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.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
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...

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. 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?

--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses*

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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...

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


OK, that's interesting. I've tried discussing research methods on this
NG before, and frankly didn't get very far. Just to say the method could
have done with a bit of a going over. Not to say the results are without
merit.

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?


Mmm, I really don't think they do. Directly or indirectly, most of us
are quite heavily influenced by advertising. Give me an example of the
last brand name item you bought and I'll try and explain why even you
might be under the spell.

Onwards. I am suggesting a lot of people bought music, especially at the
time of CD (I consider its time has passed), because it was digital -
'perfect sound forever' I think was the phrase - without knowing what
that meant in practice, beyond durable and convenient. 'Sound' wasn't a
major consideration.

It's just my opinion. I don't have any hard evidence - but then I don't
think much exists.

Rob

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.


Well yes, but twittering on about someone's domestic circumstance is
pretty much throwing in the towel. I'm not coming at this from high
ground btw ;-)

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.


Steve is, ahem, 'focused and driven', and brusque on occasion. I don't
think the religion analogy works - I think he's just a technophile who
believes very strongly about something technical.

The issue is complicated by the hefty political shenanigans that
accompanied the introduction of DAB. A lot of people cut through all of
that by simply settling on 'DAB's bonkers good and better than what we
had so let's just get on with it' - what matters is what works, as it were.

I don't think he's happy about *that*, and I think the matter of
implementation was important then, and it will be important again. And
it's good that some people do campaign about things that matter to them
- as it happens, I don't think public broadcasting is that left field.

Rob

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Rob" wrote in message
om...

Onwards. I am suggesting a lot of people bought music, especially at the
time of CD (I consider its time has passed), because it was digital -
'perfect sound forever' I think was the phrase - without knowing what that
meant in practice, beyond durable and convenient. 'Sound' wasn't a major
consideration.

I would suggest that it's the other way about. It was the clear sonic
superiority of the digital CD that planted in the public's mind the idea
that digital = good. Of course not everything digital that has followed is
good, some is quite mind-numbingly awful, but as far as the CD itself is
concerned the hype was true.

It's just my opinion. I don't have any hard evidence - but then I don't
think much exists.


Hard evidence of *why* people do the things they do is all but impossible to
obtain with any degree of credibility :-(

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

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


Well yes, but twittering on about someone's domestic circumstance is
pretty much throwing in the towel. I'm not coming at this from high
ground btw ;-)

It has actually a bearing. He goes on and on about internet radio. Now
most aren't going to have a dedicated internet radio, so it would mean
using their computer. Which probably isn't in the best place for using
while in the kitchen. Where many do listen to the radio. Same as the
bathroom. But if you live in one room it makes little difference.

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.


Steve is, ahem, 'focused and driven', and brusque on occasion. I don't
think the religion analogy works - I think he's just a technophile who
believes very strongly about something technical.

Probably hit on the head with a DAB radio when younger, given his hate of
it. Did you miss this quote:-

*****************

From: BBC is biased towards DAB
Subject: Internet radio - classical music, etc
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

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

*****************

Says it all, really. He doesn't 'need' DAB in any shape or form therefore
no one else does. But it also begs the question on why he spends so much
time 'discussing' something he doesn't need - and trying to put others off
it. Sounds like a religion to me...

The issue is complicated by the hefty political shenanigans that
accompanied the introduction of DAB. A lot of people cut through all of
that by simply settling on 'DAB's bonkers good and better than what we
had so let's just get on with it' - what matters is what works, as it
were.

There weren't any 'political shenanigans' that accompanied the
introduction of DAB. They came later. It was near universally ignored by
the sort of people who read this groups and 'Hi-Fi' mags. Which didn't
much surprise me as by then few listened to radio seriously. It had become
just background music etc most of the time. They listened to their CDs,
etc when they wanted to actually listen.

I don't think he's happy about *that*, and I think the matter of
implementation was important then, and it will be important again. And
it's good that some people do campaign about things that matter to them
- as it happens, I don't think public broadcasting is that left field.

Well, I could start a campaign to stop the money the BBC spend on football.
Or tennis. Or take your pick. Most would think anyone who did rather
strange.

I could also say internet radio is a waste of time because I *personally*
don't need or want it.

Rob

--
*When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded *

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:
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.


Well yes, but twittering on about someone's domestic circumstance is
pretty much throwing in the towel. I'm not coming at this from high
ground btw ;-)

It has actually a bearing. He goes on and on about internet radio. Now
most aren't going to have a dedicated internet radio, so it would mean
using their computer. Which probably isn't in the best place for using
while in the kitchen. Where many do listen to the radio. Same as the
bathroom. But if you live in one room it makes little difference.

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.


Steve is, ahem, 'focused and driven', and brusque on occasion. I don't
think the religion analogy works - I think he's just a technophile who
believes very strongly about something technical.

Probably hit on the head with a DAB radio when younger, given his hate of
it. Did you miss this quote:-

*****************

From: BBC is biased towards DAB
Subject: Internet radio - classical music, etc
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

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

*****************

Says it all, really. He doesn't 'need' DAB in any shape or form therefore
no one else does. But it also begs the question on why he spends so much
time 'discussing' something he doesn't need - and trying to put others off
it. Sounds like a religion to me...


Mmm. OK, I've said all I want on that.

The issue is complicated by the hefty political shenanigans that
accompanied the introduction of DAB. A lot of people cut through all of
that by simply settling on 'DAB's bonkers good and better than what we
had so let's just get on with it' - what matters is what works, as it
were.

There weren't any 'political shenanigans' that accompanied the
introduction of DAB.

Certainly were as i remember it. Thing is, I'm not your best source as i
can't remember the details, but I did respond to the original policy
consultation and the issue was far from measured and thought through.

They came later. It was near universally ignored by
the sort of people who read this groups and 'Hi-Fi' mags. Which didn't
much surprise me as by then few listened to radio seriously. It had become
just background music etc most of the time. They listened to their CDs,
etc when they wanted to actually listen.


Apparently, the UK stands pretty much alone when it comes to outright
apathy and consultation - we rarely engage when asked. Notable
exceptions of course.

I don't think he's happy about *that*, and I think the matter of
implementation was important then, and it will be important again. And
it's good that some people do campaign about things that matter to them
- as it happens, I don't think public broadcasting is that left field.

Well, I could start a campaign to stop the money the BBC spend on football.
Or tennis. Or take your pick. Most would think anyone who did rather
strange.

I could also say internet radio is a waste of time because I *personally*
don't need or want it.


Of course you could, yes.

But this is a campaign (well, don't want to big it up) to *improve*
technical standards in public broadcasting. It's not primarily about
content. We had the opportunity to have something so much better, and
even I with my well-renowned cloth ears and lo-fi can hear a problem.

Although I do agree with your sentiment - if there isn't the enthusiasm
for standards in a newsgroup about audio, 'staffed' by pretty seasoned
audio professionals, then I might as well call it a day. Except I won't.
Well not yet, until I have something better to do.

Rob

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
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.



--
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
 

"Rob" wrote in message
om
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
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...

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


OK, that's interesting. I've tried discussing research methods on
this
NG before, and frankly didn't get very far. Just to say the method
could
have done with a bit of a going over. Not to say the results are
without
merit.


No, the results are completely without merit.


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?


Mmm, I really don't think they do. Directly or indirectly, most of
us
are quite heavily influenced by advertising. Give me an example of
the
last brand name item you bought and I'll try and explain why even
you
might be under the spell.


A 30-second TV ad in the break of Coronation Street costs £80k. Nuff
said.



--
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
...

Probably hit on the head with a DAB radio when younger, given his hate of
it. Did you miss this quote:-

*****************

From: BBC is biased towards DAB
Subject: Internet radio - classical music, etc
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:10
Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio

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

*****************

Says it all, really. He doesn't 'need' DAB in any shape or form therefore
no one else does. But it also begs the question on why he spends so much
time 'discussing' something he doesn't need - and trying to put others off
it. Sounds like a religion to me...


Of course we don't "need" radio at all, mankind survived perfectly well
without it right up to about 100 years ago. But since we've all got used to
having it we'd miss it if it disappeared. I'm pretty happy with FM; I get
an excellent signal, on BBC anyway which is all I'm really bothered about.
So I don't want them to turn it off, I can see no justification for analogue
switch-off for sound radio (even though I've been watching digital TV almost
exclusively for the past 13 years, so analogue switch-off of TV will be a
total non-event AFAIAC). But given that Ofcom seem to have a desperate
desire to switch off analogue radio eventually the question of what replaces
it arises. Internet radio is fine for those who want it, but it's no
substitute for over-the-air broadcast radio. so DAB in one form or another
is "needed" as a replacement for analogue radio if and when that eventually
goes.

Had Steve's line been "we want DAB, but we want a *better* DAB I'd had given
him some respect. Although I don't think DAB as we have it is as bad as has
been claimed, it could be better. IMO the system was finalised too early, in
the first few years receiver sales were as close to non-existent as makes
very little difference. So there was an opportunity to re-think and choose a
more modern codec, an opportunity that was wasted. But suggesting that the
BBC's support for DAB is part of a conspiracy to do down internet radio
(which is a grossly inefficient way of reaching mass audiences anyway) is
plain daft. Most of the public already have the facility to listen to
internet radio if they want to, and the BBC is in no position to stop them.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
Says it all, really. He doesn't 'need' DAB in any shape or form
therefore no one else does. But it also begs the question on why he
spends so much time 'discussing' something he doesn't need - and
trying to put others off it. Sounds like a religion to me...


Of course we don't "need" radio at all, mankind survived perfectly well
without it right up to about 100 years ago. But since we've all got
used to having it we'd miss it if it disappeared. I'm pretty happy
with FM; I get an excellent signal, on BBC anyway which is all I'm
really bothered about. So I don't want them to turn it off, I can see
no justification for analogue switch-off for sound radio (even though
I've been watching digital TV almost exclusively for the past 13 years,
so analogue switch-off of TV will be a total non-event AFAIAC).

It's easier to justify a need for DTTV - it gives you far more channels
than analogue ever could. Not so with DAB versus FM in practice.
FWIW, I can't see FM being turned off in the foreseeable future - there
are too many car radios that use it and don't have DAB. There would be an
outcry if a firm date was set in the near future.


But
given that Ofcom seem to have a desperate desire to switch off analogue
radio eventually the question of what replaces it arises. Internet
radio is fine for those who want it, but it's no substitute for
over-the-air broadcast radio. so DAB in one form or another is "needed"
as a replacement for analogue radio if and when that eventually goes.

Has any country switched off FM - or set a firm date? This country must
have as crowded wave bands as any - but FM copes in the main ok.

Had Steve's line been "we want DAB, but we want a *better* DAB I'd had
given him some respect.

He was cock a hoop when DAB+ was announced and claimed he had influenced
the decision making. But as we have seen, soon moved on to simply wanting
DAB scrapped altogether. What his motives are gawd knows. He's certainly
not in any position to make a financial gain from releasing those
frequencies.

Although I don't think DAB as we have it is as
bad as has been claimed, it could be better.

That can be said about any system ever. Especially with hindsight.

IMO the system was finalised too early, in the first few years receiver
sales were as close to non-existent as makes very little difference.

Sadly the planners weren't to know just how poor the take up would be.
Although some market research might have helped.

So there was an
opportunity to re-think and choose a more modern codec, an opportunity
that was wasted.

I doubt that would have made a scrap of difference to sales. The take up
rate was far higher after the data rates were reduced - which sort of says
ultimate quality wasn't a priority for those.

But suggesting that the BBC's support for DAB is part
of a conspiracy to do down internet radio (which is a grossly
inefficient way of reaching mass audiences anyway) is plain daft. Most
of the public already have the facility to listen to internet radio if
they want to, and the BBC is in no position to stop them.

As I said earlier BBC R4 radio plugs internet radio many times every day
- without a mention of DAB.

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

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

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote:
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?

Which part of 'some time ago' needs explaining?

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?

Ah. The conspiracy theory again.

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

What a strange question. I should however explain I was far from the only
person involved in setting this up.

Could you explain why you chose the stations you did?

The ease - at the time - of doing such a thing.

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.

Define what you mean by 'compressed audio' I don't think you understand
what it is.

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?

It's all too easy to rubbish things you've not tried.

So tell us about all the exhaustive test you've done before coming to your
conclusions?
Pretty well everything you write is simply a justification of your
opinions. So which came first?

--
*It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

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.....

From what I hear it's Ofcom who wants DAB, because they want to kill off
analogue :-(

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?..

Who's going to take any notice of Ofcom and DMCS? - I'm referring to the
buying and listening public here, most of whom have never heard of either.
The public wont buy DAB sets because DMCS and Ofcom want it, quite the
contrary. The public overwhelmingly want analogue radio to continue and no
government with it's eye on the next election will allow Ofcom to kill off
analogue radio if there isn't a viable alternative. Internet radio is
becoming increasingly popular, particularly for the "listen again" type of
services. If DAB is to make inroads it'll need to provide something the
public want. Neither Ofcom nor DMCS (nor the BBC for that matter) can make
the public buy DAB if it fails to deliver.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

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.....

From what I hear it's Ofcom who wants DAB, because they want to kill off
analogue :-(

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?..

Who's going to take any notice of Ofcom and DMCS? - I'm referring to the
buying and listening public here, most of whom have never heard of either.
The public wont buy DAB sets because DMCS and Ofcom want it, quite the
contrary. The public overwhelmingly want analogue radio to continue and no
government with it's eye on the next election will allow Ofcom to kill off
analogue radio if there isn't a viable alternative. Internet radio is
becoming increasingly popular, particularly for the "listen again" type of
services. If DAB is to make inroads it'll need to provide something the
public want. Neither Ofcom nor DMCS (nor the BBC for that matter) can make
the public buy DAB if it fails to deliver.

David.


Considering that Ofcom are still awarding 8 year Commercial FM licenses,
there's no likelihood of FM being turned off until 2017 at the earliest.
They are currently awarding a large number of 5 year Community Radio FM
licenses, so the prospects for FM to continue well into the future seem
clear. DAB will continue to be of minority interest until mainstream car
manufacturers start fitting DAB receivers as standard. With so many cars now
being fitted with "built-in" radios, the aftermarket for car radio upgrades
is shrinking, and in terms of the general public, the scope for upgrades to
a DAB car radio seem limited when cars are fitted with perfectly usable FM
sets, even where an upgrade is possible.

As mobile internet gets cheaper and more widespread, I think it more likely
that Joe Public will listen to Internet Radio on their mobile 'phone rather
than buy a DAB portable.

S.


--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

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

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.


He doesn't need to know anything about compressed audio to conduct listening
tests. Quite the contrary, the less he knows the less he is going to be able
to bias the result.


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

He asked you a very clear question. Are you trying to find an excuse to
avoid having to say "none"?

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
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.


ISTM that this is a story about expectations. These youngsters' expectations
were that the LP was going to sound rubbish, when it didn't they were
pleasantly surprised. Had they been lead to believe it was going to sound
amazing, they'd probably have had exactly the opposite reaction. I remember
years ago going to a talk and demonstration on horn-loaded loudspeakers.
After the speaker had spent an hour or so waxing lyrical about the wonderful
sound of horns, the demonstration, when it came was a real let-down.

David.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote:
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?

Which part of 'some time ago' needs explaining?


What year are you talking about here???


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?

Ah. The conspiracy theory again.


You're completely biased. Why on earth should I trust any test you
do??


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

What a strange question. I should however explain I was far from the
only
person involved in setting this up.


If you understood compressed audio you'd realise the significance of
the question. But you don't understand it - you just gob off about it.


Could you explain why you chose the stations you did?

The ease - at the time - of doing such a thing.

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.

Define what you mean by 'compressed audio' I don't think you
understand
what it is.



Audio compressed using perceptual audio codecs.


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?

It's all too easy to rubbish things you've not tried.

So tell us about all the exhaustive test you've done before coming
to your
conclusions?


I haven't done any.


Pretty well everything you write is simply a justification of your
opinions. So which came first?


?



--
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
 

"David Looser" wrote in message

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

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.


He doesn't need to know anything about compressed audio to conduct
listening tests. Quite the contrary, the less he knows the less he
is
going to be able to bias the result.


I can't respond to that without providing Plowman an answer to one of
the questions I've just asked him. Suffice to say that you're very
wrong.


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

He asked you a very clear question. Are you trying to find an excuse
to
avoid having to say "none"?


I haven't done any formal tests. I have done a hell of a lot of A/B
listening for DAB/FM on decent tuners, though. How much have you done?
Loads no doubt even though you've just got DAB. And what DAB receiver
is it you got, BTW?




--
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:
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.

Define 'higher fidelity'


http://www.onelook.com/?w=fidelity&ls=a

"noun: accuracy with which an electronic system reproduces the sound
or image of its input signal"


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

One who has actually conducted some tests to see if 'the man in the
street' can reliably tell 'that DAB sounds worse than FM' and has
found it
not proved. Have you?


Your tests are a nonsense. You don't even know what you're supposed to
be testing.


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.

Well, you should stop chasing me round newsgroups. I read a
variety - and
that would be easily checked. You only turn up on them when DAB is
mentioned.


I despise you. The last thing I would do is chase you around NGs.



--
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
 

"Rob" wrote in message
om
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.


Yes, that happens all the time.


I think he started trying to be abusive about your home when you
challenged him on his knowledge of radio transmission costs?


Sounds right, yes.


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 :-)


You've got more of a clue about this than Plowman anyway!



--
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 ,
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


So are you.


and avoiding answering any points where he knows he'd be
proved wrong.


That's just your twisted view on things, but it isn't remotely true.



--
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