|
|
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: OGG vorbis at 64k beats everything else hand's down though just as long as the input isn't clipped. Right, I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same sample he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) Do you agree that the Ogg version sounds "mushier" and more muffled than the AAC version? Since it is at 64 kbps that is what you would expect, but its stands up very well considering. Any comments on the relative sound quality of these files are welcome from anybody, not just Mr Agamemnon. The encoders used we Nero AAC encoder at 128 kbps and I've downloaded the OggDropXPD, from he http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=15049 which presumably is using one of the latest versions of Vorbis. I'm impressed at how well Vorbis stands up at bit rates as low as 64 kbps, but it was never going to beat AAC at 128 kbps in a month of Sundays. If AAC at 128 kbps is only just beating OGG at 64 kbps then it is clear that OGG is superior. What does the OGG file at 128 kbps sound like. Better than AAC by a long margin I presume. And haven't you even claimed somewhere that Ogg at 64 kbps beats AAC at 256 kbps? OGG at 128 kbps is comparable to the AAC Faac codec at 256 kbps (152 kbps actual). In future, please do your homework *prior* to making bold claims. My claims have all been proven to be true. You are the one who needs to do some homework before trying (and failing) to dispute them. |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same WAV he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) I think that disproves your point about 64 kbps Ogg vs 128 kbps AAC. Would you like me to disprove your point about 160 kbps Ogg vs 256 kbps AAC as well? Okay, I'll reply to this post with a couple of files to download in a few minutes. Here's a Zip with the original WAV, Ogg at 160 kbps and AAC at 256 kbps: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone2.zip (11.0 MB) I can't tell the difference between the WAV and the AAC file, can you? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: OGG vorbis at 64k beats everything else hand's down though just as long as the input isn't clipped. Right, I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same sample he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) Do you agree that the Ogg version sounds "mushier" and more muffled than the AAC version? Since it is at 64 kbps that is what you would expect, but its stands up very well considering. So do you agree that when you said this you were talking crap: "OGG at 64kbps will outperform anything else at 128kbps" Any comments on the relative sound quality of these files are welcome from anybody, not just Mr Agamemnon. The encoders used we Nero AAC encoder at 128 kbps and I've downloaded the OggDropXPD, from he http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=15049 which presumably is using one of the latest versions of Vorbis. I'm impressed at how well Vorbis stands up at bit rates as low as 64 kbps, but it was never going to beat AAC at 128 kbps in a month of Sundays. If AAC at 128 kbps is only just beating OGG at 64 kbps No, I wouldn't say it "just" beats it. then it is clear that OGG is superior. No, you're just jumping to massive conclusions again. I think the fact that you come to some conclusion far, far too quickly and then once your mind is set you shut out all other possibilities is why you annoy so many people. What does the OGG file at 128 kbps sound like. Better than AAC by a long margin I presume. I've just converted to 128 kbps Ogg, and I can't tell the difference between that and the 128 kbps AAC file. And haven't you even claimed somewhere that Ogg at 64 kbps beats AAC at 256 kbps? OGG at 128 kbps is comparable to the AAC Faac codec at 256 kbps (152 kbps actual). It's good to see the caveats beginning to appear - please include them in future rather than making sweeping generalisations. In future, please do your homework *prior* to making bold claims. My claims have all been proven to be true. Actually, none of your claims have been proven to be true. Sorry. You are the one who needs to do some homework before trying (and failing) to dispute them. I've uploaded files for anybody to listen to, which I think disprove your points. Your points were that: Ogg at 64k beats AAC at 128k - you've now admitted that that isn't true. Ogg at 160k beats AAC at 256k - I've uploaded files that I think sound the same, and if others agree then that disproves your other point I've already wasted loads of time on disproving claims that I was very confident were false, so I'd like to stop it here, thanks. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Analysis of all the samples with Cool Edit Pro shows that the 128 kpbs AAC sample which you gave me had a frequency response with a sharp cut off at 17000 Hz whereas the 128 kbps OGG sample which I made has a response with a sharp cut off at 19000 Hz. Since I instinctively know what the instruments are supposed to sound like, being familiar with the genre, I know that the sound of 17000 Hz sample is wrong even before I notice the compression artefacts because of the lack of the harmonics from the strings. OGG Vobis at 128 kbps *IS* better than AAC at 128 kbps and there is no denying it since it has a higher frequency range and on top of that is better at encoding to that whole range whereas AAC could never handle 19 kHz at 128 kbps.. A wider audio bandwidth does not make automatically make the sound better than a file with a narrower audio bandwidth. For example, if a file has a wider audio bandwidth but sounds attrocious whereas a file with a narrower audio bandwidth sounds good, you cannot say that the file with the wider audio bandwidth has a higher audio quality. Look, if I'm going to listen to samples, provide some that aren't of Greek music, because I don't like it. Then, once you've found something that other people can bear to listen to, upload the WAV file and your Vorbis encoding of it. It's only 8 seconds and it's not even got vocals. Get used to it. The only alternative is Turkish or Arabic. You liked Kiss Kiss didn't you ? I think you're mistaking me with someone else, cos I'm sure I've never kissed you. Out of touch with the modern Pop scene as well I see. You do know who Holly Vallance is ? The Faac encoder *IS* crap because the 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) AAC samples have a frequency response which cuts off at 16000 Hz. Who said anything about Faac? We're supposed to be comparing modern, not old encoders. Go look up the meaning of mode and is modern. You're slagging off an entire audio format, so for your claim to be correct - i.e. that AAC basically performs crap - then I only need to provide 1 exception (i.e. an AAC encoder that performs well) to disprove your claim. Nope. I have proven my claim outright. OGG at 128 beats AAC at 128 by a factor of two. The encoded files we've just tested prove it. It is a crap encoder and now there is no denying it. Even though the 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) encoded sample still sounds better than the 128 kbps AAC sample you gave me, the 128 OGG version I made is on level terms with the Faac 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) sample or better. OGG Vorbis at 160 kbps cuts the frequency response short at 20000 Hz and that is why I can tell it apart from the uncompressed CD sample since that goes all the way to 22050 Hz. The OGG Vorbis 256 kbps sample has a response that goes all the way to 22000 Hz (not all the way to 22050) and that is why I can barely tell it apart from uncompressed CD sample. I can remember having an argument with you about audio bandwidth a long time ago, and if you think that one file has a better audio quality than another file only on the basis that the audio bandwidth is wider, then save your breath, because not only are you completely wrong, I don't want to waste my time discussing it with you. Don't like Greek music, don't like Turkish or Arabic either probably, You can try other types of music if you want, I'm just saying that I didn't like the music you uploaded, and especially listening to it several times on the trot it was annoying me. The file I have encoded proves my point like it or not. There is nothing more to add. and now won't consider the effects of bandwidth on music of that genre which is highly demanding of it. I'm disputing your view that bandwidth has some major effect on audio quality per se. Read this, pages 9-10: http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dr...plom/bra99.pdf "5.7. The bandwidth myth Reports about encoder testing often include the mention of the bandwidth of the compressed audio signal. In a lot of cases this is due to misunderstandings about human hearing on one hand and encoding strategies on the other hand. 5.7.1. Hearing at high frequencies It is certainly true that a large number of (especially young) subjects are perfectly able to hear single sounds at frequencies up to and sometimes well above 20 kHz. However, contrary to popular belief, the author is not aware of any scientific experiment which showed beyond doubt that there is any listener (trained or not) able to detect the difference between a (complex) musical signal with content up to 20 kHz and the same signal, but bandlimited to around 16 kHz. To make it clear, there are The author of this article is TALKING OUT OF HIS RECTUM ! Essentially he is saying that people (meaning himself alone since he is talking out of his arse) can't tell the difference between FM Radio and CD. some hints to the fact that there are listeners with such capabilities, but the full scientific proof has not yet been given. As a corollary to this (for a lot of people unexpected) theorem, it is a good encoding strategy to limit the frequency response of an MP3 or AAC encoder to 16 kHz (or below if necessary)." The author of that article is Karlheinz Brandenburg, the inventor of MP3. Oh well. No wonder MP3 is so crap. Now, if I had to choose who knows more about compressed audio out of Mr Brandenburg and your good self, although it's a close run thing, I'd have to choose Mr Brandenburg. Sorry. Mr Brandenburg is an arsehole. He is using insulting MARKETING BULL**** in order to conceal the fact that his MP3 encoders can't deal with frequencies above 16 kHz without impairing overall quality. EMPERORS NEWS CLOTHES is what I have to say. Anyone in the industry that really believes his insulting clap trap would be wandering the streets stark naked in their birthday suits right now. OGG Vobis proves that he is wrong in his assumption that are base on his own bigoted and unproven speculations not on the facts which as he admits show that people CAN perceive the difference at higher frequencies. Why else would we now have DVD-Audio and SACD that sample at around 96 kHz or more ? You're a bigot, that's what your are so its pointless listening to anything you say. I'm not a bigot just because I don't share the same taste in music as you. You are a bigot because you don't like people which do as prove by your insulting comments earlier on. I'm sure, and I'd actually hope that, you wouldn't like the music I like. These tests clearly show that OGG is a better codec than AAC at all bit rates You've still provided no evidence for this. Oh yes I have. You've provided no proof of your original assertion. Yes I have. In fact I have provide proof to go beyond it. and that I was wrong about saying that AAC at 256 kbps was comparable to OGG at 160 kbps. In fact its comparable to OGG at 128 kbps. OGG at 160 kbps beats AAC at 256 kbps hands down with the Faac encoder and will probably beat the Nero encoder too !!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn. I have proven my point. You have not proven yours. I win it seems. I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same WAV he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) I think that disproves your point about 64 kbps Ogg vs 128 kbps AAC. No it doesn't. It proves my point entirely. AAC at 128 kbps can barely beat OGG at 64 kbps. That's nothing to boast about. Would you like me to disprove your point about 160 kbps Ogg vs 256 kbps AAC as well? Okay, I'll reply to this post with a couple of files to download in a few minutes. Sfakianakis files only. |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same WAV he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) I think that disproves your point about 64 kbps Ogg vs 128 kbps AAC. Would you like me to disprove your point about 160 kbps Ogg vs 256 kbps AAC as well? Okay, I'll reply to this post with a couple of files to download in a few minutes. Here's a Zip with the original WAV, Ogg at 160 kbps and AAC at 256 kbps: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone2.zip (11.0 MB) I can't tell the difference between the WAV and the AAC file, can you? It's totally pointless downloading it since the Sfakianakis sample defeats AAC entirely and one exception is all I need to prove my point. |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: OGG vorbis at 64k beats everything else hand's down though just as long as the input isn't clipped. Right, I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same sample he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) Do you agree that the Ogg version sounds "mushier" and more muffled than the AAC version? Since it is at 64 kbps that is what you would expect, but its stands up very well considering. So do you agree that when you said this you were talking crap: "OGG at 64kbps will outperform anything else at 128kbps" Except that's NOT what I said. I said anything else apart from. Your attempt at dissembling my original comments proves you are a fraud. Any comments on the relative sound quality of these files are welcome from anybody, not just Mr Agamemnon. The encoders used we Nero AAC encoder at 128 kbps and I've downloaded the OggDropXPD, from he http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=15049 which presumably is using one of the latest versions of Vorbis. I'm impressed at how well Vorbis stands up at bit rates as low as 64 kbps, but it was never going to beat AAC at 128 kbps in a month of Sundays. If AAC at 128 kbps is only just beating OGG at 64 kbps No, I wouldn't say it "just" beats it. Just. then it is clear that OGG is superior. No, you're just jumping to massive conclusions again. I think the fact that you come to some conclusion far, far too quickly and then once your mind is set you shut out all other possibilities is why you annoy so many people. Two seconds is all it took to notice you 128 kbps AAC file was crap and two times worse than the same file compression using OGG. What does the OGG file at 128 kbps sound like. Better than AAC by a long margin I presume. I've just converted to 128 kbps Ogg, and I can't tell the difference between that and the 128 kbps AAC file. Then you obviously have a problem with your frequency perception then, so it is pointless asking your opinion about any compression codec's at all. And haven't you even claimed somewhere that Ogg at 64 kbps beats AAC at 256 kbps? OGG at 128 kbps is comparable to the AAC Faac codec at 256 kbps (152 kbps actual). It's good to see the caveats beginning to appear - please include them in future rather than making sweeping generalisations. I always said from the start that I was using Cool Edit Pro. In future, please do your homework *prior* to making bold claims. My claims have all been proven to be true. Actually, none of your claims have been proven to be true. Sorry. Nope. They are proven beyond doubt. You are the one who needs to do some homework before trying (and failing) to dispute them. I've uploaded files for anybody to listen to, which I think disprove your points. Your points were that: Ogg at 64k beats AAC at 128k - you've now admitted that that isn't true. No it wasn't. You are dissembling. Ogg at 160k beats AAC at 256k - I've uploaded files that I think sound the same, and if others agree then that disproves your other point Nope. My claim was right and is substantiated by the fact OGG at 128 kbps is comparable to AAC at 256k (152 kbps actual). I've already wasted loads of time on disproving claims that I was very confident were false, so I'd like to stop it here, thanks. I have already proven I was right and there is no denying it. |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same WAV he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) I think that disproves your point about 64 kbps Ogg vs 128 kbps AAC. Would you like me to disprove your point about 160 kbps Ogg vs 256 kbps AAC as well? Okay, I'll reply to this post with a couple of files to download in a few minutes. Here's a Zip with the original WAV, Ogg at 160 kbps and AAC at 256 kbps: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone2.zip (11.0 MB) I can't tell the difference between the WAV and the AAC file, can you? It's totally pointless downloading it since the Sfakianakis sample defeats AAC entirely and one exception is all I need to prove my point. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're still harping on about the file you created using some ****ty AAC encoder. Look, I've just about had enough of this ****, and you're one of those people that will never give in, so think what you like. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same WAV he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) I think that disproves your point about 64 kbps Ogg vs 128 kbps AAC. Would you like me to disprove your point about 160 kbps Ogg vs 256 kbps AAC as well? Okay, I'll reply to this post with a couple of files to download in a few minutes. Here's a Zip with the original WAV, Ogg at 160 kbps and AAC at 256 kbps: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone2.zip (11.0 MB) I can't tell the difference between the WAV and the AAC file, can you? It's totally pointless downloading it since the Sfakianakis sample defeats AAC entirely and one exception is all I need to prove my point. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're still harping on about the file you created using some ****ty AAC encoder. OGG at 128 kbps beat AAC at 128 kbps using your favourite encoder. The differece between them is MASSIVE. OGG goes all the way to 19 kHz whereas AAC cuts of at 16 kHz. That's a difference comparable to that between CD and FM radio. Look, I've just about had enough of this ****, and you're one of those people that will never give in, so think what you like. |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... It's only 8 seconds and it's not even got vocals. Get used to it. The only alternative is Turkish or Arabic. You liked Kiss Kiss didn't you ? I think you're mistaking me with someone else, cos I'm sure I've never kissed you. Out of touch with the modern Pop scene as well I see. You do know who Holly Vallance is ? Yes, but I'm sure there's more than one Kiss Kiss ever released. The Faac encoder *IS* crap because the 256 kbps (152 kbps actual) AAC samples have a frequency response which cuts off at 16000 Hz. Who said anything about Faac? We're supposed to be comparing modern, not old encoders. Go look up the meaning of mode and is modern. You're slagging off an entire audio format, so for your claim to be correct - i.e. that AAC basically performs crap - then I only need to provide 1 exception (i.e. an AAC encoder that performs well) to disprove your claim. Nope. I have proven my claim outright. OGG at 128 beats AAC at 128 by a factor of two. The encoded files we've just tested prove it. Hahahahahahahahahhaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa ha. There's no point in discussing this with you, because you just make things up as you go along. and now won't consider the effects of bandwidth on music of that genre which is highly demanding of it. I'm disputing your view that bandwidth has some major effect on audio quality per se. Read this, pages 9-10: http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dr...plom/bra99.pdf "5.7. The bandwidth myth Reports about encoder testing often include the mention of the bandwidth of the compressed audio signal. In a lot of cases this is due to misunderstandings about human hearing on one hand and encoding strategies on the other hand. 5.7.1. Hearing at high frequencies It is certainly true that a large number of (especially young) subjects are perfectly able to hear single sounds at frequencies up to and sometimes well above 20 kHz. However, contrary to popular belief, the author is not aware of any scientific experiment which showed beyond doubt that there is any listener (trained or not) able to detect the difference between a (complex) musical signal with content up to 20 kHz and the same signal, but bandlimited to around 16 kHz. To make it clear, there are The author of this article is TALKING OUT OF HIS RECTUM ! You disagree - what a surprise. Essentially he is saying that people (meaning himself alone since he is talking out of his arse) can't tell the difference between FM Radio and CD. He didn't mention FM radio anywhere. Stop making things up. some hints to the fact that there are listeners with such capabilities, but the full scientific proof has not yet been given. As a corollary to this (for a lot of people unexpected) theorem, it is a good encoding strategy to limit the frequency response of an MP3 or AAC encoder to 16 kHz (or below if necessary)." The author of that article is Karlheinz Brandenburg, the inventor of MP3. Oh well. No wonder MP3 is so crap. Now, if I had to choose who knows more about compressed audio out of Mr Brandenburg and your good self, although it's a close run thing, I'd have to choose Mr Brandenburg. Sorry. Mr Brandenburg is an arsehole. He is using insulting MARKETING BULL**** in order to conceal the fact that his MP3 encoders can't deal with frequencies above 16 kHz without impairing overall quality. EMPERORS NEWS CLOTHES is what I have to say. Anyone in the industry that really believes his insulting clap trap would be wandering the streets stark naked in their birthday suits right now. OGG Vobis proves that he is wrong in his assumption that are base on his own bigoted and unproven speculations not on the facts which as he admits show that people CAN perceive the difference at higher frequencies. I see. Why else would we now have DVD-Audio and SACD that sample at around 96 kHz or more ? Because. You're a bigot, that's what your are so its pointless listening to anything you say. I'm not a bigot just because I don't share the same taste in music as you. You are a bigot because you don't like people which do as prove by your insulting comments earlier on. I don't like the music you like. Nothing more. I'm sure, and I'd actually hope that, you wouldn't like the music I like. These tests clearly show that OGG is a better codec than AAC at all bit rates You've still provided no evidence for this. Oh yes I have. You've provided no proof of your original assertion. Yes I have. In fact I have provide proof to go beyond it. You haven't done anything of the sort. and that I was wrong about saying that AAC at 256 kbps was comparable to OGG at 160 kbps. In fact its comparable to OGG at 128 kbps. OGG at 160 kbps beats AAC at 256 kbps hands down with the Faac encoder and will probably beat the Nero encoder too !!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn. I have proven my point. You have not proven yours. I win it seems. I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same WAV he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) I think that disproves your point about 64 kbps Ogg vs 128 kbps AAC. No it doesn't. It proves my point entirely. AAC at 128 kbps can barely beat OGG at 64 kbps. That's nothing to boast about. Would you like me to disprove your point about 160 kbps Ogg vs 256 kbps AAC as well? Okay, I'll reply to this post with a couple of files to download in a few minutes. Sfakianakis files only. Here's a 128 kbps AAC version of your file: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/sa...reek_music.zip I can't tell any difference between that and the FLAC file in your Zip file. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php |
Virgin Radio on Freeview and Web
Agamemnon wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... Agamemnon wrote: "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message ... DAB sounds worse than FM wrote: I've uploaded 64 kbps Ogg and 128 kbps AAC versions of the same WAV he http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone.zip (1.2 MB) I think that disproves your point about 64 kbps Ogg vs 128 kbps AAC. Would you like me to disprove your point about 160 kbps Ogg vs 256 kbps AAC as well? Okay, I'll reply to this post with a couple of files to download in a few minutes. Here's a Zip with the original WAV, Ogg at 160 kbps and AAC at 256 kbps: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/samples/stone2.zip (11.0 MB) I can't tell the difference between the WAV and the AAC file, can you? It's totally pointless downloading it since the Sfakianakis sample defeats AAC entirely and one exception is all I need to prove my point. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You're still harping on about the file you created using some ****ty AAC encoder. OGG at 128 kbps beat AAC at 128 kbps using your favourite encoder. The differece between them is MASSIVE. Nobody has yet uploaded a 128 kbps Ogg version. OGG goes all the way to 19 kHz whereas AAC cuts of at 16 kHz. That's a difference comparable to that between CD and FM radio. If you continue with this crap I'm going to killfile you, I'm sick of it. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com