Petition to stop FM being switched off

Clive wrote:
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jim Lesurf
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>> I note your opinion and point out it has nothing to do with what I wrote
>> that you quoted above it. :-)
> I note what you say and maintain that FM is better here in the Lake
> District that digital, however, anything that I said that may be
> offensive I apologise for and blame several large cans of Fosters:-)

Well I am listening to the cricket on the Beeb's digital internet
stream. It sure is a lot better than AM!! :-)

can we all agfree that

- FM is better than AM
- Good digital is better than FM
- Current DAB is not good digital.
- depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology
is, current digital may or may not be better than FM

And leave it at that.

In message <h31tiq$j84$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Well I am listening to the cricket on the Beeb's digital internet
>stream. It sure is a lot better than AM!! :-)
>
>can we all agfree that
>
>- FM is better than AM
>- Good digital is better than FM
>- Current DAB is not good digital.
>- depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology
>is, current digital may or may not be better than FM
>
>And leave it at that.
Agreed.
--
Clive

"Clive" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jim Lesurf
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products
>>are
>>folded back as complex intermodulation by the FM and stereo decoding
>>processes. Hence the distortion can indeed appear below 15kHz in the
>>actual
>>output.
>>
>>And in other cases it appears at harmonics of the intended frequency, so a
>>2kHz tone can give distortion at multiples of this up to 15kHz.
>
> Where I live FM rules. Digital may have pretences above their station
> (pun not intended) but in straight listening tests are rubbish compared to
> the FM in this part of the woods.
> Clive
>
>
BBC Radio 7 sounds great on FM, or it would if it was broadcast.

and as it's in my top three most listened to stations, it makes FM dead for
me.

Steve Terry

"Steve Terry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:h32u7g$3h4$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Clive" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jim Lesurf
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products
>>>are
>>>folded back as complex intermodulation by the FM and stereo decoding
>>>processes. Hence the distortion can indeed appear below 15kHz in the
>>>actual
>>>output.
>>>
>>>And in other cases it appears at harmonics of the intended frequency, so
>>>a
>>>2kHz tone can give distortion at multiples of this up to 15kHz.
>>
>> Where I live FM rules. Digital may have pretences above their station
>> (pun not intended) but in straight listening tests are rubbish compared
>> to the FM in this part of the woods.
>> Clive
>>
>>
> BBC Radio 7 sounds great on FM, or it would if it was broadcast.
>
> and as it's in my top three most listened to stations, it makes FM dead
> for me.
>
> Steve Terry
>
I only listen to 7 listen again on reciva wi fi ......

Jim GM4DHJ/M wrote:
> "Steve Terry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:h32u7g$3h4$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Clive" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jim Lesurf
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>> I am afraid that you have missed the point that the distortion products
>>>> are
>>>> folded back as complex intermodulation by the FM and stereo decoding
>>>> processes. Hence the distortion can indeed appear below 15kHz in the
>>>> actual
>>>> output.
>>>>
>>>> And in other cases it appears at harmonics of the intended frequency, so
>>>> a
>>>> 2kHz tone can give distortion at multiples of this up to 15kHz.
>>> Where I live FM rules. Digital may have pretences above their station
>>> (pun not intended) but in straight listening tests are rubbish compared
>>> to the FM in this part of the woods.
>>> Clive
>>>
>>>
>> BBC Radio 7 sounds great on FM, or it would if it was broadcast.
>>
>> and as it's in my top three most listened to stations, it makes FM dead
>> for me.
>>
>> Steve Terry
>>
> I only listen to 7 listen again on reciva wi fi ......
>
>
I grab it off the net, or , occasionally, on the digiTV.

Brian Gaff wrote:
> Well, all I can tell you is that when dab first started, the quality was
> better than FM, mainly signal to noise etc it has to be said, but now its
> sounding gritty, and lacking in detail, so either their equipment is crap,
> or the bit rate really has been turned down. I assume R7 and r4 are still
> often in mono on dab to save data as well, when the freeview feed of r7 and
> the fm feed of r4 are in stereo. sigh.
>
> Mind you, if we got rid of the clone commercials, and replaced them with one
> quality commercial station there would be plenty of data bandwidth. After
> all, most of your Heart/capital/Q/ whatever, are compressed to the enth
> degree and probably sourced from rubbish mp3s in the first place.
>
> Brian
>
Well I have now got a USB digital TV stock for this computer!

Most radio stations on it are about the same as online quality as far
as I can tell. WAY better than FM noise wise.

Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news
is absolute rubbish quality.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <2lGcm.6670$(E-Mail Removed)2>,
> Alistair Biggar <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Fosters is good, however I remember in the 70's the BBC doing a
>> blind test on speakers, and behind a large acoustic cloth were
>> hidden some speakers. LS5/1A, LS5/8's LS3/5A and whatever else they
>> had. When the music was played, the so called Sound Supervisors
>> (Sound Balancers) complained at each piece of music that was played
>> "A little too much top on that one!!" " Alittle too much distortion
>> on that piece " Not enough bass, speakers are rubbish". It was only
>> at that point that the curtains were withdrawn to show a full 16
>> piece orchestra!!!
>
> I worked for the BBC TV in the sound department in the '70s and
> that's the first I've heard of that one. Apart from anything else do
> you know the cost of employing a 16 piece orchestra?
>
> If it had happened it would soon have been reported throughout the
> industry.


It sounds to me like a tale which grew with each re-telling, but may have
truth in the origins.
The real beginning could have been one of the demonstrations of Quad
Electrostatic speakers from (I think) the 1950's, with an A-B comparison
from live to recording and speakers. I'm pretty sure that happened, though
I can't put my hand on any documentation.


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 05:26:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news
>is absolute rubbish quality.

Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate
channels on Freeview......

--

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> Clive wrote:
> []
>>> can we all agfree that
>>>
>>> - FM is better than AM
> Given adequate signal, yes. (Though AM _can_ be surprisingly good - but,
> with the current bandwidth allocations, there's no way it can match
> current FM with a good enough signal and receiver.)
>
>
>>> - Good digital is better than FM
> Hmm. This is like the old "Cd vs. vinyl" debate. I suspect that, if the
> FM has adequate signal and is properly set up, digital can't be
> _better_, but can equal; and, in _most_ circumstances, it _will_ be
> better.
Nope. FM is limited to at best 16-17Khz because of the pilot tone.
S/N is at best about 70dB. Both those can be bettered with digital,
given adequate bit rates.


(In the case of vinyl, the signal-to-noise combined with the
> dynamic range probably _do_ give CD the edge.) In both cases (CD and
> digital), the convenience and ease of setup of course work in favour of
> the digital media, but I think the premise of this discussion is sound
> quality.
>
The thing about digital is that you can always incerase sampling
frequency and/or number of bits to make sure that once digital, there is
both no more degradation with a decent error correcting channel, and
that such degaradation as the digitisation process introduces is
infinitesimal compared with the original recording noise and distortion.

>
>>> - Current DAB is not good digital.
> Most definitely, as used in this country, now. The encoding (mp2 isn't
> it?) of UK DAB (not DAB+, AAC or any of the others) is less efficient
> than more modern encoders, but that's more politics than engineering;
> it's _capable_ of very high quality (and apparently used to that level
> in some countries). But certainly not here (UK) and now. (Though for
> many _listeners_, it's not as bad as some here make out, especially when
> the convenience aspects are considered. But again, if we're talking
> sound quality.)
>
I'm listening to radio 5 live sports extra right now on terrestrial TV
channel Its FULL of compression, other digital material at very low
bandwidth, and so on, but heck, its a lot better than AM ;-)

>
>>> - depending where you are, what sets you have, and what your psychology
>>> is, current digital may or may not be better than FM
>
>
> If by "current digital" you mean: DAB as currently used in the UK: sound
> quality no (except where the FM signal is weak), convenience probably
> yes.

Hvae never actualklly heard a DAB set.,

FreeView radio channels: sound quality probably on a par or better,
> convenience arguable.

For me now, its more convenient than anything else, thanks to a USB TV
adaptor. Brilliant. Have yet to wire it up to a decent set of speakers.

> Satellite: as FreeView. CD: probably better _and_
> more convenient.

Degionitely.

MP3: quality varies widely, more convenient.

Agreed.


>>>
>>> And leave it at that.
>>
>>

Zero Tolerance wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 05:26:35 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Its also been a revelation to look at the broadcast pictures..sky news
>> is absolute rubbish quality.
>
> Interesting, that, since Sky News is one of the highest bitrate
> channels on Freeview......
>
Yes. Surprised me too.

It looks to me like its sent precompressed down to a satellite channel..;-)

You notice it when e.g. sky sports clips of cricket pop up in BBC news
24. Way lower quality.