I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri 07/07/2023 15:30, Scott wrote:

I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
charging basis.

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

On Fri 07/07/2023 15:30, Scott wrote:

I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor >signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
charging basis.

I realise this but they are claiming superior sound quality. Unless
they can substantiate this, and only a minority of listeners benefit,
I think there could be trouble with Ofcom.

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number: https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
I assume cars with DAB will have it because it is used in other
markets.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

On Fri 07/07/2023 15:30, Scott wrote:

I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor >>signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
charging basis.

I realise this but they are claiming superior sound quality. Unless
they can substantiate this, and only a minority of listeners benefit,
I think there could be trouble with Ofcom.

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number: >https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
I assume cars with DAB will have it because it is used in other
markets.

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..


https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott ><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

[]

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number: >>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/

[]

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..

https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en

They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener complaints stay below a threshold they set.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

That's the key to wisdom: being delighted when you're wrong because
you've learn something. - (Professor) Brian Cox, RT 2019/5/25-31

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

tony sayer wrote:

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about

I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible, but I don't use
it, it's relegated to the back bedroom, my radio listening at home has
all been internet streaming for 2-3 years.

In the car (67 reg) I do have DAB+ which came as standard, unlike the
previous model (11 reg) where DAB had to be specced as it wasn't standard.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

Like all codecs, it's going to be subjective, for my radio listening
nothing falls below my quality threshold ... might be different if I
used R3 or ClassicFM.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 07:47, Andy Burns wrote:

I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible

I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?

Sure I checked mine somewhere afterwards and received DAB+.

Both my Pure Evoke and Pure One are awaiting disposal - power socket and
plug broke too many times so got bored with fixing them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/07/2023 20:56, tony sayer wrote:

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

Could they be interested in having a pop-up station for some special
events? Perhaps easier on DAB+ because of the ability to use a lower
bit rate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott >><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

[]

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will >>>>loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number: >>>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/ >[]

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..


https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en

They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener >complaints stay below a threshold they set.

They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:26:12 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

On 07/07/2023 20:56, tony sayer wrote:

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

Could they be interested in having a pop-up station for some special
events? Perhaps easier on DAB+ because of the ability to use a lower
bit rate.

I am less cynical. I think they can see a way of cutting trasmission
cost and improving sound quality. I suspect the typical Classic FM
listener is not 'into' pop-up stations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

[]

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/ >> []

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..


https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en

They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.

They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)

Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a veto on improvements forever.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

[]

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will >>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/

[]

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems >>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..


https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en

They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener >>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.

They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)

Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a >veto on improvements forever.

I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11, >>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> >>>>>> wrote:

[]

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will >>>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/

[]

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC >>>>

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a >>>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them >>>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems >>>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..


https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en >>>>

They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener >>>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.

They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)

Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They canÂ’t hold a >> veto on improvements forever.

I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).

Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make almost any claim they like in this arena.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> >>>> wrote:

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11, >>>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

[]

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will >>>>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/

[]

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC >>>>>

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a >>>>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them >>>>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems >>>>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..


https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en >>>>>

They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener >>>>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.

They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)

Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can?t hold a >>> veto on improvements forever.

I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).

Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.

I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
was interpreted subjectively: https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/4ea0ae5f-a354-4696-941fa65169afbf54.pdf There must be a concept of subjective measurement. Remember the
former reference to 'near CD sound quality' was banned as being
misleading.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 10:12, Scott wrote:

I am less cynical. I think they can see a way of cutting trasmission
cost and improving sound quality. I suspect the typical Classic FM
listener is not 'into' pop-up stations.

Only listened to them briefly a couple of times years ago and of course
no coverage here.

I just thought of pop-ups because they can be a way of linking into a
sponsored event which I believe they do though could be mistaken.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 12:09, Scott wrote:

I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
was interpreted subjectively:

But nothing to do with quality.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> >>>>> wrote:

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11, >>>>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:

[]

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will >>>>>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/

[]

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC >>>>>>

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a >>>>>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them >>>>>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems >>>>>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..


https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en >>>>>>

They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener >>>>>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.

They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)

Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can?t hold a >>>> veto on improvements forever.

I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).

Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.

I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
was interpreted subjectively: https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/4ea0ae5f-a354-4696-941fa65169afbf54.pdf
There must be a concept of subjective measurement. Remember the
former reference to 'near CD sound quality' was banned as being
misleading.

CD encoding doesn’t use a lossy codec. Anything that does must be inferior, and is thus objectively poorer. Comparing a superior codec but at a
potentially lower bit rate is fraught with difficulty. All you need to do
is find a panel of 100 listeners. If the first panel doesn’t give the right answer find another until they do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:

How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.

Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:42:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:

How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.

Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).

And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.

At the end of the day Classic FM will want to get the bit rate down, as
this is what they are charged for. If they can compromise by reducing it a little rather than a lot, so that their transmissions sound
better then everyone wins. It’s all irrelevant to me though, as adverts
make commercial stations unlistenable, regardless of the bit rate. Times
Radio has reneged on its no adverts but only sponsorship announcements
launch promise.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:42:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:

How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.

Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).

And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:20:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> >>>>>> wrote:

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11, >>>>>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott >>>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:

[]

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will >>>>>>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/

[]

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC >>>>>>>

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a >>>>>>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them >>>>>>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..


https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en >>>>>>>

They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.

They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if >>>>>> this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-) >>>>>

Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can?t hold a
veto on improvements forever.

I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).

Sound ?quality? is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.

I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
was interpreted subjectively:
https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/4ea0ae5f-a354-4696-941fa65169afbf54.pdf
There must be a concept of subjective measurement. Remember the
former reference to 'near CD sound quality' was banned as being
misleading.

CD encoding doesn’t use a lossy codec. Anything that does must be inferior, >and is thus objectively poorer. Comparing a superior codec but at a >potentially lower bit rate is fraught with difficulty. All you need to do
is find a panel of 100 listeners. If the first panel doesn’t give the right >answer find another until they do.

I am not disagreeing with this. All I am saying is (1) if they can
interpret 'near' as in 'near CD quality' there should be a method of interpreting 'superior' as in one compared to another; (2) if Global
makes a public promise on-air of improved sound quality and large
numbers of listeners disagree this could be damaging reputationally.

How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:42:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:

How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.

Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).

And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.

At the end of the day Classic FM will want to get the bit rate down, as
this is what they are charged for. If they can compromise by reducing it a >little rather than a lot, so that their transmissions sound
better then everyone wins.

This is what I expect they will do. I was interested in predictions.
higher than 32kbps (Gold)?

It’s all irrelevant to me though, as adverts
make commercial stations unlistenable, regardless of the bit rate. Times >Radio has reneged on its no adverts but only sponsorship announcements
launch promise.

Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 10:12, Scott wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:26:12 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

On 07/07/2023 20:56, tony sayer wrote:

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

Could they be interested in having a pop-up station for some special
events? Perhaps easier on DAB+ because of the ability to use a lower
bit rate.

I am less cynical. I think they can see a way of cutting trasmission
cost and improving sound quality. I suspect the typical Classic FM
listener is not 'into' pop-up stations.

Global Radio Inc, will be doing this to stick a couple more stations
into the liberated bandwidth.

I suspect a bit rate of 48k for DAB+ , which will allow a couple more at
32-40k ish each

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u8bei7$1ndpl$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

[]

They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)

Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a
veto on improvements forever.

Equally, you can't impose change too soon, especially if the target
demographic doesn't perceive they're getting anything out of it for the
money they have to spend. (Remember hearing drops off with age - I was
shocked to discover mine's only about 8 kHz, as I've not noticed
anything and never frequented places that might damage it; however, I
have discovered that's not unusual for my age [63]. Yes, I know there's
more to it than just frequency range. But I suspect a lot of Classic
FM's listenership - at least the ones who would complain! - are older
than for some stations.)

I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound

Of course not.

quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).

Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make >almost any claim they like in this arena.

In the end, it is indeed - however, there are parameters that _can_ be
measured - frequency range, dynamic range, stereo separation (or
existence!), and so on. I don't know for whatever DAB+ uses (AAC) - or
even DAB (mp2?), but for mp3, I have a table for my own use of at least frequency range vs. bitrate at various sample rates, mono/stereo, and so
on. (Plus at _very_ low bitrates, you get "artefacts" - "birdies" and
the like.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio Times 9-15 March 2013

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:42:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:

How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.

Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of >>>> the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim). >>>>

And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.

At the end of the day Classic FM will want to get the bit rate down, as
this is what they are charged for. If they can compromise by reducing it a >> little rather than a lot, so that their transmissions sound
better then everyone wins.

This is what I expect they will do. I was interested in predictions.
higher than 32kbps (Gold)?

ItÂ’s all irrelevant to me though, as adverts
make commercial stations unlistenable, regardless of the bit rate. Times
Radio has reneged on its no adverts but only sponsorship announcements
launch promise.

Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes :-)

The BBC trailer argument is a bit of a trope. You don’t get Radio4
programmes being suddenly and randomly being interrupted for a programme
trail. Times Radio even tries to bookend its adverts with its own trails.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 15:30:42 +0100, Scott wrote:

I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+. They
are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold is
32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

Where did you hear this and was there an indication of when they are going
to make my Roberts DAB only radio redundant? I've still got a Roberts FM
radio to fall back on.

--
TOJ.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 17:09, The Other John wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 15:30:42 +0100, Scott wrote:

I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+. They
are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold is
32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

Where did you hear this and was there an indication of when they are going
to make my Roberts DAB only radio redundant? I've still got a Roberts FM radio to fall back on.

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 08 Jul 2023 17:57:32 +0100, Brian Gregory wrote:

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-

quality/>

Thanks. I see it's happening in January 2024.

--
TOJ.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/07/2023 18:06, Woody wrote:

On Fri 07/07/2023 15:30, Scott wrote:

I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable.  Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using?  Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the charging basis.

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

Indeed, I have two old DAB radios which won't get DAB+.

--
Clive Page

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 02:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

I would have thought that a lot of people will buy equipment only when
they have to: so they will have bought a digital TV (or digital receiver
for an analogue TV) and maybe a DAB radio, and will use it until either
it fails or it becomes obsolete. My mother bought a DAB radio soon after
DAB broadcasts began, partly because she couldn't get interference-free
FM reception next to her PC and monitor, and kept it until earlier this
year when it finally failed. And she was able to replace it with an
identical, second-hand one.

If TV and radio stop broadcasting the channels that a viewer/listener
wants in DVB-T or DAB, only then will they upgrade to DVB-T2 or DAB+.
Not everyone upgrades as soon as a new standard is released - unless
they have to to receive something that's not available on the old standard.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 11:42, Tweed wrote:

Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make almost any claim they like in this arena.

Can't it be quantified in some way, like the THD (total harmonic
distortion) figures that you used to see quoted for analogue hifi equipment.

Maybe some sort of RMS difference signal between original signal and
received signal (after bit-starved compression).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 13:42, Mark Carver wrote:

Global Radio Inc, will be doing this to stick a couple more stations
into the liberated bandwidth.

I suspect a bit rate of 48k for DAB+ , which will allow a couple more at 32-40k ish each

That was my suspicion - more stations mean more adverts but higher
quality will not bring in more people to inflict with adverts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 13:40, Scott wrote:

Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes 😄

THey are not as annoying as adverts, many of which seem to be designed
to annoy the listener or viewer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/07/2023 17:09, The Other John wrote:

Where did you hear this and was there an indication of when they are going
to make my Roberts DAB only radio redundant? I've still got a Roberts FM radio to fall back on.

Have you checked whether it is DAB+ compatible? many are already.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 09:09:17 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

On 08/07/2023 13:40, Scott wrote:

Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes ?

THey are not as annoying as adverts, many of which seem to be designed
to annoy the listener or viewer.

That's my opinion as well. I record and then skip over all advertising
breaks. The few that I can't skip like "sponsored by" are negative to
me because I never buy the product that is being sponsored.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 09 Jul 2023 09:13:16 +0100, MB wrote:

Have you checked whether it is DAB+ compatible? many are already.

It is unlikely as it is a very early model.

--
TOJ.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

Its rubbish really since they just moved their freeview channel into Mono. Obviously not so convinced that all of this is not just a money making ploy. So, I guess I will soon have to finally dump my old pure DAB radio then.
Brian

Of course it is a money making ploy. Every commercial company makes
decisions based on increasing their profits (or decreasing their losses).
At the most cynical level they’ve probably decided that those too poor or tight to replace their old radios aren’t of interest to their advertisers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Its rubbish really since they just moved their freeview channel into Mono. Obviously not so convinced that all of this is not just a money making ploy. So, I guess I will soon have to finally dump my old pure DAB radio then.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:1s7gai9ke272kve1do8ldnjk6q7no9m1at@4ax.com...

I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

As with all transmission formats, there is always a trade off of some kind
of course. I guess we all will go back to FM then.
I find quite a lot of DAB can sound what I would almost call cassette like. I'm sure you all recall that when tape stretched the two channels had minute but audible phase changes, like it was being reflected from a rotating fan.
That is what a lot of DAB is and always has been like since about 2001,
when some radio 2 transmissions of concerts was very good. I suspect these
days they just make things sound acceptable and leave it at that. However classical, and some of the more middle of the road music could benefit from more dynamic range. It seems record producers and radio engineers have forgotten what people want.
Not everyone likes gain riding and massive Radio 1 type brick wall compression.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message news:76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com...

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

On Fri 07/07/2023 15:30, Scott wrote:

I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor >>signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
charging basis.

I realise this but they are claiming superior sound quality. Unless
they can substantiate this, and only a minority of listeners benefit,
I think there could be trouble with Ofcom.

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number: https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
I assume cars with DAB will have it because it is used in other
markets.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <j91lai567h17btsrbjsmn3k7lp9br21oj2@4ax.com> at Sun, 9 Jul
2023 11:06:17, Stephen Wolstenholme <stephen.wolstenholme@outlook.com>
writes

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 09:09:17 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

On 08/07/2023 13:40, Scott wrote:

Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes ?

That is indeed arguable! (-:

THey are not as annoying as adverts, many of which seem to be designed
to annoy the listener or viewer.

Are we talking radio only: do you (presumably only after the watershed?)
get gambling adverts on radio? Those are the ones that annoy me most on
TV. (I don't listen to commercial radio.)

That's my opinion as well. I record and then skip over all advertising >breaks. The few that I can't skip like "sponsored by" are negative to
me because I never buy the product that is being sponsored.

There's always the argument that your _awareness_ of those brands is
increased, even if you think the effect is negative. )-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio Times 9-15 March 2013

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On 08/07/2023 11:42, Tweed wrote:

Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make almost any claim they like in this arena.

Can't it be quantified in some way, like the THD (total harmonic
distortion) figures that you used to see quoted for analogue hifi equipment.

Maybe some sort of RMS difference signal between original signal and
received signal (after bit-starved compression).

I bought some cheap UHF radio microphone gear that claimed a S/N ratio
of over 100dB, when I tested it there was very obvious noise behind the
signal and the reverberation tails chopped off into sudden inky
blackness.

I set it up with a signal generator followed by a filter to give a good distortion-free tone, then fed that through some loudspeakers with independently-amplified drive units to give the lowest possible audio distortion. I set the audio level to about 90dB(C). The received
signal was fed into a Radford THD meter.

With a moderate quality electret mic connected to the meter, the total
system distortion and noise was well below 0.5% but through the radio
mic it was around 5%. Monitoring the residual notched signal showed a
huge amont of spurious harmonics and hash, suggesting that it had been
sampled with a low bit rate but heavily compressed and decompressed to
give a fake S/N ratio (the noise being almost zero when there was no
input signal).

The 'distortion' figure of 5% corresponded to a noise level 1/20 of the
signal voltage, which is less than 30dB S/N ratio. This was what my
ears had told me - it sounded like a badly-worn shellac 78 through a
noise gate.

I returned the equipment for a refund, with a copy of my report, and the
seller appeared genuinely shocked: he had sold dozens and nobody else
had noticed anything wrong.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 13:32:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

Are we talking radio only: do you (presumably only after the watershed?)
get gambling adverts on radio? Those are the ones that annoy me most on
TV. (I don't listen to commercial radio.)

I skip over the gambling adverts on TV. A one minute mute and skip
deals with most of them. I feel sorry for the people who are pushed
into gambling though I must admit that I rolled the dice at a casino
once and won a few £. It is difficult to roll dice on my phone but I'm
sure an app is available.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Not everyone likes gain riding and massive Radio 1 type brick wall compression.
Brian

Philips developed a system which sent the zero-axis crossings on a
moderately wide-band pulse link and encoded the amplitude data on a
second link with narrower bandwidth. Apparently the reconstituted voice
signal was easily understandable.

Perhaps R1 has omitted the amplitude information and that is why I can't understand it.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void- invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

On 08/07/2023 17:09, The Other John wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2023 15:30:42 +0100, Scott wrote:

I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+. They
are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold is
32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

Where did you hear this and was there an indication of when they are going >> to make my Roberts DAB only radio redundant? I've still got a Roberts FM
radio to fall back on.

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

MB wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible

I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?

Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated

Sure I checked mine somewhere afterwards and received DAB+.

Both my Pure Evoke and Pure One are awaiting disposal - power socket and
plug broke too many times so got bored with fixing them.

The backlight on mine is clapped-out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 11:56:46 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

Its rubbish really since they just moved their freeview channel into Mono. >> Obviously not so convinced that all of this is not just a money making ploy. >> So, I guess I will soon have to finally dump my old pure DAB radio then.
Brian

Of course it is a money making ploy. Every commercial company makes
decisions based on increasing their profits (or decreasing their losses).
At the most cynical level they’ve probably decided that those too poor or >tight to replace their old radios aren’t of interest to their advertisers.

And of course may be listening on FM anyway.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void- invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/> >>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/07/2023 20:21, Andy Burns wrote:

MB wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible

I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?

Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated

Sure I checked mine somewhere afterwards and received DAB+.

Both my Pure Evoke and Pure One are awaiting disposal - power socket
and plug broke too many times so got bored with fixing them.

The backlight on mine is clapped-out.

DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/07/2023 22:39, Brian Gregory wrote:

DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?

Can't remember now, thought it was free but might be wrong.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/07/2023 20:21, Andy Burns wrote:

The backlight on mine is clapped-out.

Common problem!

I had to change mine - there is someone online who sells them (look as
if recovered from other receivers).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Brian Gregory wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

MB wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible

I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?

Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated

DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?

I would have, if they offered it ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:46:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.

It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual >subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
with metrics .

The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might >provide a clue ?

They should use 128 kbps DAB+ and set a world record then :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.

It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
with metrics .

The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
provide a clue ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:39:08 +0100, Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 09/07/2023 20:21, Andy Burns wrote:

MB wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible

I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?

Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated

Sure I checked mine somewhere afterwards and received DAB+.

Both my Pure Evoke and Pure One are awaiting disposal - power socket
and plug broke too many times so got bored with fixing them.

The backlight on mine is clapped-out.

DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?

I think I paid £10 to upgrade a ONE Mini, which I than had to scrap
because the plastic case was disintegrating.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I do have a more modern Roberts dab, but it does not talk. There is at this time no dab talking radio like there are talking tvs, and thus although the talking pure radio cannot get dab plus, it is still possible to tell what
the stations are even if they are not always the current ones or are spelled out. It cannot be that hard to use a cheap as chips talking module to speak the display. I am now using Amazon Echo for home radio input, but its the
more portable aspect I cannot find an answer to unless one uses a smart
phone.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message news:u8e79u$24ftu$1@dont-email.me...

Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

Its rubbish really since they just moved their freeview channel into
Mono.
Obviously not so convinced that all of this is not just a money making
ploy.
So, I guess I will soon have to finally dump my old pure DAB radio then.
Brian

Of course it is a money making ploy. Every commercial company makes
decisions based on increasing their profits (or decreasing their losses).
At the most cynical level they've probably decided that those too poor or tight to replace their old radios aren't of interest to their advertisers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon 10/07/2023 10:12, Scott wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:46:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.

It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
with metrics .

The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
provide a clue ?

They should use 128 kbps DAB+ and set a world record then :-)

If you recognise that mp2 (DAB) preceded mp3 (which most use) which in
turn preceded m4a (a.k.a. AAC+ and used for DAB+) it perhaps puts them
in perspective?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:55:44 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

On Mon 10/07/2023 10:12, Scott wrote:

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:46:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void- >>>>>> invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.

It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
with metrics .

The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
provide a clue ?

They should use 128 kbps DAB+ and set a world record then :-)

If you recognise that mp2 (DAB) preceded mp3 (which most use) which in
turn preceded m4a (a.k.a. AAC+ and used for DAB+) it perhaps puts them
in perspective?

If you recognise that Eureka-147 (DAB) was designed to be used at 192
kbps to provide high quality sound that could eventually replace FM,
this perhaps puts it in perspective.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had
been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.
Bill

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "wrightsaerials@aol.com" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had

been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.

You must have a very cultured grandson.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.

To me 48k DAB+ does sound better than 128k DAB.
But that's just me. Others will strongly disagree.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 17:39:17 UTC+1, Scott wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "wrights...@aol.com" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:

As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson

had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.

You must have a very cultured grandson.

He does seem to like Classic FM. He has it on in his greenhouse sometimes. He's 13, which is about the age I was when I started to really appreciate the classical lollipops. It was possible to buy 78s from the Methodist church jumble sale for 1/-. (Some
of them were actually 80rpm...)
Bill

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 19:28:39 -0700 (PDT), "wrightsaerials@aol.com" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 17:39:17 UTC+1, Scott wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "wrights...@aol.com"
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:

As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson

had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.

You must have a very cultured grandson.

He does seem to like Classic FM. He has it on in his greenhouse sometimes. He's 13, which is about the age I was when I started to really appreciate the classical lollipops. It was possible to buy 78s from the Methodist church jumble sale for 1/-. (

Some of them were actually 80rpm...)

Could you tell the difference if you played an 80 rpm disc at 78 rpm?

PS Was it Beethoven who said, 'I liked your opera. I think I'll set
it to music'?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 15:07:59 +0100, Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.

To me 48k DAB+ does sound better than 128k DAB.
But that's just me. Others will strongly disagree.

I emailed Global's customer services, who said they had spoken to
technical colleagues and there was nothing they could say at this
stage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 19:28:39 -0700 (PDT), "wrightsaerials@aol.com" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 17:39:17 UTC+1, Scott wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "wrights...@aol.com"
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:

As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to

Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than
normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I
normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with
the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the
journey. You must have a very cultured grandson.

He does seem to like Classic FM. He has it on in his greenhouse

sometimes. He's 13, which is about the age I was when I started to
really appreciate the classical lollipops. It was possible to buy 78s
from the Methodist church jumble sale for 1/-. (Some of them were
actually 80rpm...)

Could you tell the difference if you played an 80 rpm disc at 78 rpm?

Yes, it alters the sound of the instruments and voices by enough to make
them sound 'wrong' to people who have attuned themselves to the
correct-speed version.

Columbias and Regals were all 80 rpm until the 'merger' with HMV, so transcription engineers always check the speed if they were recorded
around that time. After 1931, they were recorded with Blumlein's
cutterhead, which had a tendency to skew the cutting tip in such a way
that one groove wall was cut slightly ahead of the other. Played back
with a stereo cartridge and analysed on an X-Y oscilloscope, the stylus
can be seen to be making circular movements as if the groove had a
helical component. Transcription engineers have to remember to skew the cartridge to cope with this, not only on Columbia-labelled Columbias,
but on some" HMVs" that were, in fact, recorded with Columbia equipment.

In the acoustic recording days,the speed discrepancies were even
greater, Edison Bell Winners were recorded at all sorts of speeds from
about 72 rpm upwards and careful listening is the only guide to the
playback speed.

The French liked to express their individuality, so Pathé discs ran at
90 rpm, had vertical modulation, started from the centre and were dubbed
from giant wax cylinders. When played correctly, they actually sounded amazingly good.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <khfnhvF92fcU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void- invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:

In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus

<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast- >quality/>

Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..

I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.

To me 48k DAB+ does sound better than 128k DAB.
But that's just me. Others will strongly disagree.

It is the option of choice on the few small scale muxes i have a hand in running and depending on the programme source, it can be quite good for
what it is!..
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)