Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

During the daytime - when I listen to R4 if in - I can't tell the
difference between R4 DAB and R4 Freeview. With the levels properly
set for a comparison. And I'll bet you can't either - in a properly
conducted test.

Arrrrrgghhh
please don't start another testing thread...


--
We are the keepers of the sacred words: Ni, Pang,
and Ni-wom!

Our Philips Freeview box sounds much better than the older Panasonic it
replaced.

Re aerials generally, I've had mine replaced after doing a bit of research,
if your TV aerial is 10 yrs old and you're in a weak signal area then it's
really worth getting done for Freeview. Get a new cable as well as the new
types of double screened cable are much less lossy than older single
screened cables, and the better aerials now have balun transformers built in
to them so that the aerial's balanced output signal is transformed to an
unbalanced signal that is much better matched to coax cable. The advantage
is obviously a stronger signal, but much more than that it vastly reduces
impulse interference as the cable screen can work properly with this
transformer fitted. The brand of digital aerial I got was Triax as it has
the balun transformer, and 2 TV aerial installation acquaintances told me
that Triax aerials don't deteriorate with corrosion over the years, a lot of
others do. We aren't in a Freeview reception area but with this aerial
reception is perfect in practice.




"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Robert wrote:
Can anyone suggest a good freeview box to buy if my primary purpose is
to get good quality radio. Is there any difference between different
makes/models as regards the quality of radio output?


The Philips DTR1500 was judged to have the best sound out of all the
Freeview receivers tested in one of the hi-fi mags; it's got Philips's
PulseKiller technology (which improves reception when there's impulsive
interference); it's got both phono and digital audio outputs; and its
price has just been reduced:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr...phlips_dtr1500

If you want a wider choice of stations then you could get a free-to-air
digital satellite system (you don't need to pay anything to Sky or get
involved with them at all). You can get cheap digital satellite systems
from he

http://www.sateuropa.co.uk/overview....id=1&subcat=14

It's best to get one with a digital audio output and feed that to a DAC,
for example on an MD player.

There's about 80 UK radio stations on satellite, and the bit rates are the
highest on average out of all the platforms. See:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/in...bit_rate_table


I've been using a DAB receiver but have not been too impressed by the
quality of the sound. Radio 3 sounds OK but other channels (world
service for example) seem rather distorted and not as good as FM.


Indeed.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
The Philips DTR1500 was judged to have the best sound out of all the
Freeview receivers tested in one of the hi-fi mags; it's got Philips's
PulseKiller technology (which improves reception when there's impulsive
interference); it's got both phono and digital audio outputs; and its
price has just been reduced:

I wonder what such a "PulseKiller" technology does. Does it actually
allow more of the correct signal to be demodulated during impulse
interference or does it merely cover up the loss of signal in a quieter
fashion?

If impulse noise is great enough then I am sure the loss of carrier to
noise ratio will be such that nothing can retrieve the signal so the
improvement could be marginal.

However, having myself designed digital demodulators for similar
modulation schemes, I can see a posibility that mild impulse noise could
upset AGC control loops or DC restoration [1] and cause more signal loss
than necessary. In this case the technology could be a significant gain.

Does anyone know how "PulseKiller" works and if it is much more than a
marketing term?

[1] Which I assume are in there still these days depending on the
design specifics. But my design experience was a long time ago.

--
John Phillips

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Robert wrote:
Can anyone suggest a good freeview box to buy if my primary purpose is
to get good quality radio. Is there any difference between different
makes/models as regards the quality of radio output?

The Philips DTR1500 was judged to have the best sound out of all the
Freeview receivers tested in one of the hi-fi mags; it's got Philips's
PulseKiller technology (which improves reception when there's impulsive
interference); it's got both phono and digital audio outputs; ...

If anyone's interested I managed this weekend to compare a Philips DTR
500 (the 1500's successor) with my Pioneer DBR-TF100GB.

The Philips IS better on impulse noise than the Pioneer IN MY SITUATION
(i.e. marginal signal level - *just* enough to get "excellent" signal
quality on all muxes but with sound and vision disturbed occasionally
by impulse noise from passing traffic).

The Pioneer suffers a small number of complete signal loss events (3 or 4)
per evening's listening or viewing. The Philips does not suffer any and
actually generates noticeably fewer nasty-sounding impulse-noise-induced
audio events overall if I count disturbances over an hour's period.

When a motorcycle goes past my house, both are significantly disturbed
but the Philips recovers more quickly. It looks like the "Pulse Killer"
does do something like detecting the impulse noise and clamping AGC
settings etc. during the event to prevent major disruption during the
event and long recovery time after it finishes.

The user interface on the Pioneer is much more friendly in its
implementation than that on the Philips. It was a big shock to try
out the Philips after the Pioneer but I have got used to it. However
the Philips' remote is mostly more logical (to me) in the layout of
commonly-used keys.

The Philips has 7-day EPG which the Pioneer does not. When using it
the sound is lost and I haven't yet worked out how to get any real value
out of it.

The Pioneer treats all channels equally. The Philips has a separate
radio mode and TV mode.

For me the Philips is the better radio receiver. Both have digital
audio outputs (Philips via coax and Pioneer via optical) which I plug
into my external DAC so I cannot comapre their internal DACs.

--
John Phillips

John Phillips wrote:

snip useful info about PulseKiller actually working

The Philips has 7-day EPG which the Pioneer does not. When using it
the sound is lost


That's not very good.


and I haven't yet worked out how to get any real
value out of it.


Isn't it useful for looking to see what's on later in the evening?


The Pioneer treats all channels equally. The Philips has a separate
radio mode and TV mode.

For me the Philips is the better radio receiver.


Why?


Both have digital
audio outputs (Philips via coax and Pioneer via optical) which I plug
into my external DAC so I cannot comapre their internal DACs.


The Philips has phono analogue outputs as well. Have you tried it? It
doesn't matter if it'd be difficult to try, but I'd just be interested
to know what the quality was like relative to the digital audio output.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
John Phillips wrote:

snip useful info about PulseKiller actually working

The Philips has 7-day EPG which the Pioneer does not. When using it
the sound is lost

That's not very good.

I have found that the sound comes back if you switch between the radio
guide and the TV guide (and remains when you switch back again).

and I haven't yet worked out how to get any real
value out of it.

Isn't it useful for looking to see what's on later in the evening?

If the user interface were more friendly it might fulfil this function
(however I am beginning to get used to it). The designers seem to have
been over-intelligent geeks with a love of a quite complex-looking (but
very consistent) user interface with very pretty but not very practical
display design.

The Pioneer treats all channels equally. The Philips has a separate
radio mode and TV mode.

For me the Philips is the better radio receiver.

Why?

I'm surprised at the question. It's my conclusion following the
comparison of features and performance earlier in the article.

Both have digital
audio outputs (Philips via coax and Pioneer via optical) which I plug
into my external DAC so I cannot comapre their internal DACs.

The Philips has phono analogue outputs as well. Have you tried it? It
doesn't matter if it'd be difficult to try, but I'd just be interested
to know what the quality was like relative to the digital audio output.

It does. No I haven't. There are no analogue inputs on my audio kit
(even the analogue TV sound goes through an inexpensive ADC before it
hits the system - and note that going through that ADC would provide no
reliable information on the Philips DAC in isolation).

--
John Phillips

John Phillips wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:
John Phillips wrote:

snip useful info about PulseKiller actually working

The Philips has 7-day EPG which the Pioneer does not. When using it
the sound is lost

That's not very good.

I have found that the sound comes back if you switch between the radio
guide and the TV guide (and remains when you switch back again).


Strange.


and I haven't yet worked out how to get any real
value out of it.

Isn't it useful for looking to see what's on later in the evening?

If the user interface were more friendly it might fulfil this function
(however I am beginning to get used to it). The designers seem to
have been over-intelligent geeks with a love of a quite
complex-looking (but very consistent) user interface with very pretty
but not very practical display design.


Doesn't surprise me.

BTW, the Pioneer DBRTF100 is due to get the EPG next week!:

http://www.dtg.org.uk/retailer/download_schedule.pl

(see 19/2/05 to 21/2/05)


The Pioneer treats all channels equally. The Philips has a separate
radio mode and TV mode.

For me the Philips is the better radio receiver.

Why?

I'm surprised at the question. It's my conclusion following the
comparison of features and performance earlier in the article.


Fair enough. I thought you meant that you thought that it was better in
general for radio, but you did qualify it as saying that it was better
for you. For example, I have heard the screetches you get on radio, but
they're so infrequent that it's not much of an issue.


Both have digital
audio outputs (Philips via coax and Pioneer via optical) which I
plug into my external DAC so I cannot comapre their internal DACs.

The Philips has phono analogue outputs as well. Have you tried it? It
doesn't matter if it'd be difficult to try, but I'd just be
interested to know what the quality was like relative to the digital
audio output.

It does. No I haven't. There are no analogue inputs on my audio kit
(even the analogue TV sound goes through an inexpensive ADC before it
hits the system


Wow!


- and note that going through that ADC would provide
no reliable information on the Philips DAC in isolation).


If the ADC is good, then surely the quality of the Philips DAC could be
easily determined? It should definitely be the weakest link in the
chain.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm