In article ,
Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
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.

You can tell on speech? What tuner were you using?

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

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

"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.

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

Jim Lesurf wroteSomething that made more sense than this edited version)
Hi,
One of the things I have since started to explore is 'internet
radio'. However I haven't yet found much that is interesting.
My interest is in three areas of music.

1) 'Classical' music.
2) 'Classical Indian'.
3) Jazz.
FWIW Since I don't use windows/mac/linux I can't access 'real audio' or
'wma' streams. So am looking for open formats based on mp3, etc.
Preferrably 192kbps or 128kbps to make the results worth hearing.
Slainte,

Jim

Have you tried
http://www.concertzender.eu/?language=en
I think that it hits all your buttons, but I'm not sure about the format.
I used to listen to it a lot when it was on satellite, but have not yet
got "into" streaming.

Roger

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

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

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

Of course I did. It must have been obvious. what is a "scientific
listening test"? Is it what most people call "listening"?

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I also wonder how many who say 'internet' radio sounds better than DAB
are comparing like for like. Do they have a DAB tuner fed into the same
sound system as their PC? Or are they comparing their PC sound system
to a DAB portable radio?


Dave I sometimes wonder if theres something wrong with your hearing;?..

There's definitely something wrong with yours if you agree DAB sounds
worse than MW.


I did not say that at all...


--
Tony Sayer

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

I also wonder how many who say 'internet' radio sounds better than DAB are
comparing like for like. Do they have a DAB tuner fed into the same sound
system as their PC? Or are they comparing their PC sound system to a DAB
portable radio?


I'm no great enthusiast for the concept of "internet radio". I appreciate
"Listen Again" to allow me to catch up on Radio 4 programmes I have missed,
but the quality is crap, so I don't bother with internet music. But as I
said I was pleasantly surprised by DAB, it sounded fine to me.

David.




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

In article , David Looser
scribeth thus
"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.



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