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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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....

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.