Its looking increasingly like a replacement for the now unusable medium wave since the latter is full of interference frominternet mains adaptors
internet over mains, computers and cheap rubbish phone chargers.
If they cleaned up the sources of interference, then medium wave could be good enough for speech radio, and as I recall form my youth, it was good enough to receive the pirate offshore stations and radio Luxembourg by
night.
At the moment DAB has too many low bit rate stations with massive compression and gritty sounding audio, has managed in just a few short years to make obsolete all DAB Radios except the newest ones and then made the programs rubbish.
Brian
Its looking increasingly like a replacement for the now unusable medium wave since the latter is full of interference frominternet mains adaptors
internet over mains, computers and cheap rubbish phone chargers.
If they cleaned up the sources of interference, then medium wave could be good enough for speech radio, and as I recall form my youth, it was good enough to receive the pirate offshore stations and radio Luxembourg by
night.
At the moment DAB has too many low bit rate stations with massive compression and gritty sounding audio, has managed in just a few short years to make obsolete all DAB Radios except the newest ones and then made the programs rubbish.
On 16/07/2022 10:32, Brian Gaff wrote:
Its looking increasingly like a replacement for the now unusable medium
wave
since the latter is full of interference frominternet mains adaptors
internet over mains, computers and cheap rubbish phone chargers.
If they cleaned up the sources of interference, then medium wave could
be
good enough for speech radio, and as I recall form my youth, it was good
enough to receive the pirate offshore stations and radio Luxembourg by
night.
At the moment DAB has too many low bit rate stations with massive
compression and gritty sounding audio, has managed in just a few short
years
to make obsolete all DAB Radios except the newest ones and then made the
programs rubbish.
I recently got some of the Powerline devices and not noticed any
inteference to anything.
DAB sounds perfectly OK to me and far better than VHF FM in the car.
We do not have any DAB+ services here but most sets have it and the BBC national services and some others continue to use basic DAB.
I cannot remember the last time I used Medium Wave or Long Wave, many
years ago.
Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Its looking increasingly like a replacement for the now unusable medium
wave
since the latter is full of interference frominternet mains adaptors
internet over mains, computers and cheap rubbish phone chargers.
If they cleaned up the sources of interference, then medium wave could
be
good enough for speech radio, and as I recall form my youth, it was good
enough to receive the pirate offshore stations and radio Luxembourg by
night.
At the moment DAB has too many low bit rate stations with massive
compression and gritty sounding audio, has managed in just a few short
years
to make obsolete all DAB Radios except the newest ones and then made the
programs rubbish.
Brian
My DAB radio in the car works just fine. I can get World Service, Times
Radio and Radio5, none of which I can get on FM. Times Radio is a bit hit
and miss as they use a cheap commercial multiplex that doesn't have enough transmitters around the country. If you are at home there's more than
enough high quality Internet feeds.
I cannot remember the last time I used Medium Wave or Long Wave, many
years ago.
I recently got some of the Powerline devices and not noticed any
inteference to anything.
DAB sounds perfectly OK to me and far better than VHF FM in the car.
I cannot remember the last time I used Medium Wave or Long Wave, many
years ago.
The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to
the user, but not for a neighbour.
On 16/07/2022 10:32, Brian Gaff wrote:
Its looking increasingly like a replacement for the now unusable medium wave >> since the latter is full of interference frominternet mains adaptors
internet over mains, computers and cheap rubbish phone chargers.
If they cleaned up the sources of interference, then medium wave could be >> good enough for speech radio, and as I recall form my youth, it was good
enough to receive the pirate offshore stations and radio Luxembourg by
night.
At the moment DAB has too many low bit rate stations with massive
compression and gritty sounding audio, has managed in just a few short years >> to make obsolete all DAB Radios except the newest ones and then made the
programs rubbish.
I recently got some of the Powerline devices and not noticed any
inteference to anything.
DAB sounds perfectly OK to me and far better than VHF FM in the car.
We do not have any DAB+ services here but most sets have it and the BBC >national services and some others continue to use basic DAB.
I cannot remember the last time I used Medium Wave or Long Wave, many
years ago.
Yes but the recent announcement that the bbc are possibly going to axe r4x >will impact the very demographic who listens to it, those on freeview and
dab portable radios, living them only smart phones, most do not have and >Amazon devices tied to the home.
Brian
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary
with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring
details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to
the user, but not for a neighbour.
There can be problems the other way round. Some years ago I put a NAS
box in the spare bedroom out of the way, and connected it to my home
network via a pair of powerline devices. It worked OK until I was using
my laptop and as the battery was running low I powered the laptop with
its charger and the powerline link immediately failed. It restarted when
I turned off the laptop charger. It seems that the OEM charger was
putting interference into the mains sufficient to kill the powerline
carrier.
I think you have answered that point in your last paragraph.
I would have thought for most people an on-line searchable archive
would be far more useful than a station full of random repeats.
In article <taugal$3d1jh$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
I recently got some of the Powerline devices and not noticed any
inteference to anything.
The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to
the user, but not for a neighbour.
DAB sounds perfectly OK to me and far better than VHF FM in the car.
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
on quality.
I cannot remember the last time I used Medium Wave or Long Wave, many
years ago.
Same here now. Can't say that I miss them now the stations I want are on FM and iPlayer.
Jim
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to the user, but not for a neighbour.
There can be problems the other way round. Some years ago I put a NAS
box in the spare bedroom out of the way, and connected it to my home
network via a pair of powerline devices. It worked OK until I was using
my laptop and as the battery was running low I powered the laptop with
its charger and the powerline link immediately failed. It restarted when
I turned off the laptop charger. It seems that the OEM charger was
putting interference into the mains sufficient to kill the powerline
carrier.
As an aside, I eventually ran a long ethernet cable and stopped using
the powerlines. I have also replaced the old laptop with a newer one.
Jim
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
on quality.
In article <tb39v1$90um$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary >>> with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring
details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to >>> the user, but not for a neighbour.
There can be problems the other way round. Some years ago I put a NAS
box in the spare bedroom out of the way, and connected it to my home
network via a pair of powerline devices. It worked OK until I was using
my laptop and as the battery was running low I powered the laptop with
its charger and the powerline link immediately failed. It restarted when
I turned off the laptop charger. It seems that the OEM charger was
putting interference into the mains sufficient to kill the powerline
carrier.
As an aside, I eventually ran a long ethernet cable and stopped using
the powerlines. I have also replaced the old laptop with a newer one.
Jim
I've been using Powerline adaptors quite happily for many years, but
suddenly it didn't work well between rings. It was when I had a charge
point for my EV fitted that this happened. The charger has an internet connection.
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite likely recognise.
On Mon 18/07/2022 12:09, charles wrote:
In article <tb39v1$90um$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary >>>> with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring
details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to >>>> the user, but not for a neighbour.
There can be problems the other way round. Some years ago I put a NAS
box in the spare bedroom out of the way, and connected it to my home
network via a pair of powerline devices. It worked OK until I was using >>> my laptop and as the battery was running low I powered the laptop with
its charger and the powerline link immediately failed. It restarted when >>> I turned off the laptop charger. It seems that the OEM charger was
putting interference into the mains sufficient to kill the powerline
carrier.
As an aside, I eventually ran a long ethernet cable and stopped using
the powerlines. I have also replaced the old laptop with a newer one.
Jim
I've been using Powerline adaptors quite happily for many years, but
suddenly it didn't work well between rings. It was when I had a charge
point for my EV fitted that this happened. The charger has an internet
connection.
It possible also has an invertor of some sort running at high frequency
for efficiency to convert the incoming mains to whatever voltage the
unit uses for charging. I believe something like 90V is common, but for example Tesla and Porsche high power units run at silly levels like 800V
so that the battery can be charged quickly. An invertor should be
filtered so that it doesn't get into the mains, but it can still radiate.
On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 13:31:15 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes but the recent announcement that the bbc are possibly going to axe r4x >> will impact the very demographic who listens to it, those on freeview and
dab portable radios, living them only smart phones, most do not have and
Amazon devices tied to the home.
Brian
I would have thought for most people an on-line searchable archive
would be far more useful than a station full of random repeats.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <taugal$3d1jh$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
I recently got some of the Powerline devices and not noticed any
inteference to anything.
The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary
with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring
details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to
the user, but not for a neighbour.
DAB sounds perfectly OK to me and far better than VHF FM in the car.
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
on quality.
I cannot remember the last time I used Medium Wave or Long Wave, many
years ago.
Same here now. Can't say that I miss them now the stations I want are on FM >> and iPlayer.
For the classical music concerts many fine Internet streams now exist. DAB does the job it was designed for, in car reception, very well. If you start to complain about the number of stations using it you have to decide which
to cull. Based on listenership Radio3 might be on the danger list….
On Mon 18/07/2022 12:41, MB wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money"
and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the
impact
on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people
want to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for
programmes with very few listeners and who want higher quality than
they can quite likely recognise.
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.' OK
DAB is 128K mp2 which is even worse, but put that on a small domestic
radio with a small poor quality loudspeaker and it probably sounds much
the same. Listen to a DAB+ station at the same data rate and you would
hear the difference instantly. Unfortunately there ain't such stations
in the UK - they use 48Kb which is equivalent to mp2 at 128K.
Now go abroad where DAB+ is prevalent at a decent data rate and that too sticks out like a sore thumb!
On 18/07/2022 11:02, Scott wrote:
I think you have answered that point in your last paragraph.
Not sure what that mean? I listen on a range of broadcast and
non-broadcast frequencies and not noticed any interference. Medium Wave
and Long Wave are so useless that I would not notice.
Quality for most is a bit of an irrelevance.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:33:10 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/07/2022 11:02, Scott wrote:
I think you have answered that point in your last paragraph.
Not sure what that mean? I listen on a range of broadcast and
non-broadcast frequencies and not noticed any interference. Medium Wave
and Long Wave are so useless that I would not notice.
What I mean is that Brian's original post referred to interference to
medium wave reception by electronic devices.
If you don't listen to medium wave, it follows you are not well placed
to comment :-)
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
On Mon 18/07/2022 18:08, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 11:33:10 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/07/2022 11:02, Scott wrote:
I think you have answered that point in your last paragraph.
Not sure what that mean? I listen on a range of broadcast and
non-broadcast frequencies and not noticed any interference. Medium Wave >>> and Long Wave are so useless that I would not notice.
What I mean is that Brian's original post referred to interference to
medium wave reception by electronic devices.
If you don't listen to medium wave, it follows you are not well placed
to comment :-)
Don't forget that Brian is a radio amateur so he may not listen to MW
radio but he will be listening to many other frequencies in and around
that band.
On 18/07/2022 11:00, Scott wrote:
I would have thought for most people an on-line searchable archive
would be far more useful than a station full of random repeats.
Give me a station that can be received anywhere, including the car, over
an "on-line searchable archive" any day.
On Mon 18/07/2022 12:09, charles wrote:
In article <tb39v1$90um$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary >>>> with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring
details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to >>>> the user, but not for a neighbour.
There can be problems the other way round. Some years ago I put a NAS
box in the spare bedroom out of the way, and connected it to my home
network via a pair of powerline devices. It worked OK until I was using >>> my laptop and as the battery was running low I powered the laptop with
its charger and the powerline link immediately failed. It restarted when >>> I turned off the laptop charger. It seems that the OEM charger was
putting interference into the mains sufficient to kill the powerline
carrier.
As an aside, I eventually ran a long ethernet cable and stopped using
the powerlines. I have also replaced the old laptop with a newer one.
Jim
I've been using Powerline adaptors quite happily for many years, but
suddenly it didn't work well between rings. It was when I had a charge
point for my EV fitted that this happened. The charger has an internet
connection.
It possible also has an invertor of some sort running at high frequency
for efficiency to convert the incoming mains to whatever voltage the
unit uses for charging. I believe something like 90V is common, but for >example Tesla and Porsche high power units run at silly levels like 800V
so that the battery can be charged quickly. An invertor should be
filtered so that it doesn't get into the mains, but it can still radiate.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
The musical genre is irrelevant, doesn't matter if it's just a bloke in
the pub with a guitar, there is nothing that can replicate live music.
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:59:09 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
On Mon 18/07/2022 12:09, charles wrote:
In article <tb39v1$90um$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
The effect of 'powerline' types of devices is that their impact will vary
with the details of what they are connected to - inc the house wiring >>>> details. So may seem fine in some cases but not other. And may seem OK to
the user, but not for a neighbour.
There can be problems the other way round. Some years ago I put a NAS >>> box in the spare bedroom out of the way, and connected it to my home
network via a pair of powerline devices. It worked OK until I was using >>> my laptop and as the battery was running low I powered the laptop with >>> its charger and the powerline link immediately failed. It restarted when >>> I turned off the laptop charger. It seems that the OEM charger was
putting interference into the mains sufficient to kill the powerline
carrier.
As an aside, I eventually ran a long ethernet cable and stopped using
the powerlines. I have also replaced the old laptop with a newer one.
Jim
I've been using Powerline adaptors quite happily for many years, but
suddenly it didn't work well between rings. It was when I had a charge
point for my EV fitted that this happened. The charger has an internet
connection.
It possible also has an invertor of some sort running at high frequency
for efficiency to convert the incoming mains to whatever voltage the
unit uses for charging. I believe something like 90V is common, but for >example Tesla and Porsche high power units run at silly levels like 800V
so that the battery can be charged quickly. An invertor should be
filtered so that it doesn't get into the mains, but it can still radiate.
Actually they are very simple devices, basically a contactor. The
charger sends mains to the car and the car converts the mains to
whatever voltage the battery needs and the charger in the car controls
the charge rate.
There is a simple low frequency communication between the car and the controller which tells the controller that a car is present so power
can be sent to the car. The controller can also signal to the car how
much power is available so the car can match how much it takes with
how much is available.
Could it be that it*would* be of interest to them but they've never experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:55:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation - >>>> have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
Could it be that it *would* be of interest to them but they've never experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
For classical music I record concerts from Freeview Radio 3 on my Humax, transfer them with USB to my laptop, and use WavePad to edit and
convert them to MP3 which I can play on an MP3 player. I think I've got pretty much all the pieces I want now; there doesn't seem to be much in
the forthcoming Proms season that I need.
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation
- have probably never heard decent music played through a proper
hi-fi system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound
'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
Whilst on hols a few weeks back we visit Arundells, the former home of
Edward Heath, in The Close at Salisbury Cathedral. The first room you
walk into houses his grand piano (Steinway of course) and you could hear music. It was coming from a small and seemingly inconsequential stereo
unit but driving a pair of Quad ESL57 electrostatic loudspeakers - the originals obviously upgraded by Quad at some point. Although not playing
at any appreciable volume the sound quality was stunning.
It followed of course that in his library next door was a set of Quad 34 series preamp/amp/tuner but I couldn't seen any speakers - perhaps why
there was no music in there!
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:55:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation - >>>> have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
Could it be that it *would* be of interest to them but they've never experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
In article <jjls5fF6jd0U5@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells ><hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation
- have probably never heard decent music played through a proper
hi-fi system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound
'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
Chicken and egg situation. If someone has never been to a live orchestral
(or Big Band) concert they have no idea of the sheer impact it makes on
you. Not just a question of loudness, either. Experiencing anything like it >via broadcast or recordings requires good kit. Still doesn't match.
Jim
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite >likely recognise.
In article <jjls5fF6jd0U5@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation
- have probably never heard decent music played through a proper
hi-fi system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound
'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
Chicken and egg situation. If someone has never been to a live orchestral
(or Big Band) concert they have no idea of the sheer impact it makes on
you. Not just a question of loudness, either. Experiencing anything like it via broadcast or recordings requires good kit. Still doesn't match.
On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like >>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the
money" and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the
impact
on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want >>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
likely recognise.
What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
And DABSWTFM means....?
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and >>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact >>> on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
likely recognise.
What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 10:00:07 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <jjls5fF6jd0U5@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation >>>>> - have probably never heard decent music played through a proper
hi-fi system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound
'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably >>>> never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
Chicken and egg situation. If someone has never been to a live orchestral
(or Big Band) concert they have no idea of the sheer impact it makes on
you. Not just a question of loudness, either. Experiencing anything like it >> via broadcast or recordings requires good kit. Still doesn't match.
I used to think that the aim of hi-fi was to replicate the experience
of a live performance, and some of the manufacturers' advertising
seemed to be along those lines ("The closest approach to the original sound..."), until a friend once said to me that it should best be
regarded as a *reminder* of what the real thing should sound like,
rather than an attempt to replace it. This makes a lot more sense to
me (and is cheaper too).
As long as the reproduced sound doesn't add any extraneous artefacts
that clearly could not be part of the music, it doesn't matter if it
doesn't have the full power or dynamic range or frequency range to
convince you that you are really there, any more than an album of
photographs can be expected to convince you that you are still on
holiday. If it's a good enough reminder of the occasion it can still
give you the pleasure of remembering what it was like.
But in order to be reminded of something you first need the real
experience of the thing you are to be reminded of, otherwise your
knowledge of it will only ever be secondhand. So go to live concerts
when you get the chance, and then enjoy your hi-fi.
On 19/07/2022 08:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Could it be that it*would* be of interest to them but they've never
experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
That was the great thing about John Peel, you could be listening one
minute to some jazz then pop music followed by classical.
I remember once hearing an American "expert" on broadcasting being interviewed, he said that a station needs to increase their listening
figures then they should reduce their playlist! Perhaps explains a lot
about commercial radio!
On 19/07/2022 09:57, MB wrote:
On 19/07/2022 08:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Could it be that it*would* be of interest to them but they've never
experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
That was the great thing about John Peel, you could be listening one
minute to some jazz then pop music followed by classical.
I remember once hearing an American "expert" on broadcasting being
interviewed, he said that a station needs to increase their listening
figures then they should reduce their playlist! Perhaps explains a lot
about commercial radio!
I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for quantity,
so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.
On 18/07/2022 21:26, Mark Carver wrote:
The musical genre is irrelevant, doesn't matter if it's just a bloke in
the pub with a guitar, there is nothing that can replicate live music.
Good live music but unfortunately most live music is not. I had to
listen twice today to someone with an accordion as I passed through a
local underpass. Then someone in the main square. They might have been live but would have preferred to not to have to listen to them.
On 19/07/2022 12:35, Woody wrote:
On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like >>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the
money" and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the
impact
on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people
want
to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite >>>> likely recognise.
What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
And DABSWTFM means....?
DAB Is Worse Than FM
Buskers are all very well, but amplifiers and recorded accompaniment
should be banned.
On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like >>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and >>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact >>>> on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want >>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
likely recognise.
What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
And DABSWTFM means....?
On 19/07/2022 12:35, Woody wrote:
On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like >>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the
money" and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the
impact
on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want >>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite >>>> likely recognise.
What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
And DABSWTFM means....?
DAB Is Worse Than FM
On 19/07/2022 12:58, SH wrote:
On 19/07/2022 12:35, Woody wrote:
On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things
like
classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the
money" and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the >>>>>> impact
on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people
want
to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes >>>>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can
quite
likely recognise.
What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
And DABSWTFM means....?
DAB Is Worse Than FM
Ah! That's partly why I was confused, should've been DABIWTFM!
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:35:36 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like >>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and >>>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact >>>>> on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want >>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite >>>> likely recognise.
What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
And DABSWTFM means....?
'DAB sounds worse than FM' was a very prolific poster a few years back
with a visceral hatred of DAB.
On 19/07/2022 15:27, Scott wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:35:36 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like >>>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want >>>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes >>>>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite >>>>> likely recognise.
What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
And DABSWTFM means....?
'DAB sounds worse than FM' was a very prolific poster a few years back
with a visceral hatred of DAB.
and he also stated that the BBC actually stood for "Bit Burgling
Cretins" when they were adjusting the bit rates on the BBC radio
stattions on their BBC DAB ensemble.....
That was the great thing about John Peel
Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track
What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
And DABSWTFM means....?
'DAB sounds worse than FM' was a very prolific poster a few years back
with a visceral hatred of DAB.
and he also stated that the BBC actually stood for "Bit Burgling
Cretins" when they were adjusting the bit rates on the BBC radio
stattions on their BBC DAB ensemble.....
I remember when someone suggested DAB sound was okay and he responded
with a link to RNID.
As you get older, your hearing gets worse while the quality of the
equipment you can afford gets better, until there is a crossover and it >doesn't make any difference.
It doesn't seem like the action of a true obsessive simply to give up
or move elsewhere of his own accord having realised that nobody else
shares his obsession, so I wonder if something actually did happen?
Somebody who likes to have the last word would surely realise that by
leaving he would effectively relinquish that honour to somebody else.
Yes, Steve Green. Mostly in the first half of the 00s. Google his nameAnd DABSWTFM means....?'DAB sounds worse than FM' was a very prolific poster a few years back
with a visceral hatred of DAB.
Yes, Steve Green. Mostly in the first half of the 00s. Google his name
and 'DAB' and you'll dig out a lot of his musings, on usenet and elsewhere
I remember thoses, it was rather reminiscent of the "experts" writing
letters to the newspapers to claim that VHF FM radio did not work in vehicles, when the move from MW to VHF FM was announced.
I used to think that the aim of hi-fi was to replicate the experience of
a live performance, and some of the manufacturers' advertising seemed to
be along those lines ("The closest approach to the original sound..."),
until a friend once said to me that it should best be regarded as a *reminder* of what the real thing should sound like, rather than an
attempt to replace it. This makes a lot more sense to me (and is cheaper too).
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
Chicken and egg situation. If someone has never been to a live
orchestral (or Big Band) concert they have no idea of the sheer impact
it makes on you. Not just a question of loudness, either. Experiencing anything like it via broadcast or recordings requires good kit. Still doesn't match.
Things that you or I value, though, are not necessarily what others do.
I tend to re-read old Hi-Fi mags and the change in content over the years
is quite clear. One obvious change is that old HFN has literally hundreds
of record reviews each month - divided into a range of types from folk to >orchestral via spoken word and classical. Now they just pick a few cherries >of a few types. Often items where no original performance of any kind is >represented.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:05:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
I tend to re-read old Hi-Fi mags and the change in content over the years >is quite clear. One obvious change is that old HFN has literally hundreds >of record reviews each month - divided into a range of types from folk to >orchestral via spoken word and classical. Now they just pick a few cherries >of a few types. Often items where no original performance of any kind is >represented.
The last time I looked at a hi-fi magazine, another change since my
main elecronic building days in the 1960s and 1970s was very clear to
me. The magazines used to include constructional articles about lots
of things you could build for yourself, a bit like Wireless World,
Practical electronics and various others, but lately they just seemed
to be full of articles (sponsored no doubt) about things you could
buy. Also, any discussion about how things actually worked had
descended into ignorant and sometimes almost superstitious waffle.
That's one reason why I haven't bothered with "technical" magazines
for many years. The other reason is that much more up to date
information is available on the internet. It's usually pretty clear
which Youtube presenters actually know what the yare talking about.
Rod.
On 19/07/2022 09:57, MB wrote:
On 19/07/2022 08:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Could it be that it*would* be of interest to them but they've never
experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
That was the great thing about John Peel, you could be listening one
minute to some jazz then pop music followed by classical.
I remember once hearing an American "expert" on broadcasting being
interviewed, he said that a station needs to increase their listening
figures then they should reduce their playlist! Perhaps explains a lot
about commercial radio!
I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial >stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for quantity,
so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.
MB wrote:
That was the great thing about John Peel
[...]
Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track
John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
"Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for it!
I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for
quantity, so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
MB wrote:
That was the great thing about John Peel
[...]
Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track
John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
"Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for it!
He opened our new Union. When I spoke to him, he remarked that he did
not think much of David Hamilton as a new signing to Radio 1.
On 19/07/2022 13:21, Max Demian wrote:
No, that's got nothing to do with it. Apparently, broadly speaking,
I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial
stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for
quantity, so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.
listeners will only listen at length, if the music is 'familiar' to
them, and they've heard it recently before ! Always been the case, and
more or less also the case with BBC Radio 1, 2, and BBC Local during
'prime hours', though I'm inclined to think it's one of those self
fulfilling prophesies. A bit like the claim that far more people will
watch an event on BBC 1 rather than BBC 2. As the BBC never dare put a
major event on BBC 2 it's impossible to prove one way or the other.
On 21/07/2022 15:26, Mark Carver wrote:
On 19/07/2022 13:21, Max Demian wrote:
No, that's got nothing to do with it. Apparently, broadly speaking,
I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason
commercial stations have such limited playlists. Probably a
reduction for quantity, so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays
of one track.
listeners will only listen at length, if the music is 'familiar' to
them, and they've heard it recently before ! Always been the case,
and more or less also the case with BBC Radio 1, 2, and BBC Local
during 'prime hours', though I'm inclined to think it's one of those
self fulfilling prophesies. A bit like the claim that far more people
will watch an event on BBC 1 rather than BBC 2. As the BBC never dare
put a major event on BBC 2 it's impossible to prove one way or the
other.
Thank goodness for streaming music services, and playlists, and being
able to have a random selection of music from hundreds of thousands
of choices
I wish streaming services (like Spotify and Amazon Music) could made
some sort of attempt at determining my taste rather than just playing
tracks at random. I mean the free services - I'm not paying £10 pcm
for buggerall.
I would have thought that access to tracks I already have on my
smartphone and me skipping tracks I don't want might give them a clue.
On 19/07/2022 13:21, Max Demian wrote:
No, that's got nothing to do with it. Apparently, broadly speaking,
I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial
stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for
quantity, so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.
listeners will only listen at length, if the music is 'familiar' to
them, and they've heard it recently before ! Always been the case, and
more or less also the case with BBC Radio 1, 2, and BBC Local during
'prime hours', though I'm inclined to think it's one of those self
fulfilling prophesies. A bit like the claim that far more people will
watch an event on BBC 1 rather than BBC 2. As the BBC never dare put a
major event on BBC 2 it's impossible to prove one way or the other.
Thank goodness for streaming music services, and playlists, and being
able to have a random selection of music from hundreds of thousands of choices
I wish streaming services (like Spotify and Amazon Music) could made
some sort of attempt at determining my taste rather than just playing
tracks at random. I mean the free services - I'm not paying £10 pcm for buggerall.
There's Radio
Paradise, which is free and supported by donations:
Thank goodness for streaming music services, and playlists, and being
able to have a random selection of music from hundreds of thousands of >choices
On 21/07/2022 03:15 pm, Scott wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
MB wrote:
That was the great thing about John Peel
[...]
Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track >>John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
"Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for it!
He opened our new Union. When I spoke to him, he remarked that he did
not think much of David Hamilton as a new signing to Radio 1.
I wonder what he had against diversity?
When R1 was in its heyday, David Hamilton was probably a better fit for
it than John Peel could ever have been.
Can you imagine John Peel playing "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep" or other
tracks off the R1 daytime playlist of the day? That was what the
audience wanted.
DH was R1 mainstream while JP, for all his merits, was non-peak hours
niche programming.
On 21/07/2022 03:15 pm, Scott wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
MB wrote:
That was the great thing about John Peel
[...]
Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track >>John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
"Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for it!
He opened our new Union. When I spoke to him, he remarked that he did
not think much of David Hamilton as a new signing to Radio 1.
I wonder what he had against diversity?
When R1 was in its heyday, David Hamilton was probably a better fit for
it than John Peel could ever have been.
Can you imagine John Peel playing "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep" or other
tracks off the R1 daytime playlist of the day? That was what the
audience wanted.
DH was R1 mainstream while JP, for all his merits, was non-peak hours
niche programming.
Much the same as those of us of a certain age might look back now and remember TRF valve radios powered by high tension batteries and acid
filled accumulators for the heaters, and using longwire arials and
earth spikes. The very idea that you could have such a system in a
moving vehicle was absurd.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 15:30:44 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
On 21/07/2022 03:15 pm, Scott wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
MB wrote:
That was the great thing about John Peel
[...]
Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track >>>John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
"Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for it!
He opened our new Union. When I spoke to him, he remarked that he did
not think much of David Hamilton as a new signing to Radio 1.
I wonder what he had against diversity?
When R1 was in its heyday, David Hamilton was probably a better fit for
it than John Peel could ever have been.
Can you imagine John Peel playing "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep" or other
tracks off the R1 daytime playlist of the day? That was what the
audience wanted.
DH was R1 mainstream while JP, for all his merits, was non-peak hours
niche programming.
I remember once listening to a talk by John Peel about the Sgt Pepper
LP - on Radio 3! (or maybe it was still called the Third Programme
then, I'm not sure). It was a novelty to hear anything other than
classical music (and occasionally jazz) on this channel. In fact
hearing pop music on FM was quite a novelty too.
On 22/07/2022 09:44, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Much the same as those of us of a certain age might look back now and
remember TRF valve radios powered by high tension batteries and acid
filled accumulators for the heaters, and using longwire arials and
earth spikes. The very idea that you could have such a system in a
moving vehicle was absurd.
I had a car, built in 1977 which had a valve radio. It was powered by an inverter which was effectively took the 12V battery voltage and by means
of a vibrator connected to the primary of a dual winding step-up and
step down transformer gave the HT for the anodes and also halved the
voltage for the heaters. It worked very well. The only real snag was
that it was powered via the battery and not via the ignition, which was
OK for listening to the radio while parked, but the once I forgot to
turn the radio off I had a completely flat battery the next morning!
On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 15:30:44 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
On 21/07/2022 03:15 pm, Scott wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
"Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for it!
He opened our new Union. When I spoke to him, he remarked that he did
not think much of David Hamilton as a new signing to Radio 1.
I wonder what he had against diversity?
When R1 was in its heyday, David Hamilton was probably a better fit for
it than John Peel could ever have been.
Can you imagine John Peel playing "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep" or other
tracks off the R1 daytime playlist of the day? That was what the
audience wanted.
DH was R1 mainstream while JP, for all his merits, was non-peak hours
niche programming.
I remember once listening to a talk by John Peel about the Sgt Pepper
LP - on Radio 3! (or maybe it was still called the Third Programme
then, I'm not sure). It was a novelty to hear anything other than
classical music (and occasionally jazz) on this channel. In fact
hearing pop music on FM was quite a novelty too.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 11:46:12 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
The Third Programme was the first to go stereo and was sometimes used to >>play "pop" music in stereo before the other stations (i.e. Light and
Home) were stereo.
Yes, I remember that, and thinking it wasn't very clever to put stereo
first on their least popular channel. It was almost as if they didn't
want it.
The Third Programme was the first to go stereo and was sometimes used to
play "pop" music in stereo before the other stations (i.e. Light and
Home) were stereo.
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
The Third Programme was the first to go stereo and was sometimes used to >>> play "pop" music in stereo before the other stations (i.e. Light and
Home) were stereo.
Yes, I remember that, and thinking it wasn't very clever to put stereo
first on their least popular channel. It was almost as if they didn't
want it.
Long history of that. BBC2 was in colour before BBC1. R3 has a
higher DAB bitrate than any other station despite its low audience.
In article <ep3ldhhsr085nob85018phq7rf20j7a0s9@4ax.com>, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Long history of that. BBC2 was in colour before BBC1.Not sure about that. Thefirst colour programmes were Wimbledon tennis.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 12:41:28 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 11:46:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >wrote:
The Third Programme was the first to go stereo and was sometimes used
to play "pop" music in stereo before the other stations (i.e. Light
and Home) were stereo.
Yes, I remember that, and thinking it wasn't very clever to put stereo >first on their least popular channel. It was almost as if they didn't
want it.
Long history of that. BBC2 was in colour before BBC1.
R3 has a higher DAB bitrate than any other station despite its low
audience.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 11:46:12 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
The Third Programme was the first to go stereo and was sometimes used toYes, I remember that, and thinking it wasn't very clever to put stereo
play "pop" music in stereo before the other stations (i.e. Light and
Home) were stereo.
first on their least popular channel. It was almost as if they didn't
want it.
On 22/07/2022 13:44, charles wrote:
In article <ep3ldhhsr085nob85018phq7rf20j7a0s9@4ax.com>, ScottColour came to BBC 2 on July 1st 1967, with as you say Wimbledon Tennis
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Long history of that. BBC2 was in colour before BBC1.Not sure about that. Thefirst colour programmes were Wimbledon tennis.
Colour came to BBC 1 and ITV ( in four regions) on Nov 15th 1969
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
The Third Programme was the first to go stereo and was sometimes used
to play "pop" music in stereo before the other stations (i.e. Light
and Home) were stereo.
Yes, I remember that, and thinking it wasn't very clever to put stereo
first on their least popular channel. It was almost as if they didn't
want it.
Long history of that. BBC2 was in colour before BBC1.
Not sure about that. Thefirst colour programmes were Wimbledon tennis.
R3 has a higher DAB bitrate than any other station despite its low
audience.
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 13:44, charles wrote:And I blame the trade test transmissions for propelling me into an engineering career. We had a colour dual standard TV from the get go. As a
In article <ep3ldhhsr085nob85018phq7rf20j7a0s9@4ax.com>, ScottColour came to BBC 2 on July 1st 1967, with as you say Wimbledon Tennis
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Long history of that. BBC2 was in colour before BBC1.Not sure about that. Thefirst colour programmes were Wimbledon tennis.
Colour came to BBC 1 and ITV ( in four regions) on Nov 15th 1969
5 year old the explanations to the trade about how colour TV worked were
far more interesting than Play School.
On 22/07/2022 14:08, Tweed wrote:
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:You and I must be twins separated at birth !
On 22/07/2022 13:44, charles wrote:And I blame the trade test transmissions for propelling me into an
In article <ep3ldhhsr085nob85018phq7rf20j7a0s9@4ax.com>, ScottColour came to BBC 2 on July 1st 1967, with as you say Wimbledon Tennis
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Long history of that. BBC2 was in colour before BBC1.Not sure about that. Thefirst colour programmes were Wimbledon tennis. >>>>
Colour came to BBC 1 and ITV ( in four regions) on Nov 15th 1969
engineering career. We had a colour dual standard TV from the get go. As a >> 5 year old the explanations to the trade about how colour TV worked were
far more interesting than Play School.
And I blame the trade test transmissions for propelling me into an engineering career. We had a colour dual standard TV from the get go. As a
5 year old the explanations to the trade about how colour TV worked were
far more interesting than Play School.
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 11:46:12 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
The Third Programme was the first to go stereo and was sometimes used to
play "pop" music in stereo before the other stations (i.e. Light and
Home) were stereo.
Yes, I remember that, and thinking it wasn't very clever to put stereo
first on their least popular channel. It was almost as if they didn't
want it.
On 22/07/2022 14:08, Tweed wrote:
And I blame the trade test transmissions for propelling me into an engineering career. We had a colour dual standard TV from the get go.
As a 5 year old the explanations to the trade about how colour TV
worked were far more interesting than Play School.
We can't all be brainy.
Bill
On 22/07/2022 14:08, Tweed wrote:
And I blame the trade test transmissions for propelling me into an
engineering career. We had a colour dual standard TV from the get go. As a >> 5 year old the explanations to the trade about how colour TV worked were
far more interesting than Play School.
We can't all be brainy.
Bill
On 22/07/2022 10:39, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 22/07/2022 09:44, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Much the same as those of us of a certain age might look back now and
remember TRF valve radios powered by high tension batteries and acid
filled accumulators for the heaters, and using longwire arials and
earth spikes. The very idea that you could have such a system in a
moving vehicle was absurd.
I had a car, built in 1977 which had a valve radio. It was powered by
an inverter which was effectively took the 12V battery voltage and by
means of a vibrator connected to the primary of a dual winding step-up
and step down transformer gave the HT for the anodes and also halved
the voltage for the heaters. It worked very well. The only real snag
was that it was powered via the battery and not via the ignition,
which was OK for listening to the radio while parked, but the once I
forgot to turn the radio off I had a completely flat battery the next
morning!
I'm surprised they still made them in 1977. I thought all car radios by
that time were transistorised or a hybrid design with valves with 12V
HT. I'm also surprised your radio didn't use valves with 12.6V heaters,
which were made for UK car radios as those with 6.3V heaters were made
for US car radios.
On 22/07/2022 12:41, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 11:46:12 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
The Third Programme was the first to go stereo and was sometimes used to >>> play "pop" music in stereo before the other stations (i.e. Light and
Home) were stereo.
Yes, I remember that, and thinking it wasn't very clever to put stereo
first on their least popular channel. It was almost as if they didn't
want it.
Pop music was mostly bought on 7" singles which (at the time) were
almost entirely mono, as they were played by teenagers on mono record
players that couldn't play stereo records without damaging them.
I don't know about the music played on the Light Programme (Radio 2).
Not sure I am anymore. The interest may run in the family. My grandfather owned a radio shop, had shares in the British Broadcasting Company, and he built his own TV set. By the time colour TV came along he seemed to spend more time round the back of the set fiddling with all the pots than
watching it round the front.
On 22/07/2022 13:44, charles wrote:
In article <ep3ldhhsr085nob85018phq7rf20j7a0s9@4ax.com>, ScottColour came to BBC 2 on July 1st 1967, with as you say Wimbledon Tennis
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Long history of that. BBC2 was in colour before BBC1.Not sure about that. Thefirst colour programmes were Wimbledon tennis.
Colour came to BBC 1 and ITV ( in four regions) on Nov 15th 1969
On Fri 22/07/2022 13:53, Mark Carver wrote:
On 22/07/2022 13:44, charles wrote:
In article <ep3ldhhsr085nob85018phq7rf20j7a0s9@4ax.com>, ScottColour came to BBC 2 on July 1st 1967, with as you say Wimbledon Tennis
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Long history of that. BBC2 was in colour before BBC1.Not sure about that. Thefirst colour programmes were Wimbledon tennis.
Colour came to BBC 1 and ITV ( in four regions) on Nov 15th 1969
IIRC colour couldn't have come to BBC1 first as it was still on VHF 405 lines. BBC2 test UHF transmitters were set up all over the country and
again IMSMC the first transmission in colour was indeed Wimbledon in
1964 or 1965!
I put it onto the turntable as soon as I got it home and heard the first notes come out of only one speaker. My first reaction was that a cable
had become disconnected. Then, a few bars later, the opposite channel
was filled with a drum roll. I rang a friend about it - he didn't
believe me.
On 22/07/2022 17:48, JNugent wrote:
I put it onto the turntable as soon as I got it home and heard the first
notes come out of only one speaker. My first reaction was that a cable
had become disconnected. Then, a few bars later, the opposite channel
was filled with a drum roll. I rang a friend about it - he didn't
believe me.
What was the name of the music?
Stereo radio and colour TV was irrelevant to much of the population.
Things were different then. New gadgets were expensive and many, if not
most, simply could not spring for them.
I acquired stereo radio in 1974 and colour TV in 1979.
The last time I looked at a hi-fi magazine, another change since my main elecronic building days in the 1960s and 1970s was very clear to me. The magazines used to include constructional articles about lots of things
you could build for yourself, a bit like Wireless World, Practical electronics and various others, but lately they just seemed to be full
of articles (sponsored no doubt) about things you could buy. Also, any discussion about how things actually worked had descended into ignorant
and sometimes almost superstitious waffle.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 03:11:32 +0100, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 17:48, JNugent wrote:Didn't the early Beatles stuff have vocals on one side and
I put it onto the turntable as soon as I got it home and heard the first >>> notes come out of only one speaker. My first reaction was that a cable
had become disconnected. Then, a few bars later, the opposite channel
was filled with a drum roll. I rang a friend about it - he didn't
believe me.
What was the name of the music?
instrumental on the other? I have no idea why they would do this.
On Sat 23/07/2022 09:25, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 03:11:32 +0100, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 17:48, JNugent wrote:Didn't the early Beatles stuff have vocals on one side and
I put it onto the turntable as soon as I got it home and heard the
first notes come out of only one speaker. My first reaction was that
a cable had become disconnected. Then, a few bars later, the opposite
channel was filled with a drum roll. I rang a friend about it - he
didn't believe me.
What was the name of the music?
instrumental on the other? I have no idea why they would do this.
Go dig around Spotify and find an album called Shall We Swing - Sounds
of the Great Bands in Latin by the Glen Gray Orchestra(?)
Originally recorded in 1962/63 and digitally remastered in 2003 this is
very much left and right stereo but the recorded quality and the pin
sharp timing make it stand out.
On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 03:11:32 +0100, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 17:48, JNugent wrote:Didn't the early Beatles stuff have vocals on one side and
I put it onto the turntable as soon as I got it home and heard the first >>> notes come out of only one speaker. My first reaction was that a cable
had become disconnected. Then, a few bars later, the opposite channel
was filled with a drum roll. I rang a friend about it - he didn't
believe me.
What was the name of the music?
instrumental on the other? I have no idea why they would do this.
On 22/07/2022 17:48, JNugent wrote:
I put it onto the turntable as soon as I got it home and heard the
first notes come out of only one speaker. My first reaction was that a
cable had become disconnected. Then, a few bars later, the opposite
channel was filled with a drum roll. I rang a friend about it - he
didn't believe me.
What was the name of the music?
Didn't the early Beatles stuff have vocals on one side and
instrumental on the other? I have no idea why they would do this.
Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very different
to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier) reprinted in a book. As
it is, you need a collection of old mags to read them.
On 23/07/2022 09:25, Scott wrote:
Didn't the early Beatles stuff have vocals on one side and
instrumental on the other? I have no idea why they would do this.
Some songs were two mono tracks rather than stereo. It's still quite
amusing to just play one channel.
Bill
The first stereo single (this was late 1969) I bought bore no marking to
say it was in stereo.
I put it onto the turntable as soon as I got it home and heard the first >notes come out of only one speaker. My first reaction was that a cable
had become disconnected. Then, a few bars later, the opposite channel
was filled with a drum roll. I rang a friend about it - he didn't
believe me.
Didn't the early Beatles stuff have vocals on one side and instrumental
on the other? I have no idea why they would do this.
For classical music its application to give an illusion of the 'spread' of
an orchestra probably made more sense to producers as the 'real thing' was laid out in space in a familiar way at concerts, and the aim was to
reproduce what going to a concert was like. Whereas most 'pop' records were studio constructions with no real reference point beyond "what sells"
On Mon 18/07/2022 12:41, MB wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and >>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact >>> on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
likely recognise.
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.' OK
DAB is 128K mp2 which is even worse, but put that on a small domestic
radio with a small poor quality loudspeaker and it probably sounds much
the same. Listen to a DAB+ station at the same data rate and you would
hear the difference instantly. Unfortunately there ain't such stations
in the UK - they use 48Kb which is equivalent to mp2 at 128K.
Now go abroad where DAB+ is prevalent at a decent data rate and that too >sticks out like a sore thumb!
On 18/07/2022 16:06, Woody wrote:
On Mon 18/07/2022 12:41, MB wrote:
On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like >>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money"
and
allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the
impact
on quality.
Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people
want to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for
programmes with very few listeners and who want higher quality than
they can quite likely recognise.
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.' OK
DAB is 128K mp2 which is even worse, but put that on a small domestic
radio with a small poor quality loudspeaker and it probably sounds much
the same. Listen to a DAB+ station at the same data rate and you would
hear the difference instantly. Unfortunately there ain't such stations
in the UK - they use 48Kb which is equivalent to mp2 at 128K.
Now go abroad where DAB+ is prevalent at a decent data rate and that too
sticks out like a sore thumb!
For most people living busy lives, though, music is an accompaniment to >eating toast, getting the kids up, cooking a meal, scrolling through
their phone, sitting on a train, driving their car or generally moving
about. It isn't a sit down and listen closely for an hour or so in an >anechoic chamber with no interference.
Quality for most is a bit of an irrelevance.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation - >>have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi >>system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
Rod.
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -
have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:55:27 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation - >>>> have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
them at all.
Could it be that it *would* be of interest to them but they've never >experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
Rod.
On 21/07/2022 17:04, Max Demian wrote:
I wish streaming services (like Spotify and Amazon Music) could made
some sort of attempt at determining my taste rather than just playing
tracks at random. I mean the free services - I'm not paying 10 pcm for
buggerall.
It will of course depend on what sort of music you like. There's Radio >Paradise, which is free and supported by donations:
https://radioparadise.com/player
The tablet app lets you skip tracks.
There's also Linn Radio which is also free:
https://www.linn.co.uk/linn-radio
The sound quality of these internet stations is much better than DAB
and, depending on what tier you're on, better than the paid-for services.
MB wrote:
That was the great thing about John Peel
[...]
Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track
John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
"Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for >it!
On 18/07/2022 20:30, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:31 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Do remember that many many people - especially the younger generation -Sadly, many people - especially the younger generation - have probably
have probably never heard decent music played through a proper hi-fi
system. To them mp3 at 128K on their phone headphones sound 'good.'
never been to a live classical music concert where they could hear
real musical instruments with no electronic involvement at all. Once
you've experienced this, no electronic sound system will ever equal
it. This should be on everybody's bucket list.
The musical genre is irrelevant, doesn't matter if it's just a bloke in
the pub with a guitar, there is nothing that can replicate live music.
In article <acbidh9fkvgttgn83hi45gql4p7qti0bsu@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:05:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
I tend to re-read old Hi-Fi mags and the change in content over the years >> >is quite clear. One obvious change is that old HFN has literally hundreds >> >of record reviews each month - divided into a range of types from folk to >> >orchestral via spoken word and classical. Now they just pick a few cherries >> >of a few types. Often items where no original performance of any kind is
represented.
The last time I looked at a hi-fi magazine, another change since my
main elecronic building days in the 1960s and 1970s was very clear to
me. The magazines used to include constructional articles about lots
of things you could build for yourself, a bit like Wireless World,
Practical electronics and various others, but lately they just seemed
to be full of articles (sponsored no doubt) about things you could
buy. Also, any discussion about how things actually worked had
descended into ignorant and sometimes almost superstitious waffle.
That's one reason why I haven't bothered with "technical" magazines
for many years. The other reason is that much more up to date
information is available on the internet. It's usually pretty clear
which Youtube presenters actually know what the yare talking about.
Rod.
I gave up such magazines when one of them, which had been a serious one,
told me that a gold plated mains plug increased the stereo separation on an >FM tuner.
Dunno, ever had the chance to sit in the control room at Madia vale with
a big band next door;?...
And the delightful,
https://www.ancientfm.com/
stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
The musical genre is irrelevant, doesn't matter if it's just a bloke in
the pub with a guitar, there is nothing that can replicate live music.
Well years ago QUAD for one use to demo their speakers by having someone >taking on stage then they just stopped speaking but the sound of tape
carried on, most all we're very impressed!
Or was it B&W speakers long time ago!..
And the delightful,
https://www.ancientfm.com/
stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
Some records (usually LPs) were released in what was called "compatible stereo", which had a reduced separation to create less vertical movement
of the groove, because most mono pickup cartridges couldn't physically
follow much vertical movement without damage. This one wouldn't have
been compatible with a mono cartridge at all, which is what makes me
think it might have been a test pressing.
On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many
of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to
read them.
Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available on
eBay.
In article <tbhecp$1fg6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many
of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to
read them.
Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available on
eBay.
I'd recommend the issues of HFN pre the 1980s for having quite a lot of technical info and construction projects. The obvious examples being ones like Radford's early amps, and Jim Sugden's class A. (But change the bias arrangements - as he did later - if you build one! 8-]) Later on, of
course, some JLH circuitry. Plus lots of DIY speakers, etc.
The explanations of how kit and systems like stereo LP, radio, etc, work
are also quite good. And kit eviewers usually knew how things worked, so could give useful info. Not just 'wine tasting' opinions.
On 23/07/2022 09:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:
For classical music its application to give an illusion of the
'spread' of an orchestra probably made more sense to producers as the
'real thing' was laid out in space in a familiar way at concerts, and
the aim was to reproduce what going to a concert was like. Whereas
most 'pop' records were studio constructions with no real reference
point beyond "what sells"
Could be said that classical producers were less inventive and just
tried to reproduce the concert hall sound though it would be difficult
with the limitations of the equipment - limited number of expensive microphones and limited number of recording channels.
Whereas pop
producers just set out to produce a sound experience within their
limitations without worrying about whether it corresponded with what you would hear at a concert.
Well years ago QUAD for one use to demo their speakers by having someone taking on stage then they just stopped speaking but the sound of tape
carried on, most all we're very impressed!
Or was it B&W speakers long time ago!..
In article <tbj20m$glgp$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 23/07/2022 09:51, Jim Lesurf wrote:
For classical music its application to give an illusion of the
'spread' of an orchestra probably made more sense to producers as the
'real thing' was laid out in space in a familiar way at concerts, and
the aim was to reproduce what going to a concert was like. Whereas
most 'pop' records were studio constructions with no real reference
point beyond "what sells"
Could be said that classical producers were less inventive and just
tried to reproduce the concert hall sound though it would be difficult
with the limitations of the equipment - limited number of expensive
microphones and limited number of recording channels.
(cough) You may be forgetting 'Phase 4' and its -alikes. 8-]
That said, if you can find copies of the digital transfers of the first stereo recordings Decca and EMI made of orchestras as 'tests' some of them are stunningly good, even by modern standards.
A problem later was that that some recording venues were 'difficult' to extract such good stereo imaging from. The result - a la Phase 4 - tended
to be to throw more mics and channels at it and hope to sort it out later.
BTW Some of the "Chasing the Dragon" modern recordings using 'minimal'
setups are also pretty impressive. As is the "Vaughan Williams on Brass" which I've been using recently as a test example for this:
https://www.audiomisc.co.uk/YouTube/SpotTheDifference.html
(if you look carefully on the page you can also find the PIDs for the
videos. Then choose which version to try. :-) )
b. it's July, Jim* - albeit not with July weather as we knew it ;)
* "J. C. G. Lesurf
24th August 2022"
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 17:48:06 +0100, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
The first stereo single (this was late 1969) I bought bore no marking to
say it was in stereo.
I put it onto the turntable as soon as I got it home and heard the first
notes come out of only one speaker. My first reaction was that a cable
had become disconnected. Then, a few bars later, the opposite channel
was filled with a drum roll. I rang a friend about it - he didn't
believe me.
Possibly around the same time, I recall a friend playing a single
called "Sky Pilot" that was unmistakeably stereo, as it began with a
few bars of solo guitar not just from one side of the stereo stage,
but sounding like one channel only, as if one of the speakers had been disconnected, before the rest of the instruments joined in. It was
quite a dramatic surprise effect, unusual for pop music.
The record was one of those "advance release" copies with a white
label with a big letter A, so it could have been experimental and
maybe the final published version was mono.
Some records (usually LPs) were released in what was called
"compatible stereo", which had a reduced separation to create less
vertical movement of the groove, because most mono pickup cartridges
couldn't physically follow much vertical movement without damage. This
one wouldn't have been compatible with a mono cartridge at all, which
is what makes me think it might have been a test pressing.
My memory had the artistes as The Who, though a quick Wikipedia check
only shows a title with that name by Eric Burdon and The Animals.
There is no mention of it being an early example of stereo, so maybe
the officially published version wasn't.
On 25/07/2022 13:23, Robin wrote:
b. it's July, Jim* - albeit not with July weather as we knew it ;)
* "J. C. G. Lesurf
24th August 2022"
He's ahead of the rest of us; always has been.
Before this, and in the hands of other well-known EMI producers, the
stereo and mono recordings were often made at the same time, capturing
the same performance (not always), with the studio outputs feeding two >control rooms, with one recording in 2-track stereo and the other
recording in what was known as delta mono. Norrie Paramor (more
correctly, his favoured engineer, Malcolm Addey) tended to use this
method for his artistes (Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Helen Shapiro and >others) plus his own and other orchestras. With this technique, once the >performance was over, that was it, finito. The take was complete and
either acceptable for release or needing to be done again.
I'll... er... get me coat.
On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:06:13 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
And the delightful,
https://www.ancientfm.com/
stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
Yes, that is very pleasant. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
Remember years ago a hi-
fi exhibition in London they, and buggered if i can remember who now,
may have even been EMI themselves! had a couple of BTR 2 machines used
by the Beatles and others at that time!..
On 25/07/2022 13:37, williamwright wrote:
On 25/07/2022 13:23, Robin wrote:
b. it's July, Jim* - albeit not with July weather as we knew it ;)
* "J. C. G. Lesurf 24th August 2022"
He's ahead of the rest of us; always has been.
I'll believe that when he posts the winner of the 20:00 at Kempton on 24 August.
Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
a. I don't know what options the RVWSoc had available but I knew a musician who uploaded 24-bit Linear PCM. Might provide a different
(better?) baseline than an already-compressed file;
b. it's July, Jim* - albeit not with July weather as we knew it ;)
* "J. C. G. Lesurf 24th August 2022"
In article <0220232b-c3f4-40ee-f73d-5a7024009f7c@outlook.com>, Robin ><rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 25/07/2022 13:37, williamwright wrote:
On 25/07/2022 13:23, Robin wrote:
b. it's July, Jim* - albeit not with July weather as we knew it ;)
* "J. C. G. Lesurf 24th August 2022"
He's ahead of the rest of us; always has been.
I'll believe that when he posts the winner of the 20:00 at Kempton on 24
August.
I predict it will be a man on a horse. :-)
In article <9uisdht3gt6ishif1ea7bhcge636u82bra@4ax.com>, John Armstrong ><jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:06:13 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
And the delightful,
https://www.ancientfm.com/
stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
Yes, that is very pleasant. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
Pleasure Sir!
Many years ago my first wife lived in Long Melford in Suffolk music from
that time was a mainstay of the choral and music society at the church
there.
Plus copious amounts of beer after any practice, and sometimes pub first >rehearse in that order!.
Absolutely shameless plug for the place, the church is stunning, built
with all the wool money that area generated. Actually got married
there:)...
https://www.longmelfordchurch.com/
And just round the coroner the amazing Kentwell a stunningly beautify
set Tudor manor house very well worth a visit if you have children their
1549 re enactment days are super!, they just pretend it is that time and
you can't catch them out thy only know the history Up to that time not >after!!
https://www.kentwell.co.uk/
And to keep it all on topic!, the Sudbury TV mast is a few miles south
at Workhouse green!..
https://goo.gl/maps/pZWyN1zSfJaBZJrB7
What's not to like;?...
I predict it will be a man on a horse.:-)
Jim
In article <tblom7$1506c$2@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
I was annoyed when - after I emigrated out of London (and Englsnd!) I discovered that Doug Self lived only a short distance from where I had been living! If I'd known earlier I'd have tried to contact him.
Jim
You know what they say? S**t happens!
On 26/07/2022 17:07, Woody wrote:
You know what they say? S**t happens!
What, saltsantsautscatscotscutseatsectsektsentseptsettsextshatshetshotshut siftsiltsistskatskitslatslitslotslutsmitsmutsnitsnotsoftsootsortsout Billspatspetspitspotstatstetstotsuetsuitswatswot
?
Bill
Didn't the early Beatles stuff have vocals on one side and
instrumental on the other? I have no idea why they would do this.
Some songs were two mono tracks rather than stereo. It's still quite
amusing to just play one channel.
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:25:34 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <9uisdht3gt6ishif1ea7bhcge636u82bra@4ax.com>, John Armstrong >><jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:06:13 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
And the delightful,
https://www.ancientfm.com/
stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
Yes, that is very pleasant. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
Pleasure Sir!
Many years ago my first wife lived in Long Melford in Suffolk music from >>that time was a mainstay of the choral and music society at the church >>there.
Plus copious amounts of beer after any practice, and sometimes pub first >>rehearse in that order!.
Absolutely shameless plug for the place, the church is stunning, built
with all the wool money that area generated. Actually got married >>there:)...
https://www.longmelfordchurch.com/
And just round the coroner the amazing Kentwell a stunningly beautify
set Tudor manor house very well worth a visit if you have children their >>1549 re enactment days are super!, they just pretend it is that time and >>you can't catch them out thy only know the history Up to that time not >>after!!
https://www.kentwell.co.uk/
And to keep it all on topic!, the Sudbury TV mast is a few miles south
at Workhouse green!..
https://goo.gl/maps/pZWyN1zSfJaBZJrB7
What's not to like;?...
Thank you! All most interesting - and what a beautiful church.
On Sun 24/07/2022 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tbhecp$1fg6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many
of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to
read them.
Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available on
eBay.
I'd recommend the issues of HFN pre the 1980s for having quite a lot of
technical info and construction projects. The obvious examples being ones
like Radford's early amps, and Jim Sugden's class A. (But change the bias
arrangements - as he did later - if you build one! 8-]) Later on, of
course, some JLH circuitry. Plus lots of DIY speakers, etc.
The explanations of how kit and systems like stereo LP, radio, etc, work
are also quite good. And kit eviewers usually knew how things worked, so
could give useful info. Not just 'wine tasting' opinions.
Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
In article <4fbvdh92ou4lahj532l0rd34a49de4qkqm@4ax.com>, John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:25:34 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <9uisdht3gt6ishif1ea7bhcge636u82bra@4ax.com>, John Armstrong >><jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:06:13 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> >>>wrote:
And the delightful,
https://www.ancientfm.com/
stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
Yes, that is very pleasant. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
Pleasure Sir!
Many years ago my first wife lived in Long Melford in Suffolk music from >>that time was a mainstay of the choral and music society at the church >>there.
Plus copious amounts of beer after any practice, and sometimes pub first >>rehearse in that order!.
Absolutely shameless plug for the place, the church is stunning, built >>with all the wool money that area generated. Actually got married >>there:)...
https://www.longmelfordchurch.com/
And just round the coroner the amazing Kentwell a stunningly beautify
set Tudor manor house very well worth a visit if you have children their >>1549 re enactment days are super!, they just pretend it is that time and >>you can't catch them out thy only know the history Up to that time not >>after!!
https://www.kentwell.co.uk/
And to keep it all on topic!, the Sudbury TV mast is a few miles south
at Workhouse green!..
https://goo.gl/maps/pZWyN1zSfJaBZJrB7
What's not to like;?...
Thank you! All most interesting - and what a beautiful church.
If you look up the history of Kentwell hall the Clopton family paid for
that, the Hyde Parkers, yes connected to that bit of London, IIRC were involved as well. At that time that area was awash with money from sheep farming hence the oft quoted name the "Wool churches".
If your that way Lavenham is well worth a visit too:)
In article <tblom7$1506c$2@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
On Sun 24/07/2022 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tbhecp$1fg6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many >>>> of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to
read them.
Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available
on eBay.
I'd recommend the issues of HFN pre the 1980s for having quite a lot
of technical info and construction projects. The obvious examples
being ones like Radford's early amps, and Jim Sugden's class A. (But
change the bias arrangements - as he did later - if you build one!
8-]) Later on, of course, some JLH circuitry. Plus lots of DIY
speakers, etc.
The explanations of how kit and systems like stereo LP, radio, etc,
work are also quite good. And kit eviewers usually knew how things
worked, so could give useful info. Not just 'wine tasting' opinions.
Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from those sources!..
In article <tblom7$1506c$2@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
On Sun 24/07/2022 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tbhecp$1fg6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many >>>>> of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to
read them.
Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available on >>>> eBay.
I'd recommend the issues of HFN pre the 1980s for having quite a lot of
technical info and construction projects. The obvious examples being ones >>> like Radford's early amps, and Jim Sugden's class A. (But change the bias >>> arrangements - as he did later - if you build one! 8-]) Later on, of
course, some JLH circuitry. Plus lots of DIY speakers, etc.
The explanations of how kit and systems like stereo LP, radio, etc, work >>> are also quite good. And kit eviewers usually knew how things worked, so >>> could give useful info. Not just 'wine tasting' opinions.
Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from those sources!..
In article <XQM2KgAsgu5iFwZC@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
In article <tblom7$1506c$2@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
On Sun 24/07/2022 10:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tbhecp$1fg6$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 22/07/2022 10:26, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Been re-reading some 1970s HFN issues recently and they're very
different to what you'd see on news-stands now. I'd love to see many >>>>>> of the more technical/practical items from then (and earlier)
reprinted in a book. As it is, you need a collection of old mags to >>>>>> read them.
Though you clearly have reasons for having your own collection, for
others I will point out that, as might be expected and I recently
proved, you can find single items or job lots of old mags available
on eBay.
I'd recommend the issues of HFN pre the 1980s for having quite a lot
of technical info and construction projects. The obvious examples
being ones like Radford's early amps, and Jim Sugden's class A. (But
change the bias arrangements - as he did later - if you build one!
8-]) Later on, of course, some JLH circuitry. Plus lots of DIY
speakers, etc.
The explanations of how kit and systems like stereo LP, radio, etc,
work are also quite good. And kit eviewers usually knew how things
worked, so could give useful info. Not just 'wine tasting' opinions.
Ah yes, JLH (the best in my book), Williamson, and don't forget Stan
Curtis (of Lecson fame) and the great Doug Self!
Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from those
sources!..
let us not forget George Isardov Earing and his April article on "Dynamic Range v Ambient Noise."
In article <4fbvdh92ou4lahj532l0rd34a49de4qkqm@4ax.com>, John Armstrong <jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
On Mon, 25 Jul 2022 21:25:34 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <9uisdht3gt6ishif1ea7bhcge636u82bra@4ax.com>, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 21:06:13 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
And the delightful,
https://www.ancientfm.com/
stream.ancientfm.com:8058/stream
Yes, that is very pleasant. Thanks for bringing it to my attention
Pleasure Sir!
Many years ago my first wife lived in Long Melford in Suffolk music from >>> that time was a mainstay of the choral and music society at the church
there.
Plus copious amounts of beer after any practice, and sometimes pub first >>> rehearse in that order!.
Absolutely shameless plug for the place, the church is stunning, built
with all the wool money that area generated. Actually got married
there:)...
https://www.longmelfordchurch.com/
And just round the coroner the amazing Kentwell a stunningly beautify
set Tudor manor house very well worth a visit if you have children their >>> 1549 re enactment days are super!, they just pretend it is that time and >>> you can't catch them out thy only know the history Up to that time not
after!!
https://www.kentwell.co.uk/
And to keep it all on topic!, the Sudbury TV mast is a few miles south
at Workhouse green!..
https://goo.gl/maps/pZWyN1zSfJaBZJrB7
What's not to like;?...
Thank you! All most interesting - and what a beautiful church.
If you look up the history of Kentwell hall the Clopton family paid for
that, the Hyde Parkers, yes connected to that bit of London, IIRC were involved as well. At that time that area was awash with money from sheep farming hence the oft quoted name the "Wool churches".
If your that way Lavenham is well worth a visit too:)
<snipped>
Before this, and in the hands of other well-known EMI producers, the
stereo and mono recordings were often made at the same time, capturing
the same performance (not always), with the studio outputs feeding two
control rooms, with one recording in 2-track stereo and the other
recording in what was known as delta mono. Norrie Paramor (more
correctly, his favoured engineer, Malcolm Addey) tended to use this
method for his artistes (Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Helen Shapiro and
others) plus his own and other orchestras. With this technique, once the
performance was over, that was it, finito. The take was complete and
either acceptable for release or needing to be done again.
I'll... er... get me coat.
Nay lad keep thy coat!, all interesting stuff! Remember years ago a hi-
fi exhibition in London they, and buggered if i can remember who now,
may have even been EMI themselves! had a couple of BTR 2 machines used
by the Beatles and others at that time!..
https://www.abbeyroad.com/news/btr-2-gearthatmadeus-3175
On 25/07/2022 09:42 pm, tony sayer wrote:
<snipped>
Before this, and in the hands of other well-known EMI producers, the
stereo and mono recordings were often made at the same time, capturing
the same performance (not always), with the studio outputs feeding two
control rooms, with one recording in 2-track stereo and the other
recording in what was known as delta mono. Norrie Paramor (more
correctly, his favoured engineer, Malcolm Addey) tended to use this
method for his artistes (Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Helen Shapiro and
others) plus his own and other orchestras. With this technique, once the >>> performance was over, that was it, finito. The take was complete and
either acceptable for release or needing to be done again.
I'll... er... get me coat.
Nay lad keep thy coat!, all interesting stuff! Remember years ago a hi-
fi exhibition in London they, and buggered if i can remember who now,
may have even been EMI themselves! had a couple of BTR 2 machines used
by the Beatles and others at that time!..
https://www.abbeyroad.com/news/btr-2-gearthatmadeus-3175
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
other people.
On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
other people.
In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre. It
was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>). Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it
was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
more impressive.
Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?
On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
other people.
In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre. It
was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>).
Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it
was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
more impressive.
I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
feeling of being in the action.
People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema" became quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).
Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?
I saw some at an exhibition; I don't know how they were supposed to work
as I think front to back directionality depends (at least in part) on
turning your head to locate sounds.
On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
On 25/07/2022 09:42 pm, tony sayer wrote:
<snipped>
Before this, and in the hands of other well-known EMI producers, the
stereo and mono recordings were often made at the same time, capturing >>>> the same performance (not always), with the studio outputs feeding two >>>> control rooms, with one recording in 2-track stereo and the other
recording in what was known as delta mono. Norrie Paramor (more
correctly, his favoured engineer, Malcolm Addey) tended to use this
method for his artistes (Cliff Richard, The Shadows, Helen Shapiro and >>>> others) plus his own and other orchestras. With this technique, once
the
performance was over, that was it, finito. The take was complete and
either acceptable for release or needing to be done again.
I'll... er... get me coat.
Nay lad keep thy coat!, all interesting stuff! Remember years ago a hi-
fi exhibition in London they, and buggered if i can remember who now, >>> may have even been EMI themselves! had a couple of BTR 2 machines used
by the Beatles and others at that time!..
https://www.abbeyroad.com/news/btr-2-gearthatmadeus-3175
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
other people.
In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre. It
was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>). Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it
was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
more impressive.
Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?
On 01/08/2022 18:16, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many >>>> other people.
In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre. It
was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>).
Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it >>> was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
more impressive.
I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
feeling of being in the action.
As far as I remember I was about three rows from the back and between
the centre and RHS. Perhaps if you were sitting halfway between front
and back, and midway between left and right, the sound might have been
good. But most of the audience would have been getting a very unbalanced sound in one way or another.
The best sound I have ever heard was at Earl's Court in August 1980,
where Pink Floyd did "The Wall". I read that they used 55kW of
amplification, of which 18kW was used for subsonic woofers. When The
Wall came down at the end, it felt like there was an earthquake!
People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema" became
quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).
Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
The first LaserDisc players were very expensive; according to the wiki,
over $3000 in 1978.
Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?
I saw some at an exhibition; I don't know how they were supposed to work
as I think front to back directionality depends (at least in part) on
turning your head to locate sounds.
On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
other people.
In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre.
It was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>). Although
I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was unimpressed by
the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud that it was
impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
more impressive.
I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
feeling of being in the action.
People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema" became quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).
Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
Have you ever tried quadraphonic headphones?
I saw some at an exhibition; I don't know how they were supposed to work
as I think front to back directionality depends (at least in part) on
turning your head to locate sounds.
On 01/08/2022 06:59 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:[snip]
On 01/08/2022 18:16, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too >>>>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many >>>>> other people.
In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square Theatre. It >>>> was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>). >>>> Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud
that it
was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It
didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've
heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much
more impressive.
I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker
units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
feeling of being in the action.
As far as I remember I was about three rows from the back and between
the centre and RHS. Perhaps if you were sitting halfway between front
and back, and midway between left and right, the sound might have been
good. But most of the audience would have been getting a very
unbalanced sound in one way or another.
The best sound I have ever heard was at Earl's Court in August 1980,
where Pink Floyd did "The Wall". I read that they used 55kW of
amplification, of which 18kW was used for subsonic woofers. When The
Wall came down at the end, it felt like there was an earthquake!
People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema" became >>> quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).
Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
The first LaserDisc players were very expensive; according to the
wiki, over $3000 in 1978.
The first CD players were expensive too. About £700 in 1983.
Are you talking of equivalent prices in today's money? The original
price of the first Philips machines (only 14bit) was the CD104
which was about 300 but soon dropped to nearer 200. Then along
came the CD160 (of which I still have one in full working order)
and that cost about 200 which soon dropped to about 150 when I
bought it.
Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from those sources!..
HFN is back on the shelves - pity WW (or was it E&WW) isn't!
All personal taste and opinion but clearly you were happy with the sound
of those early players. I wasn't convinced by them at all and my wife
was very anti. I wasn't until the Meridian 207 came out (~1987) when she remarked with a grin 'wow, it's playing the same record as the
turntable'.
The 207 was quickly bettered by the 208 which IMHO remained
substantially unbeaten at least in my price range,
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
other people.
In article <5a118e0f91bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
All personal taste and opinion but clearly you were happy with the sound
of those early players. I wasn't convinced by them at all and my wife
was very anti. I wasn't until the Meridian 207 came out (~1987) when she
remarked with a grin 'wow, it's playing the same record as the
turntable'.
I got one of the early Marantz takes on the Philips chipset. It was OK, but sounded better when I added a LPF that was made for FM Stereo. Gave a
cutoff at about 16kHz and helped kill garbage above that.
The 207 was quickly bettered by the 208 which IMHO remained
substantially unbeaten at least in my price range,
I also switched to Meridian 200 items for a while, and the changed to the
500 series DS DAC. In some ways the nicest sounding one I've used. Alas, it it has no USB input and can't cope with > 48k rate. So a tad limited for modern purposes.
OTOH I found the 200 player a PITA. Very fussy about what it would play and the casting was warped so it would foul some CDs. Had eventually to send it back to be replaced with a better example.
FWIW I've now settled on using Pioneer CD *recorders* to play CDs. They
play commercial CDs that seem 'difficult' in other players as well as CDR/W discs quite reliably.
On Tue 02/08/2022 01:35, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2022 06:59 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 01/08/2022 18:16, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too >>>>>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very >>>>>> many other people.
In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square
Theatre. It was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>). >>>>> Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud
that it was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was
coming! It didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid,
although I've heard a properly set up quad speaker system since,
and that was much more impressive.
I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker >>>> units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
feeling of being in the action.
As far as I remember I was about three rows from the back and between
the centre and RHS. Perhaps if you were sitting halfway between front
and back, and midway between left and right, the sound might have
been good. But most of the audience would have been getting a very
unbalanced sound in one way or another.
The best sound I have ever heard was at Earl's Court in August 1980,
where Pink Floyd did "The Wall". I read that they used 55kW of
amplification, of which 18kW was used for subsonic woofers. When The
Wall came down at the end, it felt like there was an earthquake!
People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would >>>> want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema"
became quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby
Stereo).
Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read >>>> only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
The first LaserDisc players were very expensive; according to the
wiki, over $3000 in 1978.
The first CD players were expensive too. About £700 in 1983.
[snip]
Are you talking of equivalent prices in today's money?
The original
price of the first Philips machines (only 14bit) was the CD104 which was about £300 but soon dropped to nearer £200. Then along came the CD160
(of which I still have one in full working order) and that cost about
£200 which soon dropped to about £150 when I bought it.
In article <jkpsgjFpmgU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
I first heard it at Kingswood Warren a few years later. That was pretty impressive.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too
impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very many
other people.
The problem I suspect was that many 'quad' items were via 'encodings' like
QS and SQ which relied on fiddling with the behaviour of a standard LP
stereo system. Basically, not up to it.
On top of that, good quad reproduction (and surround sound now) relies on a much better listening room acoustic and matched/carefully placed speakers. More demanding than stereo. (What I heard at KW was in a carefully prepared room via monitors from a 4-track tape of R3 event. Was nothing like any
room you'd choose to live in. And not 'encoded'.)
"Surround" in the home makes more sense as effects for a film. But I've always preferred good stereo for music. The pictures are better. :-)
FWIW I've now settled on using Pioneer CD *recorders* to play CDs.
They play commercial CDs that seem 'difficult' in other players as
well as CDR/W discs quite reliably.
ISTR that Meridian (and Boothroyd-Stuart for that matter) used
Philips drives in their kit but wrote their own software for them?
Are you talking of equivalent prices in today's money? The original
price of the first Philips machines (only 14bit) was the CD104 which was about £300 but soon dropped to nearer £200. Then along came the CD160
(of which I still have one in full working order) and that cost about
£200 which soon dropped to about £150 when I bought it.
On Tue 02/08/2022 01:35, JNugent wrote:
On 01/08/2022 06:59 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:[snip]
On 01/08/2022 18:16, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/08/2022 16:53, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 01/08/2022 12:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember going to the BBC's 50th anniversary exhibition at The
Langham, opposite BH. This (of course) was late 1972.
It was the first time I'd heard quadraphonic sound. TBH, I wasn't too >>>>>> impressed. Judging by the way quad later went, neither were very >>>>>> many
other people.
In March 1975 I went to see "Tommy" at the Leicester Square
Theatre. It
was advertised as having "Quintaphonic Sound"
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(1975_film)#Quintaphonic_Sound>). >>>>>
Although I had enjoyed the "Tommy" LP many years earlier, I was
unimpressed by the film's sountdtrack. Basically, it was so loud
that it
was impossible to tell from which direction the sound was coming! It >>>>> didn't enamour me to anything past stereo, I'm afraid, although I've >>>>> heard a properly set up quad speaker system since, and that was much >>>>> more impressive.
I saw that too; I thought it was rather impressive, with extra speaker >>>> units around the auditorium. Surround sound in the cinema gives a
feeling of being in the action.
As far as I remember I was about three rows from the back and between
the centre and RHS. Perhaps if you were sitting halfway between front
and back, and midway between left and right, the sound might have
been good. But most of the audience would have been getting a very
unbalanced sound in one way or another.
The best sound I have ever heard was at Earl's Court in August 1980,
where Pink Floyd did "The Wall". I read that they used 55kW of
amplification, of which 18kW was used for subsonic woofers. When The
Wall came down at the end, it felt like there was an earthquake!
People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would >>>> want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema"
became
quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo). >>>>
Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read >>>> only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
The first LaserDisc players were very expensive; according to the
wiki, over $3000 in 1978.
The first CD players were expensive too. About £700 in 1983.
Are you talking of equivalent prices in today's money?
The original
price of the first Philips machines (only 14bit) was the CD104 which was about £300 but soon dropped to nearer £200. Then along came the CD160
(of which I still have one in full working order) and that cost about
£200 which soon dropped to about £150 when I bought it.
In article <tcbbie$1ho4l$1@dont-email.me>, Woody
<harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
ISTR that Meridian (and Boothroyd-Stuart for that matter) used Philips drives in their kit but wrote their own software for them?
If I recall correctly Meridian did indeed use the basic mechanism of a Philips player and the same DAC. The differences were in the power
supply, the analogue stages, board layout and even the case work. I've
no idea what proportion of the differences came from where.
In article <5a1195bcecnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
FWIW I've now settled on using Pioneer CD *recorders* to play CDs.
They play commercial CDs that seem 'difficult' in other players as
well as CDR/W discs quite reliably.
I don't listen to CDs at all now, I prefer the streamer and my music
stored as flac files, less clutter, less fuss and IMHO, sounds better.
I do still have my Meridian 208 but it's upstairs in the office where it
gets very, very rare use to rip CDs that are copy protected. I've ripped thousands of CDs and had 3 or 4 that were protected and the computer
couldn't rip them. So I played them on the Meridian and recorded the
digital spdif output with Audacity, jobs a good 'en.
Again totally agree Jim, save that if you want to get some ambience the Hafler system always seemed to work for me. Two speakers at the back -
not hi-fi so no bass and little treble - wired across the L and R amp
+ve outputs.
In article <5a11b76350bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
If I recall correctly Meridian did indeed use the basic mechanism
of a Philips player and the same DAC. The differences were in the
power supply, the analogue stages, board layout and even the case
work. I've no idea what proportion of the differences came from
where.
Hard to say. My experience was that the mechanical side of the
changes in use of the Philips mech were a bit if a PITA. But the
tweaks they made to the DAC, etc, seemed to give nice results. I've
never tested by measurement the original IIRC. Maybe I should
sometime. That said, any results now might be degraded by the age
of the equipment so not represent it when new.
I didn't have any case/mechanism problems and have never, that I can
recall, had an undamaged CD the Meridian wouldn't play.
On 01/08/2022 18:16, Max Demian wrote:
People said that home quad systems would never catch on as no-one would
want all the extra speakers and trailing wires, but "home cinema" became
quite popular, with Dolby Surround (the home version of Dolby Stereo).
Similarly people said that Laserdisc wouldn't catch on as it was a read
only medium; true, it didn't, but that didn't stop DVD (and Blu-ray)
becoming popular despite few people owning recorders.
The first LaserDisc players were very expensive; according to the wiki,
over $3000 in 1978.
In article <XQM2KgAsgu5iFwZC@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:
Them's the days took HFN and Wireless world too, learnt a lot from
those sources!..
Me too! My initial education in electronics was from articles in the then-current HFN. I reget that it is now essentially a consumer mag
and won't really include 'technical' articles any more. FWIW I have
suggested more than once that they issue reprints of some of the
classic technical and construction articles. But not interested.
Alas, I fear they may be correct to assume that most modern readers
would feel annoyed by seeing 'technical' articles they find they
can't really understand. So in commercial terms, the attitude makes
sense. But it leaves it to 'the net' or books. Alas, the net isn't
always a good reference if you don't already have enough knowledge to
sort wheat from chaff.
And one of the big problems of the UK is the decades of lacking a
decently supprted techincal education system. Both FE and
apprenticeships have been discarded in the rush to 'banking' and
other forms of monkey-motions.
Jim
Jim
Jim
I miss WW. Got my first job (Radio and Space Research Station), second (Hayden Labs (Nagra)) and forth (ITN) from ads in WW.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:21:33 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,392 |
