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

You went involved in the MP2 codec tests for the development of DAB?..


No, voice codecs only, but the principle is the same. More to the point
I know just how hard it is, and the lengths we had to go to, to
eliminate bias from listening tests.

FWIW I've now had a chance to record some mp3 streams 'broadcast' by some
of the net stations. This meant I could write the results onto a CDRW and
listen to them on some players. Have examples at 128/192/256kbps. What I've
found interesting is that the results *didn't* show that the 'higher the
bitrate the better the sound'. This was a totally uncontrolled test, so is
suspect, but it does strengthen my bias towards feeling that the way the
specific encoder is used (and the details of the sound patterns to be
encoded) can matter more that the output bitrate chosen.


And where it came from in the first place...
Slainte,

Jim


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Perhaps that's the difference between us. I'm only interested in the
sound I hear in my room. I don't really care how it is unacceptably
degraded.


That I find a really odd attitude from someone who works as a sound
recordist;?..

No, IMHO, the correct one. It's the end result that matters - not what
equipment is used.


So you don't seem to mind that your work can be degraded?..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

FWIW I've now had a chance to record some mp3 streams 'broadcast' by
some of the net stations. This meant I could write the results onto a
CDRW and listen to them on some players. Have examples at
128/192/256kbps. What I've found interesting is that the results
*didn't* show that the 'higher the bitrate the better the sound'. This
was a totally uncontrolled test, so is suspect, but it does strengthen
my bias towards feeling that the way the specific encoder is used (and
the details of the sound patterns to be encoded) can matter more that
the output bitrate chosen.


I don't suppose it makes a great deal of difference if you record using
a lossless format, but isn't it more logical to just capture the
streamed audio?

Erm... that is what I have been doing. Recording the mp3 stream as an mp3
file on my computer. Then writing these files into a CDRW for playing on
various 'audio'/'video' disc players.

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

Those who moan about current 'DAB quality' are almost certainly
listening to pop music stations - as R3&4 have a just about adequate
data rate for the material they carry. Or at least during the times I
listen to them. And *every* pop and light music station is so heavily
processed on all wavebands that - to me - they are simply dreadful to
listen to.

The above sums up my own experience of DAB. Although these days I mainly
listen to DTTV rather than DAB.

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

In article , Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message , Jim Lesurf
writes


[1] Or 8kHz for those regions of the world where 8kHz spacing was
adopted. 9kHz isn't uniform around the world IIRC.

Out of interest, which region is 8kHz? I thought it was only 9 or 10.
I've had a quick look, but can't find 8.

Afraid I've forgotten! :-) It may be either Africa or the USA, but I
can't recall. I do remember that the World Conferences established some
regions as 8kHz and others 9kHz. Think this was when the BBC on long wave
went from 200kHz to 198kHz to suit. But alas my memory of this is hazy.

IIRC one of the Quad AM tuners also had a choice of notch filter frequency
to cater for the region.

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

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Jim Lesurf
writes


[1] Or 8kHz for those regions of the world where 8kHz spacing was adopted.
9kHz isn't uniform around the world IIRC.

Out of interest, which region is 8kHz? I thought it was only 9 or 10. I've
had a quick look, but can't find 8.

Yup, it's 9kHz or 10kHz dependiing on region. There's no 8.

David.

"Rob" wrote in message
om...

I'm of a view that if you do have an opportunity to provide something to a
high standard, you take it. Not everyone will appreciate it, maybe, small
price. I found the whole roll-out of DAB wrong-headed.


How high is high?

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...

I'm of a view that if you do have an opportunity to provide something
to a high standard, you take it. Not everyone will appreciate it,
maybe, small price. I found the whole roll-out of DAB wrong-headed.


How high is high?

Indeed. Most of these comments come with the benefit of hindsight. DAB was
a long time in the planning - and making radical changes late in that
process would have been difficult.
I remember driving round Birmingham on a coach equipped with a
demonstration system long before actual transmissions started - and the
difference in reception between that and FM was quite astounding.

--
*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.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:41:02 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

FWIW I've now had a chance to record some mp3 streams 'broadcast' by
some of the net stations. This meant I could write the results onto a
CDRW and listen to them on some players. Have examples at
128/192/256kbps. What I've found interesting is that the results
*didn't* show that the 'higher the bitrate the better the sound'. This
was a totally uncontrolled test, so is suspect, but it does strengthen
my bias towards feeling that the way the specific encoder is used (and
the details of the sound patterns to be encoded) can matter more that
the output bitrate chosen.


I don't suppose it makes a great deal of difference if you record using
a lossless format, but isn't it more logical to just capture the
streamed audio?

Erm... that is what I have been doing. Recording the mp3 stream as an mp3
file on my computer. Then writing these files into a CDRW for playing on
various 'audio'/'video' disc players.

Slainte,

Jim

Can you really do that - record an MP3 stream as an MP3 file, I mean?
I thought the file got decoded to straight PCM, the recoded as MP3 for
writing to the file. How else would you generate the file header?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Jim Lesurf
writes


[1] Or 8kHz for those regions of the world where 8kHz spacing was
adopted. 9kHz isn't uniform around the world IIRC.

Out of interest, which region is 8kHz? I thought it was only 9 or 10.
I've had a quick look, but can't find 8.

Yup, it's 9kHz or 10kHz dependiing on region. There's no 8.

In that case, my error. I assume I was confusing that with 8kHz. Memory
fault.

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