Classic going DAB+

[Woody]

Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.

Of course they didn't say WHEN!!

[Scott]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>
>Of course they didn't say WHEN!!

January 2024:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgrading%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <obbbiilih740b40rl...@4ax.com> at Tue, 10 Oct
2023 21:03:01, Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes

Thanks for that. I'll pass it on to one I know who's a Classic listener.

Well, I'll pass on
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

For this star a "night on the tiles" means winning at Scrabble - Kathy Lette
(on Kylie), RT 2014/1/11-17

[Scott]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 21:44:29 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <obbbiilih740b40rl...@4ax.com> at Tue, 10 Oct
>2023 21:03:01, Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>>>to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>>>
>>>Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
>>
>>January 2024:
>>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-qualit
>>y/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgradi
>>ng%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.
>
>Thanks for that. I'll pass it on to one I know who's a Classic listener.
>
>Well, I'll pass on
>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>.

'Not for me, a friend' :-)

[Brian Gaff]

The old longer links than anyone can remember syndrome is well entrenched
these days and as many links are embedded and hence hidden, this appears to
be where the snooping is being carried out. Many are clicking through
several third party sites that just record your details before going on to
the site. Its to get around the cookies rules, and as its not thee company
themselves doing it, any number of cookie choices get ignored on the click
throughs.
I love the way that DAB plus is seen as an upgrade but is often used to get
further coverage without boiling mud from the same bit rate or lower I
guess. A while back a part of an old Bee Gees concert at the BBC was
rebroadcast, and it sounded decidedly gritty and flat with hf smoothing.
Bland might be the description, but I have a CD of the original broadcast in
2001 and its wide dynamic range and good hf and bass make it sound far
better.
Seems to me that BBC are just getting lazy, as they have a medium capable
of far better than they now put out.
Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
sounds like any more.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:60xupiZt...@255soft.uk...

[Scott]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:02:02 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The old longer links than anyone can remember syndrome is well entrenched
>these days and as many links are embedded and hence hidden, this appears to
>be where the snooping is being carried out. Many are clicking through
>several third party sites that just record your details before going on to
>the site. Its to get around the cookies rules, and as its not thee company
>themselves doing it, any number of cookie choices get ignored on the click
>throughs.
> I love the way that DAB plus is seen as an upgrade but is often used to get
>further coverage without boiling mud from the same bit rate or lower I
>guess. A while back a part of an old Bee Gees concert at the BBC was
>rebroadcast, and it sounded decidedly gritty and flat with hf smoothing.
>Bland might be the description, but I have a CD of the original broadcast in
>2001 and its wide dynamic range and good hf and bass make it sound far
>better.
> Seems to me that BBC are just getting lazy, as they have a medium capable
>of far better than they now put out.
> Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
>sounds like any more.

Is it not all cost-driven?

[Woody]

It set me digging of course. If you want to listen to Classic on your
domestic hifi, unless your hifi is one of these shoe-box units by the
likes of Denon, Yamaha, Teac etc etc, what are you going to do for a
tuner. There are plenty around but many (most) of them are DAB, not DAB+.

Accepted DAB with or without the +) will not sound as good as FM, but
surely it is inevitable that in due course FM will be ceased and
replaced with DAB+ or an even more advanced system. What will FM
listeners do then. Yes, FTTP could be a good alternative but then you
would need a good quality data radio - and there a few of them as well!

[charles]

In article <ug5kpt$1nkdl$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff

<brian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The old longer links than anyone can remember syndrome is well entrenched
> these days and as many links are embedded and hence hidden, this appears
> to be where the snooping is being carried out. Many are clicking through
> several third party sites that just record your details before going on
> to the site. Its to get around the cookies rules, and as its not thee
> company themselves doing it, any number of cookie choices get ignored on
> the click throughs. I love the way that DAB plus is seen as an upgrade
> but is often used to get further coverage without boiling mud from the
> same bit rate or lower I guess. A while back a part of an old Bee Gees
> concert at the BBC was rebroadcast, and it sounded decidedly gritty and
> flat with hf smoothing. Bland might be the description, but I have a CD
> of the original broadcast in 2001 and its wide dynamic range and good hf
> and bass make it sound far better. Seems to me that BBC are just getting
> lazy, as they have a medium capable of far better than they now put out.
> Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
> sounds like any more.

Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4t้ฒ
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Scott]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:17:09 +0100, Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

I suspect issues such as these - and political considerations - have
delayed any analogue switchover.

I see it as an ironic 'back to the future' twist that in the early
days - with Rediffusion, Radio Rentals and others - the radio channels
were distributed by cable to boxes in the home that acted as
loudspeakers. It feels we are heading back in that direction.

[Max Demian]

You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
it won't overload the amp.)

--
Max Demian

[JMB99]

On 11/10/2023 12:00, charles wrote:
> Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.

And the big Radio 2 concert from Leicester which I think was live.

And I think they are doing another series with the BBC Piano shortly.

[JMB99]

On 11/10/2023 12:38, Max Demian wrote:
> You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
> should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
> for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
> it won't overload the amp.)

My DAB(+) radio has Line Out and I think some previous ones did also.

Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the
telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
reception.

[Scott]

Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
assessment.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <ug63d0$1qju7$1...@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:11:11,
JMB99 <m...@nospam.net> writes

At first I read that as meaning the BBC now have only one piano left.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I believe we made up god just to have someone to blame for our
mistakes - "Sarah Sidle" (Jorja Fox), CSI

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <5af1a1e0...@candehope.me.uk> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
11:00:02, charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> writes

>In article <ug5kpt$1nkdl$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
><brian...@gmail.com> wrote:

[]

>> and bass make it sound far better. Seems to me that BBC are just getting
>> lazy, as they have a medium capable of far better than they now put out.
>> Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
>> sounds like any more.
>
>Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.
>

I think Brian was saying that the transmission medium is being (ab)used
in such a way that what comes out isn't adequate quality, rather than
anything to do with whether the source is "live" or not.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <ug61em$1q4k6$1...@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:38:00,
Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
[]

>You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
>should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good
>enough for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level
>reduction that it won't overload the amp.)
>

In theory, an impedance mismatch could skew the frequency response,
though that way round - low impedance output feeding higher impedance
input - probably marginal if at all. Certainly the other way round can,
though (one of the reasons ceramic pickups got a worse recognition than
they deserve - sure, magnetic _are_ better, but ceramic OK if properly
loaded [and by something that can take their huge output!]).

[John Williamson]

This.

One main difference between analogue and any digital transmission is
that with analogue, the quality is on a sliding scale between "almost as
good as when it left the source" and "Thank goodness I can still make
some sense of this", whereas with digital, you get either perfect
quality or nothing, with a very narrow region where the error correction
can't quite cope. This applies to both audio and video broadcasting.

I am reminded of a BBC broadcasting house engineer's relief when they
started using digital landline transmission for outside broadcasts. He
was very happy that he no longer had to spend time tuning EQ and faffing
with settings to reproduce the original sound. With digital, if he could
hear the signal, he knew it was as good as when it left the source.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <me5diiptm9fqgf3a7...@4ax.com> at Wed, 11 Oct
2023 13:35:17, Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes

>On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <m...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 11/10/2023 12:38, Max Demian wrote:
>>> You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
>>> should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
>>> for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
>>> it won't overload the amp.)
>>
>>My DAB(+) radio has Line Out and I think some previous ones did also.
>>
>>Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the
>>telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
>>away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
>>suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
>>reception.

A _good_ FM signal is of more than adequate quality for most purposes. A
_good_ DAB signal can be better - _if_ the broadcaster has used
sufficient bits.

>>
>Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
>hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is

*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)

In the early days, no processing was done - certainly at the consumer
end - because there just wasn't the processing power; the electronics in
a CD player was just about up to the task of decoding (error-correcting)
the data stream off the CD. Thus "digital" came to mean excellent (full
16 bit stereo unprocessed) quality.

Unfortunately, when electronics progressed to the level that mp2 (and
later mp3 and others) decoding was practical at the consumer end, what
was still "digital" gained the _capability_ of being, basically, grotty.
In the early days, it was a matter of storage costs (how many songs you
could get into an mp3 player's memory) as much as radio transmission
costs, though the latter soon became dominant. Basically, "digital"
nowadays rarely means "CD quality", though much confusion between the
two exists - some of it I'm sure deliberate.

>not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that

Film - especially "slow" film - is _capable_ of higher resolution than
_a lot of_ digital: certainly in the field of moving pictures, it far
exceeds SD, and often even HD; that's why anything old that was shot on
film (Star Trek TOS, for example) it is worthwhile re-scanning into HD,
or even Blu-Ray, 4K, or whatever. (Anything shot on the larger formats -
70mm, IMAX, etc. - is probably _still_ better than can _practically_ be
achieved.) Ditto _large_-format old stills - big glass plates etc. -
though digital is catching up. (IMO, it's already too big for general
use.) In _some_ circumstances, film _can_ also arguably have a greater
dynamic range - though, ironically, to actually _see_ the shadow or peak
detail in it, it's a lot easier to use a digital scan! _Colour_ film is
arguably lower resolution than monochrome _of the same sensitivity_,
though that's mostly a second degree matter.

>digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
>assessment.

For a lot of older material, there is actually no _actual_ content above
a surprisingly low cutoff: however, it can initially sound "worse"
because the surface noise (or tape hiss) is no longer evident. (That
applies even in the analogue domain of course - low-pass filters were
around before digital; it's just a lot easier to play with them in
digital.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <konkvt...@mid.individual.net> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
14:07:09, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes

>On 11/10/2023 13:35, Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <m...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the
>>> telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
>>> away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
>>> suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
>>> reception.
>>>
>> Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
>> hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
>> not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
>> digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
>> assessment.
>>
>This.
>
>One main difference between analogue and any digital transmission is
>that with analogue, the quality is on a sliding scale between "almost
>as good as when it left the source" and "Thank goodness I can still
>make some sense of this", whereas with digital, you get either perfect
>quality or nothing, with a very narrow region where the error
>correction can't quite cope. This applies to both audio and video
>broadcasting.

I think this is a different matter to the question of degraded quality
due to inadequate bit bandwidth being used. If you use too few bits, you
can still get a perfect transmission in terms of receiving all the bits
that were transmitted, but it can still sound bad - varying from
distortion only audible to good ears, to actual artefacts (especially
during e. g. applause).

The "digital cliff" is certainly annoying - to me, anyway - with video,
because until you get very close to it, you're unaware anything's wrong,
then it suddenly, well, falls off a cliff. With analogue, you could see
it was deteriorating (and, I submit, still watch it, unless it was
_very_ bad).

Incidentally, have other folk noticed a lot of dropout lately? I'm
wondering if there are "lifts", i. e. co-channel interference from
distant transmitters. I lose (suddenly, see above) picture (and sound),
and it comes back minutes later; I'd wondered if (e. g.) my aerial
amp/distributor was at fault, but (a) I can't see why that should make
it come and go, (b) it varies with channel.

>
>I am reminded of a BBC broadcasting house engineer's relief when they
>started using digital landline transmission for outside broadcasts. He
>was very happy that he no longer had to spend time tuning EQ and
>faffing with settings to reproduce the original sound. With digital, if
>he could hear the signal, he knew it was as good as when it left the
>source.
>

Yes, I can see that. A digital link used by the BBC would be good enough
that it would be well above the "digital cliff", whereas an analogue one
- even a BBC one - would be subject to e. g. thermal variation meaning
it _had_ to be tweaked, however good quality the line. As you say, with
digital, he knew that if he could get it at all, he was getting what was
sent.

[Scott]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:31:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <5af1a1e0...@candehope.me.uk> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
>11:00:02, charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> writes
>>In article <ug5kpt$1nkdl$1...@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>><brian...@gmail.com> wrote:
>[]
>>> and bass make it sound far better. Seems to me that BBC are just getting
>>> lazy, as they have a medium capable of far better than they now put out.
>>> Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
>>> sounds like any more.
>>
>>Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.
>>
>I think Brian was saying that the transmission medium is being (ab)used
>in such a way that what comes out isn't adequate quality, rather than
>anything to do with whether the source is "live" or not.

To Brian. I don't mean this in any way as pjorative, but do you have
extra good hearing? Does this mean you can hear high frequences (above
10 kHz)? Does it mean you are 'musical' in the sense that you are
particularly aware of notes that are off-tune or distorted. I ask in
all seriousness because, for all the criticism of audio quality, I
don't find I can tell much difference unless it's really bad. I do
have tinnitus, which doesn't assist.

[Scott]

[snip]

I recall in the early days, when processing was not a factor, some
music buffs claimed that the digital form was harsh and lacked the
rounded sound of vinyl, and vinyl still has its fans. Even if the CD
was technically better, the analogue sounded subjectively better. Who
was I to argue?

[Liz Tuddenham]

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]

> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
> processing.

That is the main factor behind the CD v. Analogue sound argument. The
equipment necessary to produce and market analogue recordings was only
found in established recording studios and only experienced recording
engineers were employed to use it. To get analogue recordings to sound
good, the recording engineer needed a wide range of skills acquired over
a long period of apprenticeship.

When CDs came in, a new skill set was needed in addition to the existing
skills of a recording engineer. Many people who had digital skills but
lacked the artistic skills, and some of the technical ones, joined the
industry. The major companies were under great pressure to remaster
their repertoire digitally, so they couldn't afford to be fussy about
who they employed to get the job done. This was the point where the
public began to realise that some re-issues didn't sound as good as the
originals.

The technology became cheaper and more available as consumer items, so
soon every cloth-eared numbskull who could work a keyboard became a
'recording engineer'. All sorts of special effects and exotic
processing became available in software - and having been purchased,
they had to be used on every possible occasion. Those keyboard
operators who couldn't originate recordings took existing recordings and
messed them up under the guise of re-mastering (and nowadays
'sampling'). Instead of correcting faults in the analogue chain, the
recordings were digitised and then processed in software to disguise the
faults (and create a whole lot of different faults).

The industry fell apart and record companies couild no longer afford to
employ top-quality engineers, so the majority of the public now believes
that the over-compressed rubbish churned out by 99% of the music
industry is how recordings should sound.

CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did - but very
few of the later commercial ones do.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Max Demian]

On 11/10/2023 13:35, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ug61em$1q4k6$1...@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:38:00,
> Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
> []
>> You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
>> should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good
>> enough for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level
>> reduction that it won't overload the amp.)
>>
> In theory, an impedance mismatch could skew the frequency response,
> though that way round - low impedance output feeding higher impedance
> input - probably marginal if at all. Certainly the other way round can,
> though (one of the reasons ceramic pickups got a worse recognition than
> they deserve - sure, magnetic _are_ better, but ceramic OK if properly
> loaded [and by something that can take their huge output!]).

I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause distortion.

I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.

I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for hi-fi
magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in parallel. I don't
know whether this would work.

--
Max Demian

[charles]

In article <5af1be...@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <gaQIyelo...@255soft.uk>,

> J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> > *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made
> > from the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression
> > or other processing.

> Certainly it will measure significantly better that's true. In the
> early days of CD before ~1988 my friends and I thought CD players
> were unpleasant to listen to. Brash, harsh lacking involvement were
> the comments of the day.

> That changed for me/us when Meridian produced the 207 later bettered
> by the 208. At that point, provided you had a recording that was well
> made, CD became unbeatable. Though having said that, I understand and
> sympathise to some degree with people who still prefer Vinyl, it
> still does have a comfortable presentation. To 'prefer' is not to say
> "better than"!

> Due I suspect to fewer and fewer people having any experience of
> vinyl and of those that do, far fewer still have ever heard good
> vinyl played on a good system. Indeed, the abomination of the USB
> turntable now available adds to this problem by being truly awful.

> Very, very few people have any idea how good vinyl with all it's
> faults and user hassle can actually sound and it does piss me off
> when folks wax about how awful vinyl is when in fact that is their
> false perception due to lack of experience. By all means slag it off
> for hassle and lack of practicality and even price, good vinyl repro
> is expensive.

> Ironically, hassle and practicality have now killed off CD for me. I
> now stream all of my music from flac files stored on a NAS.

> > (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24 bits
> > are used.

> I wouldn't claim that particularly but it's interesting to try it. CD
> quality done right is really good enough even though it can be
> bettered. Having said that, I have this week purchased a new
> recording of Mozart's Mass in C minor which is 24 bits and 192K
> sample rate.

> > I found even NICAM was good.)

> Yes, so did I but to some extent it's about what your reference for
> broadcast sound was at the time. What we compared it against.

apart from Wrotham, which had a dedicated radio link, radio sound was
distributed by GPO lines which went all the way up to 8kHz

[Woody]

If you want to hear good recording go look at Linn Records and
particularly their SuperAudio 7 sampler. IIRC you can download tracks in
mp3, flac, or ogg. One track there - Holding On - is quite staggeringly
good. I have it on 192K mp3 for playing in the car (CD? Wassat?) but
even playing it on VLC from flac using a small Class D amp and a pair of
Denton XP's can near take you to tears. (Well it does me anyway! - and I
mean for GOOD quality, not the other end!)

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <1qig31a.m5idh8ofd52kN%l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:08:10, Liz Tuddenham
<l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes

>J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
>> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
>> processing.

[]

>The industry fell apart and record companies couild no longer afford to
>employ top-quality engineers, so the majority of the public now believes
>that the over-compressed rubbish churned out by 99% of the music
>industry is how recordings should sound.
>
>CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did - but very
>few of the later commercial ones do.
>

That's why I referred to "the same masters" and "not compression or
other processing". I still submit that CD is better, if only on dynamic
range basis - but the mastering requires skills, some of which are
analogue.
>
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)

And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On
distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everyone learns from science. It all depends how you use the knowledge. - "Gil
Grissom" (CSI).

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <ug6il4$1tss0$1...@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:31:35,
Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
[]

>I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause distortion.

Yes, but driving line inputs from headphone outputs is more low->high,
which is usually more forgiving.

>
>I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
>de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.

Yes; since they (ceramics) generally _were_ used in lower cost
equipment, and their natural characteristic _approximates_ what is
required, I don't _think_ I've ever heard of one being used with
circuitry that genuinely give proper RIAA flatness. (Liz - have you?)

>
>I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for hi-fi
>magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in parallel. I don't
>know whether this would work.
>

In series, I think. They have high output impedances - higher than the
input impedance of most solid-state circuitry in the '60s and '70s. More
suited to valve kit.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Woody]

IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!

[Liz Tuddenham]

Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[...]

> IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
> it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
> human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
> say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!

Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the
intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is
removed.

I had this "second harmonic is more musical" argument put to me by a
triode pre-amp enthusiast, so I loaned him my intermodulation meter. He
measured all sorts of things with it, but he never told me the outcome
of his pre-amp measurements.

[Liz Tuddenham]

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <ug6il4$1tss0$1...@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:31:35,
> Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
> []
> >I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause distortion.
>
> Yes, but driving line inputs from headphone outputs is more low->high,
> which is usually more forgiving.
> >
> >I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
> >de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.
>
> Yes; since they (ceramics) generally _were_ used in lower cost
> equipment, and their natural characteristic _approximates_ what is
> required, I don't _think_ I've ever heard of one being used with
> circuitry that genuinely give proper RIAA flatness. (Liz - have you?)

Not exactly. There was a neat little one-transistor (BC109) pre-amp
design in Wireless World some time in the late 1960s that made a
passable job of correcting the deficiencies of ceramic cartridges. I
built one and was pleasantly surprised at the results it gave, but I had
no way of measuring it.

> >I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for hi-fi
> >magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in parallel. I don't
> >know whether this would work.
> >
> In series, I think. They have high output impedances - higher than the
> input impedance of most solid-state circuitry in the '60s and '70s. More
> suited to valve kit.

I think the parallel resistor was to load it so as to give a 6dB/octave
bass attenuation that got rid of the built-in equalisation, then feed it
at low level into an RIAA equalisation stage (which was intended for a
moving iron cartridge) and re-equalise it more correctly.

The series resistor was used in the Mullard valve pre-amp to give a high
impedance which allowed the cartridge to do its own equalisation. In
the 'ceramic cartridge' position of the selector switch, the RIAA
network was switched out of the feedback loop. The input stage of that
pre-amp was a virtual-earth configuration around an EF86 so, without the
series input resistor, the feedback current would have presented a low
impedance to the cartridge. They sort-of explain it in the manual. but
not very clearly.

[charles]

In article <1qiggmp.wu7av0r45nggN%l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,

Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> [...]
> > IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
> > it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
> > human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
> > say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!

> Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the
> intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
> horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
> the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
> became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is
> removed.

was that what was called "musicality"?

> I had this "second harmonic is more musical" argument put to me by a
> triode pre-amp enthusiast, so I loaned him my intermodulation meter. He
> measured all sorts of things with it, but he never told me the outcome
> of his pre-amp measurements.

--

[JMB99]

On 11/10/2023 13:35, Scott wrote:

> Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
> hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is not
> as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
> digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
> assessment.

Nothing to do with that, I was referring to the multipath that you get
often with a telescopic antenna.

Also amused by people going on about analogue VHF FM when the
distribution is all digital!

[Andy Burns]

Woody wrote:

> IIRC correctly

it's like Personal PIN Numbers all over again!

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <koonvf...@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
00:04:16, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> writes

>Woody wrote:
>
>> IIRC correctly
>
>it's like Personal PIN Numbers all over again!

Come on over to APIHNA - PNS syndrome was one of our favourites!

(alt.posessive.its.has.no.apostrophe - we cover more than just the
nominal, all aspects of language, but in a light-hearted way: like
alt.usage.english/alt.english.usage without the flame wars.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A sleekzorp without a tornpee is like a quop without a fertsneet (sort of).

[Liz Tuddenham]

charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <1qiggmp.wu7av0r45nggN%l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
> Liz Tuddenham <l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > > IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
> > > it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
> > > human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
> > > say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!
>
> > Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the
> > intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
> > horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
> > the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
> > became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is
> > removed.
>
>
> was that what was called "musicality"?

I don't know, I never bothered to read the marketing hype.

[Ashley Booth]

Liz Tuddenham wrote:

> J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message <ug6il4$1tss0$1...@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
> > 17:31:35, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com> writes
> > []
> > > I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause
> > > distortion.
> >
> > Yes, but driving line inputs from headphone outputs is more
> > low->high, which is usually more forgiving.
> > >
> > > I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
> > > de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.
> >

> > Yes; since they (ceramics) generally were used in lower cost
> > equipment, and their natural characteristic approximates what is
> > required, I don't think I've ever heard of one being used with

I built a FET preamp for my Deram cartridge,

--

[John Williamson]

On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
> '90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
> technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
> '50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
>

I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
played it in the disco.

> And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On
> distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
> both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
> are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
> ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
> crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
> much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.

Valve amps had more in reserve than early solid state amps, and could
exceed their RMS continuous power by a significant margin for long
enough to let a piano's peaks come through clean. Transistor power
supplies were too low voltage to do the same trick.

[John Williamson]

The way I heard it was that with the valve amps, the first harmonic in
the distortion that was not musically related to the fundamental was
above most people's hearing range, while with transistors in class B,
the first unrelated harmonic was well within the audible range.

In effect, valve distortion showed up as an extra note in the chord, and
so "fitted in". Transistor distortion clashed, so your ear noticed it a
lot more.

[JMB99]

On 11/10/2023 10:17, Woody wrote:
> Accepted DAB with or without the +) will not sound as good as FM, but
> surely it is inevitable that in due course FM will be ceased and
> replaced with DAB+ or an even more advanced system. What will FM
> listeners do then. Yes, FTTP could be a good alternative but then you
> would need a good quality data radio - and there a few of them as well!


And of course some call Medium Wave / Long Wave a 'warmer' sound i.e. no
higher frequencies.

[Liz Tuddenham]

There are several effects which get muddled up:

Even harmonics appear as the octaves of the fundamental frequency and so
they sound as though they could have been part of the music. Odd
harmonics do not fall on the musical scale, so they stand out by
clashing with the music. On single tones, the intermodulation
distortion which accompanies this distortion will not be noticeable -
but with complex music it generates sum and difference tones between the
fundamentals and between the harmonics caused by the distortion. This
results in a mushy background which varies with the pitch and amplitude
of the music.

Without feedback, single ended stages give predominantly even harmonic
distortion because of the shape of the transfer curve, whereas, in a
properly balanced push-pull stage, the even harmonics cancel and you are
left with the odd harmonics, which are usually lower in level.
Designers of push-pull amplifiers are then tempted to drive the devices
harder until the distortion figures read the same as previous
amplifiers, so the effect is that now the third harmonic appears at the
same level as the second did previously. Thus a 3-Watt single-ended
amplifier will not sound as bad as a 3-Watt push-pull amplifier if they
are both rated to give 5% distortion at full output.

Triodes have internal feedback because part of the voltage gradient
between anode and cathode appears in the space between grid and cathode
where the electrons emitted from the cathode are gradient-controlled.
Claims that triode amplifiers work without feedback are nonsense because
the feedback is already built-in and is not as linear as external
feedback with resistors would be. A cascode connection, where the
cathode-follower action of the upper valve prevents voltage change on
the anode of the lower valve is one way of overcoming this internal
feedback because the anode-to-cathode voltage gradient of the lower
valve doesn't change with the signal. Tetrodes and pentodes achieve the
same effect with a screen between the anode and the other electrodes

Tetrodes, pentodes and transistors have virtually no internal feedback,
so the non-linearity (and production variability) of their transfer
characteristics have to be corrected by external feedback.

The phase shifts occurring in the output transformer of a valve
amplifier make the feedback become positive outside the audio range. If
there is a lot of gain and a lot of feedback at these frequencies, the
overall loop becomes unstable and oscillates. This means that valve
amplifiers are restricted in the amount of feedback they can use,
whereas transistor amplifiers with no signal transformers can use much
more feedback (and tend to rely on it for linearisation). With heavy
feedback, the linearity of the transfer characteristic is improved, but
when the output 'hits the stops' the kink is much sharper and the
harmonics this generates are much greater and extend to higher
frequencies. This is why, in general, valve amplifier overload
gracefully but transistor amplifiers overload disgracefully.

Feedback cannot overcome slew-rate-limiting, which was the cause of the
so-called 'Transient Intermodulation Distortion' of some early
transistor designs. Class-B stages with inadequate power supplies,
signal-dependent rectification artefacts and unintended feedback through
power connections can all give rise to audible effects but these are
caused by faults in the design, not by whether the amplifier uses valves
or transistors.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <kopupn...@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
11:06:46, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes

>On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
>> '90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
>> technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
>> '50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
>>
>I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
>of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
>played it in the disco.

I _think_ he achieved his effect by ensuring that most of the audio
spectrum was used, rather than any compression: compression (for studio
use) was in its infancy then, apart for on some US AM radio stations.

>
>> And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On
>> distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
>> both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
>> are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
>> ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
>> crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
>> much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.
>
>Valve amps had more in reserve than early solid state amps, and could
>exceed their RMS continuous power by a significant margin for long
>enough to let a piano's peaks come through clean. Transistor power
>supplies were too low voltage to do the same trick.

Peak-to-mean power rating - oversimplifying, but basically the size of
the smoothing capacitor in the power supply section! - was yet another
factor. Voltage as such wasn't the governing factor. As Liz has
explained, valve circuits tended to use less feedback, meaning when
driven out of their (more or less) linear range, the distortion was less
extreme: they were less linear in the safe region (but with harmonics
that tended to be not very objectionable), but if overdriven, didn't
"hard clip" as obviously.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We're not poor, we just don't have any money.
- Brenda Blethyn's mother quoted in RT 2021/8/28-9/3

[John Williamson]

On 12/10/2023 17:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <kopupn...@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
> 11:06:46, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes
>> On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
>>> '90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
>>> technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
>>> '50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
>>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
>>>
>> I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's
>> Wall of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder
>> when I played it in the disco.
>
> I _think_ he achieved his effect by ensuring that most of the audio
> spectrum was used, rather than any compression: compression (for studio
> use) was in its infancy then, apart for on some US AM radio stations.

You are correct, but irrespective of the method used, the aim was to
appear to be louder than anyone else.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <koqnu1...@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
18:15:44, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes

>On 12/10/2023 17:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <kopupn...@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
>> 11:06:46, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes

[]

>>> I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's
>>> Wall of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder
>>> when I played it in the disco.
>>
>> I _think_ he achieved his effect by ensuring that most of the audio
>> spectrum was used, rather than any compression: compression (for studio
>> use) was in its infancy then, apart for on some US AM radio stations.
>
>You are correct, but irrespective of the method used, the aim was to
>appear to be louder than anyone else.
>

True, but I think he achieved it in a way that all sides - engineers and
general listeners - certainly found acceptable, and many found novel. As
compared to compression, which engineers certainly weren't impressed
with, and many general listeners weren't either when it was pointed out
to them.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

it is easy to make up a lie, but it can take much more time and effort to
convincingly refute it. - Patrick Cockburn, i, 2016-9-24

[David Paste]

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:39:20 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other

> processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
> bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)

Agreed. I love CDs, they are magnificent. I am always suspicious of people who
claim that to truly replicate the experience of vinyl you need 24 bit 96 kHz lossless
rips... It's people getting excited by numbers, nothing more. I have absolutely no
doubt that there are people out there who CAN tell the difference between a 16 bit
and 24 bit digital file (with all else being equal), but they will be a vanishingly small
number of people, and probably all under 25.

A few months back I did some tinkering with audacity to see what they effect of
various upper frequency limits had on a few pieces of music I know well. Turns out
there is precious little audio in those upper frequncy bands, say over 16 kHz, and if
it was there or not really didn't provide any extra enjoyment to me. 16 bit is
perfectly fine!

There is a YouTube channel who uploads plays of various vinyl records played with
various expensive cartidges, players, etc. Some of the quality is truly dreadful,
honestly makes a mockery of the expense of the equipment used.

I'm not against vinyl, btw; horses for courses, innit?!


> (Anything shot on the larger formats -
> 70mm, IMAX, etc. - is probably _still_ better than can _practically_ be
> achieved.) Ditto _large_-format old stills - big glass plates etc. -
> though digital is catching up. (IMO, it's already too big for general
> use.) In _some_ circumstances, film _can_ also arguably have a greater
> dynamic range - though, ironically, to actually _see_ the shadow or peak
> detail in it, it's a lot easier to use a digital scan!

I saw Oppenheimer in 70 mm IMAX (proper IMAX, not the little one) and the image
was gorgeous. But: The flicker was still apparent in some places, the projection
had dust and dirt in it (not much, but noteable when it was there), and the screen,
being humongous, was actually too big for comfort. Felt like I was way too close.
Also the sound was ear-splittingly loud and because the auditorium was relatively
shallow it did sound like there was some distortion from inadequate sound
damping. I'd like to think if they turned it down a little bit it would have been fine.

The moving images from the big digital sensor movie cameras are unbeatable,
IMO. But I do wonder if exposing digital movies to analogue film for long-term
storage might be a good idea? Certainly what I worry about with my digital photo's
when I do occasionally worry about that :)

</tangent>

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <1611197e-edc7-4158...@googlegroups.com> at
Fri, 13 Oct 2023 05:55:37, David Paste <paste...@gmail.com> writes

>On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:39:20 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
>> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
>> processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
>> bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)
>
>Agreed. I love CDs, they are magnificent. I am always suspicious of people who
>claim that to truly replicate the experience of vinyl you need 24 bit
>96 kHz lossless

(I hadn't heard that particular wrinkle!)
[]

>A few months back I did some tinkering with audacity to see what they effect of
>various upper frequency limits had on a few pieces of music I know
>well. Turns out
>there is precious little audio in those upper frequncy bands, say over
>16 kHz, and if
>it was there or not really didn't provide any extra enjoyment to me. 16 bit is
>perfectly fine!

Certainly most of what's on YouTube has a very sharp cutoff at (or very
close to) 16 kHz anyway: when discussing why recently (I think here),
someone said that's the default setting for some common piece of capture
software. It's actually surprising how much material has nothing over
10-12 kHz, let alone 16 - and some under 6!

Beware though - when did you last do a simple swept-sine test of where
your hearing rolls off? I was quite surprised how low mine was last time
I tried. So now, I definitely use the spectrogram (in GoldWave - I
bought it before Audacity came out, and got used to it; I believe
Audacity does much the same) before limiting a file. (Sure, the file
won't sound any different to me, but might to anyone I give it to.)

Another thing to beware of: for anything with a significant amount of
surface noise (especially 78s) or tape hiss, applying low pass can make
it _seem_ to sound duller. It's only if you apply high-pass instead to
_see_ if there's actually anything there that you see. (Obviously there
_is_ the noise; it's only if it pulses with the wanted material that
it's valid content. [And even then, it _can_ even if it's just surface
noise or hiss, as the programme material can modulate it. But usually if
I can see sufficient variation, I leave the upper bit in.])
[]

>I'm not against vinyl, btw; horses for courses, innit?!
>

I feel there should be a paraphrase of Groucho's comment about women,
but can't think of it ... (-:
[]

>I saw Oppenheimer in 70 mm IMAX (proper IMAX, not the little one) and the image
>was gorgeous. But: The flicker was still apparent in some places, the

Interesting. I've never (AFAIK) seen a 70mm - either cross-film or IMAX.
I presume it still uses 25 FPS (with double-shuttering in the projector,
as I think is normal), since upping that would make the film usage even
more expensive.

>projection
>had dust and dirt in it (not much, but noteable when it was there), and
>the screen,
>being humongous, was actually too big for comfort. Felt like I was way
>too close.
>Also the sound was ear-splittingly loud and because the auditorium was
>relatively
>shallow it did sound like there was some distortion from inadequate sound
>damping. I'd like to think if they turned it down a little bit it would
>have been fine.

Maybe would have been better with more people - was it half empty?

>
>The moving images from the big digital sensor movie cameras are unbeatable,
>IMO. But I do wonder if exposing digital movies to analogue film for long-term
>storage might be a good idea? Certainly what I worry about with my
>digital photo's
>when I do occasionally worry about that :)

Ah, the old paper prints at the NFI ... I think digital even for
archiving (of digital material, at least) is better, but someone does
have to copy it occasionally, so the error-correcting can make a fresh
copy. (Not to mention format obsolescence.)
>
></tangent>
(-:

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

How do you govern a country that seems to have decided that facts are the work
of the devil? - Andy Hamilton on HIGNFY, 2010

[Scott]

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:06:46 +0100, John Williamson
<johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
>> '90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
>> technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
>> '50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
>>
>I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
>of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
>played it in the disco.

Was it not the role of the DJ to act as sound engineer and balance the
levels :-)

[John Williamson]

On 13/10/2023 15:17, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <1611197e-edc7-4158...@googlegroups.com> at
> Fri, 13 Oct 2023 05:55:37, David Paste <paste...@gmail.com> writes

>> Agreed. I love CDs, they are magnificent. I am always suspicious of
>> people who
>> claim that to truly replicate the experience of vinyl you need 24 bit
>> 96 kHz lossless
>
> (I hadn't heard that particular wrinkle!)
> []

<Grin>It's the only way to get the full quality of the surface noise and
the stylus and cartridge distortions.

I use it when restoring the sound on all analogue recordings, as it
gives the programs more information to work with, which gives better
results.

[David Paste]

On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:21:52 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Certainly most of what's on YouTube has a very sharp cutoff at (or very
> close to) 16 kHz anyway: when discussing why recently (I think here),
> someone said that's the default setting for some common piece of capture
> software. It's actually surprising how much material has nothing over
> 10-12 kHz, let alone 16 - and some under 6!

Yeah, it's part of the MPEG standard to do that apparently. Any further detail I
cannot give. I feel that yes, we may have discussed this before! I tend to download
the .webm files from YouTube as they do not have this roll-off applied. Either way,
they usually sound good.

> Beware though - when did you last do a simple swept-sine test of where
> your hearing rolls off? I was quite surprised how low mine was last time
> I tried.

It was at the same time, a few months back. I was surprised by how high mine is,
up to about 17 kHz. BUT! I was just using single tone samples of whether or not I
could hear them, so absolutley unsophisticated. I could hear 20 kHz played
through the desktop speakers either side of my PC monitor if it was played loud
enough, but it was quite unpleasant, and I have no idea if it was actually 20 kHz or
some sort of distortion artefact.

> So now, I definitely use the spectrogram (in GoldWave - I
> bought it before Audacity came out, and got used to it; I believe
> Audacity does much the same) before limiting a file. (Sure, the file
> won't sound any different to me, but might to anyone I give it to.)

I don't bother limiting any files, why do you do it? (just curious)

> Maybe would have been better with more people - was it half empty?

It was, yes, but the bottom rows of seats because they are basically impossible to
watch a full IMAX film from that angle. But I have been in the same auditorium two
other times: one for another (digital) film which was packed and the sound was
equally as bad; and one which was a demo film of the capabilities of IMAX which
was practically empty but the sound was good! However that one made me feel
quite sick during the rollercoaster scenes!

> Ah, the old paper prints at the NFI ...

I don't know anything about them!

> I think digital even for
> archiving (of digital material, at least) is better, but someone does
> have to copy it occasionally, so the error-correcting can make a fresh
> copy. (Not to mention format obsolescence.)

Yeah, it seems a bit like plate spinning at times!

[David Paste]

On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:35:28 UTC+1, John Williamson wrote:

> <Grin>It's the only way to get the full quality of the surface noise and
> the stylus and cartridge distortions.

You know, I do wonder how much surface noise and small faults are acceptable in
a vinyl record; it would be rythmic and so possibly becomes a part of the
recording? Surface noise is the least problematic, I think. A decent tape sounds
fine, except in very particular circumstances.

> I use it when restoring the sound on all analogue recordings, as it
> gives the programs more information to work with, which gives better
> results.

Oh yeah, I'm aware it's very useful / almost essential for editing, but for playback?
I'm not convinced ;)

[Liz Tuddenham]

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]

> Beware though - when did you last do a simple swept-sine test of where
> your hearing rolls off? I was quite surprised how low mine was last time
> I tried.

Are you sure that wasn't a limitation of the loudspeakers or headphones?

I bought a pair of AKG headphones and found they had a huge notch in the
frequency response. At first I thought my ears were playing tricks as
the sound disappeared for part of a fequency sweep, so I devised a more
scientific method. I clamped the headphones around a thick pile of
books (to represent my head) with two tiny electret capsules inside the
earmuffs. To my surprise the notch was real and measurable - and over
20dB deep.

>
> Another thing to beware of: for anything with a significant amount of
> surface noise (especially 78s) or tape hiss, applying low pass can make
> it _seem_ to sound duller. It's only if you apply high-pass instead to
> _see_ if there's actually anything there that you see.

I have a declicker that removes most of the crackle. When people first
hear it, they think it is just a very sharp tone control, but when I
switch it in and out a few times they realise that the high frequencies
of the music are untouched and it is only the crackle that has gone.

There is another effect which makes the crackle sound worse; I am
collaborating with some other transcription engineers to see if we can
pin down what is causing it. It is quite difficult to measure, but we
are in no doubt that it is real and it can be counteracted by a sharp
notch filter at around 6-7 Kc/s. Researching it further is going to be
one of my 'Winter Lockdown' jobs and I am hoping to publish the results
in due course.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <u4liii151ftctfvoj...@4ax.com> at Fri, 13 Oct
2023 15:31:47, Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes

Between tracks, yes. Within a track, not really.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Incidentally, it was made in Spain so shouldn't it be a "paella western"?) -
Barry Norman [on "A Fistful of Dollars"], RT 2014/10/4-10

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <8247700a-3fdf-4701...@googlegroups.com> at
Fri, 13 Oct 2023 07:54:33, David Paste <paste...@gmail.com> writes

>On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:21:52 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> Certainly most of what's on YouTube has a very sharp cutoff at (or very
>> close to) 16 kHz anyway: when discussing why recently (I think here),
>> someone said that's the default setting for some common piece of capture
>> software. It's actually surprising how much material has nothing over
>> 10-12 kHz, let alone 16 - and some under 6!
>
>Yeah, it's part of the MPEG standard to do that apparently. Any further
>detail I
>cannot give. I feel that yes, we may have discussed this before! I tend
>to download
>the .webm files from YouTube as they do not have this roll-off applied.
>Either way,
>they usually sound good.
>

Hmm. I tend to just let yt-dlp have its head (I thought it normally gets
the best available), then I use an extractor that I'm sure extracts the
original sound (I use Pazera, but I'm sure many others have the
facility), rather than transcoding it. [If you're wondering why I don't
tell yt-dlp to just get the audio, (a) I sometimes want to keep the
video too (b) I've developed muscle memory (and have its name shortened
to just y.exe) that unless it's a long piece, I can have downloaded the
video and extracted the audio before I could have typed the parameters.
Yes, it's wasteful of bandwidth.] The original sound is normally 44100
Hz stereo, regardless of whether the actual content is mono and all
below 5 kHz or not. (Very occasionally I find one that is mono encoded -
don't think I've ever found one that's less than 22050 Hz though.)

>
>> Beware though - when did you last do a simple swept-sine test of where
>> your hearing rolls off? I was quite surprised how low mine was last time
>> I tried.
>
>It was at the same time, a few months back. I was surprised by how high
>mine is,
>up to about 17 kHz. BUT! I was just using single tone samples of

How old are you?

>whether or not I
>could hear them, so absolutley unsophisticated. I could hear 20 kHz played
>through the desktop speakers either side of my PC monitor if it was played loud
>enough, but it was quite unpleasant, and I have no idea if it was
>actually 20 kHz or
>some sort of distortion artefact.
>

Sometimes if it's pulsed, you actually hear the start and stop clicks.
And/or, the background hiss/hum/whatever can change if the PSU is being
loaded by something you can't hear, and you hear that change instead.

>
>> So now, I definitely use the spectrogram (in GoldWave - I
>> bought it before Audacity came out, and got used to it; I believe
>> Audacity does much the same) before limiting a file. (Sure, the file
>> won't sound any different to me, but might to anyone I give it to.)
>
>I don't bother limiting any files, why do you do it? (just curious)
>

It just bugs me - certainly to encode a mono signal as stereo, but also
to use a sampling rate far more than twice the maximum content. And I
just like seeing what I can do, too.

>
>> Maybe would have been better with more people - was it half empty?
>
>It was, yes, but the bottom rows of seats because they are basically
>impossible to
>watch a full IMAX film from that angle. But I have been in the same
>auditorium two
>other times: one for another (digital) film which was packed and the sound was

Ah, I'd thought people might have a deadening effect.

>equally as bad; and one which was a demo film of the capabilities of IMAX which
>was practically empty but the sound was good! However that one made me feel
>quite sick during the rollercoaster scenes!
>

Was it 3D (polarizing spec's)? [Do they even do those in IMAX?] (They
don't work for me - I don't have binocular vision; both my eyes work
fine, I just never developed the brain pathways to use both together.)

>
>> Ah, the old paper prints at the NFI ...
>
>I don't know anything about them!
>

I forget the details, but in the early days of motion pictures,
copyright law had not kept up with technology, and it was necessary - or
the film-making companies decided it was - to make paper prints of their
films in order to protect them. So there are (or were) rolls of paper in
the vault.

>
>> I think digital even for
>> archiving (of digital material, at least) is better, but someone does
>> have to copy it occasionally, so the error-correcting can make a fresh
>> copy. (Not to mention format obsolescence.)
>
>Yeah, it seems a bit like plate spinning at times!

Indeed! (As an - amateur - genealogist, I have lots of photograph
albums, slides, and even some standard and super 8 mm that will probably
never get scanned/converted in my lifetime. I'm hoping the Wolverine
improves before I buy one.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[John Williamson]

We did, by meter as well as by ear, but even the sound level meters were
reading the same.

[Scott]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 08:57:11 +0100, John Williamson

I realised that. I was just noising you up (excuse pun). I think there
is also a question of subjective vs measured volume.

[Mark Carver]

On 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
> Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
> to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.

Overnight Bauer have moved their rival station Scala to DAB+.
It's running at 40kb/s, so there's a possible clue to what Global will
select for Classic FM

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

[Scott]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:43:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
>> Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>> to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>
>Overnight Bauer have moved their rival station Scala to DAB+.
>It's running at 40kb/s, so there's a possible clue to what Global will
>select for Classic FM

And how would you say - subjectively and practically - this would
compare with the present DAB bitrate of 128 kbps?

[Mark Carver]

Dunno, not taken a proper listen yet

[Scott]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 14:17:28 +0100, Mark Carver

<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 16/10/2023 09:32, Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:43:18 +0100, Mark Carver
>> <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
>>>> Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>>>> to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>>>
>>> Overnight Bauer have moved their rival station Scala to DAB+.
>>> It's running at 40kb/s, so there's a possible clue to what Global will
>>> select for Classic FM
>>
>> And how would you say - subjectively and practically - this would
>> compare with the present DAB bitrate of 128 kbps?
>
>Dunno, not taken a proper listen yet

Unsurprisingly, if it doesn't start till January :-)

[Mark Carver]

It's such hard work on Usenet these days, what I mean is I've not had a
chance to listen to Scala at 40k DAB+ yet, as I say that will give a
clue (given the programme material is similar to Classic) how Classic at
40k might sound.

[Scott]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:19:02 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[snip]

>
>It's such hard work on Usenet these days, what I mean is I've not had a
>chance to listen to Scala at 40k DAB+ yet, as I say that will give a
>clue (given the programme material is similar to Classic) how Classic at
>40k might sound.

Sorry - I wasn't deliberately trying to be pedantic. My line of
thinking was how DAB+ would compare with the present DAB (which I
think is 112 kbps for Scala, 128 kbps for Classic); also I thought the
encoders might differ between Bauer and Global.

All will become clear - or not - in January.

[David Paste]

> [If you're wondering why I don't tell yt-dlp to just get the
> audio, (a) I sometimes want to keep the video too

Fair enough!


> How old are you?

44. I was surprised by the tones (I did a few DIY tests this week
as well, all pretty much the same with a variety of
headphones/speakers) but I do recall seemingly having “sensitive”
ears all my life, and I’ve always taken care of my ears if only
because anything too loud is physically uncomfortable even when
no one else seems bothered.

> Sometimes if it's pulsed, you actually hear the start and stop
> clicks.

Oh yeah, I know what you mean by that, but it’s definitely not
the clicks I’m picking up on.

> And/or, the background hiss/hum/whatever can change if the PSU
> is being loaded by something you can't hear, and you hear that
> change instead.

One of my stereos is a little Panasonic DVD home theatre thing
with a cooling fan which rarely kicks in but the other day when
I was testing some bass frequencies at a low level it switched on
almost immediately. Made me wonder if the fan reacts to
temperature or is set to just switch on when a pre-calculated
level of power is used. Probably the latter.

> Ah, I'd thought people might have a deadening effect.

Often, they do. :D

> Was it 3D (polarizing spec's)? [Do they even do those in IMAX?]

Yes, the roller coaster demo film was indeed 3D. I am a bit torn
by it to be honest. It was impressive for what it was, but the
glasses were uncomfortable, and when I remember it, I don’t
actually remember the 3D as plays back in my mind. I don’t really
care for 3D film, really. Can’t see the poiint. I saw a Star Wars
film in 3D, again, I remember very little about the 3D-ness of
it. It wasn’t a great film, tbh.

> (They don't work for me - I don't have binocular vision; both
> my eyes work fine, I just never developed the brain pathways to
> use both together.)

There is a photographer on YouTube who has the same! Do you see
two distinct images, or does one eye take a dominant role over
the other?


> [snip] to make paper prints of their films in order to protect

> them. So there are (or were) rolls of paper in the vault.

Bloody hell!


> [snip] I'm hoping the Wolverine improves before I buy one.)

The Wolverine? A skilled animal?!

[John Williamson]

On 22/10/2023 11:14, David Paste wrote:

> One of my stereos is a little Panasonic DVD home theatre thing
> with a cooling fan which rarely kicks in but the other day when
> I was testing some bass frequencies at a low level it switched on
> almost immediately. Made me wonder if the fan reacts to
> temperature or is set to just switch on when a pre-calculated
> level of power is used. Probably the latter.
>

It's cheaper to install a sensor on the output transistors' heat sink.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <def2fd61-1ac5-4238...@googlegroups.com> at
Sun, 22 Oct 2023 03:14:33, David Paste <paste...@gmail.com> writes
[]

>> How old are you?
>
>44. I was surprised by the tones (I did a few DIY tests this week

Ah, I'm 63!

>as well, all pretty much the same with a variety of
>headphones/speakers) but I do recall seemingly having “sensitive”
>ears all my life, and I’ve always taken care of my ears if only
>because anything too loud is physically uncomfortable even when
>no one else seems bothered.
>

Me too - never been keen on disco-type things, even in my youth: more
the social aspect (and type of music!) than the level. Never operated
loud machinery or similar. As for just level, yes, I too hear things
others don't (as too quiet); was just surprised at the frequency
rolloff.
[]

>> And/or, the background hiss/hum/whatever can change if the PSU
>> is being loaded by something you can't hear, and you hear that
>> change instead.
>
>One of my stereos is a little Panasonic DVD home theatre thing
>with a cooling fan which rarely kicks in but the other day when
>I was testing some bass frequencies at a low level it switched on
>almost immediately. Made me wonder if the fan reacts to
>temperature or is set to just switch on when a pre-calculated
>level of power is used. Probably the latter.
>

As another John said, a thermal sensor is easier - though reactive
rather than proactive.

>
>> Ah, I'd thought people might have a deadening effect.
>
>Often, they do. :D
>

(-:

>
>> Was it 3D (polarizing spec's)? [Do they even do those in IMAX?]
>
>Yes, the roller coaster demo film was indeed 3D. I am a bit torn
>by it to be honest. It was impressive for what it was, but the
>glasses were uncomfortable, and when I remember it, I don’t
>actually remember the 3D as plays back in my mind. I don’t really
>care for 3D film, really. Can’t see the poiint. I saw a Star Wars
>film in 3D, again, I remember very little about the 3D-ness of
>it. It wasn’t a great film, tbh.
>

At least it works for you! As, probably, do those dotty pictures that
were popular in the '70s-'90s.

>
>> (They don't work for me - I don't have binocular vision; both
>> my eyes work fine, I just never developed the brain pathways to
>> use both together.)
>
>There is a photographer on YouTube who has the same! Do you see
>two distinct images, or does one eye take a dominant role over
>the other?
>

The latter. I'm not usually aware of which one unless I investigate:
currently the right one, both for laptop screen (a foot or so) and the
TV. Actually, even close (inch or two). Don't know if it's always so, or
if it always was (used to be I was sometimes aware of "switching to the
close-up lens", but both near points have receded as is normal with
ageing, so I think I do that less now; they're now about 8" [right] and
two or three feet [left] without reading glasses: one of them used to be
very close).
[]

>> [snip] I'm hoping the Wolverine improves before I buy one.)
>
>The Wolverine? A skilled animal?!

One of the few devices available for home-digitisation of cine film
(other than just mirror boxes); it's sold under various names
(Wolverine, Kedok, DigitNow!, ... there are slight variations too). It
isn't a continuous-motion telecine; it looks more like a home projector
(or tape machine) than anything else, and has stop-motion mechanism - it
has a camera. Does standard and super 8 mm, at about 2 frames per
second: records to SD card, as a movie file (of the wrong speed, but
that's easily fixed by correcting the file header). There is much
discussion: it has various faults, mostly mechanical, though the main
criticism seems to be that the chip it uses to produce the video files
implements rather a high level of compression, some of which are
allegedly quite visible - users would prefer low or no compression, and
to do any themselves afterwards. It - presumably because of the market
size - is moderately expensive, but compared to sending films out to be
digitised, would soon pay for itself, as well as you not trusting your
irreplaceable films to the post or carriers. There are examples (of its
output) on YouTube, which (at the small window size of YouTube) look
reasonable - certainly better than anything that involves pointing a
video camera at the output of a projector (whether directly or via a
screen or mirror).

Let me have a quick google ...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=wolverine+8mm&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&
as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&as_filetype
=&tbs=

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

As individuals, politicians are usually quite charming, so it is quite hard to
dislike them, but in most cases, it is worth making the effort.
- Mark Williams (UMRA), 2013-4-26

[David Paste]

On Sunday, 22 October 2023 at 17:10:12 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> At least it works for you! As, probably, do those dotty
> pictures that were popular in the '70s-'90s.

“Magic Eye” images… yep, love(d) ‘em! Same with stereographs.


> [snip] they're now about 8" [right] and two or three feet

> [left] without reading glasses: one of them used to be very
> close).

Interesting! Do you drive? Are you aware of how you judge
distances or speeds? (Sorry to be nosey, I’m just interested!)

> One of the few devices available for home-digitisation of cine

> film [snip]

Ah! I see! I have seen similar home-brew things talked about on
the PetaPixel website. Interesting stuff. This is a bit of a
long-shot: have you ever seen a movie shot on 35mm Kodachrome
(preferably 64 or lower)?

[A N Source]

David Paste <paste...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e0e936cd-39c8-4470-a93c-
1b6554...@googlegroups.com:

>
> Ah! I see! I have seen similar home-brew things talked about on
> the PetaPixel website. Interesting stuff. This is a bit of a
> long-shot: have you ever seen a movie shot on 35mm Kodachrome
> (preferably 64 or lower)?

If you were going to shoot on 35mm, ANY reversal would be a long way from
the list of stocks that you would want to use - 16mm was OK for news(far
less time in the soup) and not much more.

[Scott]

Forgive my ignorance, but how would you project any film in a cinema
that is not reversal film?

[David Paste]

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 14:49:14 UTC+1, Scott wrote:

> Forgive my ignorance, but how would you project any film in a cinema
> that is not reversal film?

The projecting film would be reversal, but the recording film
would be negative which offers several advantages like wider
latitude to compensate for slight exposure errors (reversal is very
demanding in that respect, afaik).

[David Paste]

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 14:45:46 UTC+1, A N Source wrote:

> If you were going to shoot on 35mm, ANY reversal would be a long way from
> the list of stocks that you would want to use - 16mm was OK for news(far
> less time in the soup) and not much more.

Granted, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been tried!

[A N Source]

Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:4tfnjilf6jdiag2ve...@4ax.com:

Shoot on neg, and strike a show print.

[A N Source]

David Paste <paste...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:a0bb9264-02c3-44df...@googlegroups.com:

It probably has on 16mm, but Ektachrome would have likely have been the
stock of choice.

[John Williamson]

On 27/10/2023 14:49, Scott wrote:

> Forgive my ignorance, but how would you project any film in a cinema
> that is not reversal film?
>

Cinemas always use prints, and do not project the original. Unless the
transfer goes wrong, the negative (or reversal footage) from the camera
is only ever projected once when shooting a TV series or feature film,
all else is at least one generation removed.

In the case of TV news footage (as mentioned elsethread), the negative
is processed and scanned, often while still wet, using a scanner which
can produce a positive image direct from the negative. This could be
done as soon as they found a way to transmit filmed images on the TV.
This is then recorded for later playback.

Films are shot on negative stock, then printed onto negative stock,
giving a positive image, using filters to balance the colours for
editing. Then they use the positive edit to generate an intermediate
negative, then print positives off that for distribution. Fades and
other transitions involve at least an extra two generations.

What the cinema gets is *at least* three generations away from the camera.

I had a friend who worked at Denham studios many years ago. He used to
give me offcuts of 35mm movie stock, then process it and print rolls of
slides from the resulting negatives. Both processes used the same film
stock, machinery and processing.

It's a lot easier now. They copy the raw data from the camera into a
workstation, use a non-destructive technique to generate a file of the
final result, then send a hard drive with a clone of that to the cinema,
usually by internal secure mail, though any signed for delivery service
is normally considered secure enough. These drives are now the main
source of pirated movies.

The latest method is to keep a single (but backed up) copy of the file
at the studio, and send a copy down the line to local storage in the
cinema. Once it has finished its run, the cinema copy is deleted (Yeah,
right...). (Encryption is used in all digital processes and is
transparent to legitimate users)

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <e0e936cd-39c8-4470...@googlegroups.com> at
Fri, 27 Oct 2023 05:37:40, David Paste <paste...@gmail.com> writes

>On Sunday, 22 October 2023 at 17:10:12 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> At least it works for you! As, probably, do those dotty
>> pictures that were popular in the '70s-'90s.
>
>“Magic Eye” images… yep, love(d) ‘em! Same with stereographs.
>

Yes, those don't work for me either. (Basically "3D" stills.)

>
>> [snip] they're now about 8" [right] and two or three feet
>> [left] without reading glasses: one of them used to be very
>> close).
>
>Interesting! Do you drive? Are you aware of how you judge
>distances or speeds? (Sorry to be nosey, I’m just interested!)
>

Yes; I've specifically asked and I can. No idea - though I think
distances don't use the stereo effect much beyond a couple of yards, or
if they do, we've developed some other means. Not sure how it'd affect
speeds, unless you're involving distances.

>
>> One of the few devices available for home-digitisation of cine
>> film [snip]
>
>Ah! I see! I have seen similar home-brew things talked about on
>the PetaPixel website. Interesting stuff. This is a bit of a

There are probably getting on for a dozen of these devices now (ebay for
"8mm scanner" and you'll find them [though including ones that are only
for capturing stills]). The most basic one is the one mostly known as
the entry-level Wolverine; it's made by Winait, and sold under
Wolverine, Winait, and at least three other names; it "only" takes 5"
reels (I think that's more than enough for me!) and scans at 720p. There
are more expensive ones, that take bigger reels and/or scan at higher
resolution, such as the Wolverine Pro (7", not sure about resolution),
Kodak "Reels" (9", 1020p), and others. (There's also a thriving
community that modify the basic Wolverine, from just improved take-up
spooling right up to complete replacement of the guts of it - make their
own PCBs, 3D-print lens mounts, ... !)

>long-shot: have you ever seen a movie shot on 35mm Kodachrome
>(preferably 64 or lower)?

Not knowingly; I used to go to the cinema, but would have no idea what
materials feature films were made on. (Ditto when I used to be the
projectionist at school, though I know that was 16mm.) My own 8mm was
mostly on Perutz 10 ASA as the auto-exposure on my Bell and Howell (same
or similar model to Mr. Zapruder!) was set up for that, though
occasionally used Kodak 25 ASA when I couldn't find any 10 ASA, and
manually turned it down a stop, or Agfa (can't remember whether that was
10 or not); what little super 8 I shot was Kodak 25 (actually 40
tungsten, but effectively 25 outdoors as the camera had a filter - that
was the norm) - I don't think much else was available (to a schoolboy)
in the '70s. I still am pretty sure 8mm - certainly super, but I think
standard too - was higher resolution than SD video, and I think HD too
most of the time.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

[A N Source]

John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:kq1vme...@mid.individual.net:

> On 27/10/2023 14:49, Scott wrote:
>
>> Forgive my ignorance, but how would you project any film in a cinema
>> that is not reversal film?
>>
> Cinemas always use prints, and do not project the original. Unless the
> transfer goes wrong, the negative (or reversal footage) from the
> camera is only ever projected once when shooting a TV series or
> feature film, all else is at least one generation removed.

In the old days, it would have been contact printed after processing for
the purposes of the edit, when that was complete, the neg would be cut
and, dependent on the application, a combination of show prints/internegs
would be created (internegs obviously being essential for mixes/wipes,
etc).

> In the case of TV news footage (as mentioned elsethread), the negative
> is processed and scanned, often while still wet, using a scanner which
> can produce a positive image direct from the negative. This could be
> done as soon as they found a way to transmit filmed images on the TV.
> This is then recorded for later playback.

16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the
common use of Ektachrome for News Footage in the film era - if, of
course, you wanted silent, neg would be an acceptable alternative. Neg
colorimetry, however, can be a bit odd without its complementary print
stock.

TK, of course well predates the existence of convenient recording systems
(other than FR obviously) - the Mechau moving mirror device could fill
both roles.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <kq1vme...@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 27 Oct 2023
15:27:25, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes
[]

>I had a friend who worked at Denham studios many years ago. He used to
>give me offcuts of 35mm movie stock, then process it and print rolls of
>slides from the resulting negatives. Both processes used the same film
>stock, machinery and processing.

[]
Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative,
penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it!
("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides. (I
preferred slides to prints - still do really, but they're inconvenient
of course.) Involved a box of extra chemicals from Johnsons (one of the
powders was orange), and a re-exposure - so many inches from a
lightbulb! - part way through the process. I remember the film - or the
images on it - were a pretty blue colour at that point.

(Yes, my slides had a row of holes along one edge. But given they
included the full width of where a 35mm image would go, you just had to
bear that in mind when shooting. Could hide the holes if you used
ordinary 35mm mounts.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Scott]

Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
Would jpeg be the best format to use?

[A N Source]

Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:tjjnji9nn2imod29r...@4ax.com:

35mm mounts.)
>
> Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
> files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
> Would jpeg be the best format to use?

For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-
Required/dp/B08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=
35mm+slide+scanner&qid=1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=
8-16

[Scott]

But this would mean scanning each one individually, which would take
hours. I wondered if a professional processor could pass them through
and automated process (while maintaining reasonable quality control,
such as colour balance and brightness).

[A N Source]

Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:hpknji1nhqt61qt8d...@4ax.com:

>>
>>For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt
>>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-Required/dp/
> B08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=35mm+slide+scanner&qi
> d=1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=8-16 But this
> would mean scanning each one individually, which would take hours. I
> wondered if a professional processor could pass them through and
> automated process (while maintaining reasonable quality control, such
> as colour balance and brightness).

30p each, if you have 1000 or more

https://www.filmscanuk.co.uk/SlideScanning.php

It took me 15 seconds to find on google, I have no idea how good or bad
they are, I simply did a search.

[John Williamson]

On 27/10/2023 15:53, Scott wrote:

> Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
> files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
> Would jpeg be the best format to use?
>

Yes. Even I have the equipment here to do it for 35mm slides, using a
digital camera and a holder, and when quality matters, I use RAW format,
then edit to suit before compression. JPEG is a lossy format, so is not
the best choice when editing, as you get generational losses each time
you change something in a saved image. I can even restore slides where
the fading is different in each layer, going as far as the odd occasion
when one or more colour layers has, in effect, reverted to a negative.

For a very reasonable price, you can buy a slide scanner which will scan
the slides or film roll onto an SD card or into your computer, and most
image editing programs have a range of automatic filters which can do a
rough balance on a batch of images. The current batch of scanners can do
any where from 150dpi to 7,000 dpi, with prices to match.

There are companies advertising the service both for stills and movies.

[Scott]

That's helpful, thanks. I could equally search Google but I wondered
if anyone here had personal recommendations or tips.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <XnsB0AAA01445D...@81.171.91.128> at Fri, 27 Oct
2023 14:44:12, A N Source <f...@bar.baz> writes
[]

>16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the

[]
By double sprocket, do you mean as used by (standard) 8mm cameras, or
just that it had holes each side?

I've occasionally wondered where the idea for standard 8 came from; it's
sometimes presented as someone having an idea (like - was it Mr. Leica?
- did for 35mm still cameras), but needing the double perforation (which
I doubt could be added - it'd have to be done all at once to get the
precision needed) is an extra step. Or was the double perforation
already present on some stock for some reason (if so what)?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... unlike other legal systems the common law is permissive. We can do what we
like, unless it is specifically prohibited by law. We are not as rule-bound
and codified as other legal systems. - Helena Kennedy QC (Radio Times 14-20
July 2012).

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <hpknji1nhqt61qt8d...@4ax.com> at Fri, 27 Oct
2023 16:13:47, Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes

There are lots of such devices, from about 20 quid (probably less s/h)
up to ones that have things like infrared to detect scratches etcetera.
But, as you say, would take hours for all but a small number.

I take it they're mounted? I've seen scanners with a hopper you can feed
them into, then operate pump-action like a shotgun: if you've not _too_
many, that might be worth an investigate. (I don't know how well they
work with the different types of mount - Kodak thin card, Agfa thick
plastic, Boots thin plastic ... maybe OK if not mixed?) How many slides
are you talking about - and what are they in? If projector magazines,
maybe something could be done with the projector, though I've not heard
of anyone doing that. Obviously those wouldn't automate exposure/colour.

For personal recommendations, maybe you have a local photographic
club/society/whatever? Look in your local library at the notice-board.
(Include historical.) I imagine most of those _will_ have done it
themselves, but there might be some who've used an outside source and
can recommend (or the opposite!).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[A N Source]

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in news:g$wNtBDFsPPlFwgp@
255soft.uk:

> In message <XnsB0AAA01445D...@81.171.91.128> at Fri, 27 Oct
> 2023 14:44:12, A N Source <f...@bar.baz> writes
> []
>>16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the
> []
> By double sprocket, do you mean as used by (standard) 8mm cameras, or
> just that it had holes each side?

"16mm double sprocket" means sprocket holes down both edges (leaving no
room for sound (comopt or stripe), I suppose that in the digital era it
would be possible to cram some digital info in the gaps).

Standard 8 (as I understand it is) is 16mm stock with two sprocket holes
per frame, and was, IIRC, a Kodak Eastman innovation.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <XnsB0AB8D36AAC...@81.171.91.128> at Sat, 28 Oct
2023 12:52:56, A N Source <f...@bar.baz> writes

>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in news:g$wNtBDFsPPlFwgp@
>255soft.uk:
>
>> In message <XnsB0AAA01445D...@81.171.91.128> at Fri, 27 Oct
>> 2023 14:44:12, A N Source <f...@bar.baz> writes
>> []
>>>16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the
>> []
>> By double sprocket, do you mean as used by (standard) 8mm cameras, or
>> just that it had holes each side?
>
>"16mm double sprocket" means sprocket holes down both edges (leaving no
>room for sound (comopt or stripe), I suppose that in the digital era it
>would be possible to cram some digital info in the gaps).

Gotcha.

>
>Standard 8 (as I understand it is) is 16mm stock with two sprocket holes

Yes, it is; one per 8mm frame. The camera shot down one half of the film
width, then you turned it over (swapped the reels) and it went back
along the other half. I had (still have!) one.

>per frame, and was, IIRC, a Kodak Eastman innovation.
>
>

Interesting.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The best things in life aren't things. - Bear Grylls (RT 2015/2/14-20)

[NY]

On 27/10/2023 15:46, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <kq1vme...@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 27 Oct 2023
> 15:27:25, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> writes
> []
>> I had a friend who worked at Denham studios many years ago. He used to
>> give me offcuts of 35mm movie stock, then process it and print rolls
>> of slides from the resulting negatives. Both processes used the same
>> film stock, machinery and processing.
> []
> Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative,
> penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it!
> ("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides.

The master at my school who ran the photographic club bought a bulk load
of B&W negative film and dispensed it to us in reusable plastic 35 mm
canisters which we could develop and print. Sadly there was a bit of
grit in the felt light-trap of his bulk loader, so everyone's films
ended up with a tramline all the way down :-(

I've only once experimented with B&W slide film. I forget the precise
details, but I remember that it was *very* slow - either 16 or 32 ASA -
and I think it may have been made by Agfa.

I can't remember how the reversal was achieved - whether it was
performed chemically or whether it involved the film being exposed to
uniform light after first development and bleaching. Maybe I overexposed
it to the reversal light or overdeveloped it after that (second
development) but all the slides were a bit dark and muddy.

I'm trying to remember which way round it was for Kodachrome and E6
(Ektachrome) - one was chemical reversal and one used a light exposure
after first-dev. I think Kodachrome used light and E6 used chemical
(non-light) reversal, but I may have that the wrong way round.



When it comes to scanning negs and slides, I've found that slides are a
*lot* easier and require considerably less faffing around and tweaking
of settings in the scanner's control app. Slides usually "just work",
and the only adjustment necessary is exposure, whereas negs can look
muddy, over-saturated and "larger-than-life" - a look which you often
used to get in 1940s/50s books that included "colour plate"
illustrations. Also I got horrendous blooming around dark objects (eg
chimneys of a building) against a light background (eg sky) and very
coarse grain. That was the case both for a flat-bed scanner and a
dedicated Minolta film scanner. After a lot of faffing (with different
parameters for every single frame) I got some good results which showed
details in shadow and highlight which were bleached out or lost in
blackness of a print from the same neg.

I was staggered at the amount of highlight detail that I could recover
from overexposed slides. I took some Ektachrome slides of night-time
scenes - eg floodlit buildings such as the Cabot Tower in Bristol when I
was at university there - complete with a deep blue filter to correct
tungsten lighting to daylight film. I had to make wild guesses at
exposures, and some guesses were better that others! Some slides looked
washed out when projected, but when I scanned them many years later, I
was able to get pretty good results with highlight detail that I though
had been lost forever.

Scary that nowadays a DSLR can give instant feedback of correct
exposure, even if you have to alter the metered exposure by n stops
until the picture looks right, and you can colour-correct immediately by
the time-honoured process of taking a photo of a white piece of paper
which is illuminated by the same light. My experience is that digital
cameras tend to produce better results with discontinuous spectrum
lights such as fluorescent or LED - none of the sickly green cast that
fluorescents gave with Kodachrome ;-)

[NY]

On 28/10/2023 13:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> There are lots of such devices, from about 20 quid (probably less s/h)
> up to ones that have things like infrared to detect scratches etcetera.
> But, as you say, would take hours for all but a small number.

One cautionary tale. I have found that the IR dust/scratch correction of
slides does not work with Kodachrome, because that film absorbs IR by
different amounts according to density of image. Ektachrome and the Agfa
slide films absorb IR uniformly, irrespective of image density, so they
can distinguish between image and dust. For Kodachrome, you must turn
off IR and retouch dust manually; with it turned on, the results are not
pretty :-(

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <4rCcnX9jKYd0nqL4...@brightview.co.uk> at Mon,
30 Oct 2023 01:16:24, NY <m...@privacy.net> writes

>On 27/10/2023 15:46, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative,
>>penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it!
>>("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides.

[]

>I've only once experimented with B&W slide film. I forget the precise
>details, but I remember that it was *very* slow - either 16 or 32 ASA -
>and I think it may have been made by Agfa.

The slides I produced didn't use dedicated B&W slide film - I didn't
even know such a thing existed. The process used ordinary B/W negative
film, with extra chemicals from Johnsons and instructions, including the
re-exposure part way through the process.
[]

>When it comes to scanning negs and slides, I've found that slides are a
>*lot* easier and require considerably less faffing around and tweaking
>of settings in the scanner's control app. Slides usually "just work",
>and the only adjustment necessary is exposure, whereas negs can look
>muddy, over-saturated and "larger-than-life" - a look which you often
>used to get in 1940s/50s books that included "colour plate"
>illustrations. Also I got horrendous blooming around dark objects (eg
>chimneys of a building) against a light background (eg sky) and very
>coarse grain. That was the case both for a flat-bed scanner and a
>dedicated Minolta film scanner. After a lot of faffing (with different
>parameters for every single frame) I got some good results which showed
>details in shadow and highlight which were bleached out or lost in
>blackness of a print from the same neg.

I've always thought slides - though I admit, and negatives - probably
contain much better depth than prints; the only disadvantage likely
being that it's much easier to obtain good resolution by scanning a
print, assuming you've got a good print that is.
[]

>paper which is illuminated by the same light. My experience is that
>digital cameras tend to produce better results with discontinuous
>spectrum lights such as fluorescent or LED - none of the sickly green
>cast that fluorescents gave with Kodachrome ;-)

I suspect the light sources have improved somewhat too.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... behaving morally does not require religious adherence. - The Right Rev
Nigel McCulloch\Bishop of Manchester (Radio Times, 24-30 September 2011

[David Paste]

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 15:41:06 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Not knowingly;

Ah, thanks! I knew it was a long shot! I am just curious how good it
would look because I really like the KodaChrome slides I have!

However, I am VERY glad that digital cinema exists :D

[Scott]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <f...@bar.baz> wrote:
[snip]

Any update on the bitrate to be used from January? They are
repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
to be in a position to substantiate this claim.

What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)? More robust
reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)

[Andy Burns]

Scott wrote:

> They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
> will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.

Who's going to hold them to their (subjective) claim?

[Scott]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:48:28 +0000, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

Either Ofcom or ASA I believe fined Channel 4 because the adverts were
louder than the programme. AIUI, the rule was changed from measured to
subjective volume.
https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/a5f7af81-2f67-4b79-b04c8ce60130e93d.pdf
Having established the principle of a subjective test, it is a very
short step to saying that that any claim made needs to be
substantiated. Surely advertising yourself is subject to similar rules
to advertising a product?

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <ok59mi5k5ca5npri9...@4ax.com> at Mon, 27 Nov
2023 13:23:49, Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes

Even if limited to objective, "better sound quality" cannot be claimed
without substantiation: however discredited, there must exist a table of
"x bits at DAB+ is better than y bits at DAB": without some such, the
claim can surely be "disproved".

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

At the age of 7, Julia Elizabeth Wells could sing notes only dogs could hear.

[Scott]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:43:00 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <ok59mi5k5ca5npri9...@4ax.com> at Mon, 27 Nov
>2023 13:23:49, Scott <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:48:28 +0000, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
>>>> will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>>
>>>Who's going to hold them to their (subjective) claim?
>>
>>Either Ofcom or ASA I believe fined Channel 4 because the adverts were
>>louder than the programme. AIUI, the rule was changed from measured to
>>subjective volume.
>>https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/a5f7af81-2f67-4b79-b04c8ce60130e93d.pdf
>>Having established the principle of a subjective test, it is a very
>>short step to saying that that any claim made needs to be
>>substantiated. Surely advertising yourself is subject to similar rules
>>to advertising a product?
>
>Even if limited to objective, "better sound quality" cannot be claimed
>without substantiation: however discredited, there must exist a table of
>"x bits at DAB+ is better than y bits at DAB": without some such, the
>claim can surely be "disproved".

Yes, essentially that is what I am saying. Global will need to be able
to back up their claim with some sort of evidence and things could go
badly if they don't.

[NY]

My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.

Is there any technical advantage to the baseband signal carried by DAB+
compared with DAB? Or is DAB+ just a more efficient compression and
coding system so the same subjective quality of baseband signal requires
a lower bitrate and therefore a mux can carry more channels?

Is it like the benefit of DVB-T2 (or S2) over DVB-T (or S) digital
television, that H264 is a more efficient codec than MPEG-1, so you can
squeeze more channels into the same mux (or transmit baseband signals
with more pixels and hence a higher bitrate, without reducing the number
of channels carried)?

Maybe (all pigs fuelled and ready to take off!) channels will actually
increase the subjective quality of the received signal, with lower
levels of compression artefacts.

[Mark Carver]

On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <f...@bar.baz> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Any update on the bitrate to be used from January?  They are
>> repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>
>> What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
>> range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)?  More robust
>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
>
> My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.

That was unfortunate

>
> Is there any technical advantage to the baseband signal carried by DAB+
> compared with DAB? Or is DAB+ just a more efficient compression and
> coding system so the same subjective quality of baseband signal requires
> a lower bitrate and therefore a mux can carry more channels?

The above, plus with a marginal signal level the reception is more robust.

[Scott]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:35:39 +0000, Mark Carver <ma...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
>> On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <f...@bar.baz> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Any update on the bitrate to be used from January?  They are
>>> repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
>>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>>
>>> What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
>>> range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)?  More robust
>>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
>>
>> My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
>> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
>> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
>
>That was unfortunate

Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
from an Australian site.

Silly question, I thought all new DAB radios had to include DAB. Is
it possible it will receive DAB+ when this becomes available even if
this is not obvious from the instructions?

[Mark Carver]

On 28/11/2023 10:07, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:35:39 +0000, Mark Carver <ma...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <f...@bar.baz> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Any update on the bitrate to be used from January?  They are
>>>> repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
>>>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>>>
>>>> What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
>>>> range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)?  More robust
>>>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
>>>
>>> My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
>>> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
>>> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
>>
>> That was unfortunate
>
> Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
> from an Australian site.

Maybe

>
> Silly question, I thought all new DAB radios had to include DAB.

Oh, I think they all do :-)

But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+

> it possible it will receive DAB+ when this becomes available even if
> this is not obvious from the instructions?

Very, I'd think !

[Woody]

Look on the unit label. I picked up a Sandstrom (Currys) at the tip -
the label said DAB/DAB+. Plugged in a power supply and it works sitting
here on the end of my desk. I found a second elsewhere (not the tip this
time)and it was distorted. The loudspeaker cone edge had frayed in
places so it was waffling. Found a new speaker on line, fitted it, and
that now sits on the end of my s-in-l's desk (he's a home worker.)

[Scott]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:47:32 +0000, Mark Carver <ma...@invalid.com>

wrote:

>On 28/11/2023 10:07, Scott wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:35:39 +0000, Mark Carver <ma...@invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
>>>> On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <f...@bar.baz> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Any update on the bitrate to be used from January?  They are
>>>>> repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
>>>>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
>>>>> range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)?  More robust
>>>>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
>>>>
>>>> My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
>>>> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
>>>> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
>>>
>>> That was unfortunate
>>
>> Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
>> from an Australian site.
>
>Maybe
>
>>
>> Silly question, I thought all new DAB radios had to include DAB.
>
>Oh, I think they all do :-)

Yes, I realised this impeccable logic on re-reading.

>
>But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
>say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+

Is it something to do with displaying the tick of approval on the box?

[Robin]

On 28/11/2023 13:05, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:47:32 +0000, Mark Carver <ma...@invalid.com>

<snip>>

>> But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
>> say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+
>
> Is it something to do with displaying the tick of approval on the box?
>>

If you mean the "digitalradio [sic] approved product" tick mark then
that offers protection when buying from a reputable source. But there
is of course nothing to stop disreputable sellers using boxes with
rip-off Tick Mark logos. And your recourse is against the seller, not
Radioplayer (assuming it is they who took on the certification scheme).



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid