DAB Performance of different makes?
 

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:


The test I've been hoping that a magazine would do is:

A) Feed two RXs via a variable attenuator and a splitter, then record
the outputs from, say, the two spdif outputs of the RXs as the
atennuator is used to vary the input RF level presented to the two
RXs. Then compare the series of values and look for differences. Doing
this with two different models of RX would help show any differences
between them in terms of dealing with poor RF input, or factors that
affect the output.


Seeing as different make receivers are likely to differ significantly,
e.g. in their sensitivies, and considering that the audio is
perceptually codec, then I think such a comparison would be
near-meangingless.

Not if carried out in conjunction with (B) below as we could then assess
which tuner might be preferred by someone who only had a low RF level which
affected one tuner more than another.

It would also test the idea that "all tuners behave in the same way" and
see if it was applicable to the two being tested.

For example, how can you tell that a difference in the waveform is
actually perceptible?

Before we could decide that, we'd need to establish that the outputs *do*
differ. That is one of the purposes of the test. Given that the test showed
differences the reviewer/tester could then go on to consider and assess any
perceptable differences and judge them.


B) Feed two RXs of the same model/make, via a splitter, but with an
attenuator in front of one of them. Record and compare the spdif
outputs as above. This would indicate how the performance of a given
model may be affected by the input RF level altering the BER, etc, it
can produce.


That's reasonable, but how are you going to access the true BER?

That isn't the purpose of the test. To do that we'd need either an RX whose
performance was 'guaranteed' in some way, or a test signal whose actual
details were defined. The purpose of the test would be to see at what power
levels that design started to show effects due to the input RF CNR being
low enough to give it problems that affected the output.


The performance could then be judged by the results since what I'm
interested in here is if/how performance varies from one model to
another and/or when the RF input level is altered. If there are no
measured differences, then any possible differences in the internal
arrangements may be irrelevant.


There will be measured differences, but what do these measured
differences prove??

"Prove" is not the appropriate term when using the scientific method. The
aim is to provide evidence and test hypotheses. In those terms the aims
include:

1) Seeing that the results may (or may not) vary from one design to
another, in specific cases.

2) The signal levels at which a given design starts to have its output
affected significantly by the available RF CNR.


Are the errors below or above the psychoacoustic masking curves in the
frequency domain?

See above. If the tuner designs behave in the same way, then there would be
no need to consider - in terms of perception - what audible differences
there might be. If they do differ, that could be assessed, and then
compared with the kinds of measured differences that might be observed.


If they're below then you shouldn't be able to perceive them. But how
are you going to access the psychoacoustic masking curves that are only
accessible internal to the chip/software?

That is not the purpose of the tests.

All your traditional tests go out of the window with perceptually coded
audio, I'm afraid.

The perceptial tests are for a different purpose.


But if differences show up, they may then cast a light on the
possibility that one RX might be preferred by some customers to
another.


So, you WERE talking about audio quality ALL ALONG, which is what I said
in the first place. But oh no, I get accused of mis-interpreting your
ambiguously worded paragraph.

Nope. I'm afraid you are once again, misunderstanding what I am saying. I
am suggesting objective tests to measure any differences in the outputs
from different designs, or under different conditions of use. These tests
in themselves, say nothing at all about how any differences may or may not
be percieved or assessed in terms of judgements on the resulting sound.


May also give an indication of the reasons in design terms.

If the testers have a DAB generator they could use one RX at a time,
as used to be stanadard for FM RXs. However in the absence of that, a
good strong signal from an antenna could be used for the above by
making the test signal 'common' to the two RXs being compared.

To me, as someone who has worked on RF and mm-wave RX design over the
years, tests like the above seem a fairly obvious and basic thing for
reviewers to have done.


They're meaningless.

if you wish to use the results for some purpose for which the tests are not
intended. :-)




But are you talking about audio quality differences? If so, then why TF
was I accused of jumping to the wrong conclusions????

Because I was not, and you are, I am afraid, once again jumping to the same
wrong conclusions.




So, after I was slagged off for questioning your ambiguous wording
the other day, now you're asking *precisely* what I suggested you
were asking: do small differences in BER affect the audio quality.

Not quite. I am asking about what may be *large* differences or BERs
in some cases as well as *small* ones in others.


That sentence doesn't make sense.

Afraid it does to me. And from what others have already said in this
thread, I think that others will understand it. I'm afraid that once again
you are misunderstaning what I am explaining.


However my interest isn't confined to just that single adaptor, but
extend to all the RXs on sale, and the range of conditions of use that
they may experience.

The problem is that until someone does the relevant measurements this
can't be reliably assessed. It will be no surprise to discover that if
we have reasonably high level and clean RF inputs, the BERs will be
low, and the RXs may then tend to sound similar or indistinguishable.
But what about under poorer reception conditions?


Under poor reception conditions you get bubbling mud.

But some RXs may have a lower noise figure (high sensitivity) than others,
and hence the use of one RX might give better results than another. Perhaps
markedly better. Hence the need for suitable tests to see if and when this
may be the case, to aid those who do not have ideal reception conditions.

The audio quality probably degrades just before the onset of bubbling
mud, but so long as the BER is lower than some given value then I'd bet
you wouldn't be able to perceive any difference (assuming they're using
the same DAC) between receivers.

You may well be right. But that isn't what I am talking about as I am
concerned with situations where one RX may give a high BER, but another
give a low BER, and the user might want to know which of this did which
before they buy.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

DAB Performance of different makes?
 

Hi,

Many thanks for all your comments to my original question about DAB
performance. I now know a little more about the subject than a week
ago, after reading your comments, and doing some research on the net!

My requirements in respect of audio quality are very modest, and I'm
more interested in reliability of DAB reception with a minimal aerial.
Ideally a clock radio,with DAB, FM, internal speakers, CD & remote
control. Unfortunately it's very difficult to get a full technical
spec of these products, even of the simple, easy to measure items, such
as standby power, and backup battery drain, let alone the weak signal
performance of DAB!

I've now found that the Intempo RS-01 clock radio appears to match my
requirements. Has anyone had any experience with that make?

Regards

Clive

DAB Performance of different makes?
 

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


For all I know Classic FM would sound the same if the value was "0" as
it does when the value is in the range 2-4. Or it might sound
noticably different.


Do you know what the "signal error" goes up to?

No. Not bothered to experiment much with the specific 'adaptor' as I don't
expect much from it in any case, and simply use it for general listening
whilst doing things like posting to usenet. :-)

In my experience, there's no difference in audio quality from when
there's maximum signal quality down to when the bubbling mud actually
starts.

But is that based on varying the input RF level in a controlled manner?

And a perception/judgement isn't the type of measurement I am interested in
at this point.


Can't be sure. I'm just using this as an example as I tend not to
listen to Classic FM anyway. But it illuminates the sort of problems
I'm curious about.

The makers do not provide the necessary info to interpret the numbers.
Nor do reviews seem to give any info on this - for the various RXs
I've seen. Hence if someone has poor reception conditions, how can
they judge before they buy what RXs might - for them - function worse
than others? No data to make comparisions and reach decisions.


You seem to be flitting between talking about reception problems and
audio quality problems.

I'm simply accepting that one *may* lead to the other in at least some
cases. But then pointing out that without relevant measurements, we can't
tell one way or the other... The problem is the absence of data on this
means we only have reasonable assumptions to go on.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

DAB Performance of different makes?
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:


The test I've been hoping that a magazine would do is:

A) Feed two RXs via a variable attenuator and a splitter, then
record the outputs from, say, the two spdif outputs of the RXs as
the atennuator is used to vary the input RF level presented to the
two RXs. Then compare the series of values and look for
differences. Doing this with two different models of RX would help
show any differences between them in terms of dealing with poor RF
input, or factors that affect the output.


Seeing as different make receivers are likely to differ
significantly, e.g. in their sensitivies, and considering that the
audio is perceptually codec, then I think such a comparison would be
near-meangingless.

Not if carried out in conjunction with (B) below as we could then
assess which tuner might be preferred by someone who only had a low
RF level which affected one tuner more than another.


Okay.


It would also test the idea that "all tuners behave in the same way"
and see if it was applicable to the two being tested.

For example, how can you tell that a difference in the waveform is
actually perceptible?

Before we could decide that, we'd need to establish that the outputs
*do* differ. That is one of the purposes of the test. Given that the
test showed differences the reviewer/tester could then go on to
consider and assess any perceptable differences and judge them.


Yes, so you want to see if the audio quality changes. Which is, erm,
what I've said you wanted to do all along, or at least one of the things
you want to do, with the other being comparing how well receivers
perform with weak signals.


The performance could then be judged by the results since what I'm
interested in here is if/how performance varies from one model to
another and/or when the RF input level is altered. If there are no
measured differences, then any possible differences in the internal
arrangements may be irrelevant.


There will be measured differences, but what do these measured
differences prove??

"Prove" is not the appropriate term when using the scientific method.


Yawn.


The aim is to provide evidence and test hypotheses. In those terms
the aims include:

1) Seeing that the results may (or may not) vary from one design to
another, in specific cases.


Yes, you want to compare the audio quality.


2) The signal levels at which a given design starts to have its output
affected significantly by the available RF CNR.


Are the errors below or above the psychoacoustic masking curves in
the frequency domain?

See above. If the tuner designs behave in the same way, then there
would be no need to consider - in terms of perception - what audible
differences there might be. If they do differ, that could be
assessed, and then compared with the kinds of measured differences
that might be observed.


Yes, you want to see if the audio quality changes.


But if differences show up, they may then cast a light on the
possibility that one RX might be preferred by some customers to
another.


So, you WERE talking about audio quality ALL ALONG, which is what I
said in the first place. But oh no, I get accused of
mis-interpreting your ambiguously worded paragraph.

Nope. I'm afraid you are once again,


I'm afraid I'm not.


misunderstanding what I am
saying.


No I'm not.


I am suggesting objective tests to measure any differences in
the outputs from different designs, or under different conditions of
use. These tests in themselves, say nothing at all about how any
differences may or may not be percieved or assessed in terms of
judgements on the resulting sound.


But above you are saying that you want to do tests to see if different
receivers produce different audio quality.


But are you talking about audio quality differences? If so, then why
TF was I accused of jumping to the wrong conclusions????

Because I was not, and you are, I am afraid, once again jumping to
the same wrong conclusions.


No I'm not, sorry.


So, after I was slagged off for questioning your ambiguous wording
the other day, now you're asking *precisely* what I suggested you
were asking: do small differences in BER affect the audio quality.

Not quite. I am asking about what may be *large* differences or BERs
in some cases as well as *small* ones in others.


That sentence doesn't make sense.

Afraid it does to me.


Sorry, it doesn't make sense. YOu might understand it, because you wrote
it and you understsand what you meant to say, and I can guess what you
mean, but it doesn't actually make sense as a sentence.


And from what others have already said in this
thread, I think that others will understand it.


What, you ask the question, which is basically, "who do you believe, the
nice polite Jim, or nasty Steve who likes to be rude?", and you're
surprised at the response? I see.


I'm afraid that once
again you are misunderstaning what I am explaining.


No, you just can't admit to making mistakes.


However my interest isn't confined to just that single adaptor, but
extend to all the RXs on sale, and the range of conditions of use
that they may experience.

The problem is that until someone does the relevant measurements
this can't be reliably assessed. It will be no surprise to discover
that if we have reasonably high level and clean RF inputs, the BERs
will be low, and the RXs may then tend to sound similar or
indistinguishable. But what about under poorer reception conditions?


Under poor reception conditions you get bubbling mud.

But some RXs may have a lower noise figure (high sensitivity) than
others,


Obviously.


and hence the use of one RX might give better results than
another.


Obviously.


Perhaps markedly better.


Obviously.


Hence the need for suitable tests
to see if and when this may be the case, to aid those who do not have
ideal reception conditions.

The audio quality probably degrades just before the onset of bubbling
mud, but so long as the BER is lower than some given value then I'd
bet you wouldn't be able to perceive any difference (assuming
they're using the same DAC) between receivers.

You may well be right. But that isn't what I am talking about as I am
concerned with situations where one RX may give a high BER, but
another give a low BER,


Oooooooooooooooooooooh, that's what you're doing, *is it*? That's not
what you've been saying. Sorry. You're trying to now say that you're
only interested in large differences in BER, when beforehand you've been
going on about comparing the audio quality from small changes in BER and
even comparing the audio quality from equal BER values. Make your mind
up.

But, of course, I'll just be accused of mis-intepreting what you've
said, again, and your merry band of supporters will raise their hands
and say "Yes, Jim, I understand fully what you've said, your use of the
English language is perfect, with no hint of ambiguity, and your
explanations are possibly the most lucidly-written pieces of text I have
ever read in my entire life. In fact, it's a shame I'm male, because I
would like to have your children."




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

Please sign the petition asking the BBC to provide better audio quality
on its radio stations on DAB, Freeview, satellite and cable:
http://tinyurl.com/a68e4

DAB Performance of different makes?
 

In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Before we could decide that, we'd need to establish that the outputs
*do* differ. That is one of the purposes of the test. Given that the
test showed differences the reviewer/tester could then go on to
consider and assess any perceptable differences and judge them.


Yes, so you want to see if the audio quality changes.

Not quite. The primary purpose of the tests I am describing and asking for
is to obtain *measurements* in objective terms of the information emerging
from the RXs. Should the sample values show differences in the tests, then
we could decide to assess them in terms of audio quality. But what I am
looking for is the actual measurements first. Data first, then
interpretation or assessment/judgements may come later.


The aim is to provide evidence and test hypotheses. In those terms the
aims include:

1) Seeing that the results may (or may not) vary from one design to
another, in specific cases.


Yes, you want to compare the audio quality.

cf above.

[snip]


Yes, you want to see if the audio quality changes.

cf above.

[snip]


I am suggesting objective tests to measure any differences in the
outputs from different designs, or under different conditions of use.
These tests in themselves, say nothing at all about how any
differences may or may not be percieved or assessed in terms of
judgements on the resulting sound.


But above you are saying that you want to do tests to see if different
receivers produce different audio quality.

cf above.


But are you talking about audio quality differences? If so, then why
TF was I accused of jumping to the wrong conclusions????

Because I was not, and you are, I am afraid, once again jumping to the
same wrong conclusions.


No I'm not, sorry.

Sez you. ;-

[Shall skip going on to, "My dad is bigger than your dad!"...? :-) ]


So, after I was slagged off for questioning your ambiguous wording
the other day, now you're asking *precisely* what I suggested you
were asking: do small differences in BER affect the audio quality.

Not quite. I am asking about what may be *large* differences or BERs
in some cases as well as *small* ones in others.


That sentence doesn't make sense.

Afraid it does to me.


Sorry, it doesn't make sense. YOu might understand it, because you wrote
it and you understsand what you meant to say, and I can guess what you
mean, but it doesn't actually make sense as a sentence.

OK. Let's check:

Does anyone else who is reading this not understand what I wrote?




And from what others have already said in this thread, I think that
others will understand it.


What, you ask the question, which is basically, "who do you believe, the
nice polite Jim, or nasty Steve who likes to be rude?", and you're
surprised at the response? I see.

If you feel that you behave in a rude way, and that others will disagree
with you for that reason, then I'd suggest that the remedy is obvious, and
in your control. :-)


I'm afraid that once again you are misunderstaning what I am
explaining.


No, you just can't admit to making mistakes.

Erm... "yawn" (TM) :-)

BTW Following the implication of what you wrote above, you may find it more
useful to be polite when discussing technical matters. My experience is
that people take you more seriously that way than if you resort to
making assertions like the above as soon as you don't follow something or
disagree with it. To me, when you make comments like the above is does
seem a bit like, "go for the man, not the ball". Maybe others find that
approach convincing, but I am afraid that I do not.

You may also find this helpful when writing webpages, magazine articles,
etc, if you wish a sympathetic and supportive response from readers.

Your call, though.


Hence the need for suitable tests to see if and when this may be the
case, to aid those who do not have ideal reception conditions.

The audio quality probably degrades just before the onset of bubbling
mud, but so long as the BER is lower than some given value then I'd
bet you wouldn't be able to perceive any difference (assuming they're
using the same DAC) between receivers.

You may well be right. But that isn't what I am talking about as I am
concerned with situations where one RX may give a high BER, but
another give a low BER,


Oooooooooooooooooooooh, that's what you're doing, *is it*? That's not
what you've been saying.

Lets check:

Anyone else agree with Steve? Or do others think what I've been writing is
reasonable clear and consistent?


Sorry. You're trying to now say that you're only interested in large
differences in BER, when beforehand you've been going on about comparing
the audio quality from small changes in BER and even comparing the audio
quality from equal BER values. Make your mind up.

Shame that you couldn't resist adding "Make your mind up".

My interest is in the various things I have described which may affect the
*output* of the RXs in *measureable* terms. One of the obvious factors will
be how CNR may affect BER

But, of course, I'll just be accused of mis-intepreting what you've
said, again,

It is not an "accusation" to point out that someone has misunderstood
something. I am afraid you are having an emotional reaction when none is
needed.


and your merry band of supporters will raise their hands
and say "Yes, Jim, I understand fully what you've said, your use of the
English language is perfect, with no hint of ambiguity, and your
explanations are possibly the most lucidly-written pieces of text I have
ever read in my entire life. In fact, it's a shame I'm male, because I
would like to have your children."

I can't recall anyone actually responding in that way, TBH. More likely
that most sensible people wandered off down to pub ages ago... :-)

In one way it might seem quite flattering to think that I have a "merry
band of supporters". However I am not entirely sure the idea is accurate.
It seems to rather under-regard other people here. Also: If there is a
fan club, should I not have a membership badge, or something? That said,
rather than diverting the discussion to me and a hypothetical "merry
band", I'd prefer to focus on the technical issues I have been raising.
Although it looks like no results of the kinds of tests I am interested
in is available, which is a dissapointment.

FWIW I don't really know why you tend to react in such emotional ways to
what I have been writing. There are far worse things in the real world to
get concerned about. Relax. This isn't worth getting yourself upset about.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

DAB Performance of different makes?
 

....and I would like to know about aeroplanes. When I had builders here
for a couple of weeks with their portable DAB radio, every passing
aeroplane introduced a lot of noisy interference. The planes here -
approx 15 miles from Heathrow - are quite high (virtually inaudible)
but bloody frequent. Does that mean no DAB for me?

Stan

DAB Performance of different makes?
 

Stan The Man wrote:
...and I would like to know about aeroplanes. When I had builders here
for a couple of weeks with their portable DAB radio, every passing
aeroplane introduced a lot of noisy interference. The planes here -
approx 15 miles from Heathrow - are quite high (virtually inaudible)
but bloody frequent. Does that mean no DAB for me?


I sit in Heathrow airport on an almost weekly basis waiting to board
planes and listening to my DAB Walkman. Works fine.

DAB Performance of different makes?
 

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Actually, I did read your posts on Google Groups this morning to see
your reaction to being blocked,

So you hide someone's posts from your view and then you're so
inquisitive to read them you circumvent your own killfile?

I think you might do your own sanity a favour (not to mention everyone
else's) if you took, say, a 1 month break from usenet...

DAB Performance of different makes?
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , DAB sounds
worse than FM wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Before we could decide that, we'd need to establish that the outputs
*do* differ. That is one of the purposes of the test. Given that the
test showed differences the reviewer/tester could then go on to
consider and assess any perceptable differences and judge them.


Yes, so you want to see if the audio quality changes.

Not quite. The primary purpose of the tests I am describing and
asking for is to obtain *measurements* in objective terms of the
information emerging from the RXs. Should the sample values show
differences in the tests, then we could decide to assess them in
terms of audio quality. But what I am looking for is the actual
measurements first. Data first, then interpretation or
assessment/judgements may come later.


Right, I see, so you want to see if the audio quality changes.


So, after I was slagged off for questioning your ambiguous
wording the other day, now you're asking *precisely* what I
suggested you were asking: do small differences in BER affect
the audio quality.

Not quite. I am asking about what may be *large* differences or
BERs in some cases as well as *small* ones in others.


That sentence doesn't make sense.

Afraid it does to me.


Sorry, it doesn't make sense. YOu might understand it, because you
wrote it and you understsand what you meant to say, and I can guess
what you mean, but it doesn't actually make sense as a sentence.

OK. Let's check:

Does anyone else who is reading this not understand what I wrote?


Yeah, let's appeal to the anti-Steve brigade to see how many people
disagree with nasty Steve.


And from what others have already said in this thread, I think that
others will understand it.


What, you ask the question, which is basically, "who do you believe,
the nice polite Jim, or nasty Steve who likes to be rude?", and
you're surprised at the response? I see.

If you feel that you behave in a rude way, and that others will
disagree with you for that reason, then I'd suggest that the remedy
is obvious, and in your control. :-)


That is entirely irrelevant to whether I'm correct or not.


I'm afraid that once again you are misunderstaning what I am
explaining.


No, you just can't admit to making mistakes.

Erm... "yawn" (TM) :-)

BTW Following the implication of what you wrote above, you may find
it more useful to be polite when discussing technical matters. My
experience is that people take you more seriously that way than if
you resort to
making assertions like the above as soon as you don't follow
something or disagree with it.


Here you go again with your "resort to making assertions like the above
as soon as you don't follow
something". Who TF do you think you are?

The end result you're trying to compare is THE AUDIO QUALITY as a result
of differences in receivers. This is what you said originally:

" If it is the case that different DAB RXs give differing outputs
when fed with the same DAB signal, then it may have some impact on
the assessment of DAB that people keep making/assuming."

I have not been wrong AT ALL in this discussion. Sorry. I know you're
trying to compare RF performance etc, but you're also comparing the
audio quality of different receivers, and with your wording in the above
paragraph that shows that you're trying to suggest, or you want to test,
whether different receivers "may have some impact on the assessment of
DAB that people keep making/assuming"

Sorry, but this is what I've been saying all along, and you've
continually tried to weasel your way out of admitting it.


To me, when you make comments like the
above is does seem a bit like, "go for the man, not the ball". Maybe
others find that approach convincing, but I am afraid that I do not.


I'm not going for "the man", I'm going for what you said originally, and
you're now explicitly saying what I thought you were doing all along,
AND YOU'RE STILL DENYING WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND YOU'RE STILL ACCUSING ME
OF BEING WRONG.

FFS.


You may also find this helpful when writing webpages, magazine
articles, etc, if you wish a sympathetic and supportive response from
readers.


Save the sanctimonious lecture for someone else. In a magazine or on my
website I will write in a different manner to how I write on here,
because this is Usenet.


Your call, though.


Hence the need for suitable tests to see if and when this may be the
case, to aid those who do not have ideal reception conditions.

The audio quality probably degrades just before the onset of
bubbling mud, but so long as the BER is lower than some given
value then I'd bet you wouldn't be able to perceive any difference
(assuming they're using the same DAC) between receivers.

You may well be right. But that isn't what I am talking about as I
am concerned with situations where one RX may give a high BER, but
another give a low BER,


Oooooooooooooooooooooh, that's what you're doing, *is it*? That's not
what you've been saying.

Lets check:

Anyone else agree with Steve? Or do others think what I've been
writing is reasonable clear and consistent?


This is what you said:

" If it is the case that different DAB RXs give differing outputs
when fed with the same DAB signal, then it may have some impact on
the assessment of DAB that people keep making/assuming."

And it does turn out that you want to compare different receivers to see
if things like the RF sensitivity etc alters the output audio quality.
THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, AND YOU'RE STILL
DENYING THAT YOU WANT TO COMPARE AUDIO QUALITY.

You slagged off spiney the other day for being someone that's
exasperating and will not listen to reason, and yet you're saying
totally contradictory things in the same post: you want to compare the
output audio quality, but you're also saying you don't want to compare
the output audio quality.


Sorry. You're trying to now say that you're only interested in large
differences in BER, when beforehand you've been going on about
comparing the audio quality from small changes in BER and even
comparing the audio quality from equal BER values. Make your mind up.

Shame that you couldn't resist adding "Make your mind up".


Are you spiney in disguise? Seriously, you're as exasperating to deal
with as him.


My interest is in the various things I have described which may
affect the *output* of the RXs in *measureable* terms. One of the
obvious factors will be how CNR may affect BER


I know, and this is exactly what I thought you wanted to do from the
very beginning, but it's this statement that I object to:

"may have some impact on the assessment of DAB that people keep
making/assuming."

Exactly what do you mean by that, Jim? Assessment of DAB that people
keep making/assuming? Who TF are you?


But, of course, I'll just be accused of mis-intepreting what you've
said, again,

It is not an "accusation" to point out that someone has misunderstood
something.


Effectively the same thing:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=accusation&ls=a

noun: an assertion that someone is guilty of a fault or offence

The fault you're accusing me of is mis-understanding something. Which I
deny.


I am afraid you are having an emotional reaction when none
is needed.


The reason I'm ****ed off here is because you've accused me of
mis-understanding something which I haven't mis-understood from day 1,
and yet you've just tried to weasel out of admitting what you actually
wanted to do. You're patronising and you think you can never be wrong.


and your merry band of supporters will raise their hands
and say "Yes, Jim, I understand fully what you've said, your use of
the English language is perfect, with no hint of ambiguity, and your
explanations are possibly the most lucidly-written pieces of text I
have ever read in my entire life. In fact, it's a shame I'm male,
because I would like to have your children."

I can't recall anyone actually responding in that way, TBH. More
likely that most sensible people wandered off down to pub ages ago...
:-)

In one way it might seem quite flattering to think that I have a
"merry band of supporters". However I am not entirely sure the idea
is accurate. It seems to rather under-regard other people here.
Also: If there is a fan club, should I not have a membership badge,
or something?


Jim, if you want to provide your fan-boys with a badge then that's
entirely up to you. But I don't see how that's relevant to this
discussion.


That said, rather than diverting the discussion to me
and a hypothetical "merry band", I'd prefer to focus on the technical
issues I have been raising.


Don't deflect this away from you. I've answered your technical queries.


Although it looks like no results of the
kinds of tests I am interested
in is available, which is a dissapointment.


I've already told you that I'm not aware of any relevant information.


FWIW I don't really know why you tend to react in such emotional ways
to what I have been writing.


BECAUSE YOU HAVE CONTINUALLY ACCUSED ME OF MIS-UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU
WANT TO DO. YOU'VE DONE IT ABOUT 3 TIMES IN THIS POST ALONE.


There are far worse things in the real
world to get concerned about. Relax. This isn't worth getting
yourself upset about.


I'll relax when I decide to relax, and that'll be after you've admitted
that I've not mis-understood what you want to do you patronising git.


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

Please sign the petition asking the BBC to provide better audio quality
on its radio stations on DAB, Freeview, satellite and cable:
http://tinyurl.com/a68e4

DAB Performance of different makes?
 

etillet wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Actually, I did read your posts on Google Groups this morning to see
your reaction to being blocked,

So you hide someone's posts from your view and then you're so
inquisitive to read them you circumvent your own killfile?

I think you might do your own sanity a favour (not to mention everyone
else's) if you took, say, a 1 month break from usenet...


Be quiet.


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

Please sign the petition asking the BBC to provide better audio quality
on its radio stations on DAB, Freeview, satellite and cable:
http://tinyurl.com/a68e4