Petition to stop FM being switched off
DAB sounds worse than FM
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
Please sign. Thanks.
--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info
"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report
Jimbo GM4DHJ ....
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
news:7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net...
> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>
> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>
> Please sign. Thanks.
>
>
Kr�ft��
Maybe some more bandwidth to play with.......Naah I doubt it (it'll be
sold to the highest bidder)
Jimbo GM4DHJ ....
"Kr�ft��" <kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote in message
news:W6SdnfohqtaJAt_X...@bt.com...
is......
Alan
FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>
>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>
>Please sign. Thanks.
>
>
Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
jasee
> In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse than
> FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>
>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>
>
> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
Why would it do that?
How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do you want
anyway?
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:AtSTnMGj...@amac.f2s.com
> In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse
> than
> FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>
>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>
>> Please sign. Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>
> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
What you say is wrong for the following reasons:
* The Digital Britain report said that the FM band would be used for
"ultra-local" FM stations once all of the bigger FM radio stations
have been switched off. So FM actually isn't planned to be switched
off, so the FM band couldn't be freed up for DAB anyway
* DAB uses frequencies of around 200 MHz, whereas FM uses frequencies
of around 100 MHz - i.e. DAB couldn't be transmitted in the FM band
anyway
* DAB won't be getting any more spectrum than it's already got,
because DAB spectrum was all allocated to Europeam countries in 2006
(there is one unused DAB channel at the moment that was going to be
used for a 2nd national commercial multiplex which fell through when
Channel 4 decided against entering radio last year, but I think that's
just going to be pretty much wasted when they replan the spectrum)
* Apart from in London, where I think the figure is around 55
stations, people can typically receive about 35 radio stations on DAB.
DAB could never carry hundreds of radio stations. DAB was designed in
the 1980s. It is an incredibly inefficient system because the
technologies it uses are so old.
Some other things that you might like to bear in mind which it sounds
like you're probably unaware of at the moment are that
* DAB provides lower audio quality than FM, Internet radio and radio
via digital TV
* DAB's audio quality isn't going to get any better in future because
the MP2 audio codec it uses is 20 years old so they've obviously been
optimising it for years but it still sounds crap at the low bit rates
that it's used at in the UK
* DAB's audio quality is actually only likely to go down, because as
more people get DAB then that makes it more appealing to commercial
radio stations to launch new stations because there's more potential
revenue. The downside of that is that the bit rate levels of existing
stations have to be reduced to fit new stations in, so the audio
quality goes down as a result
* 98% of stereo stations on DAB in the UK use a bit rate of either 112
or 128 kbps with the MP2 codec - in comparison, the BBC uses a bit
rate of 256 kbps MP2 for the audio on its TV channels, and the vast
majority of TV channels tend to use a bit rate of 192 kbps MP2 for the
audio. Basically, the UK radio broadcasters are using bit rates that
the MP2 audio codec wasn't designed to be used at.
* One thing that might surprise quite a few people is that the digital
platform that carries digital radio at the highest audio quality is
now the Internet, because the BBC launched new 128 kbps AAC live
streams for the stereo stations apart from Radio 3 and 192 kbps AAC
for Radio 3 last week - 128 kbps AAC is the equivalent of around 224
kbps MP2, so it's far higher quality than 128 kbps MP2 that the BBC
uses on DAB. Also most of the bigger commercial radio stations also
provide far higher qulaity online streams than they provide on DAB.
And the audio quality on Internet radio's only likely to increase over
time as Internet speeds get faster and cost per Mbps falls.
* If you actually do want hundreds of radio stations there are over
10,000 Internet radio stations, so DAB obviously can't compete with
that
* DAB cannot deliver on-demand content - only broadband (and cable)
can deliver true on-demand streams
So if you were thinking that DAB's going to turn into a good digital
radio system, I'm afraid it's basically just FM done digitally but at
lower audio quality and you get a few more stations. If you have shit
FM reception then you'd benefit, otherwise you'll actually get lower
audio quality on DAB than on FM.
The reason why DAB is being backed by the government is because it's
to bail out the commercial radio groups who don't want to pay to
transmit both analogue and digital for the next few decades - DAB was
just a few years from failing, because sales have been really shit
since 2006 (that's why DAB nearly collapsed last year when GCap Media
said it wanted to withdraw from DAB completely). The BBC's Director of
Radio Tim Davie said recently that at the rate we're going FM wouldn't
be switched off "in our lifetime", which is correct, because it's only
selling at 2 millino per year with 6% growth last year (which is shit)
and basically it would have taken about 30 - 40 years to switch FM
off, so we have to all be forced to get DAB like good little citizens
to bail out the commercial radio groups so that they don't have to pay
dual analogue and digital transmission costs.
The radio broadcasters also have another reason why they want everyone
to listen via DAB, which is that it's the platform where their
stations face the least amount of competition - so they'd lose the
least amount of listeners and hence revenue - whereas if Internet
radio became popular they're scared that people would desert their
stations and listen to others, and they can't allow that, and neither
can the government. It's just pure protectionism, basically.
Steve Terry
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
news:7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net...
> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
> Please sign. Thanks.
>
>
the future is DRM, good job too
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
> In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse than FM
> <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>>There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>Please sign. Thanks.
>>
> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>
>
Keep up at the back
Steve Terry
Fredxx
> <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>>There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>
>>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>
>>Please sign. Thanks.
>>
>
> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
I don't see the comparison. I want freedom of choice. DAB gives me an extra
freedom, but that's all.
My experience of digital, such as Freeview and the like, is that quality of
transmission is actually worse than the equivalent analogue transmission!
As a comparison, do you think the multitude of TV channels has really given
us more choice? I now watch less TV than ever before!
Kr�ft��
| In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse
| than FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
|| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
||
|| http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
||
|| Please sign. Thanks.
||
||
|
|
| Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
| hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
Don't forget, better quality as well
Kr�ft��
But with a greater bandwidth they wouldn't have to compress the audio
so much & so you could have better quality sound, the way it should
be!
Kr�ft��
I doff my cap to your superior knowledge on this subject and shall
withdraw from the argument.
Steve Terry
with DRM that's what you get
Steve Terry
Alan
>"Alan" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:AtSTnMGj...@amac.f2s.com
>> In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse
>> than
>> FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>>
>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>
>>> Please sign. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
>> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>
>
>What you say is wrong for the following reasons:
>
So there is no need for the petition! FM isn't going to be switched off.
Fredxx
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
> | "Alan" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> | news:AtSTnMGj...@amac.f2s.com
> || In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse
> || than
> || FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
> ||| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
> |||
> ||| http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
> |||
> ||| Please sign. Thanks.
> |||
> |||
> ||
> ||
> || Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
> || hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
> |
> |
> | What you say is wrong for the following reasons:
> |
> | * The Digital Britain report said that the FM band would be used for
> | "ultra-local" FM stations once all of the bigger FM radio stations
> | have been switched off. So FM actually isn't planned to be switched
> | off, so the FM band couldn't be freed up for DAB anyway
> |
> | * DAB uses frequencies of around 200 MHz, whereas FM uses
> | frequencies of around 100 MHz - i.e. DAB couldn't be transmitted in
> | the FM band anyway
DAB can be transmitted at any frequency, it doesn't have to be 200MHz. It's
just what was available.
The bandwidth for DAB and FM aren't much different.
> |
> | * DAB won't be getting any more spectrum than it's already got,
> | because DAB spectrum was all allocated to Europeam countries in 2006
> | (there is one unused DAB channel at the moment that was going to be
> | used for a 2nd national commercial multiplex which fell through when
> | Channel 4 decided against entering radio last year, but I think
> | that's just going to be pretty much wasted when they replan the
> | spectrum)
> |
> | * Apart from in London, where I think the figure is around 55
> | stations, people can typically receive about 35 radio stations on
> | DAB. DAB could never carry hundreds of radio stations. DAB was
> | designed in the 1980s. It is an incredibly inefficient system
> | because the technologies it uses are so old.
> |
> | Some other things that you might like to bear in mind which it
> | sounds like you're probably unaware of at the moment are that
> |
> | * DAB provides lower audio quality than FM, Internet radio and radio
> | via digital TV
> |
> | * DAB's audio quality isn't going to get any better in future
> | because the MP2 audio codec it uses is 20 years old so they've
> | obviously been optimising it for years but it still sounds crap at
> | the low bit rates that it's used at in the UK
Agreed - DAB bit rates are embarrasingly low. I have no idea why MP2 was
chosen. Even DAB+ isn't compatible with old DAB. All in all, a complete
mess!
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:h1udcv$fgc$1...@news.eternal-september.org
Yes, but DAB receivers can only receive signals that are transmitting
in Band III or L-band - and there are no multiplexes in L-band in the
UK.
They held listening tests in 1990 at Swedish Radio where they compared
a load of codecs and boiled it down to 2, which went on to become MP2
and MP3. They chose MP2 because - get this - MP2 provided higher
quality than MP3 at high bit rate levels - above 192 kbps basically.
Also, MP2 decoders have a lower computational complexity than MP3, and
MP2 allowed lower error correction coding with a computational
complexity as well. In 1990 when electronics were extremely slow and
expensive compared to today the difference in computational complexity
might have mattered, but it was a bad long term decision. And as for
the decision to go with MP2 because it provided higher quality than
MP3 at high bit rates that was an even worse decision. What they
should have done IMO was implement MP3, which was designed to be
backwardly compatible with MP2 anyway, then let the broadcasters
decide. What they did was cripple the whole system by adopting MP2 -
and the fools didn't even bother to upgrade the codec since even
though AAC was standardised in 1997, and development of it began in
1994. Basically, it's a textbook lesson of incompetence.
Apparently the BBC R&D dept were recommending AAC to be used in the
late 1990s, but the BBC execs obviously ignored them.
> Even DAB+ isn't compatible with old DAB. All in all, a complete
> mess!
It's definitely a complete mess - the fact that DAB+ had to be
designed just 3 years after the BBC had properly launched DAB in 2002
shows how incompetent the broadcasters were in choosing to go with DAB
without upgrading it first.
To be fair to them about DAB+ though, DAB+ was designed to solve DAB's
problems, so they added the AAC+ audio codec to make DAB more
efficient and added RS error correction coding to make receptino more
robust - but DAB receivers produced up to that point didn't support
AAC+ or RS coding, so they had to accept non-compatibility.
DAB sounds worse than FM
The only FM stations that will still be on FM will be "ultra-local"
stations, which most people don't care about.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:h1ubkq$mge$1...@news.albasani.net
Where are you getting this stuff about DRM from? A typical DRM station
is the BBC World Service, which transmits in a 9 or 10 kHz bandwidth
channel and it uses a bit rate of about 20 kbps. The audio quality is
so bad that it makes DAB sound good in comparison, and I consider the
audio quality on DAB to be dire.
If you really mean DRM+ then that's a different story, but DRM without
the + is a crap, low quality system that's only really meant to
replace MW stations. And DRM doesn't stand a chance of getting
established in the UK now, because I don't think there are any
receivers in teh shops that support DRM - if there are any there's
only one or two.
Mike Tomlinson
FM <dab...@fooked.com> writes
>There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
I've not been following this, but if FM is switched off, what happens to
the millions of car radios fitted? What about those that are built into
the console and can't be swapped out?
--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png
J B
>
> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
Well, I already have 4 FM radios as well as one in each of our families
cars.
We don't have a DAB radio.
Is that a good enough reason???
--
J B
Ian Jackson
<kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> writes
activity between (say) 30 and 87MHz at the moment, so I don't think that
there will be as great a demand for the FM radio spectrum as some people
think.
--
Ian
jasee
> In article <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse than
> FM <dab...@fooked.com> writes
>
>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>
> I've not been following this, but if FM is switched off, what happens
> to the millions of car radios fitted? What about those that are
> built into the console and can't be swapped out?
The government will offer us an extra �1000 plus to crush them and the cars
they're in on enviromental grounds :-)
Ian Jackson
FM <dab...@fooked.com> writes
>
>* DAB uses frequencies of around 200 MHz, whereas FM uses frequencies
>of around 100 MHz - i.e. DAB couldn't be transmitted in the FM band
>anyway
>
Surely there's no technical reason why DAB cannot be transmitted at the
present 'FM' frequencies? It is arguable that propagation and RF
penetration is better than at 200MHz. All you will need is a new radio.
This will be no great hardship as, the way things are going, if they
change DAB to DAB+ I'm going to have to change my DAB/FM radio anyway in
order to receive anything at all.
>
--
Ian
Dave Plowman (News)
Mike Tomlinson <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
> I've not been following this, but if FM is switched off, what happens to
> the millions of car radios fitted? What about those that are built into
> the console and can't be swapped out?
You can often get adaptor plates to allow a 'standard' size radio to be
fitted. Plenty want to upgrade the unit fitted as standard. Or use a DAB
to FM convertor - just like plugging a FreeView box into the TV aerial
input.
--
*If tennis elbow is painful, imagine suffering with tennis balls *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jimbo GM4DHJ ....
"Mike Tomlinson" <mi...@jasper.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MGFQFyD$7wQK...@jasper.org.uk...
> In article <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse than
> FM <dab...@fooked.com> writes
>
>>There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>
> I've not been following this, but if FM is switched off, what happens to
> the millions of car radios fitted? What about those that are built into
> the console and can't be swapped out?
>
as I have said before..."new technology...squandering the worlds
resources".......
tony sayer
HISja...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
There are tracts of spectrum from around 30 to 87 MHz that are hardly
used as no one wants them;!...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<gFOU...@tesco.net> scribeth thus
Theres one who doesn't have much to do with the radio industry;!..
--
Tony Sayer
JN
in my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen to the radio
in a car).
JN
Paul D.Smith
> fitted. Plenty want to upgrade the unit fitted as standard. Or use a DAB
> to FM convertor - just like plugging a FreeView box into the TV aerial
> input.
Perhaps we all need to get into the "retro fit radios" business. I have 5
perfectly good FM/AM radios, none of which could be retrofitted for DAB.
And why would I want to purchase something that only works in the UK? From
my kitchen, most DAB reception is simply too bad to listen to but I can
happily get the same stations on FM. Also, my DAB radio uses significantly
more power that my old FM/AM sets.
Paul DS
bugbear
> In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse than
> FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>
>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>
>> Please sign. Thanks.
>>
>>
>
>
> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current
DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations
you dream of?
BugBear
Ian Jackson
<to...@bancom.co.uk> writes
Offhand, I'm not sure what one might expect to find. Old FM cordless
phones 30 to 33MHz. IF region 33 to 40MHz 'protected'. Some radio
control around 49MHz (?), plus old toy walkie talkies and baby alarms.
Amateur 50 to 52MHz. There used to be a blind landing system on 75MHz.
Some council, gas and electricity board stuff around 80Mhz? OK, all of
the spectrum will be allocated, but the actual usage is very low.
Of course, one of the problems with these relatively low frequencies is
the size of the aerial, especially for handheld portable use (even if
loading is used). And, there's also a severe problem with sporadic-E
interference - especially around this time of year. It is not without
good reason that, some time ago, Band 1 was abandoned for TV
transmissions in many European countries.
--
Ian
charles
<paul_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And why would I want to purchase something that only works in the UK?
why not, your TV only worked in the UK?
> From my kitchen, most DAB reception is simply too bad to listen to but I
> can happily get the same stations on FM. Also, my DAB radio uses
> significantly more power that my old FM/AM sets.
Do not forget that if DAB beomes the normal broadcast medium, there will be
more transmitters
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
alexd
> This Internet Radio sounds like the dogs b#ll#cks, how can I receive it
> in my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen to the radio
> in a car).
It's certainly not at the same cost, but I've listened to 96k streams in the
car with my Nokia E61 plugged into the AUX on the car stereo through
Vodafone 3G. I have found it somewhat unreliable once in city centres, but I
have managed to drive from Leeds to Manchester along the M62 listening to a
stream without any drops. But right now it's nowhere near as seamless as
FM+RDS, and you'll need to pay for 3G and something to receive it on.
AFAIK there is no satellite radio in the UK as yet. I should have thought
there'd be a market for it. What ever happened to Worldspace?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
13:38:44 up 49 days, 20:31, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.16, 0.16
A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction
DAB sounds worse than FM
message
news:PgWDb$GohyQ...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk
> In message <7afod6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse
> than
> FM <dab...@fooked.com> writes
>
>
>>
>> * DAB uses frequencies of around 200 MHz, whereas FM uses
>> frequencies
>> of around 100 MHz - i.e. DAB couldn't be transmitted in the FM band
>> anyway
>>
> Surely there's no technical reason why DAB cannot be transmitted at
> the
> present 'FM' frequencies?
It says in the DAB spec that DAB can be transmitted at any frequency
from (IIRC) about 100 MHz up to 2 or 3 GHz, but receivers aren't
designed to receive DAB at 100 MHz, so it wouldn't be used there.
>It is arguable that propagation and RF
> penetration is better than at 200MHz. All you will need is a new
> radio.
> This will be no great hardship as, the way things are going, if they
> change DAB to DAB+ I'm going to have to change my DAB/FM radio
> anyway in
> order to receive anything at all.
Yeah, but there are no plans to add the FM band to the frequencies
that DAB receivers support (in terms of support for receiving DAB
signals - most can receive FM as well).
Graham Murray
> There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current
> DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations
> you dream of?
So why do they not increase the bitate of the stations that are
transmitting, thus increasing the quality?
Dave Liquorice
> Do not forget that if DAB beomes the normal broadcast medium, there will
> be more transmitters
You hope... The Beeb currently quote 86% of UK population covered for
DAB with plans to 90%. Not that is "UK population" not land mass.
Anyone have the figures for the coverage of the national networks on
FM?
--
Cheers
Dave.
Steve Terry
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r4I5AhJb...@bancom.co.uk...
>
>
Broadcasters need consistantancy, 30 to 80MHz suffers from Sporadic E,
high ignition interference QRN.
Digital DRM will offer some immunity.
Steve Terry
Steve Terry
"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab...@fooked.com> wrote in message
news:7afvb2F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> If you really mean DRM+ then that's a different story, but DRM without the
> + is a crap, low quality system that's only really meant to replace MW
> stations. And DRM doesn't stand a chance of getting established in the UK
> now, because I don't think there are any receivers in teh shops that
> support DRM - if there are any there's only one or two.
>
>
no one is broadcasting DRM+ yet
Guess what, the Flux capacitor for time travel isn't available yet either.
Steve Terry
Mark Carver
ISTR it's about 96% of the UK population (for BBC R1-4), Classic FM is
85-90% ish I think.
Steve Terry
news:3vKdnVTB34-61t7X...@brightview.co.uk...
> Kr�ft�� wrote:
>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> | "Alan" <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>> | news:AtSTnMGj...@amac.f2s.com
>> || In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse
>> || than
>> || FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>> ||| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>> |||
>> ||| http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
> This Internet Radio sounds like the dogs b#ll#cks, how can I receive it in
> my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen to the radio in a
> car).
> JN
>
>
5 quid per month.
Steve Terry
Andy Dee
> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>
> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>
>
>
<mad>
So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition?
PLEASE why can't we remain British and use ENGLISH in this country....
</mad>
A
Steve Terry
"Andy Dee" <no...@honest.gov> wrote in message
news:SYL0m.4944$4r7....@newsfe24.ams2...
Steve Terry
jasee
I've also used a 3g dongle with 3g: it's pretty crap here and also over vast
areas of the UK (even by 3g's own map)
BobC
DAB certainly hasn't reached our area yet, and it seems no concrete
plans for it in the near future.
Presumably they'll have to START it in our area before they can
consider switching FM off.
Could be quite a long wait according to this...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/local_radio/bbc_radio_derby_digital_dab_feature.shtml
JN
Internet is the holy grail for everything no matter how impractical
(setting up laptop and mobile in my car before setting off each morning ).
To have decent programmes usually requires a reasonable investment in
talent and I don't see how tiny internet stations can achieve this
without a mass market. As far as I can see the more stations we have the
worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm often
seeing the same programmes on that I watched in the 1960/70's.
Most current commercial radio stations are fairly dire, usually playing
almost continuous music or having intentionally provocative presenters
to generate revenue from phone ins.
JN
Jimbo GM4DHJ ....
> Of course, one of the problems with these relatively low frequencies is
> the size of the aerial, especially for handheld portable use
I like big rubber duckies .....
Bill Wright
Bill
Roderick Stewart
> >> I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g
> >> dongle, 5 quid per month.
> >
> > I've also used a 3g dongle with 3g: it's pretty crap here and also over
vast
> > areas of the UK (even by 3g's own map)
> >
> >
> I was not serious about Internet Radio but some seem to believe the
> Internet is the holy grail for everything no matter how impractical
What's impractical today will be commonplace tomorrow if enough people want it,
or if somebody sees a marketing possibility. A 3G internet car radio with a
reasonable number of presets doesn't need us to invent anything new - just to
extend and reconfigure what we've already got. With literally thousands of
radio stations, everybody can have their choice of quality or quantity.
Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
Ian Smith
> Alan wrote:
>> In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse than
>> FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>>
>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>
>> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>
> Why would it do that?
> How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do you want
> anyway?
>
>
I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine. Better by far than
the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM
aerial. I gave my FM tuner away.
FM isn't being switched off. National networks are being transferred
to DAB (+ DVB etc etc) and FM re-allocated to local 'community' radio.
There's no way I would sign - the faster we switch the better.
regards, Ian
2Bdecided
> This Internet Radio sounds like the dogs b#ll#cks, how can I receive it
> in my car at the same cost as FM broadcasts (I only listen to the radio
> in a car).
iPlayer > iPod
iPod > Car
No good for live, but I still have R4 FM for live. Don't use it -
choice of previous week's R4 much more useful!
Cheers,
David.
DAB sounds worse than FM
news:Ytadnajofv-ZWd7X...@brightview.co.uk
> jasee wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse
>>> than
>>> FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched
>>>> off:
>>>>
>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>
>>> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us
>>> getting
>>> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>>
>> Why would it do that?
>> How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do
>> you
>> want anyway?
>>
>>
>
> I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine.
I have a good tuner and the sound of DAB is absolutely dire compared
to FM.
> Better by far than
> the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM
> aerial. I gave my FM tuner away.
In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.
Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive
higher qulaity on FM.
DAB sounds worse than FM
If you're refering to what I wrote about Internet radio, I'm pretty
sure I didn't mention in-car, so I didn't say it's the holy grail for
everywhere.
> To have decent programmes usually requires a reasonable investment
> in
> talent and I don't see how tiny internet stations can achieve this
> without a mass market.
Why does a radio station always need to have DJs or individual
programmes? Internet radio is excellent for people who like genres of
music that are poorly covered on bigger radio stations - and there's a
lot of different genres taht are covered poorly.
> As far as I can see the more stations we have the
> worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm
> often
> seeing the same programmes on that I watched in the 1960/70's.
>
> Most current commercial radio stations are fairly dire, usually
> playing
> almost continuous music or having intentionally provocative
> presenters
> to generate revenue from phone ins.
Commercial radio is also obviouosly profit-oriented so they play music
that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Small Internet radio
stations aren't in it for the profit, and they're in it to play the
music they like.
DAB sounds worse than FM
in
message news:VA.0000074...@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk
> In article <kq2dndgX_qWSPd7X...@brightview.co.uk>, Jn
> wrote:
>>>> I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g
>>>> dongle, 5 quid per month.
>>>
>>> I've also used a 3g dongle with 3g: it's pretty crap here and also
>>> over
> vast
>>> areas of the UK (even by 3g's own map)
>>>
>>>
>> I was not serious about Internet Radio but some seem to believe the
>> Internet is the holy grail for everything no matter how impractical
>
> What's impractical today will be commonplace tomorrow if enough
> people
> want it, or if somebody sees a marketing possibility. A 3G internet
> car
> radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need us to invent
> anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've already
> got.
> With literally thousands of radio stations, everybody can have their
> choice of quality or quantity.
A couple of demo Internet radio car stereos came out earlier this
year:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/2009/01/first_internet_radio_car_stereos.php
JN
> In article <kq2dndgX_qWSPd7X...@brightview.co.uk>, Jn wrote:
>>>> I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g
>>>> dongle, 5 quid per month.
>>> I've also used a 3g dongle with 3g: it's pretty crap here and also over
> vast
>>> areas of the UK (even by 3g's own map)
>>>
>>>
>> I was not serious about Internet Radio but some seem to believe the
>> Internet is the holy grail for everything no matter how impractical
>
> What's impractical today will be commonplace tomorrow if enough people want it,
> or if somebody sees a marketing possibility. A 3G internet car radio with a
> reasonable number of presets doesn't need us to invent anything new - just to
> extend and reconfigure what we've already got. With literally thousands of
> radio stations, everybody can have their choice of quality or quantity.
>
> Rod.
Watching the IT press there appears to be companies out there who just
patent everything they can think of so they can sue any successful
product producer.
I don't personally believe there would be enough people who want this
unless you can have some killer content/facility (just having thousands
of music/talk stations isn't that attractive). But then people do seem
willing to part with around �50/month for satellite services so I could
well be wrong, again.
JN
Chas Gill
"Bill Wright" <insertmybu...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:dMKdnVt8W82-X97X...@pipex.net...
is that I have a serious investment in FM radio in my life and I don't want
to have to scrap it at someone else's whim. Telly converters are one
thing - telly's tend to be fixed objects in our lives. All my radios, bar
one, are portable devices. One is even a wind-up jobbie that I intend to
save the planet with (sic.) and I sure as hell don't want to have to consign
all of these very efficient and perfectly satisfactory units to the skip
unless they cease to work (internally) - unless, of course, HM Govt. would
like to replace them all (at their expense) with the DAB equivalents (most
of which don't friggin' work without an external aerial at present). If
they want to do that I'll be happy to withdraw my sig. from the petition.
Chas
Ato_Zee
> Telly converters are one
> thing - telly's tend to be fixed objects in our lives. All my
> radios, bar one, are portable devices
Speaking of that, are there any digital portables with
rabbit ears or wire loop aerials around yet?
Or do all our existing portables, beloved of students,
nurses, and flat dwellers have to go to landfill as
well?
Just so our crap government can sell of the spectrum,
whilst we get yet another stealth tax from the fat cat
at the top of the s**t pile.
alexd
> <mad>
> So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition?
>
> PLEASE why can't we remain British and use ENGLISH in this country....
> </mad>
English as she is spoke.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEs...@ale.cx)
21:27:59 up 50 days, 4:24, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.20, 0.15
tony sayer
Smith <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
>jasee wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse than
>>> FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>>>
>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>
>>> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
>>> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>>
>> Why would it do that?
>> How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do you want
>> anyway?
>>
>>
>
>I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine. Better by far than
>the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM
>aerial. I gave my FM tuner away.
I had a DAB tuner too but I swapped mine for a laptop, which was an item
of some use;)..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
HISja...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In message <r4I5AhJb...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
><to...@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>In article <CQIA3QFT...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET
>>HISja...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>In message <W6SdnfohqtaJAt_X...@bt.com>, Kr�ft��
>>><kraftee@b&e-cottee.me.uk> writes
>>>>Jimbo GM4DHJ .... wrote:
>>>>| news:7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>|| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>>>||
>>>>|| http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>>||
>>>>||
>>>>||
>>>>| cool thanks ......
>>>>
>>>>Maybe some more bandwidth to play with.......Naah I doubt it (it'll be
>>>>sold to the highest bidder)
>>>>
>>>Who IS going to buy that part of the spectrum? There's not a lot of
>>>activity between (say) 30 and 87MHz at the moment, so I don't think that
>>>there will be as great a demand for the FM radio spectrum as some people
>>>think.
>>
>>There are tracts of spectrum from around 30 to 87 MHz that are hardly
>>used as no one wants them;!...
>
>phones 30 to 33MHz. IF region 33 to 40MHz 'protected'. Some radio
>control around 49MHz (?), plus old toy walkie talkies and baby alarms.
>Amateur 50 to 52MHz. There used to be a blind landing system on 75MHz.
>Some council, gas and electricity board stuff around 80Mhz?
All gone now to phones;(..
>OK, all of
>the spectrum will be allocated, but the actual usage is very low.
>
Vert very low..
>Of course, one of the problems with these relatively low frequencies is
>the size of the aerial, especially for handheld portable use (even if
>loading is used). And, there's also a severe problem with sporadic-E
>interference - especially around this time of year. It is not without
>good reason that, some time ago, Band 1 was abandoned for TV
>transmissions in many European countries.
Interference needed be that much a problem and aerial size .. well you
can get around that..
--
Tony Sayer
JN
>
>
>> To have decent programmes usually requires a reasonable investment
>> in
>> talent and I don't see how tiny internet stations can achieve this
>> without a mass market.
>
>
> Why does a radio station always need to have DJs or individual
> programmes? Internet radio is excellent for people who like genres of
> music that are poorly covered on bigger radio stations - and there's a
> lot of different genres taht are covered poorly.
>
>
>> As far as I can see the more stations we have the
>> worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm
>> often
>> seeing the same programmes on that I watched in the 1960/70's.
>>
>> Most current commercial radio stations are fairly dire, usually
>> playing
>> almost continuous music or having intentionally provocative
>> presenters
>> to generate revenue from phone ins.
>
>
> Commercial radio is also obviouosly profit-oriented so they play music
> that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Small Internet radio
> stations aren't in it for the profit, and they're in it to play the
> music they like.
I believe we will still need a number large broadcasters with sufficient
resources to deliver high quality content and a robust news service.
Without these we are down to unresearched comment (you may think some of
our broadcasters are already like this). If we rely on blogs and rumour
only we will soon be burning witches again.
JN
ne...@address.invalid
<news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>jasee wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse than
>>> FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>>>
>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>
>>> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
>>> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>>
>> Why would it do that?
>> How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do you want
>> anyway?
>>
>>
>
>I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine. Better by far than
>the hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM
>aerial. I gave my FM tuner away.
So you have a good DAB tuner. Well goody for you!
I have:
an FM tuner in the lounge
an FM radio in the kitchen
an FM radio in the dining room
an FM radio in the study
an FM radio in bedroom 1
an FM radio in bedroom 2
an FM radio in bedroom 3
an FM radio in the garage/workshop
an FM radio in the car
an FM radio in my mobile phone ##
that's 10 reasons why I don't want national channels taken off FM.
## can the power consumption of DAB receivers *ever* be reduced
sufficiently to be incorporated in a mobile phone?
Ian Smith
>
>
> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.
There is some truth in that.
>
> Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
> reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive
> higher qulaity on FM.
Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning
or not, I don't know.
I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent
sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near
hiss-free on FM.
This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me
crackly playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD
gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag
says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher.
Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher
than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever
tried it). Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to
FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
regards, Ian
DAB sounds worse than FM
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.
>
> There is some truth in that.
You said that you receive hissy FM even with a good aerial - that's
basically the definition of crap FM reception quality.
>> Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who
>> has
>> reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive
>> higher qulaity on FM.
>
> Well, most people don't agree with you.
Sorry, what I said there is fact.
>Whether they are discerning
> or not, I don't know.
>
> I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent
> sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near
> hiss-free on FM.
The quality of your hi-fi system doesn't have any bearing on your
reception quality - that's all to do with signal strength (and if
you've got a decent aerial, which you said you have).
> This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion.
Loads of people say that, but it's actually nothing like the CD vs
vinyl discussion - both of those deliver high quality, whereas DAB
doesn't deliver high quality but FM does.
>Vinyl have me
> crackly playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD
> gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag
> says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher.
I'm not commenting on this because it's a completely different
argument.
> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher
> than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever
> tried it).
Yeah, that's for YOU. But for anybody with good reception quality on
both DAB and FM the quality on FM is better. Basically, if you
understood the technologies that are used then FM basically can't be
worse than DAB.
> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to
> FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's
in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have
stereo than mono.
DAB sounds worse than FM
Only because the BBC doesn't want anybody to know about what's
available, because there's a conflict of interest between the BBC
promoting digital radio and them actually promoting the kind of
Internet radio that they're opposed to because if a lot of people
listened to it the BBC would lose listeners.
>>> As far as I can see the more stations we have the
>>> worse the material on offer. DTV seems to be a good example, I'm
>>> often
>>> seeing the same programmes on that I watched in the 1960/70's.
>>>
>>> Most current commercial radio stations are fairly dire, usually
>>> playing
>>> almost continuous music or having intentionally provocative
>>> presenters
>>> to generate revenue from phone ins.
>>
>>
>> Commercial radio is also obviouosly profit-oriented so they play
>> music
>> that appeals to the lowest common denominator. Small Internet radio
>> stations aren't in it for the profit, and they're in it to play the
>> music they like.
>
> I believe we will still need a number large broadcasters with
> sufficient
> resources to deliver high quality content and a robust news service.
We'll have that anyway even if it means consolidation between
commercial broadcasters.
> Without these we are down to unresearched comment (you may think
> some of
> our broadcasters are already like this). If we rely on blogs and
> rumour
> only we will soon be burning witches again.
Radio is in steep decline, but it'll never get as bad as only having
to rely on blogs.
tony sayer
Smith <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> scribeth thus
Blimey!, do you live next door to Dave Plowman;?..
--
Tony Sayer
Dave Higton
"Jimbo GM4DHJ ...." <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I like big rubber duckies .....
It figures.
Dave
Dave Liquorice
>>> You hope... The Beeb currently quote 86% of UK population covered
for
>>> DAB with plans to 90%. Not that is "UK population" not land mass.
>>> Anyone have the figures for the coverage of the national networks
on
>>> FM?
>>
>> ISTR it's about 96% of the UK population (for BBC R1-4),
And there are notable holes in FM coverage at that level.
>> Classic FM is 85-90% ish I think.
And Classic FM can be poor over quite large areas.
> DAB certainly hasn't reached our area yet, and it seems no concrete
> plans for it in the near future. Presumably they'll have to START it in
> our area before they can consider switching FM off.
One would hope so. No DAB here either, at least not with the bit of
damp string supplied with the mini-hifi set. No problem with R1-4,
Classic FM or Radio Scotland. The two regional stations CFM and
R.Cumbria aren't so good.
--
Cheers
Dave.
Dave Liquorice
> A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need
> us to invent anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've
> already got. With literally thousands of radio stations, everybody can
> have their choice of quality or quantity.
Untill they are all trying to listen through one cell in a traffic
jam on the M6...
As a broadcast medium the internet is not upto it, at least with
todays system. If multicast ever gets out there in a meaningful way
things might be different but how many connections can a single 3G
cell support at say 128kbps each susutained?
--
Cheers
Dave.
ne...@address.invalid
<allsortsn...@howhill.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:37:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need
>> us to invent anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've
>> already got. With literally thousands of radio stations, everybody can
>> have their choice of quality or quantity.
>
>Untill they are all trying to listen through one cell in a traffic
>jam on the M6...
>
I've listened to an internet music station on a 3G phone driving
around London.
You hardly notice handoff between cells during phone calls, but in the
middle of music the discontinuity is quite annoying.
Steve Terry
"Chas Gill" <Chas...@gollum.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:HNqdnXEDre-MR97X...@bt.com...
> "Bill Wright" <insertmybu...@f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:dMKdnVt8W82-X97X...@pipex.net...
>> "Andy Dee" <no...@honest.gov> wrote in message
>> news:SYL0m.4944$4r7....@newsfe24.ams2...
>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>>>
>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>>
>>>> Please sign. Thanks.
>>>>
>>> <mad>
>>> So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition?
>>>
>>> PLEASE why can't we remain British and use ENGLISH in this country....
>>> </mad>
>>> A
>> I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'.
>> Bill
>>
> Personally I don't give a f**k how it's spelled (spelt?) - the whole point
> is that I have a serious investment in FM radio in my life and I don't
> want to have to scrap it at someone else's whim.
>
But i look around and now almost none of my radio listening is using
FM or AM.
In the kitchen i listen to my DAB portable, in the living room via DVB-T
freeview box, or on Astra 2, mostly so i can get BBC Radio 7
and on my laptop i mostly listen to US Talk radio on internet radio.
If i could get BBC Radio 7 on Band 2 FM
I would have a use for FM
Steve Terry
Dave Liquorice
> iPlayer > iPod
>
> iPod > Car
>
> No good for live, but I still have R4 FM for live. Don't use it -
> choice of previous week's R4 much more useful!
Aye I listen to far more radio now than I have done in a long time
and I've found some very interesting programmes that I didn't even
know existed. Podcasts from the BBC, love 'em.
--
Cheers
Dave.
JonPhred
<snip>
>>
>>
> I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g dongle,
> 5 quid per month.
>
>
Anywhere? Really?
--
JonPhred
Fredxx
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.
>
> There is some truth in that.
>>
>> Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
>> reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive higher
>> qulaity on FM.
>
> Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning or
> not, I don't know.
>
> I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent sound
> system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near hiss-free on
> FM.
>
> This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me crackly
> playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD gave me click
> and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag says, the 'quality' of
> my CD experience is higher.
On paper the CD should be miles ahead of vinyl. Most CDs uses 2 channels
of 16 bits at 44.1kSamples/sec. There is no sompression so there are no
artifacts. The data rate is an astounding 1.4Mb/s. 16 bits give 72dB audio
range which is better than my ears.
>
> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I
> could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it).
> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to FM are just
> futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
It's easy to show that performance of FM is generally superior to DAB,
however it just goes to show how subjective the human ear-brain interface is
that it can be fooled into thinking otherwise so easily.
tony sayer
<fre...@spam.com> scribeth thus
>
>"Ian Smith" <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote in message
>news:YvidnZyq4cW7f97X...@brightview.co.uk...
>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.
>>
>> There is some truth in that.
>>>
>>> Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
>>> reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive higher
>>> qulaity on FM.
>>
>> Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning or
>> not, I don't know.
>>
>> I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent sound
>> system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near hiss-free on
>> FM.
>>
>> This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me crackly
>> playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD gave me click
>> and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag says, the 'quality' of
>> my CD experience is higher.
>
>On paper the CD should be miles ahead of vinyl. Most CDs uses 2 channels
>of 16 bits at 44.1kSamples/sec. There is no sompression so there are no
>artifacts. The data rate is an astounding 1.4Mb/s. 16 bits give 72dB audio
>range which is better than my ears.
>
>>
I remember once being given a demonstration of Vinyl-v-CD by Derek
Scotland of Audiolab fame.
I was amazed at how good he got the Vinyl to sound, and that it seems
was due to the right equipment and some Japanese pressings. OK not quite
the same in terms of distortion and absolute signal to noise ratio but
very impressive indeed;!..
>> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I
>> could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it).
>> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to FM are just
>> futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
>
>It's easy to show that performance of FM is generally superior to DAB,
>however it just goes to show how subjective the human ear-brain interface is
>that it can be fooled into thinking otherwise so easily.
>
>
Well FM given a sufficient signal, and remember too that DAB needs a
sufficient signal to work properly, can be very good indeed. And unlike
DAB where that is degraded due to the "cost of bits" FM degrades to Mono
only because of the signal level.
I've had a FM versus CD setup here using a first class NCO type
modulator and only about one person could reliably tell the difference
and that was on solo soprano voice!.
--
Tony Sayer
Stephen Howard
<news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
>DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.
>
>There is some truth in that.
>>
>> Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
>> reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive
>> higher qulaity on FM.
>
>Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning
>or not, I don't know.
>
>I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent
>sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near
>hiss-free on FM.
>
I can manage a hiss-free FM reception on my old Leak Troughline 3 ( a
valve tuner ).
The difference between an FM broadcast via good tuner and a digital
one is chalk and cheese - and if your kit was up to any kind of
scratch you'd understand why the spatial separation was important.
You know that popular video technique of zooming in on the central
object ( they do it to death on Top Gear ), and the way it takes you
from 'outside' the shot to right inside it? That's the difference, but
in audio terms.
Regards,
--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net
Eps
> Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's
> in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have
> stereo than mono.
I am deaf in one ear, I wish all audio broadcasts were in mono.
In theory its easy to force mono on the receiving device but not that
many actually let you.
tony sayer
Liquorice <allsortsn...@howhill.com> scribeth thus
I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was
talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a
40 megabit capacity wi-fi point and that was just that cell of which
there're rolling out more and more as time goes by!...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<gFOU...@tesco.net> scribeth thus
From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few
people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to
receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not that
good!..
Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car...
--
Tony Sayer
bugbear
> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes:
>
>> There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current
>> DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations
>> you dream of?
>
> So why do they not increase the bitate of the stations that are
> transmitting, thus increasing the quality?
Good question - I wish they would.
BugBear
The Natural Philosopher
Early D to A chips suffered from 'crossover distortion' (actually MSB
inaccuracy). That was one reason for the myth of 'CD sounds worse'
By the early 80's that was all history.
>
>>> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I
>>> could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it).
>>> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to FM are just
>>> futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
>> It's easy to show that performance of FM is generally superior to DAB,
>> however it just goes to show how subjective the human ear-brain interface is
>> that it can be fooled into thinking otherwise so easily.
>>
>>
>
> Well FM given a sufficient signal, and remember too that DAB needs a
> sufficient signal to work properly, can be very good indeed. And unlike
> DAB where that is degraded due to the "cost of bits" FM degrades to Mono
> only because of the signal level.
>
I prefer a GOOD digital implementation, mostly because the common
problems with FM are because the signal is NOT good.
Unless you lose frames completely, the response of a decent digital
system in noise is better.
So a hissy FM signal becomes a perfectly clean digital signal.
Also, the problems of audio distortion only start after what is in
decent signal conditions a 'perfect' decoder. Misaligned IF strips wont
affect the sound quality at all as long as the decoder can decode, it
will decode 'perfectly'
> I've had a FM versus CD setup here using a first class NCO type
> modulator and only about one person could reliably tell the difference
> and that was on solo soprano voice!.
Odd that. I got the worst FM degradations when I played with it years
ago on complex upper register stuff..mainly due to phase shifts at high
modulation depthsh and pretty high frequencies..upset the stereo
decoding as well.
In the days when it was only the home service, the light program etc
etc. and guaranteed 400KHZ spacings a very broadband IF strip gave you
very decent performance: the necessity to pull that down to reject
adjacent channels in a more crowded spectrum bolloxed up the audio
performance. Add in cheap ceramic IF filters instead of tuneable cans,
and for most people, the performance wasn't that good. OK you COULD get
very expenisve tailored filters that were both fast cutoff and minimal
phase shift, but that was serious money..
I suppose what I am saying is, whilst in theory an FM signal is superior
to a bad DAB signal, the reality of MOST peoples experience is that
neither the signal strength, nor the quality of the receiving equipment
is good enough to make that a fact in practice.
With digits, the chipsets take all the hard work out of the quality: you
get a predictable performance at far lower production costs.
Frankly here, I get a better audio performance out of audio streaming
over the internet than I do for all but my most expensive tuner.
I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM.
Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak
atmospherics I suppose.
The Natural Philosopher
> From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few
> people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to
> receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not that
> good!..
Its brilliant online!
Well coaapred with AM. seems to be absolutely cut to about 5khz and
compressed digitally to teh neth degree, but still better than AM.
My father in law wqas delighted when I put the cricket on, on his
digital telly..
>
> Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car...
Its very scratchy here. But you can make the words out.
The Natural Philosopher
> BugBear
Roderick Stewart
> I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent
> sound system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near
> hiss-free on FM.
>
> This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me
> crackly playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD
> gave me click and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag
> says, the 'quality' of my CD experience is higher.
Hiss, the presence or absence of, is not the only measure of "quality".
The hiss on FM is simply superimposed on the sound, and doesn't alter
what it sounds like. Digital sound with bit-rate reduction is quite a
different situation.
The comparison between FM and DAB is nothing like the comparison
between gramophone recordings and compact discs. The digital bit rate
on CD is about 10 times the best rates we are now using on DAB and is
not subject to any destructive bit-rate reduction.
Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/
galaxyguy
> In article <h211f9$ea...@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry
> <gFOUR...@tesco.net> scribeth thus
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Chas Gill" <Chas.G...@gollum.btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:HNqdnXEDre-MR97X...@bt.com...
> >> "Bill Wright" <insertmybusinessn...@f2s.com> wrote in message
The importance of maintaining Radio 4 in stereo cannot be
underestimated. If one listens on a decent stereo FM tuner to the
drama, be it the Afternoon Play or weekend ones it is incredible to
hear how the two channels are used so expertly for voice and
background sound. It makes the difference between watching b+w TV and
watching colour. DAB radio sets are principally mono (to match most of
the output). All tonality and depth has been scrubbed away from voices
and music to leave them sounding 'surgically clean' when you have a
signal. Even 30 miles from London, I find that in some rooms and on
some days if I happen to be listening to DAB I have to change to FM
because of the gurgling 'hot water bottle' noise that replaces what is
being broadcast. Then again, the BBC itself have had a number of
recent times when they have been broadcasting DAB and every 4th or 5th
word has been lost due to some error before the signal reaches the
transmitter. FM must not be left as a third rate junk yard. We need it
for our main national broadcasters. Incidentally, concerning the
petition it is a major error that it was composed by someone unable to
spell analogue correctly. I would willingly sign any FM/AM petition
written in English. Presenting American spelling is something of a
disaster and shoots us in the foot.
Please rectify it at once.
charles
The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM.
> Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak
> atmospherics I suppose.
It was short wave broadcasts being picked up in the IF strip. 10.7MHz is on
the edge of the 25 metre band.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
The Natural Philosopher
material being played.
Its possible to do intelligible speech at 50 baud..it must be, because
you can read a telex at 50 baud and speak it out in real time
> Rod.
:-)
You cant do teh nunaces of a full orchestra like that, though.
Must take at least 300 baud to transmit the score, and have an orchestra
play it, but that loses the nuances altogether ;-)
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <h2238t$qrp$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM.
>> Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak
>> atmospherics I suppose.
>
> It was short wave broadcasts being picked up in the IF strip. 10.7MHz is on
> the edge of the 25 metre band.
>
The Natural Philosopher
Your argument is not an argument for FM, it is an argument to maintain
quality.
Now let me reason a little:
The only place where you need quality is in a fixed environment. A car
is a noisy place, and so it outside so portable radios needn't be high
quality. BUT if you can get a high quality ONLINE radio signal via
broadband..is that enough?
The arguments that 'DAB is CRAP' relate not to it being digital per se,
but to the intense amount of compression, both analogue and digital,
applied to it to squeeze a lot of channels out of a small spectrum.
Ergo, if we go up the spectrum to the Ghz bands, there is room for lots
of audio channels of high quality, as long as we realise that we need
transmitters everywhere. A la phone cells etc.
There is also perssure to move to entirely digital transmissions simply
on account of teh fact that the Internet is also a valid transmission
medium for many..my Ex-apt sister LOVES hearing the BBC in greece..world
service reaches further on the 'net than anything else..LW/MW stops at
Stuttgart as it were..and SW stuff is vile.
So by all means pressure for quality: thats is a desirable. HOW it is
done is actually not the issue. WE know thet digital CAN be as good or
better than FM..its a question of making sure that it is.
I am not sure what the bitrate of a raw CD is..I guess 44 x 2 x 14 kpbs?
is it 14 bits?
So 1.2Mbps.
With a decent S/N on a radio, that ought to fit EASILY into a few Khz of
bandwith..less than 100 anyway.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <8V9sbwOK...@bancom.co.uk>,
> tony sayer wrote:
>
>> I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was
>> talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a
>> 40 megabit capacity wi-fi point and that was just that cell of which
>> there're rolling out more and more as time goes by!...
>
> Orange connection on 3G.
>
Then likely as not, its because its heavily trafficked. Broadcast, by
definition, is exactly trafficked to the number of stations being
transmitted.
Dave Plowman (News)
DAB sounds worse than FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote:
> Small Internet radio stations aren't in it for the profit, and they're
> in it to play the music they like.
How do they pay for that music?
--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <so2dnUqKDqA-Ld_X...@bt.com>,
> Kráftéé wrote:
>> jasee wrote:
>> | Alan wrote:
>> || In message <7afjm6F...@mid.individual.net>, DAB sounds worse
>> || than FM <dab...@fooked.com> wrote
>> ||| There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>> |||
>> ||| http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>> ||
>> ||
>> || hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>> |
>> | Why would it do that?
>> | How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do
>> | you want anyway?
>
>> But with a greater bandwidth they wouldn't have to compress the audio
>> so much & so you could have better quality sound, the way it should
>> be!
>
> What greater bandwidth? The trend has been to crank down the bitrates,
> from 128kbps, to 112kbps, and even 96kbps. Of the commercial stations,
> only Classic FM has used a half-decent bitrate (160kbps).
>
That is probably because of spectrum limitations.
As I said in an earlier post, I calculate the raw CD quality bitrate as
about 1.2Mbps.
Now using the whole of a 200KHZ FM channel for that at indifferent
quality, is wasteful.
I think that my 'online' stations are around 250Kbps. Quality is pretty
good.
the real solution is to go higher in frequency. Much more space, and not
already allocated. AND it doesn't hop skip and jump all over the world.
Dave Plowman (News)
JN <jim@home> wrote:
> But then people do seem
> willing to part with around �50/month for satellite services so I could
> well be wrong, again.
Mainly for the footie, though.
--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?
Dave Plowman (News)
Ian Smith <news0807R...@orrery.e4ward.com> wrote:
> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher
> than I could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever
> tried it). Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to
> FM are just futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
'Mr DAB' only listens to pop music.
--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
For FM not problem .. but dab these only so many bits in the MUX...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
Wouldn't have thought that where you lived they'd be any problems but
there is a DAB transmitter in your backyard;!..
>
>Unless you lose frames completely, the response of a decent digital
>system in noise is better.
>
>So a hissy FM signal becomes a perfectly clean digital signal.
Whereas an FM signal goes to mono then a bit of hiss, a DAB signal goes
to bubblin mud then silence;!..
>
>Also, the problems of audio distortion only start after what is in
>decent signal conditions a 'perfect' decoder. Misaligned IF strips wont
>affect the sound quality at all as long as the decoder can decode, it
>will decode 'perfectly'
>
Misaligned FM strips are long gone now..
>
>> I've had a FM versus CD setup here using a first class NCO type
>> modulator and only about one person could reliably tell the difference
>> and that was on solo soprano voice!.
>
>Odd that. I got the worst FM degradations when I played with it years
>ago on complex upper register stuff..mainly due to phase shifts at high
>modulation depthsh and pretty high frequencies..upset the stereo
>decoding as well.
>
This was a very good transmitter driver unit a Harris CD which has specs
more like a very good audio amp;)..
>In the days when it was only the home service, the light program etc
>etc. and guaranteed 400KHZ spacings a very broadband IF strip gave you
>very decent performance: the necessity to pull that down to reject
>adjacent channels in a more crowded spectrum bolloxed up the audio
>performance. Add in cheap ceramic IF filters instead of tuneable cans,
>and for most people, the performance wasn't that good. OK you COULD get
>very expenisve tailored filters that were both fast cutoff and minimal
>phase shift, but that was serious money..
I think a lot of that was -then- rather than now;!..
>
>I suppose what I am saying is, whilst in theory an FM signal is superior
>to a bad DAB signal, the reality of MOST peoples experience is that
>neither the signal strength, nor the quality of the receiving equipment
>is good enough to make that a fact in practice.
Compared to that irritating noise that is UK DAB not quite so..
Not that I'm against digital modes of transmission for instance for home
use on satellite the German broadcasters are very generous with the bits
and it shows .. well rather sounds:)
>
>With digits, the chipsets take all the hard work out of the quality: you
>get a predictable performance at far lower production costs.
>
In fact some car radios now used DSP..for FM ..
>Frankly here, I get a better audio performance out of audio streaming
>over the internet than I do for all but my most expensive tuner.
>
Something wring there then.. tho net streaming with the best stations
can be very good..
>I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM.
>Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak
>atmospherics I suppose.
Yes also affects DAB badly to due to that time of year again as I'm sure
your digital telly will be playing up where you are and your aerials
pointing unless you've got a sky dish now?..
>
>
>
>
--
Tony Sayer