internet feed when I'm listening to my HiFi at home (which is
>why I got rid of my DAB tuner), but I can't tell the difference between
>DAB and FM in the car, appart from noticing the lack of multi-path
>crackle and pops on R4 when I switch to DAB.
>
>Just because something should be so in theory, doesn't make it so in
>practice.
>
>

--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jeiehp$9t4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Richard Evans <rp.evans.nos
p...@tiscali.co.uk> scribeth thus

>On 10/01/2012 22:08, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
>
>>
>> It's no good saying wow look DAB can manage with a much weaker signal and
>> then installing much weaker transmitters.
>> The planners are clearly idiots.
>>
>
>The problem here is that the DAB transmissions were specifically
>designed for in car reception, but they ended up being used for in door
>portable reception, and in door portable requires much higher signal
>level than in car.
>
>Of course they say that plan to sort out the DAB signals, and perhaps
>they will, they do seem to be adding a few DAB transmitter sites.

They've added a lot of them anyway, look at the number required for
London;!...

>
>Although as far as I'm concerned, this is all academic, as they have
>done nothing about the poor audio quality. It was the poor DAB sound
>quality that dove me back to FM.
>
>Richard E.

--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jei7oe$pak$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>

scribeth thus
>On 10/01/2012 18:00, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article<jehovt$ibm$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk<m...@privacy.net> scribeth
>> thus
>>> On 09/01/2012 19:51, tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not that often 'tho.. However You can get bit rate distortion all the
>>>> time with DAB .. guaranteed;!...
>>>
>>> Radio 5 DAB doesn't sound distorted.
>>
>> Suggest that your standards and mine are somewhat removed from each other..
>
>Don't be ridiculous. You know full well that R5 sounds excellent on DAB.
>Either your ears are in need of medical attention or you're making
>things up to cause an argument.

Err No...

I know what good speech should sound like. I am sometimes a well
equipped radio studio thanks...

>
>>>
>>>> Unless its a 'bubblin and dropping and its always got that bitsless
>>>> sound..
>>>
>>> How would you describe this imaginary "bitsless sound"?
>>
>> Listen to it . Its an artificial sound, it doesn't appear in nature;(..
>
>Have you parted company with your marbles? You're talking nonsense... again.

No just an excellent pair of MK 1 ears;)..

>>
>>>
>>>> What's worse, sometimes odd hiss or constant Dab bit bubble?..
>>>
>>> Sometimes hiss and lots of times multipath.
>>
>> You really must live in a very bad area if its that much of a problem for
>> you..
>
>I have DAB in the car, you fool. I drive around the country. What do you
>think I do, sit in the car listening to the radio all day without going
>anywhere?

What you do in your motah isn't my concern;!..

--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jeii3p$5es$2...@dont-email.me>, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
scribeth thus

>On Tuesday, January 10th, 2012, at 18:00:54h +0000, Tony Sayer wrote:
>
>> Suggest that your standards and mine are somewhat removed from each
>> other..
>
>But remember that for speech, it is possible to use a lower
>bit rate than for music.

Yes of course you can, you can use G7** around 6.3 K/bits if you want.
Course you wouldn't normally want to listen to one of the bard's works
over the phone now would you so

>
>So BBC Radio 4 speech programs, BBC Radio 5 speech programs, and
>BBC World Service speech programs (which are in monophonic anyways)
>are generally acceptable at the bit rates used on DAB.

Well if you don't mind them wobbling a bit and grating a shade I suppose
not;...
--
Tony Sayer

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:04:22 +0000
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>It's a similar thing with HDTV. I know pleny of people who can't tell
>>the difference between HD and SD, especially on a normal size TV.
>
>Yes cos the HD isn't proper HD a lot of the time...

And even when it is it suffers from the most god awful motion blur.

B2003

[Silk]

On 10/01/2012 22:23, Richard Evans wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 20:44, Silk wrote:
>> On 10/01/2012 17:56, tony sayer wrote:
>
>>
>> The human brain is a wonderful thing (even your somewhat limited one).
>> It plays tricks on you. You want DAB to sound bad, and that's what you
>> hear. I have an open mind, so I'm more objective.
>
> Trouble is, the human brain gets too good at spotting the defects in
> poor quality lossy audio, which is possibly why listening to it causes
> fatigue. The brain ends up trying to hard, and ends up getting tired.

I'm not sure about that.

> If there are no artifacts, then the brain relaxes much more, and the
> listening experience becomes far more relaxing and enjoyable.

Nor that. It sounds like you made it up.

[Silk]

Perhaps that was when the medication kicked in. ;-)

[Silk]

On 10/01/2012 22:36, Richard Evans wrote:
> On 10/01/2012 22:08, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
>
>>
>> It's no good saying wow look DAB can manage with a much weaker signal and
>> then installing much weaker transmitters.
>> The planners are clearly idiots.
>>
>
> The problem here is that the DAB transmissions were specifically
> designed for in car reception, but they ended up being used for in door
> portable reception, and in door portable requires much higher signal
> level than in car.

Although I wasn't there at the time, I don't believe FM was designed
with portable reception in mind. At least not the kind of portable we're
used to.

>
> Of course they say that plan to sort out the DAB signals, and perhaps
> they will, they do seem to be adding a few DAB transmitter sites.
>
> Although as far as I'm concerned, this is all academic, as they have
> done nothing about the poor audio quality. It was the poor DAB sound
> quality that dove me back to FM.

It's the better quality and robustness of DAB over AM and the better
choice elsewhere that'll keep me using DAB in the car.

[Scott]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:06:34 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 11th, 2012, at 21:07:06h +0000, Scott wrote:
>
>> That's a matter for debate.
>
>Well it always is, is it not?
>
>> I would agree that 128 kbps if probably acceptable for Radio 4 speech
>
>128 kbps is not just acceptable for speech but is more than adequate,
>and of course this higher rate is necessary for speech on Radio 4
>because of the stereo content.

This reminds me of one of our bosses who said we were striving for
mediocrity. Until then I thought we were striving for excellence!

>
>> (though there are music programmes also,
>
>Yes and as I said my comments were only concerned with speech content.
>
>> but 64 kbps for World Service is grating and sounds poor even for speech.
>
>I may be wrong but the sound quality of the distributed BBC World Service
>feed is not up to the same quality as BBC Radio 4. When I have heard
>BBC World Service on DAB I have not noticed it to be grating as you claim,
>although it is possible. But it is a definite improvement over reception
>on MF and HF (and yes that is not saying anything in favor of the low
>quality of DAB).

I don't think it sounds right.

>
>> What about music on WS?
>
>How many times did I have to say in my original posting that my comments
>only applied to speech? Also remember that music on BBC World Service
>is only monophonic.

I know you have chosen to limit your comments to speech, but I have
chosen to comment on music also because these are not speech only
services. There is some music included so the method of broadcasting
has to be suited to the entire content, not just the predominant
content.

>
>> The bitrate remains at 64 kbps which is clearly unacceptable.
>
>I would be more concerned about the lowering of the bit rate on BBC Radio 3
>when Radio 4 LW service or it is BBC Radio 5SX goes on the air, as well as
>borderline quality for BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 which are music stations,
>and monophonic only BBC Radio 4X, many of whose programs are stereophonic,
>rather than the bonus feature of BBC World Service.
>
>In fact it could be argued that BBC World Service should be pulled from
>DAB and the bandwidth used to improve the quality of the national networks.
>
>But would that generate more or fewer listeners for the BBC who are now
>more concerned with ratings rather than audio quality or even program
>content quality.
>
>Without consistently high listening levels, the BBC regards itself as
>vulnerable to attack from the anti-PSB funding brigade.

I still cannot see why we are in this position at all. AIUI the
amount of spectrum used by DAB is relatively small. There is even
capacity that was allocated to Channel 4 and is unused. So why can't
space be found - possibly by relocating one of the other users - to
allow bitrates to be doubled? The cost could surely be offset by
savings in closing FM which could then arguably be justified if DAB
quality then exceeded FM.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, January 12th, 2012, at 19:36:21h +0000, Scott described:

> This reminds me of one of our bosses who said we were striving for
> mediocrity. Until then I thought we were striving for excellence!

If you work for a commercial company then you are usually striving for
mediocrity because excellence undercuts the profit margin and the majority
of consumers do not care about quality, only low price and quantity.

> I don't think it sounds right.

I cannot posit any argument against what you think how it sounds.
Furthermore, please note that I am not claiming that it is as good
as it could or should be.

> I know you have chosen to limit your comments to speech, but I have
> chosen to comment on music also

In other words you are once again shifting the goal posts as you
so often do in these discussions.

As I have repeated 64 kbps MP2 is totally inadequate for music
reproduction and 128 kbps joint-stereo MP2 may sound adequate to
those with a single speaker radio in a bad listening environment
but it is not even close to what DAB was designed and intended to
deliver ie near CD quality music.

> I still cannot see why we are in this position at all.

Because some idiot bean counter planner media studies graduate
at the BBC only requested a single multiplex rather than the
two multiplexes which were available for the state PSB broadcaster
when the multiplex allocations were being dished out by
the, I think, ITU. At the time of this planning it was envisaged
that a single multiplex would be more than adequate for BBC Radios
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and perhaps World service. But then the other media
graduate students at the BBC decided that in order to maintain
listening numbers and compete with the increasing number of
commercial stations expected to appear on the DAB bands, the
BBC had to role out its tanks and deliver 1Xtra, 4LW, 5 Sports Xtra,
6 music, and BBC 7 as well, and then force all of these 10 stations
into the single multiplex intended only for 5 stations at good
quality.

> There is even capacity that was allocated to Channel 4 and is unused.
> So why can't space be found - possibly by relocating one of the other users

Because that space is allocated to commercial use and OfCon live in
hope that they will still get income from commercial licences sold
for that space.

> The cost could surely be offset by savings in closing FM which could
> then arguably be justified if DAB quality then exceeded FM.

Commerical free market political policies trump PSB interests.

[Scott]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:10:27 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

>On Thursday, January 12th, 2012, at 19:36:21h +0000, Scott described:
>
>> This reminds me of one of our bosses who said we were striving for
>> mediocrity. Until then I thought we were striving for excellence!
>
>If you work for a commercial company then you are usually striving for
>mediocrity because excellence undercuts the profit margin and the majority
>of consumers do not care about quality, only low price and quantity.

Lord Reith must be turning in his grave. This is the British
Broadcasting Company you know.

>
>> I don't think it sounds right.
>
>I cannot posit any argument against what you think how it sounds.
>Furthermore, please note that I am not claiming that it is as good
>as it could or should be.

Nor can I refute your views. We can agree to differ on minimum
standards.

>
>> I know you have chosen to limit your comments to speech, but I have
>> chosen to comment on music also
>
>In other words you are once again shifting the goal posts as you
>so often do in these discussions.

On this occasion I started the thread so I am entitled to determine
the location of the goalposts at any time :-)

>
>As I have repeated 64 kbps MP2 is totally inadequate for music
>reproduction and 128 kbps joint-stereo MP2 may sound adequate to
>those with a single speaker radio in a bad listening environment
>but it is not even close to what DAB was designed and intended to
>deliver ie near CD quality music.

I agree. All I said was that because R4 and WS contain music the
standards should be those appropriate to a music station.

>
>> I still cannot see why we are in this position at all.
>
>Because some idiot bean counter planner media studies graduate
>at the BBC only requested a single multiplex rather than the
>two multiplexes which were available for the state PSB broadcaster
>when the multiplex allocations were being dished out by
>the, I think, ITU. At the time of this planning it was envisaged
>that a single multiplex would be more than adequate for BBC Radios
>1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and perhaps World service. But then the other media
>graduate students at the BBC decided that in order to maintain
>listening numbers and compete with the increasing number of
>commercial stations expected to appear on the DAB bands, the
>BBC had to role out its tanks and deliver 1Xtra, 4LW, 5 Sports Xtra,
>6 music, and BBC 7 as well, and then force all of these 10 stations
>into the single multiplex intended only for 5 stations at good
>quality.

Sadly that is probably right. I don't see why the position cannot be
reviewed. After all, space was found by Ofcom for HD television so
the goalposts can sometimes be moved.

>
>> There is even capacity that was allocated to Channel 4 and is unused.
>> So why can't space be found - possibly by relocating one of the other users
>
>Because that space is allocated to commercial use and OfCon live in
>hope that they will still get income from commercial licences sold
>for that space.

Be creative then, find it elsewhere. I cannot believe that there is
no scope to find any capacity anywhere in Band III.

>
>> The cost could surely be offset by savings in closing FM which could
>> then arguably be justified if DAB quality then exceeded FM.
>
>Commerical free market political policies trump PSB interests.

What I am saying is that there could be a saving to be found by ending
simulcasting. That seems to trump everything in present climate.

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, January 12th, 2012, at 20:39:03h +0000, Scott wrote:

> Lord Reith must be turning in his grave.

Lord Reith has been revolving at a very high speed since the 1980s.

> This is the British Broadcasting Company you know.

Corporation -- it was nationalized in 1926.

> Nor can I refute your views. We can agree to differ on minimum
> standards.

Look, I am not saying that 64 kbps MP2 is a good quality for speech
or should be a minimum standard for a PSB station.

All I have said is that it is adequate for a mono speech station
whose original quality is not the best.

Furthermore, in the case of BBC World Service, using a higher bit rate
may not improve the quality, because as far as I know, and I may very
well be totally wrong on this point, the quality of the feed is not of
the same quality as the national networks.

> On this occasion I started the thread so I am entitled to determine the
> location of the goalposts at any time :-)

Sorry but that is not the case if you are seeking to rebut the
comments concerning the original description.

Again, as I continually am at pains to point out, when it comes
to music reproduction I am complete agreement that the bit rates
used are inadequate for quality stereophonic reproduction.

> I don't see why the position cannot be reviewed.

Reviewed by whom though? OfCom have no intention of reviewing
the situation since their mandate is to maximize the profit
making potential of the e-m spectrum and giving more spectrum
to the BBC means reducing the available spectrum for commercial
stations.

Jeremy Hunt has no intention of reviewing the situation, and if
he did, it would be to remove bandwidth from the BBC, and probably
privatize BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 as well.

> After all, space was found by Ofcom for HD television

You do realize that space was found for terrestrial HD television
by *taking away* bandwidth which had been licenced to the BBC?

In the case of HD television, bandwidth was taken away (3/5 of
multiplex B) from the BBC and given to commercial broadcasters --
ITV1 HD and C4/S4C and a future 5th commercial station.

BBC One HD only currently exists because five decided not to
take up the slot which they had been allocated by OfCon.

Do you not see a trend here in reducing the usage of spectrum by
the BBC keeping with free market principles of handing that
spectrum over to the commercial companies?

> so the goalposts can sometimes be moved.

Only when moving them favors the commercial broadcasters.

> Be creative then, find it elsewhere.

There are no other national blocks available. Remember that
the DAB frequencies have been clawed back from Band III VHF
which thanks to Madame Thatcher was, along with Band I VHF
frequencies, handed over to commercial non-broadcasting
purposes.

> I cannot believe that there is no
> scope to find any capacity anywhere in Band III.

Not in the form of an additional national multiplex block
due to international frequency planning constraints.

The horse has bolted. The train has already left the station.
The BBC could have had two national multiplex blocks if it
had asked for them when the ITU (?) was doing the assignments,
but it did not.

The only way to get the space is for a change in policy
by the government as to the allocation of the second national
multiplex from commercial to BBC and that is a political
decision which is as likely as the Socialist Labour Party
of Arthur Scargill being elected to government.

> What I am saying is that there could be a saving to be found by ending
> simulcasting. That seems to trump everything in present climate.

Of course there could be a saving, but do you think that the commercial
broadcasters want the BBC to save money in order to have more money
to spend on programs?

[Silk]

On 12/01/2012 12:02, tony sayer wrote:
> In article<jei7tv$pjh$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk<m...@privacy.net>
> scribeth thus
>> On 10/01/2012 17:56, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>>> Get yourself a decent car and DAB receiver. The one in our A6 easily
>>> shows up the differences between BBC Radio 2 on VHF and the short
>>> comings of DAB reproduction ...
>>
>> The human brain is a wonderful thing (even your somewhat limited one).
>
> Course insults prove that your argument isn't that good a one..

Your inability to communicate in plain English doesn't exactly bode well.

[tony sayer]

In article <jenmg6$qb9$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>

scribeth thus
>On 12/01/2012 12:02, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article<jei7tv$pjh$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk<m...@privacy.net>
>> scribeth thus
>>> On 10/01/2012 17:56, tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Get yourself a decent car and DAB receiver. The one in our A6 easily
>>>> shows up the differences between BBC Radio 2 on VHF and the short
>>>> comings of DAB reproduction ...
>>>
>>> The human brain is a wonderful thing (even your somewhat limited one).
>>
>> Course insults prove that your argument isn't that good a one..
>
>Your inability to communicate in plain English doesn't exactly bode well.

But you can understand it all the same...
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jen3pr$ar2$3...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk <m...@privacy.net>
scribeth thus

>On 10/01/2012 22:36, Richard Evans wrote:
>> On 10/01/2012 22:08, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's no good saying wow look DAB can manage with a much weaker signal and
>>> then installing much weaker transmitters.
>>> The planners are clearly idiots.
>>>
>>
>> The problem here is that the DAB transmissions were specifically
>> designed for in car reception, but they ended up being used for in door
>> portable reception, and in door portable requires much higher signal
>> level than in car.

No portable reception was part of the plan ..

>
>Although I wasn't there at the time, I don't believe FM was designed
>with portable reception in mind. At least not the kind of portable we're
>used to.

VHF/FM in the UK no, not back when the service was first stated in 1955
but they did some large TX upgrades with the addition of Mixed
polarisation in the early 80's and that was intended to make portable
and mobile reception better...

Up to that time Horizontal polarisation was only in use. Intended for
home reception with external aerials at 30 odd feet high and directional
to boot;!...


--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

>
>Furthermore, in the case of BBC World Service, using a higher bit rate
>may not improve the quality, because as far as I know, and I may very
>well be totally wrong on this point, the quality of the feed is not of
>the same quality as the national networks.

By saying that are, or do you think they degrade the audio from Bush
house then?...

--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article <jemav7$cst$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, bolta...@boltar.world
scribeth thus

There was a station round here called "Affinity" started DAB
transmissions a few months ago they have failed now. They sounded awful
even in 64K Mono which was to be expected. Another lot Blackcat radio
from St Neots Cambs have taken a 64 K slot on the Now Peterborough MUX..

With the same dire sounds .. music and speech...
--
Tony Sayer

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:41:57 +0000
tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>There was a station round here called "Affinity" started DAB
>transmissions a few months ago they have failed now. They sounded awful
>even in 64K Mono which was to be expected. Another lot Blackcat radio
>from St Neots Cambs have taken a 64 K slot on the Now Peterborough MUX..
>
>With the same dire sounds .. music and speech...

Its nice to see broadcast radio still healthy enough for new stations to
pop up but I really wonder why they bother. I'd have thought an FM RSL
would be have been more useful. Or even an AM license. Broadcast on FM a
couple of months a year to pull in listeners and stay on the internet for the
rest of it.

B2003

[Scott]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:32:40 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

>On Thursday, January 12th, 2012, at 20:39:03h +0000, Scott wrote:
>
>> Lord Reith must be turning in his grave.
>
>Lord Reith has been revolving at a very high speed since the 1980s.
>
>> This is the British Broadcasting Company you know.
>
>Corporation -- it was nationalized in 1926.

I was alluding to the days of Lord Reith at the time of his
appointment in 1922.

>
>> Nor can I refute your views. We can agree to differ on minimum
>> standards.
>
>Look, I am not saying that 64 kbps MP2 is a good quality for speech
>or should be a minimum standard for a PSB station.
>
>All I have said is that it is adequate for a mono speech station
>whose original quality is not the best.

I agree with you. All I am saying is that neither R4 nor WS is a
'speech station'.

>
>Furthermore, in the case of BBC World Service, using a higher bit rate
>may not improve the quality, because as far as I know, and I may very
>well be totally wrong on this point, the quality of the feed is not of
>the same quality as the national networks.

I think someone more knowledgeable than me has answered.

>
>> On this occasion I started the thread so I am entitled to determine the
>> location of the goalposts at any time :-)
>
>Sorry but that is not the case if you are seeking to rebut the
>comments concerning the original description.

Moot point. If the thread can drift once, it can drift again.

>
>Again, as I continually am at pains to point out, when it comes
>to music reproduction I am complete agreement that the bit rates
>used are inadequate for quality stereophonic reproduction.

I think we probably agree far more than we disagree.

>
>> I don't see why the position cannot be reviewed.
>
>Reviewed by whom though? OfCom have no intention of reviewing
>the situation since their mandate is to maximize the profit
>making potential of the e-m spectrum and giving more spectrum
>to the BBC means reducing the available spectrum for commercial
>stations.

Agreed. Ofcom can only work within their remit. It's the remit that
requires to be reviewed which is a political decision.

>
>Jeremy Hunt has no intention of reviewing the situation, and if
>he did, it would be to remove bandwidth from the BBC, and probably
>privatize BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 as well.
>
>> After all, space was found by Ofcom for HD television
>
>You do realize that space was found for terrestrial HD television
>by *taking away* bandwidth which had been licenced to the BBC?
>
>In the case of HD television, bandwidth was taken away (3/5 of
>multiplex B) from the BBC and given to commercial broadcasters --
>ITV1 HD and C4/S4C and a future 5th commercial station.
>
>BBC One HD only currently exists because five decided not to
>take up the slot which they had been allocated by OfCon.

Probably right at the time. Now AIUI there is to be an extra HD
channel within the multiplex and an an additional multiplex, which
supports my view that creative use of the spectrum can produce
capacity. Whether the quality of HD has been reduced is a different
matter - strictly off-topic for this group.

>
>Do you not see a trend here in reducing the usage of spectrum by
>the BBC keeping with free market principles of handing that
>spectrum over to the commercial companies?

Yes, right back to the 1970s when the BBC lost AM frequencies to make
way for Independent Local Radio.

>
>> so the goalposts can sometimes be moved.
>
>Only when moving them favors the commercial broadcasters.

As they say in financial services, past performance cannot be relied
upon as a guide for future performance.

>> Be creative then, find it elsewhere.
>
>There are no other national blocks available. Remember that
>the DAB frequencies have been clawed back from Band III VHF
>which thanks to Madame Thatcher was, along with Band I VHF
>frequencies, handed over to commercial non-broadcasting
>purposes.
>
>> I cannot believe that there is no
>> scope to find any capacity anywhere in Band III.
>
>Not in the form of an additional national multiplex block
>due to international frequency planning constraints.
>
>The horse has bolted. The train has already left the station.
>The BBC could have had two national multiplex blocks if it
>had asked for them when the ITU (?) was doing the assignments,
>but it did not.
>
>The only way to get the space is for a change in policy
>by the government as to the allocation of the second national
>multiplex from commercial to BBC and that is a political
>decision which is as likely as the Socialist Labour Party
>of Arthur Scargill being elected to government.

I can't answer that in detail as I have no expertise in the subject.
All I am saying is that AIUI DAB is a small part of Band III which is
used for many other purposes. If I were the Minister I would be
asking who these other users are and if any of them could move (eg to
Band II if FM goes) or use their capacity more efficiently with
changes in technology.

>
>> What I am saying is that there could be a saving to be found by ending
>> simulcasting. That seems to trump everything in present climate.
>
>Of course there could be a saving, but do you think that the commercial
>broadcasters want the BBC to save money in order to have more money
>to spend on programs?

Yes, but my point is that the commercial broadcasters are paying twice
at the moment so potentially the commercial broadcasters could save
money.

[J G Miller]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:20:03 +0000, Scott wrote:

> All I am saying is that neither R4 nor WS is a 'speech station'.

According to the BBC at

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/whatwedo/radio/>

QUOTE

BBC Radio 4 is a mixed speech radio station, offering in-depth
news and current affairs and a wide range of other speech programmes
including drama, readings, comedy, factual and magazine programmes.

UNQUOTE

What non-speech content remains on BBC World Service. Over the past
20 years the BBC has done its best to dumb down BBC World Service
content to be just a rolling news station.

> Now AIUI there is to be an extra HD channel within the multiplex

The OfCom plan has always been for there to be ultimately five
stations on PSB-3 at bit rates lower than necessary for proper HD.

> and an an additional multiplex

What is your source for this information, since I was not aware
of any plans for an additional HD multiplex.

> which supports my view that creative use of the spectrum can
> produce capacity.

True and capacity would be greatly increased if all multiplexes
were switched to DVB-t2 transmission.

> As they say in financial services, past performance cannot be relied
> upon as a guide for future performance.

Indeed not.

> All I am saying is that AIUI DAB is a small part of Band III which is used
> for many other purposes. If I were the Minister I would be asking who
> these other users are and if any of them could move

To reiterate what I said previously -- international agreements and
frequency coordination do not allow services to be moved around at will.

Remember that for the national networks, DAB uses SFNs for both the
BBC national multiplex and the commercial multiplex. The technical
solution would be to allocate the second national commercial multiplex
which remains unused to the BBC. But again, as I keep saying, that
requires a political decision which contradicts the free market
deregulatory anti-public interest policies of success governments
since 1980.

<http://wohnort.ORG/dab/uknat.html#National>

If you want the BBC to be allocated a second national multiplex then you
need to vote for a Westminster government which is not Conservative
and Unionist Party, Liberal Party, Liberal Democratic Party, or
FauX LaboUR Party, but has a pro-public interest pro-PSB agenda.

> Yes, but my point is that the commercial broadcasters are paying twice
> at the moment so potentially the commercial broadcasters could save
> money.

There is no legal regulation requiring the commercial broadcasters to continue
broadcasting on VHF Band II using FM rather than VHF Band III using DAB
right now, so they could make that saving now.

[hwh]

On 1/13/12 5:42 PM, J G Miller wrote:
> To reiterate what I said previously -- international agreements and
> frequency coordination do not allow services to be moved around at will.

Not at will. But on the continent it would seem that you can have at
least seven multiplexes at any place using the RRC-06 allocations.

So the allocations in the UK for band III must be the major problem.

gr, hwh

[Scott]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:42:42 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

[snip}

I think we fundamentally agree on most things.

>> and an additional multiplex

>
>What is your source for this information, since I was not aware
>of any plans for an additional HD multiplex.

http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051875

[J G Miller]

On Friday, January 13th, 2012, 18:50:48h +0000, Scott wrote:

> I think we fundamentally agree on most things.

Yes that DAB is implemented in the UKofGB&NI does not deliver
quality sound as was original intent of the Eureka project
and the management of the airwaves by successive governments
has been purely done to benefit the public broadcasters.

Perhaps when Scotland gains independence, a more public service
oriented administration will rectify the situation in the north
of the island?

The big problem for DAB though is that it is an old technology
desperately trying to be relevant, when it has been surpassed
by DAB+, and DVB-t2 and its codec MP2 is the equivalent of
an 8 track cassette in a CD world.

> http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051875

Okay but remember that UK Free TV is not a definitive source
and that much of the content is purely speculation on behalf
of Brian Butterworth.

In fact in that article it clearly says

"Ofcom *could* assign C37 to a second public service high definition multiplex"

where could is a possible use being suggested by Brian Butterworth
and to the best of my knowledge nobody else.

Depending on how relations between Uncle Rupert and the current
administration spin out, it may very well be the case that OfCon
is quietly instructed not to make any of the free space available
specifically for HD because this would create competition to the
$ky HD packages and thereby reduce B$kyB profits, which is of course
contrary to the OfCon mandate of managing the spectrum to increase
the profitability of the commercial broadcasters.

[Scott]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:05:49 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

>On Friday, January 13th, 2012, 18:50:48h +0000, Scott wrote:
>
>> I think we fundamentally agree on most things.
>
>Yes that DAB is implemented in the UKofGB&NI does not deliver
>quality sound as was original intent of the Eureka project
>and the management of the airwaves by successive governments
>has been purely done to benefit the public broadcasters.
>
>Perhaps when Scotland gains independence, a more public service
>oriented administration will rectify the situation in the north
>of the island?
>
>The big problem for DAB though is that it is an old technology
>desperately trying to be relevant, when it has been surpassed
>by DAB+, and DVB-t2 and its codec MP2 is the equivalent of
>an 8 track cassette in a CD world.

I cannot disagree! About 20 years old according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1_Audio_Layer_II
which must be ancient history in computing terms.

>
>> http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051875
>
>Okay but remember that UK Free TV is not a definitive source
>and that much of the content is purely speculation on behalf
>of Brian Butterworth.
>
>In fact in that article it clearly says
>
>"Ofcom *could* assign C37 to a second public service high definition multiplex"
>
>where could is a possible use being suggested by Brian Butterworth
>and to the best of my knowledge nobody else.

I don't know anything about BB but I agree that the article seems to
go rather beyond the Arqiva statement.

>
>Depending on how relations between Uncle Rupert and the current
>administration spin out, it may very well be the case that OfCon
>is quietly instructed not to make any of the free space available
>specifically for HD because this would create competition to the
>$ky HD packages and thereby reduce B$kyB profits, which is of course
>contrary to the OfCon mandate of managing the spectrum to increase
>the profitability of the commercial broadcasters.

The extent to which Newscorp/News International influence UK
politicians is an entirely new debate - possibly for a different
newsgroup.

[Richard Evans]

On 12/01/2012 17:00, Silk wrote:

>>
>> Trouble is, the human brain gets too good at spotting the defects in
>> poor quality lossy audio, which is possibly why listening to it causes
>> fatigue. The brain ends up trying to hard, and ends up getting tired.
>
> I'm not sure about that.
>
>> If there are no artifacts, then the brain relaxes much more, and the
>> listening experience becomes far more relaxing and enjoyable.
>
> Nor that. It sounds like you made it up.

Well you would say that. Although one of the reasons why I rediscovered
FM, was because I found I could not put up with DAB when I was tired.

One evening on the M25 I was listening to DAB and it was really really
irritating me, and I was about to press the off switch. The I thought,
well I might as well give FM a quick try first. I pressed FM and then
pressed Seek, and the result was a sound that I suddenly found relaxing
and soothing. It was relaxing because it sounded the way proper stereo
music should sound. A proper stereo image, good clarity in the treble,
and no compression artifacts.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 12/01/2012 12:02, tony sayer wrote:

>

> Switching between fM ands DAB there was a very marked contrast in the
> audio. All of us thought that the fM was far closer to the CD version of
> the tracks played. Now of course we couldn't compare with the original
> as we simply didn't have them but these have been around since the 70's
> and are very well known. The DAB sounded very different rather like it
> wasn't all there..

Now there is another problem with poor quality lossy audio.
The encoder is trying to trick you into thinking that all the audio is
there. But if the bit rate is too low, then the human auditory system is
able to figure out that, actually no, it is not all there.

And I believe that another problem is that the more you listen to it,
the better the brain gets at spotting that it's not all there. Also the
brain end up trying to spot the artifacts and imperfections, which takes
quite a bit of processing, so the brain gets tired far ore quickly.
Hence the fatigue and the desire to press that off switch, and hence the
big feeling of relief, when you do finally give up and press that off
switch.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 12/01/2012 22:23, Silk wrote:

>>
>> Course insults prove that your argument isn't that good a one..
>
> Your inability to communicate in plain English doesn't exactly bode well.

I didn't have any trouble understanding every part of Tony's previous post.

[Silk]

That's because you're as mad as he is.

[Silk]

Gosh.

[Richard Evans]

No that was the day my brain was too tired to cope with processing the
uncomfortable sound of DAB.


So when you run out of sensible arguments, you resort to insults. I can
assure you, and everybody else, that I wasn't on any medication at the time.

I think the last time I was ever on any medication, it was antibiotics
for a chest infection some time around about 1995. And since I didn't
even start listening to DAB until around about 2003, I think we can rule
out that explanation.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 12/01/2012 17:04, Silk wrote:

>>>
>>
>> The problem here is that the DAB transmissions were specifically
>> designed for in car reception, but they ended up being used for in door
>> portable reception, and in door portable requires much higher signal
>> level than in car.
>
> Although I wasn't there at the time, I don't believe FM was designed
> with portable reception in mind. At least not the kind of portable we're
> used to.

That was probably true in the early days of FM, when they intended
people to use rooftop aerials.

However I think things have changes somewhat since then. I heard that
the reason why the local London FM stations can be received so far away
from London, is because they used higher power, to provide good indoor
reception in the London area. And in most parts of London, indoor FM
reception is good.

>>
>> Of course they say that plan to sort out the DAB signals, and perhaps
>> they will, they do seem to be adding a few DAB transmitter sites.
>>
>> Although as far as I'm concerned, this is all academic, as they have
>> done nothing about the poor audio quality. It was the poor DAB sound
>> quality that dove me back to FM.
>
> It's the better quality and robustness of DAB over AM and the better
> choice elsewhere that'll keep me using DAB in the car.

Well I can accept that most people would find DAB preferable to AM.
However for listening to music, I find DAB, in it's current form, to be
totally unacceptable.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 10/01/2012 23:46, J G Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 22:09:10 +0000, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>> I don't find FM multipath to be all that bad.
>
> Not in your location for reception from Wrotham.

Actually I mostly use FM in the car, and I don't often listen to the
national stations.

At home if I listen to the radio, I tend to listen online. Except very
first thing in the morning, when I tend to use the Scanner in my
bedroom, since I discovered that it can just about pick up Radio Jackie
But if I listen for any length of time, then I tend to switch to the web
stream via my Squeezebox.

> For most
> people at home with a proper VHF Band II antenna (not a horrible
> bit of pink plastic coated wire dangling from the wall) then
> reception of the four BBC network services will not have this
> problem.

I don't use a proper FM aerial any more, as it took up too much space in
my flat, and since I can now use the internet instead, there doesn't
seem to be much point.

Not using a proper aerial, I do get multipath distortion here. As the
position of my flat tends to favor reflected signals from across the
valley, and tends to attenuate the direct path signals from London.
(BTW. In case you were wondering, I'm rather badly placed to receiver
Wrotham). However the sort of multipath distortion I get here is usually
only noticeable on my hi-fi system, it is to subtle to notice it on any
slightly lower quality system.

In car I find the same is true. I don't notice loss of actual sound
quality quality due to multipath. I do notice dropouts in signal, and I
do sometimes notice my car stereo reducing the stereo image, due to poor
signal levels, but that is because I tend to listen to stations from
outside their normal coverage area. When however I tune into a stronger
signal, I rarely hear any problems.

Basically, I find that loss of quality due to multipath, usually only
makes a subtle difference, which is only noticeable on a hi-fi system.
All other problems are due to loss of signal, but if signal levels are
good enough, then FM is fine for every day listening.


>
>> Well previously you said "regardless of quality". But how can you ignore
>> quality, and not ignore hiss.
>
> Because the hiss is a fundamental aspect of the method of transmission
> whereas encoding artifacts are dependent on the bit rate allocated by
> the multiplex operator.
>
>> I find hiss far less annoying, than the flatness of the DAB stereo image,
>> or the compression artifacts.
>
> I did not suggest that other factors as you described were not more important
> overall, my comments were purely in terms of what DAB reception can provide,
> not the low quality which it is used to deliver in the UKofGB&NI.

OK fair enough. Although to me this point is academic. DAB is
technically capable of providing better sound quality than FM, but I'm
only interested in what is actually provided, and there are good reason
why, in the real world, DAB is not providing what it could.

As things stand, I can't see any way that DAB is going to provide
anything near FM sound quality. So if we want to listen to music radio
in the car, then most people are better off listening to FM.

>
>> Well probably possible in theory, but I have never known my car stereo
>> to do that. So I reckon it must be rare for it to happen in the real
>> world.
>
> You do not notice it because you probably only listen to BBC network
> radio and not distant local stations in your automobile.

No, the station I listen to most often is Radio Jackie, when I'm driving
too or from work. This is a fairly low power transmission, and I'm
outside their normal coverage area. I get signal dropouts when I'm
driving through Caterham Valley, but for most of the rest of my journey
to work, the signal is perfectly acceptable. In some places my car
stereo reduces the stereo image, due to weak signal. However I still
don't notice the loss of quality due to multipath that pro DAB people
talk about. The only problems I ever notice are due to a weak signal,
and even being outside the normal coverage area, I only notice these
problems in a few areas.

My main point, is that actual loss of sound quality, due to multipath
distortion, is usually only noticeable on a hi-fi system. But if you are
listening on a hi-fi, then you are probably at home, and so you probably
have the option of listening online instead.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 10/01/2012 21:52, Silk wrote:

>
> It's because when it was tested on real people using typical DAB radios,
> most people couldn't tell the difference between 192K and 128K.

Trouble with that argument, is that the BBC had already decided that
they needed to reduce the bit rates, to accommodate their new radio
stations. They wouldn't want to let a little thing like listening tests
ruin their plans, and there are ways of being biased about listening tests.

> The BBC
> similcast for a time at 192K and 128K and, although I could tell the
> difference on my Pure DAB seperate tuner, I couldn't really tell on my
> Wavefinder running through computer speakers.
>
> It's a similar thing with HDTV. I know pleny of people who can't tell
> the difference between HD and SD, especially on a normal size TV.
>
> For what it's worth, I can tell the difference between DAB and a better
> quality Internet feed when I'm listening to my HiFi at home (which is
> why I got rid of my DAB tuner), but I can't tell the difference between
> DAB and FM in the car, appart from noticing the lack of multi-path
> crackle and pops on R4 when I switch to DAB.

Well in the end, I suppose some people are more sensitive to the
differences than others. When I tried comparing DAB and FM in my car,
the difference was very obvious, and that was listening to Capital FM,
which was using 160k at the time.

Whether or not 'most people' can not tell the difference is a point that
I can not prove, and you can not prove either. I would however point out
that broadcasters who, for what ever reason, want to use lower bit
rates, would be bound to biased in selecting what evidence they use, and
what evidence they ignore.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

So back to the insults again then?

[Richard Evans]

On 12/01/2012 12:07, tony sayer wrote:
> In article<jei7oe$pak$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Silk<m...@privacy.net>
> scribeth thus

>>
>> Don't be ridiculous. You know full well that R5 sounds excellent on DAB.
>> Either your ears are in need of medical attention or you're making
>> things up to cause an argument.
>
> Err No...
>
> I know what good speech should sound like. I am sometimes a well
> equipped radio studio thanks...

Hummmm.... mp2 mono at 80kb/s
Well that ought to sound better than MW under most conditions.
As for excellent, well that may well depend upon the listeners point of
view.

But what about all the other waste of space broadcasts, that broadcast
audio so poor, it in unpleasant to listen to.


>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Unless its a 'bubblin and dropping and its always got that bitsless
>>>>> sound..
>>>>
>>>> How would you describe this imaginary "bitsless sound"?
>>>
>>> Listen to it . Its an artificial sound, it doesn't appear in nature;(..
>>
>> Have you parted company with your marbles? You're talking nonsense... again.
>
> No just an excellent pair of MK 1 ears;)..

Compression artifacts don't appear in nature, as far as I'm aware lol.

As for on Radio 5. Actually I don't listen to it myself.
But I am toying with the idea of switching on my DAB hi-fi tuner, just
to see exactly what it sounds like. I suspect that on a good sound
system 80k would not be enough to get rid of all the artifacts, even in
mono. In car is a bit of different matter, 80k mono ought to sound good
enough for speech broadcasts for most people. But as for excellent, I
think that may be a bit of a biased judgement. And besides, what about
all the music stations that sound dreadful on DAB?

Richard E.

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 11:56:50h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

> However I still don't notice the loss of quality due to multipath
> that pro DAB people talk about.

Do you notice the loss of quality due to multipath interference
that DAB neutral people or anti-DAB people talk about?

[Silk]

That depends on how mad you think he is.

[Richard Evans]

Well enough of this. I have things to do in the real world.

[Richard Evans]

Don't know. I don't think we get many neutral DAB people on this NG. ;-)

I just know that the multipath distortion I usually get, is only
noticeable on a hi-fi system, and is certainly nowhere near as bad as
the distortions on current DAB broadcasts.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 11/01/2012 21:07, Scott wrote:

>
> That's a matter for debate. I would agree that 128 kbps if probably
> acceptable for Radio 4 speech (though there are music programmes also,
> such as Desert Island Discs) but 64 kbps for World Service is grating
> and sounds poor even for speech. What about music on WS? The bitrate
> remains at 64 kbps which is clearly unacceptable.

I think the WS at 64k is OK for fairly short periods of listening, but
it would be annoying to listen for any length of time.

At home the internet was a better bet, and in the car 648Khz used to be
a better option, but unfortunately that has gone now.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

Also, BBC WS sounds just fine via the internet.
(using the Iplayer plugin on my Squeezebox)

[Richard Evans]

If we were using DVB-T2-Lite instead of DAB, then stations like this
could take a 48k slot, and using aac+ they would at least sound listenable.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 15/01/2012 14:54, Richard Evans wrote:

>
> At home the internet was a better bet, and in the car 648Khz used to be
> a better option, but unfortunately that has gone now.

Oh and I know I may get flamed for saying that MW sounds better than DAB
here. I can accept that many people would find DAB preferable to MW.
However for all it's faults, MW doesn't have any compression artifacts,
and I personally find the compression artifacts on a 64k DAB service, to
be worse than the more natural sounding interference on MW.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 10/01/2012 20:41, Silk wrote:

>
> Don't be ridiculous. You know full well that R5 sounds excellent on DAB.

I'm listening to it right now on my DAB hi-fi tuner.
The high end is very lacking, and there is also a weird distortion at
the top end.

I thought perhaps this might be due to a poor quality feed, so I tried
comparing with the IPlayer stream, using my Squeezebox.
On the Iplayer stream, the high end is also lacking, so that part may
well be a poor feed, however Iplayer does not have any of the weird
distortions at the top end.

Based upon this, in my opinion, R5Live does sound acceptable on DAB, but
it is a long way from being excellent.

Richard E.

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 15:08:03h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

> On 15/01/2012 14:54, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>
>> At home the internet was a better bet, and in the car 648Khz used to be
>> a better option, but unfortunately that has gone now.
>
> Oh and I know I may get flamed for saying that MW sounds better than DAB
> here. I can accept that many people would find DAB preferable to MW.

But the problem with AM broadcasts in Europe is the band width constraint
of 9 kHz and the filtering that broadcasters do to minimize adjacent channel
interference.

AM stereo with 10 kHz bandwidth in the primary reception area sounds amazingly
good (for AM that is) and you might think at first that it was somehow an FM
broadcast.

It is truly a sad state of affairs that DAB as implemented in the UKofGB&NI
only offers adequate sound quality for speech services and is in the category
"good enough in monophonic for short periods of time in bad listening environments".

[Richard Evans]

On 15/01/2012 16:19, J G Miller wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 15:08:03h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:

>>
>> Oh and I know I may get flamed for saying that MW sounds better than DAB
>> here. I can accept that many people would find DAB preferable to MW.
>
> But the problem with AM broadcasts in Europe is the band width constraint
> of 9 kHz and the filtering that broadcasters do to minimize adjacent channel
> interference.

I've never heard wider band AM, but I would expect it to sound a lot
better than what we have today. I do however still find that what we
have today (provided the receptions isn't atrocious), does not irritate
me in the same way that 64K DAB does. I'm not trying to claim that this
makes MW better than DAB, it just happens that personally, I find the
distortions of 64k DAB to be worse.

>
> AM stereo with 10 kHz bandwidth in the primary reception area sounds amazingly
> good (for AM that is) and you might think at first that it was somehow an FM
> broadcast.

Never heard it myself. But with descent bandwidth, and stereo, and if
there isn't any significant interference, then that would be about what
I would expect.

>
> It is truly a sad state of affairs that DAB as implemented in the UKofGB&NI
> only offers adequate sound quality for speech services and is in the category
> "good enough in monophonic for short periods of time in bad listening environments".

Agreed, and I think that a lot of this is due to the outdated technology
that DAB uses.

Capacity is too expensive, making broadcasts opt for low bit rates, and
the mp2 codec was never designed for such low bit rates. Hence it should
not be any big surprise that it fails to deliver at these low bit rates.

Richard E.

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

"Richard Evans" <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jeuphc$lst$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

Surely the BBC iPlayer plug-in is 100% superseded by a more versatile applet
called BBC Radio that doesn't require your own media server to run it.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
n...@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

[Scott]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:42:02 +0000, Richard Evans
<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>On 15/01/2012 16:19, J G Miller wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 15th, 2012, at 15:08:03h +0000, Richard Evans wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Oh and I know I may get flamed for saying that MW sounds better than DAB
>>> here. I can accept that many people would find DAB preferable to MW.
>>
>> But the problem with AM broadcasts in Europe is the band width constraint
>> of 9 kHz and the filtering that broadcasters do to minimize adjacent channel
>> interference.
>I've never heard wider band AM, but I would expect it to sound a lot
>better than what we have today. I do however still find that what we
>have today (provided the receptions isn't atrocious), does not irritate
>me in the same way that 64K DAB does. I'm not trying to claim that this
>makes MW better than DAB, it just happens that personally, I find the
>distortions of 64k DAB to be worse.

I am sure I read (but have not been able to find any authority for)
that pre 1978 BBC main transmitters used a much wider bandwith than
they do today, resulting in better quality medium wave than can be
accomplished today.

>>
>> AM stereo with 10 kHz bandwidth in the primary reception area sounds amazingly
>> good (for AM that is) and you might think at first that it was somehow an FM
>> broadcast.
>Never heard it myself. But with descent bandwidth, and stereo, and if
>there isn't any significant interference, then that would be about what
>I would expect.

I've heard of but never heard AM stereo. I believe this was mainly
used in the USA where distance is in their favour. Maybe Australia? I
think the interference issue was dealt with by having different
permitted power levels before and after dusk.

>>
>> It is truly a sad state of affairs that DAB as implemented in the UKofGB&NI
>> only offers adequate sound quality for speech services and is in the category
>> "good enough in monophonic for short periods of time in bad listening environments".
>
>Agreed, and I think that a lot of this is due to the outdated technology
>that DAB uses.

We either need more capacity to allow higher bitrates or more up to
date encoding technology to allow more efficient use of spectrum.
Given all the radios sold, I suspect we are stuck with DAB/MP2 for the
foreseeable future. My own view, which seems to have created a lot of
argument and contention, is that we should emulate HD televison and
set up a parallel service using the latest coding for those willing to
pay for new equipment.

>
>Capacity is too expensive, making broadcasts opt for low bit rates, and
>the mp2 codec was never designed for such low bit rates. Hence it should
>not be any big surprise that it fails to deliver at these low bit rates.

I'm sure that's correct but is the expense artificial or real? Is the
cost due to political decision in setting licensing fees or is it a
cost of electricity etc?

[Richard Evans]

On 15/01/2012 18:14, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
> "Richard Evans"<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

>>>

>> Also, BBC WS sounds just fine via the internet.
>> (using the Iplayer plugin on my Squeezebox)
>
> Surely the BBC iPlayer plug-in is 100% superseded by a more versatile applet
> called BBC Radio that doesn't require your own media server to run it.
>

I hadn't heard of this. So is the IPlayer plugging not going to be
supported any more?

I think I would still need my server though, as my Squeezeboxes don't
have any native support for aac, and also where exactly would I install
this applet, other than on my server?

I have 3 Squeezebox Classics, and one Squeezebox Boom, and I don't think
there is any way to install applets on them.

Richard E.

[Richard Evans]

On 15/01/2012 18:22, Scott wrote:

>
> I am sure I read (but have not been able to find any authority for)
> that pre 1978 BBC main transmitters used a much wider bandwith than
> they do today, resulting in better quality medium wave than can be
> accomplished today.

As a boy I used to find Radio 1 sounded just fine on my little LW/MW
portable radio, although I think this was probably after 1978.

<SNIP>

>> Agreed, and I think that a lot of this is due to the outdated technology
>> that DAB uses.
>
> We either need more capacity to allow higher bitrates or more up to
> date encoding technology to allow more efficient use of spectrum.
> Given all the radios sold, I suspect we are stuck with DAB/MP2 for the
> foreseeable future.

I don't see much point in just upgrading the codec. They might as well
upgrade the whole broadcast system. DVB-T2-Lite would be quite a bit
more efficient than DAB+. I can't remember the exact figures off the top
of my head.

> My own view, which seems to have created a lot of
> argument and contention, is that we should emulate HD televison and
> set up a parallel service using the latest coding for those willing to
> pay for new equipment.

Well I don't see any point in sticking with our current DAB system. It
is simply a money pit, that is not doing the job. If they can't find a
way to upgrade it, they would be better off just scrapping it, and
letting everybody go back to FM.

It would be a shame though, not to have good digital broadcasts.

>>
>> Capacity is too expensive, making broadcasts opt for low bit rates, and
>> the mp2 codec was never designed for such low bit rates. Hence it should
>> not be any big surprise that it fails to deliver at these low bit rates.
>
> I'm sure that's correct but is the expense artificial or real? Is the
> cost due to political decision in setting licensing fees or is it a
> cost of electricity etc?

I suspect that a big part of the problem is allowing one company to have
a monopoly of all broadcast transmitter sites. Also I think that
allowing broadcasters to own the multiplexes was also a bad idea.

Whether broadcasting DAB is actually a more expensive thing to do, I'm
not entirely sure.

Thinking about the local DAB multiplexes in London, they need about a
dozen TX sites, but of course the multiplex carries a number of radio
stations. However, I would guess that the biggest actual costs would be
building the tower and installing the aerial system. Then of course many
transmissions can share the same aerial system.

Obviously I realize that DAB transmitters can also share the same
aerial, but that is not the point. My point is that at one TX site, you
only really need one aerial for FM, and/or one aerial for DAB.

So in the end I would think the number of TX sites would be the biggest
factor in the real cost of broadcasting. And one FM TX site would be
cheaper than a dozzen DAB TX sites.

If they used DVB-T2-Lite, with aac/aac+. Then they could fit a lot more
stations onto a multiplex, and provide good sound quality. Or they could
have the same number of stations, at higher quality, but with fewer TX
sites.

On the other hand, perhaps an even cheaper option would be to use a
digital broadcast using Band II. DRM+ could provide similar coverage to
FM from the same number of TX sites (One site for London), and with
lower transmitter power than FM. Or better still they could develop a
better system than DRM+, using better error correction, as used in DVB-T2.

There seem to be quite a few options, and I find it hard to avoid
thinking that sticking with DAB is the worst option.

Richard E.

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

"Richard Evans" <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

news:jevggs$efl$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 15/01/2012 18:14, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
>> "Richard Evans"<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>>>>
>>> Also, BBC WS sounds just fine via the internet.
>>> (using the Iplayer plugin on my Squeezebox)
>>
>> Surely the BBC iPlayer plug-in is 100% superseded by a more versatile
>> applet
>> called BBC Radio that doesn't require your own media server to run it.
>>
> I hadn't heard of this. So is the IPlayer plugging not going to be
> supported any more?

I think they will continue in parallel.

> I think I would still need my server though, as my Squeezeboxes don't have
> any native support for aac, and also where exactly would I install this
> applet, other than on my server?
>
> I have 3 Squeezebox Classics, and one Squeezebox Boom, and I don't think
> there is any way to install applets on them.

Okay, I only have a Squeezebox Radio, I just assumed they all worked the
same way but I must be wrong.

[Richard Evans]

On 16/01/2012 01:54, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
> "Richard Evans"<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

>>

>> I have 3 Squeezebox Classics, and one Squeezebox Boom, and I don't think
>> there is any way to install applets on them.
>
> Okay, I only have a Squeezebox Radio, I just assumed they all worked the
> same way but I must be wrong.
>

I don't know how the Squeezebox radio works, but the Classic and the
Boom are pretty much just dumb devices. They need to be controlled by
some sort of server. That server can be the Squeezebox Network on the
internet, or it can be a local server. I prefer to have a local server,
as for me the main point or it all was to have a music server for all my
CDs.

For this I bought a Barebones Tranquil PC, added a big Hard drive and
some memory, and installed Ubuntu Linux as an operating system.

Installing Squeezebox server under Ubuntu is pretty easy, and
instructions can be found with a bit of Gooleing. You basically edit the
list of software repositories, to add the one that stores the Squeezebox
server software. Then a couple of simple commands, and it downloads and
installs the whole thing pretty much by it's self.

Richard E.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:22:19 +0000
Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>We either need more capacity to allow higher bitrates or more up to
>date encoding technology to allow more efficient use of spectrum.
>Given all the radios sold, I suspect we are stuck with DAB/MP2 for the
>foreseeable future. My own view, which seems to have created a lot of
>argument and contention, is that we should emulate HD televison and
>set up a parallel service using the latest coding for those willing to
>pay for new equipment.

If it was up to me I'd declare DAB a failed experiment and over the course
of say 10 years slowly switch the DAB band over to become a 2nd FM band.

B2003

[Richard Evans]

On 16/01/2012 10:00, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On

> If it was up to me I'd declare DAB a failed experiment and over the course
> of say 10 years slowly switch the DAB band over to become a 2nd FM band.
>
> B2003
>
>

I can see your logic.
However A good modern digital system ought to be able to perform a lot
better than FM.

(And no that is not an excuse for SMS to tell us that we should use
HD-Radio)

Richard E.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:03:50 +0000
Richard Evans <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>I can see your logic.
>However A good modern digital system ought to be able to perform a lot
>better than FM.

It should , but any new digital system is immediately out of date anyway
and none of any potentials features will compete with streaming media other
than not requiring a net connection. FM is tried and tested and would be
pretty simple and cheap to implement both on the transmitter and receiver side.

>(And no that is not an excuse for SMS to tell us that we should use
>HD-Radio)

I don't know why he bothers. HD-Radio is only used the by the USA and lest
we forget that economic powerhouse Romania. Its going nowhere especially
given the interference it would cause on FM bands that don't use 200Khz
spacing. At least DAB isn't a bodge on top of analogue and managed a dozen
odd countries, not just 2.

B2003

[Richard Evans]

On 16/01/2012 14:18, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:03:50 +0000
> Richard Evans<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> I can see your logic.
>> However A good modern digital system ought to be able to perform a lot
>> better than FM.
>
> It should , but any new digital system is immediately out of date anyway

That was the case in the past, when digital broadcast systems were
limited mostly by computing power. However I don't agree that it is the
case any more.

These days we have access to vastly more computing power, and so
computing power is not the main limitation any more. Now the main
limitation is the Shannon limit. Basically a fundamental limit to the
amount of data that can be transmitted. This is a limit that is not
going to change, hence a broadcast system developed using all the best
techniques available today, is never going to be significantly improved
upon.

Also in the past, digital systems were not as good as FM, so FM was
still the best option. But a modern digital system could now be a lot
better than FM, so FM is no longer the best option.

> and none of any potentials features will compete with streaming media other
> than not requiring a net connection.

That is true, or at least it will be if everybody gets unlimited
internet downloads. At the moment many people have a download limit,
which does make you think twice about using radio via the internet, if
you can receive the same station via a good terrestrial broadcast, which
does not affect your download limit. Hopefully as communication lines
get cheaper and cheaper, download limits will no longer be an issue.

Also, if this is true of digital broadcasts, then isn't it also true of
FM. Why would FM compete with streamed media, any better than a digital
broadcast would?

I think in the long run, the main advantage of terrestrial broadcast
radio will be in situations where it is difficult to get a good internet
connection, and at the moment the main place is in the car. And
apparently most people do the bulk of their radio listening in the car.
At the moment, for most people, FM is the best way to receive radio in
the car, but a large factor in this is that our current broadcast
digital radio system (DAB) is a poor system, and so FM usually provides
much better sound quality, and in many areas it provides better coverage
aw well. A good modern digital broadcast system could however provide a
much better service for in car listening. They just need to use good
modern broadcast techniques.

> FM is tried and tested and would be
> pretty simple and cheap to implement both on the transmitter and receiver side.

Yes FM is cheap and simple, which in the past made it the ideal system.
However with digital processors getting increasingly cheaper and more
powerful, there is less and less of a reason not to develop and use a
digital system.

Also FM has the problem of every transmitter needing a separate
frequency from all the other transmitters in the area. There is no
practical way to implement SFN. This is perhaps less of a problem for
local Band II FM, because band II travels reasonably well, and
propagates into valleys etc. reasonably well. Hence a local station can
get pretty good coverage just from one TX, hence requiring only one
frequency.

Using Band III you would be more likely to need extra TX sites, and
using FM you may run into problems finding frequencies for all of them.
With a digital system however, you could simply use SFN, and put all the
fill in TX sites on the same frequency.

>
>> (And no that is not an excuse for SMS to tell us that we should use
>> HD-Radio)
>
> I don't know why he bothers. HD-Radio is only used the by the USA and lest
> we forget that economic powerhouse Romania. Its going nowhere especially
> given the interference it would cause on FM bands that don't use 200Khz
> spacing. At least DAB isn't a bodge on top of analogue and managed a dozen
> odd countries, not just 2.

HD-Radio is just another outdated poor transmission system, but there is
always somebody out there who for whatever reason wants to promote such
a system.

Richard E.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:06:01 +0000
Richard Evans <rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Also, if this is true of digital broadcasts, then isn't it also true of
>FM. Why would FM compete with streamed media, any better than a digital
>broadcast would?

It wouldn't, but given how much cheaper it would be the startup costs and
overheads would be a lot lower.

>Yes FM is cheap and simple, which in the past made it the ideal system.
>However with digital processors getting increasingly cheaper and more
>powerful, there is less and less of a reason not to develop and use a
>digital system.

Battery life and agreeing on a common system. The UK can't go it alone
with digital radio and getting the whole world to agree on a digital radio
system would probably be like herding cats. So why not just accept the fact
that digital broadcast radio for the time being is a dead end and go back
to analogue.

>Using Band III you would be more likely to need extra TX sites, and
>using FM you may run into problems finding frequencies for all of them.
>With a digital system however, you could simply use SFN, and put all the
>fill in TX sites on the same frequency.

I imagine band 3 if converted to FM would be used for local or community radio
so regional or national coverage would be irrelevant.

B2003

[hwh]

On 1/16/12 3:18 PM, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> I don't know why he bothers. HD-Radio is only used the by the USA and lest
> we forget that economic powerhouse Romania. Its going nowhere especially
> given the interference it would cause on FM bands that don't use 200Khz
> spacing. At least DAB isn't a bodge on top of analogue and managed a dozen
> odd countries, not just 2.

I think only the UK and Belgium have not announced a switch to DAB+ (yet).

gr, hwh

[Richard Evans]

On 16/01/2012 15:55, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:06:01 +0000
> Richard Evans<rp.evan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> Also, if this is true of digital broadcasts, then isn't it also true of
>> FM. Why would FM compete with streamed media, any better than a digital
>> broadcast would?
>
> It wouldn't, but given how much cheaper it would be the startup costs and
> overheads would be a lot lower.

Humm.... I don't know that actual figures but I wound think that Yes FM
receivers would be cheaper than digital receivers. As for transmission
costs, I'd say that digital would probably end up being cheaper, because
signal levels would not need to be so high.

So it comes down to how many people are prepared to pay the higher
receiver costs.

>
>> Yes FM is cheap and simple, which in the past made it the ideal system.
>> However with digital processors getting increasingly cheaper and more
>> powerful, there is less and less of a reason not to develop and use a
>> digital system.
>
> Battery life and agreeing on a common system. The UK can't go it alone
> with digital radio and getting the whole world to agree on a digital radio
> system would probably be like herding cats. So why not just accept the fact
> that digital broadcast radio for the time being is a dead end and go back
> to analogue.

They have already been doing trials of DVB-T2-Lite radio in another
country (can't remember which country). I think the advantages of
T2-Lite over DAB or DAB+ would be too great to ignore, so I think that
if it is a success in one country, others would follow suit.

Battery life is only an issue for portable radios, and it will become
less of a problem as lower power chip sets are developed. They have
already improved batter life in DAB/DAB+ receivers.

Also I think the main use of such a system would be in car, as when at
home most people would end up using the internet. For in car use,
battery life is not so much of an issue.

>
>> Using Band III you would be more likely to need extra TX sites, and
>> using FM you may run into problems finding frequencies for all of them.
>> With a digital system however, you could simply use SFN, and put all the
>> fill in TX sites on the same frequency.
>
> I imagine band 3 if converted to FM would be used for local or community radio
> so regional or national coverage would be irrelevant.

Well I'd wonder how many people would be prepared to pay for an extra
band on their radio just for community radio. Local radio perhaps, but I
would imagine the coverage would not be too good when you are using just
one low or medium poser TX site.

In the end, I can see advantages to using FM, for the sake of
simplicity, lower cost of receivers, and better battery life. However if
T2-Lite was used instead, then I think the advantages would far outweigh
the advantages over FM. The advantages of T2-Lite, would be more
services than FM, Better sound quality, and more robust mobile reception.

Richard E.