In article ,
writes
Hello,

I hope this is not considered off-topic. I have read other posts here
about TV aerials and I hope to fit the aerial myself, so I think it
falls into the category of DIY.

I know you can get FM aerials for your radio and you can get a
multiplexer so that you can combine the TV aerial and fm aerial (in
your loft) into one cable and then use a demuiltiplexer at the other
end (in your lounge) to separate the TV and radio. This saves lying
another cable.

So far so good. But I have now upgraded to a DAB radio. What aerial
should I use for this? I presume a special DAB one. But can I use the
multiplexer option with that? I don't want to be lifting floorboards
etc. to lay a new cable if I can help it. I haven't seen any TV/dab
multiplexers or have I? I have seen uhf/vhf multiplexers; is this what
these are? If not, what are they?

Thanks,

Hardly worth bothering with IMHO, as the **** poor audio quality on DAB
as it stands in the UK makes listening to anything bigger than a Mono
portable unit a real pain!.

I'd hardly call it upgrading!....
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Hardly worth bothering with IMHO, as the **** poor audio quality on DAB
as it stands in the UK makes listening to anything bigger than a Mono
portable unit a real pain!.

Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

And the possibly better reception will sound much better than multipath on
FM on the average portable.

FWIW I'd love to set up some proper testing for those who say DAB sounds
terrible. I did do a quick test on a pal who is 'into' Hi-Fi using Capital
Radio with the FM delayed to match the DAB and levels carefully matched.
He failed. ;-)

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Hardly worth bothering with IMHO, as the **** poor audio quality on DAB
as it stands in the UK makes listening to anything bigger than a Mono
portable unit a real pain!.

Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

Yes Dave, I can as it happens..

And the possibly better reception will sound much better than multipath on
FM on the average portable.

Just because you live in the nastiest bit of London for multipath it
doesn't mean every other person in the UK does..


FWIW I'd love to set up some proper testing for those who say DAB sounds
terrible. I did do a quick test on a pal who is 'into' Hi-Fi using Capital
Radio with the FM delayed to match the DAB and levels carefully matched.
He failed. ;-)


Well not too surprising seeing the way these chains are setup. When your
up this way lets do a CD-v-FM then shall we
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

Yes Dave, I can as it happens..

You *say* you can. As do others. Plenty claim to hear differences between
cables too. The problem is that the treatment applied to R3 is different
between DAB and FM which rather muddies the waters.

And the possibly better reception will sound much better than multipath
on FM on the average portable.

Just because you live in the nastiest bit of London for multipath it
doesn't mean every other person in the UK does..

All of London is nasty for all FM in the car. Likewise most of the country
with a portable radio unless you fiddle with the aerial and don't move
anywhere near it. VHF requires diversity reception to get round this -
which is why it's used on radio mics and some cars. Dunno any portable
that has it, though. VHF can be very good with a good fixed installation.
Which 99.9% don't have for every receiver in their home.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

Yes Dave, I can as it happens..

You *say* you can. As do others.

Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
bitrates that DAB can handle.

Plenty claim to hear differences between
cables too.

Some can but that is a whole new argument Dave and you well know it
is!..

The problem is that the treatment applied to R3 is different
between DAB and FM which rather muddies the waters.

Yes it does but much was promised with DAB that hasn't materialised.

And the possibly better reception will sound much better than multipath
on FM on the average portable.

Multipath isn't that much of a problem for the rest of the country Dave
not everyone lives where you do!..


Just because you live in the nastiest bit of London for multipath it
doesn't mean every other person in the UK does..

All of London is nasty for all FM in the car.

Well I don't have any real problems apart from Pirate interference but
that isn't the fault of the system..

Likewise most of the country
with a portable radio unless you fiddle with the aerial and don't move
anywhere near it.

Hollyhocks.. We don't have any problems here and neither do a lot of
other people over the country.. there are quite a few places that don't
have Dabble reception as yet Dave and well you know it!..

VHF requires diversity reception to get round this -
which is why it's used on radio mics and some cars. Dunno any portable
that has it, though. VHF can be very good with a good fixed installation.
Which 99.9% don't have for every receiver in their home.

A lot don't need them but as you say they are rather good


--
Tony Sayer

On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:06:00 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

Yes Dave, I can as it happens..

You *say* you can. As do others.

Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
bitrates that DAB can handle.

This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.

M

In article , Mark ihatespam
@spam.spam.spam.spam writes
On Sun, 13 May 2007 16:06:00 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Hmm. You really saying you can tell the difference on R3 and R4?

Yes Dave, I can as it happens..

You *say* you can. As do others.

Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
bitrates that DAB can handle.

This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.

M

Quite agree!. The analogue piccy on our 10 Y/O B&O still knocks the
spots off digital on most all programme materiel especially on
definition and colour rendering:-)

Hope proper HD is here before I have to get a 3view box!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
bitrates that DAB can handle.

This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.

When DAB was introduced with 'better' bit rates it was near totally
ignored by everyone - true possibly due to the high cost of the hardware -
but even by enthusiasts happy to pay through the nose for other high end
hardware. It was only when the choice of stations was increased that it
took off - and of course the availability of cheaper hardware. Now those
same audiophiles who didn't bother with it earlier are those who complain
about the quality - the average punter *seems* happy enough.

My view is that for many purposes and casual listening - portable radios
and in car use - it sounds far better than either FM and definitely AM.
Where you want to sit down for some serious listening you still have FM
and of course now Freeview which gives most of the radio services too with
very cheap hardware.

For car use I'm sold on DAB - even the pop stations - which is about the
only time I listen to them.

The public appear to want choice - even if it's shopping or quiz channels
that many here never watch. They are commercial operations and can't
survive without viewers. If there genuinely was an overall desire for
'quality over quantity' they simply wouldn't exist.

--
*I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Quite agree!. The analogue piccy on our 10 Y/O B&O still knocks the
spots off digital on most all programme materiel especially on
definition and colour rendering:-)

I'll bet it doesn't beat my DLP for resolution...

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Quite agree!. The analogue piccy on our 10 Y/O B&O still knocks the
spots off digital on most all programme materiel especially on
definition and colour rendering:-)

I'll bet it doesn't beat my DLP for resolution...

Name your source!..
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 16 May 2007 11:16:12 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Mark wrote:
Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
bitrates that DAB can handle.

This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.

When DAB was introduced with 'better' bit rates it was near totally
ignored by everyone - true possibly due to the high cost of the hardware -
but even by enthusiasts happy to pay through the nose for other high end
hardware. It was only when the choice of stations was increased that it
took off - and of course the availability of cheaper hardware. Now those
same audiophiles who didn't bother with it earlier are those who complain
about the quality - the average punter *seems* happy enough.

I can't speak for others, but maybe I'm not an average 'punter' ;-)

My view is that for many purposes and casual listening - portable radios
and in car use - it sounds far better than either FM and definitely AM.
Where you want to sit down for some serious listening you still have FM
and of course now Freeview which gives most of the radio services too with
very cheap hardware.

For casual listening fine. I only bought DAB to get stations that are
not on FM, however.

For car use I'm sold on DAB - even the pop stations - which is about the
only time I listen to them.

My car doesn't have a DAB radio :-(

The public appear to want choice - even if it's shopping or quiz channels
that many here never watch. They are commercial operations and can't
survive without viewers. If there genuinely was an overall desire for
'quality over quantity' they simply wouldn't exist.

I can't 100% accept this type of argument about consumer choice. IMHO
the companies/government/whoever dictate what is available and people
take the least bad option. I'm sure if you asked a random sample of
people you would get "quality over quantity".

M

In article ,
Mark wrote:
The public appear to want choice - even if it's shopping or quiz
channels that many here never watch. They are commercial operations and
can't survive without viewers. If there genuinely was an overall desire
for 'quality over quantity' they simply wouldn't exist.

I can't 100% accept this type of argument about consumer choice. IMHO
the companies/government/whoever dictate what is available and people
take the least bad option. I'm sure if you asked a random sample of
people you would get "quality over quantity".

You might well. However, reality tends to be different. The largest
audiences go to the rubbish progs like Big Brother etc (that I have no
interest in watching) - and by nature will have poor technical standards -
while drama which costs big bucks to make and frequently gets the best of
everything is watched by fewer.

--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Mark wrote:
Yes.. as do quite a few others who are bothered by the noise the MP 2
codec makes when its been used at bitrates it was never intended for.
This was supposed to be the 21st century system that was to replace FM
but in effect is a lot worse than FM. Hopefully they'll see sense and
that a big mistake was made and do what other countries are now looking
to do and that is use a modern codec ACC+ which works much better at the
bitrates that DAB can handle.

This problem seemed to be repeated with other digital broadcast media.
Digital has the potential to be 'better' than analogue, but in
practise, it's all over-compressed to fit in too many channels. This
defeats the whole purpose of using the technology IMHO.

When DAB was introduced with 'better' bit rates it was near totally
ignored by everyone -

Thats a silly way of putting that. It was new and costs of receivers
like all modern tech we're high..

true possibly due to the high cost of the hardware -
but even by enthusiasts happy to pay through the nose for other high end
hardware. It was only when the choice of stations was increased that it
took off - and of course the availability of cheaper hardware. Now those
same audiophiles who didn't bother with it earlier are those who complain
about the quality - the average punter *seems* happy enough.

What a retrograde step. This is the same as saying that we should go
back to 386 processors because they are cheaper or would have cost less
than a 486!..


My view is that for many purposes and casual listening - portable radios
and in car use - it sounds far better than either FM and definitely AM.
Where you want to sit down for some serious listening you still have FM
and of course now Freeview which gives most of the radio services too with
very cheap hardware.

Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..


For car use I'm sold on DAB - even the pop stations - which is about the
only time I listen to them.

I don't have any problem with Pop stations apart from to over compressed
sound but thats not the fault of the FM system but on DAB with the
screwed codec and bit rates that is a problem!..


The public appear to want choice - even if it's shopping or quiz channels
that many here never watch. They are commercial operations and can't
survive without viewers. If there genuinely was an overall desire for
'quality over quantity' they simply wouldn't exist.


The problem is that DAB, as it has been implemented, was a large mistake
using a codec that is totally wrong for its intended use. MP2 is fine at
high i.e. over 256 K rates but nowhere near as good as AAC + at low
rates. Other countries have seen that and are to introduce AAC services
with the UK being left out and behind!.

And you Dave as a sound "professional" should realise that!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

BTW, DAB is 'supposed' to replace FM in the same way as FM was 'supposed'
to replace AM.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The problem is that DAB, as it has been implemented, was a large mistake
using a codec that is totally wrong for its intended use. MP2 is fine at
high i.e. over 256 K rates but nowhere near as good as AAC + at low
rates. Other countries have seen that and are to introduce AAC services
with the UK being left out and behind!.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I first heard DAB demonstrated some 20
years ago. And AAC is perfectly capable of producing poor sound at low
enough data rates. There's no guarantee that changing to it won't result
in the same situation you're complaining about now - after all other
countries use a high enough rate with MP2 on DAB today.

And you Dave as a sound "professional" should realise that!...

It's 'sound professionals' that produce the over compressed CDs and radio
we are forced to listen to near universally these days too.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On May 17, 10:44 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

I disagree. FM stereo is very good and it is certainly better than
the mono that most DAB stations use or the 'joint stereo' that the
classical music stations use.

The FM stereo system was, as you allude to, added to the original
mono FM design, but it does work properly. You use more bandwidth and
you get two separate stereo channels. On DAB if you get stereo at
all it is "joint stereo" which does not give two stereo channels. The
result is that the stereo image is unclear and instruments seem to
wander about.

I do agree that FM is better suited to a fixed installation because of
its need for a good aerial.

With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

Robert

In article .com,
Robert Laws wrote:
With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp and
speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as FM. LW
sounds poor. Are you asking for that to be abolished or upgraded in some
way? AM is capable of decent enough results too.

BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred miles
of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater than MW -
on a decent receiver.

--
*Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

Well your clearly losing the plot or been brainwashed by the DRDB Dave.
FM in an awful lot of locations works fine. Just because you live in a
multipath ridden bit of London doesn't mean that everyone else does.
There are a lot of areas where DAB is poor and infested with bubbling
mud.

FM is a fine system if only they could have come up with something
BETTER to replace it with!..

Things have moved on like TV radio is now going down the digital tubes
when it all could have been so very much better!..


BTW, DAB is 'supposed' to replace FM in the same way as FM was 'supposed'
to replace AM.

Well as DABble is marginally better than AM perhaps its that it might
replace!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article .com,
Robert Laws wrote:
With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp and
speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as FM.

There you are then, time to get the hearing aid batteries replaced!...

LW
sounds poor. Are you asking for that to be abolished or upgraded in some
way? AM is capable of decent enough results too.

BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred miles
of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater than MW -
on a decent receiver.

Well silly.. That as you well know was because proper digital
distribution wasn't developed until PCM came along. What an idiotic
statement that is!. Its like saying the picture on the TV wasn't any
good until colour came along!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The problem is that DAB, as it has been implemented, was a large mistake
using a codec that is totally wrong for its intended use. MP2 is fine at
high i.e. over 256 K rates but nowhere near as good as AAC + at low
rates. Other countries have seen that and are to introduce AAC services
with the UK being left out and behind!.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I first heard DAB demonstrated some 20
years ago. And AAC is perfectly capable of producing poor sound at low
enough data rates.

You've lost it now!. What a silly statement of course AAC is capable of
producing poor results at low rates. Compare 128 AAC with 128 MP and
hear the difference . Now compare 64 K MP2 with 64 K AAC and again a
very noticeable difference!..

There's no guarantee that changing to it won't result
in the same situation you're complaining about now - after all other
countries use a high enough rate with MP2 on DAB today.

Then why are the adopting AAC+ then?..

And you Dave as a sound "professional" should realise that!...

It's 'sound professionals' that produce the over compressed CDs and radio
we are forced to listen to near universally these days too.

Its the management that does that no engineer worth his salt would do
that but then again in the UK an engineer doesn't mean much..
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
There's no guarantee that changing to it won't result
in the same situation you're complaining about now - after all other
countries use a high enough rate with MP2 on DAB today.

Then why are the adopting AAC+ then?..

Which countries with an existing DAB service are committed to adopting
AAC+?

--
*Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp
and speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as
FM.

There you are then, time to get the hearing aid batteries replaced!...

You and others keep saying this sort of thing, but when I try and get
friends who claim to have decent hearing to tell the difference here
reliably, they fail.

Which station(s) would you say demonstrates this difference most?

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article .com,
Robert Laws wrote:
With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp and
speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as FM.

There you are then, time to get the hearing aid batteries replaced!...

LW
sounds poor. Are you asking for that to be abolished or upgraded in some
way? AM is capable of decent enough results too.

BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred miles
of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater than MW -
on a decent receiver.

Well silly.. That as you well know was because proper digital
distribution wasn't developed until PCM came along. What an idiotic
statement that is!. Its like saying the picture on the TV wasn't any
good until colour came along!..

Not so. It was a reply to the quality of DAB being like a step back to the
'50s.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

IIRC mono FM (i.e. L+R) is transmitted using FM and the stereo part
(L-R) is actually transmitted using AM, which is poorer quality.

M

In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

IIRC mono FM (i.e. L+R) is transmitted using FM and the stereo part
(L-R) is actually transmitted using AM, which is poorer quality.

The other problem is the pre-emphasis wasn't designed for the high levels
of HF found in much of today's programme material.

--
*Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

IIRC mono FM (i.e. L+R) is transmitted using FM and the stereo part
(L-R) is actually transmitted using AM, which is poorer quality.

M

Uh?

FM receivers rely on a frequency _discriminator_ to detect modulation and
are essentially indifferent to the amplitude of the transmitted signal. How
does your hypothesised receiver detect this 'AM' signal?

--

Brian

On May 17, 5:47 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article .com,
Robert Laws wrote:

With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp and
speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as FM. LW
sounds poor. Are you asking for that to be abolished or upgraded in some
way? AM is capable of decent enough results too.

BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred miles
of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater than MW -
on a decent receiver.

You are right, I should have said "a step back from the 1970s.
Although I did listen to FM in the 1960s it's really the era of FM
stereo that I compare DAB with unfavourably.

My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
sound quality.

Robert

In article . com,
Robert Laws wrote:
BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred
miles of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater
than MW - on a decent receiver.

You are right, I should have said "a step back from the 1970s.
Although I did listen to FM in the 1960s it's really the era of FM
stereo that I compare DAB with unfavourably.

My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
sound quality.

Mine too - I don't see the need for all those pop stations transmitting
seemingly identical material. And despite my age I do try and keep up with
the latest trends.

However, the fact remains that DAB take up - when the data rates were
decent - was very poor and didn't really take off until that choice was
there. Chicken or egg, I don't know.

--
*A dog's not just for Christmas, it's alright on a Friday night too*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp
and speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as
FM.

There you are then, time to get the hearing aid batteries replaced!...

You and others keep saying this sort of thing, but when I try and get
friends who claim to have decent hearing to tell the difference here
reliably, they fail.

Which station(s) would you say demonstrates this difference most?


Radios 1, 2, 4 and most all commercial ones...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article .com,
Robert Laws wrote:
With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp and
speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as FM.

There you are then, time to get the hearing aid batteries replaced!...

LW
sounds poor. Are you asking for that to be abolished or upgraded in some
way? AM is capable of decent enough results too.

BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred miles
of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater than MW -
on a decent receiver.

Well silly.. That as you well know was because proper digital
distribution wasn't developed until PCM came along. What an idiotic
statement that is!. Its like saying the picture on the TV wasn't any
good until colour came along!..

Not so. It was a reply to the quality of DAB being like a step back to the
'50s.


Yes DAB as UK implemented is a step back in broadcasting evolution...
--
Tony Sayer

In article . com,
Robert Laws writes
On May 17, 5:47 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article .com,
Robert Laws wrote:

With DAB we have got a large quantity of channels but the sound
quality is poor. it is a step back from the 1950s.

I'm listening to the PM prog on R4 DAB at the moment via a decent amp and
speakers and the quality ain't poor. It sounds exactly the same as FM. LW
sounds poor. Are you asking for that to be abolished or upgraded in some
way? AM is capable of decent enough results too.

BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred miles
of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater than MW -
on a decent receiver.

You are right, I should have said "a step back from the 1970s.
Although I did listen to FM in the 1960s it's really the era of FM
stereo that I compare DAB with unfavourably.

My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
sound quality.

Robert


Exactly. Why should and are we doing this?. Theres a lot of bandwidth
available especially on satellite that could be used instead of all the
absolute crap thats there!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article . com,
Robert Laws wrote:
BTW I doubt you actually remember FM from the '50s. With the exception
of Wrotham (London), the quality of the landlines feeding the
transmitters was dreadful. By the time you got a couple of hundred
miles of them the actual bandwidth transmitted on FM was no greater
than MW - on a decent receiver.

You are right, I should have said "a step back from the 1970s.
Although I did listen to FM in the 1960s it's really the era of FM
stereo that I compare DAB with unfavourably.

My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
sound quality.

Mine too - I don't see the need for all those pop stations transmitting
seemingly identical material. And despite my age I do try and keep up with
the latest trends.

Fair comment


However, the fact remains that DAB take up - when the data rates were
decent - was very poor and didn't really take off until that choice was
there. Chicken or egg, I don't know.

Thats cos sets were expensive the right sort of silicon wasn't around..
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Mark ihatespam
@spam.spam.spam.spam writes
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

IIRC mono FM (i.e. L+R) is transmitted using FM and the stereo part
(L-R) is actually transmitted using AM, which is poorer quality.

M

No not so. Ever heard 405 line TV sound?, and just how good that was?.
AM or FM doesn't really matter in this instance. What many confuse is
that AM on Medium frequencies is bandwidth limited which makes it sound
inferior compared to VHF/FM. It is true that FM is a much better
rejecter of interference than FM providing thats over threshold but
otherwise not.

The only poorer quality issue with Multiplex is a worsening of the
Signal to noise ratio...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Mark wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

IIRC mono FM (i.e. L+R) is transmitted using FM and the stereo part
(L-R) is actually transmitted using AM, which is poorer quality.

The other problem is the pre-emphasis wasn't designed for the high levels
of HF found in much of today's programme material.

Thats a relative thing Dave and isn't a consideration. Just because they
want to be louder then anything else on the dial isn't a problem of the
FM system.

Course theres MPEG coding where we throw away information and intensity
stereo and other digital horrors!..


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Brian Sharrock
writes

"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:44:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Another odd notion.. DAB is supposed to replace FM so we're replacing
something that does work well very well, with an inferior system!..

I don't know where you have this notion that FM works very well. For a
start, stereo is a cludge. It's a poor system for anything other than a
fixed installation. It may have been state of the art when introduced 50
odd years ago, but things have moved on a bit since then.

IIRC mono FM (i.e. L+R) is transmitted using FM and the stereo part
(L-R) is actually transmitted using AM, which is poorer quality.

M

Uh?

FM receivers rely on a frequency _discriminator_ to detect modulation and
are essentially indifferent to the amplitude of the transmitted signal. How
does your hypothesised receiver detect this 'AM' signal?


Have a Google for the Zenith GE stereo system.....


--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
sound quality.

Robert


Exactly. Why should and are we doing this?. Theres a lot of bandwidth
available especially on satellite that could be used instead of all the
absolute crap thats there!..

Sigh. The majority of radio listening is on some form of portable or
mobile receiver. Satellite simply isn't suitable for this. Nor is FM
ideal...

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The other problem is the pre-emphasis wasn't designed for the high
levels of HF found in much of today's programme material.

Thats a relative thing Dave and isn't a consideration. Just because they
want to be louder then anything else on the dial isn't a problem of the
FM system.

And the problem with DAB radio in this country isn't inherent but in the
way it's implemented?

Course theres MPEG coding where we throw away information and intensity
stereo and other digital horrors!..

FM stereo compromises audio bandwidth to below what is the norm for
reasonable Hi-Fi equipment.

--
*There are two kinds of pedestrians... the quick and the dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
My regret is that they went for "lots of stations" instead of improved
sound quality.

Robert


Exactly. Why should and are we doing this?. Theres a lot of bandwidth
available especially on satellite that could be used instead of all the
absolute crap thats there!..

Sigh. The majority of radio listening is on some form of portable or
mobile receiver. Satellite simply isn't suitable for this. Nor is FM
ideal...

Yes I know that.. it was just to point out that digital platforms both
TV and Radio could be very much better but that the broadcasters see
that quantity over quality is far more important!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The other problem is the pre-emphasis wasn't designed for the high
levels of HF found in much of today's programme material.

Thats a relative thing Dave and isn't a consideration. Just because they
want to be louder then anything else on the dial isn't a problem of the
FM system.

And the problem with DAB radio in this country isn't inherent but in the
way it's implemented?

Yes it is. The whole is rather questionable from the concept of a MUX
owner to ye olde world codec...

Course theres MPEG coding where we throw away information and intensity
stereo and other digital horrors!..

FM stereo compromises audio bandwidth to below what is the norm for
reasonable Hi-Fi equipment.


It does not!, just because it cuts of at 15 kHz rather then 20 kHz is
bugger all to do with it, and you as a sound engineer ought to know
that!..
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Sigh. The majority of radio listening is on some form of portable or
mobile receiver. Satellite simply isn't suitable for this. Nor is FM
ideal...

Yes I know that.. it was just to point out that digital platforms both
TV and Radio could be very much better but that the broadcasters see
that quantity over quality is far more important!...

Commercial broadcasters survive by selling advertising. If there was this
great demand for high quality surely one would fulfil that gap? But I
repeat the fact that when DAB used a higher data rate the take up was poor.

BTW, you missed out FreeView as a source of radio. Cheap hardware and most
have the necessary aerial already in place.

--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.