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


No data; I've just looked at a lot of spectra. I know it's not
white, but it's a hell of a lot flatter and broader for R1/2 than
R3. R3 tends to tail-off quickly, whereas R1/2 tails-off
significantly slower and for the vast majority of the time it goes
right the way up to the brickwall filter.

The difficulty is that doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusion.


Common sense dictates that it does.

I'm afraid that would only be so if the 'common sense' does not take
into acount the distinctions I was outlining. :-) Hence it would be
like the 'common sense' that sometimes causes people to say all kinds
of things which may turn out to be incorrect. I am wary of conclusions
"dictated" by "common sense" as this often turns out to be a poor
guide.


I couldn't give a flying fk whether you're wary of such conclusions or
if you're madly in love with them.

I am also not particularly concerned by you making such comments. :-)


[snip]


Not saying you are wrong. Just saying 'dunno', but 'not proven'
simply from what you have said.


I cannot prove this with absolute certainty, but it's beyond
reasonable doubt IMO.

I note your opinion, but am trying to distinguish between opinions and
matters of fact.


The fact that I cannot prove this does not mean that I am just going to
drop this view;

Fair enough. That's your prerogative. People believe all kinds of things.
Just as I and others are free to make our own decisions.

which just happens to be exactly what you would like me to do.

I'm afraid you are moving into the realms of imagination here... :-)

So far as I am concerned, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

What I was indicating was that to accept your view I would need suitable
evidence and explanations dealing with the relevant points. Up to you if
you choose to beleive something without providing such. Also up to you if
you don't care what view I adopt.

However by asking the questions I have, others can read what I have
written, see your responses, and make up their own minds as to the
reliability of your opinions. That seems fair enough to me. People can make
up their minds as they see fit on the basis of the evidence presented, and
assess your views in the light of your comments to/about me.

[snip]



during the evening to give to some other station(s), but a higher
rate being available after midnight for the repeat. Would not
surprise me if similar 'audio' crudities turned up on DAB at times.


I thought you were talking about video?

Depends what comments I made that you are referring to.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of this seemed to be to do with
TV/video:

"FWIW in terms of video I have certainly seen very 'odd' effects at
times on BBCTV4 via DTTV. e.g. I have DVD+R's of one prom where the
'live' sic broadcast has a picture that 'stutters' throughout a large
part of the broadcast, but where the late-night repeat is fine. I assume
this was variable rate statmux stealing bitrate from BBCTV4 during the
evening to give to some other station(s), but a higher rate being
available after midnight for the repeat."


I have made some comments about the sound of R3 on 'Freeview'. I have
made some comments about the sound of BBCTV4 on Freeview. I have also
made a comment about the *video* on BBCTV4 on Freeview. How these may
be related, though, I am unsure.


Well, you were the bloody one making all the various points, so if you
don't know what point you were trying to make then how the bloody hell
should I know?

Perhaps by reading the various postings I have made with more care? You
might then realise why your comment here is misdirected. :-)

Only generalisation is that they all involve data-reduction
'compression' systems to communicate the information.


Give the man a Nobel prize.

Don't bother with the medal. Just send me the cash that goes with it. 8-]

BTW, you seem to be entering pedant mode, again. If at all possible,
please don't enter said mode again. TIA.

Are you a member of a 'pedant mode' branch of the 'net police'? :-)

Sorry if you are offended by the way I ask questions and make points. If
you can deal with them in a reasoned way I'd be interested in your replies.
But if you can't answer, or dislike them, or my style of writing, then it
is open to you to ignore them and make no reply.

You may find, though, that if you do become employed in R&D areas of
engineering/science then what seems to you to be a 'pedant mode' on my part
is not only common in such areas, but an expected approach for the
necessary rigour. I'm afraid that having to justify/support your ideas with
evidence and reasoning that survives critical questioning is often
unavoidable in such areas of work.

TBH I feel you would find that people would find your views and arguments
more persuasive if you kept to engaging in a polite and reasoned
discussion. Switching to being abusive or dismissive or arrogant is, I
fear, unlikely to convince many people. Particularly those who have any
background in the relevant areas of engineering or science and who expect
well reasoned arguments based on reliable evidence.

You have said you have specific knowledge of these areas, and the main
point you made seemed a reasonable and interesting one to me. For all I
know it may be entirely justified. Therefore I am dissapointed that instead
of providing useful replies to my own comments/questions you switch to
being abusive/ dismissive. I was hoping for more informative replies as I
had expected you could provide the info I was asking for. It would be
interesting to know if your thesis *is* correct. However your replies here
simply show that you are convinced of this and offended that anyone doubt
the correctness of your opinions. But I still have no idea if you are
actually correct or not.

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