Studer products have always been exceedingly well engineered, so although I
don't personally know this particular tuner, I would certainly bid on it if
I was looking for a tuner.

Good luck

S.


"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
writes

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


Perhaps you're listening to the wrong stations... :-)


I have given up on FM atm due to reception difficulties - I hope to
remedy
this soon this year, short of clamping an oil derrick to the side of the
house.

Keith your FM "difficulties" are simply lack of a good aerial as you
well know.



OK, I've not been idle - I've cut my dear old Luxman back into the loop
and fitted one of those 'T shaped' flexible aerials pro temps:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Luxmanback.JPG

....and am now getting a good mono sound (best for a long time) with just
a bit of scritchiness in stereo.

I know you done this before, but can I ask you to point me the *the* loft
aerial that will cure all my ills? It's gotta go in the loft, neither of
us want the disruption of an outside aerial (yet)!

Finally, I'm resolved to get this FM malarkey sorted now, I can't hack
this DAB **** any longer - like all else 'digital' it isn't as
foolproof/good as they claim and, as ever, quality is the first thing out
the bloody window....!!

While I'm on, what's this receiver like?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Worth throwing a few pahnd at it?

(I prefer a *knob* but it do look the biz and I like the 'name'...?? :-)

In article , Keith G
wrote:




OK, I've not been idle - I've cut my dear old Luxman back into the loop
and fitted one of those 'T shaped' flexible aerials pro temps:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Luxmanback.JPG

Alas, I can't read the tuning meter on the picture. Nor do know what the
calibration may be for the meter. Without calibration it may not tell you
much, beyond 'more is (probably) better than less'.

....and am now getting a good mono sound (best for a long time) with
just a bit of scritchiness in stereo.

That confirms you need a better input signal - assuming the tuner is OK.

I know you done this before, but can I ask you to point me the *the*
loft aerial that will cure all my ills? It's gotta go in the loft,
neither of us want the disruption of an outside aerial (yet)!

That depends on reception conditions where you live. For all we know a
simple dipole in the loft might work fine. Alternatively, you might need a
high gain array of some sort.

Finally, I'm resolved to get this FM malarkey sorted now, I can't hack
this DAB **** any longer - like all else 'digital' it isn't as
foolproof/good as they claim and, as ever, quality is the first thing
out the bloody window....!!

It would be more accurate to say, "Like all radio, the results will depend
on being able to pick up a satisfactory RF signal in the first place." As
such, that has nothing to do with either 'digital' or 'analog'... :-)

What are the specs of the FM tuner you already have? If it is a good one,
there would be little point buying a different one if the real problem is
that you need a decent FM antenna, well placed. (Similar comment for DAB.)

The reality with FM is that many people have good tuners, but then don't
ensure a decent RF signal. DAB can actually help with this as it is less
prone to some types of problems, but it still needs a reasonable signal to
work.

FWIW if all you need it a dipole, it is easy to make one that works
reasonably well for 'indoor' use. But a dipole - commercial or home-brew
won't be much use if the signal levels are too low.

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

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
However no modulation system can totally overcome the reality that in
some locations the signal level will drop to a low level due to local
multipath or blocking. Hence DAB may be 'better' than FM at dealing with
this, but can't be expected to ensure such problems *never* occur.

IIRC, the original idea was that more than one transmitter would cover
your area so that blocking from one probably wouldn't effect the other.

--
* What do they call a coffee break at the Lipton Tea Company? *

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

Roderick Stewart wrote:

All the more reason to make the "normal" transmission the compressed
version, so that the extra electronics is required in fewer receivers.

But that would never please thew purists who want the minimum interference
with the signal!


--
Cocker Spaniel Pups for Sale - ready now - one black dog left

tony sayer wrote:

Dunno about that our next door neighbour bought a Dab tuner on the
grounds that it would supposedly sound better, and he's not a happy
bunny with it....

I have a DAB portable, which is great for long baths or cooking sessions,
and a redundant DAB receiver in the living room (redundant since all the
radio I listen to is now available on freeview, and freeview is patched to
my AV amp digitally). I have FM in the bedroom and the car.

I'd say I'm happy with DAB for the purposes I have for it, and would really
like DAB in car...


--
Cocker Spaniel Pups for Sale - ready now - one black dog left

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
However no modulation system can totally overcome the reality that in
some locations the signal level will drop to a low level due to local
multipath or blocking. Hence DAB may be 'better' than FM at dealing
with this, but can't be expected to ensure such problems *never* occur.

IIRC, the original idea was that more than one transmitter would cover
your area so that blocking from one probably wouldn't effect the other.

I'm not quite sure of the 'genesis' of this, although I know it grew via
the Eureka project.

However I think the basic idea was to have a form of transmission which
would offer a high level of resistance to multipath effects. Thus to avoid
the sensitivity of FM to fading and distortion due to multipath.

One consequence of the system chosen (form of COFDM) was that it meant that
having multiple transmitters serving and area could also be regarded as
'deliberate' multipath. And could then be used to try and improve coverage
without the problems such multipath would cause to systems like analog FM.

Another was that this also provided Single Frequency Network operation
(SFN) which is very efficient in terrestrial broadcasting terms, and means
the receiver does not have to retune at all as it goes from one area to
another.

However I think what the engineers had in mind was to get away from the
distinct sensitivity of analog FM to multipath and fading. (In particular
for 'mobile' and portable uses). Also, where possible, avoid a need to keep
re-tuning the radio when on long journeys. With DAB I suspect they have
done this quite well. But no broadcast system like this can expect to
totally banish all multipath effects.

One snag is that although having other transmitters may 'fill in' areas not
covered by another, it may lead to local nulls and problem in others where
the two contributions are of similar power and timing. Hence it may 'cure'
difficulties in some locations, but create some in others.

Another problem was pointed out to me a while ago by someone.

This is that at times when there is a 'lift' in DX (distance) reception the
SFN becomes prone to problems caused by temporarily getting signals from
transmitters a long way from you. The resistance to multipath only extends
with the current DAB system to path differences of the order of 75 km. Thus
if you get some signals from longer distances combined with your local
signals, the results may become corrupted. However this should be 'rare' as
a problem.

The problems simply indicate that whatever broadcast system you use, you
can't expect it to always work in all circumstances. But I suspect the
reality is that - given decent TX powers and coverage - DAB should be much
more reliable in avoiding multipath or fade problems than FM. It also
should offer more resistance to impulse interference than DTTV as a result
of differences in the details of the modulation scheme. (This is probably a
good idea, as II seems more likely at 200MHz than at UHF.)

FWIW My personal experience thus far is that DAB may indeed be less
sensitive than DTTV to impulse interference where I live. This is with the
same TX locations and quite similar TX powers. Although it is much too soon
to try and draw any conclusions from this.

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

In article , Keith G
writes

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
writes

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


Perhaps you're listening to the wrong stations... :-)


I have given up on FM atm due to reception difficulties - I hope to remedy
this soon this year, short of clamping an oil derrick to the side of the
house.

Keith your FM "difficulties" are simply lack of a good aerial as you
well know.



OK, I've not been idle - I've cut my dear old Luxman back into the loop and
fitted one of those 'T shaped' flexible aerials pro temps:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Luxmanback.JPG

....and am now getting a good mono sound (best for a long time) with just a
bit of scritchiness in stereo.

I know you done this before, but can I ask you to point me the *the* loft
aerial that will cure all my ills? It's gotta go in the loft, neither of us
want the disruption of an outside aerial (yet)!


I can't think that a couple of wall brackets on the end of the Keith
gaff will upset any conservationists but the following from
www.cpc.co.uk should be your best bet.


http://cpc.farnell.com/jsp/endecaSea...KU=AP00410&N=0

If that link don't go then their stock code is AP00410

Use a good quality downlead too, such as CT100 satellite grade cable
well worth the loot the aerial is about 20 quid.. not a fortune

and make sure you've cobbled it together right and aim it at
PETERBOURGH!...


Finally, I'm resolved to get this FM malarkey sorted now, I can't hack this
DAB **** any longer - like all else 'digital' it isn't as foolproof/good as
they claim and, as ever, quality is the first thing out the bloody
window....!!

While I'm on, what's this receiver like?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...&sspage name=
STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

Dunno about that its not listed on,

http://www.fmtunerinfo.com/reviewsO-Z.html#studer

But generally Studer stuff is very well made and performs very well.
Failing that and Audiolab T8000 you can get these on e-bay from time to
time is excellent, but even the humble Denon TU260 Mk2 is an excellent
performer, and is very good value for money, around less than a ton
online


Worth throwing a few pahnd at it?

(I prefer a *knob* but it do look the biz and I like the 'name'...?? :-)

Oh yes the name Got a B67 in my livin room, sure looks good;-!...





--
Tony Sayer

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , gordon
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Do you know where you are getting your 11D and 12D from?

No. Window faces S, ground floor, stone house. So KoS, Blackhill,
Craigkelly are all a bit obscured. [Back to an earlier question - if a
block is from various transmitters on the same frequency, how can you
tell which?]

Not a question that can always be easily answered for a SFN - although I
plan to have a try sometime in the next couple of months. :-)

In principle, you can try and diagnose this is various ways.

1) By using a highly directional antenna and plotting the signal level as a
function of bearing. This may give some clue as to which directions the
signals are coming from. However might need a very directional antenna, and
only work if not 'swamped' by many local reflections or standing waves.

2) By examining the received waveform in the time domain. This will show
effects due to different times of arrivals of the contributions. Thus
giving info on the relative path lengths to the TXs and/or noticable
reflections.

3) By examining the time-averaged spectrum of the RF signal. As with the
above, this will have interferometric modulation on it which would indicate
the path differences between contributions. This is where the wide RF
bandwidth of DAB is useful and the quasi-flat nominal power spectral
density. You can use the non-flat fade pattern to work out path differences
provided the differences are large enough to show a clear modulation on the
spectrum.

Umm, bit out of my range!

Looking at http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/index.html (do you know of
a better reference link?) I see that the multiplexes I get good
reception from (12A, 12B, 11D) are broadcast from Craigkelly and KoS.
12D (the problem one) comes from Craigkelly and Blackhill. Craigkelly is
very shielded from the window, so maybe Blackhill is the problem - but
it's just next to KoS isn't it? Transmitter power? Something more
subtle?

I'd like to complain to BBC Scotland, but I don't know what exactly to
complain about! Ideally - why are you blasting this Gaelic dross over
central Scotland and whispering in English, but I don't imagine it's as
simple as that :-)

Cheers, Gordon

In article , gordon
wrote:


Looking at http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/index.html (do you know of
a better reference link?) I see that the multiplexes I get good
reception from (12A, 12B, 11D) are broadcast from Craigkelly and KoS.
12D (the problem one) comes from Craigkelly and Blackhill. Craigkelly is
very shielded from the window, so maybe Blackhill is the problem - but
it's just next to KoS isn't it? Transmitter power? Something more
subtle?


The list of sites I got from the BBC in October gives

KoS 10kW NS858636

and

Craigkelly 5kW NT233872

on its list of TXs for the BBC 'National' SFN.

However the list *doesn't* include Black Hill as a DAB TX location, despite
being a page dated 5th Oct 2005. I guess that confirms what you write above
in that it isn't being used for the BBC National DAB multiplex.

On a DTTV TX List I can get

Black Hill ?? NS828647

Where I've used '??' to mean I have no idea of the power being radiated
from there for DAB. Since this data is from a 'TV' list the grid ref might
be slightly wrong for DAB, but it is probably good enough.

I haven't been able to find a full and up-to-date list of *all* the UK DAB
TXs, including all powers and Muxs - i.e. with all the local and/or
commercial stations as well as the BBC National one. I also find it
irritating that the BBC don't even mention Black Hill in their DAB list. It
would be helpful if they'd mentioned sites even if they only provide
'local' multiplexes.

Perhaps they haven't done this as it irritates them to have to 'rent
space' on other providers multiplexes. :-) However I'll have another
search and see if I can find a list of 'local' RX site grid references
and powers that might cover this.

Nor have I been able to find as yet any service area maps that give
field-strength contours or nominal boundaries.

Hence the 'poor' service you get for one mux/TX rather than others may be
due to low power, or a different location, or a different radiation
patterns from the TX - i.e. it may be mainly be radiating in other
directions to your location. Difficult to tell at this point due to lack of
info about the TXs...

However I assume that the root of the problem you have with being able
to pick up BBC Gael more easily than BBC Scotland is that the BBC have
had to be 'opportunistic' about which local/area providors to rent
space from to provide these. Here they seem to have been able to get
both onto the same 'local' multiplex, but I guess that elsewhere the
local operators were not willing to provide enough bandwith for that.

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , gordon
wrote:


Looking at http://www.wohnort.demon.co.uk/DAB/index.html (do you know of
a better reference link?) I see that the multiplexes I get good
reception from (12A, 12B, 11D) are broadcast from Craigkelly and KoS.
12D (the problem one) comes from Craigkelly and Blackhill. Craigkelly is
very shielded from the window, so maybe Blackhill is the problem - but
it's just next to KoS isn't it? Transmitter power? Something more
subtle?


The list of sites I got from the BBC in October gives

KoS 10kW NS858636

and

Craigkelly 5kW NT233872

on its list of TXs for the BBC 'National' SFN.

However the list *doesn't* include Black Hill as a DAB TX location, despite
being a page dated 5th Oct 2005. I guess that confirms what you write above
in that it isn't being used for the BBC National DAB multiplex.

On a DTTV TX List I can get

Black Hill ?? NS828647

Where I've used '??' to mean I have no idea of the power being radiated
from there for DAB. Since this data is from a 'TV' list the grid ref might
be slightly wrong for DAB, but it is probably good enough.

I haven't been able to find a full and up-to-date list of *all* the UK DAB
TXs, including all powers and Muxs - i.e. with all the local and/or
commercial stations as well as the BBC National one. I also find it
irritating that the BBC don't even mention Black Hill in their DAB list. It
would be helpful if they'd mentioned sites even if they only provide
'local' multiplexes.

Funny they mostly use the name Black Hill (TV, FM), but they use KoS as
the location of the BBC's own digital radio TX. Colloquially everyone
refers to Kirk o' Shotts. Are they really the same place anyway?


Perhaps they haven't done this as it irritates them to have to 'rent
space' on other providers multiplexes. :-) However I'll have another
search and see if I can find a list of 'local' RX site grid references
and powers that might cover this.

Nor have I been able to find as yet any service area maps that give
field-strength contours or nominal boundaries.

Hence the 'poor' service you get for one mux/TX rather than others may be
due to low power, or a different location, or a different radiation
patterns from the TX - i.e. it may be mainly be radiating in other
directions to your location. Difficult to tell at this point due to lack of
info about the TXs...

Are these main transmitters not likely to be omnidirectional? I know
that doesn't mean even coverage on the ground.


However I assume that the root of the problem you have with being able
to pick up BBC Gael more easily than BBC Scotland is that the BBC have
had to be 'opportunistic' about which local/area providors to rent
space from to provide these. Here they seem to have been able to get
both onto the same 'local' multiplex, but I guess that elsewhere the
local operators were not willing to provide enough bandwith for that.


The 12D multiplex is operated by Score Digital, but that may be at arm's
length from the transmitter. Score is part of Scottish Radio Holdings,
but their website is light on technical info. No obvious connection with
the BBC - your last para sounds v plausible. it would be nice to know
its power - if less than 11D that would be some grounds for complaint.

Gordon