Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
...


Don't try to lecture me about any of this.

Oh that's rich that is! You descend on here lecturing us right left and
centre, and then get all huffy when we don't simply roll over and accept
your conspiracy theories as "fact".

The BBC is responsible for screwing consumers in order to protect its
audiences. Simple as that.

So how do you work out that the BBC is "biased towards DAB" to "protect it's
audiences?


The BBC can push them in one way or another via their TV adverts though.

Ah, these famous TV adverts. So low-key that I never noticed them.


I note that
even Ofcom is shying away from coming up with a switch off date for
analogue radio.


That's because it's years away:

That's because no decision has yet been made!


Personally I find the idea of internet radio unattractive, far too geeky
for my liking, and it ties you down to the broadband socket.


I've asked you what on earth you mean by that before, but you haven't
explained yet. So, I ask again, what do you mean by it tying down your
broadband socket??


Well try reading what I wrote for a start, that might help. I didn't say
"tying down your broadband socket", I said "ties you down to the broadband
socket", big difference. And what that means is that internet radio comes
through the broadband socket, hence can only work at, or within WiFi range
of it. Useless for portable, and most importantly car, radios.


So I think
we do need DAB, preferably DAB+. But for now I'll stay with FM.


We don't *need* DAB or DAB+. There are other options to DAB/DAB+.


We need national broadcast radio. Using the internet for broadcasting is
inefficient, and it cannot be a complete replacement for over-the-air
broadcasting.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


RO is 'modular', so any program can call on other sections of the code
provided. ...

[snip]

V. nice. I used to have a passing interest in Windows and DOS, but
recently fled to Mac because I decided, once and for all, that I just
wanted it to work and be done with all the .exe and .bat and .dll things.

If I had to move platform I'd most likely go to Mac, particularly as IIUC
it is now BSD based. In the past I started with ICL1900 mainframes with
FORTRAN and progressed though various mainframe systems, also using
PDPs, etc. But I ended up preferring RO for 'domestic' tasks like document
creation, etc. Also use *NIX (Solaris mostly) for specific purposes, but
just hack to get what I need. Have tried doze and linux, but can't say I
liked either. Linux is Ok for programming, but I prefer RO for domestic
purposes. Simple works in a more convenient way for me.

FWIW You can get emulators for RO running on doze and mac. So I may end up
in future years with a mac and use an emulator for the domestic tasks. :-)



Not sure if you are referring to Andre's programming style or the way
RO tends to work. ;-


Well, the screenshots remind me of Windows 3.1. Although in all honesty
if it works, go with it. I find Mac apps look like something out of
(what i might imagine to be) a child's nightmare. But they just toddle
along in a *consistent and reliable* sort of way.

The look of RO may be deceptive. Bit like the way some linux disros
deliberately 'look like doze' but work differently when you get into using
them. My own RO machines have a slightly different desktop appearance as
this is easy to change. But I like simple, colourful, icons, etc, as I have
poor eyesight and I find this easier to see. You'd need to try using RO to
discover the differences.

The most obvious distinction with doze 3.x for me would be that onscreen
text with ancient doze looked truly awful. Whereas from the year dot RO
onscreen text has tended to be well antialiased so looks much more like
print on paper. One of the reasons I avoided doze for years was that the
text it displayed was so rough and ragged it made my eyes water, and become
sore. (This is quite literally correct, not just an expression of
distaste!)

It was quite funny a a year or two ago when I read in IEEE Spectrum an
'article' on progress in font anti-aliasing that was little more than an ad
from microsoft promoting their catching up with what others had been doing
for over a decade. I could just hear Uncle Bill saying, "text dithering
/anti-aliasing - what's that?" as an echo of his fabled comment about the
net. :-)

All wildly off-topic, though... :-)

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


Peter Walker of Quad fame had it right - the wider you open the window the
more the s**t comes in. All these pop stations are over processed, which
makes them sound even more harsh. AM removes most of the HF and with it
some of that harshness.


Shades of the way cinema sound used to work. The cinema's replay system had
a significant HF roll-off - the infamous "Academy Curve" which started at
3kHz and was 20dB down at 9kHz (Measured electrically across the speaker
terminals, so it took no account of the performance of the speaker or the
auditorium acoustics). To avoid the sound being unacceptably dull the sound
mixers would use plenty of HF boost, even driving the track into clipping,
but that didn't matter because the Academy curve would take out the
resulting harmonics.

So there was a kind of vicious circle that made it hard to improve the
quality of cinema sound, widening the frequency response of the replay chain
would simply make the sound harsh. It wasn't until Dolby Labs got
interested in the subject in the early '70s that anyone was able to break
this vicious circle.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

BBC is biased towards DAB wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om
[...]

I'm beginning to
wonder if you are perhaps a sock puppet of Phil Allison's.

I don't even know who that is.

I'd say Phil is someone who knows his subject (audio engineering),
and
is quick to criticise anyone (novice to expert) who suggests
anything
that differs with his opinion. His manner of criticism is, well,
unique.
His presence is interesting because I've rarely seen a thread end on
a
reasoned critique of his technical analysis - almost always his
manner.
He rarely *needs* to concede a technical point.

Familiar? :-)


Sure. At the end of the day though, I read the whole thread through,
marked the ones I disagreed with, and there were so many that I didn't
have any time for the pleasantries! ;-)

Anyway, Lesurf can't see beyond Radio 3, and he just says that it's
better on DAB merely because of the dynamic range compression on FM,
therefore ignoring that FM actually carries the sound that's fed into
the system at higher fidelity than DAB.

Plowman is *just* an incorrigible fool. The end.

Don't know David Looser, but his posts made him sound full of himself,
so I didn't feel the need to hold back with him either.

Mainly it's Plowman and his nonsense that bugs me though, so whenever
he's about we invariably end up arguing.


Yes, I know - but he does know what he knows about what he knows
(IYSWIM). And then, when he's on a related topic and he's run out of
knowledge steam, he has been known to resort to personal insults. I
think he started trying to be abusive about your home when you
challenged him on his knowledge of radio transmission costs?

I enjoy the contributions from just about everyone, and try to pick up
bits and pieces along the way - that's why I still subscribe. One day I
might actually be able to contribute :-)

Rob

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
WIW I much prefer the MW (second) part from that extract from what
little music I can hear - the DAB sounds as if it's coming from an echo
chamber, bass turned down, treble turned right up, tinny. The MW sounds
focussed, muffled, treble turned right down, artificially bassy,
sonorous.

I buy on average a DAB radio each year, thinking I might like it/what's
not to like. Then within a month or so I sell it or give it away, and go
back to one of the cheap portable FM radios I have.

Perhaps FM masks the compression, perhaps blind prejudice, perhaps FM
does 'sound better'.

Peter Walker of Quad fame had it right - the wider you open the window the
more the s**t comes in. All these pop stations are over processed, which
makes them sound even more harsh. AM removes most of the HF and with it
some of that harshness.


Perhaps he was talking in the context of imports and competitive markets
- if people will buy poor quality, people will make it. That's what I
don't understand about DAB - do listeners actually prefer this highly
hashed transmission, is it some sort of cultural realignment, no choice
or know any better?

You mention research* on 'difference' and DAB - did that involve a
qualitative evaluation of 'preference'? There is an amount of skewing
around this term, especially following the introduction of CD. We were
told digital was 'clean', 'clear', 'accurate' - even 'crystalline'
perhaps. In much the same way as 'working class' is a term shunned by
working class people, analogue became old fashioned, outmoded. Possibly,
if people associate a sound the the 'digital' adjectives they will, as a
point of social reflex, describe it as better or at the very least,
preferable.

This notion is popular in some applied social science at the moment.
Just an idea.

Rob

*Do you have a reference please? Couple of words from the title, an
author, should do it.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Rob" wrote in message
m...


You mention research* on 'difference' and DAB - did that involve a
qualitative evaluation of 'preference'? There is an amount of skewing
around this term, especially following the introduction of CD. We were
told digital was 'clean', 'clear', 'accurate' - even 'crystalline'
perhaps.

When I first heard CD it was like a breath of fresh air. Clean, natural, far
more pleasant to listen to than vinyl. And it was better than FM radio too,
previously my medium of choice, I'd already given up buying records because
they were so poor.

This reaction wasn't based on what I was told, it was based on what I heard.
So I don't buy your thesis at all.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
I remember driving round Birmingham on a coach equipped with a
demonstration system long before actual transmissions started - and the
difference in reception between that and FM was quite astounding.

A high bit rate I'd imagine, it being a demo, not the real commercial
world.

Nope - IIRC the same bitrates as used at the start of the service. the
current reduced ones came later.

But just to point out, bitrates have little to do with actual
reception.

Did you mean to say "bitrates have little to do with actual sound
quality" ?

No. You could have perfect reception of appalling sound quality.

Or the other way round. Which is a point many who think FM perfect choose
to ignore - it often suffers from less than perfect reception which very
much downgrades the sound quality. DAB far less so - apart from the
infamous boiling mud effect you can get with a poor signal.

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
WIW I much prefer the MW (second) part from that extract from what
little music I can hear - the DAB sounds as if it's coming from an
echo chamber, bass turned down, treble turned right up, tinny. The MW
sounds focussed, muffled, treble turned right down, artificially
bassy, sonorous.

I buy on average a DAB radio each year, thinking I might like
it/what's not to like. Then within a month or so I sell it or give it
away, and go back to one of the cheap portable FM radios I have.

Perhaps FM masks the compression, perhaps blind prejudice, perhaps FM
does 'sound better'.

Peter Walker of Quad fame had it right - the wider you open the window
the more the s**t comes in. All these pop stations are over processed,
which makes them sound even more harsh. AM removes most of the HF and
with it some of that harshness.


Perhaps he was talking in the context of imports and competitive markets
- if people will buy poor quality, people will make it. That's what I
don't understand about DAB - do listeners actually prefer this highly
hashed transmission, is it some sort of cultural realignment, no choice
or know any better?

I'd have thought his statement quite clear - the better the replay
equipment the more it shows up the source material. And with pop radio
that - to me - is the ever present processor which attempts to make the
station sound louder. You probably wouldn't believe what they do to a
signal - rather like a form of encoding without using an appropriate
decoder. ;-)

You mention research* on 'difference' and DAB - did that involve a
qualitative evaluation of 'preference'? There is an amount of skewing
around this term, especially following the introduction of CD. We were
told digital was 'clean', 'clear', 'accurate' - even 'crystalline'
perhaps. In much the same way as 'working class' is a term shunned by
working class people, analogue became old fashioned, outmoded. Possibly,
if people associate a sound the the 'digital' adjectives they will, as
a point of social reflex, describe it as better or at the very least,
preferable.

'Digital' means not a lot in terms of quality. Mobile phones are near
totally digital and sound dreadful. Plug a good analogue microphone into
an decent analogue amp and speaker and you can get very fine results
indeed. Recording - or transmitting - that signal is where the problems
have always been.

This notion is popular in some applied social science at the moment.
Just an idea.

Rob

*Do you have a reference please? Couple of words from the title, an
author, should do it.

--
*How can I miss you if you won't go away?

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
[...]

Perhaps he was talking in the context of imports and competitive markets
- if people will buy poor quality, people will make it. That's what I
don't understand about DAB - do listeners actually prefer this highly
hashed transmission, is it some sort of cultural realignment, no choice
or know any better?

I'd have thought his statement quite clear - the better the replay
equipment the more it shows up the source material. And with pop radio
that - to me - is the ever present processor which attempts to make the
station sound louder. You probably wouldn't believe what they do to a
signal - rather like a form of encoding without using an appropriate
decoder. ;-)

You mention research* on 'difference' and DAB - did that involve a
qualitative evaluation of 'preference'? There is an amount of skewing
around this term, especially following the introduction of CD. We were
told digital was 'clean', 'clear', 'accurate' - even 'crystalline'
perhaps. In much the same way as 'working class' is a term shunned by
working class people, analogue became old fashioned, outmoded. Possibly,
if people associate a sound the the 'digital' adjectives they will, as
a point of social reflex, describe it as better or at the very least,
preferable.

'Digital' means not a lot in terms of quality. Mobile phones are near
totally digital and sound dreadful. Plug a good analogue microphone into
an decent analogue amp and speaker and you can get very fine results
indeed. Recording - or transmitting - that signal is where the problems
have always been.


OK, I'll have another go ;-)

You mention research on 'difference' and DAB - did that involve a
qualitative evaluation of 'preference'?

I take it the 'research' you referred to (and became involved with?) was
industry-based, and not a peer reviewed exercise?

Perhaps you'd accept the point that 'Digital Sound' is used as a
marketing ploy?

Rob

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Yes, I know - but he does know what he knows about what he knows
(IYSWIM). And then, when he's on a related topic and he's run out of
knowledge steam, he has been known to resort to personal insults. I
think he started trying to be abusive about your home when you
challenged him on his knowledge of radio transmission costs?

I'm only ever abusive - afterwards - to those who start it.

Our DAB 'expert' is known for being abusive to anyone who disagrees with
his opinion and avoiding answering any points where he knows he'd be
proved wrong. It's common enough with religions - but gawd knows what
causes it on such an unimportant subject in the scheme of things.

--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

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