In article , Mike O'Sullivan
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James R wrote:
Why bother with the radio when you can listen through a PC. As always,
if it is "digital" it's crap - so sounds like a Medium wave station on
a good day. Some stations are mono with low bitrates like the "crystal
clear" DAB system the UK was inflicted with. Worse than FM stereo!

You may not have noticed that Mr Lesurf is mainly interested in classical
music and R3 uses a higher bitrate than other DAB stations.

Not consistantly. They use (barely acceptable) 192 kbps in the evening,
but frequently this drops to 160 during the day.

For a serious state broadcaster the BBC could use 256 K or better on
satellite but they steadfastly refuse to do so.

Even the TV uses 256 K on Freeview!..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Mike O'Sullivan
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James R wrote:
Why bother with the radio when you can listen through a PC. As always,
if it is "digital" it's crap - so sounds like a Medium wave station on
a good day. Some stations are mono with low bitrates like the "crystal
clear" DAB system the UK was inflicted with. Worse than FM stereo!
You may not have noticed that Mr Lesurf is mainly interested in classical
music and R3 uses a higher bitrate than other DAB stations.
Not consistantly. They use (barely acceptable) 192 kbps in the evening,
but frequently this drops to 160 during the day.

For a serious state broadcaster the BBC could use 256 K or better on
satellite but they steadfastly refuse to do so.

I normally listen on FM of course, but yesterday I checked on the bit
rate on Radio 4 yesterday morning and it was 128 kbps. Noticeably
inferior to FM.

"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...

I normally listen on FM of course, but yesterday I checked on the bit rate
on Radio 4 yesterday morning and it was 128 kbps. Noticeably inferior to
FM.

FM doesn't have a "bit rate", so it's meaningless to say that 128kb/s is
"noticeably inferior" to it.

Or perhaps you mean that the sound quality was "noticeably inferior"?, in
what way?, and what scientific listening tests did you set up to determine
it?

I have noticed that this thread seems to be afflicted by a similar
phenomenon to digital camera "megapixelitis", when it's the number of
megapixels that matter, not the quality of the pictures.

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...

I normally listen on FM of course, but yesterday I checked on the bit
rate on Radio 4 yesterday morning and it was 128 kbps. Noticeably
inferior to FM.

FM doesn't have a "bit rate", so it's meaningless to say that 128kb/s is
"noticeably inferior" to it.

Or perhaps you mean that the sound quality was "noticeably inferior"?,
in what way?, and what scientific listening tests did you set up to
determine it?

I have noticed that this thread seems to be afflicted by a similar
phenomenon to digital camera "megapixelitis", when it's the number of
megapixels that matter, not the quality of the pictures.

Could well be. The average man in the street doesn't whinge on and on
about DAB quality - and my guess is many who do on the likes of these
groups don't actually possess a DAB tuner. And sound quality on portable
DAB radios is influenced by rather more than just the data rate.

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. Then played the clips sequentially to
a 'panel' of assorted ages. Chosen purely at random as they were just
friends.

The results were totally inconclusive. Even to the point were not everyone
got the AM ones correct each time. But to be fair, I should point out it
was at Xmas and strong drink had been taken. ;-)

--
*A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory *

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

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

FM doesn't have a "bit rate", so it's meaningless to say that 128kb/s is
"noticeably inferior" to it.

Or perhaps you mean that the sound quality was "noticeably inferior"?,
in what way?, and what scientific listening tests did you set up to
determine it?

I have noticed that this thread seems to be afflicted by a similar
phenomenon to digital camera "megapixelitis", when it's the number of
megapixels that matter, not the quality of the pictures.

Could well be. The average man in the street doesn't whinge on and on
about DAB quality - and my guess is many who do on the likes of these
groups don't actually possess a DAB tuner. And sound quality on portable
DAB radios is influenced by rather more than just the data rate.


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

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. Then played the clips sequentially to
a 'panel' of assorted ages. Chosen purely at random as they were just
friends.

The results were totally inconclusive. Even to the point were not everyone
got the AM ones correct each time. But to be fair, I should point out it
was at Xmas and strong drink had been taken. ;-)


To extend your anecdote to one of my own, 'hifi' simply isn't important
to many people. Provided that sound quality is sufficient, they're not
going to know which is best because there's no consistent point of
reference. Depends on the questions you asked I suppose. And drink plied.

Rob

"Rob" wrote in message
om...

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


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

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

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

David.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

David.




--
Tony Sayer

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


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

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


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

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


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

"David Looser" wrote in message

"Rob" wrote in message
om...

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


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


And you're an expert on the history of DAB now, are you? The reality
is that the BBC screwed up *massively*. They had the opportunity to
upgrade the system to use AAC, and the BBC R&D engineeers were
advising the execs to do that, but the execs ignored them, and the
quality is **** as a result.


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


Better quality would have benefitted all. They had the chance, but the
non-technical execs thought they knew better than the engineers.


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


Such as?




--
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

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...

I normally listen on FM of course, but yesterday I checked on the bit
rate on Radio 4 yesterday morning and it was 128 kbps. Noticeably
inferior to FM.

FM doesn't have a "bit rate", so it's meaningless to say that 128kb/s is
"noticeably inferior" to it.

Actually, it probably does. Either because the information is sent to the
TX using a digital system, or simply due to Shannon. :-)

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