In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Hello, looks like Bollock Chops has just realised where his foot is....

This from the one who dislikes having a nickname applied to himself.

--
*A journey of a thousand sites begins with a single click *

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

David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

. For example, the latest digital mobile broadcasting systems are 10
times as efficient as DAB.

What is that supposed to mean? What sort of "efficiency" are you talking
about? Spectral efficiency?, capital cost efficiency?, power efficiency?,
what?


DVB-T2 is 10.5 times as efficient as DAB in terms of the number of stations
that can be carried at a certain level of audio quality per MHz of spectrum.
Spectral efficiency isn't the appropriate parameter to use to compare
digital radio systems because it ignores the efficiency of the audio codec.
The above figure combines the spectral and audio coding efficiencies.

Capital cost efficiency and power efficiency are equal to the efficiency
figure (10.5) given above, because DAB and DVB-T2 are compared on the basis
of them using the same required C/N ratio, which implies that the multiplex
transmission power will be the same when they use the same channel
bandwidth, and DAB and DVB-T2 are specified to use the same 1.7 MHz
bandwidth Band III channels. As the transmission powers are the same for
both systems, the power efficiency is simply the power divided by the number
of stations, which in relative terms is precisely equal to the efficiency
value given above. Similarly, the capital cost efficiency is also simply the
multiplex capital cost divided by the number of stations, which again in
relative terms is equal to the efficiency value given above.

DVB-T2 is also 3.5 times as efficient as DAB+ - that's purely down to
spectral efficiency, because they both use the same AAC/AAC+ audio codec.


Come to that what do you mean by "mobile broadcasting systems"?


Substitute "broadcasting" for "phone" in the term "mobile phone system" and
hopefully you get the picture. Stationary reception is basically a special
case of mobile reception just at 0 mph.

Basically, mobile broadcasting systems have been specifically designed to
allow for reception on mobile devices - not all broadcasting systems have
been designed to allow mobile reception, for instance DVB-T whcih is used
for Freeview in the UK didn't include any technologies to make it suitable
for mobile reception - and mobile reception of Freeview channels would be
hopeless in the UK especially because of the transmission parameters used
(2K subcarriers, 7us guard interval duration).

I look forward to a deep and meaningful discussion of all things mobile
comms with you, David. Or should I say DAB Fanboy 3, IIRC?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

. For example, the latest digital mobile broadcasting systems are 10
times as efficient as DAB.

What is that supposed to mean? What sort of "efficiency" are you talking
about? Spectral efficiency?, capital cost efficiency?, power efficiency?,
what?


DVB-T2 is 10.5 times as efficient as DAB in terms of the number of
stations that can be carried at a certain level of audio quality per MHz
of spectrum. Spectral efficiency isn't the appropriate parameter to use to
compare digital radio systems because it ignores the efficiency of the
audio codec. The above figure combines the spectral and audio coding
efficiencies.

Capital cost efficiency and power efficiency are equal to the efficiency
figure (10.5) given above, because DAB and DVB-T2 are compared on the
basis of them using the same required C/N ratio, which implies that the
multiplex transmission power will be the same when they use the same
channel bandwidth, and DAB and DVB-T2 are specified to use the same 1.7
MHz bandwidth Band III channels. As the transmission powers are the same
for both systems, the power efficiency is simply the power divided by the
number of stations, which in relative terms is precisely equal to the
efficiency value given above. Similarly, the capital cost efficiency is
also simply the multiplex capital cost divided by the number of stations,
which again in relative terms is equal to the efficiency value given
above.

DVB-T2 is also 3.5 times as efficient as DAB+ - that's purely down to
spectral efficiency, because they both use the same AAC/AAC+ audio codec.


Come to that what do you mean by "mobile broadcasting systems"?


Substitute "broadcasting" for "phone" in the term "mobile phone system"
and hopefully you get the picture. Stationary reception is basically a
special case of mobile reception just at 0 mph.

Basically, mobile broadcasting systems have been specifically designed to
allow for reception on mobile devices - not all broadcasting systems have
been designed to allow mobile reception, for instance DVB-T whcih is used
for Freeview in the UK didn't include any technologies to make it suitable
for mobile reception - and mobile reception of Freeview channels would be
hopeless in the UK especially because of the transmission parameters used
(2K subcarriers, 7us guard interval duration).

I look forward to a deep and meaningful discussion of all things mobile
comms with you, David. Or should I say DAB Fanboy 3, IIRC?



DAB Fanboy 3 now?

(That'll be the whole of the UK by Christmas, at this rate!)

You just don't know when to stop digging, do you?

:-)

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I was referring to Dave Plowman being thick, so Plow******** might just
struggle to mathematically prove Einstein's theory of relativity. Not
entirely sure where your Acoustic Solutions DAB tuner comes into it.

Your usual technique of resorting to personal abuse about anyone who
doesn't take your every word as gospel noted. Oh so common with religious
bigots of any denomination. And you certainly treat your obsession as a
crusade.

Sadly your spin on the situation is based on specifications and hindsight.
And takes no account of those who may find DAB under certain conditions
quite satisfactory. Or those who may find the reverse to be the case with
FM.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

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

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

. For example, the latest digital mobile broadcasting systems are 10
times as efficient as DAB.

What is that supposed to mean? What sort of "efficiency" are you
talking about? Spectral efficiency?, capital cost efficiency?, power
efficiency?, what?

Come to that what do you mean by "mobile broadcasting systems"?

Mr DAB refuses to acknowledge that the current system was finalized long
before any of his alternatives. And that when it was started it was
positively ignored by the 'quality at all costs' brigade. Who by then
weren't using radio for much serious listening as CD was capable of better
- very different from when the LP was the main source at home.

--
*Ever stop to think and forget to start again?

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

Keith G wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

. For example, the latest digital mobile broadcasting systems are 10
times as efficient as DAB.

What is that supposed to mean? What sort of "efficiency" are you
talking about? Spectral efficiency?, capital cost efficiency?, power
efficiency?, what?


DVB-T2 is 10.5 times as efficient as DAB in terms of the number of
stations that can be carried at a certain level of audio quality per MHz
of spectrum. Spectral efficiency isn't the appropriate parameter to use
to compare digital radio systems because it ignores the efficiency of the
audio codec. The above figure combines the spectral and audio coding
efficiencies.

Capital cost efficiency and power efficiency are equal to the efficiency
figure (10.5) given above, because DAB and DVB-T2 are compared on the
basis of them using the same required C/N ratio, which implies that the
multiplex transmission power will be the same when they use the same
channel bandwidth, and DAB and DVB-T2 are specified to use the same 1.7
MHz bandwidth Band III channels. As the transmission powers are the same
for both systems, the power efficiency is simply the power divided by the
number of stations, which in relative terms is precisely equal to the
efficiency value given above. Similarly, the capital cost efficiency is
also simply the multiplex capital cost divided by the number of stations,
which again in relative terms is equal to the efficiency value given
above.

DVB-T2 is also 3.5 times as efficient as DAB+ - that's purely down to
spectral efficiency, because they both use the same AAC/AAC+ audio codec.


Come to that what do you mean by "mobile broadcasting systems"?


Substitute "broadcasting" for "phone" in the term "mobile phone system"
and hopefully you get the picture. Stationary reception is basically a
special case of mobile reception just at 0 mph.

Basically, mobile broadcasting systems have been specifically designed to
allow for reception on mobile devices - not all broadcasting systems have
been designed to allow mobile reception, for instance DVB-T whcih is used
for Freeview in the UK didn't include any technologies to make it
suitable for mobile reception - and mobile reception of Freeview
channels would be hopeless in the UK especially because of the
transmission parameters used (2K subcarriers, 7us guard interval
duration). I look forward to a deep and meaningful discussion of all
things mobile
comms with you, David. Or should I say DAB Fanboy 3, IIRC?



DAB Fanboy 3 now?

(That'll be the whole of the UK by Christmas, at this rate!)

You just don't know when to stop digging, do you?


Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha!!!! Don't know when to stop digging? WTF are
you on about?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

. For example, the latest digital mobile broadcasting systems are 10
times as efficient as DAB.

What is that supposed to mean? What sort of "efficiency" are you
talking about? Spectral efficiency?, capital cost efficiency?, power
efficiency?, what?

Come to that what do you mean by "mobile broadcasting systems"?

Mr DAB refuses to acknowledge that the current system was finalized long
before any of his alternatives.


AAC was standardised in 1997, DAB was properly launched in the UK in 2002.
There WAS DEFINITELY plenty of time for the BBC to realise that DAB needed
to adopt the AAC audio codec prior to properly launching it. They didn't do
that, because the people making the decisions were non-technical people, and
we're still paying the price for that incompetence to this day.


And that when it was started it was
positively ignored by the 'quality at all costs' brigade.


DAB tuners first came out in 2000 and they cost £800. Then in 2001 they
reduced to £300. I bought a DAB receiver in a sale in September 2001 for
£100. Please forgive me for not paying £300 - £800.


Who by then
weren't using radio for much serious listening as CD was capable of better
- very different from when the LP was the main source at home.


Oh stop bleating with your excuses. Face the ****ing facts: DAB is a
shambles because the decision makers screwed up. Why on earth people
actually try to stick up for the BBC executives for the incompetent work
they did I'll never know.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

. For example, the latest digital mobile broadcasting systems are 10
times as efficient as DAB.

What is that supposed to mean? What sort of "efficiency" are you
talking about? Spectral efficiency?, capital cost efficiency?, power
efficiency?, what?


DVB-T2 is 10.5 times as efficient as DAB in terms of the number of
stations that can be carried at a certain level of audio quality per MHz
of spectrum. Spectral efficiency isn't the appropriate parameter to use
to compare digital radio systems because it ignores the efficiency of
the
audio codec. The above figure combines the spectral and audio coding
efficiencies.

Capital cost efficiency and power efficiency are equal to the efficiency
figure (10.5) given above, because DAB and DVB-T2 are compared on the
basis of them using the same required C/N ratio, which implies that the
multiplex transmission power will be the same when they use the same
channel bandwidth, and DAB and DVB-T2 are specified to use the same 1.7
MHz bandwidth Band III channels. As the transmission powers are the same
for both systems, the power efficiency is simply the power divided by
the
number of stations, which in relative terms is precisely equal to the
efficiency value given above. Similarly, the capital cost efficiency is
also simply the multiplex capital cost divided by the number of
stations,
which again in relative terms is equal to the efficiency value given
above.

DVB-T2 is also 3.5 times as efficient as DAB+ - that's purely down to
spectral efficiency, because they both use the same AAC/AAC+ audio
codec.


Come to that what do you mean by "mobile broadcasting systems"?


Substitute "broadcasting" for "phone" in the term "mobile phone system"
and hopefully you get the picture. Stationary reception is basically a
special case of mobile reception just at 0 mph.

Basically, mobile broadcasting systems have been specifically designed
to
allow for reception on mobile devices - not all broadcasting systems
have
been designed to allow mobile reception, for instance DVB-T whcih is
used
for Freeview in the UK didn't include any technologies to make it
suitable for mobile reception - and mobile reception of Freeview
channels would be hopeless in the UK especially because of the
transmission parameters used (2K subcarriers, 7us guard interval
duration). I look forward to a deep and meaningful discussion of all
things mobile
comms with you, David. Or should I say DAB Fanboy 3, IIRC?



DAB Fanboy 3 now?

(That'll be the whole of the UK by Christmas, at this rate!)

You just don't know when to stop digging, do you?


Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha!!!! Don't know when to stop digging? WTF are
you on about?



Oops!

Good job I'm not a dentist, ain't it?

:-)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I was referring to Dave Plowman being thick, so Plow******** might just
struggle to mathematically prove Einstein's theory of relativity. Not
entirely sure where your Acoustic Solutions DAB tuner comes into it.

Your usual technique of resorting to personal abuse about anyone who
doesn't take your every word as gospel noted. Oh so common with religious
bigots of any denomination. And you certainly treat your obsession as a
crusade.


Bull****. I was simply giving my honest opinion about your level of
intelligence!


Sadly your spin on the situation is based on specifications and hindsight.


The BBC R&D engineers were basoically screaming about how good AAC was
compared to MP2 from 1996 onwards. Please don't try to tell me that there
wasn't time to adopt AAC, because there was.


And takes no account of those who may find DAB under certain conditions
quite satisfactory.


A system shouldn't be designed jsut to cater for mediocrity.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote


Or should I say DAB Fanboy 3, IIRC?

You don't, remember correctly that is.

David.