Petition to stop FM being switched off

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, all I can tell you is that when dab first started, the quality was
better than FM, mainly signal to noise etc it has to be said, but now
its sounding gritty, and lacking in detail, so either their equipment
is crap, or the bit rate really has been turned down. I assume R7 and
r4 are still often in mono on dab to save data as well, when the
freeview feed of r7 and the fm feed of r4 are in stereo. sigh.

R4 is usually in stereo on DAB.

Mind you, if we got rid of the clone commercials, and replaced them with
one quality commercial station there would be plenty of data
bandwidth. After all, most of your Heart/capital/Q/ whatever, are
compressed to the enth degree and probably sourced from rubbish mp3s in
the first place.

But Mr DAB obviously likes this sound since you never hear him complain
about it.

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

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

[]
Clive wrote:
[]
can we all agfree that

- FM is better than AM
Given adequate signal, yes. (Though AM _can_ be surprisingly good - but,
with the current bandwidth allocations, there's no way it can match
current FM with a good enough signal and receiver.)


- Good digital is better than FM
Hmm. This is like the old "Cd vs. vinyl" debate. I suspect that, if the
FM has adequate signal and is properly set up, digital can't be
_better_, but can equal; and, in _most_ circumstances, it _will_ be
better. (In the case of vinyl, the signal-to-noise combined with the
dynamic range probably _do_ give CD the edge.) In both cases (CD and
digital), the convenience and ease of setup of course work in favour of
the digital media, but I think the premise of this discussion is sound
quality.


- Current DAB is not good digital.
Most definitely, as used in this country, now. The encoding (mp2 isn't
it?) of UK DAB (not DAB+, AAC or any of the others) is less efficient
than more modern encoders, but that's more politics than engineering;
it's _capable_ of very high quality (and apparently used to that level
in some countries). But certainly not here (UK) and now. (Though for
many _listeners_, it's not as bad as some here make out, especially when
the convenience aspects are considered. But again, if we're talking
sound quality.)


- depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology
is, current digital may or may not be better than FM


If by "current digital" you mean: DAB as currently used in the UK: sound
quality no (except where the FM signal is weak), convenience probably
yes. FreeView radio channels: sound quality probably on a par or better,
convenience arguable. Satellite: as FreeView. CD: probably better _and_
more convenient. MP3: quality varies widely, more convenient.

And leave it at that.


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I hate the guys that criticize the enterprise of other guys whose enterprise
has made them rise above the guys who criticize!" (W9BRD, former editor of
"How's DX?" column in "QST")

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Alistair Biggar wrote:
Fosters is good, however I remember in the 70's the BBC doing a
blind test on speakers, and behind a large acoustic cloth were
hidden some speakers. LS5/1A, LS5/8's LS3/5A and whatever else they
had. When the music was played, the so called Sound Supervisors
(Sound Balancers) complained at each piece of music that was played
"A little too much top on that one!!" " Alittle too much distortion
on that piece " Not enough bass, speakers are rubbish". It was only
at that point that the curtains were withdrawn to show a full 16
piece orchestra!!!

I worked for the BBC TV in the sound department in the '70s and
that's the first I've heard of that one. Apart from anything else do
you know the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra?

If it had happened it would soon have been reported throughout the
industry.


It sounds to me like a tale which grew with each re-telling, but may have
truth in the origins.
The real beginning could have been one of the demonstrations of Quad
Electrostatic speakers from (I think) the 1950's, with an A-B comparison
from live to recording and speakers. I'm pretty sure that happened, though
I can't put my hand on any documentation.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 05:26:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news
is absolute rubbish quality.

Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate
channels on Freeview......

--

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:15:18 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Apart from anything else do you know
the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra?

The BBC employ several orchestras already. It wouldn't have been hard to
borrow 16 players from the radio orchestra for example (which is a
recordings-only 9-5 job) for a stunt like this.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
Clive wrote:
[]
can we all agfree that

- FM is better than AM
Given adequate signal, yes. (Though AM _can_ be surprisingly good - but,
with the current bandwidth allocations, there's no way it can match
current FM with a good enough signal and receiver.)


- Good digital is better than FM
Hmm. This is like the old "Cd vs. vinyl" debate. I suspect that, if the
FM has adequate signal and is properly set up, digital can't be
_better_, but can equal; and, in _most_ circumstances, it _will_ be
better.
Nope. FM is limited to at best 16-17Khz because of the pilot tone.
S/N is at best about 70dB. Both those can be bettered with digital,
given adequate bit rates.


(In the case of vinyl, the signal-to-noise combined with the
dynamic range probably _do_ give CD the edge.) In both cases (CD and
digital), the convenience and ease of setup of course work in favour of
the digital media, but I think the premise of this discussion is sound
quality.

The thing about digital is that you can always incerase sampling
frequency and/or number of bits to make sure that once digital, there is
both no more degradation with a decent error correcting channel, and
that such degaradation as the digitisation process introduces is
infinitesimal compared with the original recording noise and distortion.


- Current DAB is not good digital.
Most definitely, as used in this country, now. The encoding (mp2 isn't
it?) of UK DAB (not DAB+, AAC or any of the others) is less efficient
than more modern encoders, but that's more politics than engineering;
it's _capable_ of very high quality (and apparently used to that level
in some countries). But certainly not here (UK) and now. (Though for
many _listeners_, it's not as bad as some here make out, especially when
the convenience aspects are considered. But again, if we're talking
sound quality.)

I'm listening to radio 5 live sports extra right now on terrestrial TV
channel Its FULL of compression, other digital material at very low
bandwidth, and so on, but heck, its a lot better than AM ;-)


- depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology
is, current digital may or may not be better than FM


If by "current digital" you mean: DAB as currently used in the UK: sound
quality no (except where the FM signal is weak), convenience probably
yes.

Hvae never actualklly heard a DAB set.,

FreeView radio channels: sound quality probably on a par or better,
convenience arguable.

For me now, its more convenient than anything else, thanks to a USB TV
adaptor. Brilliant. Have yet to wire it up to a decent set of speakers.

Satellite: as FreeView. CD: probably better _and_
more convenient.

Degionitely.

MP3: quality varies widely, more convenient.

Agreed.



And leave it at that.

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 05:26:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news
is absolute rubbish quality.

Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate
channels on Freeview......

Yes. Surprised me too.

It looks to me like its sent precompressed down to a satellite channel..;-)

You notice it when e.g. sky sports clips of cricket pop up in BBC news
24. Way lower quality.

In article ,
Nigel Cliffe wrote:
I worked for the BBC TV in the sound department in the '70s and
that's the first I've heard of that one. Apart from anything else do
you know the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra?

If it had happened it would soon have been reported throughout the
industry.


It sounds to me like a tale which grew with each re-telling, but may
have truth in the origins. The real beginning could have been one of
the demonstrations of Quad Electrostatic speakers from (I think) the
1950's, with an A-B comparison from live to recording and speakers.
I'm pretty sure that happened, though I can't put my hand on any
documentation.

The 16 piece orchestra would have had to play *very* quietly if a single
Quad '57 were to match it. Plus the fact that anyone could have told by
the spread of sound that one was a mono source.

If you make it a single instrument, things change. I remember being
impressed with just how close a sax sounded when recorded on a 4038 and
played back on an LUS10 - both '50s technology.

IMHO, speech is the real giveaway.

--
*Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *

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

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:39:59 +0000, Zero Tolerance wrote:

Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate channels
on Freeview......

Maybe he was referring to the program content or presentation.

And just because a station is transmitted with high bitrate, does not mean
that the audio/video quality of the feed which goes to the high bitrate
transmission is of the finest quality.

In article ,
Anahata wrote:
Apart from anything else do you know
the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra?

The BBC employ several orchestras already. It wouldn't have been hard to
borrow 16 players from the radio orchestra for example (which is a
recordings-only 9-5 job) for a stunt like this.

You obviously never worked for the BBC if you think TV could easily borrow
things from radio...

Besides, it still doesn't explain how it's been kept such a secret. Until
now.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

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