In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:54:05 +0000, wrote:

On 28 Dec 2005 04:32:56 -0800, "David Lodge"
wrote:

Thanks Don, I think I heard that freeview was better quality that DAB,
so you've just confirmed that and in so doing also confirmed that I
don't need another source component.

Do you know what bitrate Radio 3 runs at ?

192k on Freeview, mostly 160k on DAB, although very rarely 192k - and
likely to get worse rather than better.

My experience so far with DAB R3 is that it is much more often 192kbps than
160kbps.

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 , Serge Auckland
wrote:


At the time DAB was first put into service, and even within the first
year when take-up of receivers was exceedingly small, they had an
opportunity to change to MP3, but chose not to. Also, the choice of 48k
sampling was a mistake with hindsight, as sampling at a lower rate would
create less data, and therefore there is less data to reduce, with a
better sounding result.

I think we need to distinguish between data and information here. :-)

My impression/understanding is that the actual amount of information
content for most music tends, statistically, to be relatively low once you
go above around 10-15kHz. One that basis I am not sure that dropping from a
48ks/s to 32ks/s rate would have much effect on the amount of actual
spectral *information* to remove/keep.

My understanding at present is that the BBC tend to use 48ks/s as their
standard rate for music recordings/broadcasts, etc. (At least for radio.)
On that basis it may make sense to avoid any unnecessary rate conversions
if they can.

Sampling at 32kHz would have resulted in the same bandwidth as FM, and
have improved the DAB audio quality to match or even exceed FM.

Can you provide any actual evidence to support the above? It is an
interesting hypothesis, but I have no data on it, and am not at all sure it
is correct. so I'd be interested to see any work that sheds light on it.

[snip]

However, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that in the UK, DAB has been
a success, driven by all the new services that are available on DAB
only. In the rest of Europe, DAB has been struggling, even has failed,
as they kept the quality up, but then didn't have the capacity for new
services. Joe Public can't see the benefit of DAB just to received the
same services as on FM, so receiver sales have been lamentable. No
receivers, no possibility of additional revenue.

As I understand it, in France DAB is ready for a resurgence, but only
after Broadcasters have seen the success of the UK model, lots of new
services at, for the public at least, acceptable quality.

I have mixed feelings about the above. :-)

I have been canvassing/observing the views of some people who have no
particular interest in 'hi fi' as I've become curious about this. It does
seem to be the case that people buy DAB radios, etc, for the 'extra
stations' it offers them, and the convenience of the 'easier tuning' for
things like portable radios.

If this was what the BBC had in mind to help drive the take-up of DAB, then
it may be that their strategy is correct in those terms - despite those of
us with an interest in 'audio' regretting the levels of data reduction
involved.

FWIW I also bought a DAB 'adaptor' primarily for the World Service and
BBC7.

A year or so ago, I would have said that I'd seen no real signs of DAB
really becoming popular. However more recently, I have had the impression
that the number of people buying and using DAB recievers is growing
significantly. Not seen any reliable statistics on this, though. Anyone
know of any that are up-to-date?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:34:39 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:54:05 +0000, wrote:

On 28 Dec 2005 04:32:56 -0800, "David Lodge"
wrote:

Thanks Don, I think I heard that freeview was better quality that DAB,
so you've just confirmed that and in so doing also confirmed that I
don't need another source component.

Do you know what bitrate Radio 3 runs at ?

192k on Freeview, mostly 160k on DAB, although very rarely 192k - and
likely to get worse rather than better.

My experience so far with DAB R3 is that it is much more often 192kbps than
160kbps.

Slainte,

Jim

Maybe different here in London? I seem to see 160k quite a lot here.

d

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

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:34:39 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


192k on Freeview, mostly 160k on DAB, although very rarely 192k - and
likely to get worse rather than better.

My experience so far with DAB R3 is that it is much more often 192kbps
than 160kbps.


Maybe different here in London? I seem to see 160k quite a lot here.

Is it not a national SFN? If so, presumably, they have to transmit exactly
the same from all the TXs in synchronism.

The few occasions I've seen 160kbps for R3 DAB was late afternoon for
periods of around an hour or so. IIRC the last occasion I noticed was a
Jazz item. However the Jazz program that is on as I write is 192kbps.

I've not kept any systematic note, but my impression so far is that it has
been 192kbps over 90% of the time I've looked. But having gained this
impression, I have checked less often recently.

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 message
...
In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:


At the time DAB was first put into service, and even within the first
year when take-up of receivers was exceedingly small, they had an
opportunity to change to MP3, but chose not to. Also, the choice of 48k
sampling was a mistake with hindsight, as sampling at a lower rate would
create less data, and therefore there is less data to reduce, with a
better sounding result.

I think we need to distinguish between data and information here. :-)

Absolutely right, and choosing a lower sample rate would create less data
whilst losing very little if any information.

My impression/understanding is that the actual amount of information
content for most music tends, statistically, to be relatively low once you
go above around 10-15kHz. One that basis I am not sure that dropping from
a
48ks/s to 32ks/s rate would have much effect on the amount of actual
spectral *information* to remove/keep.

This information has come from former friends and colleagues at the BBC.
Apparantly a significant contribution to data above 10-15kHz comes from
broadband noise. With a sample rate of 48k, a fair amount of data is created
just by coding noise. That's one of the reasons why the audio bandwidth is
being restricted before the MPEG coding process, so there's more data
available for coding what's considered important.


My understanding at present is that the BBC tend to use 48ks/s as their
standard rate for music recordings/broadcasts, etc. (At least for radio.)
On that basis it may make sense to avoid any unnecessary rate conversions
if they can.

Partly correct: The BBC have started a programme to replace all their on-air
studios with digital mixers. 44.1kHz sampling is used in all their radio
studios for the very good reason that music comes off CD (either directly,
or from a hard-disk playout system) and pre-recorded programmes come into
the BBC on CDR, thus also 44.1k sampled. Live microphone feeds are converted
at 44.1k and the final network output is converted only once to 48k for
DAB/DSat/DDTV distribution. BBC engineers are very keen to avoid multiple
sample-rate conversions.

Television studios and news studios(for both radio and TV) sample at 48k, as
in this case, there are fewer pre-recorded contributions at 44.1, so the TV
programme audio and news provide their output at 48k. This has created the
need for dual 44.1/48k routing, distibution and monitoring infrastructure
within Broadcasting House in London and in the main regional centres.


Sampling at 32kHz would have resulted in the same bandwidth as FM, and
have improved the DAB audio quality to match or even exceed FM.

Can you provide any actual evidence to support the above? It is an
interesting hypothesis, but I have no data on it, and am not at all sure
it
is correct. so I'd be interested to see any work that sheds light on it.

As mentioned above, this information was gleaned as part of my previous work
with the BBC and as the UK distributor for Orban processors. There is a
great deal of information on processing for DAB on Orban's web site
www.orban.com


However, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that in the UK, DAB has been
a success, driven by all the new services that are available on DAB
only. In the rest of Europe, DAB has been struggling, even has failed,
as they kept the quality up, but then didn't have the capacity for new
services. Joe Public can't see the benefit of DAB just to received the
same services as on FM, so receiver sales have been lamentable. No
receivers, no possibility of additional revenue.

As I understand it, in France DAB is ready for a resurgence, but only
after Broadcasters have seen the success of the UK model, lots of new
services at, for the public at least, acceptable quality.

I have mixed feelings about the above. :-)

Me too, but as far as I know, DAB has only been successful in the UK so far
where it has provided many additional servics, and has pretty much failed
elsewhere, especially where there have been no additional services. In
France, the overseas market I am most familiar with, all commercial
broadcasters either did not go to DAB or withdrew, when they found that
receiver sales were nil, and that the public wasn't interested in having DAB
to receive the same stuff they could get on FM. They are now looking to
relaunch DAB with additional digital-only services.


Happy New Year

S.

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
I have been canvassing/observing the views of some people who have no
particular interest in 'hi fi' as I've become curious about this. It does
seem to be the case that people buy DAB radios, etc, for the 'extra
stations' it offers them, and the convenience of the 'easier tuning' for
things like portable radios.

Yup - my experience too, and including some broadcast pros, although not
necessarily sound ones.

If this was what the BBC had in mind to help drive the take-up of DAB,
then it may be that their strategy is correct in those terms - despite
those of us with an interest in 'audio' regretting the levels of data
reduction involved.

DAB was around for quite some time at reasonable data rates and it was
near universally ignored by the 'Hi-Fi' set. Now they're calling foul that
it's been altered to appeal more to the masses.

--
*Tell me to 'stuff it' - I'm a taxidermist.

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

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
My experience so far with DAB R3 is that it is much more often 192kbps than
160kbps.

Slainte,

Jim

Maybe different here in London? I seem to see 160k quite a lot here.

192 at the moment. ;-)

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

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

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
As mentioned above, this information was gleaned as part of my previous
work with the BBC and as the UK distributor for Orban processors.

[Sharp intake of breath]

So you're the one to blame, then?

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
As mentioned above, this information was gleaned as part of my previous
work with the BBC and as the UK distributor for Orban processors.

[Sharp intake of breath]

So you're the one to blame, then?

I'm very happy to be associated with Orban processors, (exceptionally well
engineered and, in the latest models, staggering in the audio quality --when
set up properly--. Somewhat less happy to hear what some of my former
customers have acually done with the things. Bit like selling a rare malt
whisky to find it being mixed with Coke.

Happy New Year to all.

S.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

DAB was around for quite some time at reasonable data rates and it was
near universally ignored by the 'Hi-Fi' set. Now they're calling foul
that it's been altered to appeal more to the masses.

That's beacause DAB sounds worse than FM

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