Petition to stop FM being switched off

In article et, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
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?


I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was
talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a
40 megabit capacity wi-fi point and that was just that cell of which
there're rolling out more and more as time goes by!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Steve Terry
scribeth thus

"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



From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few
people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to
receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not that
good!..

Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car...
--
Tony Sayer

Graham Murray wrote:
bugbear writes:

There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current
DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations
you dream of?

So why do they not increase the bitate of the stations that are
transmitting, thus increasing the quality?

Good question - I wish they would.

BugBear

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Fredxx
scribeth thus
"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.


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;!..

Early D to A chips suffered from 'crossover distortion' (actually MSB
inaccuracy). That was one reason for the myth of 'CD sounds worse'

By the early 80's that was all history.



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 prefer a GOOD digital implementation, mostly because the common
problems with FM are because the signal is NOT good.

Unless you lose frames completely, the response of a decent digital
system in noise is better.

So a hissy FM signal becomes a perfectly clean digital signal.

Also, the problems of audio distortion only start after what is in
decent signal conditions a 'perfect' decoder. Misaligned IF strips wont
affect the sound quality at all as long as the decoder can decode, it
will decode 'perfectly'


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!.

Odd that. I got the worst FM degradations when I played with it years
ago on complex upper register stuff..mainly due to phase shifts at high
modulation depthsh and pretty high frequencies..upset the stereo
decoding as well.

In the days when it was only the home service, the light program etc
etc. and guaranteed 400KHZ spacings a very broadband IF strip gave you
very decent performance: the necessity to pull that down to reject
adjacent channels in a more crowded spectrum bolloxed up the audio
performance. Add in cheap ceramic IF filters instead of tuneable cans,
and for most people, the performance wasn't that good. OK you COULD get
very expenisve tailored filters that were both fast cutoff and minimal
phase shift, but that was serious money..

I suppose what I am saying is, whilst in theory an FM signal is superior
to a bad DAB signal, the reality of MOST peoples experience is that
neither the signal strength, nor the quality of the receiving equipment
is good enough to make that a fact in practice.

With digits, the chipsets take all the hard work out of the quality: you
get a predictable performance at far lower production costs.

Frankly here, I get a better audio performance out of audio streaming
over the internet than I do for all but my most expensive tuner.

I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM.
Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak
atmospherics I suppose.

tony sayer wrote:

From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few
people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to
receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not that
good!..

Its brilliant online!
Well coaapred with AM. seems to be absolutely cut to about 5khz and
compressed digitally to teh neth degree, but still better than AM.

My father in law wqas delighted when I put the cricket on, on his
digital telly..

Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car...

Its very scratchy here. But you can make the words out.

bugbear wrote:
Graham Murray wrote:
bugbear writes:

There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current
DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations
you dream of?

So why do they not increase the bitate of the stations that are
transmitting, thus increasing the quality?

Good question - I wish they would.

Maybe the recievers or the modulators they have cannot cope?


BugBear

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM.
Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak
atmospherics I suppose.

It was short wave broadcasts being picked up in the IF strip. 10.7MHz is on
the edge of the 25 metre band.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article , Ian
Smith wrote:
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.

Hiss, the presence or absence of, is not the only measure of "quality".
The hiss on FM is simply superimposed on the sound, and doesn't alter
what it sounds like. Digital sound with bit-rate reduction is quite a
different situation.

The comparison between FM and DAB is nothing like the comparison
between gramophone recordings and compact discs. The digital bit rate
on CD is about 10 times the best rates we are now using on DAB and is
not subject to any destructive bit-rate reduction.

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

On 26 June, 09:52, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Steve Terry
scribeth thus





"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

From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few
people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to
receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not that
good!..

Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car...
--
Tony Sayer

The importance of maintaining Radio 4 in stereo cannot be
underestimated. If one listens on a decent stereo FM tuner to the
drama, be it the Afternoon Play or weekend ones it is incredible to
hear how the two channels are used so expertly for voice and
background sound. It makes the difference between watching b+w TV and
watching colour. DAB radio sets are principally mono (to match most of
the output). All tonality and depth has been scrubbed away from voices
and music to leave them sounding 'surgically clean' when you have a
signal. Even 30 miles from London, I find that in some rooms and on
some days if I happen to be listening to DAB I have to change to FM
because of the gurgling 'hot water bottle' noise that replaces what is
being broadcast. Then again, the BBC itself have had a number of
recent times when they have been broadcasting DAB and every 4th or 5th
word has been lost due to some error before the signal reaches the
transmitter. FM must not be left as a third rate junk yard. We need it
for our main national broadcasters. Incidentally, concerning the
petition it is a major error that it was composed by someone unable to
spell analogue correctly. I would willingly sign any FM/AM petition
written in English. Presenting American spelling is something of a
disaster and shoots us in the foot.
Please rectify it at once.

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:50:18 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

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?

I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was
talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a
40 megabit capacity wi-fi point and that was just that cell of which
there're rolling out more and more as time goes by!...

So backhaul froma individual cell site appears not to be a bottle
neck but where does that cell site connect? What happens further up
the chain and how much capacity does the "broadcaster" have on their
servers and connection?

Then of course I very much doubt that a single cell can support
40Mbps/128kbps = 300+ users at a time.

--
Cheers
Dave.