Digital radio - outrageous

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...


What I originally said was that you'd need a "decent sound card" to make the
most of the iPlayer AAC streams. I didn't say anything about consumer,
prosumer, pro or anything else like that.

Does it have the limitations I mentioned then? If not, then you're wrong.


As I said before, what I originally said was right, because the onus is on the
person reading what I said to ensure that the card they buy doesn't perform
sample rate conversion by default.

Your alter-ego David Robinson would claim that, according to Nyquist theorem,
the sample-rate conversion shouldn't incur any loss as long as the card's fixed
output rate is higher than the input rate, and that your advice is therefore
pointless.

"J G Miller" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:46:45 +0200, J G Miller wrote:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:51:21 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

If they're serious about replacing FM with DAB, they'd need to do
something similar to what was done with TV in the 1960s and ban the
manufacture of any new receivers that could only receive the old system
for a reasonable interval commensurate with the expected life of a
receiver, before abandoning the old system.

Did that happen with analog television receivers?

Sorry, I did not make it clear what I was asking.

I was referring to the fact that analog only television receivers have not
banned during the transition to digital television in the UKofGB&NI.

Only in civilized countries such as France, has it been mandated that televisions
sold in stores must have capabilities of a digital DVB-t tuner, and more recently
the capability of MPEG-4 as well as MPEG-2 decoding.

That isn't civilized, it's nannying.
You're saying I shouldn't be able to go into a store and buy an
obsolete analogue TV to (say) use as a cheap base-band monitor?
I am (bit late now, was), in favour of a mandatory labelling scheme, but at the end of the
day the concept of "caveat emptor" should apply.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:42:44 +0100, Graham. wrote:

That isn't civilized, it's nannying.

Do you say the same thing about building regulations?

Or electrical goods regulations?

Or regulations on food additives?

One man's nannying is another man's consumer protection.

jamie powell wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...


What I originally said was that you'd need a "decent sound card" to make
the most of the iPlayer AAC streams. I didn't say anything about
consumer, prosumer, pro or anything else like that.

Does it have the limitations I mentioned then? If not, then you're wrong.


I can't be arsed looking at what tiresome limitations you think it needs to
have. I made sure when I bought the card that it doesn't perform sample rate
conversion by default. End of story.


As I said before, what I originally said was right, because the onus is
on the person reading what I said to ensure that the card they buy
doesn't perform sample rate conversion by default.

Your alter-ego David Robinson would claim that,


You know perfectly well that I am not David Robinson.


according to Nyquist
theorem, the sample-rate conversion shouldn't incur any loss as long as
the card's fixed output rate is higher than the input rate, and that your
advice is therefore pointless.


Once again, you display your complete ignorance of the subject of digital
audio / DSP. Sample rate conversion requires the use of digital filters (to
filter the signal after converting the sample rate), and it's impossible to
design an ideal digital filter (one with an infinitely steep transition band
and a perfectly flat passband - i.e. the frequency response is rectangular),
therefore it is impossible to perform sample rate conversion without
introducing any distortion, or incurring loss, as you put it.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:42:44 +0100, Graham. wrote:

That isn't civilized, it's nannying.

Do you say the same thing about building regulations?

Or electrical goods regulations?

Or regulations on food additives?

One man's nannying is another man's consumer protection.

It's one thing to have regulations that affect health (& safety); it's
quite another to have the state interfering in everything we do (or aren't
allowed to do)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

"Woody" wrote in message
...
"Zimmy" wrote in message
...

"Steve Thackery" wrote in message
...
Following on from the earlier thread, take a look he

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8591942.stm

I can't believe this is happening.

All thoughts are welcome.

I'm with you here. Although the deal breaker for me is that unlike most
TVs, most FM radios are portable (especially car radios) and can get a
reasonably listenable signal while moving/driving about, even if it loses
stereo or becomes a bit hissy. DAB on the other hand, drops out
completely or becomes unlistenable when the signal level/quality drops
below a certain threshold. My experience of DAB is that often I can get a
good signal on FM when DAB is unlistenable.

This is unacceptable, especially for car radios and I can't believe the
majority of the British public will accept the switch off of FM until DAB
radios are on a par in terms of usability and robustness of reception,
never mind the costs and inconveniences of intermediate switchover
'solutions' that you mention.

There is a simple reason behind the differential. DAB is transmitted at
much lower power and directionally unlike (mostly omni-directional) FM. It
is also transmitted from sites other than those used by FM, so comparing
FM coverage against DAB is not really fair.

My point still stands, even with DAB on the same power as FM there will
still be marginal places where FM would be listenable and DAB will drop out.

Having said that, until the Government get to realise that they need to
assist with funding to get the geographical coverage (as distinct from
this mythical 'population coverage') as good as or better than FM, DAB
cannot and will not 'take off.'

Agreed. AFAICS it only really seems to work 'properly' in London.

Z

In article ,
Zimmy wrote:

My point still stands, even with DAB on the same power as FM there will
still be marginal places where FM would be listenable and DAB will drop
out.


and plenty of places where FM is unuseable because of multipath and DAB
will still work.

Having said that, until the Government get to realise that they need to
assist with funding to get the geographical coverage (as distinct from
this mythical 'population coverage') as good as or better than FM, DAB
cannot and will not 'take off.'

Agreed. AFAICS it only really seems to work 'properly' in London.

that's because there are multiple transmitters giving the receiver a choice
of sources. The proper "engineering" solution - not loved by the bean
counters who came along later.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:05:41 UTC, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:


"Dave Saville" wrote in message
...

I just had another thought - What about all the Satnavs, and similar,
that take FM traffic data?

That's a good point. How is it transmitted now? Is it piggy-backed onto an
existing transmission? Or does it have its own, separate, frequency?

If the latter, it could perhaps continue, what with it being such a low
bandwidth.

Piggy back.

--
Regards
Dave Saville

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:26:51 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:


"Gary" wrote in message
...

Use a converter similar to the things for mp3 players in cars.

snip

My friend has one and it is a DAB with FM output.

snip

The modulators in Tesco are about £10 and work very well. We use one when
we go on holiday to play our MP3 in the hotel.

Yes, I think we can all agree that the only way to send DAB to an existing
analogue radio is by using a box which receives DAB and transmits a low
power FM signal for the radio to pick up.

As I said, though, it stops you using the radio's own tuning controls, so
you need another box, or panel, or other user interface to let you tune
through the stations.

And whilst I can live with this for my hi-fi system, it's going to be a
complete mess for all the portable radios we have; all the car radios; and
hopeless for our collection of beloved antique radios.

The only solution would seem to be to get a multi-channel DAB radio that
receives ALL the popular DAB channels simultaneously, and re-broadcasts them
across the FM band. And that is NOT going to happen, is it? Wouldn't you
need a DAB receiver chip for every channel?

Maybe it would be more sensible to receive all these channels over the
Internet, and then re-broadcast them domestically. Probably much cheaper
than receiving DAB. Which makes you wonder why we are bothering with DAB,
and the radio waves, at all. (Yes, I know - mobile). Won't help car
radios, though.

I have a great idea. Why don't we keep FM radio the same as it is
today?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:17:10 +0100, Alan
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:44:14 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

All thoughts are welcome.

My thoughts are unprintable!!!

Mine too.

There was a number10.gov petition about this and the response was
published on 3rd March.

Which just goes to prove they haven't a clue. God knows where they
get their advice from -- probably a kindergarten. No, that's
insulting. Kindergarten kids would be cleverer than that.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.