February 11th 05, 11:21 PM
posted to uk.rec.audio
|
|
|
DAB R3 balance
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
The MP2 file is the raw bitstream recorded directly to hard drive.
Really. How did you interface a DAB tuner directly to your computer HD?
The FM was recorded from my Denon tuner via my sound card and then
encoded at high bit rate (VBR, IIRC).
You give the make of the tuner, but not the soundcard? Considering most
soundcards are the spawn of satan? On analogue?
, there are
splats on the DAB sample which you simply don't get in reality,
I know, relatively poor reception at the time.
Oh dear. Now I know my memory is poor, but I think I remember you having a
go at me when I suggested that *many* have poor FM reception, the
artifacts of which would be in the main sorted by DAB? And that you said
that my poor reception of FM - shared by about 1,000,000 others in South
London - and gawd knows where else - made my views worthless?
But you try to prove your views by using a dreadful recording of both DAB
and FM on your website. WTF are you on?
--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *
Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
|
February 12th 05, 12:01 PM
posted to uk.rec.audio
|
|
|
DAB R3 balance
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
The MP2 file is the raw bitstream recorded directly to hard drive.
Really. How did you interface a DAB tuner directly to your computer
HD?
All DAB, DVB-T and DVB-S PC cards record the raw bitstream directly to
the hard drive. For example, all the DTT products in these section do
this:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr...eview_pc_cards
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._usb_receivers
and the PC products on here do too:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dsat_rx.htm
The FM was recorded from my Denon tuner via my sound card and then
encoded at high bit rate (VBR, IIRC).
You give the make of the tuner, but not the soundcard? Considering
most soundcards are the spawn of satan? On analogue?
Terratec EWX24/96. It's a good card. And yes, analogue.
, there are
splats on the DAB sample which you simply don't get in reality,
I know, relatively poor reception at the time.
Oh dear. Now I know my memory is poor, but I think I remember you
having a go at me when I suggested that *many* have poor FM
reception, the artifacts of which would be in the main sorted by DAB?
The poor reception was on DAB, not FM.
And that you said that my poor reception of FM - shared by about
1,000,000 others in South London
1,000,000 people share your bad FM reception? Have you carried out a
very large poll, or something?
- and gawd knows where else - made
my views worthless?
I know there are some bad reception areas for FM. My point, which you've
conveniently omitted or forgotten, is that just because a smallish
percentage of the population do have poor FM reception is not
justification to provide low audio quality on DAB. Do you disagree?
Just to add some facts which you are probably not aware of, this page
shows the number of stations that could be transmitted at 160kbps or
above:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/wa...x_capacity.htm
Altogether, 183 stereo stations could be transmitted on DAB in the UK
and the only radio station that would have to be removed would be DNN,
which is the sorriest excuse for a radio station I've ever come across,
and I've never seen a good word said about it. To give you an indication
of just how ****e this station is, a few months ago someone said on
alt.radio.digital that it had been playing the previous day's news all
day; it's a news station, so you could say that its output wasn't
particularly good that day.....
But you try to prove your views by using a dreadful recording of both
DAB and FM on your website. WTF are you on?
At least I'm not defending the indefensible.
--
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
|
February 13th 05, 09:06 AM
posted to uk.rec.audio
|
|
|
DAB R3 balance
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Whenver I've compared R3 DAB with R3 FM, FM has always sounded better.
Download and listen to the R3 DAB and FM recordings from my samples
page:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/di...es.htm#samples
Just have done. Apart from one being MP2 and one MP3, there are splats
on the DAB sample which you simply don't get in reality, and some form
of heterodyning on the FM one which I've never heard before. Sounds like
a possibly dodgy land line? Or something going on at low level in the
recording which is well and truly upsetting the coding - as it shows up
on the DAB sample as well, but in a different way.
Perhaps Jim Lesurf would have a listen and comment?
Afraid that at present I don't have/use any MP2/3 software. To listen I'd
have to find suitable software, check it worked OK, burn the results onto
CD, and then do a comparison listen.[1] Afraid that this isn't something I
have time for at present, although I am interested in doing it at some
point. I don't listen via computer as the results I'd expect don't seem
worth the effort to me.
[1] This would also raise all sorts of other issues like rate conversions.
Plus the snag of any FM comparison being via a MP2/3 rather than plain
LPCM.
Low level heterodyne noises may be caused during the RX and recording
process, particularly with FM. If they appear on both FM and DAB we'd need
to know more about the recording system to guess what their cause might
be...
If someone has *two* DAB radios with digital outputs, and a card that can
read in from them, I'd be interested to see if they produce the same bit
streams, though. Ditto for a pair of DTTV receivers. Alas, I only have one
DTTV RX and no DAB. Nor do I have a computer card that can read in two
s/pdif streams. However I have on my 'to do' list a 'bit output'
comparision of two DTTV boxes using a fast sampling scope to grab the
bitreams in parallel.
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
|
February 13th 05, 01:27 PM
posted to uk.rec.audio
|
|
|
DAB R3 balance
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Afraid that at present I don't have/use any MP2/3 software.
AMPlayer - free from :_
http://www.armware.dk/files/
(Only for RISC OS - to others reading this)
To listen I'd have to find suitable software, check it worked OK, burn
the results onto CD, and then do a comparison listen.[1] Afraid that
this isn't something I have time for at present, although I am
interested in doing it at some point. I don't listen via computer as the
results I'd expect don't seem worth the effort to me.
I've got mine fed to the house system - both in and out, as I do some
transfers from 1/4" etc, and it's easier than humping the machines around.
Of course thinking back you've not got broadband, so downloading these
sorts of files is costly.
--
*Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose.
Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
|
February 11th 05, 07:15 PM
posted to uk.rec.audio
|
|
|
DAB R3 balance
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:37:48 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:
Pat Wallace wrote:
I'm getting poor R3 DAB quality right now (2005/02/10-20:00).
Normally it sounds exactly like FM except no background noise
Whenver I've compared R3 DAB with R3 FM, FM has always sounded better.
Download and listen to the R3 DAB and FM recordings from my samples
page:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/di...es.htm#samples
http://83.142.53.30/~digital/R3_DAB.mp2 (1.5 MB)
http://83.142.53.30/~digital/R3_FM.mp3 (2.2 MB)
And R3 is the best sounding station on DAB, which doesn't say much for
the other ****e.....
Actually the FM has a very high level of hiss, and a generally harsh
and unpleasant sound. The DAB is far better.
d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
|
February 11th 05, 11:22 PM
posted to uk.rec.audio
|
|
|
DAB R3 balance
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Actually the FM has a very high level of hiss, and a generally harsh
and unpleasant sound. The DAB is far better.
I disagree.
They're both ****e, so the comparison is meaningless.
--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.
Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
|
February 12th 05, 07:44 AM
posted to uk.rec.audio
|
|
|
DAB R3 balance
Anyway, the temporary change in R3 DAB sound, which is what this
thread was about, has now (morning of 12 Feb) gone away.
I think the BBC must have switched R3 to a low bit-rate for a while.
Let's hope they don't make a habit of it. It's bad enough having to
accept a measly 192kb/s.
Patrick Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
February 12th 05, 08:16 AM
posted to uk.rec.audio
|
|
|
DAB R3 balance
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:22:53 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Actually the FM has a very high level of hiss, and a generally harsh
and unpleasant sound. The DAB is far better.
I disagree.
They're both ****e, so the comparison is meaningless.
Both ****e as you say, but the FM is far the worse.
d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Hybrid Mode
|
|
