"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Willard Myron wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Graham wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml


All my FM radios sound far better than my DAB radios, so why on earth
would they be obsolete?

Here's a couple of audio samples for you to listen to to see which
is the obsolete system out of DAB and FM (both recorded
simultaneously on 21st June 2005):

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa...guitar_DAB.mp2 (1.0
MB)
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa..._guitar_FM.mp4 (2.1 MB)
Thanks, but I think I'll stick with FM.


Having had a look at both recordings using Nero Wave Editor the only
difference that I can hear (and see) between them is that the FM
recording has a better treble response than the DAB recording.


In absolute honesty, if I were you I'd get my hearing checked out. Those 2
samples sound absolutely nothing like each other.


I never said they did. And you think I need my hearing tested?. I think you
need both your eyes and your hearing tested mate. Try a decent aerial on
your DAB receiver. You never know, it might improve your reception!.




The
DAB recording has a better base response, but frequencies above 14Khz
are definitely being attenuated. I did my own simultaneous recordings
of Radio 1 this afternoon and got the same result.

At the end of the day it all boils down to personal taste.


No it does not. The DAB sample sounds incredibly poor. The FM sample does
not. End of story.


Personally, I prefer the more "bassy" sound of DAB radio but I can
certainly see (and hear) what it is your on about Steve. But unless
you were an audiophile, or you had actually taken the time to compare
the sound quality of both systems, I don't think most people would
either appreciate or notice the difference.


Unbefkinglievable. Some people....


Such is life....

Willard Myron wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

Having had a look at both recordings using Nero Wave Editor the only
difference that I can hear (and see) between them is that the FM
recording has a better treble response than the DAB recording.


In absolute honesty, if I were you I'd get my hearing checked out.
Those 2 samples sound absolutely nothing like each other.


I never said they did. And you think I need my hearing tested?.


That's what I said.


I think you need both your eyes and your hearing tested mate.


Why? How old are you? I'm in my 30s. If you're much older than me then
your hearing will be worse because your high-frequency response worsens
with age. That might explain why you don't mind the sound on DAB,
whereas I can hear it properly and know how bad it actually sounds.


Try a decent aerial on your DAB receiver.


Look, so long as you receive a signal so there's no "bubbling mud" then
the difference in audio quality between having a wire aerial and a big,
roof-mounted aerial is negligible. For the record, I have a half-wave
dipole for DAB. Reception is fine.

Don't lecture me about DAB. I've forgotten more about DAB than you will
*ever* know. That's probably because I did an MSc on all of this,
whereas what do you know about digital communications and DSP? If you
doubt me, have a read of my website, which just happens to be about
digital radio. In particular here's a page I wrote that describes how
all the main components work of the COFDM transmission scheme that DAB
uses:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/cofdm.htm

Personally, I doubt you'll understand much of it because it's a bit
technical in places.


You never know, it might improve
your reception!.


Nothing wrong with my DAB reception of the BBC multiplex. I suggest you
understand what affects the audio quality on DAB, because you clearly
don't have a clue. Bit rate is the main determinant of audio quality on
DAB stations, and the bit rate used for 98% of all stereo stations on
DAB is 128kbps. Compare that with the bit rates used for the audio
streams for the TV channels on Freeview where the lowest bit rate used
is 192kbps and the BBC use 256kbps for BBC1/2/3/4/CBeebies/CBBC. In
other words, CBeebies and CBBC have a higher audio quality than Radio 3
on DAB! Ha.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:10:46 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

CBeebies and CBBC have a higher audio quality than Radio 3
on DAB! Ha.

As children can probably hear up to 20 kHz, they need it!

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
Web cam and weather:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co....her/kabcam.htm
Some walks and treks:- http://www.windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/walks/index.html

Alan White wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:10:46 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

CBeebies and CBBC have a higher audio quality than Radio 3
on DAB! Ha.

As children can probably hear up to 20 kHz, they need it!


I've never checked the frequency response of the TV channels' audio
channels, but all the digital radio stations are lowpass filtered with a
cutoff frequency of around 15.5 kHz, and I wouldn't be surprised if the
TV channels were also.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/cofdm.htm

Personally, I doubt you'll understand much of it because it's a bit
technical in places.

Ouch. Sorry pal, this has gotta be said: If anyone wants to understand
COFDM, then your essay's not the place to go, mainly 'cos it isn't
styled right to lead a beginner through the concepts. There's some
technical gaffes like confusing concepts together that have similar
terminology. I'm not going to critique it further 'cos disentangling
that lot'd take a day at least.

I know what you've been doing - you've been reading loads of books
and think you know what it all means, and you probably do for the
most part, but the gaps show. Maybe if you weren't so damn prickly
(which I get just from reading this group for a few days) then
you could discuss this stuff with people and get it straightened
out. Dunno why I bother writing this though, 'cos you project a
blank wall 50 feet high, and I know what you'll say.

Nod wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/cofdm.htm

Personally, I doubt you'll understand much of it because it's a bit
technical in places.

Ouch. Sorry pal, this has gotta be said: If anyone wants to understand
COFDM, then your essay's not the place to go, mainly 'cos it isn't
styled right to lead a beginner through the concepts.


I agree. But if I didn't set out to write that page from first
principles. It was mainly meant for undergraduate students that wanted a
brief summary of OFDM as used for DAB.


There's some
technical gaffes like confusing concepts together that have similar
terminology.


Excuse me? Technical gaffs? Please point out one.


I'm not going to critique it further 'cos disentangling
that lot'd take a day at least.

I know what you've been doing - you've been reading loads of books
and think you know what it all means, and you probably do for the
most part, but the gaps show.


The gaps show? Please point some "gaps" out. I wasn't writing a 30-page
chapter on COFDM, and I wanted it to be relatively short. So, yeah, I've
probably missed things out, and I've certainly not bothered to explain
things from first principles.


Maybe if you weren't so damn prickly
(which I get just from reading this group for a few days) then
you could discuss this stuff with people and get it straightened
out.


Sunshine, my knowledge of OFDM ****es all over yours.


Dunno why I bother writing this though, 'cos you project a
blank wall 50 feet high, and I know what you'll say.


Fire away. All you have done in your post is write general accusations
without actually pointing out a single specific error or ommission.
Basically, someone without a shred of knowledge of OFDM could have done
what you've just done.

You think you know about OFDM? Bring it on. I will **** all over you.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Why? How old are you? I'm in my 30s. If you're much older than me then
your hearing will be worse because your high-frequency response worsens
with age. That might explain why you don't mind the sound on DAB,
whereas I can hear it properly and know how bad it actually sounds.

Then it might well be suitable for half the country with hearing
deficiencies due to age, and 99% of the rest who either don't notice the
difference or don't care.

And for the few left who do, there's always FM, Satellite or FreeView.

So your point actually is?

--
*I started out with nothing... and I still have most of it.

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

In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I've never checked the frequency response of the TV channels' audio
channels, but all the digital radio stations are lowpass filtered with a
cutoff frequency of around 15.5 kHz, and I wouldn't be surprised if the
TV channels were also.

As is FM radio, prat.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Why? How old are you? I'm in my 30s. If you're much older than me
then your hearing will be worse because your high-frequency response
worsens with age. That might explain why you don't mind the sound on
DAB, whereas I can hear it properly and know how bad it actually
sounds.

Then it might well be suitable for half the country with hearing
deficiencies due to age,


Half?


and 99% of the rest who either don't notice
the difference or don't care.


99%?


And for the few left who do, there's always FM, Satellite or FreeView.

So your point actually is?


My point is simply that DAB is meant to eventually replace FM, and DAB
sounds miles worse than FM.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I've never checked the frequency response of the TV channels' audio
channels, but all the digital radio stations are lowpass filtered
with a cutoff frequency of around 15.5 kHz, and I wouldn't be
surprised if the TV channels were also.

As is FM radio, prat.


Where did I say that FM radio wasn't lowpass filtered down to about 15
kHz? I didn't.

The point I was making was that Alan White had said this:

"As children can probably hear up to 20 kHz, they need it!"

You don't seem capable of following a simple thread of discussion
without getting completely confused. I'd suggest that you do some
crossword puzzles or something. You know what they say, "use it or lose
it", and you seem to be most definitely losing
it................................................ .......


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm