Petition to stop FM being switched off

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> I am thinking of getting a freeview card for this computer, because by
> happenstance, there's a TV outlet right by it, and listening to the
> radio on it. May have to spend ,more on speaker its true..

I use mine to record radio programs, but rarely use it live.

> And I am spending a fortune on bandwidth watching TV on it online..

Perhaps you should change the tariff you're on?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
14:43:59 up 50 days, 21:46, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.12, 0.11
A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction

Ian Smith wrote:
> jasee wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, DAB sounds worse than
>>> FM <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>>>
>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>
>>> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us getting
>>> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>>
>> Why would it do that?
>> How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do you
>> want anyway?
>>
>
> I have a good tuner and the sound on DAB is fine. Better by far than the
> hissy FM I used to get, even with a very good external FM aerial. I gave
> my FM tuner away.
>
I have a very good FM tuner and it sounds FAR better than DAB.
90% of DAB is awful, phasey, bubbling, gritty rubbish.
10% is OK but still worse than FM.

I have an FM tuner, 2 x portables and 2 x car radios.
I do not want to buy 5 x DAB radios.

> FM isn't being switched off. National networks are being transferred to
> DAB (+ DVB etc etc) and FM re-allocated to local 'community' radio.
>
> There's no way I would sign - the faster we switch the better.
>
> regards, Ian

Guy

In article <h225dt$tq8$(E-Mail Removed)>,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> The only place where you need quality is in a fixed environment. A car
> is a noisy place, and so it outside so portable radios needn't be high
> quality.

That argument doesn't wash with me. I copied some 128kbps MP3 streams
over to a player for use in the car (BBC podcasts). The compression
artefacts were objectionable, even with traffics noise (sic: PS EMI).

--
Paul Martin <(E-Mail Removed)>

In article <h22eit$6gn$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Fredxx wrote:

> That sounds like NICAM to me, where the data is carried in 10 bits, which
> slide up and down according to volume by a further 3 bits, giving a dyanamic
> range of 18 bits. BICBW

NICAM is 10/14. There are two exponent bits and ten of mantissa, with a
sample rate of 32kHz.

NICAM3 was used on the PCM links to main transmitters. The new RAMEN
distribution system *might* use uncompressed 16-bit linear PCM.

NICAM728 is used on analogue TV. It's still 14 bits compressed to 10
(with one exponent of two bits per data block).

--
Paul Martin <(E-Mail Removed)>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Paul Martin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> DAB at 128kbps doesn't like certain presenters' voices, and can also
>> cause drama to sound rubbish, especially if there's "atmos" in the mix.

> Can't say I've ever heard that. Sure it was at 128 kbps? Sometimes goes
> lower and that does sound dreadful.
> Any particular presenter? I'll swap over and have a listen.

I forget which, now. Female announcer sibillance seems to trigger some
artefacts.

With 128kbps MP2 being Joint (Intensity) Stereo, the stereo image of
some sound effects and atmosphere tends to be muddied. Applause is
particularly difficult to image. On the DSat feeds, JS and Discrete
Stereo are dynamically chosen by the encoder on a block-by-block basis,
but then there is a bit more leeway when you're encoding at 192kbps.

--
Paul Martin <(E-Mail Removed)>

"Paul Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> In article <so2dnUqKDqA-(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Kráftéé wrote:
>> jasee wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, DAB sounds worse
>>>> than FM <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched
>>>>> off:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would anyone want to sign something that may prevent us
>>>> getting
>>>> hundreds of radio stations on DAB?
>>>
>>> Why would it do that?
>>> How many more rubbish radio stations (at lower quality than FM) do
>>> you want anyway?
>
>> But with a greater bandwidth they wouldn't have to compress the
>> audio
>> so much & so you could have better quality sound, the way it should
>> be!
>
> What greater bandwidth? The trend has been to crank down the
> bitrates,
> from 128kbps, to 112kbps, and even 96kbps.


Or to switch from stereo to mono to save even more bandwidth...


>Of the commercial stations,
> only Classic FM has used a half-decent bitrate (160kbps).


Literally 98% of stereo stations on DAB in the UK use a bit rate of
112 or 128 kbps (counting multiple instances of the same station when
they're on different multiplexes).



--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

Fredxx wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:h22c9k$7as$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> In article <h224n7$ssg$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
>>> wrote:
>>>>> The comparison between FM and DAB is nothing like the comparison
>>>>> between gramophone recordings and compact discs. The digital bit rate
>>>>> on CD is about 10 times the best rates we are now using on DAB and is
>>>>> not subject to any destructive bit-rate reduction.
>>>>>
>>>> And that resolves to how much the compression algorithms suit teh
>>>> material being played.
>>> I'm sure compression algorithms can be tailored for various types of
>>> material, but the result can never be as good as something that doesn't
>>> use any compression at all.
>>>
>> Lossless compression does exist.
>> If there is total silence, you dont need a full bandwidth to carry it..
>> The real point is, what is the information content?
>>
>> Say you do a standard sample to say 14 bits. All the time the music/speech
>> is less than 14 bits deep, because its quieter, you don't need to send the
>> full signal.
>>
>
> That sounds like NICAM to me, where the data is carried in 10 bits, which
> slide up and down according to volume by a further 3 bits, giving a dyanamic
> range of 18 bits. BICBW
>
>> As long as you accept delay, you can use - say - delta modulation. That's
>> lossless, but its 'compressed', it works because you are guaranteed NOT to
>> have high treble energy....which is how vinyl works anyway. Its
>> pre-emphasised.
>>
>> The ZIP algorithm works without loss of data. For example. Because there
>> is redundancy in data..and repetition. I applied compression to some HTML
>> web forms, and got 4:1 bandwidth increase without affecting anything.
>>
>> The only thing you cant compress without loss is full power full spectrum
>> white noise.
>>
>
> You have to remember that all these standards were written when "cheap"
> number crunching in a low cost set top box or radio wasn't feasible.
>

Which, in a nutshell, is my point.
Times change. Digital need not equal crap.

Argue for quality, not FM.

Write to the beeb and demand that you get 250kbps + digital radio, on
at least Radio 3 and 4...


> The zip compression type standard gives a variable output according to the
> data being compressed. As you say, if I gave you white noise, I guess
> there'd be very little compression. A similar analogy, is to watch a film
> over Freeview or Sky which has a scene of falling rain, where the picture
> because unpleasant and blocky.
>
Yup. Ot fractal haloes rounmd DF1
> Audio compression is generally fine as it anticipates the response of the
> ear-brain which has characteristics we all suffer, the part we're going to
> quibble over is the degree of compression which in DAB is squeezed to say
> the least.
>
>

alexd wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I am thinking of getting a freeview card for this computer, because by
>> happenstance, there's a TV outlet right by it, and listening to the
>> radio on it. May have to spend ,more on speaker its true..
>
> I use mine to record radio programs, but rarely use it live.
>
>> And I am spending a fortune on bandwidth watching TV on it online..
>
> Perhaps you should change the tariff you're on?
>
makes little difference. However once I have the data I will shop around
for the best deal.

"Paul Martin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> "Fredxx" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:h1udcv$fgc$(E-Mail Removed)
>
>>> DAB can be transmitted at any frequency, it doesn't have to be
>>> 200MHz. It's just what was available.
>
>> Yes, but DAB receivers can only receive signals that are
>> transmitting
>> in Band III or L-band - and there are no multiplexes in L-band in
>> the
>> UK.
>
> Except that only the initial batch of receivers had L-band
> capability.
> Newer receivers are Band III only,


Just looked at the spec of some Pure products and they were Band III
only. It looks like it's gone full circle, because they started out
without L-band support in 2002/3, then L-band was added to most
receivers, but it must have gone back to Band III only.


> and I'm told that some on sale can't
> cope with bitrates over 192kbps.


I think the vast majority can these days - there was a bug with early
receivers in 2002, which they didn't realise existed at first because
they tested the receivers by receiving signals off air, and there
wasn't any stations using bit rates above 192 kbps.



--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report

In article <h22dmv$1ld$(E-Mail Removed)>, Fredxx
<(E-Mail Removed)> scribeth thus
>
>"tony sayer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:bBLl+(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, charles
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> scribeth thus
>>>In article <h225s5$ubs$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> the real solution is to go higher in frequency. Much more space, and not
>>>> already allocated. AND it doesn't hop skip and jump all over the world.
>>>
>>>trouble is that the higher frequency the less the 'bending' round
>>>obstacles
>>>and the less penetration through building materials.
>>>
>> Reflection around perhaps?..
>
>Look up diffraction, very good at low frequencies where the wavelength is
>long in comparison with obstacles, but not so good at high frequencies.

Read that again .. reflections .. diffraction is a known we use it for
path and proprogation predictions etc..


>Having said that OFDM, the transmission standard for DAB, is very good at
>reducing fading and multipath interference you'd get from GHz's
>transmissions in a built up area.
>
>

--
Tony Sayer