Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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.

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


In my opinion, I think the preferences for Radio 3 listening are in the
following order:-

1) A good FM antenna and decent tuner. Distribution from BH to the
transmitters is currently a 13 bit NICAM link, so pretty transparent.

2) Satellite receiver. If you have an external DAC, I would use the digital
output in preference to the analogue.

3) Freeview box. You can buy a new one for £ 40+. If you have an external
DAC, I would use the digital output in preference to the analogue.

4) DAB. This, in my view, is the last resort, given the bit rates currently
in use.

All methods of delivery are, or will be very shortly, processed during the
day. Evenings are still clear of processing, but this may change at any
time.

S.

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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.



In my opinion, I think the preferences for Radio 3 listening are in the
following order:-

1) A good FM antenna and decent tuner. Distribution from BH to the
transmitters is currently a 13 bit NICAM link, so pretty transparent.

2) Satellite receiver. If you have an external DAC, I would use the digital
output in preference to the analogue.

3) Freeview box. You can buy a new one for £ 40+. If you have an external
DAC, I would use the digital output in preference to the analogue.

I read an article in one of the audio mags last week that argued the
case that actually, DVB-T (i.e. "Freeview") provides the cleanest,
highest-resolution radio around right now - even compared with FM. Of
course, you may find it's easier to find a 'decent [FM] tuner' than a
decent DVB-T box, and especially one with a digital output.

It certainly seems that DAB is the worst option, though, unless the
station(s) you want aren't available elsewhere.

S.

Best Regards,
Alex.

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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:))
--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article .com,
wrote:
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.

Until recently, my primary recommendation would be to have an excellent FM
tuner and antenna, and use that. It still is a method that can deliver
excellent results. I can't comment on 'cable' or 'satellite' systems as I
haven't tried them. However...

During the last couple of years I have been trying DTTV. This seems to me
to often provide excellent results. One advantage being that it seems to
avoid the same amount of 'level compression' as R3 FM during the day. Also
avoids the limited noise floor, nonlinear distortions, and possible
multipath of FM. I use a Nokia 221T and a Meridian 283 DAC for this.

In recent months I have also been trying DAB for R3. Although the quality
on some other stations on DAB is ahem 'poor', I find that on DAB it can
be quite good. Comments re avoiding the limitations of FM as above. In this
case, now using a Pure 701ES tuner and a Meridian 563 DAC.

If you find the level compression or multipath or noise floor of FM a
problem, then you may prefer DTTV or DAB. This now seems to me - for R3 -
to be a matter of 'swings and roundabouts' when deciding which is preferred
as DTTV/DAB have limitations that differ in kind from FM.

FWIW despite being a fan of R3 FM for many years (and having made many
recordings of concerts over 20+ years) I now tend to prefer listeing to and
recording R3 concerts via DAB or DTTV rather than FM. The dynamic range
simply seems more 'natural' to me, and the sound seems to avoid some of the
nonlinearities of FM.

My comments/comparisons are based on using a Yamaha CT7000 and a Quad
FM4 tuners for FM. These both give good results, but I've now ended up
preferring DTTV/DAB although this preference is regarded as 'heresy' by
many, I suspect. :-)

Above said, a decent FM system is capable of excellent results, so you may
find that it provides you with results that you find very satisfactory.
Also, I would not recommend DAB for some of the other stations on it, which
sound quite dire. Hence the above comments are specific to R3.

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:


All methods of delivery are, or will be very shortly, processed during
the day.

Can you say what your source for the above is? Perhaps give a reference to
it? So far, my experience is that R3 DAB/DTTV tends not to be level
compressed during the day in the same way as R3 FM.

Also, since DAB includes the ability to provide user-optional DRC, do you
have reason to think the BBC will *not* make any level-compression a 'user
option' if they apply it to R3 FM?

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In
I read an article in one of the audio mags last week that argued the
case that actually, DVB-T (i.e. "Freeview") provides the cleanest,
highest-resolution radio around right now - even compared with FM.

Don't believe all the bollox thats writ by supposed Audio Jurnos:(
Of
course, you may find it's easier to find a 'decent [FM] tuner' than a
decent DVB-T box, and especially one with a digital output.

Freeview is "clean" there is no doubt about that, but it does have that
metallic artificial digital sound to it that I find very irritating.
Course if the BBC was a pro outfit they'd be on satellite at 256 K/bits
or more but sadly their not. Other European broadcasters seem to be able
to do that!..

--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article .com,
wrote:
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.

I've got FM, DAB and Freeview. Freeview is the best but may still require
a decent outside aerial. FM almost certainly will. DAB isn't too bad on R3
(but may well disappoint on other stations) but works well round here on
an internal aerial.

I'm also not sure how well cheaper Freeview boxes perform on their
analogue outputs.

FM can still be very good but generally requires a decent signal for the
best results, and not everyone can get this.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

On 2006-03-02, tony sayer wrote:
In ...
I read an article in one of the audio mags last week that argued the
case that actually, DVB-T (i.e. "Freeview") provides the cleanest,
highest-resolution radio around right now - even compared with FM.

Don't believe all the bollox thats writ by supposed Audio Jurnos:(

If it's the article I think it is (HiFi News, March issue), the author's
name might have been something like Jim Lesurf ...

If it was, the dynamic range comparisons graphs for real programme
material via the different routes were interesting and confirmed some
of my own rather cruder comparisons.

--
John Phillips

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

"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.

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In
I read an article in one of the audio mags last week that argued the
case that actually, DVB-T (i.e. "Freeview") provides the cleanest,
highest-resolution radio around right now - even compared with FM.

Don't believe all the bollox thats writ by supposed Audio Jurnos:(

ahem That rather depends on the "audio jurnos"... :-)

Also on the measured evidence upon which they may base their comments...
;-

Of course, you may find it's easier to find a 'decent [FM] tuner' than
a decent DVB-T box, and especially one with a digital output.

Freeview is "clean" there is no doubt about that, but it does have that
metallic artificial digital sound to it that I find very irritating.

Not in my experience. What it does have is a tendency to lack the audible
effects of level compression, background noise, and high-level nonlinear
distortion of FM. Although for obvious reasons, the sound quality will vary
a great deal from one broadcast channel/item to another.

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , John Phillips
wrote:
On 2006-03-02, tony sayer wrote:
In ...
I read an article in one of the audio mags last week that argued the
case that actually, DVB-T (i.e. "Freeview") provides the cleanest,
highest-resolution radio around right now - even compared with FM.

Don't believe all the bollox thats writ by supposed Audio Jurnos:(

If it's the article I think it is (HiFi News, March issue), the author's
name might have been something like Jim Lesurf ...

Who he? 8-]

If it was, the dynamic range comparisons graphs for real programme
material via the different routes were interesting and confirmed some of
my own rather cruder comparisons.

FWIW I did analyses of various examples of concerts and the plots in the
article are fairly representitive. The analysis/article was directed
specifically at 'proms' on BBC4TV and R3 as this was a very convenient set
of examples for comparison analysis.

Note that the article doesn't really deal with DAB. Just with DTTV and FM.

For obvious reasons, the results may well have been quite different for
other stations or items, or if DAB had been included.

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:


All methods of delivery are, or will be very shortly, processed during
the day.

Can you say what your source for the above is? Perhaps give a reference to
it? So far, my experience is that R3 DAB/DTTV tends not to be level
compressed during the day in the same way as R3 FM.

Also, since DAB includes the ability to provide user-optional DRC, do you
have reason to think the BBC will *not* make any level-compression a 'user
option' if they apply it to R3 FM?

Slainte,

Jim

Jim,

Before I retired, I was the guy selling Orban in the UK. That's where the
information comes from, my dealings with the Corporation on supplying
processing for the new London Control Room. It is my understanding that all
R3 outlets will be processed eventually. You may well be right that
currently DAB/DTTV are not processed. They weren't, but may well be soon
when the new kit is operational. As to DRC, I have never heard any mention
of DRC within the BBC, so can't say if they will ever use it.

Processing is a hot subject within all radio broadcasters, BBC and
commercial. They guard their processor settings jealously, and are most
reluctant ever to talk about it publicly.

S.

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

I

FWIW despite being a fan of R3 FM for many years (and having made many
recordings of concerts over 20+ years) I now tend to prefer listeing to and
recording R3 concerts via DAB or DTTV rather than FM. The dynamic range
simply seems more 'natural' to me, and the sound seems to avoid some of the
nonlinearities of FM.


Ahem.. What against a perceptual encoder that throws info away that it
thinks you don't need to hear;?..

My comments/comparisons are based on using a Yamaha CT7000 and a Quad
FM4 tuners for FM. These both give good results, but I've now ended up
preferring DTTV/DAB although this preference is regarded as 'heresy' by
many, I suspect. :-)

I wouldn't say that Jim, but I sometimes wonder if the feed to your
local TX is as good as it ought be. Certainly here in Cambridge even off
the Madingley relay fed from Peterbourgh the dynamic range is about as
good as you'll get in a concert hall. And certainly good enough for home
domestic listening. Still you'll be needing to reach for the volume
control when they open up rumble villa, AKA as R3 continuity;!...

Above said, a decent FM system is capable of excellent results, so you may
find that it provides you with results that you find very satisfactory.
Also, I would not recommend DAB for some of the other stations on it, which
sound quite dire. Hence the above comments are specific to R3.

Quite.. DAB is disgraceful and gives digital broadcasting bad name.

As I said to the original poster a good aerial and decent tuner;))

Its that simple.

--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
I

FWIW despite being a fan of R3 FM for many years (and having made many
recordings of concerts over 20+ years) I now tend to prefer listeing to
and recording R3 concerts via DAB or DTTV rather than FM. The dynamic
range simply seems more 'natural' to me, and the sound seems to avoid
some of the nonlinearities of FM.


Ahem.. What against a perceptual encoder that throws info away that it
thinks you don't need to hear;?..

Not sure what kind of answer you are requesting. My comments divide into
two classes.

1) Comments on the dynamic range and noise level stem mainly from
measurements.

2) Personal reaction having now listened to R3 on FM/DTTV/DAB for some
time.

In general, on R3 DAB or DTTV I simply find I am enjoying the sound of the
music, and the detailed quality of the sound, and simply am unaware of any
artefacts which I can attribute to data reduction. This isn't always the
case. Sometimes the sound seems confused or garbled in some way. However I
also found that if I switched back and forth between FM/DAB/DTTV on such
occasions I often found that:

1) The same 'apparent artefact' was also audible on FM, so was being caused
by something else than the data reduction.

or

2) The noise level on FM was high enough to be more noticable than the
apparent artefacts.

I appreciate that the data reduction is removing components it thinks I
won't notice have gone missing. (Indeed, such forms of reduction are
one of the topics I teach in one of my undergrad courses!) However I
find that when I switch between FM and DAB/DTTV I generally can't hear
any musical details 'go missing' on DAB/DTTV R3. Indeed, the most obvious
difference to me seems to be the much lower noise level on DAB/DTTV.
(Both stationary and II.)

The above is not always the case, so some artefacts show at times. And I
would be less happy if I preferred 'non R3' stations for music. Many of the
other DAB/DTTV radio statios give dire sounds, but I am not well placed to
judge them as I'd probably dislike them even if I was listening directly to
their output.

Also, my personal experience is that DTTV where I live is much more prone
to ignition interference. It seems to produce audible clicks or blips
in a way that DAB here does not. In large part this is due to the low
RF levels for DTTV here, but DTTV also seems to employ less interleaving,
etc, so will 'click' rather than burble when there is II.

I admit I have been surprised by my coming to a preference for DTTV or DAB
R3 over FM. It is not what I expected when I started comparing them. But it
is based on repeated comparisons and simply allowing myself to use what I
find I prefer.

The main reasons seem to me to be the higher dynamic range on DTTV/DAB.
This allows me to hear the music with the musical peaks and ppp passages in
better proportion, etc.

FWIW if II is not a problem, though, I'd recommend DTTV rather than DAB
simply because they sometimes use higher bitrates for some of the BBC
stations. I would also much prefer it if they could use higher rates all
round...

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , Serge Auckland
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

All methods of delivery are, or will be very shortly, processed
during the day.

Can you say what your source for the above is? Perhaps give a
reference to it? So far, my experience is that R3 DAB/DTTV tends not
to be level compressed during the day in the same way as R3 FM.


Before I retired, I was the guy selling Orban in the UK. That's where
the information comes from, my dealings with the Corporation on
supplying processing for the new London Control Room.

That tells me that you sold them equipment. However it does not say who
told you this was their policy wrt R3 DAB/DTTV, nor why, nor if their
statement was authoratitive. Hence I can't tell if they may be installing
the equipment for other reasons and will not be level compressing DAB/DTTV
R3. Can you say who told you about DAB/DTTV R3, and what they said? (If you
do not want to give their name in public, please email me if you want it to
be 'in confidence'.)

[snip]

Processing is a hot subject within all radio broadcasters, BBC and
commercial. They guard their processor settings jealously, and are most
reluctant ever to talk about it publicly.

I can appreciate that as a general rule. However for R3 one of their
'selling points' should be the *lack* of level compression. Hence I'd
expect them to be willing to state this.

That said, I know that getting any info from anyone at the BBC is a
nightmare. :-)

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes
In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In
I read an article in one of the audio mags last week that argued the
case that actually, DVB-T (i.e. "Freeview") provides the cleanest,
highest-resolution radio around right now - even compared with FM.

Don't believe all the bollox thats writ by supposed Audio Jurnos:(

ahem That rather depends on the "audio jurnos"... :-)

Also on the measured evidence upon which they may base their comments...
;-

Of course, you may find it's easier to find a 'decent [FM] tuner' than
a decent DVB-T box, and especially one with a digital output.

Freeview is "clean" there is no doubt about that, but it does have that
metallic artificial digital sound to it that I find very irritating.

Not in my experience. What it does have is a tendency to lack the audible
effects of level compression, background noise, and high-level nonlinear
distortion of FM.

Where are you finding this high level non linearity Jim?.
Can you elaborate please?...

Although for obvious reasons, the sound quality will vary
a great deal from one broadcast channel/item to another.

Slainte,

Jim


--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes


Not in my experience. What it does have is a tendency to lack the
audible effects of level compression, background noise, and high-level
nonlinear distortion of FM.

Where are you finding this high level non linearity Jim?. Can you
elaborate please?...

The "high level" refers to the signal. If you examine the distortion
characteristics of FM the level of distortion tends to rise with both the
signal level and with the modulation frequency. Note that the measurements
quoted in maker's specs and in magazine reviews (when they used to actually
measure this) tended to be for 30 per cent modulation at a frequency like
300 Hz - 1 kHz. Also mono.

These days, though, the makers and magazines have tended to 'solve' this
problem in the same was as they'd dealt with the similar issue of
nonlinearity in pickup cartridges for LP. Just ignore it and hope no-one
notices or cares... :-)

If you measure 'higher levels' - i.e. modulation depths up to 100 percent,
and higher frequencies, and also L or R or L-R, or intermod, the amount of
distortion rises.

I suspect that. like myself, you have measured the distortion of more than
one FM RX whilst trying to align or tweak it, or just to see if it was
working as it should. it is easy enough to get THDs of the order of 0.2
percent for 300Hz 30 percent mod mono. But when you then measure higher
(signal) levels, etc, the results can be somewhat different. Ditto for HF
intermod or L+R and L-R intermod.

The above occurs even for an 'ideal' RX and is due simply due to the finite
bandwidth and the removal of the higher terms of the modulation by the
bandwidth restriction. This, and avoiding modulation clipping is why BBC R3
have always tended to err on the side of keeping down the modulation.

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:07:44 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Of
course, you may find it's easier to find a 'decent [FM] tuner' than a
decent DVB-T box, and especially one with a digital output.

Freeview is "clean" there is no doubt about that, but it does have that
metallic artificial digital sound to it that I find very irritating.
Course if the BBC was a pro outfit they'd be on satellite at 256 K/bits
or more but sadly their not. Other European broadcasters seem to be able
to do that!..

I think the whole DAB disaster could have been avoided if they'd
picked a solid technology, but they go for something 20 years old. Its
inexplicably wrongheaded....

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

Hi,

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:07:44 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Of
course, you may find it's easier to find a 'decent [FM] tuner' than a
decent DVB-T box, and especially one with a digital output.

Freeview is "clean" there is no doubt about that, but it does have that
metallic artificial digital sound to it that I find very irritating.
Course if the BBC was a pro outfit they'd be on satellite at 256 K/bits
or more but sadly their not. Other European broadcasters seem to be able
to do that!..

I think the whole DAB disaster could have been avoided if they'd
picked a solid technology, but they go for something 20 years old. Its
inexplicably wrongheaded....

Eureka 147 was recommended by the ITU for "immediate use" in 1994.
Needless to say, it wasn't twenty years old then. At the time that the
MPEG 1 audio specs were ratified, it was pushing technology in
terms of what could be done in hardware in 'real time'. Plus, I'm not
aware of any 'better' technologies that were available at the time. If
there were any, I'd like to hear about them.

The technology is now looking rather antiquated, however, and bureaucracy
has ensured that we've ended up with a system that fails in one of it's
stated claims - "DAB fully complies with the tough requirements of the
future". The implementation of DAB we have in the UK fails on this
claim, IMO.

Regards,

Glenn.

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article ,
wrote:
I think the whole DAB disaster could have been avoided if they'd
picked a solid technology, but they go for something 20 years old. Its
inexplicably wrongheaded....

First demonstration I heard of DAB was about 20 years ago. The better data
compression algorithms weren't around then.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

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

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

"Jim Lesurf" schreef in bericht
...
FWIW I did analyses of various examples of concerts and the plots in the
article are fairly representitive. The analysis/article was directed
specifically at 'proms' on BBC4TV and R3 as this was a very convenient set
of examples for comparison analysis.

But as I understand the advantage of Freeview is mainly in the lesser amount
of processing used compared to FM. The low bitrate still gives it a metallic
sound.

gr, hwh

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

"Glenn Booth" schreef in bericht
...
Eureka 147 was recommended by the ITU for "immediate use" in 1994.
Needless to say, it wasn't twenty years old then. At the time that the
MPEG 1 audio specs were ratified, it was pushing technology in
terms of what could be done in hardware in 'real time'. Plus, I'm not
aware of any 'better' technologies that were available at the time. If
there were any, I'd like to hear about them.

A few years ago, when the receiver prices were still high, very little units
had been sold. At that time the system could have been dropped without
causing much trouble in favor of a system using more efficient coding
technologies.

gr, hwh

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , Glenn Booth
writes
Hi,

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 14:07:44 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

Of
course, you may find it's easier to find a 'decent [FM] tuner' than a
decent DVB-T box, and especially one with a digital output.

Freeview is "clean" there is no doubt about that, but it does have that
metallic artificial digital sound to it that I find very irritating.
Course if the BBC was a pro outfit they'd be on satellite at 256 K/bits
or more but sadly their not. Other European broadcasters seem to be able
to do that!..

I think the whole DAB disaster could have been avoided if they'd
picked a solid technology, but they go for something 20 years old. Its
inexplicably wrongheaded....

Eureka 147 was recommended by the ITU for "immediate use" in 1994.
Needless to say, it wasn't twenty years old then. At the time that the
MPEG 1 audio specs were ratified, it was pushing technology in
terms of what could be done in hardware in 'real time'. Plus, I'm not
aware of any 'better' technologies that were available at the time. If
there were any, I'd like to hear about them.

The technology is now looking rather antiquated, however, and bureaucracy
has ensured that we've ended up with a system that fails in one of it's
stated claims - "DAB fully complies with the tough requirements of the
future". The implementation of DAB we have in the UK fails on this
claim, IMO.


If they had made provision for a downloaDABle codec then that would have
gone a long way towards alleviating the ill's of T-DAB at present.

Heard an ntl (broadcast) guy mutter that at a DAB demo some years ago
now 1997 IIRC....
Regards,

Glenn.



--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes
In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes


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?.

If by 'SAT' you mean satellite I can't comment as I have no satellite RX.

OK you ought to get one. I've been meaning to get around to sending you
that demo disc . There! see, I haven't forgotten;-))

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

For speech on DAB it can be ok provided they haven't decided to nick
bitrate for something like the parliament channel. However I don't tend to
listen to R4 in the same way as R3, so would be less likely to notice
details. Also, the general level of care with sound on R4 seems to have
degraded over the years, so there seems more in the way of 'bang up against
the endstops', etc, which I find sounds nasty via any route.

Humm...


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.

I'm beginning to wonder if theres something wrong with the Angus TX;_0


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

Panasonic TV. Its own sound output sounds poor even via its phonos, etc.[1]
It presumably decodes NICAM as this is stereo, but the distortion on music
at high signal modulation is easily noticable. This is feeding its phono
outputs to the amps I use.

I therefore tend to use/prefer DTTV, and feed spdif from a nokia 221T to a
Meridian 263 DAC. In general, this seems to produce good results. Indeed,
the 221T for DTTV was the source I used for the comparisions/comments in
the March 2006 HFN article.

DTV is knocking away at 256 K IIRC so it should be good!...

It may well be that a good NICAM demodulator would give better/equal
results. But I've not personally found a TV that delivers good sounds, and
the 221T + 263 seems good to me.

However, as with radio, the actual quality for TV will vary a lot from
station to station and item to item.


Quite..

I actually meant what do you think of the picture!!!
Slainte,

Jim

[1] The TV gives a nice picture,

What the "digital" picture?..

but the sound via its speakers is awful,
and even with its volume set to 'nil' you can still hear noise from its
speakers if you put your ear near them. Ludicrous amount of noise post the
volume control. Really no excuse these days for so much noise from a line
level. However I'm afraid that I only expect crap sound from an actual TV
set, so I just bypass all this for normal use.


--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes
In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes


Not in my experience. What it does have is a tendency to lack the
audible effects of level compression, background noise, and high-level
nonlinear distortion of FM.

Where are you finding this high level non linearity Jim?. Can you
elaborate please?...

The "high level" refers to the signal. If you examine the distortion
characteristics of FM the level of distortion tends to rise with both the
signal level and with the modulation frequency. Note that the measurements
quoted in maker's specs and in magazine reviews (when they used to actually
measure this) tended to be for 30 per cent modulation at a frequency like
300 Hz - 1 kHz. Also mono.

I've got a top notch FM exciter in my workshop at the moment here is the
spec sheet or some of it..

10Hz to 15kHz, ±0.2dB referenced to selected pre-emphasis curve.

FM Signal To Noise Ratio (L or R): 83dB below 100% modulation at 400Hz;
measured in a DC to 22kHz band width with 75μs de-emphasis and DIN “A�
weighting.

Stereo Total Harmonic Distortion: 0.005% or less for any modulating
frequency from 10Hz to 15kHz; measured in DC to 22kHz bandwidth with
75μs de-emphasis.

Intermodulation Distortion (L or R): CCIF: 0.02% (14/15kHz 1:1),

SMPTE: 0.025% (60 and 7000Hz 1:1).

Transient Intermodulation Distortion (DIM) (L or R): 0.005% (2.96kHz
square wave/14kHz sine wave modulation).

Linear Crosstalk: L+R to L-R and L-R to L+R due to amplitude and phase
matching of L&R channels (DC-15kHz): 85dB below 100% modulation
reference.

Non-linear Crosstalk: L+R to L-R and L-R to L+R due to distortion
products: 75dB below 100% modulation reference, DC-15kHz.

All specifications referenced to any single output frequency (87-108MHz)
nominal rated output power, and 50 ohm, isolated, non-reactive load.

Must get round to measuring that through the Audiolab sometime, but I
tell you this, most people are hard pressed to tell the difference on
most source materiel with the CD on one input and the output of the
tuner on the another . Course this bears no resemblance to real world
conditions, but thats down to what the BBC decided to do with it before
it hits the air!..

These days, though, the makers and magazines have tended to 'solve' this
problem in the same was as they'd dealt with the similar issue of
nonlinearity in pickup cartridges for LP. Just ignore it and hope no-one
notices or cares... :-)

If you measure 'higher levels' - i.e. modulation depths up to 100 percent,
and higher frequencies, and also L or R or L-R, or intermod, the amount of
distortion rises.

What depth do you mean in an FM system?..

I suspect that. like myself, you have measured the distortion of more than
one FM RX whilst trying to align or tweak it, or just to see if it was
working as it should. it is easy enough to get THDs of the order of 0.2
percent for 300Hz 30 percent mod mono. But when you then measure higher
(signal) levels, etc, the results can be somewhat different. Ditto for HF
intermod or L+R and L-R intermod.

Haven't done that for quite somewhile but a Denon we're using as an RBR
receiver was down to .06% at 10 K at 50 K dev a while ago....

The above occurs even for an 'ideal' RX and is due simply due to the finite
bandwidth and the removal of the higher terms of the modulation by the
bandwidth restriction. This, and avoiding modulation clipping is why BBC R3
have always tended to err on the side of keeping down the modulation.

Nope, they have to keep to what the government decrees, they keep the
mod to where they have to via their encoder/processor the where they
think it ought be within that constraint....
--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes
In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf jcgl@st-
and.demon.co.uk writes


Not in my experience. What it does have is a tendency to lack the
audible effects of level compression, background noise, and high-level
nonlinear distortion of FM.

Where are you finding this high level non linearity Jim?. Can you
elaborate please?...

The "high level" refers to the signal. If you examine the distortion
characteristics of FM the level of distortion tends to rise with both the
signal level and with the modulation frequency. Note that the measurements
quoted in maker's specs and in magazine reviews (when they used to
actually
measure this) tended to be for 30 per cent modulation at a frequency like
300 Hz - 1 kHz. Also mono.

I've got a top notch FM exciter in my workshop at the moment here is the
spec sheet or some of it..

10Hz to 15kHz, ±0.2dB referenced to selected pre-emphasis curve.

FM Signal To Noise Ratio (L or R): 83dB below 100% modulation at 400Hz;
measured in a DC to 22kHz band width with 75?s de-emphasis and DIN "A"
weighting.

Stereo Total Harmonic Distortion: 0.005% or less for any modulating
frequency from 10Hz to 15kHz; measured in DC to 22kHz bandwidth with
75?s de-emphasis.

Intermodulation Distortion (L or R): CCIF: 0.02% (14/15kHz 1:1),

SMPTE: 0.025% (60 and 7000Hz 1:1).

Transient Intermodulation Distortion (DIM) (L or R): 0.005% (2.96kHz
square wave/14kHz sine wave modulation).

Linear Crosstalk: L+R to L-R and L-R to L+R due to amplitude and phase
matching of L&R channels (DC-15kHz): 85dB below 100% modulation
reference.

Non-linear Crosstalk: L+R to L-R and L-R to L+R due to distortion
products: 75dB below 100% modulation reference, DC-15kHz.

All specifications referenced to any single output frequency (87-108MHz)
nominal rated output power, and 50 ohm, isolated, non-reactive load.

Must get round to measuring that through the Audiolab sometime, but I
tell you this, most people are hard pressed to tell the difference on
most source materiel with the CD on one input and the output of the
tuner on the another . Course this bears no resemblance to real world
conditions, but thats down to what the BBC decided to do with it before
it hits the air!..

These days, though, the makers and magazines have tended to 'solve' this
problem in the same was as they'd dealt with the similar issue of
nonlinearity in pickup cartridges for LP. Just ignore it and hope no-one
notices or cares... :-)

If you measure 'higher levels' - i.e. modulation depths up to 100 percent,
and higher frequencies, and also L or R or L-R, or intermod, the amount of
distortion rises.

What depth do you mean in an FM system?..

I suspect that. like myself, you have measured the distortion of more than
one FM RX whilst trying to align or tweak it, or just to see if it was
working as it should. it is easy enough to get THDs of the order of 0.2
percent for 300Hz 30 percent mod mono. But when you then measure higher
(signal) levels, etc, the results can be somewhat different. Ditto for HF
intermod or L+R and L-R intermod.

Haven't done that for quite somewhile but a Denon we're using as an RBR
receiver was down to .06% at 10 K at 50 K dev a while ago....

The above occurs even for an 'ideal' RX and is due simply due to the
finite
bandwidth and the removal of the higher terms of the modulation by the
bandwidth restriction. This, and avoiding modulation clipping is why BBC
R3
have always tended to err on the side of keeping down the modulation.

Nope, they have to keep to what the government decrees, they keep the
mod to where they have to via their encoder/processor the where they
think it ought be within that constraint....
--
Tony Sayer

I recognise that spec.......Still giving good service?

S.

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , Chris Isbell
writes
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).


Well the is begs a question on what they do with the signal before it
hits your aerial. Now FM is processed on Radio 3 because it makes
listening in cars and other less so environments easier i.e. you don't
have to fiddle with the volume control so much.

Now they haven't as yet done that on DABble they had / have DRC but
don't seem to use it for this as yet even if they ever will. But than
DAB will be the same as FM. But they don't compress it all the time its
much less in the evening, and I don't blame them for doing that in the
day as very very few people will be listening under ideal conditions....

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. ;-)

Fine..
--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article , hwh
writes

"Jim Lesurf" schreef in bericht
...
FWIW I did analyses of various examples of concerts and the plots in the
article are fairly representitive. The analysis/article was directed
specifically at 'proms' on BBC4TV and R3 as this was a very convenient set
of examples for comparison analysis.

But as I understand the advantage of Freeview is mainly in the lesser amount
of processing used compared to FM. The low bitrate still gives it a metallic
sound.

Yes.. seems your hearing is what it should be;-))

gr, hwh



--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In
Nope, they have to keep to what the government decrees, they keep the
mod to where they have to via their encoder/processor the where they
think it ought be within that constraint....
--
Tony Sayer

I recognise that spec.......Still giving good service?

S.


Well its been off air for a while now and was replaced by an analogue
exciter as that was deemed to be LOUDER 'cos wossisnamme at Radica said
it would be, and Jimbo is a loudness freak.

It was in use the other week for an RSL for 209 Radio and one afternoon
there was a Jazz piece on there that was recorded by the guy presenting
the programme and the sound was superb in the car:), really was, sounded
like the guitar was out there on the pavement somewhere and the vocalist
was sitting on the bonnet!..

If they get a full time licence its going there and thats going to be a
really good station:))
--
Tony Sayer

Best way to get Radio 3?
 

In article ,
hwh wrote:
Eureka 147 was recommended by the ITU for "immediate use" in 1994.
Needless to say, it wasn't twenty years old then. At the time that the
MPEG 1 audio specs were ratified, it was pushing technology in
terms of what could be done in hardware in 'real time'. Plus, I'm not
aware of any 'better' technologies that were available at the time. If
there were any, I'd like to hear about them.

A few years ago, when the receiver prices were still high, very little
units had been sold. At that time the system could have been dropped
without causing much trouble in favor of a system using more efficient
coding technologies.

Few units had been sold because those who wanted 'quality' sound didn't
buy it - although at the high bit rates then on offer it was fine.

Now it has taken off due to offering a wide choice of stations at low
quality on most it's rather too late to complain.

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

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