DAB radios

[MB]

I asked about a year ago for ideas for a new DAB radio because my two
PURE radios have seen better days with the power cable from the wallwart
having been tripped over too many times.

Given upy on one of them now so bought a Roberts Stream 94i. It sounds
as good as the old PURE radios.

I wanted to listen in the kitchen this morning but Bluetooth only works
in one direction.

A pity they use a USB dongle for external music, they are very
vulnerable to damage. A small memory card could fit inside the radio so
be very unlikely to be damaged.

[MB]

Should have gone in utb.

[Chris Green]

MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
> Should have gone in utb.
>

That sounds a bit like "should have gone to specsavers"!

--
Chris Green
·

[Scott]

I've had the 83i for several years and it is excellent. It became
problematic (kept freezing) but this was eventually resolved by a full
factory reset. I have never used it for external music as I don't see
this as its role.

[MB]

On 10/12/2020 12:54, Chris Green wrote:
> That sounds a bit like "should have gone to specsavers"!

I have had it happen before, reading one newsgroup and post something,
expecting it to appear there but appears in the wrong newsgroup.
Perhaps needs a refresh of some sort.

[MB]

On 10/12/2020 13:38, Scott wrote:
> I've had the 83i for several years and it is excellent. It became
> problematic (kept freezing) but this was eventually resolved by a full
> factory reset. I have never used it for external music as I don't see
> this as its role.

Not had the BT speaker long but it is handy to be able to to carry the
speaker into an adjacent room or even hang on the door knob. So had
expected the ROberts to be the same.

But otherwise it works well.

[notya...@gmail.com]

Maybe you should have bought: -

https://www.robertsradio.com/en-gb/zoombox-3#ZOOMBOX3

Got one here - plays USB or SD and CD's. Half the price.

Alternatively buy a USB drive with a low profile Google up.

PS not from wish.

[Daniel James]

In article <rqt1mj$to9$1...@dont-email.me>, Mb wrote:
> A pity they use a USB dongle for external music, they are very
> vulnerable to damage. A small memory card could fit inside the
> radio so be very unlikely to be damaged.

You mean because they poke out like a (soon to be) sore thumb?

The solution is to use a small USB drive. I have a verbatim 32GB job on
my Stream (something less than 94)i and there's NO danger of damaging
it without doing even more harm to the Stream itself.

The Verbatim drive I have doesn't seem to be available any more, but
there are similarly small drives from several manufacturers.

--
Cheers,
Daniel.

[Chris in Makati]

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 11:44:25 +0000, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:

Smart speakers seem to be the way things are going now.

I finally retired my old Sony AM/FM clock radio and replaced it with
an Amazon Echo Dot with Clock at a cost of £38. I've skipped the DAB
radio era completely. It now wakes me up to the Today program on Radio
4, and turns on the bedside light.

Chris

[Scott]

On Sat, 12 Dec 2020 12:32:19 +0000, Chris in Makati <ma...@nospam.com>
wrote:

I assume this is because DAB audio quality is crap.

[MB]

On 12/12/2020 13:30, Scott wrote:
> I assume this is because DAB audio quality is crap.

I really miss the multipath distortion, fading, flutter, noise etc when
listening on DAB>

[Scott]

I miss the stereo that was introduced in the 1970s when listening to
most DAB stations.

[Unsteadyken]

In article <glv9tf5fh168cnt79...@4ax.com>,

Scott says...

> I miss the stereo that was introduced in the 1970s when listening to
> most DAB stations.
>

That's nowt to do with DAB, but down to those cheapskate stations not
willing to pay for stereo.



--
Ken

[Scott]

I know that. DAB started as near CD quality minimum 192 kbps. I was
commenting on a factor in the growth of smart speakers (and internet
sound generally) being the low quality of DAB stations.

[Tweed]

I doubt that sound quality is the influencing factor for most owners of
smart speakers. Low cost and convenience are probably the main driving
factors. Cost is artificially low at the moment as big players with deep
pockets are very keen to get their products adopted as the de facto
standard.

DAB is actually very good if you use it for it’s originally intended use,
ie in the car. And for that I mean a car with a properly fitted aerial
system. My car’s DAB radio holds onto the BBC stations like glue, and gives
me far more choice than I’d manage on FM. Where I criticise the system, and
what probably gives in car reception a bad name, are some of the under
invested commercial multiplexes. I don’t usually listen to anything
commercial, so never noticed the problem until Times Radio came along. That
has much poorer geographic coverage, with great holes in areas of
relatively low population density.

With Internet coverage as widespread as it now is, nobody is going to
invest money in improving sound quality for static (ie in home)
reproduction of “radio” stations via DAB. In another ten years or so I
wouldn’t be surprised if in car “radio” reception is also via the mobile
phone network.

[Woody]

For a start stereo started to become widely available in the mid 50's
although as a technique it was developed in 1931 by Alan Blumlein. It
started on discs in the early 50's in the US and flew across the pond
later in the decade but was only introduced on FM in the late 60's and
early 70's.

As for stations on DAB and in stereo or mono there is one thing that
puzzles me: why is Smooth FM broadcast in stereo on local muxes, and
Smooth Extra broadcast in mono on a national mux?

For info DAB+ - which is basically the Sony AAC system - uses joint
stereo (Google it) which cannot be switched off as it can in mp3 encoding.

[David Higton]

In message <rr4srp$rq$1...@dont-email.me>

Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I doubt that sound quality is the influencing factor for most owners of
> smart speakers.

+1. It's digital, therefore it's hi-fi. :-(

David

[David Woolley]

On 13/12/2020 11:38, Woody wrote:
> For info DAB+ - which is basically the Sony AAC system - uses joint
> stereo (Google it) which cannot be switched off as it can in mp3 encoding.

Having looked it up, there is no need to turn it off to reduce the
signal to the equivalent of mono; you simply send a flat line difference
signal, which should require almost no bits to encode.

Incidentally, this is essentially how FM broadcasting handles stereo.
The difference signal is transmitted on the 38kHz sub-carrier, which is
double sideband, suppressed carrier, so only contains energy when there
is a difference between left and right.

[Java Jive]

On 13/12/2020 10:42, Scott wrote:
>
> I know that. DAB started as near CD quality minimum 192 kbps.

192kbps is nowhere near CD quality. CDs are around 7x that rate at 1.3Mbps.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[MB]

On 13/12/2020 11:38, Woody wrote:
>

> For a start stereo started to become widely available in the mid 50's
> although as a technique it was developed in 1931 by Alan Blumlein. It
> started on discs in the early 50's in the US and flew across the pond
> later in the decade but was only introduced on FM in the late 60's and
> early 70's.

Stereo might have become available then but "widely" available. Would
not be surprised if we did not get stereo until the 1980s and there are
still some mono only VHF FM transmitters.

As above, DAB was to produce a system designed for mobile use with
multiple channels and protection from interference. Was't the "CD
quality" quote someone on Tomorrow's World getting carried away.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 13 December 2020 at 15:31:09 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/12/2020 10:42, Scott wrote:
> >
> > I know that. DAB started as near CD quality minimum 192 kbps.
> 192kbps is nowhere near CD quality. CDs are around 7x that rate at 1.3Mbps.

192kbps is nowhere near the data rate of CD, but then DAB uses a codec and CD does not.

>
> --
>
> Fake news kills!
Dissembled posts confuse.

[MikeS]

The first regular stereo radio transmissions began, from the Wrotham
transmitter only, on 17 April 1966.

[notya...@gmail.com]

This goes back over thirty years. I remember reading a comparison of best vinyl versus CD in an electronics magazine - CD dynamic range 96dB, noise very low, frequency response flat, no crosstalk, wow and flutter unmeasurable etc. etc. - no contest really. If objective comparison was not enough around that time Signal Radio used to run a Friday evening program with a mixture of CD and vinyl records. Such is the difference in quality that even with professional vinyl decks, a radio segment, poor acoustics and speakers in my car and riving along the M6 at ~70mph, I could easily tell the difference within a couple of bars into any track. A typical 650 - 750MB CD will compress to ~100MB as .mp3 - i.e. ~7:1.

Similarly digital means that even pre FTTC, BT could get 13Mbps down and 3Mbps up down a couple of miles of thin, corroded, badly jointed, mostly aluminium wire in shared cables much of the way with minimal loss (BERR < 1:10**9), which when used analogue gave a 3kHz audio bandwidth often with hiss and crackle when it rained.

PS the moral of the latter is never pay £££ for digital cables.

[MikeS]

Should have added Radios 2 and 4 did not begin broadcasting in stereo in
South East England until 4 November 1972. So it was probably mid 70s
before most of the country had a proper BBC stereo service on FM.

[Mark Carver]

On 13/12/2020 15:56, MB wrote:
>

> Stereo might have become available then but "widely" available. Would
> not be surprised if we did not get stereo until the 1980s and there
> are still some mono only VHF FM transmitters.

Radio Clyde beat the BBC to stereo broadcasting in Scotland by about a year

[Java Jive]

On 13/12/2020 16:05, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 13 December 2020 at 15:31:09 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 13/12/2020 10:42, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> I know that. DAB started as near CD quality minimum 192 kbps.
>> 192kbps is nowhere near CD quality. CDs are around 7x that rate at 1.3Mbps.
>
> 192kbps is nowhere near the data rate of CD, but then DAB uses a codec and CD does not.

But I suspect the codec is lossy, and throws stuff away.

--

Fake news kills!

[Scott]

Unless, I suppose, it comes as the price for shutting down FM, We can
always live in hope!

[Scott]

Did Third Programme / Radio 3 not start earlier or was that only from
Wrotham?

[Mark Carver]

Only Wrotham. The problem for the BBC was getting stereo distribution
circuits beyond London.
It required two perfectly matched GPO landlines, otherwise there'd be
phase errors and other effects that would totally destroy any stereo
image (and also impair the mono output)
Also the basic bandwidth of the lines over hundreds of miles was poor,
so mono from FM transmitters some distance from London sounded very poor.

The breakthrough was using digital PCM links, on microwave circuits.
These were expensive, and consumed lots of bandwidth. Roll out was very
slow, and by 1972 only reached as far north as Holme Moss. In the 80s
these were replaced by NICAM links (of course later in the 80s NICAM was
also used for TV sound)

To be fair, it was easy for Radio Clyde and the IBA. They only required
a matched pair of lines from the studio to Black Hill, only 10-15 miles

[Scott]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 09:12:14 +0000, Mark Carver

Apart from Wrotham, does this mean that R2, R3 and R4 all adopted
stereo at the same time? For some reason, I thought R3 was first, but
I am probably thinking of Wrotham.

[David Woolley]

On 13/12/2020 17:23, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/12/2020 16:05, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, 13 December 2020 at 15:31:09 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
>> 192kbps is nowhere near the data rate of CD, but then DAB uses a codec
>> and CD does not.

CDs use a codec, but it is a linear one, so only has quantisation errors
and bandwidth limits.

>
> But I suspect the codec is lossy, and throws stuff away.

The trick with lossy codecs is to throw away stuff that didn't matter in
the first place.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 13 December 2020 at 17:23:27 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/12/2020 16:05, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, 13 December 2020 at 15:31:09 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
> >> On 13/12/2020 10:42, Scott wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I know that. DAB started as near CD quality minimum 192 kbps.
> >> 192kbps is nowhere near CD quality. CDs are around 7x that rate at 1.3Mbps.
> >
> > 192kbps is nowhere near the data rate of CD, but then DAB uses a codec and CD does not.
> But I suspect the codec is lossy, and throws stuff away.

A little, but it loses stuff you can't hear. Probably no worse [at a decent data rate] than FM, particularly channel separation.

[Mark Carver]

On 14/12/2020 11:11, Scott wrote:
>
> Apart from Wrotham, does this mean that R2, R3 and R4 all adopted
> stereo at the same time? For some reason, I thought R3 was first, but
> I am probably thinking of Wrotham.

I've checked a 1969 BBC Tx list. Only R3 is shown as being stereo, and
only from Wrotham, Sutton Coldfield, and Holme Moss

By 1973 R2 had been added at those sites plus Oxford and Rowridge (R2
and R3)

No sign of R4 stereo anyway as of Jan 73 (That's not to say it wasn't
being tested, and other transmitters were carrying R2 and R3 in Stereo)

I know Rowridge until Sept 1980 when it finally got a PCM feed, provided
R2 and 3 by off air reception of Wrotham. It couldn't use R4 Wrotham for
stereo rebroadcast because of a French transmitter using 93.4

[Java Jive]

Mis-quoting fixed ...

On 14/12/2020 11:20, David Woolley wrote:
>
> On 13/12/2020 17:23, Java Jive wrote:
>>

>> On 13/12/2020 16:05, notya...@gmail.com [not Java Jive] wrote:
>>>
>>> 192kbps is nowhere near the data rate of CD, but then DAB uses a
>>> codec and CD does not.
>
> CDs use a codec, but it is a linear one, so only has quantisation errors
> and bandwidth limits.

I think I could probably dispute whether 'codec' is actually the right
term, but I'll leave that to others, the important point is that CDs are
lossless, so what is stored on the CD, IIRC 16-bit stereo @ 44100Hz, is
exactly what you hear.

>> But I suspect the codec is lossy, and throws stuff away.
>
> The trick with lossy codecs is to throw away stuff that didn't matter in
> the first place.

If it doesn't matter why, even to me in old age, is there an audible
difference between an mp3 at 192kbps, and a CD at 1.3Mbps?

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> The breakthrough was using digital PCM links, on microwave
> circuits. These were expensive, and consumed lots of bandwidth.
> Roll out was very slow, and by 1972 only reached as far north as
> Holme Moss. In the 80s these were replaced by NICAM links (of
> course later in the 80s NICAM was also used for TV sound)

My recollection is FM PCM distribution used the old 405 line distribution
network which ran in parallel with the new 625 line network, until all the TV
transmitters got 625 to 405 line standards converters. It was probably mostly
coaxial for main transmitters.

Wrotham and Crystal Palace are always special cases due to their coverage area.
Crystal Palace had three one inch coax tubes back to BH.

Angus

[Java Jive]

On 14/12/2020 12:57, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 13 December 2020 at 17:23:27 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> But I suspect the codec is lossy, and throws stuff away.
>
> A little, but it loses stuff you can't hear. Probably no worse [at a decent data rate] than FM, particularly channel separation.

If it loses stuff you can't hear why, even to me in old age, is there an

audible difference between an mp3 at 192kbps, and a CD at 1.3Mbps?

>> --
>>
>> Fake news kills!
>> I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
>> www.macfh.co.uk

And why is your ng software including previous poster's sigs within the
body of the quoted post? They should be being stripped out.

[Mark Carver]

On 14/12/2020 14:12, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
>> The breakthrough was using digital PCM links, on microwave
>> circuits. These were expensive, and consumed lots of bandwidth.
>> Roll out was very slow, and by 1972 only reached as far north as
>> Holme Moss. In the 80s these were replaced by NICAM links (of
>> course later in the 80s NICAM was also used for TV sound)
> My recollection is FM PCM distribution used the old 405 line distribution
> network which ran in parallel with the new 625 line network, until all the TV
> transmitters got 625 to 405 line standards converters. It was probably mostly
> coaxial for main transmitters.
>

That sounds very likely, and plausible.

I do wonder how the BBC achieved regional opt outs in both 625 and 405
while their TV distribution was mixed currency ?

ITV/ITA bit the bullet with 'S-Night' in Sept 1969, and moved all the
standards converters  from the studios to the transmitter sites over
night in one go

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 14 December 2020 at 14:10:15 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
> Mis-quoting fixed ...
> On 14/12/2020 11:20, David Woolley wrote:
> >
> > On 13/12/2020 17:23, Java Jive wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13/12/2020 16:05, notya...@gmail.com [not Java Jive] wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 192kbps is nowhere near the data rate of CD, but then DAB uses a
> >>> codec and CD does not.
> >
> > CDs use a codec, but it is a linear one, so only has quantisation errors
> > and bandwidth limits.
> I think I could probably dispute whether 'codec' is actually the right
> term, but I'll leave that to others, the important point is that CDs are
> lossless, so what is stored on the CD, IIRC 16-bit stereo @ 44100Hz, is
> exactly what you hear.
> >> But I suspect the codec is lossy, and throws stuff away.
> >
> > The trick with lossy codecs is to throw away stuff that didn't matter in
> > the first place.
> If it doesn't matter why, even to me in old age, is there an audible
> difference between an mp3 at 192kbps, and a CD at 1.3Mbps?

I tried using a posh AV amp and also headphones - and no - not really.

By contrast vinyl's paucity is very easily distinguishable in a couple of seconds, even without comparison listening (see elsewhere in thread re Signal Radio).

[Java Jive]

On 15/12/2020 13:33, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 14 December 2020 at 14:10:15 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
>> Mis-quoting fixed ...
>> On 14/12/2020 11:20, David Woolley wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/12/2020 17:23, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13/12/2020 16:05, notya...@gmail.com [not Java Jive] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 192kbps is nowhere near the data rate of CD, but then DAB uses a
>>>>> codec and CD does not.
>>>
>>> CDs use a codec, but it is a linear one, so only has quantisation errors
>>> and bandwidth limits.
>> I think I could probably dispute whether 'codec' is actually the right
>> term, but I'll leave that to others, the important point is that CDs are
>> lossless, so what is stored on the CD, IIRC 16-bit stereo @ 44100Hz, is
>> exactly what you hear.
>>>> But I suspect the codec is lossy, and throws stuff away.
>>>
>>> The trick with lossy codecs is to throw away stuff that didn't matter in
>>> the first place.
>> If it doesn't matter why, even to me in old age, is there an audible
>> difference between an mp3 at 192kbps, and a CD at 1.3Mbps?
>
> I tried using a posh AV amp and also headphones - and no - not really.

Yes, really - just because you can't hear the difference doesn't mean
that others can't, particularly if they're younger than you. I tested
the FR of my hearing when I was 17, and it was 23KHz, and again when I
was in my early 20s, and it was already down to around 17KHz, now I
think it's not much more than 10KHz, but I can still hear the difference
between:
A low bit-rate mp3, eg 192 or less, and a CD;
A vinyl, even a high quality one, and a CD;
A MiniDisk and a CD.

By contrast I can't tell the difference between a well-made digitisation
of any of my vinyls and the original.

I've explicitly tested all these situations within the last decade or
so, and know that I'm speaking the truth.

> By contrast vinyl's paucity is very easily distinguishable in a couple of seconds, even without comparison listening (see elsewhere in thread re Signal Radio).

Yes, though the best were still remarkably good when new.

[notya...@gmail.com]

Low rate MP3 you will be able to tell. You might just be able to tell 192kbps in a comparison listening and a good ear, but I couldn't.
Any vinyl will be easily distinguishable from CD.
Never had mini-disk - it did not appeal to me. We still have DAT, which is a bit for bit copy, but we stopped transcribing stuff to it decades ago.

[Java Jive]

On 16/12/2020 11:50, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Low rate MP3 you will be able to tell. You might just be able to tell 192kbps in a comparison listening and a good ear, but I couldn't.

192 *is* a low rate mp3, you have to go to 256 or more before the
quality acceptable, to me at any rate.

[Mark Carver]

On 16/12/2020 12:13, Java Jive wrote:
> On 16/12/2020 11:50, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Low rate MP3 you will be able to tell.  You might just be able to
>> tell 192kbps in a comparison listening and a good ear, but I couldn't.
>
> 192 *is* a low rate mp3, you have to go to 256 or more before the
> quality acceptable, to me at any rate.
>

You're not thinking of mp2 are you ?

For mp3 160 kb/s is supposedly subjectively equivalent to 'CD'

For mp2 I agree, you need 256 for transparency

[Java Jive]

No, I'm going on what my ears tell me. 192 is crap and 160 crappier, I
wouldn't use either for anything but spoken voice that wasn't going to
be kept for long, for example a science magazine programme that I'd
listen to and then delete.

[tony sayer]

In article <rr4srp$rq$1...@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com>
scribeth thus

Yes when thats covering and rel-lia-b-le enough;!...

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

[Brian Gregory]

On 14/12/2020 11:20, David Woolley wrote:

That's part of the disadvantage of lossy codecs.
They also only approximate the bits they don't throw away so you can get
distortion and even nasty extra sounds that should not be there.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

[Brian Gregory]

On 15/12/2020 13:33, notya...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, 14 December 2020 at 14:10:15 UTC, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 14/12/2020 11:20, David Woolley wrote:
>> If it doesn't matter why, even to me in old age, is there an audible
>> difference between an mp3 at 192kbps, and a CD at 1.3Mbps?
>
> I tried using a posh AV amp and also headphones - and no - not really.

192kHz MP3 can be pretty good.

However even Radio 3 on DAB is only 192kHz MP2.
Much DAB is even lower bit rate MP2.

[Brian Gregory]

On 16/12/2020 17:31, Java Jive wrote:
> On 16/12/2020 16:24, Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>> On 16/12/2020 12:13, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> 192 *is* a low rate mp3, you have to go to 256 or more before the
>>> quality acceptable, to me at any rate.
>>
>> You're not thinking of mp2 are you ?
>>
>> For mp3 160 kb/s is supposedly subjectively equivalent to 'CD'
>
> No, I'm going on what my ears tell me.  192 is crap and 160 crappier, I
> wouldn't use either for anything but spoken voice that wasn't going to
> be kept for long, for example a science magazine programme that I'd
> listen to and then delete.
>

It's a bit difficult to generalize about MP3.
The difference between an 160kb/s MP3 made by a fast MP3 encoder and a
160kb/s MP3 made with, say, LAME at it's maximum quality setting is
quite large.

[David Higton]

In message <i4coet...@mid.individual.net>

The worst affected are tubular bells and triangles, which gain a buzz.
If you understand the mathematics of windowed Fourier transforms, you
understand /why/ they buzz. They become amplitude modulated.

David

[tim...]

"MB" <M...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:rqt1mj$to9$1...@dont-email.me...
> I asked about a year ago for ideas for a new DAB radio because my two PURE
> radios have seen better days with the power cable from the wallwart having
> been tripped over too many times.

Oh my

an early adopter sees his purchase get to end of life before the services
even goes mainstream

That must be a rarity

[MB]

I have thrown away many much younger VHF FM radios usually because
broken but some because VHF FM coverage was not complete.

Some years ago I visited a friend who lived out "in the sticks". i
commented on them having DAB coverage and said I would call back with a
portable DAB radio to check.

Next time I saw him he said he could not wait for me to get back and
just went and bought a DAB portable which they now used because VHF FM
was unusable in many parts of their house because of multi-path mainly.

[NewsKrawler]

On 2020-12-21, Brian Gregory <void-invalid...@email.invalid>
wrote:

> It's a bit difficult to generalize about MP3.
> The difference between an 160kb/s MP3 made by a fast MP3 encoder and a
> 160kb/s MP3 made with, say, LAME at it's maximum quality setting is
> quite large.

ffmpeg?

[Abandoned_Trolley]

On 16/12/2020 16:24, Mark Carver wrote:

is "subjectively equivalent to 'CD'" supposed to be some sort of
recommendation ?



--
random signature text inserted here

[Scott]

When I bought my iPad I used 192 kbps AAC? Would you regard this as
acceptable sound?

[MB]

On 29/06/2021 18:09, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
> is "subjectively equivalent to 'CD'" supposed to be some sort of
> recommendation ?

DAB was never designed to be CD-like. It was designed to give good
reception in moving vehicles, which it does very well and much better
than VHF FM.

One TV programme (Tomorrow's World I think) made the comparison many
years ago and it has stuck.

[Scott]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:12:04 +0100, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 29/06/2021 18:09, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>> is "subjectively equivalent to 'CD'" supposed to be some sort of
>> recommendation ?
>
>
>DAB was never designed to be CD-like. It was designed to give good
>reception in moving vehicles, which it does very well and much better
>than VHF FM.

Are you sure about that? My recollection is that it was widely
advertised as 'near CD quality' until the ASA banned the practice.

>
>One TV programme (Tomorrow's World I think) made the comparison many
>years ago and it has stuck.

Well, if I recall correctly the first DAB receivers were tuners from
Arcam costing about £1,000. Why would anyone buy such equipment
unless the quality was indeed of Hi-Fi standard?

[Java Jive]

I've never knowingly listened to DAB, but I've heard widespread
criticism of its poor quality, and ...

On 29/06/2021 22:17, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:12:04 +0100, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 29/06/2021 18:09, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>>> is "subjectively equivalent to 'CD'" supposed to be some sort of
>>> recommendation ?
>>
>>
>> DAB was never designed to be CD-like. It was designed to give good
>> reception in moving vehicles, which it does very well and much better
>> than VHF FM.
>
> Are you sure about that? My recollection is that it was widely
> advertised as 'near CD quality' until the ASA banned the practice.

Exactly, why would the ASA ban such adverts unless they were making
false claims?

>>
>> One TV programme (Tomorrow's World I think) made the comparison many
>> years ago and it has stuck.
>
> Well, if I recall correctly the first DAB receivers were tuners from
> Arcam costing about £1,000. Why would anyone buy such equipment
> unless the quality was indeed of Hi-Fi standard?

Because early adopters don't always know anything about sound quality
but are always prepared to pay through the nose for the latest gadget?

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>
> Well, if I recall correctly the first DAB receivers were tuners from
> Arcam costing about £1,000. Why would anyone buy such equipment
> unless the quality was indeed of Hi-Fi standard?
>

For the same reason that they might buy a tape cassette player and
attach it to a "hifi" system

[Abandoned_Trolley]

On 10/12/2020 11:44, MB wrote:
> I asked about a year ago for ideas for a new DAB radio because my two
> PURE radios have seen better days with the power cable from the wallwart
> having been tripped over too many times.
>

> Given upy on one of them now so bought a Roberts Stream 94i.  It sounds
> as good as the old PURE radios.
>
> I wanted to listen in the kitchen this morning but Bluetooth only works
> in one direction.
>
> A pity they use a USB dongle for external music, they are very
> vulnerable to damage.  A small memory card could fit inside the radio so
> be very unlikely to be damaged.
>

why post in this newsgroup ?

[Scott]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:44:44 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>I've never knowingly listened to DAB, but I've heard widespread
>criticism of its poor quality, and ...
>
>On 29/06/2021 22:17, Scott wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:12:04 +0100, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/06/2021 18:09, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>>>> is "subjectively equivalent to 'CD'" supposed to be some sort of
>>>> recommendation ?
>>>
>>>
>>> DAB was never designed to be CD-like. It was designed to give good
>>> reception in moving vehicles, which it does very well and much better
>>> than VHF FM.
>>
>> Are you sure about that? My recollection is that it was widely
>> advertised as 'near CD quality' until the ASA banned the practice.
>
>Exactly, why would the ASA ban such adverts unless they were making
>false claims?

It was a false claim at the time the ASA banned it. This does make it
a false claim at an earlier stage. My point is that when Eureka-147
was introduced the quality was 'near CD', it was advertised as such
and the previous poster is therefore incorrect in asserting that it
was 'never designed to be CD-like'. This was how it was designed but
the design subsequently changed.

>>>
>>> One TV programme (Tomorrow's World I think) made the comparison many
>>> years ago and it has stuck.
>>
>> Well, if I recall correctly the first DAB receivers were tuners from
>> Arcam costing about £1,000. Why would anyone buy such equipment
>> unless the quality was indeed of Hi-Fi standard?
>
>Because early adopters don't always know anything about sound quality
>but are always prepared to pay through the nose for the latest gadget?

C'mmoan as they say in Glasgow. No Hi-Fi enthusiast would pay £1,000
to Arcam for a tuner unless they believed it was something special,
and this belief was engendered by the advertising. It was advertised
as 'near CD quality' because Eureka-147 was near CD quality until the
broadcasters f**ked it up.

[Java Jive]

C'mmoan as they say in Glasgow, I've just seen a PC part on eBay
advertised for around £500 for a discontinued line of PC whose
second-hand value is at most around £150!

Your mistake it to assume these things would have been bought by HiFi
enthusiasts, whereas it's rather more likely they would have bought by
early technology adopters who tend to want to be the first to have
something or to try it out, and wouldn't necessarily be HiFi enthusiasts
or know anything very much about HiFi.

HiFi enthusiasts like myself tend to listen to stuff in shops before
they buy it, and hence would not be fooled by misleading advertising.

[Scott]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 14:20:20 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>

Unfortunately, I am not technical.

Could someone on the group who understands the specification for
Eureka-147 comment on whether it would or would not have represented
'near CD quality' had it been implemented as designed?

[BrightsideS9]

From a quick Google search .

The Eureka 147 System comprises three main elements. These are:
MUSICAM Audio Coding
Transmission Coding & Multiplexing
COFDM Modulation

MUSICAM is a highly efficient audio coding process which can compress
digital audio
signals to one of a number of possible encoding options in the range 8
kbit/s to 384 kbit/s, at a
sampling rate of 48 kHz or, when a service can tolerate lower audio
quality, 24 kHz. It is
capable of delivering high-quality audio signals, that are
subjectively perceived to be of 'CD
quality' using bit-rates of 192 kbit/s or above for stereo services.

Above extracted from a white paper whose abstract is here:-
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/rdreport_1998_10>

--
brightside S9

[Java Jive]

"subjectively perceived" could mean anything depending on who wrote it,
I don't suppose any blind listening tests were involved in making that
claim, though I'm willing to be proved wrong. For myself, I've not
heard any 192kb/s stream of any encoding that I would consider as of "CD
quality", though it would be a difficult claim to disprove, unless they
happen to broadcast a track off a CD I happen to own, and I happen to
hear it, and happen to record it.

More generally there is great scope in those specs for different sample
sizes and sampling rates, so even if the highest possible bitrates from
the various possible combinations could be shown to be of "CD quality",
that doesn't mean to say that broadcasters are actually going to use
those - after all, look at what they've done to the video codecs; it
has been calculated in uk.tech.digital-uk that that only approximately
1-3% in SD and 1% in HD of what the camera actually shoots is all that
ever arrives at our TVs.

[Mark Carver]

On 30/06/2021 18:44, Java Jive wrote:
>
> More generally there is great scope in those specs for different
> sample sizes and sampling rates, so even if the highest possible
> bitrates from the various possible combinations could be shown to be
> of "CD quality", that doesn't mean to say that broadcasters are
> actually going to use those  -  after all, look at what they've done
> to the video codecs; it has been calculated in uk.tech.digital-uk that
> that only approximately 1-3% in SD and 1% in HD of what the camera
> actually shoots is all that ever arrives at our TVs.
>

Video compression is nothing new. BBC TV have been using 2:1 compression
since 1936

[Brian Gregory]

When DAB first started in the UK the most important BBC stations were
256kb/s. Now the best is Radio 3 with 192kb/s.

[Scott]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 18:13:25 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid...@email.invalid> wrote:

>When DAB first started in the UK the most important BBC stations were
>256kb/s. Now the best is Radio 3 with 192kb/s.

Is this - in your opinion - near CD quality, which is where this
particular discussion started?

[Java Jive]

On 02/07/2021 18:20, Scott wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 18:13:25 +0100, Brian Gregory
> <void-invalid...@email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> When DAB first started in the UK the most important BBC stations were
>> 256kb/s.

That I would consider reasonable to describe as something like "near CD
quality".

>> Now the best is Radio 3 with 192kb/s.

That I would not.

> Is this - in your opinion - near CD quality, which is where this
> particular discussion started?

For my opinion, FWIW, see above.

The 320kbs recordings available through iPlayer seem "near CD quality"
to me, though I haven't made a direct comparison.

[Woody]

On Fri 02/07/2021 18:13, Brian Gregory wrote:
> When DAB first started in the UK the most important BBC stations were
> 256kb/s. Now the best is Radio 3 with 192kb/s.
>

Slight correction. I don't think DAB in the UK ever had 256K, ISTR they
all started at 192K. Some stations in Germany started at 320K before
they pulled the plug the first time round.

Agreed BBCR3 is now 192K but even that is only for part of the day.
During peak travel hours I have a feeling they drop to 160K and use
Optimod which is not used at most other times. I think they also use
160K when Radio5LSX is active for the likes of cricket.

ISTR also that Classic was 192K for a long time but I think is now 160K.

DAB+ on the other hand can achieve significantly better perceived
quality at data rates little more than half those used on DAB. IMO
JazzFM (which is DAB+) sounds noticeably better than almost any other
music station. Maybe that is why so many stations in other countries
have gone straight for DAB+?

What does annoy me is the use of joint stereo rather than just plain
simple stereo. IME by default most mp3 encoders default to JS but using
full stereo doesn't use much more data but sound so much better
especially on headphones - assuming of course you can put up with
listening to mp3!

For the record I note that many commercial stations are now not only
using 112K (the lowest OfCom will permit at present) but in many cases
have gone mono as well. Tight fisted ****s!

[Brian Gregory]

On 02/07/2021 18:20, Scott wrote:

I don't really know.

But 192kb/s MP2 (like Radio 3 DAB) is common for DVD sound and usually
sounds okay to me, but others might say different.

The main bad sound with DAB that I think I can hear is the weird sound
stage the joint(?) stereo they use below 192kb/s produces.

[Scott]

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 20:26:54 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On 02/07/2021 18:20, Scott wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 18:13:25 +0100, Brian Gregory
>> <void-invalid...@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> When DAB first started in the UK the most important BBC stations were
>>> 256kb/s.
>
>That I would consider reasonable to describe as something like "near CD
>quality".
>
>>> Now the best is Radio 3 with 192kb/s.
>
>That I would not.
>
>> Is this - in your opinion - near CD quality, which is where this
>> particular discussion started?
>
>For my opinion, FWIW, see above.
>
>The 320kbs recordings available through iPlayer seem "near CD quality"
>to me, though I haven't made a direct comparison.

Thanks. I don't think I made my case very clearly. I am not saying
that present DAB is anywhere near CD quality. Anyone who says it is
must be a lying bastard. I was simply making the narrow argument that
there was a point in time when it would be reasonable to describe it
thus. I this point was when the BBC trials were taking place and the
only receiver (I think) was from Arcam. The rest of course is
history, but this was due to a political / commercial decision to
degrade DAB and not to deploy it as the Eureka-147 intended. I am
saying essentially that the Arcam receiver was capable of near CD
qualtity but the broadcasters spectacularly failed to provide this
once the launch took place.

[MB]

On 02/07/2021 22:33, Woody wrote:
> DAB+ on the other hand can achieve significantly better perceived
> quality at data rates little more than half those used on DAB. IMO
> JazzFM (which is DAB+) sounds noticeably better than almost any other
> music station. Maybe that is why so many stations in other countries
> have gone straight for DAB+?

The problem is that if just one listener wrote to their MP complaining
that they could not receive their favourite programme because of the BBC
going DAB+ then all the anti-BBC Brigade would leap on it and make a lot
of fuss.

All my radios seem to be able to receive DAB+ (and some are quite old).

Perhaps they could start to have some DAB+ and use for giving regional
stations national coverage which might be politically more difficult to
argue against.

[Andy Burns]

MB wrote:

> All my radios seem to be able to receive DAB+ (and some are quite old).

My Pure Evoke3 couldn't, my 11 reg car couldn't.

The 11 reg car replaced with 67 reg which can, the Evoke3 replaced in
favour of Google Nest devices (which occasionally throw hissy fits).

[Scott]

I thought this was the direction of travel in the commercial sector.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

> Perhaps they could start to have some DAB+ and use for giving regional
> stations national coverage which might be politically more difficult to
> argue against.
>
>

regional stations already have a degree of national coverage via Freesat ?

[MB]

On 03/07/2021 09:15, Scott wrote:
> Thanks. I don't think I made my case very clearly. I am not saying
> that present DAB is anywhere near CD quality. Anyone who says it is
> must be a lying bastard. I was simply making the narrow argument that
> there was a point in time when it would be reasonable to describe it
> thus. I this point was when the BBC trials were taking place and the
> only receiver (I think) was from Arcam. The rest of course is
> history, but this was due to a political / commercial decision to
> degrade DAB and not to deploy it as the Eureka-147 intended. I am
> saying essentially that the Arcam receiver was capable of near CD
> qualtity but the broadcasters spectacularly failed to provide this
> once the launch took place.

Yet some can listen to VHF with multipath distortion and ignore it. My
car radio can switch to VHF FM if it loses DAB but I don't bother
because of the poor quality of VHF FM in a moving vehicle.

If they ran DAB at 256 Kb/s, there would be fewer stations so fewer
people would have bought receivers.

[MB]

On 03/07/2021 09:24, Andy Burns wrote:
> My Pure Evoke3 couldn't, my 11 reg car couldn't.
>
> The 11 reg car replaced with 67 reg which can, the Evoke3 replaced in
> favour of Google Nest devices (which occasionally throw hissy fits).

Not sure which is the Evoke3 but I have a Pure Evoke Flow sure that
received DAB+ (I took it somewhere with one of the commercial stations
to try out) when I tried it, same for a Pure One Flow (I think that is
the name) and Pure Highway,

[MB]

On 03/07/2021 13:33, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
> regional stations already have a degree of national coverage via Freesat ?

The dish tends to get damaged by trees as you drive down the road.

[Andy Burns]

MB wrote:

> Not sure which is the Evoke3 but I have a Pure Evoke Flow sure that
> received DAB+

I think the evoke could "see" DAB+ stations, probably there's a common
catalogue of stations per mux, but as soon as you tried to play one it
got removed from the list.

[Scott]

I don't disagree with any of that. All I am saying is that DAB
started as a very different proposition to what it is now. Claims
about 'near CD quality' were probably accurate right at the start (but
obviously spurious now).

[Tweed]

But now there are superior Internet streams for home listening. DAB is more
than adequate for in car use. Whatever was claimed is water under the
bridge. Marketing folk often speak with forked tongue.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

"a degree of" ?

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 13:33:00 +0100, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:

>> Perhaps they could start to have some DAB+ and use for giving regional
>> stations national coverage which might be politically more difficult to
>> argue against.
>>
>>
>>
> regional stations already have a degree of national coverage via Freesat
> ?

And (though not nationally supported) Radio Garden

[MB]

On 03/07/2021 16:31, Andy Burns wrote:
> I think the evoke could "see" DAB+ stations, probably there's a common
> catalogue of stations per mux, but as soon as you tried to play one it
> got removed from the list.

Sure I was able to hear DAB+ probably after I upgraded the radio.

[Mark Carver]

On 29/06/2021 22:17, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:12:04 +0100, MB <M...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 29/06/2021 18:09, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:
>>> is "subjectively equivalent to 'CD'" supposed to be some sort of
>>> recommendation ?
>>
>> DAB was never designed to be CD-like. It was designed to give good
>> reception in moving vehicles, which it does very well and much better
>> than VHF FM.
> Are you sure about that? My recollection is that it was widely
> advertised as 'near CD quality' until the ASA banned the practice.
>

Here's a link to a 1991 BBC document, have a look at pdf page 9 (real
page 3)

<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj7x-u8qcfxAhUbUhUIHW9EAy4QFjABegQIAhAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownloads.bbc.co.uk%2Frd%2Fpubs%2Freports%2F1991-02.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1cvsnyzG-M_BJU1NxhVjfF>

[Scott]

I don't disagree. I'm just saying that the implementaton is very
different to original specification - responding to the earlier
implication that DAB was never near CD quality .

[Tweed]

Specification is the difficult word. DAB meets its specification entirely.
Unfortunately the spec allows toying with the data rate.

[Scott]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 17:21:42 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Okay, I'll withdraw the word 'specification'. The sound quality of
DAB now is nowhere as near as it was when it was first introduced in
the United Kingdom. When it was introduced - based on the Eureka-147
project - it could reasonably be described as 'near CD quality' and
now it cannot be described in this way. This is not to say that it
serves no useful purpose now, just that it is a different beast now to
what was intended then.

[Scott]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 16:31:18 +0100, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

I have an Evoke-1. It shows UK Gold on the display but does not play
it..

[Tweed]

The world moves on. On the technological timescale DAB was dreamt up
several millennia ago. I think when it was introduced folk had little
conception about the access to data that we have today.

For me, DAB is much better in the car than DAB, especially in the range of
programmes available. I’m too old to claim golden ears and care little for
music. But for those that do Internet steams are available.

[Tweed]

I meant dab is better than FM.

[Scott]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 18:39:38 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Now we are getting somewhere at last. The comment was, 'DAB was never
designed to be CD-like'. Are you now agreeing with me that this is
factually incorrect and DAB was *designed* to be CD like?

[Tweed]

Dab was designed to be as flexible as you like. Aim your ire at the people
holding the purse strings.

[tony sayer]

In article <sbptk1$mn8$1...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> scribeth
thus

Its OK here a darn sarff;)

Actually i think MF AM is nicer in a way to lo rate MP2 DAB!.

It was nice listening earlier when Engerland thrashed Ukraine 4 bloody
nil!:)..
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

[tony sayer]

In article <ff51egtuvjm9j58qg...@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

DAB Plus can be much better even at low bit rates but if you switch to
that older receivers will loose out and I've still got a n older
receiver mainly keep it for personal reasons..

[Scott]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 20:13:03 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

What ire are you talking about? This is a discussion group. Someone
earlier in the thread said that DAB was never designed to be CD-like
and I am suggesting (with reference to Eureka-147) that it was
designed to be CD-like. It seems pretty binary to me. If you want to
discuss something else, feel free and I may or may not comment but
please do us all a favour by reading the context before posting.

[Scott]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 00:11:06 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

True, but something of a digression from the question of whether DAB
was or was not *designed* to be near CD quality at the start. I say
it was based on recollection and reports about Eureka-147. .

[Abandoned_Trolley]

> True, but something of a digression from the question of whether DAB
> was or was not *designed* to be near CD quality at the start. I say
> it was based on recollection and reports about Eureka-147. .
>

so what ? - this entire thread is something of a digression from the
purpose of the newsgroup

[Scott]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 09:44:04 +0100, Abandoned_Trolley
<fr...@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:

>
>> True, but something of a digression from the question of whether DAB
>> was or was not *designed* to be near CD quality at the start. I say
>> it was based on recollection and reports about Eureka-147. .
>
>so what ? - this entire thread is something of a digression from the
>purpose of the newsgroup

True. Maybe I am old-fashioned but I was taught to relate the answer
to the question. I know this is out of favour with politicians and
others.

[Tweed]

I’m sorry if you thought I was getting at you, that was not my intention.
DAB was wildly promoted by the marketing people so as to get enough sets
sold to justify building out the network. Obviously anything with a lossy
compressor cannot be equivalent to a CD, which does not compress. So we
come to “CD like”. Like is an undefinable and unmeasurable term, so you can
argue about it forever.

Where DAB came a little unstuck was the greed in putting too many stations
in too small a bandwidth. That’s not engineering, that’s economics and
politics.

[Scott]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 08:56:53 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

I am sorry too as I over-reacted in the course of a wide-ranging
discusson on the newsgroup. I was feeling frustrated that I could not
get a direct answer to my original point.

Actually, I agree with all you say. I see it partly as a lost
opportunit but more as an extension of Moore's Law, meaning that the
system was already out of date by the time it was introduced
commercially. I have just bought a Roberts Stream 94i and it does
exactly what I want by delivering high quality audio that I am happy
with via the Internet (I suppose technically it may not be the
Internet).

It seems to me ironic that (AIUI) there were systems in the 1930s with
communal aerial and radio services cabled into the houses - hence the
name Rediffusion. Now we seem to be are moving back to that system!
The challenge now is cars. I wonder if 5G will come to our rescue?