Petition to stop FM being switched off

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:37:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need
us to invent anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've
already got. With literally thousands of radio stations, everybody can
have their choice of quality or quantity.

Untill they are all trying to listen through one cell in a traffic
jam on the M6...

As a broadcast medium the internet is not upto it, at least with
todays system. If multicast ever gets out there in a meaningful way
things might be different but how many connections can a single 3G
cell support at say 128kbps each susutained?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT), 2Bdecided wrote:

iPlayer iPod

iPod Car

No good for live, but I still have R4 FM for live. Don't use it -
choice of previous week's R4 much more useful!

Aye I listen to far more radio now than I have done in a long time
and I've found some very interesting programmes that I didn't even
know existed. Podcasts from the BBC, love 'em.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:11:10 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:37:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

A 3G internet car radio with a reasonable number of presets doesn't need
us to invent anything new - just to extend and reconfigure what we've
already got. With literally thousands of radio stations, everybody can
have their choice of quality or quantity.

Untill they are all trying to listen through one cell in a traffic
jam on the M6...


I've listened to an internet music station on a 3G phone driving
around London.
You hardly notice handoff between cells during phone calls, but in the
middle of music the discontinuity is quite annoying.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Besides, DAB is inferior. Good FM beats it hands down.

I'm surprised at that statement from you, Graham. DAB at a decent bitrate
knocks FM into touch. Of course if you want to compare 'good' FM to poor
bitrate DAB to make a point, so be it.

DAB sadly AIUI uses an ancient codec that's fixed in stone. The choice of
codec should have been left open to allow for improvements.

Graham


--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment
to my email address

Steve Terry wrote:

FM ****es all over the lousy low bitrate DAB we get in the UK

Another part of the problem.

Graham

--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address

"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
"Andy Dee" wrote in message
...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/

Please sign. Thanks.

mad
So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition?

PLEASE why can't we remain British and use ENGLISH in this country....
/mad
A
I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'.
Bill

Personally I don't give a f**k how it's spelled (spelt?) - the whole point
is that I have a serious investment in FM radio in my life and I don't
want to have to scrap it at someone else's whim.

I'm sure milions of people are in your boat

But i look around and now almost none of my radio listening is using
FM or AM.
In the kitchen i listen to my DAB portable, in the living room via DVB-T
freeview box, or on Astra 2, mostly so i can get BBC Radio 7

and on my laptop i mostly listen to US Talk radio on internet radio.

If i could get BBC Radio 7 on Band 2 FM
I would have a use for FM

Steve Terry

Steve Terry has written:
snip


I receive internet radio on my laptop anywhere with my Three 3g dongle,
5 quid per month.

Steve Terry


Anywhere? Really?

--
JonPhred

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
o.uk...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:



In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.

There is some truth in that.

Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive higher
qulaity on FM.

Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning or
not, I don't know.

I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent sound
system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near hiss-free on
FM.

This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me crackly
playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD gave me click
and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag says, the 'quality' of
my CD experience is higher.

On paper the CD should be miles ahead of vinyl. Most CDs uses 2 channels
of 16 bits at 44.1kSamples/sec. There is no sompression so there are no
artifacts. The data rate is an astounding 1.4Mb/s. 16 bits give 72dB audio
range which is better than my ears.


Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I
could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it).
Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to FM are just
futile and don't relate to any real user experience.

It's easy to show that performance of FM is generally superior to DAB,
however it just goes to show how subjective the human ear-brain interface is
that it can be fooled into thinking otherwise so easily.

In article , Fredxx
scribeth thus

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
news:[email protected] co.uk...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:



In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.

There is some truth in that.

Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive higher
qulaity on FM.

Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning or
not, I don't know.

I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent sound
system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near hiss-free on
FM.

This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me crackly
playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD gave me click
and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag says, the 'quality' of
my CD experience is higher.

On paper the CD should be miles ahead of vinyl. Most CDs uses 2 channels
of 16 bits at 44.1kSamples/sec. There is no sompression so there are no
artifacts. The data rate is an astounding 1.4Mb/s. 16 bits give 72dB audio
range which is better than my ears.



I remember once being given a demonstration of Vinyl-v-CD by Derek
Scotland of Audiolab fame.

I was amazed at how good he got the Vinyl to sound, and that it seems
was due to the right equipment and some Japanese pressings. OK not quite
the same in terms of distortion and absolute signal to noise ratio but
very impressive indeed;!..

Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I
could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it).
Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to FM are just
futile and don't relate to any real user experience.

It's easy to show that performance of FM is generally superior to DAB,
however it just goes to show how subjective the human ear-brain interface is
that it can be fooled into thinking otherwise so easily.



Well FM given a sufficient signal, and remember too that DAB needs a
sufficient signal to work properly, can be very good indeed. And unlike
DAB where that is degraded due to the "cost of bits" FM degrades to Mono
only because of the signal level.

I've had a FM versus CD setup here using a first class NCO type
modulator and only about one person could reliably tell the difference
and that was on solo soprano voice!.
--
Tony Sayer

Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's
in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have
stereo than mono.

I am deaf in one ear, I wish all audio broadcasts were in mono.

In theory its easy to force mono on the receiving device but not that
many actually let you.