Jules wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:43:15 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Shame, as digital TV seems prone to signal break-up (where an analogue
broadcast might survive, just at low quality) and the extra bandwidth just
means more channels of utter ****e, rather than a few better ones. Digital
radio is presumably just as prone...
Oddly enough, channel 5 was ****e here on analogue, and is generally
fine on digital.

I haven't seen C5 for many years; it wasn't transmitted to the area
outside of Cambridge where I lived (something to do with it
interfering with the university's astronomy dept. I believe) and I
refused to pay x pounds/month for a bazillion digital channels when I was
only ever going to watch four or five of them.



Ah freeview now means you get about 15 for free. Decentish ones that is.

Andy Dee wrote:
RobertL wrote:


Let's hope FM keeps going until the replacement is has as good sound
quality (and is in full stereo).

Robert


Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?


Always
A

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Captain Kirk out of Star Trek had 3 ears.

The left ear.


The right ear.


and...



The Final Front Ear.

Those oldies amongst us will remember it being Davy Crockett - with a wild
frontier...

Ah. Dave Absalom and the 'Ballad of Constable McLeggan and 'Peaches'
Melba'..

"Now backwoodsmen like the back and frontiersman like the front
But since you are a Constable I guess you want.. a little down payment?"

Tim Downie wrote:

"Jules" wrote in message
news
I haven't seen C5 for many years; it wasn't transmitted to the area
outside of Cambridge where I lived (something to do with it
interfering with the university's astronomy dept. I believe) and I
refused to pay x pounds/month for a bazillion digital channels when I was
only ever going to watch four or five of them.

?? No monthly charges for Freeview.

Only the license fee ;-)
Tim

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000 someone who may be Dave
wrote this:-

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Eventually? Possibly.

In the short term? No.


DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC). Overseas they
are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow eventually (though
the officials concerned had yet to admit this the last time I
checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly but
quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
frighten the public.

That must be where I picked up on the fact that our DAB radios will
become redundant soon.

Dave

Dave wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

I am replying to my own post, because I would like to thank all the
posters that have contributed to my question. It becomes slightly
clearer, but with treacle painted over my eyes :-)

Many thanks

Dave

In article ,
Dave wrote:
DAB is so outdated that only the UK is sticking with it (and even so
the commercial sector is now leaving it to the BBC). Overseas they
are using an improved DAB and the UK will follow eventually (though
the officials concerned had yet to admit this the last time I
checked). It is claimed that the manufacturers are slowly but
quietly rolling out DAB+ radios, as the officials don't want to
frighten the public.

That must be where I picked up on the fact that our DAB radios will
become redundant soon.

Not 'soon'. There are no dates for the introduction of DAB+ - nor even any
firm proposals.

--
*Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: They only made 21.4 million bugs.

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

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:02:00 +0000 someone who may be Dave
wrote this:-

That must be where I picked up on the fact that our DAB radios will
become redundant soon.

Only radios which cannot now pick up DAB+, or cannot be upgraded to
pick up DAB+, will become obsolete. Some of the former are already
on sale, check with the manufacturer about the latter.

As has been said, der Tag is not soon, but the UK will have to do it
eventually.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave
wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Maybe......in fifty years time.


--

In article , Mike
scribeth thus
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave
wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Maybe......in fifty years time.



I can see a time when some local commercial stations will come off Dab
as it simply isn't cost effective for them to transmit on that format!.

The few people I know that have DAB receivers bought them to receive BBC
Radio 5 Live better;!....
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Mike
scribeth thus
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave
wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Maybe......in fifty years time.



I can see a time when some local commercial stations will come off Dab
as it simply isn't cost effective for them to transmit on that format!.

Perhaps it's time the rentals were adjusted to the real world. Can't see
DAB being intrinsically more expensive to transmit than any other.

The few people I know that have DAB receivers bought them to receive BBC
Radio 5 Live better;!....

In my case I went DAB years ago because of diabolical FM reception in this
part of London - which has since been at least partially cured by a new
fill in tranmitter. But do still use it for R7 - which is guaranteed to
brighten up the dullest day.

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

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

On Jan 14, 12:18*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message

news
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:29:28 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
wrote this:-

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

The same is true of televisions I gather. Proponents claim that this
is balanced by the relatively low power of the transmitters. I'm not
convinced, but that is their claim.

This is untrue of course.
There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.


One (less power) doesn't neccessarily follow from the other (less
chips). It depends on the nature of the chips, supply voltage,
operating frequency and I/O characteristics.

MBQ

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:39:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
?? No monthly charges for Freeview.

Only the license fee ;-)

I'm glad I don't have to pay that any more :-) It got to be a real pain
doing so, spending half the year overseas, and then forever being told
"this content isn't available in your region" from various BBC sources

On 14 Jan, 12:18, "dennis@home" wrote:

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

This is untrue of course.

More Dennis.

There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.

Except for DAB and its additional codec, which has a long track-record
of being power-hungry to a point that made battery operation
impractical.

Only very recently, such that "old stock" radios are still on the
shelves, have low-power DAB chipsets appeared.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:31:21 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Mike
scribeth thus
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave
wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Maybe......in fifty years time.



I can see a time when some local commercial stations will come off Dab
as it simply isn't cost effective for them to transmit on that format!.

The few people I know that have DAB receivers bought them to receive BBC
Radio 5 Live better;!....

Some say it's probably the best technology item they've ever bought
(or being given) - the older the user the happier they are with it.
(cue "DAB Sounds Worse Than FM" butting in and saying that's because
they are deaf!)

But the main advantages are ease of use, with an always accurate clock
and no fiddly tuning. It's so easy my mum loves it and she still can't
use a video recorder.

--

Mike wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:31:21 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Mike
scribeth thus
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave
wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?
Maybe......in fifty years time.


I can see a time when some local commercial stations will come off Dab
as it simply isn't cost effective for them to transmit on that format!.

The few people I know that have DAB receivers bought them to receive BBC
Radio 5 Live better;!....

Some say it's probably the best technology item they've ever bought
(or being given) - the older the user the happier they are with it.
(cue "DAB Sounds Worse Than FM" butting in and saying that's because
they are deaf!)

But the main advantages are ease of use, with an always accurate clock
and no fiddly tuning. It's so easy my mum loves it and she still can't
use a video recorder.

Maybe consistent time, but accurate, I have to question. It is currently
showing 31 seconds behind our 'Rugby' based clocks. They are within a
couple of seconds of my PC (with its auto-correction seemingly working
fine).

My biggest gripe is that the radio seems excessively bassy and lacks
high frequencies. Perhaps it is my ears but I do not have that
impression from TV sound or even internet sources, CDs, etc. Don't know
if it the the radio itself (i.e. make/model) or the DAB
technology/bitrates/etc.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

In article ,
Rod wrote:
My biggest gripe is that the radio seems excessively bassy and lacks
high frequencies. Perhaps it is my ears but I do not have that
impression from TV sound or even internet sources, CDs, etc. Don't know
if it the the radio itself (i.e. make/model) or the DAB
technology/bitrates/etc.

Likely the radio as the frequency response of the system is fine. Some
equate the too low bitrate as making things sound too bright.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Captain Kirk out of Star Trek had 3 ears.

The left ear.


The right ear.


and...



The Final Front Ear.

Those oldies amongst us will remember it being Davy Crockett - with a
wild frontier...

I thought that was the 'wear the fox hat' joke?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jan, 12:18, "dennis@home" wrote:

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

This is untrue of course.

More Dennis.

There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.

Except for DAB and its additional codec, which has a long track-record
of being power-hungry to a point that made battery operation
impractical.

Only very recently, such that "old stock" radios are still on the
shelves, have low-power DAB chipsets appeared.

So you agree that DAB doesn't use more power.

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Captain Kirk out of Star Trek had 3 ears.

The left ear.

The right ear.

and...

The Final Front Ear.
Those oldies amongst us will remember it being Davy Crockett - with
a wild
frontier...

Ah. Dave Absalom and the 'Ballad of Constable McLeggan and 'Peaches'
Melba'..

Did you mean Mike Absalom ?



"Now backwoodsmen like the back and frontiersman like the front
But since you are a Constable I guess you want.. a little down payment?"

--
geoff

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:11:00 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jan, 12:18, "dennis@home" wrote:

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

This is untrue of course.

More Dennis.

There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.

Except for DAB and its additional codec, which has a long track-record
of being power-hungry to a point that made battery operation
impractical.

Only very recently, such that "old stock" radios are still on the
shelves, have low-power DAB chipsets appeared.

So you agree that DAB doesn't use more power.

Stop twisting his words. SOME DAB doesn't use more power. Probably at
least 95% of the installed base does..

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dee wrote:
RobertL wrote:


Let's hope FM keeps going until the replacement is has as good sound
quality (and is in full stereo).

Robert


Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?


Always

Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.

Andy

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:11:00 UTC, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Andy Dingley" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jan, 12:18, "dennis@home" wrote:

One of the disadvantages of DAB and DAB+ is that portable receivers
require a great deal more power to operate than analogue ones.

This is untrue of course.

More Dennis.

There is less chippery in a modern digital set so they use less power.

Except for DAB and its additional codec, which has a long track-record
of being power-hungry to a point that made battery operation
impractical.

Only very recently, such that "old stock" radios are still on the
shelves, have low-power DAB chipsets appeared.

So you agree that DAB doesn't use more power.

Stop twisting his words. SOME DAB doesn't use more power. Probably at
least 95% of the installed base does..

Who's twisting?
Maybe he should have said dab used to use more power then?

In article , Rod
scribeth thus
Mike wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:31:21 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Mike
scribeth thus
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave
wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?
Maybe......in fifty years time.


I can see a time when some local commercial stations will come off Dab
as it simply isn't cost effective for them to transmit on that format!.

The few people I know that have DAB receivers bought them to receive BBC
Radio 5 Live better;!....

Some say it's probably the best technology item they've ever bought
(or being given) - the older the user the happier they are with it.
(cue "DAB Sounds Worse Than FM" butting in and saying that's because
they are deaf!)

But the main advantages are ease of use, with an always accurate clock
and no fiddly tuning. It's so easy my mum loves it and she still can't
use a video recorder.

Maybe consistent time, but accurate, I have to question. It is currently
showing 31 seconds behind our 'Rugby' based clocks. They are within a
couple of seconds of my PC (with its auto-correction seemingly working
fine).

My biggest gripe is that the radio seems excessively bassy and lacks
high frequencies. Perhaps it is my ears but I do not have that
impression from TV sound or even internet sources, CDs, etc. Don't know
if it the the radio itself (i.e. make/model) or the DAB
technology/bitrates/etc.


Bits .. Dab is renowned for throwing away bits and due to the MP2 coder
which does not perform well at all at low bitrates..
--
Tony Sayer

In message , tony sayer
writes
My biggest gripe is that the radio seems excessively bassy and lacks
high frequencies. Perhaps it is my ears but I do not have that
impression from TV sound or even internet sources, CDs, etc. Don't know
if it the the radio itself (i.e. make/model) or the DAB
technology/bitrates/etc.


Bits .. Dab is renowned for throwing away bits and due to the MP2 coder
which does not perform well at all at low bitrates..

Some male voices *buzz*. Is it Robinson at 8.00am?

I know my hearing is going and our Dab speaker is mouse ear size but I
wonder if any broadcaster ever listens to himself.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Mike
writes
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:31:21 +0000, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Mike
scribeth thus
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:39:11 +0000, Dave
wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that when analogue TV is switched off that
analogue radio will go the same way?

Maybe......in fifty years time.



I can see a time when some local commercial stations will come off Dab
as it simply isn't cost effective for them to transmit on that format!.

The few people I know that have DAB receivers bought them to receive BBC
Radio 5 Live better;!....

Some say it's probably the best technology item they've ever bought
(or being given) - the older the user the happier they are with it.
(cue "DAB Sounds Worse Than FM" butting in and saying that's because
they are deaf!)

I recently bought one, as I was looking for a new small portable radio
for around the house use, and found a small-ish Sony DAB/FM radio for a
reasonable price (around £25). As expected, the battery life is pretty
short really compared to my old equivalent radio. But it takes AA's and
it's no great problem to change .

DAB sound quality may well be worse, but given that except for some R4
programs I don't sit and listen as such, but mostly am doing housework,
or cooking or something at the time, and this a small little mono radio,
I don't think it matters. The reception seems to be more reliable here
than FM, which seems flakey at times. I expect for the majority of radio
listening this is the case, and DAB quality isn't really an issue.

But the main advantages are ease of use, with an always accurate clock
and no fiddly tuning. It's so easy my mum loves it and she still can't
use a video recorder.

My 4 yo daughter loves it as she can just click through the different
stations till she finds some music she likes the sound of :-) I must say
that I like not having to fiddle about with any tuning

--
Chris French

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:02:00 +0000 someone who may be Dave
wrote this:-

That must be where I picked up on the fact that our DAB radios will
become redundant soon.

Only radios which cannot now pick up DAB+, or cannot be upgraded to
pick up DAB+, will become obsolete. Some of the former are already
on sale, check with the manufacturer about the latter.

As has been said, der Tag is not soon, but the UK will have to do it
eventually.

Yet another reason to leave the EU.

Dave

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:29:40 +0000 someone who may be Dave
wrote this:-

As has been said, der Tag is not soon, but the UK will have to do it
eventually.

Yet another reason to leave the EU.

The EU has nothing to do with the decision.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?


Always

Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.

Yes, it does. And it didn't always do that.

There are plenty who seem to dislike DAB on principle but are blind to the
faults of FM stereo.
On balance, I still prefer R3 DAB to R3 FM. Although there are other
factors that don't allow a direct comparison.

--
*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few*

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

Andy Champ wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dee wrote:
RobertL wrote:


Let's hope FM keeps going until the replacement is has as good sound
quality (and is in full stereo).

Robert


Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?


Always

Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.

So what is not 'full stereo' about that?

Andy

Huge wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:35:27 +0000, Andy Champ wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dee wrote:
RobertL wrote:


Let's hope FM keeps going until the replacement is has as good sound
quality (and is in full stereo).

Robert


Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?


Always
Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.

Yes, it does. And it didn't always do that.


always has in my memory..subcarrier at what - 57khz?

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.

So what is not 'full stereo' about that?

Poor separation for a start.

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yes, it does. And it didn't always do that.


always has in my memory..subcarrier at what - 57khz?

38kHz, IIRC.

Good explanation here from an occasional reader of this group.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...t21/page1.html

--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

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

In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
Huge wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:35:27 +0000, Andy Champ wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dee wrote:
RobertL wrote:


Let's hope FM keeps going until the replacement is has as good sound
quality (and is in full stereo).

Robert


Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?


Always
Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.

Yes, it does. And it didn't always do that.


always has in my memory..subcarrier at what - 57khz?


Ummm... thats for the RDS NP;!...
--
Tony Sayer

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Champ wrote:
Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.

So what is not 'full stereo' about that?


The noise on the channels is (pretty well) the sum of the noise on the
sum and difference channels. It's just a bodge to let mono sets work
without needing to know anything about stereo.

I'm sure I've heard people say that DAB often isn't proper stereo 'cos
it's joint stereo. I think that given the right CODECs joint stereo
would actually work better.

Andy

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yes, it does. And it didn't always do that.


always has in my memory..subcarrier at what - 57khz?

38kHz, IIRC.

Muy bad. 57Khz is the storecast ********. Was ultra low bandwidth muzak,
now RDS/

Anyway, sum and difference ws pretty much hat any Viny;l receord diod as
well.

If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a tape
recorder or a CD, latterly.


Good explanation here from an occasional reader of this group.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...t21/page1.html

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
Huge wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:35:27 +0000, Andy Champ wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Dee wrote:
RobertL wrote:


Let's hope FM keeps going until the replacement is has as good sound
quality (and is in full stereo).

Robert


Since when has FM been in "full stereo"?


Always
Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.
Yes, it does. And it didn't always do that.


always has in my memory..subcarrier at what - 57khz?

Ummm... thats for the RDS NP;!...

Yup. 'Storecast' as it was in my day!

I haven't built an FM receiver since 1976 or so, Tony..

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Funny I thought it sent sum and difference.

So what is not 'full stereo' about that?

Poor separation for a start.

Not necessarily. Certainly no worse than vinyl records

Lets face it,. 100:1 difference (20dB) in channels is available with the
meaneet of equipment. That puts the mage firmly at the edge of one
loudspeaker. Most meaningful stereo is in the 2-3 times difference only.

ISTR that I could get around 40dB with a good chipset and reasonable
signal; level - 10uv or so, certainly better than 30dB in the mid range,
tailing off a bit above 4Khz..but there isn't a lot of info in the last
two octaves anyway.

Its unusual to get more than 40db crosstalk rejection in a stereo amp
anyway...especially at higher freqs where capacitative coupling across
e.g. tone control wiring tends to screw things up.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Muy bad. 57Khz is the storecast ********. Was ultra low bandwidth muzak,
now RDS/

Anyway, sum and difference ws pretty much hat any Viny;l receord diod as
well.

Hic? Been at the whisky?

IIRC stereo on Vinyl is done by the two axes that the needle gets pushed
in - both 45 degrees from vertical. And it's very hard to move in one
axis and not the other, which limits separation.

If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a tape
recorder or a CD, latterly.

Or many other digital technologies. I think it's actually a waste of
bandwidth; that hiss on FM is way lower on digital systems, so sum and
difference, or something more sophisticated is the way to go.

Mind, if you have the bandwidth and not the CPU power (which was the
case when CD was designed) send them both in full.

Andy

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
If 'true' stereo is two utterly independent channels, you needed a tape
recorder or a CD, latterly.

Heh heh - you should have seen the crosstalk between channels on the
Studer A800 2" 24 track which were the R-R of analogue machines. So bad
that if you had time code on track 24, you couldn't really use tk 23...

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

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