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.

DAB R3 balance
 

John Phillips wrote:
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"


Did you actually look at the page? RAJAR researches more than just
"reach"; they also survey the number of hours that people listen, and
from this calculate the total number of hours that people listen and the
% share of listening. And it's these parameters that should worry any
Radio 3 fanatic who is trying to justify why Radio 3 is provided with a
50% higher bit rate than Radio 1, Radio 2, 6 Music and 1Xtra on DAB.

For example, the combined % share of listening for Radios 1 & 2 is
24.6%, whereas the % share of listening for Radio 3 is just 1.3%. In
other words, there's 19 times as many hours spent listening to Radios 1
& 2 as there are listening to R3.


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).


Basically, Radios 1 & 2 only needs 1 person out of every 19 people
listening to make it so that there's more people listening than on Radio
3, and that's assuming that every Radio 3 listener never does anything
other than listen.


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

I suspect quite a lot listen within the reach figures,


2.1 million people. It would help if you actually look at the page I
gave a link to.


however much
anyone wants to question the role of minority interests in quality
public broadcasting (using a wide definition of quality).


I am not questioning the role of minority interests; I'm questioning why
Radio 3 has a 50% higher bit rate than Radios 1 & 2, despite the fact
that Radios 1 & 2 have a combined share of listening that is 19 times
higher than Radio 3's, and that classical music is actually easier to
compress than virtually all the music you'd get on Radios 1 & 2, AND
that Radio 3 is available on Freeview, digital satellite and cable at
192kbps.


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."


There just isn't a strong argument why Radio 3 should have a 50% higher
bit rate than Radios 1 & 2 other than arguments that rely solely on
elitism and nonsense.


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.


Which bit of this do you not understand?:

Radio 3 has a 50% higher bit rate than Radio 1 despite Radio 1's music
being more difficult to encode and Radio 1 having far more listeners
than Radio 3.
Radio 3 has a 50% higher bit rate than Radio 2 despite Radio 2's music
being more difficult to encode and Radio 2 having far more listeners
than Radio 3.


--
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

DAB R3 balance
 

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

Did you actually look at the page? RAJAR researches more than just
"reach"; they also survey the number of hours that people listen, and
from this calculate the total number of hours that people listen and the
% share of listening. And it's these parameters that should worry any
Radio 3 fanatic who is trying to justify why Radio 3 is provided with a
50% higher bit rate than Radio 1, Radio 2, 6 Music and 1Xtra on DAB.

I did indeed read the RAJAR pages (well the ones that showed and explained
the figures - I don't have semi-infinite amounts of time). The RAJAR
research, as I said, does not address the listening issues which had been
brought to my attention by a manufacturer of current broadcast kit (used
by BBC and others). He has reported a number of separate listening issues
which inform his designs for kit and the parameters set by broadcasters.

Which bit of this do you not understand?:
snip

Well, I am a little disappointed that you repeat the same points as
before and resort to the ad homienem. That is a fairly well trodden
path for network news (and I suppose I should have expected it rather
than hoping for better) but unfortunately it creates more heat than light.

Your point of view seems a little narrow and perhaps could do with
being wider. I guess I will descend just this once to the suggestion
you might like to read Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" for an exposition on
narrow realities. I have found his best known point to be wise and
useful in practice. I will practice it now.

--
John Phillips

DAB R3 balance
 

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

Did you actually look at the page? RAJAR researches more than just
"reach"; they also survey the number of hours that people listen, and
from this calculate the total number of hours that people listen and
the % share of listening. And it's these parameters that should
worry any Radio 3 fanatic who is trying to justify why Radio 3 is
provided with a 50% higher bit rate than Radio 1, Radio 2, 6 Music
and 1Xtra on DAB.

I did indeed read the RAJAR pages (well the ones that showed and
explained the figures - I don't have semi-infinite amounts of time).
The RAJAR research, as I said, does not address the listening issues
which had been brought to my attention by a manufacturer of current
broadcast kit (used by BBC and others).


Here's your original claim (brackets deleted):

"There is research which differentiates between those who actually
listen and those who merely have the station on in the background. He
says the results are quite different"

For there to be more people actually listening to Radio 3 than people
actually listening to Radios 1 or 2 then there would have to be 19 times
as many people actually listening to Radio 3, and that is obviously not
going to be the case.


He has reported a number of
separate listening issues which inform his designs for kit and the
parameters set by broadcasters.

Which bit of this do you not understand?:
snip

Well, I am a little disappointed that you repeat the same points as
before and resort to the ad homienem. That is a fairly well trodden
path for network news (and I suppose I should have expected it rather
than hoping for better) but unfortunately it creates more heat than
light.


Well, I've argued this issue over and over, and have yet to be convinced
in the slightest that Radio 3 should have a 50% higher bit rate than
Radios 1 & 2. Given the following reason, I really do not have a clue
how you can actually argue that Radio 3 should have a far higher bit
rate than Radios 1 or 2:

* for a given level of audio quality, music on Radios 1 is as good as
certain to require a higher bit rate than Radio 3, and music on Radio 2
is very likely to require a higher bit rate than Radio 3;

And if you're going to fall back on the "Radio 3 listeners actually
listen" argument, then that is a number of listeners issue -- the exact
thing that you hate so much.


Your point of view seems a little narrow


Mine are narrow? The only supporting argument for Radio 3 using a 50%
higher bit rate is really "Radio 3 is just more deserving than Radios 1
& 2".



--
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

DAB R3 balance
 

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

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.


Out of the 37 stations I can receive on DAB in Manchester, there's 10
stations that are also on FM, 2 DAB-only stations (Life and DNN), 5
stations are also on MW, and the remainder are digital-only, by which I
mean they're available on more than one digital platform (I dislike the
use of digital radio to mean DAB, because a station on Freeview, say, is
just as much a digital radio station as it is on DAB).

All of the stations I listen to are also on FM, and are 128kbps on DAB.


--
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

DAB R3 balance
 

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Well, I've argued this issue over and over, and have yet to be convinced
in the slightest that Radio 3 should have a 50% higher bit rate than
Radios 1 & 2. Given the following reason, I really do not have a clue
how you can actually argue that Radio 3 should have a far higher bit
rate than Radios 1 or 2:

Clue. Look at the dynamic range of the samples on your website. R1&2 -
about 3 dB. R3 - about 25.

--
*Why is a boxing ring square?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

DAB R3 balance
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Well, I've argued this issue over and over, and have yet to be
convinced in the slightest that Radio 3 should have a 50% higher bit
rate than Radios 1 & 2. Given the following reason, I really do not
have a clue how you can actually argue that Radio 3 should have a
far higher bit rate than Radios 1 or 2:

Clue. Look at the dynamic range of the samples on your website. R1&2 -
about 3 dB. R3 - about 25.


Exactly! It is the narrow dynamic range that makes R1 and R2 more
difficult to encode than R3.

I bet that's confused ya!


--
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

DAB R3 balance
 

In article , DAB sounds worse than
FM wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Well, I've argued this issue over and over, and have yet to be
convinced in the slightest that Radio 3 should have a 50% higher bit
rate than Radios 1 & 2. Given the following reason, I really do not
have a clue how you can actually argue that Radio 3 should have a far
higher bit rate than Radios 1 or 2:

Clue. Look at the dynamic range of the samples on your website. R1&2 -
about 3 dB. R3 - about 25.


Exactly! It is the narrow dynamic range that makes R1 and R2 more
difficult to encode than R3.

I bet that's confused ya!

It has certainly puzzled me. Can you explain your reasoning and define what
you mean by "more difficult"?

FWIW I have no experience of DAB. But with freeview the times I (think!) I
may have noticed problems with R3 are mostly when the sound levels are
quite low. e.g. Strings playing very quietly. i.e. at levels well below
what I hear on R2.

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

DAB R3 balance
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:
Well, I've argued this issue over and over, and have yet to be
convinced in the slightest that Radio 3 should have a 50% higher
bit rate than Radios 1 & 2. Given the following reason, I really
do not have a clue how you can actually argue that Radio 3 should
have a far higher bit rate than Radios 1 or 2:

Clue. Look at the dynamic range of the samples on your website.
R1&2 - about 3 dB. R3 - about 25.


Exactly! It is the narrow dynamic range that makes R1 and R2 more
difficult to encode than R3.

I bet that's confused ya!

It has certainly puzzled me. Can you explain your reasoning and
define what you mean by "more difficult"?


The noise to mask ratio (NMR - noise (error) energy to energy under
masking curve for each subband) gives a measure of coding head-room, and
you want it to be as low as possible (i.e. noise as far below the
masking threshold as possible). Because Radios 1 & 2 and all the pop
stations have audio processing applied then the spectrum tends to be
wide and flat, which tends to result in aa lot of remaining frequency
components after the psychoacoustic model has produced the masking
curves to throw away the inaudible subbands. The same is not true for
classical music, because its spectrum isn't as flat, and on average less
frequency components remain after masking. Therefore, for a given bit
rate, there are more bits per post-masking frequency component for Radio
3 than for Radios 1 & 2, thus the NMR is superior (lower) for Radio 3,
because the noise energy is the quantisation noise, which decreases as
the bits per frequency component encoded increases.


FWIW I have no experience of DAB. But with freeview the times I
(think!) I may have noticed problems with R3 are mostly when the
sound levels are quite low. e.g. Strings playing very quietly. i.e.
at levels well below what I hear on R2.


Dynamic range and sound level for MPEG-encoded audio are irrelevant,
because the MPEG encoder changes the sample values to floating point.


--
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

DAB R3 balance
 

Returning again to the original topic of the thread, I can report
that the BBC have confirmed that "there was a problem with some of
the coders on Radio 3 but we believe that all is now fixed".

Patrick Wallace
------------------------------------------------------------------