Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...
I normally listen on FM of course, but yesterday I checked on the bit
rate on Radio 4 yesterday morning and it was 128 kbps. Noticeably
inferior to FM.

FM doesn't have a "bit rate", so it's meaningless to say that 128kb/s is
"noticeably inferior" to it. Or perhaps you mean that the sound quality
was "noticeably inferior"?,

Of course I did. It must have been obvious.

Probably, but it wasn't what you said.

what is a "scientific
listening test"? Is it what most people call "listening"?

A proper "scientific" listening test requires the following:- that all
factors other than the one under test (in this case the difference between
FM and DAB) are identical, ie same amp, speakers, and listening room; same
volume level and frequency response (very important) and, most crucially of
all, that the person(s) who's opinions are being used as "evidence" do not
know which they are listening to at any particular time.



David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Well the number of the bits and the way you use them do affect the
quality of both Sound and Vision;!..
--

Indeed, but it's not necessarily the case that it's "more bits the better".
Some recent digital cameras with high "megapixel counts" produce poorer
pictures than older ones with fewer megapixels. Similarly an audio stream
with a high number of bits/sec may sound worse than one with fewer, all
depending on other factors. There is a tendency, here as elsewhere, to
assume that more must mean better.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Rob" wrote in message
om...

Of course. In fairness the centre of the DAB 'whinge' was always that it
could have been so much better, and not that it was/is intrinsically bad.
'Better', as you seem to suggest below, can't always be detected even if
it has theoretical advantages.


Of course it could have been better, broadcasting quality is a compromise
between performance and cost, always has been. The broadcaster's aim is to
provide a quality that is "good enough" without being too expensive, both
for themselves and the buyers of receiving equipment.

The problem is that what is good enough for the bulk of the audience may not
satisfy the enthusiasts, how much cost do you impose on the system to
satisfy a small minority?

In the particular case of DAB I think a small improvement is justified, as
it can be done at little extra cost. But even as things are now the notion
that DAB is clearly worse than FM is challenged by some serious
commentators.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I don't supposed you've listened to that much net radio .. some indeed
is poor but some is very good...

The same applies to DAB - and FM.

To me the processing which is applied *in spades* to all the light music
stations is far more annoying than the low bit rates on DAB. I'd rather
not listen to badly set compressors pumping away.

--
*If all is not lost, where the hell is it?

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...


I don't supposed you've listened to that much net radio .. some indeed
is poor but some is very good...
--

Well no, I haven't, I don't see the point. I've got FM radio, I've got
satellite radio, I've got CDs and tapes galore, why do I need internet
radio? I don't want to tie up my broadband connection (and risk paying
extra because I've exceeded my monthly download allowance).

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I don't supposed you've listened to that much net radio .. some indeed
is poor but some is very good...

The same applies to DAB - and FM.

To me the processing which is applied *in spades* to all the light music
stations is far more annoying than the low bit rates on DAB. I'd rather
not listen to badly set compressors pumping away.


Thats not a function of the transmission system just how broadcasters
use it!..
--
Tony Sayer

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

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


I don't supposed you've listened to that much net radio .. some indeed
is poor but some is very good...
--

Well no, I haven't, I don't see the point. I've got FM radio, I've got
satellite radio, I've got CDs and tapes galore, why do I need internet
radio? I don't want to tie up my broadband connection (and risk paying
extra because I've exceeded my monthly download allowance).

David.



Well its there just like all the other digital platforms;)..

Some have unlimited BB;
--
Tony Sayer

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"Rob" wrote in message
. com...

Of course. In fairness the centre of the DAB 'whinge' was always that it
could have been so much better, and not that it was/is intrinsically bad.
'Better', as you seem to suggest below, can't always be detected even if
it has theoretical advantages.


Of course it could have been better, broadcasting quality is a compromise
between performance and cost, always has been. The broadcaster's aim is to
provide a quality that is "good enough" without being too expensive, both
for themselves and the buyers of receiving equipment.

Its only in recent times that they have had an opportunity to downgrade
it owing to the bitrates they can set it at.. You'd never hear someone
from the pre digital times saying that they could -downgrade- the
transmission system in use.

Oddly enough DAB was developed with the intention of making it all
better .. Reception and audio quality!..


The problem is that what is good enough for the bulk of the audience may not
satisfy the enthusiasts, how much cost do you impose on the system to
satisfy a small minority?

I wouldn't say it has to satisfy the enthusiasts as such but one would
have hoped for something as good as the existing system - or better
would have been used..


In the particular case of DAB I think a small improvement is justified, as
it can be done at little extra cost. But even as things are now the notion
that DAB is clearly worse than FM is challenged by some serious
commentators.

Well cost = MUX bitspace so it isn't that simple and seeing that the UK
is going to be lumbered with the ancient system we have whereas other
countries are adopting better ones!..

Still digital can be very good on satellite where for some state
broadcasters 256 K or more is the norm for classical services but the
BBC isn't one of them:(...

David.




--
Tony Sayer

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

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

Well the number of the bits and the way you use them do affect the
quality of both Sound and Vision;!..
--

Indeed, but it\'s not necessarily the case that it\'s "more bits the better".
Some recent digital cameras with high "megapixel counts" produce poorer
pictures than older ones with fewer megapixels.

Why do you think that is?..

Similarly an audio stream
with a high number of bits/sec may sound worse than one with fewer, all
depending on other factors. There is a tendency, here as elsewhere, to
assume that more must mean better.

David.



In digital audio systems a lot is dependent on the codec in use and MP 2
which is what DAB uses wasn\'t designed for use at 112K or so whereas
AAC was!..
--
Tony Sayer

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
Of course. In fairness the centre of the DAB \'whinge\' was always that it
could have been so much better, and not that it was/is intrinsically bad.
\'Better\', as you seem to suggest below, can\'t always be detected even if
it has theoretical advantages.


Of course it could have been better, broadcasting quality is a compromise
between performance and cost, always has been. The broadcaster\'s aim is to
provide a quality that is "good enough" without being too expensive, both
for themselves and the buyers of receiving equipment.

The problem is that what is good enough for the bulk of the audience may not
satisfy the enthusiasts, how much cost do you impose on the system to
satisfy a small minority?


I don\'t know the costs of transmitting at higher quality. Presumably you
know they are prohibitive ...

In the particular case of DAB I think a small improvement is justified, as
it can be done at little extra cost. But even as things are now the notion
that DAB is clearly worse than FM is challenged by some serious
commentators.


.... and even if implemented, not worthwhile?