The Guardian on digital radio
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1687880,00.html

BugBear

The Guardian on digital radio
 

bugbear wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1687880,00.html

"DAB gives CD-quality sound if you reach a bit-rate of 192,000 bits a
second (192kb/s)"

This is wrong isn't it? Isn't the CD bitrate 256k/bs?

The Guardian on digital radio
 

"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...
bugbear wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1687880,00.html

"DAB gives CD-quality sound if you reach a bit-rate of 192,000 bits a
second (192kb/s)"

This is wrong isn't it? Isn't the CD bitrate 256k/bs?

As they say: do the math:

2 channels times 44,100 samples per second times 16 bits per samples is???

1,411,200 bits per second.

The Guardian on digital radio
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...

bugbear wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1687880,00.html


"DAB gives CD-quality sound if you reach a bit-rate of 192,000 bits a
second (192kb/s)"

This is wrong isn't it? Isn't the CD bitrate 256k/bs?


As they say: do the math:

2 channels times 44,100 samples per second times 16 bits per samples is???

1,411,200 bits per second.



Further to the OP's question, DAB is compressed, and CD is raw.

So one would expect the DAB rate to be lower. The big question
is (of course) how much lower.

BugBear

The Guardian on digital radio
 

"Mike O'Sullivan" schreef in bericht
...
bugbear wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1687880,00.html

"DAB gives CD-quality sound if you reach a bit-rate of 192,000 bits a
second (192kb/s)"

This is wrong isn't it? Isn't the CD bitrate 256k/bs?

CD is about 1,4 Mbps. DAB does not give anything like CD quality at 192
kbps. At 256 kbps most people won't notice much difference, so you could
call that "near CD" quality.

gr, hwh

The Guardian on digital radio
 

In article , bugbear
wrote:
mike wrote:


It doesn't matter wether the sine wave the ear/body/brain detects is a
fundemental in its own right, or a harmonic.

A sine wave is a sine wave is a sine wave.

It can be detected - or not.

it may be slightly more complicated than that. :-)

The problem is that the ear is, physiologically and physically, a
non-linear system. Thus we can't be sure that linear superposition applies
to all its properties.

In this context that may mean that some frequency components may become
more or less audible as a result of other components being present (or
absent). Hence the idea that it may be possible to hear the effect of some
components when combined with others, but not when they are in isolation.

So tests using sinewaves will tell us what sinewaves we can hear. But that
may not tell us what components we can hear in more complex sounds.

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

The Guardian on digital radio
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , bugbear
wrote:
A sine wave is a sine wave is a sine wave.


It can be detected - or not.


it may be slightly more complicated than that. :-)

The problem is that the ear is, physiologically and physically, a
non-linear system. Thus we can't be sure that linear superposition applies
to all its properties.

In this context that may mean that some frequency components may become
more or less audible as a result of other components being present (or
absent). Hence the idea that it may be possible to hear the effect of some
components when combined with others, but not when they are in isolation.

So tests using sinewaves will tell us what sinewaves we can hear. But that
may not tell us what components we can hear in more complex sounds.

AFAIK (and I would welcome source data) while the percieved amplitude
of a component may be affected by other components,

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~cgseife/oddity.html

the ability to detect a frequency (at "adequate" loudness) is pretty
much boolean.

BugBear

The Guardian on digital radio
 

In article , bugbear
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
bugbear wrote:
[snip]

So tests using sinewaves will tell us what sinewaves we can hear. But
that may not tell us what components we can hear in more complex
sounds.

AFAIK (and I would welcome source data) while the percieved amplitude of
a component may be affected by other components,

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~cgseife/oddity.html

the ability to detect a frequency (at "adequate" loudness) is pretty
much boolean.

You would need to clarify your definitions of "adequate" and "boolean" in
this context before I could comment. However FWIW have a look at some of
the pages on 'hearing' on the 'Audio Misc' site, and perhaps look at some
of the results of Oohashi and others if you are interested in this topic.
It is not clear what their results may mean (if anything!), but they are
quite intriguing as they imply that 'ultrasonic' sic? components may have
an effect in some circumstances. However the snark may be a boojum...

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

The Guardian on digital radio
 

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:42:49 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


You would need to clarify your definitions of "adequate" and "boolean" in
this context before I could comment. However FWIW have a look at some of
the pages on 'hearing' on the 'Audio Misc' site, and perhaps look at some
of the results of Oohashi and others if you are interested in this topic.
It is not clear what their results may mean (if anything!), but they are
quite intriguing as they imply that 'ultrasonic' sic? components may
have
an effect in some circumstances. However the snark may be a boojum...


I thought that Oohashi's work had been pretty much discredited by now.
Certainly no-one seems to have been able to reproduce his results.

Cheers

James.

The Guardian on digital radio
 

In article , James Perrett
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:42:49 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


You would need to clarify your definitions of "adequate" and "boolean"
in this context before I could comment. However FWIW have a look at
some of the pages on 'hearing' on the 'Audio Misc' site, and perhaps
look at some of the results of Oohashi and others if you are
interested in this topic. It is not clear what their results may mean
(if anything!), but they are quite intriguing as they imply that
'ultrasonic' sic? components may have an effect in some
circumstances. However the snark may be a boojum...


I thought that Oohashi's work had been pretty much discredited by now.
Certainly no-one seems to have been able to reproduce his results.

His results are certainly 'curious'. Do you know of any references to
reports of contrary work?

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