| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
DAB R3 balance
I'm getting poor R3 DAB quality right now (2005/02/10-20:00). Normally it
sounds exactly like FM except no background noise, but since last night the frequency extremes are missing. FM is OK, so the audio stages of the tuner are working properly, and I've fed the digital output into a Minidisc recorder to use a different DAC and the muffled effect is present. Hard to see what's left in the receiver (Sony ST-D777ES) for it to be a fault there. Anyone else hear this? Patrick Wallace -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
DAB R3 balance
"Pat Wallace" wrote in message
... I'm getting poor R3 DAB quality right now (2005/02/10-20:00). Normally it sounds exactly like FM except no background noise, but since last night the frequency extremes are missing. FM is OK, so the audio stages of the tuner are working properly, and I've fed the digital output into a Minidisc recorder to use a different DAC and the muffled effect is present. Hard to see what's left in the receiver (Sony ST-D777ES) for it to be a fault there. Anyone else hear this? Patrick Wallace -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could be worth your time to download the free 4n1tool[1].zip from the web. It'll give you a spectrum analyser and other goodies with which you'll be able to measure what's going on. -- M Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm |
DAB R3 balance
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..... -- 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 , 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, but since last night the frequency extremes are missing. FM is OK, so the audio stages of the tuner are working properly, and I've fed the digital output into a Minidisc recorder to use a different DAC and the muffled effect is present. Hard to see what's left in the receiver (Sony ST-D777ES) for it to be a fault there. Anyone else hear this? YES. I just did a check (2005-02-11 at 13:45) and yes, R3/DAB is very muffled at the moment. I just compared it to R3/DTTV. Up to now the two have been indistinguishable (well, apart from the extra delay on DTTV). I wonder what's happened to R3/DAB - it's horrible at the moment. -- John Phillips |
DAB R3 balance
In article , John Phillips
writes In article , 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, but since last night the frequency extremes are missing. FM is OK, so the audio stages of the tuner are working properly, and I've fed the digital output into a Minidisc recorder to use a different DAC and the muffled effect is present. Hard to see what's left in the receiver (Sony ST-D777ES) for it to be a fault there. Anyone else hear this? YES. I just did a check (2005-02-11 at 13:45) and yes, R3/DAB is very muffled at the moment. I just compared it to R3/DTTV. Up to now the two have been indistinguishable (well, apart from the extra delay on DTTV). I wonder what's happened to R3/DAB - it's horrible at the moment. Probably had its bit rate cut to even it out with the other bit disadvantaged channels;( -- Tony Sayer |
DAB R3 balance
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? I don't have the very best MP3 codecs on this computer, but most of the things I download sound ok. -- *Funny, I don't remember being absent minded. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
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 |
DAB R3 balance
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes 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. Can't say I've noticed the splats on the DAB one, or the heterodyning on the FM one, but from that site on both DAB and DTV there is something twiddling away on the quiet parts. But as I do my critical listening in the ESL63's (I've only used phones) as I've not got this connected to the PC as yet. There is a bit of background hiss but the sound on both seems a tad unpleasant..... -- Tony Sayer |
DAB R3 balance
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 The MP2 file is the raw bitstream recorded directly to hard drive. The FM was recorded from my Denon tuner via my sound card and then encoded at high bit rate (VBR, IIRC). , there are splats on the DAB sample which you simply don't get in reality, I know, relatively poor reception at the time. -- 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
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News) writes 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. Can't say I've noticed the splats on the DAB one, It depends on the MP3 software you're using to playback. Some of the MP3 players hide the splat, while others don't. -- 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 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. I disagree. -- 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 ,
tony sayer wrote: 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. Can't say I've noticed the splats on the DAB one, or the heterodyning on the FM one, but from that site on both DAB and DTV there is something twiddling away on the quiet parts. But as I do my critical listening in the ESL63's (I've only used phones) as I've not got this connected to the PC as yet. I listened at a level I'd use for problem checking - and nothing like some would use. And not on my main system. There is a bit of background hiss but the sound on both seems a tad unpleasant..... Very much so. At first, I thought I had a different problem, so listened to a few known MP3 files I had on HD. Then did another download. And again. Still the same, so concluded they are naff samples - or something wrong with the playout. -- *Why don't sheep shrink when it rains? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
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. |
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. |
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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
DAB R3 balance
In article , tony sayer wrote:
In article , John Phillips writes In article , 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, but since last night the frequency extremes are missing. ... Anyone else hear this? YES. I just did a check (2005-02-11 at 13:45) and yes, R3/DAB is very muffled at the moment. I just compared it to R3/DTTV. Up to now the two have been indistinguishable (well, apart from the extra delay on DTTV). I wonder what's happened to R3/DAB - it's horrible at the moment. Probably had its bit rate cut to even it out with the other bit disadvantaged channels;( I started wondering about whether those who listen to R3 on DAB had indeed got our come-uppance for being elitist. However it seems to be back to normal this morning (2005-02-12 at 08:40). The top end of R3/DAB seems to be back in place and both R3/DAB and R3/DTTV sound the same again (as I think they should at 192 kbit/s for both). -- John Phillips |
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 |
DAB R3 balance
In article , Pat Wallace
writes 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps it was a try on to see how many would notice and complain;!. Suppose the BBC ministry of truth has been wheeled out again.... -- Tony Sayer |
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 |
DAB R3 balance
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. Download the other R3 sample: http://83.142.53.30/~digital/radio3_dab.mp2 (4.4 MB) the following 3 files are of the same recording, just encoded to different formats: 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. -- 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
Pat Wallace wrote:
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. R3 is changed to 160kbps whenever Radio 5 Sports Extra goes on-air in the daytime. For example, rugby is on from 3.30 this afternoon, and R3 will be 160kbps while it is on. -- 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
John Phillips wrote:
In article , tony sayer wrote: In article , John Phillips writes In article , 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, but since last night the frequency extremes are missing. ... Anyone else hear this? YES. I just did a check (2005-02-11 at 13:45) and yes, R3/DAB is very muffled at the moment. I just compared it to R3/DTTV. Up to now the two have been indistinguishable (well, apart from the extra delay on DTTV). I wonder what's happened to R3/DAB - it's horrible at the moment. Probably had its bit rate cut to even it out with the other bit disadvantaged channels;( I started wondering about whether those who listen to R3 on DAB had indeed got our come-uppance for being elitist. However it seems to be back to normal this morning (2005-02-12 at 08:40). Personally, I don't see how they can justify allocating 192kbps to Radio 3 while all their other music stations use 128kbps and R3 is on DTT, digital satellite and almost certainly cable at 192kbps. The top end of R3/DAB seems to be back in place and both R3/DAB and R3/DTTV sound the same again (as I think they should at 192 kbit/s for both). Yes, they should sound identical. -- 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 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. Okay, see which you think is best out of these (I did say that there were other, larger samples at the bottom of the page): Download the other R3 sample: http://83.142.53.30/~digital/radio3_dab.mp2 (4.4 MB) the following 3 files are of the same recording, just encoded to different formats: 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. -- 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
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:11:45 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: 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. Okay, see which you think is best out of these (I did say that there were other, larger samples at the bottom of the page): Download the other R3 sample: http://83.142.53.30/~digital/radio3_dab.mp2 (4.4 MB) the following 3 files are of the same recording, just encoded to different formats: 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. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DAB R3 balance
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. The pop stations are so heavily processed they sound awful on DAB or FM or DTV, so I'd rather give them a miss regardless. Even if I liked most of their music, which I don't. -- *Virtual reality is its own reward* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
DAB R3 balance
"DAB sounds worse than FM" schreef in bericht ... It depends on the MP3 software you're using to playback. Some of the MP3 players hide the splat, while others don't. What do you mean: splat? gr, hwh |
DAB R3 balance
hwh wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" schreef in bericht ... It depends on the MP3 software you're using to playback. Some of the MP3 players hide the splat, while others don't. 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. -- 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 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? -- 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: It depends on the MP3 software you're using to playback. Some of the MP3 players hide the splat, while others don't. Mine probably doesn't since it's a RISC OS one, and basic. However, I've not had any problems with it on the many other samples I've got. -- *If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
DAB R3 balance
"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. gr, hwh |
DAB R3 balance
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 |
DAB R3 balance
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 |
DAB R3 balance
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 |
DAB R3 balance
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 |
DAB R3 balance
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 |
DAB R3 balance
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 |
DAB R3 balance
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 |
DAB R3 balance
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 |
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 |
DAB R3 balance
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk