"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
m...

"EADGBE" wrote in message
...

OK, I remembered that one of my other CD players--a Magnavox CDB650--
also has a digital output.

I patched it into the Yamaha preamp and got the same results--no right
channel sound.

I also tried another cable (dumb, I know--I'm still thinking
"analog"!) and got the same results.

I also tried using another one of the preamp's digital inputs and got
the same results.

So I can safely say that the fault lies somewhere inside the preamp.

Time to get out the hammer and duct tape......



Far be it from me to say I told you so, so I won't.


Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or it
doesn't.



Gareth.



As for the cause of the problem in tha pre-amp, one can only speculate even
more, we know how much fun that is. If you have a scope you can just follow
the signals from the D/A converter output onwards until one dissapears.

Could be anything at all really. It might be worth tapping and banging
things to see if it's a mechanical intermittent, other than that it's just
plain fault tracing. Could just be a selector switch. But I'm just
speculating again aren't I. Tch.




Gareth.

Gareth Magennis wrote:
"EADGBE" wrote in message
...
OK, I remembered that one of my other CD players--a Magnavox CDB650--
also has a digital output.

I patched it into the Yamaha preamp and got the same results--no right
channel sound.

I also tried another cable (dumb, I know--I'm still thinking
"analog"!) and got the same results.

I also tried using another one of the preamp's digital inputs and got
the same results.

So I can safely say that the fault lies somewhere inside the preamp.

Time to get out the hammer and duct tape......



Far be it from me to say I told you so, so I won't.


Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or it
doesn't.



Gareth.



Ah, you don't have a DAB radio then? The background sound of boiling mud
in low signal conditions is a joy.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Gareth Magennis wrote:
"EADGBE" wrote in message
...
OK, I remembered that one of my other CD players--a Magnavox CDB650--
also has a digital output.

I patched it into the Yamaha preamp and got the same results--no right
channel sound.

I also tried another cable (dumb, I know--I'm still thinking
"analog"!) and got the same results.

I also tried using another one of the preamp's digital inputs and got
the same results.

So I can safely say that the fault lies somewhere inside the preamp.

Time to get out the hammer and duct tape......



Far be it from me to say I told you so, so I won't.


Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or it
doesn't.



Gareth.

Ah, you don't have a DAB radio then? The background sound of boiling mud
in low signal conditions is a joy.

d

LOL !!

Arfa

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Gareth Magennis wrote:
Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or it
doesn't.

Ah, you don't have a DAB radio then? The background sound of boiling mud
in low signal conditions is a joy.

But that IS "working" according to the people who specified
and designed the system. The low-level hash was determined to
be an acceptable tradeoff in the overall scheme. (Compare the
performance of MP3, etc.)

On Jul 14, 7:12*pm, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

Far be it from me to say I told you so, so I won't.

Actually your original instincts were right. *Digital either works or it
doesn't.

Gareth.

Gareth:

Oh, I never doubted your assessment.

I just wanted to do some more testing, in the interests of thoroughly
defining the problem.

I suspect that the problem is physical (broken solder connection,
etc.) rather than electronic...at least I hope this is the case.

It will be some time before I have time to sit down and see what the
problem is, but when I do, I will let everyone know what I find.

Many, many thanks for all of the kind assistance!

"EADGBE" wrote in message
...
On Jul 14, 7:12 pm, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

Far be it from me to say I told you so, so I won't.

Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or it
doesn't.

Gareth.

Gareth:

Oh, I never doubted your assessment.

snip

In reality, none of us did really. We wuz jus' messin' wiv ya and adding a
bit of interesting debate to the issue ... d;~}

Arfa

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Gareth Magennis wrote:
Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or it
doesn't.
Ah, you don't have a DAB radio then? The background sound of boiling mud
in low signal conditions is a joy.

But that IS "working" according to the people who specified
and designed the system. The low-level hash was determined to
be an acceptable tradeoff in the overall scheme. (Compare the
performance of MP3, etc.)



I don't mean that, I mean this - what happens when there isn't enough
signal strength.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/baddab.mp3

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Gareth Magennis wrote:
Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or
it doesn't.
Ah, you don't have a DAB radio then? The background sound of boiling mud
in low signal conditions is a joy.

But that IS "working" according to the people who specified
and designed the system. The low-level hash was determined to
be an acceptable tradeoff in the overall scheme. (Compare the
performance of MP3, etc.)

I don't mean that, I mean this - what happens when there isn't enough
signal strength.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/baddab.mp3

d


That sounds like John Humphrys pretending to be a Dalek.
I think its slightly less annoying than FM radio on the edge of reception,
where it would sound like he was pretending to be a force 9 gale in mono.



Gareth.

Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Gareth Magennis wrote:
Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or
it doesn't.
Ah, you don't have a DAB radio then? The background sound of boiling mud
in low signal conditions is a joy.
But that IS "working" according to the people who specified
and designed the system. The low-level hash was determined to
be an acceptable tradeoff in the overall scheme. (Compare the
performance of MP3, etc.)
I don't mean that, I mean this - what happens when there isn't enough
signal strength.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/baddab.mp3

d


That sounds like John Humphrys pretending to be a Dalek.
I think its slightly less annoying than FM radio on the edge of reception,
where it would sound like he was pretending to be a force 9 gale in mono.



Gareth.



Yes, but there is an important difference - the FM signal drops into
noise gracefully and slowly. That DAB signal is only 1dB or so bigger
than one that is not received at all, and 1dB bigger again would be
received cleanly.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Gareth Magennis wrote:
Actually your original instincts were right. Digital either works or
it doesn't.
Ah, you don't have a DAB radio then? The background sound of boiling
mud in low signal conditions is a joy.
But that IS "working" according to the people who specified
and designed the system. The low-level hash was determined to
be an acceptable tradeoff in the overall scheme. (Compare the
performance of MP3, etc.)
I don't mean that, I mean this - what happens when there isn't enough
signal strength.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/baddab.mp3

d


That sounds like John Humphrys pretending to be a Dalek.
I think its slightly less annoying than FM radio on the edge of
reception, where it would sound like he was pretending to be a force 9
gale in mono.



Gareth.

Yes, but there is an important difference - the FM signal drops into noise
gracefully and slowly. That DAB signal is only 1dB or so bigger than one
that is not received at all, and 1dB bigger again would be received
cleanly.

d

I think that when push comes to shove, a lot of the 'digital revolution',
including DAB, is about money, not any advantage to the consumer. DTTV
clearly shows this where, despite the limited bandwidth available for
transmissions, government and the regulators, continue to sell licences to
every little tinpot Tom Dick and Harry station, which then get crammed into
yet another multiplex, until there's no longer enough space left there for
everyone to get in a decent bitrate, whereupon it's discretely downed, and
stations start to get on the edge of Dalekism. Likewise, TV stations start
to have objectionable motion artifacts to the point of area blocking on some
of the worst affected ones.

That's not to say that digital transmissions *can't* be good in terms of
viewability and listenability. A 'good' full bitrate DAB transmission, or
better yet a radio or full bitrate satellite channel, can be excellent and
at least up to, if not exceeding a comparable analogue transmission of full
quality. It's just a shame that no matter how good the starting point, a
coupla dB is the difference between reception and digital cliff. Personally,
I'm with Don on that one, and I'd rather see the picture or hear the sound,
gradually deteriorate, as the signal level falls off.

So, is Freesat going to knock Freeview on the head ? I can't see any reason
why not, and can see one very good reason why it might.

HD

And that brings us back to the bandwidth issue ...

Arfa

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Yes, but there is an important difference - the FM signal drops into noise
gracefully and slowly. That DAB signal is only 1dB or so bigger than one
that is not received at all, and 1dB bigger again would be received
cleanly.

That is a general problem with ALL digital communication,
it has a much different degradation behavior.

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Yes, but there is an important difference - the FM signal drops into noise
gracefully and slowly. That DAB signal is only 1dB or so bigger than one
that is not received at all, and 1dB bigger again would be received
cleanly.

That is a general problem with ALL digital communication,
it has a much different degradation behavior.



Yes, but too many system calculate their link budgets very marginally. A
two-way mobile broadband system I'm currently deploying gets round this
by using remote transmitter power control; the receiver tells the
distant transmitter how much power to send so it stays just the clear
side of threshold. It's amazing how little interference you cause that way.

d