Re: DAB aerial

15 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

Andy Burns

unread,
May 12, 2007, 8:16:26 AM5/12/07
to
On 12/05/2007 12:41, nos...@nospam.org wrote:

> So far so good. But I have now upgraded to a DAB radio. What aerial
> should I use for this? I presume a special DAB one.

yes e.g.

http://blake-uk.com/prod_products_aerials_abm.aspx

> But can I use the
> multiplexer option with that?

Plenty around, I use a blake "loft box" which multiplexes UHF+SAT TV
with FM+DAB radio

http://blake-uk.com/prod_products_proception_prostr.aspx

you'll need a di/triplexing faceplate at the outlet too, I might as well
keep all the links to one site!

http://blake-uk.com/prod_products_proception_proout.aspx

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 12, 2007, 8:24:19 AM5/12/07
to
In article <eo9b439jj0odgquac...@4ax.com>,
<nos...@nospam.org> wrote:
> I hope this is not considered off-topic. I have read other posts here
> about TV aerials and I hope to fit the aerial myself, so I think it
> falls into the category of DIY.

> I know you can get FM aerials for your radio and you can get a
> multiplexer so that you can combine the TV aerial and fm aerial (in
> your loft) into one cable and then use a demuiltiplexer at the other
> end (in your lounge) to separate the TV and radio. This saves lying
> another cable.

> So far so good. But I have now upgraded to a DAB radio. What aerial

> should I use for this? I presume a special DAB one. But can I use the
> multiplexer option with that? I don't want to be lifting floorboards
> etc. to lay a new cable if I can help it. I haven't seen any TV/dab
> multiplexers or have I? I have seen uhf/vhf multiplexers; is this what
> these are? If not, what are they?

You are indeed best to have an external aerial for DAB unless in a very
high signal area, as a poor signal produces unpleasant noises - some
describe it as mud boiling.

In many areas a simple vertical dipole will suffice - although Yagi arrays
are available at from around the 20 quid mark.

As regards the diplexer I tend to avoid them since cable isn't that
expensive, but I'd imagine one designed for VHF will be ok for Band III as
well as Band II.

--
*A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well*

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andy Hall

unread,
May 12, 2007, 8:38:00 AM5/12/07
to
On 2007-05-12 12:41:35 +0100, nos...@nospam.org said:

> Hello,


>
> I hope this is not considered off-topic. I have read other posts here
> about TV aerials and I hope to fit the aerial myself, so I think it
> falls into the category of DIY.
>
> I know you can get FM aerials for your radio and you can get a
> multiplexer so that you can combine the TV aerial and fm aerial (in
> your loft) into one cable and then use a demuiltiplexer at the other
> end (in your lounge) to separate the TV and radio. This saves lying
> another cable.
>
> So far so good. But I have now upgraded to a DAB radio. What aerial
> should I use for this? I presume a special DAB one.

Correct. There are single element ones which may be enough if you
live in a reasonable signal area or 4 element ones if not. These are
more directional but not so much so that they are not useful for signal
from the sides. I had a 4 element one fitted and directed towards
the weaker of two transmitters. This results in good and approximately
equal signals from each and a good selection of programmes.


> But can I use the
> multiplexer option with that? I don't want to be lifting floorboards
> etc. to lay a new cable if I can help it. I haven't seen any TV/dab
> multiplexers or have I? I have seen uhf/vhf multiplexers; is this what
> these are? If not, what are they?
>

> Thanks,

There are multiplexers for introducing a DAB signal into a mix of others.

The way I did it (which is the typical one, I believe) was to combine
the FM antenna signal with the DAB one. There is a diplexer to do that
(Google for DAB diplexer).

I then have a launch amplifier for my house cable system which has
separate inputs for UHF and VHF (means FM and DAB).

Otherwise, the VHF and UHF can be combined via a VHF/UHF diplexer and
the lot fed to a distribution amplifier.


The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 12, 2007, 10:15:47 AM5/12/07
to

Actually really you don't.

The input sage of what you plug in makes a pretty good demux in itself.

I've got simple paralelled sockets running off muxed FM/TV feeds from
the dis amp, and no problems at all to date.

Sure its a bit of an impedance mismatch, but the signal is high enough
after the amp to make this a non issue.

>
> http://blake-uk.com/prod_products_proception_proout.aspx
>

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 12, 2007, 11:55:01 AM5/12/07
to
In article <11789793...@iris.uk.clara.net>,

The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> Actually really you don't.

> The input sage of what you plug in makes a pretty good demux in itself.

> I've got simple paralelled sockets running off muxed FM/TV feeds from
> the dis amp, and no problems at all to date.

You may get away with it, but in strong signal areas adding the rubbish
signals from the 'wrong' aerial may cause problems and should be avoided.
But far better to keep them separate anyway.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

Andy Burns

unread,
May 12, 2007, 12:27:17 PM5/12/07
to
On 12/05/2007 16:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> You may get away with it, but in strong signal areas adding the rubbish
> signals from the 'wrong' aerial may cause problems and should be avoided.
> But far better to keep them separate anyway.

Where possible, but the OP was keen to avoid laying new cables.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 12, 2007, 12:57:37 PM5/12/07
to
In article <4645eb0d$0$8710$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,

Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
> > You may get away with it, but in strong signal areas adding the
> > rubbish signals from the 'wrong' aerial may cause problems and should
> > be avoided. But far better to keep them separate anyway.

> Where possible, but the OP was keen to avoid laying new cables.

Indeed. However in this strong TV signal area I found diplexing didn't
work too well at all. I had picture ghosting caused by pickup on the FM
circuit. Nor did the FM side work well. I tried the state of the art
filters (of the time) without success too. I'm sure modern satellite co-ax
would have helped but it wasn't around at the time - or at least not
readily available.

--
*In some places, C:\ is the root of all directories *

tony sayer

unread,
May 12, 2007, 1:44:45 PM5/12/07
to
In article <eo9b439jj0odgquac...@4ax.com>,
nos...@nospam.org writes

>Hello,
>
>I hope this is not considered off-topic. I have read other posts here
>about TV aerials and I hope to fit the aerial myself, so I think it
>falls into the category of DIY.
>
>I know you can get FM aerials for your radio and you can get a
>multiplexer so that you can combine the TV aerial and fm aerial (in
>your loft) into one cable and then use a demuiltiplexer at the other
>end (in your lounge) to separate the TV and radio. This saves lying
>another cable.
>
>So far so good. But I have now upgraded to a DAB radio. What aerial
>should I use for this? I presume a special DAB one. But can I use the

>multiplexer option with that? I don't want to be lifting floorboards
>etc. to lay a new cable if I can help it. I haven't seen any TV/dab
>multiplexers or have I? I have seen uhf/vhf multiplexers; is this what
>these are? If not, what are they?
>
>Thanks,

Hardly worth bothering with IMHO, as the piss poor audio quality on DAB
as it stands in the UK makes listening to anything bigger than a Mono
portable unit a real pain!.

I'd hardly call it upgrading!....
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 12, 2007, 2:37:32 PM5/12/07
to
In article <Rws3CoFN...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> Hardly worth bothering with IMHO, as the piss poor audio quality on DAB
> as it stands in the UK makes listening to anything bigger than a Mono
> portable unit a real pain!.

Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

And the possibly better reception will sound much better than multipath on
FM on the average portable.

FWIW I'd love to set up some proper testing for those who say DAB sounds
terrible. I did do a quick test on a pal who is 'into' Hi-Fi using Capital
Radio with the FM delayed to match the DAB and levels carefully matched.
He failed. ;-)

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

Andy Hall

unread,
May 12, 2007, 3:14:10 PM5/12/07
to
On 2007-05-12 17:57:37 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> said:

> In article <4645eb0d$0$8710$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote:
>>> You may get away with it, but in strong signal areas adding the
>>> rubbish signals from the 'wrong' aerial may cause problems and should
>>> be avoided. But far better to keep them separate anyway.
>
>> Where possible, but the OP was keen to avoid laying new cables.
>
> Indeed. However in this strong TV signal area I found diplexing didn't
> work too well at all. I had picture ghosting caused by pickup on the FM
> circuit. Nor did the FM side work well. I tried the state of the art
> filters (of the time) without success too. I'm sure modern satellite co-ax
> would have helped but it wasn't around at the time - or at least not
> readily available.

I had a similar problem trying to mix the signals from two
transmittters. In the end, the solution was band pass filters for
the individual TV channels.


tony sayer

unread,
May 12, 2007, 4:23:06 PM5/12/07
to
In article <4ee1f51...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <Rws3CoFN...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> Hardly worth bothering with IMHO, as the piss poor audio quality on DAB
>> as it stands in the UK makes listening to anything bigger than a Mono
>> portable unit a real pain!.
>
>Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

Yes Dave, I can as it happens..


>
>And the possibly better reception will sound much better than multipath on
>FM on the average portable.

Just because you live in the nastiest bit of London for multipath it
doesn't mean every other person in the UK does..

>
>FWIW I'd love to set up some proper testing for those who say DAB sounds
>terrible. I did do a quick test on a pal who is 'into' Hi-Fi using Capital
>Radio with the FM delayed to match the DAB and levels carefully matched.
>He failed. ;-)
>

Well not too surprising seeing the way these chains are setup. When your
up this way lets do a CD-v-FM then shall we:)
--
Tony Sayer

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 12, 2007, 4:56:33 PM5/12/07
to
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <11789793...@iris.uk.clara.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>> Actually really you don't.
>
>> The input sage of what you plug in makes a pretty good demux in itself.
>
>> I've got simple paralelled sockets running off muxed FM/TV feeds from
>> the dis amp, and no problems at all to date.
>
> You may get away with it, but in strong signal areas adding the rubbish
> signals from the 'wrong' aerial may cause problems and should be avoided.
> But far better to keep them separate anyway.
>
well don't mux them down one cable then! All signals are weak here.


Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 12, 2007, 8:13:39 PM5/12/07
to
In article <e9VkRmGq...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

> Yes Dave, I can as it happens..

You *say* you can. As do others. Plenty claim to hear differences between
cables too. The problem is that the treatment applied to R3 is different
between DAB and FM which rather muddies the waters.


> >
> >And the possibly better reception will sound much better than multipath
> >on FM on the average portable.

> Just because you live in the nastiest bit of London for multipath it
> doesn't mean every other person in the UK does..

All of London is nasty for all FM in the car. Likewise most of the country
with a portable radio unless you fiddle with the aerial and don't move
anywhere near it. VHF requires diversity reception to get round this -
which is why it's used on radio mics and some cars. Dunno any portable
that has it, though. VHF can be very good with a good fixed installation.
Which 99.9% don't have for every receiver in their home.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

tony sayer

unread,
May 13, 2007, 11:06:00 AM5/13/07
to
In article <4ee213d...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <e9VkRmGq...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?
>
>> Yes Dave, I can as it happens..
>
>You *say* you can. As do others.

Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
bitrates that DAB can handle.

>Plenty claim to hear differences between
>cables too.

Some can but that is a whole new argument Dave and you well know it
is!..

>The problem is that the treatment applied to R3 is different
>between DAB and FM which rather muddies the waters.

Yes it does but much was promised with DAB that hasn't materialised.

>> >
>> >And the possibly better reception will sound much better than multipath
>> >on FM on the average portable.

Multipath isn't that much of a problem for the rest of the country Dave
not everyone lives where you do!..

>
>> Just because you live in the nastiest bit of London for multipath it
>> doesn't mean every other person in the UK does..
>
>All of London is nasty for all FM in the car.

Well I don't have any real problems apart from Pirate interference but
that isn't the fault of the system..

>Likewise most of the country
>with a portable radio unless you fiddle with the aerial and don't move
>anywhere near it.

Hollyhocks.. We don't have any problems here and neither do a lot of
other people over the country.. there are quite a few places that don't
have Dabble reception as yet Dave and well you know it!..

>VHF requires diversity reception to get round this -
>which is why it's used on radio mics and some cars. Dunno any portable
>that has it, though. VHF can be very good with a good fixed installation.
>Which 99.9% don't have for every receiver in their home.

A lot don't need them but as you say they are rather good;)
>

--
Tony Sayer


Mark

unread,
May 16, 2007, 4:59:48 AM5/16/07
to
On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:06:00 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <4ee213d...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
><da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes
>>In article <e9VkRmGq...@bancom.co.uk>,
>> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?
>>
>>> Yes Dave, I can as it happens..
>>
>>You *say* you can. As do others.
>
>Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
>codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
>This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
>but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
>that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
>to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
>bitrates that DAB can handle.

This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.

M

tony sayer

unread,
May 16, 2007, 5:53:20 AM5/16/07
to
In article <7jhl439rif4dtolgp...@4ax.com>, Mark <ihatespam
@spam.spam.spam.spam> writes

Quite agree!. The analogue piccy on our 10 Y/O B&O still knocks the
spots off digital on most all programme materiel especially on
definition and colour rendering:-)

Hope proper HD is here before I have to get a 3view box!...
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 16, 2007, 6:16:12 AM5/16/07
to
In article <7jhl439rif4dtolgp...@4ax.com>,

Mark <ihat...@spam.spam.spam.spam> wrote:
> >Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
> >codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
> >This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
> >but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
> >that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
> >to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
> >bitrates that DAB can handle.

> This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
> Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
> practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
> defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.

When DAB was introduced with 'better' bit rates it was near totally
ignored by everyone - true possibly due to the high cost of the hardware -
but even by enthusiasts happy to pay through the nose for other high end
hardware. It was only when the choice of stations was increased that it
took off - and of course the availability of cheaper hardware. Now those
same audiophiles who didn't bother with it earlier are those who complain
about the quality - the average punter *seems* happy enough.

My view is that for many purposes and casual listening - portable radios
and in car use - it sounds far better than either FM and definitely AM.
Where you want to sit down for some serious listening you still have FM
and of course now Freeview which gives most of the radio services too with
very cheap hardware.

For car use I'm sold on DAB - even the pop stations - which is about the
only time I listen to them.

The public appear to want choice - even if it's shopping or quiz channels
that many here never watch. They are commercial operations and can't
survive without viewers. If there genuinely was an overall desire for
'quality over quantity' they simply wouldn't exist.

--
*I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. *

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 16, 2007, 6:23:31 AM5/16/07
to
In article <IT4BKVCQ...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> Quite agree!. The analogue piccy on our 10 Y/O B&O still knocks the
> spots off digital on most all programme materiel especially on
> definition and colour rendering:-)

I'll bet it doesn't beat my DLP for resolution...

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

tony sayer

unread,
May 16, 2007, 8:08:15 AM5/16/07
to
In article <4ee3d73...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <IT4BKVCQ...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> Quite agree!. The analogue piccy on our 10 Y/O B&O still knocks the
>> spots off digital on most all programme materiel especially on
>> definition and colour rendering:-)
>
>I'll bet it doesn't beat my DLP for resolution...
>
Name your source!..
--
Tony Sayer

Mark

unread,
May 16, 2007, 9:09:02 AM5/16/07
to
On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:16:12 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <7jhl439rif4dtolgp...@4ax.com>,
> Mark <ihat...@spam.spam.spam.spam> wrote:
>> >Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
>> >codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
>> >This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
>> >but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
>> >that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
>> >to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
>> >bitrates that DAB can handle.
>
>> This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
>> Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
>> practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
>> defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.
>
>When DAB was introduced with 'better' bit rates it was near totally
>ignored by everyone - true possibly due to the high cost of the hardware -
>but even by enthusiasts happy to pay through the nose for other high end
>hardware. It was only when the choice of stations was increased that it
>took off - and of course the availability of cheaper hardware. Now those
>same audiophiles who didn't bother with it earlier are those who complain
>about the quality - the average punter *seems* happy enough.

I can't speak for others, but maybe I'm not an average 'punter' ;-)

>My view is that for many purposes and casual listening - portable radios
>and in car use - it sounds far better than either FM and definitely AM.
>Where you want to sit down for some serious listening you still have FM
>and of course now Freeview which gives most of the radio services too with
>very cheap hardware.

For casual listening fine. I only bought DAB to get stations that are
not on FM, however.

>For car use I'm sold on DAB - even the pop stations - which is about the
>only time I listen to them.

My car doesn't have a DAB radio :-(

>The public appear to want choice - even if it's shopping or quiz channels
>that many here never watch. They are commercial operations and can't
>survive without viewers. If there genuinely was an overall desire for
>'quality over quantity' they simply wouldn't exist.

I can't 100% accept this type of argument about consumer choice. IMHO
the companies/government/whoever dictate what is available and people
take the least bad option. I'm sure if you asked a random sample of
people you would get "quality over quantity".

M

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 16, 2007, 11:46:04 AM5/16/07
to
In article <i50m43l86rhjqqiji...@4ax.com>,

Mark <ihat...@spam.spam.spam.spam> wrote:
> >The public appear to want choice - even if it's shopping or quiz
> >channels that many here never watch. They are commercial operations and
> >can't survive without viewers. If there genuinely was an overall desire
> >for 'quality over quantity' they simply wouldn't exist.

> I can't 100% accept this type of argument about consumer choice. IMHO
> the companies/government/whoever dictate what is available and people
> take the least bad option. I'm sure if you asked a random sample of
> people you would get "quality over quantity".

You might well. However, reality tends to be different. The largest
audiences go to the rubbish progs like Big Brother etc (that I have no
interest in watching) - and by nature will have poor technical standards -
while drama which costs big bucks to make and frequently gets the best of
everything is watched by fewer.

--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

tony sayer

unread,
May 17, 2007, 5:04:19 AM5/17/07
to
In article <4ee3d68...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <7jhl439rif4dtolgp...@4ax.com>,
> Mark <ihat...@spam.spam.spam.spam> wrote:
>> >Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
>> >codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
>> >This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
>> >but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
>> >that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
>> >to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
>> >bitrates that DAB can handle.
>
>> This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
>> Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
>> practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
>> defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.
>
>When DAB was introduced with 'better' bit rates it was near totally
>ignored by everyone -

Thats a silly way of putting that. It was new and costs of receivers
like all modern tech we're high..

>true possibly due to the high cost of the hardware -
>but even by enthusiasts happy to pay through the nose for other high end
>hardware. It was only when the choice of stations was increased that it
>took off - and of course the availability of cheaper hardware. Now those
>same audiophiles who didn't bother with it earlier are those who complain
>about the quality - the average punter *seems* happy enough.

What a retrograde step. This is the same as saying that we should go
back to 386 processors because they are cheaper or would have cost less
than a 486!..

>
>My view is that for many purposes and casual listening - portable radios
>and in car use - it sounds far better than either FM and definitely AM.
>Where you want to sit down for some serious listening you still have FM
>and of course now Freeview which gives most of the radio services too with
>very cheap hardware.

Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

>
>For car use I'm sold on DAB - even the pop stations - which is about the
>only time I listen to them.

I don't have any problem with Pop stations apart from to over compressed
sound but thats not the fault of the FM system but on DAB with the
screwed codec and bit rates that is a problem!..

>
>The public appear to want choice - even if it's shopping or quiz channels
>that many here never watch. They are commercial operations and can't
>survive without viewers. If there genuinely was an overall desire for
>'quality over quantity' they simply wouldn't exist.
>

The problem is that DAB, as it has been implemented, was a large mistake
using a codec that is totally wrong for its intended use. MP2 is fine at
high i.e. over 256 K rates but nowhere near as good as AAC + at low
rates. Other countries have seen that and are to introduce AAC services
with the UK being left out and behind!.

And you Dave as a sound "professional" should realise that!...
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 17, 2007, 5:44:44 AM5/17/07
to
In article <ZPpFdxAT...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
> something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

BTW, DAB is 'supposed' to replace FM in the same way as FM was 'supposed'
to replace AM.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 17, 2007, 5:53:12 AM5/17/07
to
In article <ZPpFdxAT...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> The problem is that DAB, as it has been implemented, was a large mistake
> using a codec that is totally wrong for its intended use. MP2 is fine at
> high i.e. over 256 K rates but nowhere near as good as AAC + at low
> rates. Other countries have seen that and are to introduce AAC services
> with the UK being left out and behind!.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I first heard DAB demonstrated some 20
years ago. And AAC is perfectly capable of producing poor sound at low
enough data rates. There's no guarantee that changing to it won't result
in the same situation you're complaining about now - after all other
countries use a high enough rate with MP2 on DAB today.

> And you Dave as a sound "professional" should realise that!...

It's 'sound professionals' that produce the over compressed CDs and radio
we are forced to listen to near universally these days too.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

Robert Laws

unread,
May 17, 2007, 11:54:54 AM5/17/07
to
On May 17, 10:44 am, "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <ZPpFdxATqBTGF...@bancom.co.uk>,

> tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
> > something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..
>
> I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
> start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
> fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
> odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

I disagree. FM stereo is very good and it is certainly better than
the mono that most DAB stations use or the 'joint stereo' that the
classical music stations use.

The FM stereo system was, as you allude to, added to the original
mono FM design, but it does work properly. You use more bandwidth and
you get two separate stereo channels. On DAB if you get stereo at
all it is "joint stereo" which does not give two stereo channels. The
result is that the stereo image is unclear and instruments seem to
wander about.

I do agree that FM is better suited to a fixed installation because of
its need for a good aerial.

With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

Robert

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 17, 2007, 12:47:25 PM5/17/07
to
In article <1179417294.4...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

Robert Laws <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
> quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp and
speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as FM. LW
sounds poor. Are you asking for that to be abolished or upgraded in some
way? AM is capable of decent enough results too.

BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred miles
of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater than MW -
on a decent receiver.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

tony sayer

unread,
May 17, 2007, 2:55:52 PM5/17/07
to
In article <4ee4577...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <ZPpFdxAT...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
>> something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..
>
>I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
>start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
>fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
>odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

Well your clearly losing the plot or been brainwashed by the DRDB Dave.
FM in an awful lot of locations works fine. Just because you live in a
multipath ridden bit of London doesn't mean that everyone else does.
There are a lot of areas where DAB is poor and infested with bubbling
mud.

FM is a fine system if only they could have come up with something
BETTER to replace it with!..

Things have moved on like TV radio is now going down the digital tubes
when it all could have been so very much better!..

>
>BTW, DAB is 'supposed' to replace FM in the same way as FM was 'supposed'
>to replace AM.
>

Well as DABble is marginally better than AM perhaps its that it might
replace!..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

unread,
May 17, 2007, 2:58:56 PM5/17/07
to
In article <4ee47e3...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <1179417294.4...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Laws <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
>> quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.
>
>I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp and
>speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as FM.

There you are then, time to get the hearing aid batteries replaced!...

> LW
>sounds poor. Are you asking for that to be abolished or upgraded in some
>way? AM is capable of decent enough results too.
>
>BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
>of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
>transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred miles
>of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater than MW -
>on a decent receiver.
>

Well silly.. That as you well know was because proper digital
distribution wasn't developed until PCM came along. What an idiotic
statement that is!. Its like saying the picture on the TV wasn't any
good until colour came along!..
--
Tony Sayer


tony sayer

unread,
May 17, 2007, 3:02:14 PM5/17/07
to
In article <4ee4584...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <ZPpFdxAT...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> The problem is that DAB, as it has been implemented, was a large mistake
>> using a codec that is totally wrong for its intended use. MP2 is fine at
>> high i.e. over 256 K rates but nowhere near as good as AAC + at low
>> rates. Other countries have seen that and are to introduce AAC services
>> with the UK being left out and behind!.
>
>Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I first heard DAB demonstrated some 20
>years ago. And AAC is perfectly capable of producing poor sound at low
>enough data rates.

You've lost it now!. What a silly statement of course AAC is capable of
producing poor results at low rates. Compare 128 AAC with 128 MP and
hear the difference . Now compare 64 K MP2 with 64 K AAC and again a
very noticeable difference!..

>There's no guarantee that changing to it won't result
>in the same situation you're complaining about now - after all other
>countries use a high enough rate with MP2 on DAB today.

Then why are the adopting AAC+ then?..


>
>> And you Dave as a sound "professional" should realise that!...
>
>It's 'sound professionals' that produce the over compressed CDs and radio
>we are forced to listen to near universally these days too.
>

Its the management that does that no engineer worth his salt would do
that but then again in the UK an engineer doesn't mean much..
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 17, 2007, 7:38:06 PM5/17/07
to
In article <dUg0LjD2...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >There's no guarantee that changing to it won't result
> >in the same situation you're complaining about now - after all other
> >countries use a high enough rate with MP2 on DAB today.

> Then why are the adopting AAC+ then?..

Which countries with an existing DAB service are committed to adopting
AAC+?

--
*Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 17, 2007, 7:41:23 PM5/17/07
to
In article <d0h0TXDw...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp
> >and speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as
> >FM.

> There you are then, time to get the hearing aid batteries replaced!...

You and others keep saying this sort of thing, but when I try and get
friends who claim to have decent hearing to tell the difference here
reliably, they fail.

Which station(s) would you say demonstrates this difference most?

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 17, 2007, 7:44:26 PM5/17/07
to
In article <d0h0TXDw...@bancom.co.uk>,

Not so. It was a reply to the quality of DAB being like a step back to the
'50s.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

Mark

unread,
May 18, 2007, 4:13:57 AM5/18/07
to
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <ZPpFdxAT...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
>> something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..
>
>I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
>start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
>fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
>odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

IIRC mono FM (i.e. L+R) is transmitted using FM and the stereo part
(L-R) is actually transmitted using AM, which is poorer quality.

M

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 18, 2007, 5:57:12 AM5/18/07
to
In article <hqnq43107i8agfgl7...@4ax.com>,

The other problem is the pre-emphasis wasn't designed for the high levels
of HF found in much of today's programme material.

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

Brian Sharrock

unread,
May 18, 2007, 9:24:06 AM5/18/07
to

"Mark" <ihat...@spam.spam.spam.spam> wrote in message
news:hqnq43107i8agfgl7...@4ax.com...

Uh?

FM receivers rely on a frequency _discriminator_ to detect modulation and
are essentially indifferent to the amplitude of the transmitted signal. How
does your hypothesised receiver detect this 'AM' signal?

--

Brian


Robert Laws

unread,
May 18, 2007, 9:46:13 AM5/18/07
to
On May 17, 5:47 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <1179417294.461358.175...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,

> Robert Laws <robertml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
> > quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.
>
> I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp and
> speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as FM. LW
> sounds poor. Are you asking for that to be abolished or upgraded in some
> way? AM is capable of decent enough results too.
>
> BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
> of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
> transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred miles
> of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater than MW -
> on a decent receiver.

You are right, I should have said "a step back from the 1970s.
Although I did listen to FM in the 1960s it's really the era of FM
stereo that I compare DAB with unfavourably.

My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
sound quality.

Robert

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 18, 2007, 12:54:36 PM5/18/07
to
In article <1179495973.3...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,

Robert Laws <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
> > of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
> > transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred
> > miles of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater
> > than MW - on a decent receiver.

> You are right, I should have said "a step back from the 1970s.
> Although I did listen to FM in the 1960s it's really the era of FM
> stereo that I compare DAB with unfavourably.

> My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
> sound quality.

Mine too - I don't see the need for all those pop stations transmitting
seemingly identical material. And despite my age I do try and keep up with
the latest trends.

However, the fact remains that DAB take up - when the data rates were
decent - was very poor and didn't really take off until that choice was
there. Chicken or egg, I don't know.

--
*A dog's not just for Christmas, it's alright on a Friday night too*

tony sayer

unread,
May 19, 2007, 5:16:35 AM5/19/07
to
In article <4ee4a41...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <d0h0TXDw...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp
>> >and speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as
>> >FM.
>
>> There you are then, time to get the hearing aid batteries replaced!...
>
>You and others keep saying this sort of thing, but when I try and get
>friends who claim to have decent hearing to tell the difference here
>reliably, they fail.
>
>Which station(s) would you say demonstrates this difference most?
>

Radios 1, 2, 4 and most all commercial ones...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

unread,
May 19, 2007, 5:17:18 AM5/19/07
to
In article <4ee4a45...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)

Yes DAB as UK implemented is a step back in broadcasting evolution...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

unread,
May 19, 2007, 5:18:39 AM5/19/07
to
In article <1179495973.3...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Laws <rober...@yahoo.com> writes

Exactly. Why should and are we doing this?. Theres a lot of bandwidth
available especially on satellite that could be used instead of all the
absolute crap thats there!..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

unread,
May 19, 2007, 5:19:45 AM5/19/07
to
In article <4ee502b...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <1179495973.3...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Laws <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
>> > of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
>> > transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred
>> > miles of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater
>> > than MW - on a decent receiver.
>
>> You are right, I should have said "a step back from the 1970s.
>> Although I did listen to FM in the 1960s it's really the era of FM
>> stereo that I compare DAB with unfavourably.
>
>> My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
>> sound quality.
>
>Mine too - I don't see the need for all those pop stations transmitting
>seemingly identical material. And despite my age I do try and keep up with
>the latest trends.

Fair comment;)

>
>However, the fact remains that DAB take up - when the data rates were
>decent - was very poor and didn't really take off until that choice was
>there. Chicken or egg, I don't know.
>

Thats cos sets were expensive the right sort of silicon wasn't around..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

unread,
May 19, 2007, 5:24:10 AM5/19/07
to
In article <hqnq43107i8agfgl7...@4ax.com>, Mark <ihatespam
@spam.spam.spam.spam> writes

No not so. Ever heard 405 line TV sound?, and just how good that was?.
AM or FM doesn't really matter in this instance. What many confuse is
that AM on Medium frequencies is bandwidth limited which makes it sound
inferior compared to VHF/FM. It is true that FM is a much better
rejecter of interference than FM providing thats over threshold but
otherwise not.

The only poorer quality issue with Multiplex is a worsening of the
Signal to noise ratio...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

unread,
May 19, 2007, 5:25:58 AM5/19/07
to
In article <4ee4dc7...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <hqnq43107i8agfgl7...@4ax.com>,
> Mark <ihat...@spam.spam.spam.spam> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
>> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >In article <ZPpFdxAT...@bancom.co.uk>,
>> > tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
>> >> something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..
>> >
>> >I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
>> >start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
>> >fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
>> >odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.
>
>> IIRC mono FM (i.e. L+R) is transmitted using FM and the stereo part
>> (L-R) is actually transmitted using AM, which is poorer quality.
>
>The other problem is the pre-emphasis wasn't designed for the high levels
>of HF found in much of today's programme material.

Thats a relative thing Dave and isn't a consideration. Just because they
want to be louder then anything else on the dial isn't a problem of the
FM system.

Course theres MPEG coding where we throw away information and intensity
stereo and other digital horrors!..
>

--
Tony Sayer


tony sayer

unread,
May 19, 2007, 5:26:49 AM5/19/07
to
In article <WNh3i.63$y45...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, Brian Sharrock
<b.sha...@ntlworld.com> writes


Have a Google for the Zenith GE stereo system.....
>

--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 19, 2007, 6:24:07 AM5/19/07
to
In article <ci2UmCCv...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
> >sound quality.
> >
> >Robert
> >

> Exactly. Why should and are we doing this?. Theres a lot of bandwidth
> available especially on satellite that could be used instead of all the
> absolute crap thats there!..

Sigh. The majority of radio listening is on some form of portable or
mobile receiver. Satellite simply isn't suitable for this. Nor is FM
ideal...

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 19, 2007, 6:27:26 AM5/19/07
to
In article <cy0UCmCm...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >The other problem is the pre-emphasis wasn't designed for the high
> >levels of HF found in much of today's programme material.

> Thats a relative thing Dave and isn't a consideration. Just because they
> want to be louder then anything else on the dial isn't a problem of the
> FM system.

And the problem with DAB radio in this country isn't inherent but in the
way it's implemented?

> Course theres MPEG coding where we throw away information and intensity
> stereo and other digital horrors!..

FM stereo compromises audio bandwidth to below what is the norm for
reasonable Hi-Fi equipment.

--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.

tony sayer

unread,
May 20, 2007, 5:30:05 AM5/20/07
to
In article <4ee562c...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <ci2UmCCv...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
>> >sound quality.
>> >
>> >Robert
>> >
>
>> Exactly. Why should and are we doing this?. Theres a lot of bandwidth
>> available especially on satellite that could be used instead of all the
>> absolute crap thats there!..
>
>Sigh. The majority of radio listening is on some form of portable or
>mobile receiver. Satellite simply isn't suitable for this. Nor is FM
>ideal...
>
Yes I know that.. it was just to point out that digital platforms both
TV and Radio could be very much better but that the broadcasters see
that quantity over quality is far more important!...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

unread,
May 20, 2007, 5:32:36 AM5/20/07
to
In article <4ee5631...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <cy0UCmCm...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >The other problem is the pre-emphasis wasn't designed for the high
>> >levels of HF found in much of today's programme material.
>
>> Thats a relative thing Dave and isn't a consideration. Just because they
>> want to be louder then anything else on the dial isn't a problem of the
>> FM system.
>
>And the problem with DAB radio in this country isn't inherent but in the
>way it's implemented?

Yes it is. The whole is rather questionable from the concept of a MUX
owner to ye olde world codec...


>
>> Course theres MPEG coding where we throw away information and intensity
>> stereo and other digital horrors!..
>
>FM stereo compromises audio bandwidth to below what is the norm for
>reasonable Hi-Fi equipment.
>

It does not!, just because it cuts of at 15 kHz rather then 20 kHz is
bugger all to do with it, and you as a sound engineer ought to know
that!..
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 20, 2007, 7:49:14 AM5/20/07
to
In article <VvtGV4Dd...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >Sigh. The majority of radio listening is on some form of portable or
> >mobile receiver. Satellite simply isn't suitable for this. Nor is FM
> >ideal...
> >
> Yes I know that.. it was just to point out that digital platforms both
> TV and Radio could be very much better but that the broadcasters see
> that quantity over quality is far more important!...

Commercial broadcasters survive by selling advertising. If there was this
great demand for high quality surely one would fulfil that gap? But I
repeat the fact that when DAB used a higher data rate the take up was poor.

BTW, you missed out FreeView as a source of radio. Cheap hardware and most
have the necessary aerial already in place.

--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 20, 2007, 7:50:58 AM5/20/07
to
In article <o+3ZxGE0...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >FM stereo compromises audio bandwidth to below what is the norm for
> >reasonable Hi-Fi equipment.
> >

> It does not!, just because it cuts of at 15 kHz rather then 20 kHz is
> bugger all to do with it, and you as a sound engineer ought to know
> that!..

Well you seem to be throwing specs around as a be all and end all. FM is
*not* a perfect system and never has been.

--
*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *

tony sayer

unread,
May 20, 2007, 3:53:02 PM5/20/07
to
In article <4ee5ee6...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <VvtGV4Dd...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Sigh. The majority of radio listening is on some form of portable or
>> >mobile receiver. Satellite simply isn't suitable for this. Nor is FM
>> >ideal...
>> >
>> Yes I know that.. it was just to point out that digital platforms both
>> TV and Radio could be very much better but that the broadcasters see
>> that quantity over quality is far more important!...
>
>Commercial broadcasters survive by selling advertising. If there was this
>great demand for high quality surely one would fulfil that gap? But I
>repeat the fact that when DAB used a higher data rate the take up was poor.

Conkers.. like any new tech the initial take up is poor 'cos the gear
costs too much at first..

Not that this was "new" tech....


>
>BTW, you missed out FreeView as a source of radio. Cheap hardware and most
>have the necessary aerial already in place.

Indeed 'tho you can't carry it around with you;!...
>

--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

unread,
May 20, 2007, 3:53:51 PM5/20/07
to
In article <4ee5ee8...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <o+3ZxGE0...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >FM stereo compromises audio bandwidth to below what is the norm for
>> >reasonable Hi-Fi equipment.
>> >
>
>> It does not!, just because it cuts of at 15 kHz rather then 20 kHz is
>> bugger all to do with it, and you as a sound engineer ought to know
>> that!..
>
>Well you seem to be throwing specs around as a be all and end all. FM is
>*not* a perfect system and never has been.
>
And this new wonder DAB system eh?.

The Jazz at 128 K Mono.. real new world is that;!...
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 20, 2007, 6:17:31 PM5/20/07
to
In article <zUN$bABecK...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >Commercial broadcasters survive by selling advertising. If there was
> >this great demand for high quality surely one would fulfil that gap?
> >But I repeat the fact that when DAB used a higher data rate the take up
> >was poor.

> Conkers.. like any new tech the initial take up is poor 'cos the gear
> costs too much at first..

CD took off pretty quickly. As did colour TV.

> Not that this was "new" tech....
> >
> >BTW, you missed out FreeView as a source of radio. Cheap hardware and
> >most have the necessary aerial already in place.

> Indeed 'tho you can't carry it around with you;!...

A reply to your bit about satellite radio.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 20, 2007, 10:15:42 PM5/20/07
to

Well as we used to say when the needle on the korg was at least visible
somewhere on the scale 'good enough for Jazz'

Let's face it, since its all played 'between the notes' by drunken
egotists, the bitrate hardly matters does it?

tony sayer

unread,
May 21, 2007, 6:33:59 AM5/21/07
to
In article <4ee627e...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <zUN$bABecK...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Commercial broadcasters survive by selling advertising. If there was
>> >this great demand for high quality surely one would fulfil that gap?
>> >But I repeat the fact that when DAB used a higher data rate the take up
>> >was poor.
>
>> Conkers.. like any new tech the initial take up is poor 'cos the gear
>> costs too much at first..
>
>CD took off pretty quickly. As did colour TV.

Yes they did as they offered something better Higher quality and
colour!.

Have you ever thought Dave just how many new cars, and trucks, and
lorries are delivered daily without a DAB radio in the dashboard?..


>
>> Not that this was "new" tech....
>> >
>> >BTW, you missed out FreeView as a source of radio. Cheap hardware and
>> >most have the necessary aerial already in place.
>
>> Indeed 'tho you can't carry it around with you;!...
>
>A reply to your bit about satellite radio.
>

Indeed. But the good old UK has someway to go the match the Germans on
that.. Bayern Klassik 4 and its ilk on 320K MP2 and 440 odd for 5.1
surround sound:)


--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

unread,
May 21, 2007, 6:35:03 AM5/21/07
to
In article <117971377...@proxy01.news.clara.net>, The Natural
Philosopher <a@b.c> writes

And I suppose a lorra rock on more solid mind altering substances;?....
--
Tony Sayer

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
May 21, 2007, 7:18:47 AM5/21/07
to

It's trad, dad. :-)

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 21, 2007, 10:15:54 AM5/21/07
to
In article <GZfi48CX...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> Have you ever thought Dave just how many new cars, and trucks, and
> lorries are delivered daily without a DAB radio in the dashboard?..

Their loss. I'd suggest you try it in a car. It is quite simply miles
better than FM. And that's not just in this part of London.

--
*Remember, no-one is listening until you fart.*

tony sayer

unread,
May 21, 2007, 12:59:48 PM5/21/07
to
In article <4ee67fa...@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> writes

>In article <GZfi48CX...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> Have you ever thought Dave just how many new cars, and trucks, and
>> lorries are delivered daily without a DAB radio in the dashboard?..
>
>Their loss. I'd suggest you try it in a car. It is quite simply miles
>better than FM. And that's not just in this part of London.
>

If its so wonderful I wonder why most all newly supplied cars don't have
it fitted. A serious problem seeing that a lot of radio listening is
done in-car.

And it isn't superb all over the country a lot of the country isn't
served as yet!.....
--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
May 21, 2007, 2:08:55 PM5/21/07
to
In article <wi7f29EE...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >Their loss. I'd suggest you try it in a car. It is quite simply miles
> >better than FM. And that's not just in this part of London.
> >

> If its so wonderful I wonder why most all newly supplied cars don't have
> it fitted. A serious problem seeing that a lot of radio listening is
> done in-car.

Quite simply because car makers fit the cheapest rubbish they can get - in
general.

> And it isn't superb all over the country a lot of the country isn't
> served as yet!.....

Nor is FM. After 50 years...

The furthest north I've been as yet with the new DAB radio is Lincoln and
the furthest south Brighton. Lincoln I wouldn't expect to be a difficult
reception area, but round the south downs is. It worked extremely well on
the journey to both destinations.

--
*A snooze button is a poor substitute for no alarm clock at all *

tony sayer

unread,
May 21, 2007, 4:51:59 PM5/21/07