Current trends in audio
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:12:50 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:

I always find these "everythings deteriorating" arguments amusing,
AFAICS many things are improving by and large.

Not so. TV pictures quality hit its peak with the Crystal Palace
signal direct from broadcasting house studios to a delta tube TV. PIL
tubes were brighter, but a step down in quality, both for resolution
because the verticals were more apparent and colour rendition. In an
attempt to increase brightness a new red phosphor was used - this
skewed the gamut to the point where skin was purple/pink. Digital TV
could have improved things, but the need for revenue means that
resolution has been sacrificed to quantity of channels. Even HD
channels are soft.

Audio has suffered the same way. On the day of launch, DAB had a few
decent channels - radios 2, 3 and 4 were OK. Unfortunately the BBC
committed too early to MPEG2, which could not produce decent sound at
low bit rates. And that is exactly what we have now - dozens of
channels of 80kbps, mostly in mono. (0% of DAB is unlistenable.

So yes. Everything is deteriorating. This is happening because unlike
FM, digital broadcasting makes it too easy to do.

d

Current trends in audio
 

On 22/01/2017 18:24, Don Pearce wrote:
snip
Digital TV
could have improved things, but the need for revenue means that
resolution has been sacrificed to quantity of channels. Even HD
channels are soft.

Soft I could live with. Blocky I hate, and when different parts of a
moving object move at different rates - typically hair on a dancer -
it's awful.

snip
Audio has suffered the same way. On the day of launch, DAB had a few
decent channels - radios 2, 3 and 4 were OK. Unfortunately the BBC
committed too early to MPEG2, which could not produce decent sound at
low bit rates. And that is exactly what we have now - dozens of
channels of 80kbps, mostly in mono. (0% of DAB is unlistenable.


zero percent? I think youlost a leading 9...

So yes. Everything is deteriorating. This is happening because unlike
FM, digital broadcasting makes it too easy to do.

They seem to be able to sell quantity over quality.

Andy

Current trends in audio
 

On 22-01-17 19:24, Don Pearce wrote:

So yes. Everything is deteriorating. This is happening because unlike
FM, digital broadcasting makes it too easy to do.

Hasn't BBC FM broadcasts been transmitted using a digital backbone
since the early 80's or so?

Current trends in audio
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:24:23 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:12:50 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:

I always find these "everythings deteriorating" arguments amusing,
AFAICS many things are improving by and large.

Not so. TV pictures quality hit its peak with the Crystal Palace
signal direct from broadcasting house studios to a delta tube TV. PIL
tubes were brighter, but a step down in quality, both for resolution
because the verticals were more apparent and colour rendition. In an
attempt to increase brightness a new red phosphor was used - this
skewed the gamut to the point where skin was purple/pink. Digital TV
could have improved things, but the need for revenue means that
resolution has been sacrificed to quantity of channels. Even HD
channels are soft.

Audio has suffered the same way. On the day of launch, DAB had a few
decent channels - radios 2, 3 and 4 were OK. Unfortunately the BBC
committed too early to MPEG2, which could not produce decent sound at
low bit rates. And that is exactly what we have now - dozens of
channels of 80kbps, mostly in mono. (0% of DAB is unlistenable.

So yes. Everything is deteriorating. This is happening because unlike
FM, digital broadcasting makes it too easy to do.

d

My word, you do have a fine set of rose tinted glasses!

Analogue TV has a lot of inherent defects due to the encoding system
(very, very clever, but compromised.) I would argure that the early
digital broadcasts were a significant improvement over analogue if
good material was used, especially for the vast majority of the
population who don't receive CP. I agree that it has got worse since
then as data rates have been reduced, but, even with low bit rates,
broadcast HD is better in most respects than analogue ever was. And if
you want high quality watch a bluray disc or a good quality streaming
service; they make analogiue look like the relatively poor quality
system that it is.

I always preferred delta tubes over liney ones, but the liney tube
resolution issue was an early problem. With time liney shadowmasks got
finer. The general public much preferred liney tubes as they were much
brighter and didn't have the looking through net curtains effect that
delta tubes gave. My understanding is that the red phosphor was
changed because the early phosphors wer very toxic, so a health issue
for factory workers. The significant brightness increase was because
of the much greater transparency of liney shadowmasks.

Yes, it would be nice if DAB had higher data rates and it would be
nice if R3 FM wasn't DRC'd to death, but they aren't the only source
of audio. There are huge quantities of well recorded, well performed
music available for very little money.

To extrapolate from a slightly deteriorating UK broadcasting system to
saying that everything is worse is perverse in the extreme.

Current trends in audio
 

On 22/01/2017 12:15, Phil Allison wrote:
You fail completely to appreciate the principle.

In case you have the memory span of a demented chimpanzee - this is what I wrote a little earlier:

" Unless your test operates in a similar way, it has no credibility with or impact on any listener. "

The concept is how best to demonstrate when NO audible difference exists.

Something it pays to think about carefully.

Calm down.

Your device will work perfectly when you are comparing two amps.
I daresay a variant of it would work well with two speakers.
Two analogue decks might be interesting to arrange though...

The difference with digital encoding is that there may be a difference
that is not perceptible. If the phase of the bass is inverted nobody
will notice - probably not even if its harmonics aren't. But your box
would cause a click when switching such a pair of signals.

When I merge two digital signals I try to do it on a zero crossing
point. Your box won't.

Andy

Current trends in audio
 

On 22/01/2017 12:49, Ian McCall wrote:
Such as myself - iPhone output is digital these days, so you're just
looking for a decent DAC on the other end of it. Lossy at 320bps is
indistinguishable from non-lossy: it irritates me a little that the
standard is 256bps, but nothing otherwise.

cough 320kbps...

Current trends in audio
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:18:41 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 22/01/2017 18:24, Don Pearce wrote:
snip
Digital TV
could have improved things, but the need for revenue means that
resolution has been sacrificed to quantity of channels. Even HD
channels are soft.

Soft I could live with. Blocky I hate, and when different parts of a
moving object move at different rates - typically hair on a dancer -
it's awful.

snip
Audio has suffered the same way. On the day of launch, DAB had a few
decent channels - radios 2, 3 and 4 were OK. Unfortunately the BBC
committed too early to MPEG2, which could not produce decent sound at
low bit rates. And that is exactly what we have now - dozens of
channels of 80kbps, mostly in mono. (0% of DAB is unlistenable.


zero percent? I think youlost a leading 9...


I did.

d

Current trends in audio
 

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 20:22:31 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 18:24:23 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:12:50 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:

I always find these "everythings deteriorating" arguments amusing,
AFAICS many things are improving by and large.

Not so. TV pictures quality hit its peak with the Crystal Palace
signal direct from broadcasting house studios to a delta tube TV. PIL
tubes were brighter, but a step down in quality, both for resolution
because the verticals were more apparent and colour rendition. In an
attempt to increase brightness a new red phosphor was used - this
skewed the gamut to the point where skin was purple/pink. Digital TV
could have improved things, but the need for revenue means that
resolution has been sacrificed to quantity of channels. Even HD
channels are soft.

Audio has suffered the same way. On the day of launch, DAB had a few
decent channels - radios 2, 3 and 4 were OK. Unfortunately the BBC
committed too early to MPEG2, which could not produce decent sound at
low bit rates. And that is exactly what we have now - dozens of
channels of 80kbps, mostly in mono. (0% of DAB is unlistenable.

So yes. Everything is deteriorating. This is happening because unlike
FM, digital broadcasting makes it too easy to do.

d

My word, you do have a fine set of rose tinted glasses!

Analogue TV has a lot of inherent defects due to the encoding system
(very, very clever, but compromised.) I would argure that the early
digital broadcasts were a significant improvement over analogue if
good material was used, especially for the vast majority of the
population who don't receive CP. I agree that it has got worse since
then as data rates have been reduced, but, even with low bit rates,
broadcast HD is better in most respects than analogue ever was. And if
you want high quality watch a bluray disc or a good quality streaming
service; they make analogiue look like the relatively poor quality
system that it is.

I always preferred delta tubes over liney ones, but the liney tube
resolution issue was an early problem. With time liney shadowmasks got
finer. The general public much preferred liney tubes as they were much
brighter and didn't have the looking through net curtains effect that
delta tubes gave. My understanding is that the red phosphor was
changed because the early phosphors wer very toxic, so a health issue
for factory workers. The significant brightness increase was because
of the much greater transparency of liney shadowmasks.

Yes, it would be nice if DAB had higher data rates and it would be
nice if R3 FM wasn't DRC'd to death, but they aren't the only source
of audio. There are huge quantities of well recorded, well performed
music available for very little money.

To extrapolate from a slightly deteriorating UK broadcasting system to
saying that everything is worse is perverse in the extreme.




Yes, analogue TV had its problems, but I live on top of Hampstead and
have a direct, uncluttered line of sight to Crystal Palace. I had to
put an attenuator in my downlead to prevent blocking of my TV front
end. So when the BBC were broadcasting direct from a studio (Sunday
morning political programmes were a particular case), I had access to
a signal at essentially the quality that came off the back of the
camera. I was later working in the design of analogue TV systems, and
was able to look back and assess the pictures by the CCIR rating as
"unimpaired".

And I fail to follow your reasoning in that last para. If everything
is deteriorating, then by definition it is worse. I will grant that
the rate of deterioration has slowed - it could hardly be otherwise.
The big step reduction in quality happened when digital broadcasting
began.

d

Current trends in audio
 

Vir Campestris wrote:
On 22/01/2017 12:49, Ian McCall wrote:
Such as myself - iPhone output is digital these days, so you're just
looking for a decent DAC on the other end of it. Lossy at 320bps is
indistinguishable from non-lossy: it irritates me a little that the
standard is 256bps, but nothing otherwise.

cough 320kbps...


Ah yes. Like bps, but a thousand times better...


Cheers,
Ian

Current trends in audio
 

In article ,
Johan Helsingius wrote:
On 22-01-17 19:24, Don Pearce wrote:

So yes. Everything is deteriorating. This is happening because unlike
FM, digital broadcasting makes it too easy to do.

Hasn't BBC FM broadcasts been transmitted using a digital backbone
since the early 80's or so?

Yes. But since it goes via landlines, no need to reduce the bandwidth to
save costs.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

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