In article , Woody
scribeth thus

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Adrian C wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It is ok. Most who go on about 'DAB quality' base it on listening
to a
portable or whatever. Or simple prejudice.


DAB only sounds good on Radio 3 it seems...

R4 is fine too. And Magic. And R7. They are about the only other
stations
I listen to off DAB

Radio 4 sounds OK?.. Hearing tests anyone?...

Some people who mostly listen to Radio 3 are prejudiced against
listening to other types of music, so don't appreciate how badly how
UK
DAB mangles up the content of other music stations out there, and
these
people are those in the higher classes of society with a chequebook
to
put this right.... but they won't.

UK DAB is the laughing stock of the world.

I think the rest of the world has got more important things to laugh
about.

Well its a bloody good/poor start;(.

Can anyone answer why it is that even on Satellite where bit space
isn't
a problem can the BBC only afford 192 K, whereas a respected German
broadcaster like Bayern has 320 K for all of its mainline music
channels
and only uses 128 K, the DAB -standard- rate, for a news info
service?.......
--
Tony Sayer



Actually Tone it's because of the receivers. As the data rate in the UK
was never going to be above 192K the radio software was amended to
optimise it for the lower rates. Take a UK radio to Germany and you will
have major problems but bring a German radio over here (like a Blaupunkt
Woodstock car radio) and it works perfectly.

The feed to Sky from R3 will ultimately be limited by the highest rate
that they have to rpoduce - which is 192K for DAB.


Actually Woody I'm talking about Satellite reception, here they can
manage 320 K MP2... Christ they even go 440 odd for Dolby 5.1 surround

.. course the average BBC -suit- wouldn't have a fecking clue what that
was.

And over there their tech director Dr Johannes wouldn't have it any
other way;!....
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
You won't like DAB quality, believe me.

For R3?

DAB in many cases will provide far better sound quality than FM on R3.


We won't go into that one again Dave what abaht the other radio services
from the BBC eh?.

The OP specifically mentioned R3. And only R3.

And pray why should radio 3 be more deserving?..

For instance.. do they have inferior equipment in the studios?...

As I've said many times before the public seem to like the use of those
signal processors which compress the dynamic range and increase the
perceived loudness which make *far* more difference to the sound quality
at home than the difference between DAB at the current rates and FM. And
every radio station uses them - although R3 and R4 at some times of the
day less aggressively. Every single pop station has them set in such a way
as to make them so tiring to listen to that I simply don't bother - apart
from rarely and as background listening in the car.


As its the new year and all that .. I can agree with most of that
statement..

If you don't find these annoying to the point of simply switching off
perhaps it's you who needs their hearing tested...


However the system that the powers that be including the BBC have
implemented is a disgrace!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
You won't like DAB quality, believe me.

For R3?

DAB in many cases will provide far better sound quality than FM on R3.


We won't go into that one again Dave what abaht the other radio services
from the BBC eh?.

The OP specifically mentioned R3. And only R3.

And pray why should radio 3 be more deserving?..

For instance.. do they have inferior equipment in the studios?...

As I've said many times before the public seem to like the use of those
signal processors which compress the dynamic range and increase the
perceived loudness which make *far* more difference to the sound quality
at home than the difference between DAB at the current rates and FM. And
every radio station uses them - although R3 and R4 at some times of the
day less aggressively. Every single pop station has them set in such a way
as to make them so tiring to listen to that I simply don't bother - apart
from rarely and as background listening in the car.


As its the new year and all that .. I can agree with most of that
statement..

If you don't find these annoying to the point of simply switching off
perhaps it's you who needs their hearing tested...


However the system that the powers that be including the BBC have
implemented is a disgrace!...

I'm not sure. Like FreeView, the public seems to demand choice over
quality. Or the suits seem to think so. Of course it would be nice to have
both - but is that possible given the limited bandwidth of terrestrial
transmissions?

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
You won't like DAB quality, believe me.

For R3?

DAB in many cases will provide far better sound quality than FM on R3.


We won't go into that one again Dave what abaht the other radio services
from the BBC eh?.

The OP specifically mentioned R3. And only R3.

And pray why should radio 3 be more deserving?..

For instance.. do they have inferior equipment in the studios?...

As I've said many times before the public seem to like the use of those
signal processors which compress the dynamic range and increase the
perceived loudness which make *far* more difference to the sound quality
at home than the difference between DAB at the current rates and FM. And
every radio station uses them - although R3 and R4 at some times of the
day less aggressively. Every single pop station has them set in such a way
as to make them so tiring to listen to that I simply don't bother - apart
from rarely and as background listening in the car.


As its the new year and all that .. I can agree with most of that
statement..

If you don't find these annoying to the point of simply switching off
perhaps it's you who needs their hearing tested...


However the system that the powers that be including the BBC have
implemented is a disgrace!...

I'm not sure. Like FreeView, the public seems to demand choice over
quality. Or the suits seem to think so. Of course it would be nice to have
both - but is that possible given the limited bandwidth of terrestrial
transmissions?

Well these plenty of Bandwidth on Satellite but most if it is "wasted"
with junk TV....
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'm not sure. Like FreeView, the public seems to demand choice over
quality. Or the suits seem to think so. Of course it would be nice to
have both - but is that possible given the limited bandwidth of
terrestrial transmissions?

Well these plenty of Bandwidth on Satellite but most if it is "wasted"
with junk TV....

I recently got a cheap satellite kit and added a larger dish and rotator.
And if you think the tech standards are poor here you need to see some
other country's stuff. Especially the audio. ;-)

--
*Starfishes have no brains *

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'm not sure. Like FreeView, the public seems to demand choice over
quality. Or the suits seem to think so. Of course it would be nice to
have both - but is that possible given the limited bandwidth of
terrestrial transmissions?

Well these plenty of Bandwidth on Satellite but most if it is "wasted"
with junk TV....

I recently got a cheap satellite kit and added a larger dish and rotator.
And if you think the tech standards are poor here you need to see some
other country's stuff. Especially the audio. ;-)

What about some of the more established Euro broadcasters?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'm not sure. Like FreeView, the public seems to demand choice over
quality. Or the suits seem to think so. Of course it would be nice to
have both - but is that possible given the limited bandwidth of
terrestrial transmissions?

Well these plenty of Bandwidth on Satellite but most if it is "wasted"
with junk TV....

I recently got a cheap satellite kit and added a larger dish and
rotator. And if you think the tech standards are poor here you need to
see some other country's stuff. Especially the audio. ;-)

What about some of the more established Euro broadcasters?..

Of course some are as good if not better than 'ours'. But with some 3000
channels...

I've been going through them adding English language ones - or ones I
think may be worth a look - into a favourites list. Hence seeing some
appalling standards. One Turkish - I think - channel with reasonably good
pictures had a folk group playing then interviewed afterwards. All on one
hand held radio mic. With lots of people interjecting during the interview
- including another presenter. All totally off mic.

--
*Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.*

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

On Dec 31 2007, 12:39*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *Adrian C wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
It is ok. Most who go on about 'DAB quality' base it on listening to a
portable or whatever. Or simple prejudice.

DAB only sounds good on Radio 3 it seems...

R4 is fine too. And Magic.

Well, not really. Some of the time it's in mono.


For some reason radio 3 on satellite has a much better quality than on
DAB; I can switch between them to compare. the stereo stage is
properly laid out and instruments don't wander about. it also seems
less distorted on satellite What puzzles me is that satellite uses
the same bit rate and coding system as DAB.


Robert