In article , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Hence I think the point you make is certainly an important one, but it
may not establish the conclusion you draw without more specific
evidence. Not saying you are wrong. Just saying 'dunno', but 'not
proven' simply from what you have said.


An interesting experiment is to encode some CD material into VBR MP3 at
a given quality level. That way the MP3 encoder chooses what bit rate to
use to achieve the given level of quality on a frame-by-frame basis.

If you want to compare results with me then do the following:

Erm... what OS, etc, are you assuming I am using? :-)

* download Lame v3.90.3:

[snip]


You would need to direct me at a version that runs under RO on an
ARM-core CPU and which can be verified to act identically to the
one you use. However even if that were done and I had the time
to try it...


It isn't clear to me what value the process you suggest would have w.r.t
the issues we were discussing in terms of the differences between what
the BBC do for R1/2 and R3. If you wish to support your argument for
that then I'd assume you need to do so in terms of the specifics of
the BBC signals and waveforms. The snag being that to do so you ideally
may need access to the originals before they were level compressed
and data reduced.

AIUI your point was based on argueing that the R1/R2 typical signals
have a more unform and flatter spectrum. My point was that it may
also depend on the number of spectral components, not just the
uniformity and range of those present. Without access to the BBC
original waveforms and their level compression, etc, how would
my attempting to use Lame establish this?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html