Channel 4 pulls out of DAB

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:

"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.

You don't think you could play an LP with a thorn stylus? How quaint.

You would be playing it and destroying it at the same time.



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.

I'm afraid it's you that is clueless as usual. Any improvements made (or
required) to a stylus to play a microgroove record can equally be applied
to 78s.

Wrong. The grooves in 78s are deeper and would require a larger stylus with
a different curvature to give you the best contact. All a modern LP stylus
would do is get closer to the bottom part of the groove which isn't as
clearly defined on 78s as it is on vinyl and would sound worse than with a
proper 78 stylus. On my old record player the stylus could be flipped to one
side for LP and to the other for 78s.



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.

Why don't you do just the tiniest bit of research before spouting off
since your experience (or judgment) is so lacking?

You clearly have never used equipment designed for use with either LPs or
78s.

I suggest to shut up now before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

On 13 Oct 2008 22:03:08 GMT, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

"Agamemnon" wrote in
.uk:


"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:
In Europe Betamax outsold VHS because it was higher quality. The
only reason why VHS held on to win is because in the US VHS tapes
were twice the length you could possibly get on Betamax using the
NTSC system and by that time VHS HQ and Hi-Fi stereo had arrived
which was better that the original specification.

That is complete ********.

Betamax did not out sell VHS in Europe, *despite* being technically
superior. The reason VHS beat Betamax was because it cornered the
porn and rental market first.

Playback times were actually about 8% shorter for NTSC for both
formats.

Complete and utter crap. What I said still stands. Look it up. You are
talking ********.

First of all, in Europe there were three competing formats (Betamax,
VHS, V2000), not just two. In the early years the format war stalled
the success of VCRs, because many people were reluctant to invest in a
format which might become obsolete in a few years. Until about 1980
sales of VCRs of any format were extremely low because of this and
because of the high costs of machines and tapes. After about 1980 sales
slowly took off, but very soon it became clear that VHS would make the
race. That point was reached in around 1982/83ish already. So there was
never a time when Betamax was more popular than VHS, even though it
(and V2000) stayed around for a few years to come.

I may be incorrect, but I believe V2000 died around 1985 and Betamax
around 1988?


Marky P.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:30:09 +0100, Richard Lamont
wrote:

Agamemnon wrote:

"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.

You also need a perfect pressing. I don't recall ever obtaining one. In
the 1970s - when I started my LP collection - the quality control at the
commercial pressing plants was nowhere near up to the job.

And when the CD was introduced, vinyl pressing quality was at an all
time low and the average turntable was cheap and plastiky. I bought
my first CD player in 1987 (Technics SLP111) and was blown away by the
quality compared to vinyl. But with the set up I have now (Michell
Gyrodec/RB300 arm/Lyra Argo cart/Trichord Dino phono stage), I enjoy
listening to vinyl more than CD's.
Marky P.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:19:50 +0100, "Agamemnon"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:

"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.

You don't think you could play an LP with a thorn stylus? How quaint.

You would be playing it and destroying it at the same time.



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.

I'm afraid it's you that is clueless as usual. Any improvements made (or
required) to a stylus to play a microgroove record can equally be applied
to 78s.

Wrong. The grooves in 78s are deeper and would require a larger stylus with
a different curvature to give you the best contact. All a modern LP stylus
would do is get closer to the bottom part of the groove which isn't as
clearly defined on 78s as it is on vinyl and would sound worse than with a
proper 78 stylus. On my old record player the stylus could be flipped to one
side for LP and to the other for 78s.

These type of 78 styli were a standard size. The grooves on a 78rpm
record can vary in width (particulary with earlier pressings). The
'flip over' types were ok for 50's pressings, but not so good on
earlier records. Also, there was also the non standardisation of
equalization curves, so accurate playback requires a phono stage with
adjustable LF/HF boost/cut. I believe the RIAA equalization curve
became standard around 1955.





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.

Why don't you do just the tiniest bit of research before spouting off
since your experience (or judgment) is so lacking?

You clearly have never used equipment designed for use with either LPs or
78s.

I suggest to shut up now before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

Marky P.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:05:42 +0100, "Agamemnon"
wrote:


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

"Stuart Clark" wrote in message
...


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.


How many people actually have a 5.1 system though?

If they can for out £2000 for an HDTV then they can fork out for an AV amp
and surround speakers to get the full cinema experience. Most people with
computers have 5.1 speakers by now.



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

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


Are you really saying you can see 5.1 working in a car?

Why not. There are already 4 speakers fitted in the doors or back shelf. All
you need is a bass speaker in the boot and a centre speaker or you can make
do with 4.0.

My brother had a quadrophonic 8-track cartridge player in his car in
the 70's. So it worked then. Problem is, he still thinks he hears
different sounds in the rear car speakers than the fronts, but
obviously that ain't true.



Marky P.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:41:48 +0100, Richard Evans
wrote:

Marky P wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:21:33 +0100, Richard Evans
wrote:

Paul Martin wrote:

My guess is that the BBC will jump in and take control of the D2 mux,
like they did with parts of the DTT system on the collapse of ITV
Digital. They'll probably have to offer to share use of it, but there
may not be takers. It's likely that it will be mixed DAB and DAB+.

Nice idea. I hope you are right, but I have my doubts.

It would be nice if the BBC could run the D2 mux, and move some of their
services onto it, so that they can then increase bit rates. However if
they wanted to do that, then why haven't they just bought up some of the
capacity on D1.

Richard E.

I believe Ch4 were planning stereo channels runnng at 112kb/s?

Marky P.

That's correct, they did plan to use 112k.
However I'm not sure what that has to do with the possibility of the BBC
taking over D2.

Richard E.

Er... nothing really. Maybe I inserted my 2 penneth worth into the
wrong place in this discussion. ;-)
Marky P.

In article , Agamemnon
wrote:
The people listening to Classic FM are the ones who have the most money to
spend. Classic FM could easily be broadcast in 5.1 at no extra cost.

It probably could, but I suspect hardly anyone would bother with it. Most
people seem to arrange their loudspeakers where they look best as items of
furniture, rather than for best listening, and that's with only two of them.
Luckily, even with badly placed speakers, or even with a ghetto-blaster at
the other side of the room, two channels give a noticeable improvement over
one (if not always an increase in realism), but I doubt very much that many
people would think five badly placed loudspeakers would sound better than
two. They'd probably just see them as even more items of furniture to have to
arrange to fit in with the rest of the room.

And given that Classic FM relies almost entirely on commercial CDs, where
would it get all that 5.1 channel material "at no extra cost"?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Although I'd agree there is nothing in principle that should make it
impossible to record high quality on a 78 (except perhaps that the
stylus will have slightly greater mass and this might affect the upper
frequency limit), in my experience this is not what happens in practice.

I doubt many bothered buying decent 78 cartridges long after the LP became
common - but they did exist. As did high quality vinyl pressings.
But then there were some diabolical 45s - both singles and EPs - which A
apparently thinks were wonderful too.

I had a 78 stylus for the Shure cartridge and SME arm combination I used to
use for stereo LPs. It did make 78s sound better than the old wind-up
gramophone, but still nothing like as good as the LPs.

Whatever would have been theoretically possible, in reality 78s were made of
a different kind of plastic that gave much more surface noise, and most of
them had been recorded using older equipment and techniques, so the quality
just wasn't on the record in the first place no matter what modern
techniques you used to play it back.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On 2008-10-13, Edster wrote:
Paul Murray wrote:
If quality prevailed, TV would be broadcast at 1080p, which would be
unarguably the best quality. However, that uses too much bandwidth, so
instead they use 1080i and get more channels in.
Quantity chosen over quality.
But chosen by the broadcasters, for financial reasons. Not chosen by
viewers.

Financial reasons being that they will get more viewers (and thus more
advertising revenue) by showing more channels at lower resolution than
vice versa. *Because that seems to be what people want.*
You seem to be assuming that all the broadcasters have got it wrong.

On 2008-10-13, Edster wrote:
Paul Murray wrote:
Many more 720p TVs are being sold than 1080p. (Not 1280)
Where? I've been looking for a large CRT for a few years now, but
nobody seems to sell them any more.

Who mentioned CRT?