| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Hurry, donate your obsolite non-DAB radios to Africa
|
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. -- 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:
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): DAB.mp2 (1.0MB) FM.mp4 (2.1MB) Whilst I don't disagree with your conclusion, that's hardly a fair comparison, is it? Whistler is better than Turner: mother.png (89MB) haywain.jpg (6KB) ;-) -- Mark. http://tranchant.plus.com/ |
Mark Tranchant wrote:
Turner: haywain.jpg (6KB) *blush* Constable, of course... -- Mark. http://tranchant.plus.com/ |
If MP2 the form used to transmit DAB?
Paul DS. 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. |
In article , Graham
writes http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml I thought the batteries cost a years wages and that's why that baylis bloke made the wind up radio for them. -- Lee Donaghy remove SPAM_ME_NOT to send email |
Lee Donaghy wrote:
In article , Graham writes http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml I thought the batteries cost a years wages and that's why that baylis bloke made the wind up radio for them. Practicalities like that would not be allowed to cloud the mind of the ignorant fools who thought the scheme up. Another point e.g. I have 3 FM only portables. I doubt they would work at the target locations. |
"Graham" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml My FM radios are all staying put. I have not intention of paying over £100 per set to replace them with something worse than medium wave. When they start broadcasting in AAC+ and each set costs a tenner then I'll reconsider. And anyway wouldn't it be cheaper to manufacture new radios in Africa than to refurbish the old ones ? How much would it cost the BBC to carry away my old valve radio and ship it to Africa ? -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
"Lee Donaghy" wrote in message
... In article , Graham writes http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml I thought the batteries cost a years wages and that's why that baylis bloke made the wind up radio for them. Well batteries for DAB radios cost most of our wages. I wonder what at clockwork DAB radio would be like? It would need a spring like a wind-up Gramophone. -- Max Demian |
Mark Tranchant wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: 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): DAB.mp2 (1.0MB) FM.mp4 (2.1MB) Whilst I don't disagree with your conclusion, that's hardly a fair comparison, is it? Those recordings were made simultaneously. The DAB recording consists of the "raw" MP2 bitstream that is sent directly to my hard drive, so assuming no bit errors in transmission then it is identical to the audio that left the BBC. The FM sample was recorded on my PC's sound card and subsequently encoded to high bit rate AAC so that the audio quality is degraded by as little as possible. So, I think it is a perfectly fair comparison. -- 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 |
Paul D.Smith wrote:
If MP2 the form used to transmit DAB? Yes. -- 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 |
"Agamemnon" wrote in message ... "Graham" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml I have not intention of paying over £100 You can get a set for around half that price. per set to replace them with something worse than medium wave. DAB is nothing like medium wave, it doesn't fade, it doesn't suffer from foreign broadcasts and interference in the evenings. It isn't as good as FM (in a good signal area, on a decent tuner) in its present form, only because the broadcasters are using too little bandwidth. I agree that its not time to dump FM radio's yet (we are far from that day IMO) first DAB needs much more bandwidth allocated to it, so that DAB can perform like it was intended to. Then the coverage needs to be improved to ensure it can be received reliably on set-top telescopic aerials and in the car. Reception is pathetic in some areas. These issues need addressing before anyone suggests we should dump FM. |
Sven wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message ... "Graham" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml I have not intention of paying over £100 You can get a set for around half that price. per set to replace them with something worse than medium wave. DAB is nothing like medium wave, It doesn't sound much better, either. it doesn't fade, it doesn't suffer from foreign broadcasts and interference in the evenings. It isn't as good as FM (in a good signal area, on a decent tuner) in its present form, only because the broadcasters are using too little bandwidth. Correct. I agree that its not time to dump FM radio's yet (we are far from that day IMO) first DAB needs much more bandwidth allocated to it, so that DAB can perform like it was intended to. DAB is going to get more bandwidth. Ofcom have already decided they're giving DAB 5 more Band III channels. And then that'll be it. And there is absolutely no intention to increase the bit rates of the commercial radio stations. Quite the opposite in fact, because the commercial radio groups have lobbied Ofcom to allow them to use 112kbps instead of the current minimum bit rate of 128kbps. And they're going to get their way. The BBC say they want to increase the bit rates of their national stations. But there will only be 2 new national multiplexes, and the commercial radio groups will win the multiplex operator licences for these national muxes, and they are vehemently opposed to the BBC getting a single bit per second of additional capacity, and it will be very easy for them to block the BBC from getting any more capacity. The audio quality will never be good on music stations on DAB unless you listen to Radio 3. Then the coverage needs to be improved to ensure it can be received reliably on set-top telescopic aerials and in the car. Reception is pathetic in some areas. These issues need addressing before anyone suggests we should dump FM. FM won't be dumped for probably 12 - 15 years, but the bit rates will not be increased. Ofcom are not the kind of regulator to enforce improvement in quality, and the commercial radio groups will not increase their bit rates voluntarily. What you get now is either better than what it will be in the future, or at best the same. The only direction the bit rates are going is down, not up. -- 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 |
"Graham" wrote in message
... http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml -- Graham. %Profound_observation% 1. FM radios are not obsolete, they are current. 2. Why should I donate an FM radio to Africa, I suspect that most places in Africa have no FM signal anyway? 3. African countries need to get their own house in order and stop having civil wars. Regards Mike. |
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM 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? It specifically mentioned FM/MW/LW/SW and battery operated - not just FM. And since FM is poor for long distance reception, it's unlikely to be used much except in large towns where mains would be available. 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): How to turn what could be an interesting thread into your usual rant. -- *Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse than FM 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? It specifically mentioned FM/MW/LW/SW and battery operated - not just FM. And since FM is poor for long distance reception, it's unlikely to be used much except in large towns where mains would be available. Look at the thread title: "obsolite [sic] non-DAB radios". What percentage of non-DAB radios don't have FM on them? 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): How to turn what could be an interesting thread into your usual rant. What would be interesting about the BBC Digital Radio Department's efforts to shift more DAB radios by taking advantage of the general public's sympathy for Africa? And at the same time they're making out that non-DAB radios are so worthless that you can just give them away. -- 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 |
OldBill wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Sven wrote: "Agamemnon" wrote in message ... "Graham" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml I have not intention of paying over £100 You can get a set for around half that price. I wouldn't mind a small DAB radio and cost isn't really a issue but they all look ugly and old-fashioned. Modern hi-tech gadget and they make it look like something from the 1960s. Why is that? There is the "Bug" or whatever it's called. The one that was designed by Wayne Hemingway. Stewart -- You are about to enter... The Scary Door... |
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Sven wrote: "Agamemnon" wrote in message ... "Graham" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml I have not intention of paying over £100 You can get a set for around half that price. I wouldn't mind a small DAB radio and cost isn't really a issue but they all look ugly and old-fashioned. Modern hi-tech gadget and they make it look like something from the 1960s. Why is that? |
"Mark Tranchant" wrote in message ... Mark Tranchant wrote: Turner: haywain.jpg (6KB) *blush* Constable, of course... That wasn't very PC was it! |
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: All my FM radios sound far better than my DAB radios, so why on earth would they be obsolete? It specifically mentioned FM/MW/LW/SW and battery operated - not just FM. And since FM is poor for long distance reception, it's unlikely to be used much except in large towns where mains would be available. Look at the thread title: "obsolite [sic] non-DAB radios". What percentage of non-DAB radios don't have FM on them? Vastly more than FM only. -- *Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Sven wrote:
"Agamemnon" wrote in message ... "Graham" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml I have not intention of paying over £100 You can get a set for around half that price. per set to replace them with something worse than medium wave. DAB is nothing like medium wave, it doesn't fade, it doesn't suffer from foreign broadcasts and interference in the evenings. It isn't as good as FM (in a good signal area, on a decent tuner) in its present form, only because the broadcasters are using too little bandwidth. I agree that its not time to dump FM radio's yet (we are far from that day IMO) first DAB needs much more bandwidth allocated to it, so that DAB can perform like it was intended to. Then the coverage needs to be improved to ensure it can be received reliably on set-top telescopic aerials and in the car. Reception is pathetic in some areas. These issues need addressing before anyone suggests we should dump FM. Where I live it's impossible to get any DAB reception. -- Adrian A |
"OldBill" wrote in message ... DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Sven wrote: "Agamemnon" wrote in message ... "Graham" wrote in message ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/news/amnesty.shtml I have not intention of paying over £100 You can get a set for around half that price. I wouldn't mind a small DAB radio and cost isn't really a issue but they all look ugly and old-fashioned. Modern hi-tech gadget and they make it look like something from the 1960s. Why is that? To justify the high price they try and make the radios look expensive, and by doing so they look old fashioned. i.e.: wooden cases(mock wooden?). They are trying to harp back to the days when radios and televisions were expensive, luxury, quality items. That's my theory anyway. |
Stewart Smith wrote:
OldBill wrote: I wouldn't mind a small DAB radio and cost isn't really a issue but they all look ugly and old-fashioned. Modern hi-tech gadget and they make it look like something from the 1960s. Why is that? There is the "Bug" or whatever it's called. The one that was designed by Wayne Hemingway. That's the ulgiest of the whole lot! -- 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: All my FM radios sound far better than my DAB radios, so why on earth would they be obsolete? It specifically mentioned FM/MW/LW/SW and battery operated - not just FM. And since FM is poor for long distance reception, it's unlikely to be used much except in large towns where mains would be available. Look at the thread title: "obsolite [sic] non-DAB radios". What percentage of non-DAB radios don't have FM on them? Vastly more than FM only. What PERCENTAGE? -- 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 |
Lee Donaghy wrote in
: I thought the batteries cost a years wages and that's why that baylis bloke made the wind up radio for them. Ain't tthat the truth? I'd forgotten the huge fuss the Beeb made about those. And considering I had an effective Thorens clockwork razor in the 60s, it was hardly such a monster inventive leap. mike |
"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. 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. 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. |
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
... Stewart Smith wrote: OldBill wrote: I wouldn't mind a small DAB radio and cost isn't really a issue but they all look ugly and old-fashioned. Modern hi-tech gadget and they make it look like something from the 1960s. Why is that? There is the "Bug" or whatever it's called. The one that was designed by Wayne Hemingway. That's the ulgiest of the whole lot! Appropriate: "Once a lonely caterpillar sat and cried To a sympathetic beetle by his side I've got nobody to hug ..." -- Max Demian |
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Look at the thread title: "obsolite [sic] non-DAB radios". What percentage of non-DAB radios don't have FM on them? Vastly more than FM only. What PERCENTAGE? No need to shout, pet. HTF should I know? At one time, no portables had FM. How far back do you wish to go? -- *Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Look at the thread title: "obsolite [sic] non-DAB radios". What percentage of non-DAB radios don't have FM on them? Vastly more than FM only. What PERCENTAGE? No need to shout, pet. HTF should I know? At one time, no portables had FM. How far back do you wish to go? We're talking about the PRESENT DAY, duh. -- 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 |
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. 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.... -- 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 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com