|
|
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Rob" wrote in message
om 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. Thankyou. -- 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: 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, Wi-Fi Internet radio is currently an early adopter technology. That doens't mean most people won't get it in future. so it would mean using their computer. Wi-Fi Internet radio doesn't require your computer to be switched on at all. Shows how little you know about it. 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. I have a Wi-Fi Internet radio in the kitchen - have done for getting on for 2 years, and I wouldn't want anything less - vast range of choice, better audio quality, and you can listen to your own music streamed from your PC. 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. You didn't even know what I meant by that. I was actually referring to using systems other than DAB/DAB+, such as mobile broadband and/or eMBMS - heard of the latter, have we? Nah, obviuosly not, because not even the DAB industry has heard of it AFTER they'd supposedly "investigated" alternative digital radio platforms to use for the DRWG long-term digital radio planning - which was in reality a complete sham. He doesn't 'need' DAB in any shape or form therefore no one else does. That's definitely not what I meant. I am actually a digital radio enthusiast. Just not very enthusiastic about DAB. 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. Public awareness of DAB was less than 1% in 2002. If no-one had heard of it, how could it have become successful? It actually sold really well when in 2001, when the cheapest price was £300 for a tuner. You conveniently ignore that. -- 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
m Dave Plowman (News) wrote: 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. The BBC effectively lied in the public consultation for the 5 new digtial stations because they deliberately omitted to mention anything about audio quality being massacred. -- 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
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... 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. I remember hearing an interview a year or so back with a spokeswoman from Ofcom who was arguing strongly that analogue radio needed to be turned off to give a kick-start to DAB. She also said that it wasn't fair on commercial broadcaster to expect them to pay for both FM and DAB transmission, with the implication that it was FM that should go. Of course much has changed since. Several commercial broadcaster have dumped plans to launch DAB channels, particularly Ch4 who have abandoned their plan to launch several national channels including a speech-based rival to R4. So perhaps Ofcom are just adjusting a bit to the real world. 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. An extraordinarily inefficient way for Joe Public to listen to the radio. A broadcast transmitter uses up the same amount of bandwidth regardless of how many listeners there are. With internet radio the bandwidth used is a function of the number of listeners. David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"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 It isn't Ofcom, it's the broadcasters taht are so desperate to switch off FM because of the cost of transmitting both DAB and FM simultaneously. 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. Do you know all of the technologies available? If not, I suggest that you don't start digging a hold that you'd struggle to get out of... so DAB in one form or another is "needed" as a replacement for analogue radio if and when that eventually goes. No, DAB is not needed. Had Steve's line been "we want DAB, but we want a *better* DAB I'd had given him some respect. If you take a look at my website, you'd see that I do very much support DAB+. DAB+ was my idea, basically, and I "campaigned" for it to be designed, so I obviously want to see it being used. However, I want to see the right system used in the longer term, and that ain't DAB or DAB+. Although I don't think DAB as we have it is as bad as has been claimed, it could be better. In terms of the technologies it uses, DAB is attrocious. It really is ridiculously out of date. All the technologies are about 20 years old now, because that's when DAB was designed. In digital terms that's preshistoric. 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, Correct. But wasn't it you that said that that shouldn't have been done earlier in this thread???? 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. Believe me, you don't even know a fraction of the things that leads me to think this. 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. That's missing the point of what promotion achieves. Promotion actually makes people start doing things which they wouldn't have done otherwise. -- 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: I came on here, noticed a thread, read the thread, noticed a whole lot of nonsense being spewed, and I've replied to some of that nonsense so that these people can see the error of their ways. That's it, really, and I'll be off when I choose. In fact, I think I'll stay a bit longer than I was going to now you've tried to tell me what to do I'm beginning to wonder if you are perhaps a sock puppet of Phil Allison's. I don't even know who that is. You've certainly been caught out here again. Let me quote you from earlier *********** From: BBC is biased towards DAB Subject: Internet radio - classical music, etc Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:55 Newsgroups: uk.rec.audio Wondered when you'd turn up. Your search on DAB topics seems a bit slow compared to usual. I don't search for DAB topics - I just stumbled across this thread. ************ If you were even an occasional reader of this group - or any other audio one - you'd know about Allison. uk.rec.audio is in my list of NGs in my newsreader, along with the likes of comp.dsp, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.php and many others which I've never or haven't posted on in many years. uk.rec.audio is a group that I sometimes just scan the topics of, but DAB and Internet radio don't seem to be discussed much. In the past, maybe a couple of years ago or so, I've read a couple of threads where there's raging arguments going on on this NG. I recognise the odd name, such as Andre Jute(?), but the name you mentioned didn't ring a bell, sorry. But then you've turned up on other groups I read as soon as DAB is mentioned - and then disappear just as quickly. There's some groups I visit every day, and I'd say I browse the topics on here every few days or sometimes more. I certainly do not search for DAB in Google Groups, which is presumably what you're suggesting, or if you think I'd search for you and follow you round, I'd literally prefer to catch a dose. -- 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
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message 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. Ah!, a bald "you're very wrong" from someone who has never done any double-blind listening tests! I haven't done any formal tests. Well I have. At one time my full-time job was doing double-blind listening tests. I have done a hell of a lot of A/B listening Ah! the non-blind listening test with a subject panel of one biased listener. I know the sort. 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? You aren't very good at reading are you? Did I not say that I mostly listened to FM? I've got several very good FM tuners and there's an FM transmitter mast I can see out of my front room window, why would I want to spend money on a DAB tuner? But my daughter has a Pure Evoke DAB radio because she a fan of BBC7. David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... 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. An extraordinarily inefficient way for Joe Public to listen to the radio. A broadcast transmitter uses up the same amount of bandwidth regardless of how many listeners there are. With internet radio the bandwidth used is a function of the number of listeners. David. Indeed, it is inefficient, but so is Internet Television, Music downloads etc. I think that bandwidths and costs are going in the direction that encourages profligacy, or at least, doesn't discourage it. Home broadband started with download limits, which were rapidly increased, and/or converted to unlimited use packages. I envisage that competitive pressures will ensure that mobile broadband packages go the same way. Internet radio on a mobile 'phone will be all about portability and choice of channels, audio quality won't be an issue, so streaming at 32kbps or less is quite likely. I've set up streaming for our local Hospital Radio Station, 32kbps WME, and it's perfectly acceptable as background at home, in the car, or on the bus. www.radiowestsuffolk.co.uk S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message 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. Ah!, a bald "you're very wrong" from someone who has never done any double-blind listening tests! You don't need to have played Premiership football to be able to talk about it..... Yes, he is very wrong. I haven't done any formal tests. Well I have. At one time my full-time job was doing double-blind listening tests. Would you like a medal? I have done a hell of a lot of A/B listening Ah! the non-blind listening test with a subject panel of one biased listener. I know the sort. I've just read your answer below, and you don't have a DAB tuner, so I suggest that you actually do some A/B comparisons on a DAB/FM tuner and get back to me. You'll understand when you actually have a listen. 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? You aren't very good at reading are you? Did I not say that I mostly listened to FM? I've got several very good FM tuners and there's an FM transmitter mast I can see out of my front room window, why would I want to spend money on a DAB tuner? But my daughter has a Pure Evoke DAB radio because she a fan of BBC7. Then I suggest that you borrow your daughter's DAB radio, hook it up to a hi-fi and compare it with DAB. You need to do that BEFORE commenting on the adequacy of the audio quality on DAB - but that hasn't stopped you so far.... -- 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
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... 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. I remember hearing an interview a year or so back with a spokeswoman from Ofcom who was arguing strongly that analogue radio needed to be turned off to give a kick-start to DAB. She also said that it wasn't fair on commercial broadcaster to expect them to pay for both FM and DAB transmission, with the implication that it was FM that should go. Are you sure you're not getting things mixed up with this: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/20...lly_viable.php I've never heard of any woman from Ofcom commenting on radio - it would be Peter Davies or Ed Richards if anyone commented on it. And it isn't Ofcom that wants FM switched off, it's teh broadcasters. Of course much has changed since. Several commercial broadcaster have dumped plans to launch DAB channels, particularly Ch4 who have abandoned their plan to launch several national channels including a speech-based rival to R4. So perhaps Ofcom are just adjusting a bit to the real world. Ofcom just reflects what the commercial radio broadcasters want. 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. An extraordinarily inefficient way for Joe Public to listen to the radio. Ever heard of IP Multicast? A broadcast transmitter uses up the same amount of bandwidth regardless of how many listeners there are. With internet radio the bandwidth used is a function of the number of listeners. I suggest you look up multicast. -- 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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:37:32 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: Then I suggest that you borrow your daughter's DAB radio, hook it up to a hi-fi and compare it with DAB. You need to do that BEFORE commenting on the adequacy of the audio quality on DAB - but that hasn't stopped you so far.... Listen to this. It is a few seconds each of FM and DAB. Which is which? http://81.174.169.10/odds/dab_fm.mp3 d |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... 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. An extraordinarily inefficient way for Joe Public to listen to the radio. A broadcast transmitter uses up the same amount of bandwidth regardless of how many listeners there are. With internet radio the bandwidth used is a function of the number of listeners. David. Indeed, it is inefficient, but so is Internet Television, Music downloads etc. I think that bandwidths and costs are going in the direction that encourages profligacy, or at least, doesn't discourage it. Internet bandwidth costs fall in-line with Moore's Law, because Moore's Law increases the speed of Internet routers without increasing the costs of the routers. Home broadband started with download limits, which were rapidly increased, and/or converted to unlimited use packages. I envisage that competitive pressures will ensure that mobile broadband packages go the same way. Yes, there's 4G using LTE or WiMAX just over the horizon, then 5G after that. Internet radio on a mobile 'phone will be all about portability and choice of channels, audio quality won't be an issue, so streaming at 32kbps or less is quite likely. There are over 8,000 Internet radio streams on shoutcast.com using 128 kbps or higher, and a third of all UK commercial radio stations are using 128 kbps. Don't see why you think 32 kbps will be common for Internet radio streams, to be honest. -- 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
Don Pearce wrote in message news:4994bcd6.509565843@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:37:32 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Then I suggest that you borrow your daughter's DAB radio, hook it up to a hi-fi and compare it with DAB. You need to do that BEFORE commenting on the adequacy of the audio quality on DAB - but that hasn't stopped you so far.... Listen to this. It is a few seconds each of FM and DAB. Which is which? http://81.174.169.10/odds/dab_fm.mp3 I'm not playing your little games, Pearce. 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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:51:02 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4994bcd6.509565843@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:37:32 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Then I suggest that you borrow your daughter's DAB radio, hook it up to a hi-fi and compare it with DAB. You need to do that BEFORE commenting on the adequacy of the audio quality on DAB - but that hasn't stopped you so far.... Listen to this. It is a few seconds each of FM and DAB. Which is which? http://81.174.169.10/odds/dab_fm.mp3 I'm not playing your little games, Pearce. Sorry. I knew that when to came to a real test you would prove to be all mouth. Having proved a failure, you can go. d |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
Don Pearce wrote in message news:4995bf86.510253421@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:51:02 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4994bcd6.509565843@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:37:32 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Then I suggest that you borrow your daughter's DAB radio, hook it up to a hi-fi and compare it with DAB. You need to do that BEFORE commenting on the adequacy of the audio quality on DAB - but that hasn't stopped you so far.... Listen to this. It is a few seconds each of FM and DAB. Which is which? http://81.174.169.10/odds/dab_fm.mp3 I'm not playing your little games, Pearce. Sorry. I knew that when to came to a real test you would prove to be all mouth. Having proved a failure, you can go. Oh, I'm staying. Failure? Hardly. -- 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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:59:21 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4995bf86.510253421@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:51:02 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4994bcd6.509565843@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:37:32 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Then I suggest that you borrow your daughter's DAB radio, hook it up to a hi-fi and compare it with DAB. You need to do that BEFORE commenting on the adequacy of the audio quality on DAB - but that hasn't stopped you so far.... Listen to this. It is a few seconds each of FM and DAB. Which is which? http://81.174.169.10/odds/dab_fm.mp3 I'm not playing your little games, Pearce. Sorry. I knew that when to came to a real test you would prove to be all mouth. Having proved a failure, you can go. Oh, I'm staying. Failure? Hardly. You have demonstrably failed at everything concerning DAB you have bragged about attempting, and now having given you the most trivial of tests that should have been easy for you, you have failed at that too. d |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
Don Pearce wrote in message news:4995bf86.510253421@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:51:02 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4994bcd6.509565843@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:37:32 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Then I suggest that you borrow your daughter's DAB radio, hook it up to a hi-fi and compare it with DAB. You need to do that BEFORE commenting on the adequacy of the audio quality on DAB - but that hasn't stopped you so far.... Listen to this. It is a few seconds each of FM and DAB. Which is which? http://81.174.169.10/odds/dab_fm.mp3 I'm not playing your little games, Pearce. Sorry. I knew that when to came to a real test you would prove to be all mouth. Having proved a failure, you can go. BTW, do you have any evidence to back any of these up: "Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to understand and appreciate it." "CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory system" "It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD." "Since the CD there has not been a single development that has improved the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener." If you can't, then you're a failure, and you can go, Pearce. On you trot. -- 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
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
... Internet bandwidth costs fall in-line with Moore's Law, because Moore's Law increases the speed of Internet routers without increasing the costs of the routers. Frankly Steve, if you can write something as naive as that, your opinion isn't worth bothering with. Suffice it to say that internet costs are more to do with transmission systems than routers, and that is particularly true of mobile internet. David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message loads snipped Internet radio on a mobile 'phone will be all about portability and choice of channels, audio quality won't be an issue, so streaming at 32kbps or less is quite likely. There are over 8,000 Internet radio streams on shoutcast.com using 128 kbps or higher, and a third of all UK commercial radio stations are using 128 kbps. Don't see why you think 32 kbps will be common for Internet radio streams, to be honest. -- 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 Perhaps it won't but what I'm saying is that mobile broadband internet radio will become more popular than portable radio receivers, whether AM, FM or DAB. If adequate quality for the purpose is available at only 32kbps, then bandwidth is no bar to this developing. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
Don Pearce wrote in message news:4996c0a5.510541125@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:59:21 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4995bf86.510253421@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:51:02 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4994bcd6.509565843@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:37:32 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Then I suggest that you borrow your daughter's DAB radio, hook it up to a hi-fi and compare it with DAB. You need to do that BEFORE commenting on the adequacy of the audio quality on DAB - but that hasn't stopped you so far.... Listen to this. It is a few seconds each of FM and DAB. Which is which? http://81.174.169.10/odds/dab_fm.mp3 I'm not playing your little games, Pearce. Sorry. I knew that when to came to a real test you would prove to be all mouth. Having proved a failure, you can go. Oh, I'm staying. Failure? Hardly. You have demonstrably failed at everything concerning DAB you have bragged about attempting, I came up with the idea that led to the design of DAB+, because I'd been banging on about using mobile TV systems since around 2002/3, and DAB+ is just the DMB mobile TV system without video support. I also influenced the decision to design DAB+, because the French broadcasters quoted my website pretty much verbatim when they argued against using DAB in their digital radio consultation, and by an amazing coincidence they proposed to use DVB-H instead, whcih just happened to be what my website was proposing should be used, because it was so much more efficient than DAB. I also helped a couple of people from Sweden stop DAB being adopted, which was successful, and Sweden is now looking at using DAB+. It was the French decision not to support DAB that was the main reason why DAB+ was designed at all though. The UK broadcasters and the DAB old guard were all trying desperately to hang on and for the whole of Europe to use DAB, but once France told them where to go the writing was on the wall, because the mobile TV systems would have been adopted instead of DAB. I later changed to supporting the use of DMB rather than DVB-H, and by another amazing coincidence France ended up choosing DMB for its digital radio system. Failure? Hardly. And the fact that so many people know about DAB+ today is down to my website as well. and now having given you the most trivial of tests that should have been easy for you, you have failed at that too. I haven't even tried your little game. -- 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
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message loads snipped Internet radio on a mobile 'phone will be all about portability and choice of channels, audio quality won't be an issue, so streaming at 32kbps or less is quite likely. There are over 8,000 Internet radio streams on shoutcast.com using 128 kbps or higher, and a third of all UK commercial radio stations are using 128 kbps. Don't see why you think 32 kbps will be common for Internet radio streams, to be honest. -- 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 Perhaps it won't but what I'm saying is that mobile broadband internet radio will become more popular than portable radio receivers, whether AM, FM or DAB. 60% of all radio listening takes place at home though, and there's no point in listening to radio via mobile broadband when you're at home (assuming there's a fixed-line broadband connection). If adequate quality for the purpose is available at only 32kbps, then bandwidth is no bar to this developing. 32 kbps isn't adequate, though. -- 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 ... Internet bandwidth costs fall in-line with Moore's Law, because Moore's Law increases the speed of Internet routers without increasing the costs of the routers. Frankly Steve, if you can write something as naive as that, your opinion isn't worth bothering with. Suffice it to say that internet costs are more to do with transmission systems than routers, and that is particularly true of mobile internet. I meant Internet bandwidth costs for content producers. Have a read of this section if you don't believe me: http://tinyurl.com/5bzosx I'm not in any way suggesting that the cost of mobile broadband is linked to Moore's Law. Spectral efficiency on mobile systems can be increased though, because the new 4G systems such as LTE and WiMAX are using MIMO, and the 5G system when it's chosen will use MIMO in a big way - MIMO allows the channel capacity to be multiplied by the number of antennas used at either end of the link. There's a 5G prototype system that uses 12x12 MIMO, and that literally has a capacity that's 12x what it would be using single antennas, and it's been demonstrated transmitting at 5 Gbps to a moving receiver - in a 100 MHz channel. We obviuosly won't see those speeds ourselves, but it shows what the technology is capable of and the incredibly high spectral efficiency is allows. -- 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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:06:48 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: BTW, do you have any evidence to back any of these up: "Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to understand and appreciate it." "CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory system" "It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD." "Since the CD there has not been a single development that has improved the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener." Go on. prove me wrong in any one of these instances. This should be interesting - I'll give you a start for each 1. Classical music is less complex and demanding than modern pop because.... 2. The human auditory system has more definition than the CD in the following areas... 3. It is readily possible to compare CD to SACD - you just... 4. The following developments have improved on the sound of the CD, resulting in wide adoption by the classical listener... Over to you. Just complete those sentences. d |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
Don Pearce wrote in message news:4997c65d.512004828@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:06:48 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: BTW, do you have any evidence to back any of these up: "Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to understand and appreciate it." "CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory system" "It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD." "Since the CD there has not been a single development that has improved the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener." Go on. prove me wrong in any one of these instances. You're the one making the claim, so you should be able to back that claim up. Apparently it's my inability to do that with your lickle listening test that made you brand me a failure. So, step to it, Pearce. This should be interesting - I'll give you a start for each 1. Classical music is less complex and demanding than modern pop because.... 2. The human auditory system has more definition than the CD in the following areas... 3. It is readily possible to compare CD to SACD - you just... 4. The following developments have improved on the sound of the CD, resulting in wide adoption by the classical listener... Over to you. Just complete those sentences. Er, no. I don't think you've quite got the hang of this. You made teh claims, so you have to back the claims up. Surely that's a simple thing to understand? -- 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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:38:52 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4997c65d.512004828@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:06:48 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: BTW, do you have any evidence to back any of these up: "Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to understand and appreciate it." "CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory system" "It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD." "Since the CD there has not been a single development that has improved the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener." Go on. prove me wrong in any one of these instances. You're the one making the claim, so you should be able to back that claim up. Apparently it's my inability to do that with your lickle listening test that made you brand me a failure. So, step to it, Pearce. This should be interesting - I'll give you a start for each 1. Classical music is less complex and demanding than modern pop because.... 2. The human auditory system has more definition than the CD in the following areas... 3. It is readily possible to compare CD to SACD - you just... 4. The following developments have improved on the sound of the CD, resulting in wide adoption by the classical listener... Over to you. Just complete those sentences. Er, no. I don't think you've quite got the hang of this. You made teh claims, so you have to back the claims up. Surely that's a simple thing to understand? No, this is how it goes. All my statements are reasonable and in line with everybody's experience - had it been otherwise somebody would immediately have picked me up on it. You have now made the extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be proved. Now get on with it. d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:38:52 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4997c65d.512004828@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:06:48 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: BTW, do you have any evidence to back any of these up: "Because classical music is generally far more complex and demanding than modern pop - it takes a greater degree of intelligence to understand and appreciate it." "CD already has a definition way beyond that of the human auditory system" "It is pretty much impossible to compare CD to SACD." "Since the CD there has not been a single development that has improved the sound, so none has been widely adopted by the classical listener." Go on. prove me wrong in any one of these instances. You're the one making the claim, so you should be able to back that claim up. Apparently it's my inability to do that with your lickle listening test that made you brand me a failure. So, step to it, Pearce. This should be interesting - I'll give you a start for each 1. Classical music is less complex and demanding than modern pop because.... 2. The human auditory system has more definition than the CD in the following areas... 3. It is readily possible to compare CD to SACD - you just... 4. The following developments have improved on the sound of the CD, resulting in wide adoption by the classical listener... Over to you. Just complete those sentences. Er, no. I don't think you've quite got the hang of this. You made teh claims, so you have to back the claims up. Surely that's a simple thing to understand? No, this is how it goes. All my statements are reasonable and in line with everybody's experience Apart from those who disagree with you. - had it been otherwise somebody would immediately have picked me up on it. I noticed that at least one of the things I quoted, someone had picked up on what you'd said. You have now made the extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be proved. No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously on you to prove them. Now get on with it. No, the onus is on you, because you've made the claims. -- 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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:07:42 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: You have now made the extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be proved. No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously on you to prove them. So there we go. You can't pass a simple listening test, and you now realise that you have just foolishly disagreed with a whole raft of well known and accepted truths. Competence isn't exactly shining through is it? But I am happy to get the ball rolling. 1. Classical music is more complex and demanding than modern pop. First, it is longer - that demands a greater concentration span. Second, it is generally written in several movements in varied time signatures, as opposed to modern pop, which is typically in a simple 4/4 or 8/8 signature. Third, it makes great use of interpretive rubato - something which can't be done with a pop tune locked to a click track. Fourth the harmonies are varied and often not those which would immediately suggest themselves. Contrast the simple thirds and fifths of pop music - when there are any, that is. Fifth the performance must be great because unlike pop, vocoding devices to bring the performances back in tune can't be used. 2. The CD has more definition than the human auditory system. Frequency range - the CD is flat from 0Hz to 22kHz. At normal listening levels, human hearing is down about 20dB at 20Hz and 20kHz. Linearity - The CD has vanishingly small distortion over almost 100dB of dynamic range. Human hearing is only marginally linear at mid frequencies, and heavily expansive for treble, and particularly bass. Resolution - the CD has effectively infinite frequency resolution. The human ear suffers masking, resulting in the ability to hear low level sounds close in frequency to a high level one. 3. It is not easy to compare CD and SACD. The DACs are not the same, so accurate levelling is not simple. They do not go through the same mastering process so there is no like-for-like material available to make the comparison. 4. Developments since the CD have not improved audible quality. The answer to 2 above already demonstrates this, but to see the truth of this you need only look at what the developments are. MP2 - a compressed version of CD, therefore by definition not better. MP3 - ditto AAC - ditto Minidisc - ditto I think I will leave that there. OK - I'm done. Now time for you to put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate that all of those are false. d |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
Don Pearce wrote in message news:4998dad6.517245406@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:07:42 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: You have now made the extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be proved. No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously on you to prove them. So there we go. You can't pass a simple listening test, and you now realise that you have just foolishly disagreed with a whole raft of well known and accepted truths. Competence isn't exactly shining through is it? But I am happy to get the ball rolling. 1. Classical music is more complex and demanding than modern pop. First, it is longer - that demands a greater concentration span. Doesn't prove anything. Second, it is generally written in several movements in varied time signatures, as opposed to modern pop, which is typically in a simple 4/4 or 8/8 signature. This proves nothing. Third, it makes great use of interpretive rubato - something which can't be done with a pop tune locked to a click track. You said: "it takes a greater degree of intelligence to understand and appreciate it" When are you gonig to get round to the "intelligence" bit? Wouldn't happen to be because you can't prove that, would it? Fourth the harmonies are varied and often not those which would immediately suggest themselves. Contrast the simple thirds and fifths of pop music - when there are any, that is. Fifth the performance must be great because unlike pop, vocoding devices to bring the performances back in tune can't be used. See above. Overall: FAIL 2. The CD has more definition than the human auditory system. Frequency range - the CD is flat from 0Hz to 22kHz. Is there an infinite transition bandwidth at 22 kHz? That's an impossibility, because it requires non-causal filters which require an infinite number of filter taps. So what figure are you actually claiming the bandwidth is for a CD? At normal listening levels, human hearing is down about 20dB at 20Hz and 20kHz. Does psychoacoustic theory actually make any claims such as "nobody will have hearing above X kHz" and other stuff like that? At best, everything's statistical - all the psychoacoustic models have to be statistical, becaue they can't exactly have measured every single person's hearing on the planet. This implies that nothing can be proven with absolutely certainty - so the very best you can say is that you're X% certain of Y being true based on statistical analysis. Overall: FAIL Linearity - The CD has vanishingly small distortion over almost 100dB of dynamic range. Human hearing is only marginally linear at mid frequencies, and heavily expansive for treble, and particularly bass. Can you prove that no-one can perceive the difference between 16 and 24 bit? Obviously not, so FAIL. Resolution - the CD has effectively infinite frequency resolution. The human ear suffers masking, resulting in the ability to hear low level sounds close in frequency to a high level one. You can't prove this. FAIL 3. It is not easy to compare CD and SACD. The DACs are not the same, so accurate levelling is not simple. Is it impossible? If it's not impossible then FAIL. They do not go through the same mastering process so there is no like-for-like material available to make the comparison. Is it possible to master a CD that is to all intents and purposes a 44.1 kHz 16-bit version of an SACD or whichever other high-resolution audio format? If so, then FAIL. 4. Developments since the CD have not improved audible quality. The answer to 2 above already demonstrates this, but to see the truth of this you need only look at what the developments are. MP2 - a compressed version of CD, therefore by definition not better. MP3 - ditto AAC - ditto Minidisc - ditto I think I will leave that there. Since the CD came out, there have been attempts to provide higher audio quality, which you cannot prove do not provide higher audio qulaityu than CD does. All you're doing is using the circular argument that because *you believe* that the CD is slightly overspecified wrt human hearing then it doesn't allow trhe quality to be improved upon relative to CD, therefore any attempts at designing new audio formats will either be no better than or worse than CD. There have been formats that deilver sound quality below CD, therefore your circular argument has it that the only developments have led to reductions in quality. However, you have failed to prove that humans can't perceive any improvement relative to CD, therefore this and all the other claims come crashing down in a big FAIL FEST. Overall: FAIL. OK - I'm done. Now time for you to put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate that all of those are false. Done. Your turn. The reason I chose the quotes I did was because I knew you *couldn't* prove them. The best you could possibly do is argue the case, but theyr'e actually unprovable, so I couldn't lose. Thanks for playing the Self-Defeating Game, though. -- 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
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:57:23 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4998dad6.517245406@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:07:42 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: You have now made the extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be proved. No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously on you to prove them. So there we go. You can't pass a simple listening test, and you now realise that you have just foolishly disagreed with a whole raft of well known and accepted truths. Competence isn't exactly shining through is it? But I am happy to get the ball rolling. 1. Classical music is more complex and demanding than modern pop. First, it is longer - that demands a greater concentration span. Doesn't prove anything. Second, it is generally written in several movements in varied time signatures, as opposed to modern pop, which is typically in a simple 4/4 or 8/8 signature. This proves nothing. Third, it makes great use of interpretive rubato - something which can't be done with a pop tune locked to a click track. You said: "it takes a greater degree of intelligence to understand and appreciate it" When are you gonig to get round to the "intelligence" bit? Wouldn't happen to be because you can't prove that, would it? Fourth the harmonies are varied and often not those which would immediately suggest themselves. Contrast the simple thirds and fifths of pop music - when there are any, that is. Fifth the performance must be great because unlike pop, vocoding devices to bring the performances back in tune can't be used. See above. Overall: FAIL 2. The CD has more definition than the human auditory system. Frequency range - the CD is flat from 0Hz to 22kHz. Is there an infinite transition bandwidth at 22 kHz? That's an impossibility, because it requires non-causal filters which require an infinite number of filter taps. So what figure are you actually claiming the bandwidth is for a CD? At normal listening levels, human hearing is down about 20dB at 20Hz and 20kHz. Does psychoacoustic theory actually make any claims such as "nobody will have hearing above X kHz" and other stuff like that? At best, everything's statistical - all the psychoacoustic models have to be statistical, becaue they can't exactly have measured every single person's hearing on the planet. This implies that nothing can be proven with absolutely certainty - so the very best you can say is that you're X% certain of Y being true based on statistical analysis. Overall: FAIL Linearity - The CD has vanishingly small distortion over almost 100dB of dynamic range. Human hearing is only marginally linear at mid frequencies, and heavily expansive for treble, and particularly bass. Can you prove that no-one can perceive the difference between 16 and 24 bit? Obviously not, so FAIL. Resolution - the CD has effectively infinite frequency resolution. The human ear suffers masking, resulting in the ability to hear low level sounds close in frequency to a high level one. You can't prove this. FAIL 3. It is not easy to compare CD and SACD. The DACs are not the same, so accurate levelling is not simple. Is it impossible? If it's not impossible then FAIL. They do not go through the same mastering process so there is no like-for-like material available to make the comparison. Is it possible to master a CD that is to all intents and purposes a 44.1 kHz 16-bit version of an SACD or whichever other high-resolution audio format? If so, then FAIL. 4. Developments since the CD have not improved audible quality. The answer to 2 above already demonstrates this, but to see the truth of this you need only look at what the developments are. MP2 - a compressed version of CD, therefore by definition not better. MP3 - ditto AAC - ditto Minidisc - ditto I think I will leave that there. Since the CD came out, there have been attempts to provide higher audio quality, which you cannot prove do not provide higher audio qulaityu than CD does. All you're doing is using the circular argument that because *you believe* that the CD is slightly overspecified wrt human hearing then it doesn't allow trhe quality to be improved upon relative to CD, therefore any attempts at designing new audio formats will either be no better than or worse than CD. There have been formats that deilver sound quality below CD, therefore your circular argument has it that the only developments have led to reductions in quality. However, you have failed to prove that humans can't perceive any improvement relative to CD, therefore this and all the other claims come crashing down in a big FAIL FEST. Overall: FAIL. OK - I'm done. Now time for you to put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate that all of those are false. Done. Your turn. The reason I chose the quotes I did was because I knew you *couldn't* prove them. The best you could possibly do is argue the case, but theyr'e actually unprovable, so I couldn't lose. Thanks for playing the Self-Defeating Game, though. I've argued the case, as you say. And you have provided nothing contrary - merely denied. You know that isn't good enough. As you have nothing to offer on this subject, my conversation with you closes at this point. d |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
Don Pearce wrote in message news:499aeaab.521298390@localhost
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:57:23 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: Don Pearce wrote in message news:4998dad6.517245406@localhost On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:07:42 -0000, "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote: You have now made the extraordinary assertion that all these things that we hold self evident are in fact false. This extraordinary claim must be proved. No, YOU are the one making the claims, so the onus is obviously on you to prove them. So there we go. You can't pass a simple listening test, and you now realise that you have just foolishly disagreed with a whole raft of well known and accepted truths. Competence isn't exactly shining through is it? But I am happy to get the ball rolling. 1. Classical music is more complex and demanding than modern pop. First, it is longer - that demands a greater concentration span. Doesn't prove anything. Second, it is generally written in several movements in varied time signatures, as opposed to modern pop, which is typically in a simple 4/4 or 8/8 signature. This proves nothing. Third, it makes great use of interpretive rubato - something which can't be done with a pop tune locked to a click track. You said: "it takes a greater degree of intelligence to understand and appreciate it" When are you gonig to get round to the "intelligence" bit? Wouldn't happen to be because you can't prove that, would it? Fourth the harmonies are varied and often not those which would immediately suggest themselves. Contrast the simple thirds and fifths of pop music - when there are any, that is. Fifth the performance must be great because unlike pop, vocoding devices to bring the performances back in tune can't be used. See above. Overall: FAIL 2. The CD has more definition than the human auditory system. Frequency range - the CD is flat from 0Hz to 22kHz. Is there an infinite transition bandwidth at 22 kHz? That's an impossibility, because it requires non-causal filters which require an infinite number of filter taps. So what figure are you actually claiming the bandwidth is for a CD? At normal listening levels, human hearing is down about 20dB at 20Hz and 20kHz. Does psychoacoustic theory actually make any claims such as "nobody will have hearing above X kHz" and other stuff like that? At best, everything's statistical - all the psychoacoustic models have to be statistical, becaue they can't exactly have measured every single person's hearing on the planet. This implies that nothing can be proven with absolutely certainty - so the very best you can say is that you're X% certain of Y being true based on statistical analysis. Overall: FAIL Linearity - The CD has vanishingly small distortion over almost 100dB of dynamic range. Human hearing is only marginally linear at mid frequencies, and heavily expansive for treble, and particularly bass. Can you prove that no-one can perceive the difference between 16 and 24 bit? Obviously not, so FAIL. Resolution - the CD has effectively infinite frequency resolution. The human ear suffers masking, resulting in the ability to hear low level sounds close in frequency to a high level one. You can't prove this. FAIL 3. It is not easy to compare CD and SACD. The DACs are not the same, so accurate levelling is not simple. Is it impossible? If it's not impossible then FAIL. They do not go through the same mastering process so there is no like-for-like material available to make the comparison. Is it possible to master a CD that is to all intents and purposes a 44.1 kHz 16-bit version of an SACD or whichever other high-resolution audio format? If so, then FAIL. 4. Developments since the CD have not improved audible quality. The answer to 2 above already demonstrates this, but to see the truth of this you need only look at what the developments are. MP2 - a compressed version of CD, therefore by definition not better. MP3 - ditto AAC - ditto Minidisc - ditto I think I will leave that there. Since the CD came out, there have been attempts to provide higher audio quality, which you cannot prove do not provide higher audio qulaityu than CD does. All you're doing is using the circular argument that because *you believe* that the CD is slightly overspecified wrt human hearing then it doesn't allow trhe quality to be improved upon relative to CD, therefore any attempts at designing new audio formats will either be no better than or worse than CD. There have been formats that deilver sound quality below CD, therefore your circular argument has it that the only developments have led to reductions in quality. However, you have failed to prove that humans can't perceive any improvement relative to CD, therefore this and all the other claims come crashing down in a big FAIL FEST. Overall: FAIL. OK - I'm done. Now time for you to put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate that all of those are false. Done. Your turn. The reason I chose the quotes I did was because I knew you *couldn't* prove them. The best you could possibly do is argue the case, but theyr'e actually unprovable, so I couldn't lose. Thanks for playing the Self-Defeating Game, though. I've argued the case, as you say. And you have provided nothing contrary - merely denied. You know that isn't good enough. No, I deliberately chose quotes that you *couldn't* prove. I've already told you that. As you have nothing to offer on this subject, my conversation with you closes at this point. Clearly a sore loser. -- 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
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... Perhaps it won't but what I'm saying is that mobile broadband internet radio will become more popular than portable radio receivers, whether AM, FM or DAB. If adequate quality for the purpose is available at only 32kbps, then bandwidth is no bar to this developing. Broadcasting covers large areas at low cost, mobile broadband covers small areas at high cost. If you are right, then the mobile networks will have serious problems in coping with the bandwidth demand within the allocated radio spectrum. Unlike wire-based broadband you can't just run in extra capacity, the only option is to further sub-divide the cells, which is very expensive. David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article , Serge Auckland
scribeth thus "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, Beg to differ guv .. I don't think they are offering anymore FM licences or extensions to existing FM services since the report the other day with the exception of the community sector.. And they haven't worked out how to let them go on DAB MUX's at a price they can afford yet.. Not that any seem to want to;!... 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. And anyone got a "clear as crystal" ball to see that happening anytime soon;!.. 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. Indeed a fact thats often overlooked by those pushing the shagged out old digital cow;!.. 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. Well they might if they get the coverage as it ought be which is still very poor in parts of East Anglia.. Till then theres always FM:))... S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com -- Tony Sayer |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus 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. Equipment suppliers may well be seeing the money this things cost but I'm referring to the industry that has to pay for them;(... 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. Who needs DAB anyway;?.. -- Tony Sayer |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus 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 Dave .. Can you answer this question of -when- you did this please?. 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? Just answer the question, its quite reasonable?.. -- Tony Sayer |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Serge Auckland scribeth thus "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, Beg to differ guv .. I don't think they are offering anymore FM licences or extensions to existing FM services since the report the other day with the exception of the community sector.. And they haven't worked out how to let them go on DAB MUX's at a price they can afford yet.. Not that any seem to want to;!... 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. And anyone got a "clear as crystal" ball to see that happening anytime soon;!.. 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. Indeed a fact thats often overlooked by those pushing the shagged out old digital cow;!.. 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. Well they might if they get the coverage as it ought be which is still very poor in parts of East Anglia.. Till then theres always FM:))... S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com -- Tony Sayer I thought I saw a Press Release from Ofcom just a few days ago saying Star FM in Cambridge had either been awarded a further 8 year license, or were being fast-tracked as no-one else had applied. I also recall a station in Surrey having their license renewed recently. Did I imagine it? Could be, I get easily confused these days. S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... Perhaps it won't but what I'm saying is that mobile broadband internet radio will become more popular than portable radio receivers, whether AM, FM or DAB. If adequate quality for the purpose is available at only 32kbps, then bandwidth is no bar to this developing. Broadcasting covers large areas at low cost, mobile broadband covers small areas at high cost. There are broadcast standards for the mobile phone networks, you know. There's teh MBMS standard for 3G now, and the upgrade of that (evolved-MBMS, or eMBMS) isn't long away, and that includes large-area coverage using single-frequency networks, like what DAB uses. If you are right, then the mobile networks will have serious problems in coping with the bandwidth demand within the allocated radio spectrum. No, they could just deploy eMBMS. Unlike wire-based broadband you can't just run in extra capacity, the only option is to further sub-divide the cells, which is very expensive. eMBMS can cover multiple cells. -- 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
I thought I saw a Press Release from Ofcom just a few days ago saying Star FM in Cambridge had either been awarded a further 8 year license, or were being fast-tracked as no-one else had applied. I also recall a station in Surrey having their license renewed recently. Did I imagine it? Could be, I get easily confused these days. Yes that was a licence "renewal" of an existing station.. not a "new" licenced station as such... S. -- Tony Sayer |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: so it would mean using their computer. Wi-Fi Internet radio doesn't require your computer to be switched on at all. Shows how little you know about it. Most would consider Wi-Fi to be part of a computer installation. 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. I have a Wi-Fi Internet radio in the kitchen - have done for getting on for 2 years, and I wouldn't want anything less - vast range of choice, better audio quality, and you can listen to your own music streamed from your PC. With that PC switched off? Make up your mind. -- *I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: I came up with the idea that led to the design of DAB+, Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah... -- *Dance like nobody's watching. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article ,
tony sayer wrote: "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 Dave .. Can you answer this question of -when- you did this please?. I'm afraid I can't give you the exact date. But not long after DAB started. 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? Just answer the question, its quite reasonable?.. No question from our DAB 'expert' is ever reasonable. They are all loaded. -- *Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk