Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

In article ,
Richard Lamont wrote:
Agamemnon wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
is lower. I'd be interested in an example of mainstream success for a
quality over quantity situation.

See above. Add 12inch 33 1/3rpm LPs and 45s over 78 inch discs.

More rubbish. LPs did *not* 'add quality' over 78 rpm discs - merely
quantity in terms of longer playing times.

ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK!

LPs used a completely different a far superior stylus from 78s and thus
gave improved sound quality at reduced rpms. The frequency response of
78s was only about 10kHz. LPs gave a frequency response that was more
than double that.

Occasionally. Try playing an LP test disc above 10 kHz it's such a wing
and prayer job that the tone will be dropping up and down like the balls
in a lottery machine. (The old IBA code of practice only specified
frequency response up to 12.5 kHz.)

Indeed. Why am I thinking about CD4...;-)

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

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

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:56:08 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
They might be there to receive Radio Leeds and Sheffield as part of
the backhaul to Maidenhead for internet streaming ?
I am 99,9% sure that they have been there a lot longer than since when
the BBC started streaming BBC local radio.

But as you say, there will be there for monitoring, and perhaps to
cover BBC Radio Leeds and BBC Radio Sheffield as well as BBC Radio
Manchester and presumably Radio 1, 2, 3, 4.

Perhaps a backup feed for Radio 2 or 4 back in the days when BBC Radio
Manchester used to carry the programs from these stations? Or is that
totally improbable?

Which begs the question is the Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 feed for Holme Moss
routed directly from Langham Place or via Oxford Road?

And of course there was a time when Oxford Road used to supply the
BBC Radio 4 Northern service (5 minutes of regional news) to Holme Moss.

As far as I recall, the twin stacked array is on a rotor, although my
recollection could be in error.

On 13 Oct 2008 13:32:05 GMT, Paul Murray wrote:

Plowman
Don't talk crap. If R3 lowered the audio quality on their feed, they would
get more listeners. It's obvious innit?
/Plowman
If that lowered quality meant that they could produce two stations rather
than one, that might well be true.
So, you're saying they'd get more listeners per station then? Somehow I
doubt it.

No, that isn't what I said.

Thanks for agreeing with me. You've just admitted that lowering the audio
quality of a station does NOT result in an increase in people listening to
that station.
QED.

J G Miller wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:58:54 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
every single ILR station was on AM and in FM stereo from day one.

With one notable exception. Well, Liverpool always has to be different.

Radio City (Sound of Merseyside Limited) started broadcasting at 06:00h
on Monday, October 21st, 1974 from the AM transmitter of the IBA on 1548
KHz with a power of 1,2 kW from Rainford, MB of St Helens.

It was not until Saturday, February 8th, 1975, nearly 3,5 months later,
that broadcasts commenced from the FM transmitter of the IBA on 96,7 MHz
with a power of 5 kW from Allerton Park, City of Liverpool.

Ah, if you're going to out do me, at least do it thoroughly. You forgot about
Radio Tees. AM service date 24th June 1975, Stockton 1169 kHz, FM service date
15th September 1975, Bilsdale 95.0 MHz

Oh and to be totally pedantic, Radio City (in common with all other co channel
stations) was on 1546 kHz, until Nov 23rd 1978 when it moved to 1548 kHz as
part of the '9 kHz spacing MF' plan ;-)


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

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:41:32 +0100, Agamoron
wrote:

They put the cricket coverage on R3 FM during the day which originated from
Radio 4 and also Schools Programmes. It wasn't until the early 80s that R3
and R4 were given separate frequencies

Bull****. R3 and R4 always had two separate FM frequencies.
What they had on them is irrelevant to the point at issue and is completely
different to the situation with R1 and R2.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
More irritating than the near constant distortion caused by multi-path
when near high buildings etc as happens in most towns? And the fading of
the signal for the same reasons?


Dave to whole country isn't fecking Sarff Lunnon!..

So you'd prefer me to comment on an area I don't know? But I'm referring
to London in general. I cross it most weekends going through near enough
the centre which gives a good opportunity for comparison.

Its fine in my backyard;!...

Perhaps if you actually drove the car you might find things different,
then.

I do prolly more miles then U and Two cars at that in a lot of the
country...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
So we cab add the fact you know nothing about mobile reception to those
about DAB and AM?

We can add the fact that both I and the car manufacturers know that DAB
is totally unreliable on the move and the fact that you don't.

In future buy a radio made by an electronics specialist rather than a car
manufacturer.


So we're expecting large numbers of the population to go out and fit a
DAB receiver as the manufacturers ones aren't good *enough;!..

And does that apply to every vehicle on the road/....


*Prolly they aren't as they don't fit them anyway;!.......
--
Tony Sayer

"Stuart Clark" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...

Why the 5.1? (I'm just curious - no axe to grind one way or the other.)

Because the current encoding system which uses joint stereo is
incompatible with Dolby Surround Pro-Logic at bit rates lower than 256
kbps and there is no way of putting 5.1 surround on FM, therefore 5.1
surround would be the strongest possible selling point for DAB assuming
it passed Dolby and THX certification, and therefore was of sufficient
quality.


Would there be enough of a market to make anything above stereo necessary?

Plenty. Everyone with 5.1 surround systems connected to their DVD players
and Hi-Fi systems.


Those using headphones or listening in the car will miss out, as will

Modern cars are fitted with speakers at the front and rear.

anybody who just wants a cheap & simple set (either with a single speaker
or tiny stereo separation).

There is no reason why cheap sets cannot be sold which convert the 5.1
surround into stereo. Remember the people who always drive the market are
Hi-Fi enthusiasts who have got the money to spend on new technology, not
teenage kids with nothing to spend or housewife's who want to listen to the
radio in the kitchen, even they were not stupid enough to spend £300 on a
DAB receiver.


90% of source material is stereo too. The only thing I can really think of
where 5.1 might be good would be classical music, and for that it

Almost 90% of the music they review on Radio 3 is available in 5.1, 4.1
surround or 3.1 surround.

might be better using the higher bitrate for a better quality stereo
signal than a not so high 5.1 signal.

Dolby AC3 is capable of decent 5.1 at virtually the same bit rates as near
CD quality stereo 450 kbps as opposed to 320 kbps. The more surround
channels the more efficient the codec becomes. Of course AC3 uses mp2
compression therefore if AAC was used instead then bit rates could be got
down to 224kbps.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
More rubbish. LPs did *not* 'add quality' over 78 rpm discs - merely
quantity in terms of longer playing times.

ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK!

LPs used a completely different a far superior stylus from 78s and thus
gave improved sound quality at reduced rpms.

The design of the pickup/sylus has nothing to do with the disc. You could
play an LP with a thorn needle if you wanted.

Right, so we can put down that you know totally bugger all about LPs or
pickup styli then.


The frequency response of
78s was only about 10kHz.

You just love blanket statements, don't you?

You know bugger all about gramophone records or LPs or styli.


LPs gave a frequency response that was more
than double that.

What - all of them?

All of them. You've obviously never heard a 78, but given that you have
defective hearing I doubt you would notice the difference between a 78 and
an LP.

"Richard Lamont" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
is lower. I'd be interested in an example of mainstream success for a
quality over quantity situation.

See above. Add 12inch 33 1/3rpm LPs and 45s over 78 inch discs.

More rubbish. LPs did *not* 'add quality' over 78 rpm discs - merely
quantity in terms of longer playing times.

ABSOLUTE POPPYCOCK!

LPs used a completely different a far superior stylus from 78s and thus
gave improved sound quality at reduced rpms. The frequency response of
78s was only about 10kHz. LPs gave a frequency response that was more
than double that.

Occasionally. Try playing an LP test disc above 10 kHz it's such a wing
and prayer job that the tone will be dropping up and down like the balls
in a lottery machine. (The old IBA code of practice only specified
frequency response up to 12.5 kHz.)

If you are using a decent stylus then you can get 20 kHz very easily. When
quadraphonics came out in the 1970s you could get a frequency response of
over 40 kHz on LP with a quadraphonics stylus, and this was with standard
vinyl.