|
|
DAB Performance of different makes?
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:
snip Damn, that's weird stuff. And Jim, you really have got the patience of a saint. -- Dave Farrance |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Dave Farrance wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote: snip Damn, that's weird stuff. Not half as weird as when you wrote about modern video codecs being able to encode using interlacing and progressive at the same time. -- 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?
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:
Not half as weird as when you wrote about modern video codecs being able to encode using interlacing and progressive at the same time. Ah that. It seemed that half the group were trying to explain to you the meaning of my post in the simplest step-by-step way that they could conceive, and I thought you'd almost got it at the end, but evidently not. Ho hum. Gonna try the "but you said..." thing on ME now? :-) -- Dave Farrance |
DAB Performance of different makes?
On 2005-10-25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Andrew Hodgkinson wrote: Clive Wallis wrote: Is there much difference in the radio performance between the more expensive brands, such as Sony & Panasonic, and the cheaper ones, such as Goodmans, Alba & Bush? Many digital radios use the same base chipset, or a variant of it. You'd be surprised how many different makes are based off the same core. Is there info anywhere on which sets/makers use which chipsets? Or do they regard this as a dark and shameful secret? ;- FWIW I've also been interested in seeing if chipsets are available for 'amateur' use as it would be interesting to experiment with them. Anyone know of a source, etc? ... Do they also tend to use the same RF frontend? I know that was common in FM tuners for many years - names like Alps springing to mind from the days of yore when I was involved in FM tuner design. There's an IEE Essex region lecture on DAB tonight which I will probably manage to attend. The abstract says it will include coverage of "receiver models available". If I do get there I will ask questions and take notes. -- John Phillips |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Dave Farrance wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote: Not half as weird as when you wrote about modern video codecs being able to encode using interlacing and progressive at the same time. Ah that. It seemed that half the group were trying to explain to you the meaning of my post in the simplest step-by-step way that they could conceive, and I thought you'd almost got it at the end, but evidently not. Ho hum. Don't even try to patronise me. YOU GOT IT WRONG FROM THE START. The fact was that you thought that the new encoders, such as H.264, can encode some parts of a frame using progressive and some parts of a frame using interlacing. They can't. I knew that. You were wrong. Did I need it explaining to me? Damn fking right I did, because you were explaining something that H.264 COULD NOT DO. I knew it couldn't do it, so all your explanations were complete nonsense. I could see that, but nobody else at the time could. But don't even try and suggest I need things explaining in the simplest step-by-step way. You were explaining SOMETHING THAT H.264 CANNOT DO. -- 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?
John Phillips wrote:
On 2005-10-25, Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Andrew Hodgkinson wrote: Clive Wallis wrote: Is there much difference in the radio performance between the more expensive brands, such as Sony & Panasonic, and the cheaper ones, such as Goodmans, Alba & Bush? Many digital radios use the same base chipset, or a variant of it. You'd be surprised how many different makes are based off the same core. Is there info anywhere on which sets/makers use which chipsets? Or do they regard this as a dark and shameful secret? ;- FWIW I've also been interested in seeing if chipsets are available for 'amateur' use as it would be interesting to experiment with them. Anyone know of a source, etc? ... Do they also tend to use the same RF frontend? I know that was common in FM tuners for many years - names like Alps springing to mind from the days of yore when I was involved in FM tuner design. There's an IEE Essex region lecture on DAB tonight Who's the lecture being given by? If they say the system is good, then you'll know that they're talking nonsense, and the whole of the lecture can be taken with a pinch of salt. -- 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?
John Phillips wrote:
There's an IEE Essex region lecture on DAB tonight which I will probably manage to attend. Ah, it's by Mike Ellis of BBC R&D. I've seen the slides for the presentation, because they're available on the BBC R&D website for the talk he gave at IEE Cambridge. Unfortunately, the slides are so full of inaccuracies that they're barely worth taking notice of. After reading Mike Ellis's slides I wrote the following email. Strangely, he's never replied. My impression of Mike is that he's an RF man, and isn't well up on digital comms. If he was then he wouldn't have made the errors that he did -- unless he made the errors on purpose. Mike, The amount of spin in your presentation puts politicians to shame. DAB works very well, does it? No bubbling mud on DAB then? DAB is 15-times more efficient than FM, is it? I make it that Radios 1-4 are 10 times more efficient on DAB than on FM, actually (think capacity units, and exclude stations like Radio 5, which only use 9kHz channels on MW). But local stations are actually less efficient than on FM. I suppose you didn't want to mention that little unfortunate fact. "Many people have heard of Reed-Solomon codes, however DAB actually uses a more powerful code still known as a Convolutional code." That is either ultra-highly-spun, or you don't actually know what you're going on about. Name me one mobile digital communication system that uses Reed-Solomon coding as its *inner* layer of FEC coding. Just one system. Everybody worth their salt knows that on mobile digital communation systems, Reed-Solomon coding is used as the outer layer of FEC coding around an inner code, such as convoltional coding. I can even remember talking to you on the phone about Reed-Solomon coding, and you seemed to understand it then, so why did you try and mis-represent what it is used for in your presentation? I'm sure you're well aware of my disdain for the way DAB is marketed in the UK, but that is nothing compared to how I feel about engineers who try to mis-represent engineering concepts. You describe transmitter separation in L-band as being "relatively large". Really? Do you not mean very small? "The Proms" on Radio 3 might steal some capacity from Radio 4 to improve quality?? When has that ever happened? "decoded signal will be indistinguishable from the original"???????????????????????????? Coherent modulation gives a (slight) increase in capacity compared to differential?? Coherent modulation ALLOWS 16-QAM and 64-QAM, I don't call that a slight increase in capacity. "DTT doesn't have time interleaving at all! ... but burst errors may exceed the error correction capability of the Viterbi error correction, resulting in blocking and/or picture break-up" So, you thought that you'd say all that, but ignore that DTT does use Reed-Solomon coding which is used precisely to catch burst errorrs that result from when the Viterbi error correction fails? I bet in your presentation you'll have said DVB-H suffers like this, and fail to mention that it has 2 outer layers of RS coding, including the very powerful MPE-FEC. "Most later systems don't offer [UEP] -- all of the data is treated equally." Yeah, but DVB-H et al don't use pathetically weak single-layer convolutional coding. And in the whole presentation, not a single word about the audio quality is low. I have to say that your presentation bears a remarkable resemblance to many other DAB presentations: lots of spin trying to justify use of an out-of-date, ultra-inefficient, very high cost system, which virtually rules out high audio quality, and vastly limits the number of radio stations that will be made available, thus allowing commercial radio groups to use protectionist practices, with the overall result that DAB leads to a vastly inferior system in many respects compared to all the modern digital broadcasting systems that could be used for radio. I remember in our last phone conversation that you had the audacity to say to me (in a tone that seemed to suggest that I should try and improve things rather than criticise things) that engineering was about making things better. I suppose the irony that you're supporting the use of an inherently flawed system, whereas I'm proposing to use modern systems that totally solve all DAB's flaws hasn't dawned on you?... -- 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?
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: [snip] I don't know how widespread this is, but someone said that albums released on DVD-Audio aren't compressed to buggery whereas the CD versions are. Can't comment on DVD-A. However I recently did an analysis of a Hendrix CD re-issue with a fancy label. This showed the sounds spent an alarming fraction of the time within 1dB of clipping. Nothing like the statistics of any real sounds or older CDs I've analysed in the same way. Looked very much like being heavily processed for re-issue to give a sound level stuck at max all the time. This is wandering a bit OT for this group, though... :-) Slainte, Jim I bought a couple of Hendrix rereleased 'sanctioned by the family' CDs - sounded terrible, compressed, travesty. |
DAB Performance of different makes?
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote:
The fact was that you thought that the new encoders, such as H.264, can encode some parts of a frame using progressive and some parts of a frame using interlacing. They can't. I knew that. You were wrong. I thought you wouldn't be able to resist the "but you said" thing ;-) I think you've half-remembered this: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.te...9f493be474998a And if by chance, anybody else is reading this and is curious about that post, then needless to say, don't try explaining it to Mr DAB here, because as the long thread that followed showed, he WILL NOT get it. More "but you said" stuff to follow now, I expect. :-) -- Dave Farrance |
DAB Performance of different makes?
|
DAB Performance of different makes?
Dave Farrance wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote: The fact was that you thought that the new encoders, such as H.264, can encode some parts of a frame using progressive and some parts of a frame using interlacing. They can't. I knew that. You were wrong. I thought you wouldn't be able to resist the "but you said" thing ;-) Don't wink at me. If you're going to try and patronise me when in fact you were wrong then expect a response. I think you've half-remembered this: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.te...9f493be474998a And if by chance, anybody else is reading this and is curious about that post, then needless to say, don't try explaining it to Mr DAB here, because as the long thread that followed showed, he WILL NOT get it. Oh, I got it alright. But I'm afraid it CANNOT BE DONE WITH H.264 and I KNEW IT COULDN'T BE DONE. -- 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?
;-)
|
DAB Performance of different makes?
Nobody Here wrote:
On 26 Oct 2005 04:48:35 -0700, wrote: I see. So you don't want to give your name, but you want me to say which hi-fi mag I write for? No, I don't want to, sorry. That's because there *is* no magazine, is there. It's just a figment of your imagination, isn't it. Either that or a down-right lie used in a sad attept to boost your own credibility. Neither of which shows you in a very positive light, do they? In fact Steve Green does write for a hi-fi mag. Every month. It's an interesting read as well. If Steve isn't going to tell you which mag then I won't either, but it's one of the upmarket, intelligent ones. You'd better get down to WH Smiths! TBH Bill, I don't really care if he does or doesn't. Hahahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahaha hahahahahahhaahaha hahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahaha hahahahahhaahaha hahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahaha hahahahahhaahaha hahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahaha hahahahahhaahaha hahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahaha hahahahahhaahaha hahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahaha hahahahahhaahaha hahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahaha hahahahahhaahaha hahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahaha hahahahahhaahaha hahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahaha hahahahahhaahaha hahahahhaahhahahahahhahahhaahahahahaahhahahahahaha hahahahahhaahaha Superb! No apology for calling me a liar then? Nah, thought not. What I do object to is his arrogance in thinking that just because he has degrees and has read loads of papers he automatically has a more valid opinion than others here. He may well do, and he may well be right in what he says, but using the "I've got loads of degrees and know more than you do so who are you to question me" argument is just stupid, ignorant, and immature. As I've repeated many times, I only ever say that I've got 3 degrees when someone like Jerry is accusing me of being thick. I didn't actually hold them out as proof of being highly intelligent, but I think they do prove I'm not someone with a low IQ, which is my general understanding of the word. His views are only an opinion, That depends on what things you're talking about. If you're talking about engineering issues relating to DAB, then they're not an opinion, they're black and white facts such as low spectral efficiency and low audio diff-grades for low bit rates, etc. and clearly not one shared by everybody. He'd get far more credence if he accepted that, and was a little less quick to dismiss others' views as worthless. And you would do better by keeping your nose out of other people's arguments. I have a lot of history with ::::Jerry:::: and one of the first things you said was that I should try and have a reasonable debate with him. I've tried that with him on many occasions but it always deteriorates to arguing. I won't deny that I'm frequently to blame for winding him up, but he continually calls me a moron or similar and tries to suggest I simply haven't got a clue what I'm talking about. So, if you could try to put yourself in my shoes for just one second, how would you like it if you were being continually called a moron and that I haven't got a clue about the subject that I know more about than anything else? Anyway, I did block Jerry's posts, so even if he calls me an idiot behind my back, so to speak, I won't know about it, and I won't have call to quote the degrees I've got. One last thing: I am not a fking liar. -- 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?
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article .com, wrote: In fact Steve Green does write for a hi-fi mag. Every month. It's an interesting read as well. If Steve isn't going to tell you which mag then I won't either, but it's one of the upmarket, intelligent ones. ahem The last phrase implies a set with a low number of members. ;- FWIW the only hi-fi mag I've read much in recent years is "Hi Fi News". I don't recall reading Steve contributing to that, but may well have missed noticing his byline. It's not Hi-Fi News. Is having written for an audio mag a 'dark secret'? Yes, apparently you become Satan with immediate effect. -- 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?
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:54:16 GMT, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
John Phillips wrote: After reading Mike Ellis's slides I wrote the following email. Strangely, he's never replied. My impression of Mike is that he's an RF man, and isn't well up on digital comms. If he was then he wouldn't have made the errors that he did -- unless he made the errors on purpose. Mike, The amount of spin in your presentation puts politicians to shame. [snip the rest of the arrogant tirade] You wrote that email and wonder why you didn't get a reply? You're a flipping nut! Quite who you think you are beggars belief! -- Nobby |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Agamemnon wrote:
"Clive Wallis" wrote in message ... Hi, I would like to try DAB, just to get some experience of this new technology. I'm thinking about a clock radio or a mini music centre. DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY ! DAB is utter CRAP quite possibly! and the sound quality is worse than Medium Wave. Not here in Northampton it isn't! Is there much difference in the radio performance between the more expensive brands, such as Sony & Panasonic, and the cheaper ones, such as Goodmans, Alba & Bush? Performance. LOL The bit rate is so low that the sound coming out of a cheep hand held transistor radio with a 2 inch loud speaker back in the 1970's is better than ANY DAB radio today. Can we cut the sensationalist crap please. |
DAB Performance of different makes?
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: DAB is utter CRAP and the sound quality is worse than Medium Wave. You must have ears of cloth. That's rich coming from someone that actually says they like DAB...... So you agree with the statement that all DAB sounds worse than Medium Wave? No. But DAB does sound worse than FM. You missed (TM) off the end of that sentence... |
DAB Performance of different makes?
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Anyway, I did block Jerry's posts, so even if he calls me an idiot behind my back, so to speak, Be interested to know how someone you've killfiled can possibly do anything 'behind your back'? -- *When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Anyway, I did block Jerry's posts, so even if he calls me an idiot behind my back, so to speak, Be interested to know how someone you've killfiled can possibly do anything 'behind your back'? "behind my back, so to speak". Don't you understand what I meant, David? Sorry, I'm not going to bother to explain that one. -- 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?
Nobody Here wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:54:16 GMT, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: John Phillips wrote: After reading Mike Ellis's slides I wrote the following email. Strangely, he's never replied. My impression of Mike is that he's an RF man, and isn't well up on digital comms. If he was then he wouldn't have made the errors that he did -- unless he made the errors on purpose. Mike, The amount of spin in your presentation puts politicians to shame. [snip the rest of the arrogant tirade] You wrote that email and wonder why you didn't get a reply? You're a flipping nut! I didn't expect a response. I wrote it because, as I said in the email, it's bad enough to see and hear all the dishonest marketing for DAB but when it comes to engineers mis-representing engineering concepts (where there are right and wrong answers, and he got a lot of things wrong) that is completely unforgivable. Quite who you think you are beggars belief! Turn this around: Who the hell does Mike Ellis think he is completely mis-representing engineering concepts! -- 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?
|
DAB Performance of different makes?
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
In article .com, wrote: In fact Steve Green does write for a hi-fi mag. Every month. It's an interesting read as well. If Steve isn't going to tell you which mag then I won't either, but it's one of the upmarket, intelligent ones. It's not Hi-Fi News. Is that your passport photo Steve ? You could have at least smiled, and borrowed Noel Kenwood's shirt and tie. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Mark Carver wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: In article .com, wrote: In fact Steve Green does write for a hi-fi mag. Every month. It's an interesting read as well. If Steve isn't going to tell you which mag then I won't either, but it's one of the upmarket, intelligent ones. It's not Hi-Fi News. Is that your passport photo Steve ? You could have at least smiled, and borrowed Noel Kenwood's shirt and tie. No, it's not a passport photo, just a dreadful photo. My 5 year old niece was trying to drag me out of the door while the photos were being taken, and amazingly that was the best one. I should get round to getting another one done. -- 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?
John Phillips wrote:
There's an IEE Essex region lecture on DAB tonight which I will probably manage to attend. The abstract says it will include coverage of "receiver models available". If I do get there I will ask questions and take notes. Well, did he keep to his original nonsensical script? -- 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?
On 2005-10-25, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Andrew Hodgkinson wrote: Clive Wallis wrote: Is there much difference in the radio performance between the more expensive brands, such as Sony & Panasonic, and the cheaper ones, such as Goodmans, Alba & Bush? Many digital radios use the same base chipset, or a variant of it. You'd be surprised how many different makes are based off the same core. I had suspected this might be the case. :-) Is there info anywhere on which sets/makers use which chipsets? Or do they regard this as a dark and shameful secret? ;- It seems that the four or so big consumer product manufacturers of DAB products all make their own modules for their own internal consumption. There still are only the two well-known independent DAB module makers, who make both RF and digital modules for the rest and offer customizable user interfaces. Today's RF modules are combined BIII/L-band. Apparently all the modules are in 3rd or 4th generation so they should all be approaching or have reached reasonable maturity and parity. FWIW I've also been interested in seeing if chipsets are available for 'amateur' use as it would be interesting to experiment with them. Anyone know of a source, etc? There are some PCI cards with DAB receivers although they're not easy to find. That may be a source although I am sure most will be windows-centric in their drivers and not suitable for all. -- John Phillips |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Isn't this OFF TOPIC in this news group ? What's it got to do with
'.digital-tv' ? |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Combining replies to two postings from Steve as they said much the same
things... In article , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: About what I described. For example: If two different RXs have different sensitivities one may make errors in data recovery in circumstances when another does not. This may mean they do not deliver the same results for some users. About audio quality or reception quality? If the former, get a grip. Perhaps you should "get a grip" on what I am actually raising, as opposed to making assumptions and jumping to conclusions which may be irrelevant to what I am trying to find out about.... :-) Really? 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." By that I read it that you're trying to cast doubt on the assessments myself and some others that are critical about DAB. Ah! OK. So the intensity/volume your reactions is due to a worry that someone might be daring to even imply that others might not accept everything you say. :-) Since you have now said the above I can reconfirm that you are jumping to the wrong conclusion, and misunderstanding what I have been saying. See below for more details... There will always be bit errors, and different DAB modules will perform differently. Yes! That is the kind of thing I have been asking about - with the aim of identifing the *actual* differences between *specific* RXs in various specific situations. For the reasons I have (twice) explained. But if the BER is low, then the differences in the AUDIO bitstream coming out of the decoder will be slight. That may be the case. Since you say the above can you direct me to some measurement on the RXs currently on sale that examine the outputs and show that they are either identical (i.e. same series of output samples) or very similar? What you say above sounds quite plausible, but I have been asking for evidence. Can you please direct me to some? And considering that 98% of stereo stations on DAB use 128kbps, which is known to provide poor audio quality, then I would suggest you're barking up the completely wrong tree. Alas, the above assumes I am asking about and interested in what you have (incorrectly) be assuming. See below... [snip] You seem to be changing your tune. You originally said this: "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." The above is the second quote of the same statement which you have already shown you misunderstood. Since you repeated it again (below) I'll deal with it below... [snip] THIS is what you wrote: "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." Third quote of the same statement. Now you're changing your tune or you simply worded it badly in the first place. Which is it? Well, so far as I can tell thus far, you are the only person who seems not to have understood what I have been saying. Hence it may be that the difficulty is that you are so upset by the thought that someone might be disagreeing with you that it disrupts your ability to understand what I have (twice) already explained. However see below where I will try again to explain to you... :-) and are jumping to an incorrect conclusion about what I had in mind. I trust this is now clear. No, it's very unclear, because you're changing what you originally said. However *some* people may not get the same results as others, thus until we have some information on that point we need to proceed with some caution. if you understand (as others seem to have done) what I have said, then the above is consistent with my explainations. See below... You say *some* people, so who are these people you were referring to when you said this: "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." Quote 4 of the same statement. I'd love to know. That is apparent from your habit of repeating the same item, based on your repeated failure to understand what I have been saying. :-) [snip] "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." Fifth quote. Are you admitting that it was badly worded? Only that it is so "badly worded" that so far as I can tell everyone but yourself understood it. :-) I am sorry that you have been having this difficulty, and will try again, below, to clear up your not understanding what I have been explaining. As that sentence stands, it suggests that people that people may be making erroneous assessments of the audio quality. Don't tell me I'm jumping to conclusions, because it was YOUR wording that led me to those conclusions, because your wording is general rather than specific. "Bad" in that this thread has still be taken up with your concerns about the use of DAB by the BBC (and other broadcasters). Whereas my questions relate to the performance of RXs, not the behaviour of the BBC (and other broadcasters). Oh, so now the bit rate is irrelevant to the audio quality that we hear??? Try again from the beginning. Perhaps you could also try again from the beginning to realise that the questions I have been asking are not about the bitrate, or the effects that may have in creating audible artefacts. :-) OK. Now onto the second posting in the same vein... On 26 Oct in uk.tech.digital-tv, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: [snip] Start by explaining exactly what you mean by this: 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. Sixth quote if I have managed to keep count correctly. :-) In particular, explain what you meant by THIS: "the assessment of DAB that people keep making/assuming" Seventh (partial) quote of the same thing. Don't patronise me by telling me that I've mis-understood what you've written when what you've written is ambiguous. Okay? Tell you what: I will try not to write in ways which you fear "patronise" you if you also manage to discuss these matters without becoming emotional or aggressive in tone when you sense (incorrectly) that someone might be casting doubt on your views. I think from your reactions that you are sensing slights where none were intended. However if you wish others to be more sensitive to your feelings then perhaps you should yourself avoid making comments like telling them to "get a grip" when you may not have understood what they meant. I will now try to explain for a third time, in a way which might prove more congenial to you. However since I am, again, simply trying to explain what I have already said, my apologies to anyone who find this a repetition. Bear in mind that someone who wishes to use, or starts using, a DAB RX may well have read various statements about DAB, and about digital systems more generally. These sometimes include the *misleading* ones which the BBC have been guilty of making at times. They also include comments by you, me, and various others. They also include comments meant more generally like "digital either works or it doesn't". Thus they may - in some reception situations with some RXs - be puzzled to find the results may be variable, and may be *worse* than they have been led to expect. In some cases a change of RX *might* have a noticable effect on this. Thus, to re-quote what you seem to have found so alarming: 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. The word "people" above does not mean Steve Green and no-one else. The word means "people". It includes all the sources of comment or info the user may have had access to, including the BBC, newspapers, etc, etc. If I'd meant "Steve Green" I would have written that. However (third time) the reason I am interested in this is to try and find reliable info on what variability in performance there may be in RXs - both when RF reception is poor (in various ways) and when it is good. However to assess this, as an engineer/academic, I like to find measured and checkable data. Thus I have been asking for it. Hence I also welcome what you wrote above as it seems you may have some information on this point. I have not been asking (or arguing) about the audible effects produced by the choice of bitrates. I hope it is now as clear to you what I have been saying/meaning. I have the impression that others have understood this already, but I am sorry if my previous explanations were not clear to you. However if is still not clear to you, then it might be better if someone else had a try at explaining it to you, as I would have to conclude that for some reason my explanations are clear to others, but not to yourself... 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?
Ian wrote:
Clive Wallis wrote: Any pointers to suitable web sites, with reviews, would be much appreciated. Try alt.radio.digital, but understand that this is a group made up of some very technical people who like to dismiss the UK DAB network on a daily basis as not sounding good enough. There are legitimate issues and arguments to be made about the implementation of the system and stations that transmit at too low a bit-rate to be truly hi-fi, so I'm certainly not putting these people down. However, if you add a decent DAB unit and compare it with most people's FM, you probably won't be unhappy, in my opinion. Really? So the fact that DAB sounds crap compared to FM isn't an important consideration, and you're happy to jsut recommend DAB tuners willy nilly whether or not they have FM, and the features that the FM tuner have are wholly irrelevant? Great advice, Ian. A question for you, Mr DAB Tuner Expert: If the person is interested in the best sound quality, which DAB tuner would you recommend? And a portable DAB radio is going to impress you more than a portable FM. Really? So why does my £25 Sony ICF-703L sound better than my Pure Evoke-1?? It isn't all about sound quality - it is about practical access to more choice. I see. So why did the MORI market research survey show that 63% of analogue radio listeners say that better audio quality is the main advantage of digital radio compared to only 21% of analogue radio listeners saying that extra stations is the main advantage of digital radio? Perhaps they're all wrong? Not something they tend to consider on alt.radio.digital!!! I see!!! -- 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?
Geo wrote:
Isn't this OFF TOPIC in this news group ? What's it got to do with '.digital-tv' ? You are quite correct. No doubt someone will have to start posting as "Digital TV looks worse than analogue", LOL..... ;-) --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0543-1, 25/10/2005 Tested on: 27/10/2005 17:05:33 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Oh you do TV as well! ;-) This is so not the right group to debate in.
--- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0543-1, 25/10/2005 Tested on: 27/10/2005 17:07:57 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Ian wrote:
Oh you do TV as well! ;-) This is so not the right group to debate in. This is a thread to debate the performance of different makes of DAB receivers, no? -- 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: Really? So why does my £25 Sony ICF-703L sound better than my Pure Evoke-1?? Given your claimed knowledge of DAB radio, just why did you buy a portable? -- *Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
DAB Performance of different makes?
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Ian wrote: Oh you do TV as well! ;-) This is so not the right group to debate in. This is a thread to debate the performance of different makes of DAB receivers, no? Yes, but it in a group that's meant for digital television.... |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Really? So why does my £25 Sony ICF-703L sound better than my Pure Evoke-1?? Given your claimed knowledge of DAB radio, just why did you buy a portable? I wanted to know what all the fuss was about the Evoke-1. I'd heard deleriously happy reviews of it, and I bought it for £40 new from Argos, so I was going to re-sell it, but I've not got round to it. Was the fuss merited? Not at all, is the simple answer. -- 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?
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Combining replies to two postings from Steve as they said much the same things... In article , DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: "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." By that I read it that you're trying to cast doubt on the assessments myself and some others that are critical about DAB. Ah! OK. So the intensity/volume your reactions is due to a worry that someone might be daring to even imply that others might not accept everything you say. :-) I felt you were trying to suggest that the problems with the audio quality that myself and a lot of other people talk about are down to us using relatively poor receivers and/or with poor DAB reception. I wanted clarification whether that was what you were suggesting or not. If that is okay with you? Since you have now said the above I can reconfirm that you are jumping to the wrong conclusion, and misunderstanding what I have been saying. As I said previously, I feel your original post was ambiguously worded, so try and accept some responsibility for what you've written rather than blaming me for mis-interpreting somethign that you've written which WAS ambiguous. If that is okay with you? See below for more details... There will always be bit errors, and different DAB modules will perform differently. Yes! That is the kind of thing I have been asking about - with the aim of identifing the *actual* differences between *specific* RXs in various specific situations. For the reasons I have (twice) explained. Try and take some responsibility for what you've written rather than passing the blame onto the reader. Anyway, there's 2 main DAB module/IC designers: Frontier-Silicon and Radioscape, and they probably account for over 95% of all DAB modules/ICs shipped in products today. Radioscape use software-defined radio techniques with a DSP chip, and Frontier-Silicon design ICs, although my impression is that a lot of the back-end stuff is done in software on a DSP processor that is integrated into their IC. snip the rest Actually, I emailed you yesterday with a request for some information that's important to something I'm currently doing. So, if I'm going to provide you with a load of information then I think it's only fair that you provide me with the information that you've said you've already got and that I need. Once you've sent me the info I'll reply to the rest of your post. -- 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: Really? So why does my £25 Sony ICF-703L sound better than my Pure Evoke-1?? Given your claimed knowledge of DAB radio, just why did you buy a portable? I wanted to know what all the fuss was about the Evoke-1. I'd heard deleriously happy reviews of it, and I bought it for £40 new from Argos, so I was going to re-sell it, but I've not got round to it. But surely you would have known that no matter how good the receiver it couldn't get round the problems of a seriously flawed system? Was the fuss merited? Not at all, is the simple answer. But then you knew that anyway? -- *Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
DAB Performance of different makes?
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Ian wrote: Oh you do TV as well! ;-) This is so not the right group to debate in. This is a thread to debate the performance of different makes of DAB receivers, no? Yes, but it in a group that's meant for digital television.... And Stevie-boy doesn't understand the meaning of the word "debate" anyway. -- Nobby |
DAB Performance of different makes?
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Actually, I emailed you yesterday with a request for some information that's important to something I'm currently doing. So, if I'm going to provide you with a load of information then I think it's only fair that you provide me with the information that you've said you've already got and that I need. Once you've sent me the info I'll reply to the rest of your post. Wow, another example of absolutely unbelievable arrogance. You really do understand how to get the best from people, don't you? No wonder you've such a laaaarge chip on your shoulder. -- Nobby |
DAB Performance of different makes?
Nobody Here wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: Actually, I emailed you yesterday with a request for some information that's important to something I'm currently doing. So, if I'm going to provide you with a load of information then I think it's only fair that you provide me with the information that you've said you've already got and that I need. Once you've sent me the info I'll reply to the rest of your post. Wow, another example of absolutely unbelievable arrogance. D'ya think? You really do understand how to get the best from people, don't you? Much like yourself, then, eh? BTW, I'm still waiting for the apology for calling me a liar. Now, once you've apologised for calling me a liar, then you can have a go at *me*. -- 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?
Nobody Here wrote:
Jerry:::: wrote: "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Ian wrote: Oh you do TV as well! ;-) This is so not the right group to debate in. This is a thread to debate the performance of different makes of DAB receivers, no? Yes, but it in a group that's meant for digital television.... And Stevie-boy doesn't understand the meaning of the word "debate" anyway. I see you're becoming a little obsessed with me. I can't say I blame you, of course. But please refrain in future, there's a good chap. -- 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com