No more analogue BBC2

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart scribeth
thus
In article , Graham. wrote:
Poor old NICAM.
There it is at the end of it's life, after giving us the best sound
quality available from any broadcast medium, and most listeners didn't
give it a moment of appreciation.

Thank you NICAM 728, you will be missed.

Yes, I thought superduper digital sound qualiy was the future of
broadcasting. How could I have guessed they'd close the system down and
replace it with a worse one? One step forward, two steps back.


Well shes still on National Radio transmitter distribution for the
moment or has RAMAN now taken over?..


I still have my Maplin kit receiver in my junk room. No use to anyone
now. Not much point even putting it on Ebay. Sigh

Rod.

--
Tony Sayer

In article , Ian Jackson ianREMOVET
scribeth thus
In message , David Woolley
writes
Ar wrote:
On 05/04/12 19:49, Graham. wrote:
192k bit rate (or worse) instead of 728k (even though 14 bit) for
NICAM... NICAM beats Freeview sound quality.

The bit rates aren't directly comparable, because NICAM is a simple,
companded system, whereas the modern systems use sophisticated
compression schemes matched to the characteristics of human hearing.

In practice, the real comparison can probably only be made subjectively.

Although NICAM companding is more sophisticated than telelphone
companding, there is a big difference between a stereo 128kbps MP3
signal and a pair of A-Law companded 64kpbs telephone lines, also used
for stereo, even though both have an aggregate bit rate of 128kbps.

RF-wise, a NICAM signal occupies around 300kHz (similar to what you need
for a Band 2 FM radio signal). I presume that the more 'modern' digital
modes are far more economical in bandwidth.

How many bits do you want to chuck away;?...
--
Tony Sayer

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Graham. wrote:
Poor old NICAM.
There it is at the end of it's life, after giving us the best sound
quality available from any broadcast medium, and most listeners didn't
give it a moment of appreciation.

Thank you NICAM 728, you will be missed.

Yes, I thought superduper digital sound qualiy was the future of
broadcasting. How could I have guessed they'd close the system down and
replace it with a worse one? One step forward, two steps back.

I still have my Maplin kit receiver in my junk room. No use to anyone
now. Not much point even putting it on Ebay. Sigh


I thought Maplin kit was a yellow coat and shorts.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

On 08/04/2012 13:20, tony sayer wrote:
How many bits do you want to chuck away;?...

Most of them. All the ones I can't hear. That is however significantly
less than most broadcasters want to throw away.

I must admit I'm surprised that the audio bandwidth saved between
"telephone" and "CD" is enough to matter compared to the video.

Andy

On 08/04/12 10:59, David Woolley wrote:
192k bit rate (or worse) instead of 728k (even though 14 bit) for
NICAM... NICAM beats Freeview sound quality.

The bit rates aren't directly comparable, because NICAM is a simple,
companded system, whereas the modern systems use sophisticated
compression schemes matched to the characteristics of human hearing.

Most people without cloth ears can tell the difference of 128k MP3 to
other formats like uncompressed. The reason they actually don't is they
have cheap **** gadgets to listen on - which fatigues the ears if
listening for long time.

Look at DAB, ANCIENT MP2 compression with CRAP error correction, many
stations are transmitting at 128k and a lot worse than that, with many
also switching to mono where they are stereo on FM. With most DAB radios
only having one speaker, how can you say the sound is an improvement
over FM radio - it is not, and never will be.

In practice, the real comparison can probably only be made subjectively.

Although NICAM companding is more sophisticated than telelphone
companding, there is a big difference between a stereo 128kbps MP3
signal and a pair of A-Law companded 64kpbs telephone lines, also used
for stereo, even though both have an aggregate bit rate of 128kbps.

I have you know that telephone and 128k MP3 sound equally dreadful. At
least low bit rate VoIP has showed what sound quality on phones COULD be
like, if the phone companies could be bothered. No wonder so many people
use VoIP instead (call costs aside).

On 08/04/12 13:20, tony sayer wrote:
How many bits do you want to chuck away;?...

None of them. Employ more efficient modern CODECs like FLAC that don't
throw away data.

But let's not kid ourselves, the broadcasters have long ago given up on
quality, that's why the Freeview system is such a pile of dogs mess.

Sound is dreadful low quality MP2.

And they haven't even managed to implement a proper replacement to
analogue Teletext (just updated the colour pallet and pixel sizes and
doing stupid picture in picture... three button presses to read a story
that would display on one page on Ceefax).

And the video signal for Freeview is highly compressed, even the
satellite version which should have far higher bit rates don't.

Just like scrapping of Concorde, the UK has gone backwards in technology
instead of forwards.

On Monday, April 9th, 2012, at 14:54:08 +0100, Ar wrote:

But let's not kid ourselves, the broadcasters have long ago given up on
quality, that's why the Freeview system is such a pile of dogs mess.

Never mind the quality, feel the width!

More choice of junk for the consumer -- Maggie, the champion
of low quality (aerated ice vegetable fat instead of real ice cream)
will be pleased.

Do you think either of Maggie or Tony eat pink slime for supper?

In article , Graham.
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:00:02 +0100, Ar wrote:


Thank you NICAM 728, you will be missed.

Never mind. If people like NICAM they can just listen to BBC FM. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Graham.
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:00:02 +0100, Ar wrote:


Thank you NICAM 728, you will be missed.

Never mind. If people like NICAM they can just listen to BBC FM. :-)

Ok if you're deaf above about 14KHz.

Silk wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Graham.
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 17:00:02 +0100, Ar wrote:

Thank you NICAM 728, you will be missed.
Never mind. If people like NICAM they can just listen to BBC FM. :-)

Ok if you're deaf above about 14KHz.

The glass is always half empty for you, isn't it ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk