Petition to stop FM being switched off

Paul Martin wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> tony sayer wrote:
>
>> I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was
>> talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a
>> 40 megabit capacity wi-fi point and that was just that cell of which
>> there're rolling out more and more as time goes by!...
>
> Strange that I only ever get a patchy 64kbps equivalent out of my
> Orange connection on 3G.
>
Then likely as not, its because its heavily trafficked. Broadcast, by
definition, is exactly trafficked to the number of stations being
transmitted.

Paul Martin wrote:
> 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. Of the commercial stations,
> only Classic FM has used a half-decent bitrate (160kbps).
>
That is probably because of spectrum limitations.

As I said in an earlier post, I calculate the raw CD quality bitrate as
about 1.2Mbps.

Now using the whole of a 200KHZ FM channel for that at indifferent
quality, is wasteful.

I think that my 'online' stations are around 250Kbps. Quality is pretty
good.

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.

In article <h2238t$qrp$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
<(E-Mail Removed)> scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <h218qh$bq1$(E-Mail Removed)>, Fredxx
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> scribeth thus
>>> "Ian Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
>>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, you live in a crap FM reception area.
>>>> There is some truth in that.
>>>>> Reception quality is different to audio quality, and anybody who has
>>>>> reasonably good reception quality on both DAB and FM will receive higher
>>>>> qulaity on FM.
>>>> Well, most people don't agree with you. Whether they are discerning or
>>>> not, I don't know.
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree with you in terms of quality. I have an excellent sound
>>>> system and I've never managed to get anything that gets near hiss-free on
>>>> FM.
>>>>
>>>> This is very much like the vinyl v CD discussion. Vinyl have me crackly
>>>> playback, oven on a good deck and with a new pressing. CD gave me click
>>>> and pop free playback - no matter what any HiFi mag says, the 'quality' of
>>>> my CD experience is higher.
>>> On paper the CD should be miles ahead of vinyl. Most CDs uses 2 channels
>>> of 16 bits at 44.1kSamples/sec. There is no sompression so there are no
>>> artifacts. The data rate is an astounding 1.4Mb/s. 16 bits give 72dB audio
>>> range which is better than my ears.
>>>
>>
>> I remember once being given a demonstration of Vinyl-v-CD by Derek
>> Scotland of Audiolab fame.
>>
>> I was amazed at how good he got the Vinyl to sound, and that it seems
>> was due to the right equipment and some Japanese pressings. OK not quite
>> the same in terms of distortion and absolute signal to noise ratio but
>> very impressive indeed;!..
>
>Early D to A chips suffered from 'crossover distortion' (actually MSB
>inaccuracy). That was one reason for the myth of 'CD sounds worse'
>
>By the early 80's that was all history.
>
>
>>
>>>> Likewise, the 'quality' of my DAB experience on radio 3 is higher than I
>>>> could have ever achieved with FM (in any location I've ever tried it).
>>>> Arguments about R4 speech radio in mono being compared to FM are just
>>>> futile and don't relate to any real user experience.
>>> It's easy to show that performance of FM is generally superior to DAB,
>>> however it just goes to show how subjective the human ear-brain interface is
>>> that it can be fooled into thinking otherwise so easily.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well FM given a sufficient signal, and remember too that DAB needs a
>> sufficient signal to work properly, can be very good indeed. And unlike
>> DAB where that is degraded due to the "cost of bits" FM degrades to Mono
>> only because of the signal level.
>>
>
>I prefer a GOOD digital implementation, mostly because the common
>problems with FM are because the signal is NOT good.

Wouldn't have thought that where you lived they'd be any problems but
there is a DAB transmitter in your backyard;!..

>
>Unless you lose frames completely, the response of a decent digital
>system in noise is better.
>
>So a hissy FM signal becomes a perfectly clean digital signal.

Whereas an FM signal goes to mono then a bit of hiss, a DAB signal goes
to bubblin mud then silence;!..

>
>Also, the problems of audio distortion only start after what is in
>decent signal conditions a 'perfect' decoder. Misaligned IF strips wont
>affect the sound quality at all as long as the decoder can decode, it
>will decode 'perfectly'
>

Misaligned FM strips are long gone now..

>
>> I've had a FM versus CD setup here using a first class NCO type
>> modulator and only about one person could reliably tell the difference
>> and that was on solo soprano voice!.
>
>Odd that. I got the worst FM degradations when I played with it years
>ago on complex upper register stuff..mainly due to phase shifts at high
>modulation depthsh and pretty high frequencies..upset the stereo
>decoding as well.
>

This was a very good transmitter driver unit a Harris CD which has specs
more like a very good audio amp..

>In the days when it was only the home service, the light program etc
>etc. and guaranteed 400KHZ spacings a very broadband IF strip gave you
>very decent performance: the necessity to pull that down to reject
>adjacent channels in a more crowded spectrum bolloxed up the audio
>performance. Add in cheap ceramic IF filters instead of tuneable cans,
>and for most people, the performance wasn't that good. OK you COULD get
>very expenisve tailored filters that were both fast cutoff and minimal
>phase shift, but that was serious money..

I think a lot of that was -then- rather than now;!..

>
>I suppose what I am saying is, whilst in theory an FM signal is superior
>to a bad DAB signal, the reality of MOST peoples experience is that
>neither the signal strength, nor the quality of the receiving equipment
>is good enough to make that a fact in practice.

Compared to that irritating noise that is UK DAB not quite so..

Not that I'm against digital modes of transmission for instance for home
use on satellite the German broadcasters are very generous with the bits
and it shows .. well rather sounds
>
>With digits, the chipsets take all the hard work out of the quality: you
>get a predictable performance at far lower production costs.
>

In fact some car radios now used DSP..for FM ..

>Frankly here, I get a better audio performance out of audio streaming
>over the internet than I do for all but my most expensive tuner.
>
Something wring there then.. tho net streaming with the best stations
can be very good..

>I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on FM.
>Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort of freak
>atmospherics I suppose.

Yes also affects DAB badly to due to that time of year again as I'm sure
your digital telly will be playing up where you are and your aerials
pointing unless you've got a sky dish now?..
>
>
>
>

--
Tony Sayer

In article <h223p0$r7l$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
<(E-Mail Removed)> scribeth thus
>bugbear wrote:
>> Graham Murray wrote:
>>> bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes:
>>>
>>>> There's not enough business to use all the slots on DVB or current
>>>> DAB - where's the business model to pay for all these stations
>>>> you dream of?
>>>
>>> So why do they not increase the bitate of the stations that are
>>> transmitting, thus increasing the quality?
>>
>> Good question - I wish they would.
>>
>Maybe the recievers or the modulators they have cannot cope?
>
>
>> BugBear

For FM not problem .. but dab these only so many bits in the MUX...
--
Tony Sayer

In article <9d9be9a7-f689-4b01-a7f3-(E-Mail Removed)
s.com>, galaxyguy <(E-Mail Removed)> scribeth thus
>On 26 June, 09:52, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <h211f9$ea...@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry
>> <gFOUR...@tesco.net> scribeth thus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Chas Gill" <Chas.G...@gollum.btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:HNqdnXEDre-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> "Bill Wright" <insertmybusinessn...@f2s.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:dMKdnVt8W82-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >>> "Andy Dee" <no...@honest.gov> wrote in message
>> >>>news:SYL0m.4944$(E-Mail Removed)2...
>> >>>> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> >>>>> There's a 10 Downing St petition to stop FM/AM being switched off:
>>
>> >>>>>http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/AM-FM-Radio/
>>
>> >>>>> Please sign. Thanks.
>>
>> >>>> <mad>
>> >>>> So why do we need the American spelling "Analog" in this petition?
>>
>> >>>> PLEASE why can't we remain British and use ENGLISH in this country....
>> >>>> </mad>
>> >>>> A
>> >>> I'm afraid the Times spells it 'analog'.
>> >>> Bill
>>
>> >> Personally I don't give a f**k how it's spelled (spelt?) - the whole point
>> >> is that I have a serious investment in FM radio in my life and I don't
>> >> want to have to scrap it at someone else's whim.
>>
>> >I'm sure milions of people are in your boat
>>
>> >But i look around and now almost none of my radio listening is using
>> >FM or AM.
>> >In the kitchen i listen to my DAB portable, in the living room via DVB-T
>> >freeview box, or on Astra 2, mostly so i can get BBC Radio 7
>>
>> >and on my laptop i mostly listen to US Talk radio on internet radio.
>>
>> >If i could get BBC Radio 7 on Band 2 FM
>> >I would have a use for FM
>>
>> >Steve Terry
>>
>> From most all of the comments I've heard from local shops and the few
>> people I've spoken to .. the main driver for DAB receiver purchase is to
>> receive Radio 5 Live better, where the medium wave reception is not that
>> good!..
>>
>> Round here its fine .. well as far as MW goes, in the car...
>> --
>> Tony Sayer
>
>The importance of maintaining Radio 4 in stereo cannot be
>underestimated. If one listens on a decent stereo FM tuner to the
>drama, be it the Afternoon Play or weekend ones it is incredible to
>hear how the two channels are used so expertly for voice and
>background sound. It makes the difference between watching b+w TV and
>watching colour. DAB radio sets are principally mono (to match most of
>the output). All tonality and depth has been scrubbed away from voices
>and music to leave them sounding 'surgically clean' when you have a
>signal. Even 30 miles from London, I find that in some rooms and on
>some days if I happen to be listening to DAB I have to change to FM
>because of the gurgling 'hot water bottle' noise that replaces what is
>being broadcast. Then again, the BBC itself have had a number of
>recent times when they have been broadcasting DAB and every 4th or 5th
>word has been lost due to some error before the signal reaches the
>transmitter. FM must not be left as a third rate junk yard. We need it
>for our main national broadcasters. Incidentally, concerning the
>petition it is a major error that it was composed by someone unable to
>spell analogue correctly. I would willingly sign any FM/AM petition
>written in English. Presenting American spelling is something of a
>disaster and shoots us in the foot.
>Please rectify it at once.

You go and tell our Dave P that, after all he's a sound recordist for TV
so should know all about this;!...
--
Tony Sayer

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.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In message <h224oq$ssg$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>charles wrote:
>> In article <h2238t$qrp$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I mean fer chrissake I was getting RUSSIAN instead of radio 2.. on
>>>FM. Leastways it sounded slavic. That was an FM portable..some sort
>>>of freak atmospherics I suppose.
>> It was short wave broadcasts being picked up in the IF strip.
>>10.7MHz is on
>> the edge of the 25 metre band.
>>
>You may very well be right.
>
At the moment, propagation at the lower SW frequencies, and signals are
poor. However, for higher HF and low VHF, it's the sporadic-E season.
Only yesterday, I was hearing Italy and France on the FM radio band. You
could have been receiving Poland (but could be one of the other
Slavic/Balkan countries - and even possibly Russia). [Most have moved
their FM transmissions from 70Mhz to the 'normal' FM band.] This is one
of the reasons why NOT to re-allocate the FM band to digital.
--
Ian

In article <(E-Mail Removed) et>, Dave
Liquorice <(E-Mail Removed)> scribeth thus
>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:50:18 +0100, tony sayer wrote:
>
>>> As a broadcast medium the internet is not upto it, at least with
>>> todays system. If multicast ever gets out there in a meaningful
>way
>>> things might be different but how many connections can a single 3G
>>> cell support at say 128kbps each susutained?
>>
>> I don't reckon its ideal but according to an Orange engineer I was
>> talking to on a transmitter site, he said that you could regard it as a
>> 40 megabit capacity wi-fi point and that was just that cell of which
>> there're rolling out more and more as time goes by!...
>
>So backhaul froma individual cell site appears not to be a bottle
>neck but where does that cell site connect? What happens further up
>the chain and how much capacity does the "broadcaster" have on their
>servers and connection?
>
>Then of course I very much doubt that a single cell can support
>40Mbps/128kbps = 300+ users at a time.
>

Dunno .. didn't get time for a full tech discussion we were both there
to attend the aftermath of a lightning strike and M8!, you just don't
want to be at those sort of places whilst Jove is still dishing his
bolts out;!..
--
Tony Sayer

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Paul Martin
<(E-Mail Removed)> writing at 10:38:24 in his/her local time opines:-
>In article <69e7cca7-5500-470a-9e44-(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Eps wrote:
>
>>> Radio 4 is in mono on DAB quite frequently in the evening whereas it's
>>> in stereo on FM. Not sure how anyone can deny that it's better to have
>>> stereo than mono.
>
>> I am deaf in one ear, I wish all audio broadcasts were in mono.
>
>> In theory its easy to force mono on the receiving device but not that
>> many actually let you.
>
>You're not Brian Wilson, are you? :-)

It's a fallacy that someone who is deaf in one ear can't hear in stereo;
and it's a fallacy that deprived us of stereo Beach Boys recordings for
a long time :-(

While you indeed need two eyes for stereoscopic vision, the hearing
mechanism works rather differently, and can perfectly well detect the
phase and timing differences inherent in the sound from spread-out live
sources arriving via different paths - including reflected paths.

It may well be, though, that the simulation of stereo obtained by
pan-potting between two fixed point sources (loudspeakers) does not work
so well for the single ear - though turning side on to them is worth
trying.

But plain stereo over headphones certainly won't work....




--
Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris

charles wrote:
> 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.
>
Thats what broadband is for! BUT GHz stuff bounces OFF buildings and
diffracts through gaps. so its not all bad!