Tim S Kemp wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
why? what difference will reading about psychoacoustics make to the
fact that the in-car listening environment is not that good?
One of the main premises upon which perceptual coding is based upon
is the concept of masking (the concept is from psychoacoustic
research), where high amplitude tones mask noise. So, if you turn
the volume up then you're largely masking the whitish coloured road
and engine noise. Cars obviously are the ideal environment for
listening, far from it, but if you're trying to suggest that audio
quality doesn't really matter in cars then I couldn't disagree more.
I didn't say that, I did say that the in-car listening environment is
not that good. I would bet that most people can't tell the difference
between DAB and CD in car.
Totally disagree.
Many people can't tell whether I'm playing
CD or Cassette in mine. Also, for the sake of my hearing, I don't
tend to rag my car stereo out to the max very often - and again, I'll
use it for talk more than music.
I know at least three households without TV. But then, I have
friends.
I've got plenty of friends, thanks for your concern. And at least
my friends aren't geeks and nerds.
Oh dear.... no valid argument
What do you mean "no valid argument"? Do you expect a list of names
and addresses?
so result to insulting my friends...
nice...
It was you that accused me of having no friends, so dyou shouldn't
expect a polite response, prick.
Where? Sorry, I just pointed out that I have friends, your problems
are just that, your problem.
"I know at least three households without TV. But then, I have friends."
The implication is obvious to anybody that doesn't have sub-normal
intelligence.
And I don't recall having insulted or
acted impolitely against you, despite you now calling me a prick.
Re-read what you've written so far in this thread.
I assumed that because you post to uk.rec.audio that you had
audiophilic tendencies.....
Thankfully, no. I listen to music at home because I enjoy it...
Same here, it's just that I enjoy it more when the quality is good than
when the quality is bad. It's not a difficult concept.
IIRC you said "Are you seriously trying to
use an analogy that MDs don't sound as good as CDs so it's
acceptable for DAB to sound a bit worse than CDs?" so you're the
one who inferred that it should...
No, what I meant by that was that the difference between CDs and MDs
is far smaller than the difference between CDs and DAB, so you cannot
use an analogy between CD/MD with CD/DAB.
Ahhh right. But are you also saying then that the difference between
CD and MD (which is very much measurable and is quite audible where
it matters) is far smaller than the difference between FM and DAB?
I've never actually said that; you seem to have inferred that I think
that. Again, be a bit more precise with what you're trying to say.
I think you're
You called me a pedant, so I've got nothing to lose by informing you
that you should have written 'your', not "you're", which is short for
"you are". A common mistake in the days of txt msgs.
misconception is one of SQ being everything.
DAB was originally designed to provide high audio quality radio. In the
UK it doesn't provide high audio quality radio except, maybe, Radio 3,
and I'd still say that sounds better on FM. And my main objection to the
UK DAB implementation is that the audio quality could be significantly
better than it actually is if they would just re-configure the
multiplexes to use some of the totally unused space.
I've just totted up the figures on this page (plus 3 for the possible
BBC stations):
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/wa...x_capacity.htm
and we could have 183 stations using 160kbps or above in the UK (that's
183 stations on the various muxes, not all in the same place), but we
only actually have 6 stations using 160kbps or above:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/worldwide_dab.htm
And Ofcom's attitude disgusts me, because they basically let the
commercial radio groups dictate Ofcom's policy, and Ofcom have
absolutely no intention of making the commercial radio groups use
anything above low audio quality. That is clear by Ofcom's own proposal
to allow a diff-grade of -2.0 permanently (which is already low audio
quality) which means that any improvements in encoders can be translated
to lower bit rates rather than benefiting the listener.
This is all very old and well-trodden ground, and I'm afraid you don't
know the half of it (of course you'll disagree), and frankly I can't be
arsed going into any more depth than this, because I want to get on with
other things.
I can only go off what you write, and my impression of you is that
you're a know-it-all that doesn't know-it-all. A good example would
be to say that to achieve CD-quality you need to use 300kbps -
500kbps. Anybody that has taken even a small interest in audio
compression will know that MP2 and MP3 don't even support anything
above 320kbps for 2-channel encoding. Then there's your opinion that
road noise cannot be masked in cars, and I'm afraid you come across
as trying to make out you know what you're talking about, but in
reality you're just chancing your arm.
Radio 3 needs higher bitrate because it's listeners want better audio
quality.
That is the typical classical music fan's answer, which is irrelevant to
any discussion which is based upon scientific/engineering principles.
Radio 1 listeners probably couldn't give a toss. Radio 2 and
4 listeners also (mostly). And no, road noise in cars cannot be
masked without running to volumes that would be damaging to hearing,
or using some kind of noise cancelling technology, or a reallly
really quiet car.
I'm not really talking about absolute 100% masking even when travelling
at 80mph down the motorway. But if you turn the volume up in the car
then at speeds below 80mph then you can drown out the vast majority of
the noise, and the main point I wanted to make is that differences in
audio quality can be easily perceived in cars. Again, try this out in a
car, I've tested this on numerous occasions because pro-low audio
quality on DAB people have tried to make out that audio quality in cars
isn't important, or cannot really be perceived. It's just a nonsense
argument proposed by people with something to hide: the low audio
quality on DAB.
Moreover, to get a good understanding of MPEG audio compression you
really need to understand DSP, and I'd put everything I own on the
fact that I know more about DSP than you do.
Lol - I'm not gonna make such a bet, because if I happened to lose
you get my house, telly and cars, and I think the wife and kids might
get upset by that. Again though, don't make too many dangerous
assumptions, I wouldn't want to win the bet and you have to suffer
life without your Evoke ;-)
It's not that dangerous an assumption, because the likelihood that you
understand DSP theory better than I do is extremely small.
I don't buy newspapers other than the Sunday Times, because I find
that they're all biased one way or the other.
Doesn't "all" include "the Sunday Times?"
Probably, but there's bits in the Sunday Times that I like to read which
aren't political. It's the dailies that **** me off because of their
bias.
--
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
PC Speakers
Linear Mode
