OT - DAB

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
As dabble leaves a lot to be desired even when the reception is good
and really only suitable for 2 " diameter speakers on Mono portables
I thought our O/P might like something a bit better;

The more you talk such ****e the more I think you've never actually
heard it.

I work in the broadcast industry and the batteries in my hearing aid
haven't gone flat unlike some....

Working in the broadcast industry is no indication of good hearing or
judgement.

Your tellin me;!..


But I ask you again. You take every opportunity to say just how bad you
think DAB is - with no qualifications. I take it you thus think AM sounds
better?


David...

In the beginning there was AM as that was all they knew. You cannot
blame anyone for that as that medium had its limitations. Then came FM
which was an order better in many respects. Then came FM on VHF which
took some time to grow as they didn't have the semiconductors in those
days, but it was an improvement on what went before.

They added Stereo to that which of course had to have compatibility for
older receivers but it again was an improvement from Mono to Stereo.

Then they decided to develop a digital system which does have advantages
but that was due to advances in semiconductor tech which made that
possible. It was intended as an "improvement" on what went before.

However they made a mistake in that they used a codec that wasn't
intended to be used in the way it is. This led to the **** poor system
that we now have.

Question.. Do you still use a 286 processor?, I assume not!. But your
promoting the use of a system that comes from the same era. A much
better codec ACC has been around for somewhile now and could better this
half cocked system we now have.

Consider TV as well. 30 lines?, then 405 an improvement. 625 lines and
improvement again!. Colour over monochrome and Improvement yet again.
Digital transmission promised much and now what's happened a step
backwards when so much could have been better!.

So here we are with a system that has a Jazz station thereon quite
laudable but 128 K MP2 and in Mono?? And this system is to replace FM
what went before it and now you tell me that thats an improvement on
what's gone before??

Consider also that you run a smaller radio station in somewhere like
London say Radio Jackie and excellent local station in every sense of
the word. Any idea how much it costs them to broadcast on FM in full
bandwidth stereo quality and how much it would cost them to join the
exclusive DAM MUX club?. Well you wouldn't want to find the money to
support it I can tell you!..

And you still promote this old crap outdated before its time system?

Actually there're not too keen on it either have a look at their
reception advice at the bottom of the first page, this alone puts the
BBC to shame!..


http://www.radiojackie.com/

Oh yes!, AM well their looking to use DRM on that which will be an
improvement on what's gone before its not a backwards step!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
But I ask you again. You take every opportunity to say just how bad you
think DAB is - with no qualifications. I take it you thus think AM sounds
better?


David...

In the beginning there was AM as that was all they knew. You cannot
blame anyone for that as that medium had its limitations. Then came FM
which was an order better in many respects. Then came FM on VHF which
took some time to grow as they didn't have the semiconductors in those
days, but it was an improvement on what went before.

And AM was degraded. From an audio bandwidth of over 9kHz in some cases if
the land lines could manage it to 4.5 kHz. Why aren't you campaigning to
have that restored or abolished?

They added Stereo to that which of course had to have compatibility for
older receivers but it again was an improvement from Mono to Stereo.

Then they decided to develop a digital system which does have advantages
but that was due to advances in semiconductor tech which made that
possible. It was intended as an "improvement" on what went before.

However they made a mistake in that they used a codec that wasn't
intended to be used in the way it is. This led to the **** poor system
that we now have.

What other codecs were available at the design stage?

Question.. Do you still use a 286 processor?, I assume not!. But your
promoting the use of a system that comes from the same era. A much
better codec ACC has been around for somewhile now and could better this
half cocked system we now have.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Consider TV as well. 30 lines?, then 405 an improvement. 625 lines and
improvement again!. Colour over monochrome and Improvement yet again.
Digital transmission promised much and now what's happened a step
backwards when so much could have been better!.

So here we are with a system that has a Jazz station thereon quite
laudable but 128 K MP2 and in Mono?? And this system is to replace FM
what went before it and now you tell me that thats an improvement on
what's gone before??

Consider also that you run a smaller radio station in somewhere like
London say Radio Jackie and excellent local station in every sense of
the word. Any idea how much it costs them to broadcast on FM in full
bandwidth stereo quality and how much it would cost them to join the
exclusive DAM MUX club?. Well you wouldn't want to find the money to
support it I can tell you!..

And you still promote this old crap outdated before its time system?

I'm not *actively* promoting it. But I get ****ed off at those who
apparently think it totally useless. It has several advantages over the
other TX systems in *specific* circumstances. And the actual audio quality
is ok for more than 99% of the listening public - regardless of what FM
snobs believe.

So when someone asks a question about DAB reception I think it only fair
to answer that question - rather than your standard technique of just
rubbishing the system regardless.

Only a tiny percentage of the radio listening public *ever* sit down in
the sweet spot and listen to stereo properly. Most have radio on as a
background, or for information/ light entertainment. Those who do wish to
listen 'properly' will already have a decent FM system with external
aerial etc.

If there was a definite date to stop FM broadcasts, I'd be one of the
first to complain. But in the meantime I use and enjoy DAB where it works
better than FM - like in the car.

--
*Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work.

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

In article , tony sayer

wrote:

In the beginning there was AM as that was all they knew. You cannot
blame anyone for that as that medium had its limitations. Then came FM
which was an order better in many respects. Then came FM on VHF which
took some time to grow as they didn't have the semiconductors in those
days, but it was an improvement on what went before.

I don't think the slow expansion of VHF/FM in the UK had much to do with
"semiconductors".

They added Stereo to that which of course had to have compatibility for
older receivers but it again was an improvement from Mono to Stereo.

An improvement in terms of offerring stereo, but a snag being that it
can limit or degrade performance in other ways... Owt for Nowt rule. :-)

Then they decided to develop a digital system which does have advantages
but that was due to advances in semiconductor tech which made that
possible. It was intended as an "improvement" on what went before.

However they made a mistake in that they used a codec that wasn't
intended to be used in the way it is. This led to the **** poor system
that we now have.

The above seems to me to mis-state what happened. The 'mistake' sic
isn't the codec choice, but may be - as an opinion/judgement - the way
it is used.

Question.. Do you still use a 286 processor?, I assume not!.

In my case I don't think I've ever used a '286 processor', although I have
been using computers since about 1970. You seem to be confusing the
container with the contained. :-)

But your promoting the use of a system that comes from the same era. A
much better codec ACC has been around for somewhile now and could better
this half cocked system we now have.

....if used with the bitrates, etc, for which it was designed. i.e. Just
like the current system. Container/contained confusion again. :-)

I appreciate that you may have the belief that - when changing to a 'much
better codec' - the broadcasters will/would use that to provide higher
quality. However I don't share this faith. They may simply use it to put
yet more stations onto a MUX. The evidence thus far is that this is what
they prefer, and that people generally listen to the results without being
too concerned.

[snip]

And you still promote this old crap outdated before its time system?

....Yet some decades less 'outdated' than FM. :-)

Container/contained confusion again, I'm afraid.

It doesn't matter when a system was designed *if* it can do the job *and*
is used appropriately to do so. The snag with FM isn't that it is
'outdated' or otherwise. It is that it is prone to multipath, etc. The snag
with using the present form of lossy codec is that broadcasters will
use that for reasons you may dislike. This has nothing to do with the
date-stamp on the design documents. Given the track record, they might
promptly do the same with a 'newer' codec/system.

So, the snag with all radio broadcasting systems is that they basically
depend on what the broadcasters decide to transmit. Not a technology
limitation, but a human one.

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

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
I work in the broadcast industry and the batteries in my hearing aid
haven't gone flat unlike some....

I've worked in various topics, including audio, and I'm currently
listening to R3 via DAB. Using a pair of LS3/5A's as speakers.

It certainly doesn't sound to me as if I'm using a mono portable with a
2 inch loudspeaker. Nor does it when I use the main audio system with a
pair of ESL63's.

I often wonder if Tony etc have ever heard DAB. Their description of it
makes no sense to me. Of course I probably don't listen to the same
stations as they do. My default is R4 with some R3 if there's something I
want to listen to on it.
In the car I often listen to Magic, which sounds very much better on DAB
than it does on FM - same as at home. Many pop stations mod so high my
various FM tuners distort. But DAB doesn't. I'm surprised the FM lovers
haven't experienced this. Perhaps they simply don't understand such things.

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

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

In article , Jim Lesurf [email protected]
and.demon.co.uk writes
In article , tony sayer

wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article , tony sayer

As dabble leaves a lot to be desired even when the reception is good
and really only suitable for 2 " diameter speakers on Mono portables
I thought our O/P might like something a bit better;

The more you talk such ****e the more I think you've never actually
heard it.


I work in the broadcast industry and the batteries in my hearing aid
haven't gone flat unlike some....

I've worked in various topics, including audio, and I'm currently listening
to R3 via DAB. Using a pair of LS3/5A's as speakers.

It certainly doesn't sound to me as if I'm using a mono portable with a 2
inch loudspeaker. Nor does it when I use the main audio system with a pair
of ESL63's.

Slainte,

Jim


I should get your ears and eyes tested then Jim with all due respect and
read what was written

--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
I work in the broadcast industry and the batteries in my hearing aid
haven't gone flat unlike some....

I've worked in various topics, including audio, and I'm currently
listening to R3 via DAB. Using a pair of LS3/5A's as speakers.

It certainly doesn't sound to me as if I'm using a mono portable with a
2 inch loudspeaker. Nor does it when I use the main audio system with a
pair of ESL63's.

I often wonder if Tony etc have ever heard DAB. Their description of it
makes no sense to me. Of course I probably don't listen to the same
stations as they do. My default is R4 with some R3 if there's something I
want to listen to on it.

Well its maybe OK for in car use on some stations like Radio 3 but the
rest leave a lot to be desired!..


In the car I often listen to Magic, which sounds very much better on DAB
than it does on FM - same as at home. Many pop stations mod so high my
various FM tuners distort. But DAB doesn't. I'm surprised the FM lovers
haven't experienced this. Perhaps they simply don't understand such things.

Thats not a fault or the FM system just simply inappropriate use of the
audio processor. Mr Orban does one for DAB which will go as loud as U
like;!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
But I ask you again. You take every opportunity to say just how bad you
think DAB is - with no qualifications. I take it you thus think AM sounds
better?


David...

In the beginning there was AM as that was all they knew. You cannot
blame anyone for that as that medium had its limitations. Then came FM
which was an order better in many respects. Then came FM on VHF which
took some time to grow as they didn't have the semiconductors in those
days, but it was an improvement on what went before.

And AM was degraded. From an audio bandwidth of over 9kHz in some cases if
the land lines could manage it to 4.5 kHz. Why aren't you campaigning to
have that restored or abolished?

Dave.. I'm surprised that you don't know about the nature of Medium frequency
proprogation at night, work that out!...


They added Stereo to that which of course had to have compatibility for
older receivers but it again was an improvement from Mono to Stereo.

Then they decided to develop a digital system which does have advantages
but that was due to advances in semiconductor tech which made that
possible. It was intended as an "improvement" on what went before.

However they made a mistake in that they used a codec that wasn't
intended to be used in the way it is. This led to the **** poor system
that we now have.

What other codecs were available at the design stage?

They should have either used it at the original intended rates or made it
upgraDABle


Question.. Do you still use a 286 processor?, I assume not!. But your
promoting the use of a system that comes from the same era. A much
better codec ACC has been around for somewhile now and could better this
half cocked system we now have.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

No not really when your setting a standard thats supposed to last a very long
time and is outdated already..

Least the Irish are getting it right

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/pub...ComReg0493.pdf

And Finland closed down all of its DAB services in February 2005, while in
Germany, MABB stopped issuing DAB licences in January 2005 on the grounds that
`outdated` technology has been superseded...

They don't seem to be too keen on it in Japan either..

France is questioning the current DAB system and Sweden isn't expanding their
network..

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...icle529971.ece

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...890605,00.html




Consider TV as well. 30 lines?, then 405 an improvement. 625 lines and
improvement again!. Colour over monochrome and Improvement yet again.
Digital transmission promised much and now what's happened a step
backwards when so much could have been better!.

So here we are with a system that has a Jazz station thereon quite
laudable but 128 K MP2 and in Mono?? And this system is to replace FM
what went before it and now you tell me that thats an improvement on
what's gone before??

Consider also that you run a smaller radio station in somewhere like
London say Radio Jackie and excellent local station in every sense of
the word. Any idea how much it costs them to broadcast on FM in full
bandwidth stereo quality and how much it would cost them to join the
exclusive DAM MUX club?. Well you wouldn't want to find the money to
support it I can tell you!..

And you still promote this old crap outdated before its time system?

I'm not *actively* promoting it. But I get ****ed off at those who
apparently think it totally useless. It has several advantages over the
other TX systems in *specific* circumstances. And the actual audio quality
is ok for more than 99% of the listening public - regardless of what FM
snobs believe.

I suppose that you don't mind in TV sound production someone doing away with
your job then and using the mic on the camcorder?..oh!, hang on they are doing
that .. shame eh?..


So when someone asks a question about DAB reception I think it only fair
to answer that question - rather than your standard technique of just
rubbishing the system regardless.

Its my opinion .. and honest and truthful and what I think on the subject..

Only a tiny percentage of the radio listening public *ever* sit down in
the sweet spot and listen to stereo properly. Most have radio on as a
background, or for information/ light entertainment. Those who do wish to
listen 'properly' will already have a decent FM system with external
aerial etc.

Yes they will and this system is supposed to replace that!..


If there was a definite date to stop FM broadcasts, I'd be one of the
first to complain. But in the meantime I use and enjoy DAB where it works
better than FM - like in the car.

Don't seem to have those issues in my motah...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I often wonder if Tony etc have ever heard DAB. Their description of it
makes no sense to me. Of course I probably don't listen to the same
stations as they do. My default is R4 with some R3 if there's something
I want to listen to on it.

Well its maybe OK for in car use on some stations like Radio 3 but the
rest leave a lot to be desired!..


In the car I often listen to Magic, which sounds very much better on
DAB than it does on FM - same as at home. Many pop stations mod so high
my various FM tuners distort. But DAB doesn't. I'm surprised the FM
lovers haven't experienced this. Perhaps they simply don't understand
such things.

Thats not a fault or the FM system just simply inappropriate use of the
audio processor. Mr Orban does one for DAB which will go as loud as U
like;!..

Right. So R3&4 DAB are ok - but not any other stations. Which are all
overmodded on FM causing the receivers to distort. So I take it you are
remembering FM high quality rather than talking about the present day?

--
*White with a hint of M42*

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

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
If there was a definite date to stop FM broadcasts, I'd be one of the
first to complain. But in the meantime I use and enjoy DAB where it
works better than FM - like in the car.

Don't seem to have those issues in my motah...

You seem to have marvellous crystal clear FM reception everywhere you go.
Some of us don't. I'd say the majority. And I simply don't believe you get
perfect FM reception always in your car - unless it never leaves the
garage. FM is a diabolical system for mobile quality use.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

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

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Stevo
writes
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Stevo
writes
A.r.d?..
alt.radio.digital
Oh!, That other loon?,.. I presume you mean Steve Green, he's an OK
bloke is Steve:-) Least he knows what he's on about.
Ha, he's still there then, never got that job which would mean he had no
more time to post. He using his degrees yet other than for boasting about?



Well he's done more to advance the cause for a 21st century digital
radio system then U have....

You think? Alienating many does not advance much. Did the Sony boycott
advance anything, where is radio on 3G, where is "Global Radio", where
is DVB-H, where are our car based DVB-H receivers.

I was more asking about whether he has achieved the goals he wanted.
Remember he was not working because he was studying, he was going to be
gainfully employed once done. I take it such an occasion never happened.


Course you must be Silk or Rayzor then?..

Don't ring a bell, haven't been there for a while tooks up other hobbies
than baiting Steve.

Speak 4 yourself stevo?....

Sorry, I read your last comment as "must mean Silk or Rayzor". I forgot
how paranoid you a.r.d kooks were. I guess it is just the same.