Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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?

The stations I listen to on DAB sound fine to me.


Well, this is part of the problem, because we will always be comparing
apples and oranges, because you probably listen to R3, R4 and maybe R5,
which are probably the least-affected radio stations on DAB, but my
issue is not about those stations; my issue is with regards to the
stereo music stations, which are being transmitted at 128kbps and sound
horrendous.


The pop stations
are so heavily processed they sound awful on DAB or FM or DTV,


People of my generation will have grown up listening to stations that
have had dynamic range compression applied, so we're well used to that
sound, and I think it's mainly older people that object to it so
strongly. That's not to say that I like it, and especially the
commercial music stations apply it way too heavily. But it still beats
DAB hands-down. DAB just sounds nasty. It's muffled, constricted and
'orrible whereas, even with audio processing, the same stations on FM do
not suffer this. Good examples would be R1, R2 and Galaxy 102
(Manchester). On DAB they just sound nasty, whereas on FM they all use
audio processing but sound much better because of the lack of nasty
artefacts.

And if you think stations sound the same on FM and DTV then you've not
listened to them. Radio 1 especially sounds different on DTV. It varies
from show to show, because I think each producer for each DJ has their
own settings, but I listen to the Essential Selection on Fridays, and it
invariably sounds very good. You probably wouldn't like it, but you're
not meant to listen to it! The audio processing level on DTT is lower
than on FM and is significantly less intrusive.


so I'd
rather give them a miss regardless. Even if I liked most of their
music, which I don't.


Quite; they're not meant for you, so we're arguing about different
things.


--
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

hwh wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" schreef in bericht
...
What do you mean: splat?


It's difficult to describe, but it's one of the unpleasant artefacts
that DAB suffers from when there's relatively poor reception.

ah, okay, got it. Know it al too well.


Thought you would!


--
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

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:06:37 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:11:45 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

http://83.142.53.30/~digital/radio3_fm.mp4 (6.9 MB)
http://83.142.53.30/~digital/radio3_fm.mp3 (7.4 MB)
http://83.142.53.30/~digital/radio3_fm.flac (16 MB)

Obviously the best one to download is the FLAC file, because it's
lossless.

What is the source of the FM files here - they don't actually sound to
have the normal FM Optimod artifacts.


They were recorded off Radio 3 FM from my Denon TU260L tuner to my sound
card, then compressed to AAC, MP3 and FLAC respectively.

I think R3 FM only uses Optimod at certain times, but I don't listen
very frequently, so I might be wrong. Don't they use Optimod at
drive-time and then remove it / turn it down in the evening?

Heaps better than the other FM recordings, but not noticeably better
than the DAB, I'm afraid.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:25:59 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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?

The stations I listen to on DAB sound fine to me.


Well, this is part of the problem, because we will always be comparing
apples and oranges, because you probably listen to R3, R4 and maybe R5,
which are probably the least-affected radio stations on DAB, but my
issue is not about those stations; my issue is with regards to the
stereo music stations, which are being transmitted at 128kbps and sound
horrendous.

Does *anybody* listen to that other crap? Low bit rate is the least of
their problems.


The pop stations
are so heavily processed they sound awful on DAB or FM or DTV,


People of my generation will have grown up listening to stations that
have had dynamic range compression applied, so we're well used to that
sound, and I think it's mainly older people that object to it so
strongly. That's not to say that I like it, and especially the
commercial music stations apply it way too heavily. But it still beats
DAB hands-down. DAB just sounds nasty. It's muffled, constricted and
'orrible whereas, even with audio processing, the same stations on FM do
not suffer this. Good examples would be R1, R2 and Galaxy 102
(Manchester). On DAB they just sound nasty, whereas on FM they all use
audio processing but sound much better because of the lack of nasty
artefacts.

I don't get any artifacts on DAB, but then I live on top of the hill
at Hampstead Heath and get a signal on both DAB and TV that could
probably do with attenuation rather than anything else.

And if you think stations sound the same on FM and DTV then you've not
listened to them. Radio 1 especially sounds different on DTV. It varies
from show to show, because I think each producer for each DJ has their
own settings, but I listen to the Essential Selection on Fridays, and it
invariably sounds very good. You probably wouldn't like it, but you're
not meant to listen to it! The audio processing level on DTT is lower
than on FM and is significantly less intrusive.


so I'd
rather give them a miss regardless. Even if I liked most of their
music, which I don't.


Quite; they're not meant for you, so we're arguing about different
things.

My main objection with DAB is that in the beginning we were promised
compression (dynamic) free broadcast, and the ability to select our
own degree of compression on the receiver. Well, Arcam certainly kept
their promise for that last part, but the broadcasters went ahead and
compressed anyway. *******s.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:25:59 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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?

The stations I listen to on DAB sound fine to me.


Well, this is part of the problem, because we will always be
comparing apples and oranges, because you probably listen to R3, R4
and maybe R5, which are probably the least-affected radio stations
on DAB, but my issue is not about those stations; my issue is with
regards to the stereo music stations, which are being transmitted at
128kbps and sound horrendous.

Does *anybody* listen to that other crap? Low bit rate is the least of
their problems.


Yes, see:

http://www.rajar.co.uk/INDEX2.CFM?menuid=9

I think a more pertinent question would be: Does *anybody* listen to
Radio 3?


so I'd
rather give them a miss regardless. Even if I liked most of their
music, which I don't.


Quite; they're not meant for you, so we're arguing about different
things.

My main objection with DAB is that in the beginning we were promised
compression (dynamic) free broadcast, and the ability to select our
own degree of compression on the receiver. Well, Arcam certainly kept
their promise for that last part, but the broadcasters went ahead and
compressed anyway. *******s.


Yes, I agree with you there. But my main objection to DAB is that the
radio stations that I would listen to all use 128kbps and sound crap. R3
and R4 listeners are extremely lucky compared to everybody else.


--
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

I think a more pertinent question would be: Does *anybody* listen to
Radio 3?


Yes I do, good slogan they've got "Three your mind" )

Yes, I agree with you there. But my main objection to DAB is that the
radio stations that I would listen to all use 128kbps and sound crap. R3
and R4 listeners are extremely lucky compared to everybody else.


Well AFADAD goes they could give that bandwidth to some other station as
I don't use it....
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:45:57 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:25:59 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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?

The stations I listen to on DAB sound fine to me.


Well, this is part of the problem, because we will always be
comparing apples and oranges, because you probably listen to R3, R4
and maybe R5, which are probably the least-affected radio stations
on DAB, but my issue is not about those stations; my issue is with
regards to the stereo music stations, which are being transmitted at
128kbps and sound horrendous.

Does *anybody* listen to that other crap? Low bit rate is the least of
their problems.


Yes, see:

http://www.rajar.co.uk/INDEX2.CFM?menuid=9

I think a more pertinent question would be: Does *anybody* listen to
Radio 3?

Yes - me!


so I'd
rather give them a miss regardless. Even if I liked most of their
music, which I don't.


Quite; they're not meant for you, so we're arguing about different
things.

My main objection with DAB is that in the beginning we were promised
compression (dynamic) free broadcast, and the ability to select our
own degree of compression on the receiver. Well, Arcam certainly kept
their promise for that last part, but the broadcasters went ahead and
compressed anyway. *******s.


Yes, I agree with you there. But my main objection to DAB is that the
radio stations that I would listen to all use 128kbps and sound crap. R3
and R4 listeners are extremely lucky compared to everybody else.

But the big problem for you here is that most of those stations are
DAB-only; you don't have the option of listening to them on FM.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Does *anybody* listen to that other crap? Low bit rate is the least of
their problems.

Yes, see:

http://www.rajar.co.uk/INDEX2.CFM?menuid=9

Well, no. This researches "reach" and it does not actually tell
you who listens, only who tunes to a station. There is research
which differentiates (according to what I am told by a manufacturer
of broadcasters' kit - who uses it to decide on essential features)
between those who actually listen and those who merely have the station
on in the background. He says the results are quite different (and no
I don't know what his sources are).

I think a more pertinent question would be: Does *anybody* listen to
Radio 3?

I suspect quite a lot listen within the reach figures, however much
anyone wants to question the role of minority interests in quality public
broadcasting (using a wide definition of quality).

My main objection with DAB is that in the beginning we were promised
compression (dynamic) free broadcast, and the ability to select our
own degree of compression on the receiver. Well, Arcam certainly kept
their promise for that last part, but the broadcasters went ahead and
compressed anyway. *******s.

Yes, I agree with you there. But my main objection to DAB is that the
radio stations that I would listen to all use 128kbps and sound crap. R3
and R4 listeners are extremely lucky compared to everybody else.

It is a pity many recent arguments about bandwidth allocation have
descended into fixing the problem with specific stations based on their
purported popularity and the unimportance of other "minorities."

The fundamental issue seems to have been abandoned of radio bandwidth
available to cover all interests, including "minority" interests, as
per a public service broadcaster's obligation.

--
John Phillips

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

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:01:51 +0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
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?

"FM frequency planning is based upon external aerials at 10m above ground
level, which very very few people have, and therefore R1-4 on Freeview
would represent an improvement in reception for a very large number of
people "

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?se...1-gui.ntli.net

Someone must be impersonating you again.