Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
scribeth thus

That may be your opinion, but it's far from being a fact, as the existence
of internet streams clearly demonstrates. I see no "push" towards DAB,
and
you have failed to demonstrate that there is one.

David.



Read Lord Carter's "Digital Britain" report from a week or two ago.....
--

Thanks for the suggestion, it was an interesting read. But Steve is pointing
his guns in the wrong direction, he is arguing that the *BBC* is biased
towards DAB, but Lord Carter's report was made for the government, not the
BBC.

From what I've heard in the industry its only the BBC who "wants"
T-DAB..

The commercial radio side just sees it as another expense they can do
without!, whereas the BBC has the licence payer to pay for it all for
them.....


You know, the idea that the government can make DAB the "primary network"
for radio seriously overestimates their power.

Well who's going to argue with Ofcom and the DMCS?..

If the public wont buy DAB
sets (and they've had one of the slowest uptakes of any new consumer product
in recent years) then the government can't make them. I note that even Ofcom
is shying away from coming up with a switch off date for analogue radio.
There have been many examples of the powers-that-be being wrong footed by
the public (such as the domestic take-up of the internet itself, the
government had to play catch-up pretty damn fast), I suspect this is yet
another.

Personally I find the idea of internet radio unattractive, far too geeky for
my liking, and it ties you down to the broadband socket. So I think we do
need DAB, preferably DAB+. But for now I'll stay with FM.

David.





--
Tony Sayer

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
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.


Indeed. The idea of a digital radio system wasn't a bad one but there
are problems with the one we've got..

Sound quality is just one of them..
--
Tony Sayer

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
David Looser wrote:

It was the clear sonic superiority of the digital CD that planted in
the public's mind the idea that digital = good.

Over christmas we entertained my wife's extended family. At one point
the conversation turned to Mama Mia and ABBA and then LPs. Many of the
youngsters had never seen a record player and so I demonstrated one by
playing an ABBA LP and also an ABBA CD.

I think its fair to say that the people in their 30s were all shocked,
almost to being speechless. They expected the CD to crucify the LP and
yet in practise they thought the LP sounded perfectly fine.

Now yes this was ABBA not Mahler and you could hear some (nothing major)
surface noise between tracks. In a way though, this is my point. If
you're playing mostly classical then the CD was an enormous lift even if
you preferred (right or wrong) the sound of LPs. For music with less
dynamic range I think the 'clear sonic superiority' was and still is,
not clear.

The distortions present on all vinyl can 'enhance' some material - mainly
pop - to some ears. Nothing new in that.
And if you're used to that sound hearing the same track clean can be
somewhat of a disappointment. Although obviously not the case here.

Personally I found it near magical to hear some favourites near enough as
the recording engineer did after mixdown - in the days before the current
trend for heavy processing during 'mastering'.

Bob.

--
*Why do the two "sanction"s (noun and verb) mean opposites?*

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article , Bob Latham bob@sick-
of-spam.invalid scribeth thus
In article ,
David Looser wrote:

It was the clear sonic superiority of the digital CD that planted in the
public's mind the idea that digital = good.

Over christmas we entertained my wife's extended family. At one point the
conversation turned to Mama Mia and ABBA and then LPs. Many of the
youngsters had never seen a record player and so I demonstrated one by
playing an ABBA LP and also an ABBA CD.

I think its fair to say that the people in their 30s were all shocked,
almost to being speechless. They expected the CD to crucify the LP and yet
in practise they thought the LP sounded perfectly fine.

Now yes this was ABBA not Mahler and you could hear some (nothing major)
surface noise between tracks. In a way though, this is my point. If you're
playing mostly classical then the CD was an enormous lift even if you
preferred (right or wrong) the sound of LPs. For music with less dynamic
range I think the 'clear sonic superiority' was and still is, not clear.

Bob.


'tho CD is quite good at showing up what's sometimes wrong with the
recording;)...
--
Tony Sayer

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote:
Just get a tuner that performs well on both, and press the 'band'
button to switch between DAB and FM when you've got the same
station
on both bands. There's no contest, so forget your double blind
testing
in this instance, it really isn't needed at all.

It would be worthwhile if you read up on conducting proper double
blind
testing.


I'm very well aware of how double blind tests are conducted, thanks.


Otherwise it puts you in the same camp as those who say a 'posh'
mains
cable makes their amp sound better.


I've asked you once to do this but you ignored me. So I ask again,
please explain in detail the methodology used for your supposed
listening test.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
From what I've heard in the industry its only the BBC who "wants"
T-DAB..

Which industry? Equipment suppliers on both sides of the market are always
delighted with such things.

The commercial radio side just sees it as another expense they can do
without!, whereas the BBC has the licence payer to pay for it all for
them.....

Radio is already at saturation level so few if any *new* listeners would
be provided by a different format. All you might do is poach from another
one.

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote:
It would be worthwhile if you read up on conducting proper double
blind
testing.


I'm very well aware of how double blind tests are conducted, thanks.


Otherwise it puts you in the same camp as those who say a 'posh'
mains
cable makes their amp sound better.


I've asked you once to do this but you ignored me. So I ask again,
please explain in detail the methodology used for your supposed
listening test.

I've already explained quite enough for most to understand. But you
decided to rubbish that.

If you have specific points you want answering I'll consider them.

And perhaps you'd tell me all the details of those tests you've been
involved in?

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in
:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message

In article KxUjl.32502$Sp5.27384
@text.news.virginmedia.com,
Rob wrote:
'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'?

No. Double blind testing of the same material as recorded
off DAB,
FM and
AM. Carefully adjusted to match levels and timing. And
played out
simultaneously from a pro multitrack recorder. Each of
the panel of
10 had
a three position switch so could select any track at any
time -
listening
on headphones of their choice. Three types of music and
one of
speech,
each approx 3 minutes long. And different tracks used at
random for
each
test piece.

The test was repeated with two more groups of 10. And
then on
loudspeakers - but obviously them the switching was done
by just one
person. The track that was being listened to had its
number
displayed.

The panel was asked to write down which track they
preferred for
each
piece - and to guess which was DAB, FM or AM. The
results were
surprising...


Could you provide more information about teh methodology
of the test,
and who was responsible for the test, and what your role
was. Thanks.


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

It involved mainly work colleagues.


Ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It was a Plowman DAB Test. As I say, no need to tell us
anything more.


About 1/3rd involved on the sound
side of broadcasting. The others (from all 'trades') had
expressed
an
interest in being involved.

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

Of course. But I learned to take advertising with a pinch
of salt as
a
child. Doesn't everyone?


Imbecile.




Here we go, there's been a perfectly civil discussion and
Steve comes in and starts hurling abuse. Is he capable of
carrying on a reasonable dicussion? You can be polite and
disagree you know.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Alan S." wrote in message
.145
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in
:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message

In article KxUjl.32502$Sp5.27384
@text.news.virginmedia.com,
Rob wrote:
'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'?

No. Double blind testing of the same material as recorded
off DAB,
FM and
AM. Carefully adjusted to match levels and timing. And
played out
simultaneously from a pro multitrack recorder. Each of
the panel of
10 had
a three position switch so could select any track at any
time -
listening
on headphones of their choice. Three types of music and
one of
speech,
each approx 3 minutes long. And different tracks used at
random for
each
test piece.

The test was repeated with two more groups of 10. And
then on
loudspeakers - but obviously them the switching was done
by just one
person. The track that was being listened to had its
number
displayed.

The panel was asked to write down which track they
preferred for
each
piece - and to guess which was DAB, FM or AM. The
results were
surprising...


Could you provide more information about teh methodology
of the test,
and who was responsible for the test, and what your role
was. Thanks.


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

It involved mainly work colleagues.


Ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It was a Plowman DAB Test. As I say, no need to tell us
anything more.


About 1/3rd involved on the sound
side of broadcasting. The others (from all 'trades') had
expressed
an
interest in being involved.

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

Of course. But I learned to take advertising with a pinch
of salt as
a
child. Doesn't everyone?


Imbecile.




Here we go, there's been a perfectly civil discussion and
Steve comes in and starts hurling abuse. Is he capable of
carrying on a reasonable dicussion? You can be polite and
disagree you know.


What, because I used the word "imbecile". Try reading Plowman's use of
language in describing me.

One rule for Plowman, another one for me.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote:
It would be worthwhile if you read up on conducting proper double
blind
testing.


I'm very well aware of how double blind tests are conducted,
thanks.


Otherwise it puts you in the same camp as those who say a 'posh'
mains
cable makes their amp sound better.


I've asked you once to do this but you ignored me. So I ask again,
please explain in detail the methodology used for your supposed
listening test.

I've already explained quite enough for most to understand. But you
decided to rubbish that.


Absolutely. You described your methodology of recording the samples as
follows:

"Some time ago I set up a test. Recorded the same clips from R1,3 and
4 off
DAB, FM and AM (AM using a Quad AM3 with proper aerial) Adjusted
levels
so they were subjectively the same."

Could you explain how you recorded R1, R3 and R4 via AM?

Could you explain how you selected which bits to record on R1, R3 and
R4? IMO, considering that you're obviously biased towards DAB, could
you explain why anyone should trust your choice of what you recorded?

Could you explain teh criteria you used that led you to pressing the
record button?

Could you explain why you chose the stations you did?

Could you explain how you became knowledgable about compressed audio?
From discussing DAB-related things with you over the years, with all
due respect, you have always seemed to have zero understanding of
compressed audio.


If you have specific points you want answering I'll consider them.


See above.


And perhaps you'd tell me all the details of those tests you've been
involved in?


Sorry?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm