"Ian Jackson" wrote

You are trying to convince us all that you will accept only the best. Stop
deluding yourself. Like the rest of us, you simply don't like posh music!

On the contrary I do like "posh music", but when listening to it I like to
hear the quiet bits as well as the loud ones, which isn't possible in a car.
Well, not my car anyway :-)

FWIW I also like a lot of "non-posh" music too.

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

I actually have a half decent sound system in the bathroom - including
weatherproof speakers in the shower enclosure. ;-)

Good Lord! can't you forgo listening to the radio long enough to have a
shower?

You could be right, but I installed it before I'd had experience of having
a dedicated shower enclosure.

Yes. Many people don't even listen to R3! :-)

Think the noise of the shower might upset listening to some things. ;-)

Which is why I never listen to R3 in the car.

Indeed. Although DAB was originally intended to give you the ability to
reduce the dynamic range.

David.

--
*Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

Which is why I never listen to R3 in the car.

Indeed. Although DAB was originally intended to give you the ability to
reduce the dynamic range.


I wasn't aware that DAB had been originally intended to work that way, but I
do know that even in the 1930s it was being seriously suggested that radio
broadcasts should be compressed on transmission using a known law so that
those who wanted could use a complementary expander on reception to give the
original dynamic range, whilst other people could listen to the volume
compressed version.

David.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:59:51 +0100, "David Looser"
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

Which is why I never listen to R3 in the car.

Indeed. Although DAB was originally intended to give you the ability to
reduce the dynamic range.


I wasn't aware that DAB had been originally intended to work that way, but I
do know that even in the 1930s it was being seriously suggested that radio
broadcasts should be compressed on transmission using a known law so that
those who wanted could use a complementary expander on reception to give the
original dynamic range, whilst other people could listen to the volume
compressed version.

David.


I bought one of the early Arcam DAB tuners (before it became
unlistenable). I believe it has four compression settings built in.
The idea was that all (and I do mean all) DAB broadcasts would be made
in full dynamic range, and you would choose the degree of compression
you wanted at the receiver. That, of course, lasted about 2 minutes
once the service started.

d

Don Pearce wrote:

I bought one of the early Arcam DAB tuners (before it became
unlistenable). I believe it has four compression settings built in.
The idea was that all (and I do mean all) DAB broadcasts would be made
in full dynamic range, and you would choose the degree of compression
you wanted at the receiver. That, of course, lasted about 2 minutes
once the service started.


Reviving this thread for a moment, I think it's generally agreed that
DAB is not up to FM broadcast standards but how does satellite compare?
My brother in law is talking about using a satellite receiver for his
new system [wired in jobbie accessible throughout his new house].
Presumably the quality from the satellite would be better than the DAB
quality?


--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:44:29 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I bought one of the early Arcam DAB tuners (before it became
unlistenable). I believe it has four compression settings built in.
The idea was that all (and I do mean all) DAB broadcasts would be made
in full dynamic range, and you would choose the degree of compression
you wanted at the receiver. That, of course, lasted about 2 minutes
once the service started.


Reviving this thread for a moment, I think it's generally agreed that
DAB is not up to FM broadcast standards but how does satellite compare?
My brother in law is talking about using a satellite receiver for his
new system [wired in jobbie accessible throughout his new house].
Presumably the quality from the satellite would be better than the DAB
quality?

I don't have satellite myself, but from what I have heard of it, it is
a great deal better than DAB.

d

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:44:29 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I bought one of the early Arcam DAB tuners (before it became
unlistenable). I believe it has four compression settings built in.
The idea was that all (and I do mean all) DAB broadcasts would be made
in full dynamic range, and you would choose the degree of compression
you wanted at the receiver. That, of course, lasted about 2 minutes
once the service started.


Reviving this thread for a moment, I think it's generally agreed that
DAB is not up to FM broadcast standards but how does satellite compare?
My brother in law is talking about using a satellite receiver for his
new system [wired in jobbie accessible throughout his new house].
Presumably the quality from the satellite would be better than the DAB
quality?

I don't have satellite myself, but from what I have heard of it, it is
a great deal better than DAB.

d
I would have thought so. Satellite TV is much better than freeview so I
would expect a similar difference with radio. However without knowing...

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

In article , David
Kennedy scribeth thus
Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:44:29 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I bought one of the early Arcam DAB tuners (before it became
unlistenable). I believe it has four compression settings built in.
The idea was that all (and I do mean all) DAB broadcasts would be made
in full dynamic range, and you would choose the degree of compression
you wanted at the receiver. That, of course, lasted about 2 minutes
once the service started.


Reviving this thread for a moment, I think it's generally agreed that
DAB is not up to FM broadcast standards but how does satellite compare?
My brother in law is talking about using a satellite receiver for his
new system [wired in jobbie accessible throughout his new house].
Presumably the quality from the satellite would be better than the DAB
quality?

I don't have satellite myself, but from what I have heard of it, it is
a great deal better than DAB.

d
I would have thought so. Satellite TV is much better than freeview so I
would expect a similar difference with radio. However without knowing...


Its better than DAB with the exception of BBC Radio 3, both satellite
and T-DTV and T-DAB are at 192 K/bits MP2 for that.

It could be more and should be more, but the BBC aren't going to let it.
Quite why I don't know. It might show them up that T-DAB is worse that
Satellite.

Some European broadcasters manage 256 K and some 320 and even as in the
case of Bayern use 441K for surround but the problem I fear is in the UK
engineers aren't or don't have any clout at the BBC.

There was a experimental 320 K AAC service for the proms on the web, but
I don't think it will become permanent.

Satellite could if they would do it!. At least almost all the UK
population could receive it, whereas the web is very variable over the
same area..


The joke is that the TV sound on Sat and T-DTV is at 256 K MP2 ;!...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In articleRradnRpNvJ9diD_RnZ2dnUVZ8oGdnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk, David
scribeth thus
Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:44:29 +0100, David Kennedy
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I bought one of the early Arcam DAB tuners (before it became
unlistenable). I believe it has four compression settings built in.
The idea was that all (and I do mean all) DAB broadcasts would be made
in full dynamic range, and you would choose the degree of compression
you wanted at the receiver. That, of course, lasted about 2 minutes
once the service started.


Reviving this thread for a moment, I think it's generally agreed that
DAB is not up to FM broadcast standards but how does satellite compare?
My brother in law is talking about using a satellite receiver for his
new system [wired in jobbie accessible throughout his new house].
Presumably the quality from the satellite would be better than the DAB
quality?

I don't have satellite myself, but from what I have heard of it, it is
a great deal better than DAB.

d
I would have thought so. Satellite TV is much better than freeview so I
would expect a similar difference with radio. However without knowing...


Its better than DAB with the exception of BBC Radio 3, both satellite
and T-DTV and T-DAB are at 192 K/bits MP2 for that.

It could be more and should be more, but the BBC aren't going to let it.
Quite why I don't know. It might show them up that T-DAB is worse that
Satellite.

Some European broadcasters manage 256 K and some 320 and even as in the
case of Bayern use 441K for surround but the problem I fear is in the UK
engineers aren't or don't have any clout at the BBC.


True.

There was a experimental 320 K AAC service for the proms on the web, but
I don't think it will become permanent.

Satellite could if they would do it!. At least almost all the UK
population could receive it, whereas the web is very variable over the
same area..


The joke is that the TV sound on Sat and T-DTV is at 256 K MP2 ;!...

Not a very funny one though.

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com