DAB Sounds Worse Than...
altgrr
I'm comparing the never-anything-more-than-pisspoor 96kbps mono Kerrang to a
20.7kbps Real stream, and, although I really don't want to conclude that the
Real artefacts are more pleasing (less displeasing, perhaps?) than what
happens to Kerrang between source material and my PC, I think I might just
have to.
Mikeapollo
which was the last thrilling installment of this debate,
altgrr burbled something like this :
Look on the bright side... 96kbps mono is, in theory, better quality than
128kbps stereo.
(º·.¸(¨*·.¸ ¸.·*¨)¸.·º) | Live and direct from Manchester, UK |
«.·°·. Mikeapollo .·°·.» | http://www.mikeapollo.net/ |
(¸.·º(¸.·¨* *¨·.¸)º·.¸) | |
altgrr
news:sI%Kb.19622$qx2.2...@stones.force9.net...
> In message 10735140...@ananke.eclipse.net.uk
> which was the last thrilling installment of this debate,
> altgrr burbled something like this :
>
> > ...a 20.7kbps Real stream?
> >
> > I'm comparing the never-anything-more-than-pisspoor 96kbps mono
> > Kerrang to a
> > 20.7kbps Real stream, and, although I really don't want to conclude
> > that the Real artefacts are more pleasing (less displeasing,
> > perhaps?) than what happens to Kerrang between source material and my
> > PC, I think I might just have to.
>
> Look on the bright side... 96kbps mono is, in theory, better quality than
> 128kbps stereo.
Or better than a 32kbps stereo Real stream? :)
To be fair, a lot of the problems are caused or exacerbated by Kerrang's
over-processing, but even so, it indicates that DAB is in a sorry state.
Bob Sandeman
"altgrr" <rrg...@purplebeetle.net> wrote in message
news:10735162...@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
wonder?
Mikeapollo
which was the last thrilling installment of this debate,
altgrr burbled something like this :
> "Mikeapollo" <use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote in message
> news:sI%Kb.19622$qx2.2...@stones.force9.net...
>> Look on the bright side... 96kbps mono is, in theory, better quality
>> than 128kbps stereo.
>
> Or better than a 32kbps stereo Real stream? :)
>
> To be fair, a lot of the problems are caused or exacerbated by
> Kerrang's over-processing,
Yes. I did have a listen to our (stereo) version here a while back and
recall it had some pretty heavy processing!
> but even so, it indicates that DAB is in a
> sorry state
Of that there is no argument..
(บท.ธ(จ*ท.ธ ธ.ท*จ)ธ.ทบ) | Live and direct from Manchester, UK |
ซ.ทฐท. Mikeapollo .ทฐท.ป | http://www.mikeapollo.net/ |
(ธ.ทบ(ธ.ทจ* *จท.ธ)บท.ธ) | |
Colin
Indeed, in this case bitrate is certainly secondary to abysmal studio /
processing standards.
As has been said, 96kbps MP2 is capable of pretty good results (albeit in
mono of course).
Colin
DAB sounds worse than FM
I read what I can only assume to be your comments (Colin, SW London, of
course there'll be lots of Colins in SW London, but your tone is pretty
unmistakeable) on a different forum yesterday where you said about Kerrang
being transmitted at 64kbps mono:
"All these shenanigans are part & parcel of good capitalism. Ofcom has no
need to be involved."
If Kerrang at 64kbps mono on a multiplex that has a load of spare space on
it is good capitalism, then I'd hate to see bad capitalism.
Enjoy the low audio quality on DAB, you deserve it.
--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info
DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
internet and FM
Mikeapollo
which was the last thrilling installment of this debate,
Oh dear... Agree about the capitalism (not sure whether it would be the same
Colin tho - hopefully not!)
Just to clarify, is Kerrang *really* at 64kbps mono? Can someone who can
receive the mux confirm?? I just can't believe a music programme is going
out at that bit rate. Mono is incredible enough for a music transmission,
but mono AT 64kbps is truely incredible.
DAB sounds worse than FM
From http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/:
"January 2nd
A new Service has popped up on MXR WestMidlands. Kerrang! (C4B3) is reported
to be running at 64 kbit/s, Mono."
Brian Gregory [UK]
message news:EZ1Lb.203$Gs2.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> From http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/:
>
> "January 2nd
> A new Service has popped up on MXR WestMidlands. Kerrang! (C4B3) is
reported
> to be running at 64 kbit/s, Mono."
But in London it is 96kbps mono.
--
Brian Gregory (In the UK).
b...@catlover.com
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:EZ1Lb.203$Gs2.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>> From http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/:
>>
>> "January 2nd
>> A new Service has popped up on MXR WestMidlands. Kerrang! (C4B3) is
>> reported to be running at 64 kbit/s, Mono."
>
> But in London it is 96kbps mono.
But London isn't in the West Midlands.
Phil Striplin
<use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote:
>Just to clarify, is Kerrang *really* at 64kbps mono? Can someone who can
>receive the mux confirm?? I just can't believe a music programme is going
>out at that bit rate. Mono is incredible enough for a music transmission,
>but mono AT 64kbps is truely incredible.
Yes it is being transmitted at 64K mono (well, it's being received in
Worcestershire at 64K mono, which sort of suggests it's being
transmitted thusly). There's no program type being transmitted,
either.
The MXR mux had 128K of space reserved on it for the Asian Network
IIRC, which hasn't been used as the AN is, as we all know, on the BBC
National Mux. So there's definitely the space available.
It'll look pretty crap when Kerrang start with their FM service -
unless they plan to run that in mono too, of course.
Phil
Richard L.
"Mikeapollo" <use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote:
> Just to clarify, is Kerrang *really* at 64kbps mono? Can someone who can
> receive the mux confirm?? I just can't believe a music programme is going
> out at that bit rate. Mono is incredible enough for a music transmission,
> but mono AT 64kbps is truely incredible.
Well, I listened to Charlie Gillett's record programme on WS yesterday
lunchtime while out and about, and really enjoyed it -- despite 64
kbit/s. I could have heard it at home at 192kbit/s but I wasn't at
home. You do have a choice.
Richard L.
--
Brian Gregory [UK]
message news:EZ1Lb.203$Gs2.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> "January 2nd
> A new Service has popped up on MXR WestMidlands. Kerrang! (C4B3) is
reported
> to be running at 64 kbit/s, Mono."
But West Midlands isn't London.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:EZ1Lb.203$Gs2.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>> From http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/:
>>
>> "January 2nd
>> A new Service has popped up on MXR WestMidlands. Kerrang! (C4B3) is
>> reported to be running at 64 kbit/s, Mono."
>
> But West Midlands isn't London.
WTF are you going on about? You posted this last night:
"But in London it is 96kbps mono."
and now you're telling us the astounding news that West Midlands isn't
London.
Read this slowly, and repeat reading until it sinks in cos I've absolutely
no idea WTF your point is:
http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/ukloc.html#London2
Kerrang on Switch London - 96kbps mono
From http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/:
"January 2nd
A new Service has popped up on MXR WestMidlands. Kerrang! (C4B3) is reported
to be running at 64 kbit/s, Mono."
Which bit don't you understand?
Kerrang is 64kbps in the West Midlands and it is 96kbps in London.
Mikeapollo
"Richard L." <use...@nospamwireless.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3feb7a6d...@wireless.demon.co.uk...
I am going to assume that you are not a Kerrang! listener then and do not
understand the programme content nor the "station sound" (ie processing
levels).
Rock music at 64kbps is a challenge, when it's over processed you might as
well just not get out of bed (apart from your 8 year FM licence extension
you get when you simulcast on DAB tho)
Colin
Congratulations Sherlock. Unfortunately you've got the wrong end of the
stick again. I was explaining the attitude of the new 'light touch super
regulator' to technical issues which it is minded to leave to the
capitalistic market to sort out for itself.
I was in no way condoning 64kbps as a technical standard - the piece was
written with tongue firmly in cheek.
Colin
Colin
>
> Rock music at 64kbps is a challenge, when it's over processed you might as
> well just not get out of bed (apart from your 8 year FM licence extension
> you get when you simulcast on DAB tho)
>
>
> (บท.ธ(จ*ท.ธ ธ.ท*จ)ธ.ทบ) | Live and direct from Manchester, UK |
> ซ.ทฐท. Mikeapollo .ทฐท.ป | http://www.mikeapollo.net/ |
> (ธ.ทบ(ธ.ทจ* *จท.ธ)บท.ธ) | |
>
The FM licence extension was another point I made on the other forum, which
DABSWTFM either didn't read or didn't quote in his selective edit.
Yes - it is highly likely that this is the only reason Kerrang! has
appeared. Will they even bother advertising the DAB availability on air I
wonder?
Colin
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "Mikeapollo" <use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote in message
> news:ikeLb.20125$qx2.2...@stones.force9.net...
>>
>> Rock music at 64kbps is a challenge, when it's over processed you
>> might as well just not get out of bed (apart from your 8 year FM
>> licence extension you get when you simulcast on DAB tho)
>>
>>
>> (บท.ธ(จ*ท.ธ ธ.ท*จ)ธ.ทบ) | Live and direct from Manchester, UK |
>> ซ.ทฐท. Mikeapollo .ทฐท.ป | http://www.mikeapollo.net/ |
>> (ธ.ทบ(ธ.ทจ* *จท.ธ)บท.ธ) | |
>>
>
> The FM licence extension was another point I made on the other forum,
> which DABSWTFM either didn't read or didn't quote in his selective
> edit.
Unless I copied the whole bloody thread, or all of your postings on the
thread then I will have been selectively editing what you said.
Basically, Colin, you sign DAB's praises on here even though you're well
aware of its drawbacks, so when you come out with a statement saying that
64kbps mono for what really should be a stereo music station is simply "part
and parcel of good capitalism" then you deserve to be treated like the
obnoxious broadcasters that have made DAB the way it is.
Enjoy the low audio quality on DAB because you don't deserve anything
better.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> Congratulations Sherlock. Unfortunately you've got the wrong end of
> the stick again. I was explaining the attitude of the new 'light
> touch super regulator' to technical issues which it is minded to
> leave to the capitalistic market to sort out for itself.
I have to say that although I do believe that you were being tongue in
cheek, because of the way you sing DAB's praises on here even though you're
well aware that the bit rates in the UK are an absolute joke.
> I was in no way condoning 64kbps as a technical standard - the piece
> was written with tongue firmly in cheek.
So will you be sending a contribution to the public consultation? What will
you be saying; more of the same please?
Colin
> Colin wrote:
> > The FM licence extension was another point I made on the other forum,
> > which DABSWTFM either didn't read or didn't quote in his selective
> > edit.
>
>
> Unless I copied the whole bloody thread, or all of your postings on the
> thread then I will have been selectively editing what you said.
>
> Basically, Colin, you sign DAB's praises on here even though you're well
> aware of its drawbacks, so when you come out with a statement saying that
> 64kbps mono for what really should be a stereo music station is simply
"part
> and parcel of good capitalism" then you deserve to be treated like the
> obnoxious broadcasters that have made DAB the way it is.
>
> Enjoy the low audio quality on DAB because you don't deserve anything
> better.
>
>
> --
> Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info
>
> DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
> internet and FM
FFS - once again that is not my opinion, it is my guess as to Ofcoms opinion
on the subject of bitrates. By only copying that quote you have extracted it
from its context.
And as for liking low quality audio, while you wallow in this newsgroup I've
had a letter published in the London Evening Standard today extolling the
virtues of SACD reproduction.
The whole point of my postings here are, not that the UK DAB implementation
is technically excellent, but that it is all that can be expected from an
industry that sees no commercial advantage in spending money catering for a
hi-fi loving niche (and we must admit that we are in the minority when it
comes to radio listeners).
Listen, I'm a perfectionist too. In fantasy land I would love 192kbps or
higher on all DAB stations. However, I also happen to accept that the DAB
broadcasters have made a business decision of quantity over quality, and I
concur with the belief that this is the feature that will sell DAB to the
populace, if it happens at all.
Maybe the nasty realism of working in a capitalist business has rubbed off
on me too much, eh Steve?
If we get more Band III Channels for DAB then maybe things will change, but
even then you've still got to persuade the broadcasters to invest further
and duplicate their existing transmitter infrastructure for the sake of
relatively few hi-fi buffs. Is that really going to persuade the
shareholders??
Colin
Colin
Actually I am going to write something this weekend as a last minute
comment.
As I said in October, I see no reason why channels 10B, 10C, 10D, 11A, and
possibly 10A (if the guard banding issue can be sorted out) within VHF Band
III Sub Band III should not be allocated immediately to DAB-T as they are
just not being used at the moment, and it is the only immediately practical
solution to increasing DAB capacity across the UK (given the spread of
transmission sites).
As for who they should be allocated to - maybe 1 for SFN's in Wales,
Scotland & NI for BBC usage (improved BBC quality + regional services)
shared with independent locals in parts of England away from the borders.
Another for 1 x SFN in England for BBC usage (improved BBC quality) shared
with independent locals in parts of Wales, Scotland & NI away from the
borders.
A new national SFN.
And the other two for local MUXes to increase the number of stations
available to DAB listeners outside London, and in areas than cannot
currently be served with the reduced number of channels.
If DAB really takes off then further migration into SubBand II can be
considered when the services currently inhabiting it have been ceased
(probably after 2012).
As for L-Band - by all means reserve for DAB usage but don't expect it to be
particularly popular in the short term until DAB has established itself. The
need for many more transmission sites may make it of interest to the mobile
operators if they want to develop broadcast services to portable devices
(not necessarily using the Eureka standard?).
Colin
DAB sounds worse than FM
Here's your post in full so that I cannot be criticised for taking it out of
context:
"MXR own the West Midland multiplex and 'sell the bits'. Kerrang! (EMAP
Performance) purchase the bits. EMAP have to pay more money for more bits
per second.
So it's a mixture of the two. MXR set the prices and who they deal with.
EMAP have determined how much they are prepared to pay for their station on
DAB.
EMAP is not in the MXR consortium, so MXR might have hiked the price, or
EMAP might have decided to pay as little as possible to their competitors.
Unless MXR has a commitment to a heavy rock station and/or to carry regional
FM stations in its DAB licence they have the stronger hand.
Of course they may go up to 128kbps when the FM service launches, and are
only at a low bitrate until then to save money. Remember that nobody is
forcing Kerrang to pay for a stereo station if they don't want it. Also they
do have the alternative of trying to get onto the Local MUXes in the area,
but getting onto two or three of these might be more difficult & expensive
than the one regional MUX.
All these shenanigans are part & parcel of good capitalism. Ofcom has no
need to be involved."
Basically you're just stating things matter of factly, and your last
sentence seems no different.
> And as for liking low quality audio, while you wallow in this
> newsgroup I've had a letter published in the London Evening Standard
> today extolling the virtues of SACD reproduction.
Oh my God, you don't mean you've really had a letter published in the London
Evening Standard have you? Wow, you must be famous. I'm honoured to
associate with you.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire but I couldn't give a flying fuck if you've
just won the Nobel Prize for your services to digital audio.
> The whole point of my postings here are, not that the UK DAB
> implementation is technically excellent, but that it is all that can
> be expected from an industry that sees no commercial advantage in
> spending money catering for a hi-fi loving niche (and we must admit
> that we are in the minority when it comes to radio listeners).
Never refer to yourself as being in the same group as myself by using the
word "we".
> Listen, I'm a perfectionist too. In fantasy land I would love 192kbps
> or higher on all DAB stations. However, I also happen to accept that
> the DAB broadcasters have made a business decision of quantity over
> quality, and I concur with the belief that this is the feature that
> will sell DAB to the populace, if it happens at all.
I refer you to this page:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/worldwide_dab.htm
which shows categorically that we have the worst audio quality in the entire
world, and that basically there is no excuse for providing us with the
**shite** audio quality that we are being served with.
> Maybe the nasty realism of working in a capitalist business has
> rubbed off on me too much, eh Steve?
Well, I do look upon you with some disgust, so that's probably true. What
type of business do you work for?
> If we get more Band III Channels for DAB then maybe things will
> change,
No, you know very well that bit rates will not increase on DAB no matter how
much spectrum the commercial broadcasters are given. It's all that nasty
capitalist realism you talk about, or in other words they're greedy twats
and they can get away with it because the regulators do not have the best
interest of the general public in mind; they are only there to be "enablers"
for the commercial radio industry.
> but even then you've still got to persuade the broadcasters
Why me?
> to invest further and duplicate their existing transmitter
> infrastructure for the sake of relatively few hi-fi buffs. Is that
> really going to persuade the shareholders??
You seem sold on the DAB industry's bullshit, but I don't happen to go along
with what you say. The fact that higher bit rates means higher audio quality
FOR ALL seems to have escaped your attention. Moreover, the fact that
lower-end "hi-fi" will continue to improve due to advancements in
electronics (we're going to start seeing digital power amplification, which
with development will end up providing higher audio quality in the lower-end
of hi-fi systems, and oversampling DACs will just get cheaper and cheaper so
that what are now looked upon as high audio quality DACs will be cheap
enough to go in lower-end products), so your bullshit about only hi-fi buffs
being able to notice the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps is just
that, complete and utter bullshit.
But hey, I wouldn't like to burst your bubble of complete ignorance, and I
obviously wouldn't want to try and shake your belief that the broadcasters
have to do what they are currently doing and they're only doing so due to
bare-faced greed for few at the expense of the millions that have to endure
their shite.
Brian Gregory [UK]
You posted a fact.
I posted a fact.
Yet you saw fit to tell me my fact wasn't relivant.
Neither WM or London had been mentioned by anyone except you in the
thread but 96k mono had been mentioned. Which of our two facts was most
relivant to the thread?
DAB sounds worse than FM
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:cHcLb.138$Hs4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> You posted a fact.
>
> I posted a fact.
>
> Yet you saw fit to tell me my fact wasn't relivant.
You posted an irrelevant fact. I pointed out that it was irrelevant.
>
> Neither WM or London had been mentioned by anyone except you in the
> thread but 96k mono had been mentioned. Which of our two facts was
> most relivant to the thread?
This is what I posted:
"I read what I can only assume to be your comments (Colin, SW London, of
course there'll be lots of Colins in SW London, but your tone is pretty
unmistakeable) on a different forum yesterday where you said about Kerrang
being transmitted at 64kbps mono:
"All these shenanigans are part & parcel of good capitalism. Ofcom has no
need to be involved."
If Kerrang at 64kbps mono on a multiplex that has a load of spare space on
it is good capitalism, then I'd hate to see bad capitalism."
You then quoted a bit rate from a different multiplex in some attempt to
find me out to be wrong. Unfortunately for yourself, you were wrong, because
we weren't talking about London.
Colin
Obviously my sarcasm is not obvious enough in print. A previous post in that
thread:
'= That's awfull! Kerang is at 96kbs mono in London-That's bad enough! Ofcom
should set up some
= new rules for DAB broadcasting, something like 80kps mono minimum for a
speech station and
= 160kbs stereo for a music station. Anyone agree with me?...
That is what many listeners would like, however Ofcom is minded to be less
restrictive than the RAu in its regulation, so expect technical limits to be
relaxed rather than tightened.
The market rules dontuknow, and will determine itself what is acceptable and
what isn't.'
Again, that last sentence was tongue in cheek.
>
> > And as for liking low quality audio, while you wallow in this
> > newsgroup I've had a letter published in the London Evening Standard
> > today extolling the virtues of SACD reproduction.
>
>
> Oh my God, you don't mean you've really had a letter published in the
London
> Evening Standard have you? Wow, you must be famous. I'm honoured to
> associate with you.
>
> Sorry to piss on your bonfire but I couldn't give a flying fuck if you've
> just won the Nobel Prize for your services to digital audio.
Evening Standard Daily Circulation: 412,047
Readership of this newsgroup:...........
You've been fighting your corner here for how long now? It's a USENET
NEWSGROUP FFS! You are never going to win over the general public with an
argument by restricting yourself to alt.radio.digital. Of course you are
going to get a more sympathetic audience here, but is it really worth all
that effort and time preaching to the converted? Are you actually getting
anywhere?
I remember you saying some time ago that you were going to widen your
campaign to the press. What became of that? Getting letters printed in large
circulation papers that are read by people in a position to change things is
an effective way of doing it.
> > The whole point of my postings here are, not that the UK DAB
> > implementation is technically excellent, but that it is all that can
> > be expected from an industry that sees no commercial advantage in
> > spending money catering for a hi-fi loving niche (and we must admit
> > that we are in the minority when it comes to radio listeners).
>
>
> Never refer to yourself as being in the same group as myself by using the
> word "we".
How else should I refer to the subscribers to alt.radio.digital?
> > Listen, I'm a perfectionist too. In fantasy land I would love 192kbps
> > or higher on all DAB stations. However, I also happen to accept that
> > the DAB broadcasters have made a business decision of quantity over
> > quality, and I concur with the belief that this is the feature that
> > will sell DAB to the populace, if it happens at all.
>
>
> I refer you to this page:
>
> http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/worldwide_dab.htm
>
> which shows categorically that we have the worst audio quality in the
entire
> world, and that basically there is no excuse for providing us with the
> **shite** audio quality that we are being served with.
And are any of those countries selling DAB radios at a faster rate than in
the UK?
> > Maybe the nasty realism of working in a capitalist business has
> > rubbed off on me too much, eh Steve?
>
>
> Well, I do look upon you with some disgust, so that's probably true. What
> type of business do you work for?
Telecomms / RF Engineering - but not for a company involved in DAB
broadcasting.
You never replied to my last post about Doppler did you.......
> > If we get more Band III Channels for DAB then maybe things will
> > change,
>
>
> No, you know very well that bit rates will not increase on DAB no matter
how
> much spectrum the commercial broadcasters are given. It's all that nasty
> capitalist realism you talk about, or in other words they're greedy twats
> and they can get away with it because the regulators do not have the best
> interest of the general public in mind; they are only there to be
"enablers"
> for the commercial radio industry.
Hooray - a sentence I agree with, although I'm much too polite to use such
strongly worded sentiments. Business is by its nature 'greedy'. Did you not
know?
> > but even then you've still got to persuade the broadcasters
>
>
> Why me?
Do you see anyone else around 'bouts prepared to put any real effort into
it? Usenet posts are one thing, a campaign group with clout, well that's
something else.
> > to invest further and duplicate their existing transmitter
> > infrastructure for the sake of relatively few hi-fi buffs. Is that
> > really going to persuade the shareholders??
>
>
> You seem sold on the DAB industry's bullshit, but I don't happen to go
along
> with what you say. The fact that higher bit rates means higher audio
quality
> FOR ALL seems to have escaped your attention.
True - but do enough really care?
Moreover, the fact that
> lower-end "hi-fi" will continue to improve due to advancements in
> electronics (we're going to start seeing digital power amplification,
which
> with development will end up providing higher audio quality in the
lower-end
> of hi-fi systems, and oversampling DACs will just get cheaper and cheaper
so
> that what are now looked upon as high audio quality DACs will be cheap
> enough to go in lower-end products), so your bullshit about only hi-fi
buffs
> being able to notice the difference between 128kbps and 192kbps is just
> that, complete and utter bullshit.
OK - so joe public may be able to notice a difference in future. Again I
ask, do enough really care about a radio which is mainly used for background
music when doing other things?
>
> But hey, I wouldn't like to burst your bubble of complete ignorance, and I
> obviously wouldn't want to try and shake your belief that the broadcasters
> have to do what they are currently doing and they're only doing so due to
> bare-faced greed for few at the expense of the millions that have to
endure
> their shite.
>
And I won't shake your belief that millions of grateful radio listeners will
flock to DAB because the bitrate on their radio station has been increased
from 128 to 192kbps.
FM took over 30 years to overtake AM as the waveband of choice for the
populace with sound that was infinitely better. The quest for better sound
really got them switching over in droves then didn't it! (better point out -
that was sarcasm again). So, I know let's take the same tack again.......
DAB does not have the luxury of being around that long. It will get
overtaken by developments. If there is to be any justification for the
investment they need to get those listeners in now.
Colin
Brian Gregory [UK]
altgrr
news:3ffdd961$0$9394$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <email_me@via_my_website.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:cHcLb.138$Hs4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> You posted a fact.
>
> I posted a fact.
>
> Yet you saw fit to tell me my fact wasn't relivant.
>
> Neither WM or London had been mentioned by anyone except you in the
> thread but 96k mono had been mentioned. Which of our two facts was most
> relivant to the thread?
64kbps in the WM is relevant in the "altgrr gets it at 96kbps and it sounds
as bad as a 20.7kbps RA stream - but it could be worse, it could be 64kbps!"
context. I'd like to know what RA stream that sounds similar to. More
importantly, I wonder if I'd be able to receive it on my mobile phone.
DAB sounds worse than FM
> Nope, no following your argument at all here.
How convenient that you don't follow the argument when you were the person
that posted something completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Brian Gregory [UK]
> 64kbps in the WM is relevant in the "altgrr gets it at 96kbps and it
sounds
> as bad as a 20.7kbps RA stream - but it could be worse, it could be
64kbps!"
> context. I'd like to know what RA stream that sounds similar to.
More
> importantly, I wonder if I'd be able to receive it on my mobile phone.
Where did anybody say that in this thread (and before I left my
comment).
DAB sounds worse than FM
I posted:
"From http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/:
"January 2nd
A new Service has popped up on MXR WestMidlands. Kerrang! (C4B3) is reported
to be running at 64 kbit/s, Mono.""
You replied with:
"But in London it is 96kbps mono."
which basically shows that yours was a moronic comment because of its
complete irrelevance to anything being discussed on the thread.
I suggest you stop digging.
Mikeapollo
"Colin" <co...@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:btkbe7$srh$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Given that EMAP appear to be pushing digital radio at the moment, I would
think they probably will - however it will be interesting to see how they
will pull off their "better than FM" claim...
Mikeapollo
DAB sounds worse than FM
That's simple, DAB is digital, so they can just keep lying for long enough
that it's better and everybody will be taken in. It's working so far, just
look at all the clowns on this newsgroup.
altgrr
It was implicit. At least, I thought it was.
altgrr
>
> "Colin" <co...@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:btkbe7$srh$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > appeared. Will they even bother advertising the DAB availability on air
I
> > wonder?
>
> Given that EMAP appear to be pushing digital radio at the moment, I would
> think they probably will - however it will be interesting to see how they
> will pull off their "better than FM" claim...
I've always questioned anything that is claimed by anyone, even a supposed
authority on a subject. However, there are as many stupid people in the
world as there are clever people, and there are probably a number of people
who wouldn't be classed as stupid who are pragmatists and think "Well, if
someone a little bit cleverer than me tells me something, it must be true".
:)
David Robinson
> Listen, I'm a perfectionist too. In fantasy land I would love 192kbps or
> higher on all DAB stations. However, I also happen to accept that the DAB
> broadcasters have made a business decision of quantity over quality, and I
> concur with the belief that this is the feature that will sell DAB to the
> populace, if it happens at all.
That being true, I think it's useful if anyone who actually likes good
sound quality does everything they can to make sure that DAB is not a
success in its current form.
I can remember how the Hi-Fi press constantly talked down MiniDisc
because it was lossy and not as good as CD. There are plenty of people
I know who put off buying MD for years because they believed that it
sounded awful. They were amazed when they actually did hear it!
It would be a dream if DAB sounded as good as MD. However, DAB really
does sound bad, and most people can hear the shortcomings of 128kbps
commercial stations on DAB when compared to a clean source.
So it's quite fair to make this as widely known as possible. Hopefully
this truthful information will make DAB sink without a trace. Or cause
the broadcasters to re-think their approach in order to make DAB a
success. Because the minority of "Hi-Fi" and quality conscious early
adopters _do_ have the power to make or break a product. If you think
people buying DAB now aren't early adopters because it's been around
for 8 years, just look at the total sales figures to date!
At the current DAB receiver prices, a quality product would sell. DAB
is not a quality product, and is not selling.
If you heard 64kbps mono music playing through a friends Hi-Fi, would
you think "ooo - must get one of those new digital radios", or "that
sounds like crap - I'd rather buy some more CDs!"
Cheers,
David.
Dave P.
wrote:
>The whole point of my postings here are, not that the UK DAB implementation
>is technically excellent, but that it is all that can be expected from an
>industry that sees no commercial advantage in spending money catering for a
>hi-fi loving niche (and we must admit that we are in the minority when it
>comes to radio listeners).
>
>Listen, I'm a perfectionist too. In fantasy land I would love 192kbps or
>higher on all DAB stations. However, I also happen to accept that the DAB
>broadcasters have made a business decision of quantity over quality, and I
>concur with the belief that this is the feature that will sell DAB to the
>populace, if it happens at all.
>
>Maybe the nasty realism of working in a capitalist business has rubbed off
>on me too much, eh Steve?
>
>If we get more Band III Channels for DAB then maybe things will change, but
>even then you've still got to persuade the broadcasters to invest further
>and duplicate their existing transmitter infrastructure for the sake of
>relatively few hi-fi buffs. Is that really going to persuade the
>shareholders??
>
Here here!
I don't hold out much hope that more space would give better quality
either, once DAB reaches the main stream (yeah yeah, I know...) the
pressure on space will become enourmous. Unlesss Ofcom finds its teeth
quality won't get a look-in.
Dave P.
(Remove the numbers to mail me)
Mikeapollo
> Mikeapollo wrote:
> > "Colin" <co...@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:btkbe7$srh$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "Mikeapollo" <use...@mikeapollo.net> wrote in message
> >> news:ikeLb.20125$qx2.2...@stones.force9.net...
> >>>
> >>> Rock music at 64kbps is a challenge, when it's over processed you
> >>> might as well just not get out of bed (apart from your 8 year FM
> >>> licence extension you get when you simulcast on DAB tho)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> (บท.ธ(จ*ท.ธ ธ.ท*จ)ธ.ทบ) | Live and direct from Manchester, UK
> >>> | ซ.ทฐท. Mikeapollo .ทฐท.ป | http://www.mikeapollo.net/
> >>> | (ธ.ทบ(ธ.ทจ* *จท.ธ)บท.ธ) |
> >>> |
> >>>
> >>
> >> The FM licence extension was another point I made on the other
> >> forum, which DABSWTFM either didn't read or didn't quote in his
> >> selective edit.
> >>
> >> Yes - it is highly likely that this is the only reason Kerrang! has
> >> appeared. Will they even bother advertising the DAB availability on
> >> air I wonder?
> >
> > Given that EMAP appear to be pushing digital radio at the moment, I
> > would think they probably will - however it will be interesting to
> > see how they will pull off their "better than FM" claim...
>
> That's simple, DAB is digital, so they can just keep lying for long enough
> that it's better and everybody will be taken in. It's working so far, just
> look at all the clowns on this newsgroup.
Yeah - but even the entertaining lunatic fringe would hear the difference on
a station like Kerrang! at that bitrate - even if they have only got one
speaker on their reproductive gear, and one half functioning lug 'ole on the
side of their head! Kerrags choice of music and heavy processing will make
it stick out like a sore thumb... Unless the stations FM implementation is
as bad! (which unfortunately wouldn't surprise me)
Mikeapollo
DAB sounds worse than FM
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 20:44:18 -0000, "Colin" <co...@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> The whole point of my postings here are, not that the UK DAB
>> implementation is technically excellent, but that it is all that can
>> be expected from an industry that sees no commercial advantage in
>> spending money catering for a hi-fi loving niche (and we must admit
>> that we are in the minority when it comes to radio listeners).
>>
>> Listen, I'm a perfectionist too. In fantasy land I would love
>> 192kbps or higher on all DAB stations. However, I also happen to
>> accept that the DAB broadcasters have made a business decision of
>> quantity over quality, and I concur with the belief that this is the
>> feature that will sell DAB to the populace, if it happens at all.
>>
>> Maybe the nasty realism of working in a capitalist business has
>> rubbed off on me too much, eh Steve?
>>
>> If we get more Band III Channels for DAB then maybe things will
>> change, but even then you've still got to persuade the broadcasters
>> to invest further and duplicate their existing transmitter
>> infrastructure for the sake of relatively few hi-fi buffs. Is that
>> really going to persuade the shareholders??
>>
>
> Here here!
http://phrases.shu.ac.uk/meanings/178100.html
> I don't hold out much hope that more space would give better quality
> either, once DAB reaches the main stream (yeah yeah, I know...) the
> pressure on space will become enourmous. Unlesss Ofcom finds its teeth
> quality won't get a look-in.
Ofcom are promoting "self-regulation", or failing that even lighter-touch
regulation than the Radio "Authority" et al, so Ofcom haven't, and won't get
any teeth as far as quality is concerned.
--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info
DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
internet and FM
Digital Radio in the UK is a national disgrace
Richard L.
davidr...@postmaster.co.uk (David Robinson) wrote:
> "Colin" <co...@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<btkff1$su2$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
> > Listen, I'm a perfectionist too. In fantasy land I would love 192kbps or
> > higher on all DAB stations. However, I also happen to accept that the DAB
> > broadcasters have made a business decision of quantity over quality, and I
> > concur with the belief that this is the feature that will sell DAB to the
> > populace, if it happens at all.
>
> That being true, I think it's useful if anyone who actually likes good
> sound quality does everything they can to make sure that DAB is not a
> success in its current form.
That puts me of Private Eye's spoof of Michael Howard's recent "I believe" advertisement -- the bit which says:
I do not believe
that one man's education gives another man flu.
Richard L.
--