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

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

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

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

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

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

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