Stevenson = Charlatan
 

"Alan Rutlidge" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


bassett wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
bassett wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
TT wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
Fleetie wrote:
"Phil Allison" wrote
"Eeysore = Graham Stevenson = Lying Criminal Charlatan

** You will not go back three posts - to one YOU
replied to.

You will not go back even one.

You REFUSE to read the one in front of you as well.

Go get cancer and die -

you CRIMINALLY INSANE POMMY MANIAC

...... Phil

Well, Graham?

Phil has thrown down the gauntlet.

Now what are you going to do? Are you going to remove him
from
usenet as you threatened?

He's back to the wishing fatal cancer on people that
outraged you
last time.

So, your move.

Valid comment. I'm absolutely tied up in stuff right now
though and
couldn't give a tinker's cuss about Phyllis.

Perhaps spend less time swapping abuse with Philthy and use
that time to get his account pulled. Only a thought to help
with your time management problem ;-)

FFS, I want to get Bwian pulled and now you want me to get Phyllis
burnt
at the stake too ?

Gimme a break !

Your the one running his mouth Graham,, nice to see your still
cross
posting..

'Fleetie' originated the cross-post. I hadn't noticed it.

You DO know how to work that out do you ? Woof Woof ?

Graham

I know how to work out most things, including you.

I had the lady from the RSPCA round the other day

. She's of the same opinion as me, about you.

All bluff and no bloody grunt.

bassett

I'm trembling in fear !


And so you should! A Bassett's bite is much worse than its bark. :P
Hush puppy, hush....


Thanks Alan,, but it's not me he want's to worry about.. And I'm not about
to visit that ****-hole
of a country he calls a home, any time soon.

I can see it now, 3 am, Ring Ring, Hallo Hallo, Phil here, hows it
going, By the way this phone
conversation is being recorded, So I can use it against YOU at a latter
date.. But don't worry,

Sound familiar Alan,, Our ever so busy mate has no bloody idea, what
awaits him..


bassett

Stevenson = Charlatan
 

I have amended the conversation subtly

"bassett" wrote in message
...

I can see it now, 3 am, Ring Ring, "Hallo Hallo, Phil
here, hows it going, I'll meet you down the Orchestra pit
in half an hour"


Sound familiar Alan,, Our ever so busy mate has no
bloody idea, what awaits him..

Gobble! Gobble! Gobble! Oh that's not a Philthy
impersonation but a Xmas turkey. Or is it? ;-)

Cheers TT

HY60
 

In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus

Odd that you don't notice the level compression on R3 when at home.


Yes I do but I do understand why they do this..

And I wonder why they don't do it on their digital platforms quite so
much but then again since when has engineering been the BBC's strong
point?..

Well, the most plausible engineering reason is that FM broadcasting is
generally limited to the order of 70-75dB dynamic range, and this falls
away steadily if you don't have a strong RF signal. Whereas digital can
reliably provide about 20dB more than that once you are above a
relatively low RF threashold power.

Nay lad 'thas got that wrong,

I don't think so. If you re-read what I wrote it starts with "...the most
plausible *engineering* reason..." I appreciate you want to grind your axe
by giving other alleged motives, but I was simply pointing out the
engineering basics which have a clear implication.

its done to "colour" the sound to give it a "flavour" to make it have a
"signature"

Think I'm having you on?, look up Orban and Ommnia...

I have in the past read the info on items like Orban's. However that
doesn't actually tell you much above what I was referring to. Nor does it
actually tell you the motives of a given broadcaster. Although it probably
does cast light on the way Orban believes most commercial broadcasters will
be thinking - primarily in the USA.

The *engineering* problem with FM is that the received dynamic range of the
stereo channel will generally be around 70dB - and probably for many
listeners much less that this as they have a poorer tuner or location. The
received dynamic range falls smoothly with RF level. Given this, there is a
sensible engineering logic in applying some level compression.

However DTTV and DAB operate in a different way. Once you are above a given
RF level the dynamic range can be essentially the order of 90dB. So giving
20dB or more range.

Another distinction of course is that DAB allows for DRC, so if a
broadcaster could be bothered they could apply level compression as a side
chain control.

However, if we move from engineering to grocering...

Alas, the 'rock/pop' channels seem to have decided that 'loudness sells' so
simply compress everything to death as routine practice.

It seems quite possible that in due time even the R3 engineers will begin
level compressing everything. Could easily happen as another consequence of
the way the grocers in charge 'out source' all skills or services to the
lowest bidders. Those doing the actual broadcasting won't be listening, so
won't see any reason to treat R3 much differently to other channels.

Bit like the way it is becoming impossible to buy new issues of 'PAL'
format DVDs of classical music.

Even in cases where a 'PAL' sic version was available they are being
replaced by 'NTSC' sic versions. Since in these cases a PAL version has
already been mastered and made in the past it seems unlikly that production
cost is the issue. Particularly given the way they cheerfully ask for list
prices in the 20 - 30 UKP region for an opera or similar.

More likely that the grocers can't see the point of 'double inventory' if
people in the UK/EU will put up with buying the lower-resolution NTSC
versions. Who cares about quality? Just, "What's all this malarky with two
versions? Let's just have one and save bother. Oh, the USA can't cope with
PAL, but the UK/EU can with NTSC. OK, make it NTSC - whatever that is!"

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

HY60
 

tony sayer wrote:

Yes!, used to be a Medium wave pirate station round these parts many
years ago used around Six of 'em in paralled:)..


Yup, my illicit transmitter used a pair of 6V6s to amplitude modulate the
807s via the screen grids. The 807 anodes would sometimes glow dull red
under certain loading conditions. My pirate activity was point-point comms
with other pirates at/around 3MHz..we called it "J-band". This was before
the days of CB. Now, of course, I'm all legit and licensed. :-)

TonyL

HY60
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The *engineering* problem with FM is that the received dynamic range of
the stereo channel will generally be around 70dB - and probably for many
listeners much less that this as they have a poorer tuner or location.
The received dynamic range falls smoothly with RF level. Given this,
there is a sensible engineering logic in applying some level compression.

I'd say only a tiny percentage of even the R3 listeners would want
*anything* transmitted with a dynamic range even approaching 70dB. It's
simply too large for most domestic listening environments. About 30dB is
more acceptable. But this should be done manually with sympathy for the
material being transmitted - not by some uncaring machine that just looks
at electrons.

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

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

HY60
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
The *engineering* problem with FM is that the received dynamic range
of the stereo channel will generally be around 70dB - and probably for
many listeners much less that this as they have a poorer tuner or
location. The received dynamic range falls smoothly with RF level.
Given this, there is a sensible engineering logic in applying some
level compression.

I'd say only a tiny percentage of even the R3 listeners would want
*anything* transmitted with a dynamic range even approaching 70dB. It's
simply too large for most domestic listening environments. About 30dB is
more acceptable. But this should be done manually with sympathy for the
material being transmitted - not by some uncaring machine that just
looks at electrons.

I'd agree. However, as you will know better than most people, the other
problems here are as follows...

Firstly, that you may wish to keep the quiet passages well above the noise
if you want the noise to not be an audible distraction.

Secondly, that you will also want to keep the maximum sustained levels well
below 0dBFS. This to avoid problems like clipping/limiting or excessive
distortion for FM.

Thus if we have a modest FM TX-RX channel with a dynamic range of 65dB you
might want to avoid the bottom 20-30 for the first reason and the top 10
for the second. That drops the 'comfortable' range from 65dB down to more
like 25-35dB depending on your assumptions!

Whereas for digital broadcasting the available channel dynamic range may
well be over 90dB. This then only drops to about 60dB on the same sort of
basis.

There is quite a marked difference between having a 'comfortable' range of
35dB and one of 60dB between noise and over-modulation being noticable. The
problem here is that you can't use all the dynamic range if you want any
channel noise of limiting problems to be inaudible for critical listeners.

And if you look at the stats of the dynamics for BBC R3 you tend to find in
my experience that the levels *are* compressed into a range of not much
more that 30dB for the bulk of the time. Whereas it is about 10dB wider for
DAB and DTTV.

So my impression is that domestic background noise and 'casual listening'
aren't the only issues for FM and that the BBC have also compressed for
channel reasons. (Ideally, as you say, using skilled operators not robots
for this! :-) )

I don't know about now. But in past years the BBC took to using more
automated compression during the day, but left it to skilled judgement
allowing a wider range for concerts in the evening. This often made
background noise quite audible.

In audible terms the results for me have been quite simple. Once I became
accustomed to the wider dyamics of R3 on DTTV and DAB I found the level
compression on R3 FM more distracting and unnatural than I had previously.
I also find that the lack of the same amount of background noise a welcome
change. (Ditto for factors like ignition interference.)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

HY60
 

In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus

Odd that you don't notice the level compression on R3 when at home.


Yes I do but I do understand why they do this..

And I wonder why they don't do it on their digital platforms quite so
much but then again since when has engineering been the BBC's strong
point?..

Well, the most plausible engineering reason is that FM broadcasting is
generally limited to the order of 70-75dB dynamic range, and this falls
away steadily if you don't have a strong RF signal. Whereas digital can
reliably provide about 20dB more than that once you are above a
relatively low RF threashold power.

Nay lad 'thas got that wrong,

I don't think so. If you re-read what I wrote it starts with "...the most
plausible *engineering* reason..." I appreciate you want to grind your axe
by giving other alleged motives, but I was simply pointing out the
engineering basics which have a clear implication.

I've no axe to grind Jim theres no real tech reason .. around 70 odd dB
dynamic range is fine for real world, in house, at home audio unless
you've a well treated listening room which is -just so- and most all
haven't. I very much doubt you'd get that in a concert hall these days
with all the farting, coughing, snivelling and mobile ringtones going
off;!..


its done to "colour" the sound to give it a "flavour" to make it have a
"signature"

Think I'm having you on?, look up Orban and Ommnia...

I have in the past read the info on items like Orban's. However that
doesn't actually tell you much above what I was referring to. Nor does it
actually tell you the motives of a given broadcaster. Although it probably
does cast light on the way Orban believes most commercial broadcasters will
be thinking - primarily in the USA.

And the rest of the world. If they didn't want them they don't have to
buy them and their not cheap around £8000 odd a go...


The *engineering* problem with FM is that the received dynamic range of the
stereo channel will generally be around 70dB - and probably for many
listeners much less that this as they have a poorer tuner or location. The
received dynamic range falls smoothly with RF level. Given this, there is a
sensible engineering logic in applying some level compression.

However DTTV and DAB operate in a different way. Once you are above a given
RF level the dynamic range can be essentially the order of 90dB. So giving
20dB or more range.


And omit the odd MPEG effects on the way;!"..

Another distinction of course is that DAB allows for DRC, so if a
broadcaster could be bothered they could apply level compression as a side
chain control.

Wonder if they know what that is...

However, if we move from engineering to grocering...

Alas, the 'rock/pop' channels seem to have decided that 'loudness sells' so
simply compress everything to death as routine practice.

It seems quite possible that in due time even the R3 engineers will begin
level compressing everything. Could easily happen as another consequence of
the way the grocers in charge 'out source' all skills or services to the
lowest bidders. Those doing the actual broadcasting won't be listening, so
won't see any reason to treat R3 much differently to other channels.

Bit like the way it is becoming impossible to buy new issues of 'PAL'
format DVDs of classical music.

Even in cases where a 'PAL' sic version was available they are being
replaced by 'NTSC' sic versions. Since in these cases a PAL version has
already been mastered and made in the past it seems unlikly that production
cost is the issue. Particularly given the way they cheerfully ask for list
prices in the 20 - 30 UKP region for an opera or similar.

More likely that the grocers can't see the point of 'double inventory' if
people in the UK/EU will put up with buying the lower-resolution NTSC
versions. Who cares about quality? Just, "What's all this malarky with two
versions? Let's just have one and save bother. Oh, the USA can't cope with
PAL, but the UK/EU can with NTSC. OK, make it NTSC - whatever that is!"

Slainte,

Jim

I think .... Your getting on a bit now;!...

cheers..
--
Tony Sayer

HY60
 

I don't know about now. But in past years the BBC took to using more
automated compression during the day, but left it to skilled judgement
allowing a wider range for concerts in the evening. This often made
background noise quite audible.

In audible terms the results for me have been quite simple. Once I became
accustomed to the wider dyamics of R3 on DTTV and DAB I found the level
compression on R3 FM more distracting and unnatural than I had previously.
I also find that the lack of the same amount of background noise a welcome
change. (Ditto for factors like ignition interference.)

I reckon that the local FM feed must be a -bit- suspect there
somewhere..

Slainte,

Jim

You really ought to get a satellite receiver on Hotbird and ASTRA 19
east and hear what digital radio can do in sensible French and German
hands, especially the latter..


--
Tony Sayer

HY60
 

In article , TonyL
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

Yes!, used to be a Medium wave pirate station round these parts many
years ago used around Six of 'em in paralled:)..


Yup, my illicit transmitter used a pair of 6V6s to amplitude modulate the
807s via the screen grids. The 807 anodes would sometimes glow dull red
under certain loading conditions. My pirate activity was point-point comms
with other pirates at/around 3MHz..we called it "J-band". This was before
the days of CB. Now, of course, I'm all legit and licensed. :-)

TonyL



Of course;)...

73's....
--
Tony Sayer