On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:32:35 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article .com,
writes
Opinions please.

First, I should mention that I am a bit of a vinyl junkie: my prefered
music source is my Linn LP12, although I also enjoy CDs played on my
Linn Ikemi.

My options for getting Radio 3:
1. I could have a VHF aerial placed on the roof of my house, and
probably upgrade my tuner;
2. The digi-box that supplies cable TV also gives radio: connecting it
to my amplifier gives music that is at least not unpleasant. At the
moment the signal has a long and indirect route between digi-box and
amplifier, but this could be changed;
3. I could buy a new DAB tuner.

So I would welcome your opinions and experiences about which option is
likely to prove most satisfying for me.


FM hands down. But!!!, get a good aerial, not one of those poxy Halo
things. You can DIY if you are in a good signal area. An Antiference or
Triax multi element both available from www.cpc.co.uk

Tuner?, simplest and best bet is the Denon TU260 MK2 less than 100 notes
from richer sounds. Or look on e-bay for a second-hand REVOX 261 or best
of them all an Audiolab T8000..


Sit back relax.. Enjoy)

No. The problem with FM is that it is more or less heavily processed -
dynamics are squashed - depending on the time of day. It is anything
but a clean feed.

For the best quality, satellite and Freeview are the way to go. They
both get a clean,non-compressed feed. DAB is not desperately bad on R3
- certainly better than FM.

d

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

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:32:35 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article .com,
writes
Opinions please.

First, I should mention that I am a bit of a vinyl junkie: my prefered
music source is my Linn LP12, although I also enjoy CDs played on my
Linn Ikemi.

My options for getting Radio 3:
1. I could have a VHF aerial placed on the roof of my house, and
probably upgrade my tuner;
2. The digi-box that supplies cable TV also gives radio: connecting it
to my amplifier gives music that is at least not unpleasant. At the
moment the signal has a long and indirect route between digi-box and
amplifier, but this could be changed;
3. I could buy a new DAB tuner.

So I would welcome your opinions and experiences about which option is
likely to prove most satisfying for me.


FM hands down. But!!!, get a good aerial, not one of those poxy Halo
things. You can DIY if you are in a good signal area. An Antiference or
Triax multi element both available from www.cpc.co.uk

Tuner?, simplest and best bet is the Denon TU260 MK2 less than 100 notes
from richer sounds. Or look on e-bay for a second-hand REVOX 261 or best
of them all an Audiolab T8000..


Sit back relax.. Enjoy)

No. The problem with FM is that it is more or less heavily processed -
dynamics are squashed - depending on the time of day. It is anything
but a clean feed.

Yes they are processed a bit during the day but backed off for much of
the evening...

For the best quality, satellite and Freeview are the way to go.

Satellite would be if the bitrates were high enough, but as you well
know Don, they aren't

They
both get a clean,non-compressed feed. DAB is not desperately bad on R3
- certainly better than FM.

Beg to differ. Don't you notice the artefacts?. Not that I've anything
at all against digital transmission but if they do use an outdated codec
and chuck away information then what do you expect?.

Ever heard German or French radio via sat?...

d

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

--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:10:31 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
writes
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 13:32:35 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article .com,
writes
Opinions please.

First, I should mention that I am a bit of a vinyl junkie: my prefered
music source is my Linn LP12, although I also enjoy CDs played on my
Linn Ikemi.

My options for getting Radio 3:
1. I could have a VHF aerial placed on the roof of my house, and
probably upgrade my tuner;
2. The digi-box that supplies cable TV also gives radio: connecting it
to my amplifier gives music that is at least not unpleasant. At the
moment the signal has a long and indirect route between digi-box and
amplifier, but this could be changed;
3. I could buy a new DAB tuner.

So I would welcome your opinions and experiences about which option is
likely to prove most satisfying for me.


FM hands down. But!!!, get a good aerial, not one of those poxy Halo
things. You can DIY if you are in a good signal area. An Antiference or
Triax multi element both available from www.cpc.co.uk

Tuner?, simplest and best bet is the Denon TU260 MK2 less than 100 notes
from richer sounds. Or look on e-bay for a second-hand REVOX 261 or best
of them all an Audiolab T8000..


Sit back relax.. Enjoy)

No. The problem with FM is that it is more or less heavily processed -
dynamics are squashed - depending on the time of day. It is anything
but a clean feed.

Yes they are processed a bit during the day but backed off for much of
the evening...

For the best quality, satellite and Freeview are the way to go.

Satellite would be if the bitrates were high enough, but as you well
know Don, they aren't


I guess it depends on what bothers you. I find even the tiniest bit of
dynamic compression immensely irritating - much more so than the
little glitches from satellite bitrates, which frankly I have to
listen for.

They
both get a clean,non-compressed feed. DAB is not desperately bad on R3
- certainly better than FM.

Beg to differ. Don't you notice the artefacts?. Not that I've anything
at all against digital transmission but if they do use an outdated codec
and chuck away information then what do you expect?.

Ever heard German or French radio via sat?...


I would dearly love UK DAB to be simply turned off, and relaunched
with real, up-to-date codecs, together with the assumption that all
future radios will be soft, so updates over the air are the norm.

d

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

I
I guess it depends on what bothers you. I find even the tiniest bit of
dynamic compression immensely irritating - much more so than the
little glitches from satellite bitrates, which frankly I have to
listen for.

Its not glitches its that horrible metallic sound get s tiring to listen
to after a while..

They
both get a clean,non-compressed feed. DAB is not desperately bad on R3
- certainly better than FM.

Beg to differ. Don't you notice the artefacts?. Not that I've anything
at all against digital transmission but if they do use an outdated codec
and chuck away information then what do you expect?.

Ever heard German or French radio via sat?...


I would dearly love UK DAB to be simply turned off, and relaunched
with real, up-to-date codecs, together with the assumption that all
future radios will be soft, so updates over the air are the norm.

I think.. That we can agree on that!.....

--
Tony Sayer

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:10:31 +0000, tony sayer wrote:




I guess it depends on what bothers you. I find even the tiniest bit of
dynamic compression immensely irritating - much more so than the little
glitches from satellite bitrates, which frankly I have to listen for.

I have also come to a similar conclusion. When I first started listening to
DTTV (and then DAB) I found the differences from FM quite noticable, and
initially disliked the results. However with continued listening I decided
that quite a lot of this was due to my being 'habituated' to the level
compression, noise, and high-level nonlinearity of FM.

Now, the sound on DAB R3 does seem 'confused' at times, but also a lot of
the time I now find it much clearer than on FM. Given a free choice and
repeated comparisons over many months I now find I tend to prefer DTTV or
DAB a lot of the time. Mainly I think as a result of the (relative) lack of
level compression, noise, and high-level nonlinearity. Note, though, that
this is for R3, not necessarily for other stations.

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 jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes
In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:10:31 +0000, tony sayer wrote:




I guess it depends on what bothers you. I find even the tiniest bit of
dynamic compression immensely irritating - much more so than the little
glitches from satellite bitrates, which frankly I have to listen for.

I have also come to a similar conclusion. When I first started listening to
DTTV (and then DAB) I found the differences from FM quite noticable, and
initially disliked the results. However with continued listening I decided
that quite a lot of this was due to my being 'habituated' to the level
compression, noise, and high-level nonlinearity of FM.

Now, the sound on DAB R3 does seem 'confused' at times,

This is odd 192 K on DTV and 192 K on SAT why the difference?..
Course we are talking about Radio 3 are we not?.

BTW what do you think of Radio 4 in DAB and DTV...

but also a lot of
the time I now find it much clearer than on FM. Given a free choice and
repeated comparisons over many months I now find I tend to prefer DTTV or
DAB a lot of the time. Mainly I think as a result of the (relative) lack of
level compression, noise, and high-level nonlinearity. Note, though, that
this is for R3, not necessarily for other stations.


Might I ask what do you use for TV Jim (if you get time to watch it)
analogue, or DTV via sat or freeview...

--
Tony Sayer

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Don Pearce
writes


They both get a clean,non-compressed feed. DAB is not desperately bad
on R3 - certainly better than FM.

Beg to differ. Don't you notice the artefacts?.

On R3 in general, no I don't. What seems much more noticable to me is the
lack of level compression, noise, and high-level nonlinearity. Although the
results vary, so can only generalise about this. And I'd agree that the
sound on non-R3 stations can be pretty dire.

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Snipped


No. The problem with FM is that it is more or less heavily processed -
dynamics are squashed - depending on the time of day. It is anything
but a clean feed.

For the best quality, satellite and Freeview are the way to go. They
both get a clean,non-compressed feed. DAB is not desperately bad on R3
- certainly better than FM.

d

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

DAB, DTT and D-SAT feeds are or very soon will be processed as well as FM.
Radio 3 FM uses the Orban 8400, whilst the digital feeds either are or very
soon will be using the Orban 6200 processor. The reason I say "are or very
soon will be" is because of the works currently going on in the new London
Control Room at BH. I don't know exactly when the new processing will come
into service, but if not already, then soon.

Regarding whether digital delivery of Radio 3 is better/worse than FM is
personal matter. Are the artifacts of the FM system better or worse than the
artifacts of the MPEG2 delivery system at the sort of bit rates being used
for Radio 3 (192kBs at best)? In my own system, I use a Meridian 204 FM
tuner and a Sony VTX-D800U DVB receiver, and I prefer the FM sound. The FM
tuner has slightly more hiss than the DVB receiver, which essentially has
none, but the sound is more pleasant. I drive the tuner from a 6-element
antenna pointed a Tacolneston. At my age, the relative merits of a 15kHz as
compared with a 20kHz bandwidth are academic.

S.

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Snipped


No. The problem with FM is that it is more or less heavily processed -
dynamics are squashed - depending on the time of day. It is anything
but a clean feed.

For the best quality, satellite and Freeview are the way to go. They
both get a clean,non-compressed feed. DAB is not desperately bad on R3
- certainly better than FM.

d

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

DAB, DTT and D-SAT feeds are or very soon will be processed as well as
FM. Radio 3 FM uses the Orban 8400, whilst the digital feeds either are
or very soon will be using the Orban 6200 processor. The reason I say
"are or very soon will be" is because of the works currently going on
in the new London Control Room at BH. I don't know exactly when the new
processing will come into service, but if not already, then soon.

Can you say who at the BBC has said that the level compression *will* be
applied to R3 on DTTV and DAB, and what reasons were given? Have they also
said this will ignore DRC on DAB?

Regarding whether digital delivery of Radio 3 is better/worse than FM is
personal matter. Are the artifacts of the FM system better or worse
than the artifacts of the MPEG2 delivery system at the sort of bit
rates being used for Radio 3 (192kBs at best)? In my own system, I use
a Meridian 204 FM tuner and a Sony VTX-D800U DVB receiver, and I
prefer the FM sound.

So did I on initial comparisons between FM and DTTV. However after some
weeks I started to feel that the reason was that:

1) I was simply 'acclimatised' to the sound on FM

2) started to suspect that the 'warmth' on FM was due to a combination of
peak-compression (so enhancing the sustain part of notes) and the high
levels of nonlinearity for HF peaks from the RX.

Hence I found that my preference started to change, and now is quite
different to my initial reactions to DTTV.

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 Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:45:22 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

2) started to suspect that the 'warmth' on FM was due to a combination of
peak-compression (so enhancing the sustain part of notes) and the high
levels of nonlinearity for HF peaks from the RX.

Hence I found that my preference started to change, and now is quite
different to my initial reactions to DTTV.

My experience echoes this.

I have also taken a recording of a CD track from Radio 3 FM and
compared it with my copy of the same CD. The level of compression
surprised me, as did the euphonic effect of this making the FM version
seem more 'alive' (probably because of the higher level of background
noise).

When the opportunity arises, I will try the same thing with Radio 3 on
satellite. (This obviously depends on the BBC broadcasting a track
from a CD that I possess. ;-)

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK