Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
January 2024: >https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-qualit >y/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgradi >ng%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.
In message <obbbiilih740b40rl1ona85i9t2hc9t8c0@4ax.com> at Tue, 10 Oct'Not for me, a friend' :-)
2023 21:03:01, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing >>>to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
January 2024: >>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-qualit >>y/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgradi >>ng%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.
Thanks for that. I'll pass it on to one I know who's a Classic listener.
Well, I'll pass on >https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
.
In message <obbbiilih740b40rl1ona85i9t2hc9t8c0@4ax.com> at Tue, 10 Oct
2023 21:03:01, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing >>>to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
January 2024: >>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-qualit >>y/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgradi >>ng%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.
Thanks for that. I'll pass it on to one I know who's a Classic listener.
Well, I'll pass on https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
For this star a "night on the tiles" means winning at Scrabble - Kathy
Lette
(on Kylie), RT 2014/1/11-17
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
The old longer links than anyone can remember syndrome is well entrenched >these days and as many links are embedded and hence hidden, this appears to >be where the snooping is being carried out. Many are clicking through
several third party sites that just record your details before going on to >the site. Its to get around the cookies rules, and as its not thee company >themselves doing it, any number of cookie choices get ignored on the click >throughs.
I love the way that DAB plus is seen as an upgrade but is often used to get
further coverage without boiling mud from the same bit rate or lower I
guess. A while back a part of an old Bee Gees concert at the BBC was >rebroadcast, and it sounded decidedly gritty and flat with hf smoothing. >Bland might be the description, but I have a CD of the original broadcast in >2001 and its wide dynamic range and good hf and bass make it sound far >better.
Seems to me that BBC are just getting lazy, as they have a medium capable
of far better than they now put out.
Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
sounds like any more.
The old longer links than anyone can remember syndrome is well entrenched these days and as many links are embedded and hence hidden, this appears
to be where the snooping is being carried out. Many are clicking through several third party sites that just record your details before going on
to the site. Its to get around the cookies rules, and as its not thee
company themselves doing it, any number of cookie choices get ignored on
the click throughs. I love the way that DAB plus is seen as an upgrade
but is often used to get further coverage without boiling mud from the
same bit rate or lower I guess. A while back a part of an old Bee Gees concert at the BBC was rebroadcast, and it sounded decidedly gritty and
flat with hf smoothing. Bland might be the description, but I have a CD
of the original broadcast in 2001 and its wide dynamic range and good hf
and bass make it sound far better. Seems to me that BBC are just getting lazy, as they have a medium capable of far better than they now put out.
Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually sounds like any more.
On Tue 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
It set me digging of course. If you want to listen to Classic on your >domestic hifi, unless your hifi is one of these shoe-box units by the
likes of Denon, Yamaha, Teac etc etc, what are you going to do for a
tuner. There are plenty around but many (most) of them are DAB, not DAB+.
Accepted DAB with or without the +) will not sound as good as FM, but
surely it is inevitable that in due course FM will be ceased and
replaced with DAB+ or an even more advanced system. What will FM
listeners do then. Yes, FTTP could be a good alternative but then you
would need a good quality data radio - and there a few of them as well!
On Tue 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are
changing to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
It set me digging of course. If you want to listen to Classic on your domestic hifi, unless your hifi is one of these shoe-box units by the
likes of Denon, Yamaha, Teac etc etc, what are you going to do for a
tuner. There are plenty around but many (most) of them are DAB, not DAB+.
Accepted DAB with or without the +) will not sound as good as FM, but
surely it is inevitable that in due course FM will be ceased and
replaced with DAB+ or an even more advanced system. What will FM
listeners do then. Yes, FTTP could be a good alternative but then you
would need a good quality data radio - and there a few of them as well!
Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.
On 11/10/2023 12:38, Max Demian wrote:
You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
it won't overload the amp.)
My DAB(+) radio has Line Out and I think some previous ones did also.
Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the >telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better >reception.
On 11/10/2023 12:00, charles wrote:
Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.
And the big Radio 2 concert from Leicester which I think was live.
And I think they are doing another series with the BBC Piano shortly.
You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
it won't overload the amp.)
In article <ug5kpt$1nkdl$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff[]
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
and bass make it sound far better. Seems to me that BBC are just getting
lazy, as they have a medium capable of far better than they now put out.
Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
sounds like any more.
Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling theIs this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
reception.
hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
assessment.
You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good
enough for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level
reduction that it won't overload the amp.)
On 11/10/2023 13:35, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:This.
Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling theIs this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
reception.
hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
assessment.
One main difference between analogue and any digital transmission is
that with analogue, the quality is on a sliding scale between "almost
as good as when it left the source" and "Thank goodness I can still
make some sense of this", whereas with digital, you get either perfect >quality or nothing, with a very narrow region where the error
correction can't quite cope. This applies to both audio and video >broadcasting.
I am reminded of a BBC broadcasting house engineer's relief when they
started using digital landline transmission for outside broadcasts. He
was very happy that he no longer had to spend time tuning EQ and
faffing with settings to reproduce the original sound. With digital, if
he could hear the signal, he knew it was as good as when it left the
source.
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 12:38, Max Demian wrote:
You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough >>> for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
it won't overload the amp.)
My DAB(+) radio has Line Out and I think some previous ones did also.
Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the >>telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better >>reception.
Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
assessment.
In message <5af1a1e063charles@candehope.me.uk> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
11:00:02, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> writes
In article <ug5kpt$1nkdl$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff >><brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:[]
I think Brian was saying that the transmission medium is being (ab)usedand bass make it sound far better. Seems to me that BBC are just getting >>> lazy, as they have a medium capable of far better than they now put out. >>> Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually >>> sounds like any more.
Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.
in such a way that what comes out isn't adequate quality, rather than >anything to do with whether the source is "live" or not.
In message <me5diiptm9fqgf3a7m5urna1gpu2qophnn@4ax.com> at Wed, 11 Oct[snip]
2023 13:35:17, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 12:38, Max Demian wrote:
You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough >>>> for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that >>>> it won't overload the amp.)
My DAB(+) radio has Line Out and I think some previous ones did also.
Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the >>>telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I >>>suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better >>>reception.
A _good_ FM signal is of more than adequate quality for most purposes. A >_good_ DAB signal can be better - _if_ the broadcaster has used
sufficient bits.
Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other >processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)
In the early days, no processing was done - certainly at the consumer
end - because there just wasn't the processing power; the electronics in
a CD player was just about up to the task of decoding (error-correcting)
the data stream off the CD. Thus "digital" came to mean excellent (full
16 bit stereo unprocessed) quality.
*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made
from the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression
or other processing.
(OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24 bits
are used.
I found even NICAM was good.)
In the early days, no processing was done - certainly at the
consumer end - because there just wasn't the processing power; the electronics in a CD player was just about up to the task of
decoding (error-correcting) the data stream off the CD. Thus
"digital" came to mean excellent (full 16 bit stereo unprocessed)
quality.
Unfortunately, when electronics progressed to the level that mp2
(and later mp3 and others) decoding was practical at the consumer
end, what was still "digital" gained the _capability_ of being,
basically, grotty. In the early days, it was a matter of storage
costs (how many songs you could get into an mp3 player's memory)
as much as radio transmission costs, though the latter soon became
dominant. Basically, "digital" nowadays rarely means "CD quality",
though much confusion between the two exists - some of it I'm sure deliberate.
*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other processing.
In message <ug61em$1q4k6$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:38:00,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
[]
You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. ThisIn theory, an impedance mismatch could skew the frequency response,
should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good
enough for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level
reduction that it won't overload the amp.)
though that way round - low impedance output feeding higher impedance
input - probably marginal if at all. Certainly the other way round can, though (one of the reasons ceramic pickups got a worse recognition than
they deserve - sure, magnetic _are_ better, but ceramic OK if properly
loaded [and by something that can take their huge output!]).
In article <gaQIyeloLqJlFwjG@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made
from the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression
or other processing.
Certainly it will measure significantly better that's true. In the
early days of CD before ~1988 my friends and I thought CD players
were unpleasant to listen to. Brash, harsh lacking involvement were
the comments of the day.
That changed for me/us when Meridian produced the 207 later bettered
by the 208. At that point, provided you had a recording that was well
made, CD became unbeatable. Though having said that, I understand and sympathise to some degree with people who still prefer Vinyl, it
still does have a comfortable presentation. To 'prefer' is not to say
"better than"!
Due I suspect to fewer and fewer people having any experience of
vinyl and of those that do, far fewer still have ever heard good
vinyl played on a good system. Indeed, the abomination of the USB
turntable now available adds to this problem by being truly awful.
Very, very few people have any idea how good vinyl with all it's
faults and user hassle can actually sound and it does piss me off
when folks wax about how awful vinyl is when in fact that is their
false perception due to lack of experience. By all means slag it off
for hassle and lack of practicality and even price, good vinyl repro
is expensive.
Ironically, hassle and practicality have now killed off CD for me. I
now stream all of my music from flac files stored on a NAS.
(OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24 bits
are used.
I wouldn't claim that particularly but it's interesting to try it. CD
quality done right is really good enough even though it can be
bettered. Having said that, I have this week purchased a new
recording of Mozart's Mass in C minor which is 24 bits and 192K
sample rate.
I found even NICAM was good.)
Yes, so did I but to some extent it's about what your reference for
broadcast sound was at the time. What we compared it against.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:[]
[...]
*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
processing.
The industry fell apart and record companies couild no longer afford to >employ top-quality engineers, so the majority of the public now believes
that the over-compressed rubbish churned out by 99% of the music
industry is how recordings should sound.
CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did - but very
few of the later commercial ones do.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]
*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
processing.
That is the main factor behind the CD v. Analogue sound argument. The equipment necessary to produce and market analogue recordings was only
found in established recording studios and only experienced recording engineers were employed to use it. To get analogue recordings to sound
good, the recording engineer needed a wide range of skills acquired over
a long period of apprenticeship.
When CDs came in, a new skill set was needed in addition to the existing skills of a recording engineer. Many people who had digital skills but lacked the artistic skills, and some of the technical ones, joined the industry. The major companies were under great pressure to remaster
their repertoire digitally, so they couldn't afford to be fussy about
who they employed to get the job done. This was the point where the
public began to realise that some re-issues didn't sound as good as the originals.
The technology became cheaper and more available as consumer items, so
soon every cloth-eared numbskull who could work a keyboard became a 'recording engineer'. All sorts of special effects and exotic
processing became available in software - and having been purchased,
they had to be used on every possible occasion. Those keyboard
operators who couldn't originate recordings took existing recordings and messed them up under the guise of re-mastering (and nowadays
'sampling'). Instead of correcting faults in the analogue chain, the recordings were digitised and then processed in software to disguise the faults (and create a whole lot of different faults).
The industry fell apart and record companies couild no longer afford to employ top-quality engineers, so the majority of the public now believes
that the over-compressed rubbish churned out by 99% of the music
industry is how recordings should sound.
CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did - but very
few of the later commercial ones do.
I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause distortion.
I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.
I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for hi-fi >magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in parallel. I don't
know whether this would work.
In message <1qig31a.m5idh8ofd52kN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:08:10, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:[]
[...]
*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
processing.
The industry fell apart and record companies couild no longer afford toThat's why I referred to "the same masters" and "not compression or
employ top-quality engineers, so the majority of the public now believes
that the over-compressed rubbish churned out by 99% of the music
industry is how recordings should sound.
CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did -Â but very
few of the later commercial ones do.
other processing". I still submit that CD is better, if only on dynamic
range basis - but the mastering requires skills, some of which are
analogue.
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.
This was the point where the public began to realise that some
re-issues didn't sound as good as the originals.
so the majority of the public now believes that the over-compressed
rubbish churned out by 99% of the music industry is how recordings
should sound.
CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did - but
very few of the later commercial ones do.
IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!
In message <ug6il4$1tss0$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:31:35,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
[]
I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause distortion.
Yes, but driving line inputs from headphone outputs is more low->high,
which is usually more forgiving.
I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.
Yes; since they (ceramics) generally _were_ used in lower cost
equipment, and their natural characteristic _approximates_ what is
required, I don't _think_ I've ever heard of one being used with
circuitry that genuinely give proper RIAA flatness. (Liz - have you?)
I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for hi-fi >magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in parallel. I don't
know whether this would work.
In series, I think. They have high output impedances - higher than the
input impedance of most solid-state circuitry in the '60s and '70s. More suited to valve kit.
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[...]
IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!
Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is removed.
I had this "second harmonic is more musical" argument put to me by a
triode pre-amp enthusiast, so I loaned him my intermodulation meter. He measured all sorts of things with it, but he never told me the outcome
of his pre-amp measurements.
Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is not
as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
assessment.
IIRC correctly
In article <1qiggmp.wu7av0r45nggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[...]
IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!
Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is removed.
was that what was called "musicality"?
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
In message <ug6il4$1tss0$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
17:31:35, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
[]
I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause distortion.
Yes, but driving line inputs from headphone outputs is more
low->high, which is usually more forgiving.
I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.
Yes; since they (ceramics) generally were used in lower cost
equipment, and their natural characteristic approximates what is
required, I don't think I've ever heard of one being used with
circuitry that genuinely give proper RIAA flatness. (Liz - have
you?)
Not exactly. There was a neat little one-transistor (BC109) pre-amp
design in Wireless World some time in the late 1960s that made a
passable job of correcting the deficiencies of ceramic cartridges. I
built one and was pleasantly surprised at the results it gave, but I
had no way of measuring it.
I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for
hi-fi magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in
parallel. I don't know whether this would work.
In series, I think. They have high output impedances - higher than
the input impedance of most solid-state circuitry in the '60s and
'70s. More suited to valve kit.
I think the parallel resistor was to load it so as to give a
6dB/octave bass attenuation that got rid of the built-in
equalisation, then feed it at low level into an RIAA equalisation
stage (which was intended for a moving iron cartridge) and
re-equalise it more correctly.
The series resistor was used in the Mullard valve pre-amp to give a
high impedance which allowed the cartridge to do its own
equalisation. In the 'ceramic cartridge' position of the selector
switch, the RIAA network was switched out of the feedback loop. The
input stage of that pre-amp was a virtual-earth configuration around
an EF86 so, without the series input resistor, the feedback current
would have presented a low impedance to the cartridge. They sort-of
explain it in the manual. but not very clearly.
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[...]
IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!
Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is removed.
I had this "second harmonic is more musical" argument put to me by a
triode pre-amp enthusiast, so I loaned him my intermodulation meter. He measured all sorts of things with it, but he never told me the outcome
of his pre-amp measurements.
Accepted DAB with or without the +) will not sound as good as FM, but
surely it is inevitable that in due course FM will be ceased and
replaced with DAB+ or an even more advanced system. What will FM
listeners do then. Yes, FTTP could be a good alternative but then you
would need a good quality data radio - and there a few of them as well!
On 11/10/2023 21:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[...]
IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that >> it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!
Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is removed.
I had this "second harmonic is more musical" argument put to me by a
triode pre-amp enthusiast, so I loaned him my intermodulation meter. He measured all sorts of things with it, but he never told me the outcome
of his pre-amp measurements.
The way I heard it was that with the valve amps, the first harmonic in
the distortion that was not musically related to the fundamental was
above most people's hearing range, while with transistors in class B,
the first unrelated harmonic was well within the audible range.
In effect, valve distortion showed up as an extra note in the chord, and
so "fitted in". Transistor distortion clashed, so your ear noticed it a
lot more.
*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)
(Anything shot on the larger formats -
70mm, IMAX, etc. - is probably _still_ better than can _practically_ be achieved.) Ditto _large_-format old stills - big glass plates etc. -
though digital is catching up. (IMO, it's already too big for general
use.) In _some_ circumstances, film _can_ also arguably have a greater dynamic range - though, ironically, to actually _see_ the shadow or peak detail in it, it's a lot easier to use a digital scan!
On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:39:20 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)
Agreed. I love CDs, they are magnificent. I am always suspicious of people who >claim that to truly replicate the experience of vinyl you need 24 bit
96 kHz lossless
A few months back I did some tinkering with audacity to see what they effect of
various upper frequency limits had on a few pieces of music I know
well. Turns out
there is precious little audio in those upper frequncy bands, say over
16 kHz, and if
it was there or not really didn't provide any extra enjoyment to me. 16 bit is >perfectly fine!
I'm not against vinyl, btw; horses for courses, innit?!
I saw Oppenheimer in 70 mm IMAX (proper IMAX, not the little one) and the image
was gorgeous. But: The flicker was still apparent in some places, the
projection
had dust and dirt in it (not much, but noteable when it was there), and
the screen,
being humongous, was actually too big for comfort. Felt like I was way
too close.
Also the sound was ear-splittingly loud and because the auditorium was >relatively
shallow it did sound like there was some distortion from inadequate sound >damping. I'd like to think if they turned it down a little bit it would
have been fine.
The moving images from the big digital sensor movie cameras are unbeatable, >IMO. But I do wonder if exposing digital movies to analogue film for long-term >storage might be a good idea? Certainly what I worry about with my
digital photo's
when I do occasionally worry about that :)
</tangent>(-:
On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s andI reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
played it in the disco.
In message <1611197e-edc7-4158-af30-11aa33db8d30n@googlegroups.com> at<Grin>It's the only way to get the full quality of the surface noise and
Fri, 13 Oct 2023 05:55:37, David Paste <pastedavid@gmail.com> writes
Agreed. I love CDs, they are magnificent. I am always suspicious of
people who
claim that to truly replicate the experience of vinyl you need 24 bit
96 kHz lossless
(I hadn't heard that particular wrinkle!)
[]
<Grin>It's the only way to get the full quality of the surface noise and
the stylus and cartridge distortions.
I use it when restoring the sound on all analogue recordings, as it
gives the programs more information to work with, which gives better
results.
Certainly most of what's on YouTube has a very sharp cutoff at (or very
close to) 16 kHz anyway: when discussing why recently (I think here),
someone said that's the default setting for some common piece of capture software. It's actually surprising how much material has nothing over
10-12 kHz, let alone 16 - and some under 6!
Beware though - when did you last do a simple swept-sine test of where
your hearing rolls off? I was quite surprised how low mine was last time
I tried.
So now, I definitely use the spectrogram (in GoldWave - I
bought it before Audacity came out, and got used to it; I believe
Audacity does much the same) before limiting a file. (Sure, the file
won't sound any different to me, but might to anyone I give it to.)
Maybe would have been better with more people - was it half empty?
Ah, the old paper prints at the NFI ...
I think digital even for
archiving (of digital material, at least) is better, but someone does
have to copy it occasionally, so the error-correcting can make a fresh
copy. (Not to mention format obsolescence.)
Beware though - when did you last do a simple swept-sine test of where
your hearing rolls off? I was quite surprised how low mine was last time
I tried.
Another thing to beware of: for anything with a significant amount of
surface noise (especially 78s) or tape hiss, applying low pass can make
it _seem_ to sound duller. It's only if you apply high-pass instead to
_see_ if there's actually anything there that you see.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:06:46 +0100, John Williamson ><johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s andI reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in >>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I >>played it in the disco.
Was it not the role of the DJ to act as sound engineer and balance the
levels :-)
On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:21:52 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Certainly most of what's on YouTube has a very sharp cutoff at (or very
close to) 16 kHz anyway: when discussing why recently (I think here),
someone said that's the default setting for some common piece of capture
software. It's actually surprising how much material has nothing over
10-12 kHz, let alone 16 - and some under 6!
Yeah, it's part of the MPEG standard to do that apparently. Any further >detail I
cannot give. I feel that yes, we may have discussed this before! I tend
to download
the .webm files from YouTube as they do not have this roll-off applied. >Either way,
they usually sound good.
Beware though - when did you last do a simple swept-sine test of where
your hearing rolls off? I was quite surprised how low mine was last time
I tried.
It was at the same time, a few months back. I was surprised by how high
mine is,
up to about 17 kHz. BUT! I was just using single tone samples of
whether or not I
could hear them, so absolutley unsophisticated. I could hear 20 kHz played >through the desktop speakers either side of my PC monitor if it was played loud
enough, but it was quite unpleasant, and I have no idea if it was
actually 20 kHz or
some sort of distortion artefact.
So now, I definitely use the spectrogram (in GoldWave - I
bought it before Audacity came out, and got used to it; I believe
Audacity does much the same) before limiting a file. (Sure, the file
won't sound any different to me, but might to anyone I give it to.)
I don't bother limiting any files, why do you do it? (just curious)
Maybe would have been better with more people - was it half empty?
It was, yes, but the bottom rows of seats because they are basically >impossible to
watch a full IMAX film from that angle. But I have been in the same >auditorium two
other times: one for another (digital) film which was packed and the sound was
equally as bad; and one which was a demo film of the capabilities of IMAX which
was practically empty but the sound was good! However that one made me feel >quite sick during the rollercoaster scenes!
Ah, the old paper prints at the NFI ...
I don't know anything about them!
I think digital even for
archiving (of digital material, at least) is better, but someone does
have to copy it occasionally, so the error-correcting can make a fresh
copy. (Not to mention format obsolescence.)
Yeah, it seems a bit like plate spinning at times!
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:06:46 +0100, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s andI reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in >>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
played it in the disco.
Was it not the role of the DJ to act as sound engineer and balance the
levels :-)
On 13/10/2023 15:31, Scott wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:06:46 +0100, John WilliamsonWe did, by meter as well as by ear, but even the sound level meters were >reading the same.
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s andI reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in >>>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
played it in the disco.
Was it not the role of the DJ to act as sound engineer and balance the
levels :-)
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
On 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Overnight Bauer have moved their rival station Scala to DAB+.
It's running at 40kb/s, so there's a possible clue to what Global will
select for Classic FM
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:43:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Overnight Bauer have moved their rival station Scala to DAB+.
It's running at 40kb/s, so there's a possible clue to what Global will
select for Classic FM
And how would you say - subjectively and practically - this would
compare with the present DAB bitrate of 128 kbps?
On 16/10/2023 09:32, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:43:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing >>>> to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Overnight Bauer have moved their rival station Scala to DAB+.
It's running at 40kb/s, so there's a possible clue to what Global will
select for Classic FM
And how would you say - subjectively and practically - this would
compare with the present DAB bitrate of 128 kbps?
Dunno, not taken a proper listen yet
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 14:17:28 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/10/2023 09:32, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 08:43:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing >>>>> to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Overnight Bauer have moved their rival station Scala to DAB+.
It's running at 40kb/s, so there's a possible clue to what Global will >>>> select for Classic FM
And how would you say - subjectively and practically - this would
compare with the present DAB bitrate of 128 kbps?
Dunno, not taken a proper listen yet
Unsurprisingly, if it doesn't start till January :-)
It's such hard work on Usenet these days, what I mean is I've not had a >chance to listen to Scala at 40k DAB+ yet, as I say that will give a
clue (given the programme material is similar to Classic) how Classic at
40k might sound.
[If you're wondering why I don't tell yt-dlp to just get the
audio, (a) I sometimes want to keep the video too
How old are you?
Sometimes if it's pulsed, you actually hear the start and stop
clicks.
And/or, the background hiss/hum/whatever can change if the PSU
is being loaded by something you can't hear, and you hear that
change instead.
Ah, I'd thought people might have a deadening effect.
Was it 3D (polarizing spec's)? [Do they even do those in IMAX?]
(They don't work for me - I don't have binocular vision; both
my eyes work fine, I just never developed the brain pathways to
use both together.)
[snip] to make paper prints of their films in order to protect
them. So there are (or were) rolls of paper in the vault.
[snip] I'm hoping the Wolverine improves before I buy one.)
One of my stereos is a little Panasonic DVD home theatre thing
with a cooling fan which rarely kicks in but the other day when
I was testing some bass frequencies at a low level it switched on
almost immediately. Made me wonder if the fan reacts to
temperature or is set to just switch on when a pre-calculated
level of power is used. Probably the latter.
How old are you?
44. I was surprised by the tones (I did a few DIY tests this week
as well, all pretty much the same with a variety of
headphones/speakers) but I do recall seemingly having “sensitive”
ears all my life, and I’ve always taken care of my ears if only
because anything too loud is physically uncomfortable even when
no one else seems bothered.
And/or, the background hiss/hum/whatever can change if the PSU
is being loaded by something you can't hear, and you hear that
change instead.
One of my stereos is a little Panasonic DVD home theatre thing
with a cooling fan which rarely kicks in but the other day when
I was testing some bass frequencies at a low level it switched on
almost immediately. Made me wonder if the fan reacts to
temperature or is set to just switch on when a pre-calculated
level of power is used. Probably the latter.
Ah, I'd thought people might have a deadening effect.
Often, they do. :D
Was it 3D (polarizing spec's)? [Do they even do those in IMAX?]
Yes, the roller coaster demo film was indeed 3D. I am a bit torn
by it to be honest. It was impressive for what it was, but the
glasses were uncomfortable, and when I remember it, I don’t
actually remember the 3D as plays back in my mind. I don’t really
care for 3D film, really. Can’t see the poiint. I saw a Star Wars
film in 3D, again, I remember very little about the 3D-ness of
it. It wasn’t a great film, tbh.
(They don't work for me - I don't have binocular vision; both
my eyes work fine, I just never developed the brain pathways to
use both together.)
There is a photographer on YouTube who has the same! Do you see
two distinct images, or does one eye take a dominant role over
the other?
[snip] I'm hoping the Wolverine improves before I buy one.)
The Wolverine? A skilled animal?!
At least it works for you! As, probably, do those dotty
pictures that were popular in the '70s-'90s.
[snip] they're now about 8" [right] and two or three feet
[left] without reading glasses: one of them used to be very
close).
One of the few devices available for home-digitisation of cine
film [snip]
Ah! I see! I have seen similar home-brew things talked about on
the PetaPixel website. Interesting stuff. This is a bit of a
long-shot: have you ever seen a movie shot on 35mm Kodachrome
(preferably 64 or lower)?
David Paste <pastedavid@gmail.com> wrote in news:e0e936cd-39c8-4470-a93c- >1b6554f1c60en@googlegroups.com:
Ah! I see! I have seen similar home-brew things talked about on
the PetaPixel website. Interesting stuff. This is a bit of a
long-shot: have you ever seen a movie shot on 35mm Kodachrome
(preferably 64 or lower)?
If you were going to shoot on 35mm, ANY reversal would be a long way from
the list of stocks that you would want to use - 16mm was OK for news(far
less time in the soup) and not much more.
If you were going to shoot on 35mm, ANY reversal would be a long way from
the list of stocks that you would want to use - 16mm was OK for news(far
less time in the soup) and not much more.
Forgive my ignorance, but how would you project any film in a cinema
that is not reversal film?
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:45:43 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
David Paste <pastedavid@gmail.com> wrote inForgive my ignorance, but how would you project any film in a cinema
news:e0e936cd-39c8-4470-a93c- 1b6554f1c60en@googlegroups.com:
Ah! I see! I have seen similar home-brew things talked about on
the PetaPixel website. Interesting stuff. This is a bit of a
long-shot: have you ever seen a movie shot on 35mm Kodachrome
(preferably 64 or lower)?
If you were going to shoot on 35mm, ANY reversal would be a long way
from the list of stocks that you would want to use - 16mm was OK for >>news(far less time in the soup) and not much more.
that is not reversal film?
On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 14:45:46 UTC+1, A N Source wrote:
If you were going to shoot on 35mm, ANY reversal would be a long way
from the list of stocks that you would want to use - 16mm was OK for
news(far less time in the soup) and not much more.
Granted, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been tried!
Forgive my ignorance, but how would you project any film in a cinema
that is not reversal film?
On 27/10/2023 14:49, Scott wrote:
Forgive my ignorance, but how would you project any film in a cinemaCinemas always use prints, and do not project the original. Unless the transfer goes wrong, the negative (or reversal footage) from the
that is not reversal film?
camera is only ever projected once when shooting a TV series or
feature film, all else is at least one generation removed.
In the case of TV news footage (as mentioned elsethread), the negative
is processed and scanned, often while still wet, using a scanner which
can produce a positive image direct from the negative. This could be
done as soon as they found a way to transmit filmed images on the TV.
This is then recorded for later playback.
On Sunday, 22 October 2023 at 17:10:12 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
At least it works for you! As, probably, do those dotty
pictures that were popular in the '70s-'90s.
“Magic Eye” images… yep, love(d) â€em! Same with stereographs.
[snip] they're now about 8" [right] and two or three feet
[left] without reading glasses: one of them used to be very
close).
Interesting! Do you drive? Are you aware of how you judge
distances or speeds? (Sorry to be nosey, I’m just interested!)
One of the few devices available for home-digitisation of cine
film [snip]
Ah! I see! I have seen similar home-brew things talked about on
the PetaPixel website. Interesting stuff. This is a bit of a
long-shot: have you ever seen a movie shot on 35mm Kodachrome
(preferably 64 or lower)?
16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the[]
In message <XnsB0AAA01445DC9rootgmailcom@81.171.91.128> at Fri, 27 Oct
2023 14:44:12, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> writes
[]
16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the[]
By double sprocket, do you mean as used by (standard) 8mm cameras, or
just that it had holes each side?
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in news:g$wNtBDFsPPlFwgp@ >255soft.uk:
In message <XnsB0AAA01445DC9rootgmailcom@81.171.91.128> at Fri, 27 Oct
2023 14:44:12, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> writes
[]
16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the[]
By double sprocket, do you mean as used by (standard) 8mm cameras, or
just that it had holes each side?
"16mm double sprocket" means sprocket holes down both edges (leaving no
room for sound (comopt or stripe), I suppose that in the digital era it
would be possible to cram some digital info in the gaps).
Standard 8 (as I understand it is) is 16mm stock with two sprocket holes
per frame, and was, IIRC, a Kodak Eastman innovation.
Not knowingly;
They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
Scott wrote:
They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
Who's going to hold them to their (subjective) claim?
In message <ok59mi5k5ca5npri975vvu2rhpcnsnsoi6@4ax.com> at Mon, 27 Nov
2023 13:23:49, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:48:28 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Scott wrote:
They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
Who's going to hold them to their (subjective) claim?
Either Ofcom or ASA I believe fined Channel 4 because the adverts were >>louder than the programme. AIUI, the rule was changed from measured to >>subjective volume. >>https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/a5f7af81-2f67-4b79-b04c8ce60130e93d.pdf
Having established the principle of a subjective test, it is a very
short step to saying that that any claim made needs to be
substantiated. Surely advertising yourself is subject to similar rules
to advertising a product?
Even if limited to objective, "better sound quality" cannot be claimed >without substantiation: however discredited, there must exist a table of
"x bits at DAB+ is better than y bits at DAB": without some such, the
claim can surely be "disproved".
On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:48:28 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
Scott wrote:
They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
Who's going to hold them to their (subjective) claim?
Either Ofcom or ASA I believe fined Channel 4 because the adverts were
louder than the programme. AIUI, the rule was changed from measured to >subjective volume. >https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/a5f7af81-2f67-4b79-b04c8ce60130e93d.pdf >Having established the principle of a subjective test, it is a very
short step to saying that that any claim made needs to be
substantiated. Surely advertising yourself is subject to similar rules
to advertising a product?
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
[snip]
Any update on the bitrate to be used from January? They are
repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)? More robust reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
[snip]
Any update on the bitrate to be used from January? They are
repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)? More robust
reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
Is there any technical advantage to the baseband signal carried by DAB+ compared with DAB? Or is DAB+ just a more efficient compression and
coding system so the same subjective quality of baseband signal requires
a lower bitrate and therefore a mux can carry more channels?
On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
[snip]
Any update on the bitrate to be used from January? They are
repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)? More robust
reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
That was unfortunate
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:35:39 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
wrote:
On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
[snip]
Any update on the bitrate to be used from January? They are
repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need >>>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)? More robust
reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped >>> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And >>> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
That was unfortunate
Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
from an Australian site.
Silly question, I thought all new DAB radios had to include DAB.
it possible it will receive DAB+ when this becomes available even if
this is not obvious from the instructions?
On 28/11/2023 10:07, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:35:39 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
wrote:
On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
[snip]
Any update on the bitrate to be used from January? They are
repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need >>>>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)? More robust >>>>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it
stopped
working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one.
And
it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
That was unfortunate
Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
from an Australian site.
Maybe
Silly question, I thought all new DAB radios had to include DAB.
Oh, I think they all do :-)
But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+
it possible it will receive DAB+ when this becomes available even if
this is not obvious from the instructions?
Very, I'd think !
On 28/11/2023 10:07, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:35:39 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
wrote:
On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
[snip]
Any update on the bitrate to be used from January? They are
repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need >>>>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)? More robust >>>>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped >>>> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And >>>> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
That was unfortunate
Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
from an Australian site.
Maybe
Silly question, I thought all new DAB radios had to include DAB.
Oh, I think they all do :-)
But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+
it possible it will receive DAB+ when this becomes available even if
this is not obvious from the instructions?
Very, I'd think !
On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:47:32 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+
Is it something to do with displaying the tick of approval on the box?
Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
from an Australian site.
On 28/11/2023 10:07, Scott wrote:
Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
from an Australian site.
Have you read the FAQ on the Pure website?
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
January 2024: https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgrading%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.
Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
you think the bit rate is ?
So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
you think the bit rate is ?
On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears
what you think the bit rate is ?
Should there be any difference?
I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
Mark Carver wrote:
Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without looking at the
radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what you think the
bit rate is ?
I'll listen next time I'm in the car ...
Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without looking at the
radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what you think
the bit rate is ?
I'll listen next time I'm in the car ...
Well, I had a listen (can't at home as only DAB there isn't DAB+) and
it's certainly "good enough" I'll leave it to Scott to decide if it's "better".
If I was going to say anything, it would be that the presenters do
sssound quite sssibilanty, but then I switched to R3 for comparison and
the same is true there, maybe that's the new reality of back-bedroom broadcasting from home?
On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
you think the bit rate is ?
Should there be any difference?
I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
you think the bit rate is ?
Should there be any difference?
I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what >>>> you think the bit rate is ?
Should there be any difference?
I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just say
I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can see
OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
Replacing 256k MP2 with 24k DAB+
In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what >>>> you think the bit rate is ?
Should there be any difference?
I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just say
I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can see
OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without >>>>> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears
what
you think the bit rate is ?
Should there be any difference?
I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just
say I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can
see OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical? Moi?
I wonder how many Classic FM listeners will be pissed off at the change.
It is an older-age sector of the market. Of all the stations to turn off
DAB, Classic FM has got to be the worst in terms of its listeners being willing to upgrade to a new radio
My mum bought a "new" radio, an identical copy of one from about 15
years ago that she liked but which had eventually failed. She now finds
that it is useless for Classic FM. I think the seller on eBay must have
been rubbing his hands with glee that he'd sold that radio ;-)
Turns out that her Pure Evoke 1S can at least receive FM as an
alternative to DAB. I'm still trying to find a manual for the Grundig
Opus DAB radio that they have in the kitchen, to see whether that is
DAB-only or whether it can get FM as well.
Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without looking at the
radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what you think the
bit rate is ?
I'll listen next time I'm in the car ...
Well, I had a listen (can't at home as only DAB there isn't DAB+) and
it's certainly "good enough" I'll leave it to Scott to decide if it's >"better".
If I was going to say anything, it would be that the presenters do
sssound quite sssibilanty, but then I switched to R3 for comparison and
the same is true there, maybe that's the new reality of back-bedroom >broadcasting from home?
On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without >>>>> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what >>>>> you think the bit rate is ?
Should there be any difference?
I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just say
I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can see
OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically >removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical? Moi?
I wonder how many Classic FM listeners will be pissed off at the change.
It is an older-age sector of the market. Of all the stations to turn off
DAB, Classic FM has got to be the worst in terms of its listeners being >willing to upgrade to a new radio
My mum bought a "new" radio, an identical copy of one from about 15
years ago that she liked but which had eventually failed. She now finds
that it is useless for Classic FM. I think the seller on eBay must have
been rubbing his hands with glee that he'd sold that radio ;-)
Turns out that her Pure Evoke 1S can at least receive FM as an
alternative to DAB. I'm still trying to find a manual for the Grundig
Opus DAB radio that they have in the kitchen, to see whether that is
DAB-only or whether it can get FM as well.
On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined byI was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just
Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
say I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can
see OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically >removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical?
Moi?
Mark Carver wrote:
Replacing 256k MP2 with 24k DAB+
Is that what it was on DAB and is on DAB+?
I was engaging in a bit for sarcasm myself. Anyway, the mystery is
revealed. It's 64 kb/s DAB+ as compared to 128 kb/s DAB. We can debate whether this is an upgrade.
On 02/01/2024 22:12, Scott wrote:
I was engaging in a bit for sarcasm myself. Anyway, the mystery is
revealed. It's 64 kb/s DAB+ as compared to 128 kb/s DAB. We can debate
whether this is an upgrade.
64k is the chosen DAB+ rate for the three BBC local radio stations that
use it. DAB BBC LR uses 128k. (Although that's the 'free' bandwidth
granted to them by Ofcom on the commercial local muxes)
Classic FM has gone [...] to 64k AACv1
Mark Carver wrote:
Classic FM has gone [...] to 64k AACv1
v1 ... is codec price that significant?
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is three
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality
is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
In message <H8acnUHnU7Kl8An4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Tue, 2
Jan 2024 20:08:24, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan >>>2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined byI was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just
Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
say I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can >>>see OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically >>removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical?
Moi?
Or, has teeth but is very unwilling to use them. Which, perhaps, is
something good in a real dog, but not one of the supervisory sort: I'm >thinking of the ASA, whose preferred action is to secure a "we won't run
that advert in that form again" promise, rather than impose _any_
punishment - and are only _re_active (i. e. someone has to complain
before they do anything). IMO, they should be absorbed into the CMA, who
seem to be doing their job much better, and _are_ proactive.
OfCom lost all credibility decades ago. Needs a complete revamp; it's
seen now as an industry spokesman.
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 23:06:16 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:
In message <H8acnUHnU7Kl8An4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Tue, 2 >>Jan 2024 20:08:24, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan >>>>2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined byI was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just >>>>say I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can >>>>see OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically >>>removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical? >>>Moi?
Or, has teeth but is very unwilling to use them. Which, perhaps, is >>something good in a real dog, but not one of the supervisory sort: I'm >>thinking of the ASA, whose preferred action is to secure a "we won't run >>that advert in that form again" promise, rather than impose _any_ >>punishment - and are only _re_active (i. e. someone has to complain
before they do anything). IMO, they should be absorbed into the CMA, who >>seem to be doing their job much better, and _are_ proactive.
OfCom lost all credibility decades ago. Needs a complete revamp; it's
seen now as an industry spokesman.
IME, and this applies across Legal and Financial as well, these
watchdogs are setup to protect the supplier from the consumer and not
the other way around.
On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is threeSo slightly better than a Compact Cassette, then.
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality
is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is threeSo slightly better than a Compact Cassette, then.
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality
is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?
On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John WilliamsonThey all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the >formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is threeSo slightly better than a Compact Cassette, then.
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality >>>> is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?
In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise
on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
artefacts in MP3.
Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
used to sound worse than cassettes, despite having a higher tape speed,
due to the lubrication on the tape,which clogged up the heads, and the >problem of getting the tape speed to stay constant on the endless loop,
not to mention the problems most players had aligning the head every
time it switched between tracks. Top end players had an 8 track fixed
head, cheap ones used a two track head on a moving mount.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is threeSo slightly better than a Compact Cassette, then.
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality
is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:40:39 +0000, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John WilliamsonThey all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is threeSo slightly better than a Compact Cassette, then.
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality >>>>> is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?
formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.
In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise
on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
artefacts in MP3.
Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
used to sound worse than cassettes, despite having a higher tape speed,
due to the lubrication on the tape,which clogged up the heads, and the
problem of getting the tape speed to stay constant on the endless loop,
not to mention the problems most players had aligning the head every
time it switched between tracks. Top end players had an 8 track fixed
head, cheap ones used a two track head on a moving mount.
You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:40:39 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John WilliamsonThey all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is three >>>>>> times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality >>>>>> is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment? >>>>>>So slightly better than a Compact Cassette, then.
That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?
formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.
In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise >>> on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
artefacts in MP3.
Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
used to sound worse than cassettes, despite having a higher tape speed,
due to the lubrication on the tape,which clogged up the heads, and the
problem of getting the tape speed to stay constant on the endless loop,
not to mention the problems most players had aligning the head every
time it switched between tracks. Top end players had an 8 track fixed
head, cheap ones used a two track head on a moving mount.
You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs >decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is threeSo slightly better than a Compact Cassette, then.
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality >>>> is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?
It becomes even more interesting when you add 78s, wax cylinders and digitalpiano and organ rolls to that list. The rolls win hands down if
they are on a good player.
On 03/01/2024 14:36, Woody wrote:
On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
There's also AC/DC where AC refers to mains and DC to (internal) battery.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:36:52 +0000, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>[]
wrote:
On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:40:39 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?
They all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the >>>> formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.
In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise >>>> on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
artefacts in MP3.
Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs >>decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course >>the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
Maybe correctly but I am sure I remember radios marked 'VHF'.
On 03/01/2024 12:58, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is threeSo slightly better than a Compact Cassette, then.
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality >>>> is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?
It becomes even more interesting when you add 78s, wax cylinders and digitalpiano and organ rolls to that list. The rolls win hands down if they are on a good player.
That's cheating as that isn't sound recording. You might as well include reproducing pianos.
In message <1esapilt7lkom15ehsfgck8nvcoet95vc9@4ax.com> at Wed, 3 Jan
2024 14:41:02, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:36:52 +0000, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>[]
wrote:
On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:40:39 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?
In theory, for vinyl, cassettes, and eight-track, there's frequency
range and dynamic range, and that's about it - along with reel-to-reel
for any one given combination of track width and tape speed. If you
allow excessive level, there's also what type of distortion you prefer.
(Also tape type.)
Certainly, for mp3 and reel-to-reel, you have to specify additional >parameters.
They all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the >>>>> formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.
(You have to ask _why_ though. And are they including non-sound-quality >factors in their choice - such as filesize [mp3] or convenience
[cassette vs. record/reel-to-reel]?)
In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly >>>>> similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise >>>>> on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
artefacts in MP3.
(Indeed; personally I find digital artefacts much more intrusive - when
I can hear them at all. But if I can't, I tend to prefer digital.)
Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
Definitely!
[]
Did 8-track always carry four tracks, or did it sometimes carry 8 mono >tracks?
You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it >>>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
"Richness" - another one to go with "musicality"? Or just a synonym for
bass.
It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs >>>decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course >>>the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them >>>but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
Maybe correctly but I am sure I remember radios marked 'VHF'.
Me too.
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:54:27 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 03/01/2024 14:36, Woody wrote:
On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it >>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course >> the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
There's also AC/DC where AC refers to mains and DC to (internal) battery.
I thought AC/DC meant that the radio could operate on either AC or DC
mains (like a vacuum cleaner with a universal motor).
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:54:27 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 03/01/2024 14:36, Woody wrote:
On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it >>>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course >>> the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
There's also AC/DC where AC refers to mains and DC to (internal) battery.
I thought AC/DC meant that the radio could operate on either AC or DC
mains (like a vacuum cleaner with a universal motor).
On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 12:13:43 GMT, nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL)
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 23:06:16 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> >>wrote:
In message <H8acnUHnU7Kl8An4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Tue, 2 >>>Jan 2024 20:08:24, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[]
In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan >>>>>2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by >>>>>> Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just >>>>>say I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can >>>>>see OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically >>>>removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical? >>>>Moi?
Or, has teeth but is very unwilling to use them. Which, perhaps, is >>>something good in a real dog, but not one of the supervisory sort: I'm >>>thinking of the ASA, whose preferred action is to secure a "we won't run >>>that advert in that form again" promise, rather than impose _any_ >>>punishment - and are only _re_active (i. e. someone has to complain >>>before they do anything). IMO, they should be absorbed into the CMA, who >>>seem to be doing their job much better, and _are_ proactive.
OfCom lost all credibility decades ago. Needs a complete revamp; it's >>>seen now as an industry spokesman.
IME, and this applies across Legal and Financial as well, these
watchdogs are setup to protect the supplier from the consumer and not
the other way around.
When I raised a cashback claim on my credit card, I got the distinct >impression that the proceedings were biased in my favour. It was
almost (but not quite): 'We need to wait to see what the other side
say before we uphold your claim'.
achieve the sound quality of a poor cassette recording if they are
recorded and played back on suitable equipment.
78s cen give better quality than the bext analogue tape recordings if
the right material is used for the discs. The BBC changed over to tape
for the convenience of use and editing; discs gave superior sound
quality, but convenience won over quality. There are 78s from the 1890s still in playable condition, how many modern recordings will have
survived and be playable in 128 years time?
CFM is still on FM band, so why not compare analogue with digital under identical conditions?
Woody wrote:
CFM is still on FM band, so why not compare analogue with digital under
identical conditions?
In the car, I've been listening to both Classic FM/DAB and Radio3
FM/DAB, I prefer each station's DAB output (due to FM having more hiss
and less treble).
Thats very odd that, FM and Dabble sound much the same in the car!...
Andy Burns wrote:
In the car, I've been listening to both Classic FM/DAB and Radio3
FM/DAB, I prefer each station's DAB output (due to FM having more hiss
and less treble).
Thats very odd that, FM and Dabble sound much the same in the car!...
Mind you thats to the north of here, closest FM 'mitter for Classic is Peterborough..
Tho the reported signal strength on Classic DAB isn't as good as it once was!..
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is three
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality
is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is three
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality
is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
Note that there are multiple ways to use AAC.
You can get away with (by some unspecified definition of "get away
with") halving the bitrate of AAC, if you use a feature of the newest
version of AAC called "Spectral Band Replication" (SBR) however doing so >limits the quality of the top octave of the reproduced sound.
DAB+ stations that use low bitrates like 40k, 32k and 24k must surely be >using SBR.
Someone said Classic FM are using AACv1 for their new 64k DAB+ which, I >think, means no SBR.
Someone said Classic FM are using AACv1 for their new 64k DAB+ which, I think, means no SBR.
tony sayer wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
In the car, I've been listening to both Classic FM/DAB and Radio3
FM/DAB, I prefer each station's DAB output (due to FM having more hiss
and less treble).
Thats very odd that, FM and Dabble sound much the same in the car!...
I know people generally say cars aren't great places to listen, but
there are times when I'd disagree, e.g. there are several
misheard-lyrics which I actually heard properly when in a car, or
noticing how low bitrate MP3s would "concentrate" on different frequency >bands throughout the course of a song.
Mind you thats to the north of here, closest FM 'mitter for Classic is
Peterborough..
Which ain't too far from these parts, though probably Sutton Coldfield >stronger/closer.
Tho the reported signal strength on Classic DAB isn't as good as it once
was!..
No indication on my car of DAB signal strength in my car (apart from a
red cross when it's too low.)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:36:56 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,169 |