Discussion:
Classic DAB+
(too old to reply)
Scott
2023-07-07 14:30:42 UTC
Permalink
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
Woody
2023-07-07 17:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor
signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
charging basis.

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
Scott
2023-07-07 17:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody
Post by Scott
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor
signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
charging basis.
I realise this but they are claiming superior sound quality. Unless
they can substantiate this, and only a minority of listeners benefit,
I think there could be trouble with Ofcom.
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
They say it is a relatively small number:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
I assume cars with DAB will have it because it is used in other
markets.
tony sayer
2023-07-07 19:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Post by Scott
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor
signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
charging basis.
I realise this but they are claiming superior sound quality. Unless
they can substantiate this, and only a minority of listeners benefit,
I think there could be trouble with Ofcom.
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
I assume cars with DAB will have it because it is used in other
markets.
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.

you should be able to check it here..


https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
J. P. Gilliver
2023-07-08 01:56:51 UTC
Permalink
[]
Post by tony sayer
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
[]
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
Post by tony sayer
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
you should be able to check it here..
https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

That's the key to wisdom: being delighted when you're wrong because
you've learn something. - (Professor) Brian Cox, RT 2019/5/25-31
Andy Burns
2023-07-08 06:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about
I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible, but I don't use
it, it's relegated to the back bedroom, my radio listening at home has
all been internet streaming for 2-3 years.

In the car (67 reg) I do have DAB+ which came as standard, unlike the
previous model (11 reg) where DAB had to be specced as it wasn't standard.
Post by J. P. Gilliver
Post by tony sayer
128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
Like all codecs, it's going to be subjective, for my radio listening
nothing falls below my quality threshold ... might be different if I
used R3 or ClassicFM.
MB
2023-07-08 07:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible
I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?

Sure I checked mine somewhere afterwards and received DAB+.

Both my Pure Evoke and Pure One are awaiting disposal - power socket and
plug broke too many times so got bored with fixing them.
Andy Burns
2023-07-09 19:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
Post by Andy Burns
I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible
I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?
Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated
Post by MB
Sure I checked mine somewhere afterwards and received DAB+.
Both my Pure Evoke and Pure One are awaiting disposal - power socket and
plug broke too many times so got bored with fixing them.
The backlight on mine is clapped-out.
MB
2023-07-09 21:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
The backlight on mine is clapped-out.
Common problem!

I had to change mine - there is someone online who sells them (look as
if recovered from other receivers).
Brian Gregory
2023-07-09 21:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by MB
Post by Andy Burns
I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible
I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?
Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated
Post by MB
Sure I checked mine somewhere afterwards and received DAB+.
Both my Pure Evoke and Pure One are awaiting disposal - power socket
and plug broke too many times so got bored with fixing them.
The backlight on mine is clapped-out.
DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
MB
2023-07-09 21:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gregory
DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?
Can't remember now, thought it was free but might be wrong.
Andy Burns
2023-07-10 06:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by Andy Burns
Post by MB
Post by Andy Burns
I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible
I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?
Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated
DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?
I would have, if they offered it ...
Scott
2023-07-10 08:35:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:39:08 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by Andy Burns
Post by MB
Post by Andy Burns
I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible
I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?
Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated
Post by MB
Sure I checked mine somewhere afterwards and received DAB+.
Both my Pure Evoke and Pure One are awaiting disposal - power socket
and plug broke too many times so got bored with fixing them.
The backlight on mine is clapped-out.
DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?
I think I paid £10 to upgrade a ONE Mini, which I than had to scrap
because the plastic case was disintegrating.
Scott
2023-07-08 09:09:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]
Post by tony sayer
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
[]
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
Post by tony sayer
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
you should be able to check it here..
https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.
They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
Tweed
2023-07-08 09:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]
Post by tony sayer
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
[]
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
Post by tony sayer
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
you should be able to check it here..
https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.
They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a
veto on improvements forever.
Scott
2023-07-08 09:43:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Scott
Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]
Post by tony sayer
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
[]
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
Post by tony sayer
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
you should be able to check it here..
https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.
They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a
veto on improvements forever.
I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
Tweed
2023-07-08 10:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Scott
Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]
Post by tony sayer
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
[]
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
Post by tony sayer
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
you should be able to check it here..
https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.
They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a
veto on improvements forever.
I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.
Scott
2023-07-08 11:09:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Scott
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Scott
Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]
Post by tony sayer
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
[]
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
Post by tony sayer
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
you should be able to check it here..
https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.
They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can?t hold a
veto on improvements forever.
I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.
I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
was interpreted subjectively:
https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/4ea0ae5f-a354-4696-941fa65169afbf54.pdf
There must be a concept of subjective measurement. Remember the
former reference to 'near CD sound quality' was banned as being
misleading.
Tweed
2023-07-08 11:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Scott
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Scott
Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]
Post by tony sayer
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
[]
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
Post by tony sayer
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
you should be able to check it here..
https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.
They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can?t hold a
veto on improvements forever.
I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.
I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/4ea0ae5f-a354-4696-941fa65169afbf54.pdf
There must be a concept of subjective measurement. Remember the
former reference to 'near CD sound quality' was banned as being
misleading.
CD encoding doesn’t use a lossy codec. Anything that does must be inferior,
and is thus objectively poorer. Comparing a superior codec but at a
potentially lower bit rate is fraught with difficulty. All you need to do
is find a panel of 100 listeners. If the first panel doesn’t give the right
answer find another until they do.
Scott
2023-07-08 11:28:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:20:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Scott
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Scott
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Scott
Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]
Post by tony sayer
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
[]
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
Post by tony sayer
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
you should be able to check it here..
https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.
They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can?t hold a
veto on improvements forever.
I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
Sound ?quality? is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.
I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/4ea0ae5f-a354-4696-941fa65169afbf54.pdf
There must be a concept of subjective measurement. Remember the
former reference to 'near CD sound quality' was banned as being
misleading.
CD encoding doesn’t use a lossy codec. Anything that does must be inferior,
and is thus objectively poorer. Comparing a superior codec but at a
potentially lower bit rate is fraught with difficulty. All you need to do
is find a panel of 100 listeners. If the first panel doesn’t give the right
answer find another until they do.
I am not disagreeing with this. All I am saying is (1) if they can
interpret 'near' as in 'near CD quality' there should be a method of
interpreting 'superior' as in one compared to another; (2) if Global
makes a public promise on-air of improved sound quality and large
numbers of listeners disagree this could be damaging reputationally.

How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.
MB
2023-07-08 11:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.
Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).
Scott
2023-07-08 11:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
Post by Scott
How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.
Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).
And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.
Tweed
2023-07-08 12:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by MB
Post by Scott
How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.
Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).
And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.
At the end of the day Classic FM will want to get the bit rate down, as
this is what they are charged for. If they can compromise by reducing it a
little rather than a lot, so that their transmissions sound
better then everyone wins. It’s all irrelevant to me though, as adverts
make commercial stations unlistenable, regardless of the bit rate. Times
Radio has reneged on its no adverts but only sponsorship announcements
launch promise.
Scott
2023-07-08 12:40:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Scott
Post by MB
Post by Scott
How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.
Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).
And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.
At the end of the day Classic FM will want to get the bit rate down, as
this is what they are charged for. If they can compromise by reducing it a
little rather than a lot, so that their transmissions sound
better then everyone wins.
This is what I expect they will do. I was interested in predictions.
higher than 32kbps (Gold)?
Post by Tweed
It’s all irrelevant to me though, as adverts
make commercial stations unlistenable, regardless of the bit rate. Times
Radio has reneged on its no adverts but only sponsorship announcements
launch promise.
Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes :-)
Tweed
2023-07-08 13:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Scott
Post by MB
Post by Scott
How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.
Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).
And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.
At the end of the day Classic FM will want to get the bit rate down, as
this is what they are charged for. If they can compromise by reducing it a
little rather than a lot, so that their transmissions sound
better then everyone wins.
This is what I expect they will do. I was interested in predictions.
higher than 32kbps (Gold)?
Post by Tweed
It’s all irrelevant to me though, as adverts
make commercial stations unlistenable, regardless of the bit rate. Times
Radio has reneged on its no adverts but only sponsorship announcements
launch promise.
Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes :-)
The BBC trailer argument is a bit of a trope. You don’t get Radio4
programmes being suddenly and randomly being interrupted for a programme
trail. Times Radio even tries to bookend its adverts with its own trails.
MB
2023-07-09 08:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes 😄
THey are not as annoying as adverts, many of which seem to be designed
to annoy the listener or viewer.
Stephen Wolstenholme
2023-07-09 10:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
Post by Scott
Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes ?
THey are not as annoying as adverts, many of which seem to be designed
to annoy the listener or viewer.
That's my opinion as well. I record and then skip over all advertising
breaks. The few that I can't skip like "sponsored by" are negative to
me because I never buy the product that is being sponsored.
J. P. Gilliver
2023-07-09 12:32:02 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@4ax.com> at Sun, 9 Jul
2023 11:06:17, Stephen Wolstenholme <***@outlook.com>
writes
Post by Stephen Wolstenholme
Post by MB
Post by Scott
Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes ?
THey are not as annoying as adverts, many of which seem to be designed
to annoy the listener or viewer.
Are we talking radio only: do you (presumably only after the watershed?)
get gambling adverts on radio? Those are the ones that annoy me most on
TV. (I don't listen to commercial radio.)
Post by Stephen Wolstenholme
That's my opinion as well. I record and then skip over all advertising
breaks. The few that I can't skip like "sponsored by" are negative to
me because I never buy the product that is being sponsored.
There's always the argument that your _awareness_ of those brands is
increased, even if you think the effect is negative. )-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just
about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and
embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio
Times 9-15 March 2013
Stephen Wolstenholme
2023-07-09 12:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver
Are we talking radio only: do you (presumably only after the watershed?)
get gambling adverts on radio? Those are the ones that annoy me most on
TV. (I don't listen to commercial radio.)
I skip over the gambling adverts on TV. A one minute mute and skip
deals with most of them. I feel sorry for the people who are pushed
into gambling though I must admit that I rolled the dice at a casino
once and won a few £. It is difficult to roll dice on my phone but I'm
sure an app is available.
MB
2023-07-08 11:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
But nothing to do with quality.
J. P. Gilliver
2023-07-08 12:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Post by Scott
On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
[]
Post by Tweed
Post by Scott
Post by Tweed
Post by Scott
They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a
veto on improvements forever.
Equally, you can't impose change too soon, especially if the target
demographic doesn't perceive they're getting anything out of it for the
money they have to spend. (Remember hearing drops off with age - I was
shocked to discover mine's only about 8 kHz, as I've not noticed
anything and never frequented places that might damage it; however, I
have discovered that's not unusual for my age [63]. Yes, I know there's
more to it than just frequency range. But I suspect a lot of Classic
FM's listenership - at least the ones who would complain! - are older
than for some stations.)
Post by Tweed
Post by Scott
I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
Of course not.
Post by Tweed
Post by Scott
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.
In the end, it is indeed - however, there are parameters that _can_ be
measured - frequency range, dynamic range, stereo separation (or
existence!), and so on. I don't know for whatever DAB+ uses (AAC) - or
even DAB (mp2?), but for mp3, I have a table for my own use of at least
frequency range vs. bitrate at various sample rates, mono/stereo, and so
on. (Plus at _very_ low bitrates, you get "artefacts" - "birdies" and
the like.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just
about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and
embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio
Times 9-15 March 2013
NY
2023-07-08 22:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tweed
Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.
Can't it be quantified in some way, like the THD (total harmonic
distortion) figures that you used to see quoted for analogue hifi equipment.

Maybe some sort of RMS difference signal between original signal and
received signal (after bit-starved compression).
Liz Tuddenham
2023-07-09 12:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by NY
Post by Tweed
Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.
Can't it be quantified in some way, like the THD (total harmonic
distortion) figures that you used to see quoted for analogue hifi equipment.
Maybe some sort of RMS difference signal between original signal and
received signal (after bit-starved compression).
I bought some cheap UHF radio microphone gear that claimed a S/N ratio
of over 100dB, when I tested it there was very obvious noise behind the
signal and the reverberation tails chopped off into sudden inky
blackness.

I set it up with a signal generator followed by a filter to give a good
distortion-free tone, then fed that through some loudspeakers with
independently-amplified drive units to give the lowest possible audio
distortion. I set the audio level to about 90dB(C). The received
signal was fed into a Radford THD meter.

With a moderate quality electret mic connected to the meter, the total
system distortion and noise was well below 0.5% but through the radio
mic it was around 5%. Monitoring the residual notched signal showed a
huge amont of spurious harmonics and hash, suggesting that it had been
sampled with a low bit rate but heavily compressed and decompressed to
give a fake S/N ratio (the noise being almost zero when there was no
input signal).

The 'distortion' figure of 5% corresponded to a noise level 1/20 of the
signal voltage, which is less than 30dB S/N ratio. This was what my
ears had told me - it sounded like a badly-worn shellac 78 through a
noise gate.

I returned the equipment for a refund, with a copy of my report, and the
seller appeared genuinely shocked: he had sold dozens and nobody else
had noticed anything wrong.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
NY
2023-07-08 22:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
I would have thought that a lot of people will buy equipment only when
they have to: so they will have bought a digital TV (or digital receiver
for an analogue TV) and maybe a DAB radio, and will use it until either
it fails or it becomes obsolete. My mother bought a DAB radio soon after
DAB broadcasts began, partly because she couldn't get interference-free
FM reception next to her PC and monitor, and kept it until earlier this
year when it finally failed. And she was able to replace it with an
identical, second-hand one.

If TV and radio stop broadcasting the channels that a viewer/listener
wants in DVB-T or DAB, only then will they upgrade to DVB-T2 or DAB+.
Not everyone upgrades as soon as a new standard is released - unless
they have to to receive something that's not available on the old standard.
MB
2023-07-08 07:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
Could they be interested in having a pop-up station for some special
events? Perhaps easier on DAB+ because of the ability to use a lower
bit rate.
Scott
2023-07-08 09:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
Could they be interested in having a pop-up station for some special
events? Perhaps easier on DAB+ because of the ability to use a lower
bit rate.
I am less cynical. I think they can see a way of cutting trasmission
cost and improving sound quality. I suspect the typical Classic FM
listener is not 'into' pop-up stations.
MB
2023-07-08 11:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
I am less cynical. I think they can see a way of cutting trasmission
cost and improving sound quality. I suspect the typical Classic FM
listener is not 'into' pop-up stations.
Only listened to them briefly a couple of times years ago and of course
no coverage here.

I just thought of pop-ups because they can be a way of linking into a
sponsored event which I believe they do though could be mistaken.
Mark Carver
2023-07-08 12:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by MB
Post by tony sayer
I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
Could they be interested in having a pop-up station for some special
events? Perhaps easier on DAB+ because of the ability to use a lower
bit rate.
I am less cynical. I think they can see a way of cutting trasmission
cost and improving sound quality. I suspect the typical Classic FM
listener is not 'into' pop-up stations.
Global Radio Inc, will be doing this to stick a couple more stations
into the liberated bandwidth.

I suspect a bit rate of 48k for DAB+ , which will allow a couple more at
32-40k ish each
MB
2023-07-09 08:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Carver
Global Radio Inc, will be doing this to stick a couple more stations
into the liberated bandwidth.
I suspect a bit rate of 48k for DAB+ , which will allow a couple more at
32-40k ish each
That was my suspicion - more stations mean more adverts but higher
quality will not bring in more people to inflict with adverts.
Brian Gaff
2023-07-09 11:57:42 UTC
Permalink
As with all transmission formats, there is always a trade off of some kind
of course. I guess we all will go back to FM then.
I find quite a lot of DAB can sound what I would almost call cassette like.
I'm sure you all recall that when tape stretched the two channels had minute
but audible phase changes, like it was being reflected from a rotating fan.
That is what a lot of DAB is and always has been like since about 2001,
when some radio 2 transmissions of concerts was very good. I suspect these
days they just make things sound acceptable and leave it at that. However
classical, and some of the more middle of the road music could benefit from
more dynamic range. It seems record producers and radio engineers have
forgotten what people want.
Not everyone likes gain riding and massive Radio 1 type brick wall
compression.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by Scott
Post by Woody
Post by Scott
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor
signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
charging basis.
I realise this but they are claiming superior sound quality. Unless
they can substantiate this, and only a minority of listeners benefit,
I think there could be trouble with Ofcom.
Post by Woody
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
I assume cars with DAB will have it because it is used in other
markets.
Liz Tuddenham
2023-07-09 12:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Brian Gaff <***@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]
Post by Brian Gaff
Not everyone likes gain riding and massive Radio 1 type brick wall
compression.
Brian
Philips developed a system which sent the zero-axis crossings on a
moderately wide-band pulse link and encoded the amplitude data on a
second link with narrower bandwidth. Apparently the reconstituted voice
signal was easily understandable.

Perhaps R1 has omitted the amplitude information and that is why I can't
understand it.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Clive Page
2023-07-08 22:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable.  Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using?  Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the charging basis.
Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
Indeed, I have two old DAB radios which won't get DAB+.
--
Clive Page
The Other John
2023-07-08 16:09:40 UTC
Permalink
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+. They
are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold is
32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
Where did you hear this and was there an indication of when they are going
to make my Roberts DAB only radio redundant? I've still got a Roberts FM
radio to fall back on.
--
TOJ.
Brian Gregory
2023-07-08 16:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other John
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+. They
are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold is
32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
Where did you hear this and was there an indication of when they are going
to make my Roberts DAB only radio redundant? I've still got a Roberts FM
radio to fall back on.
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
The Other John
2023-07-08 18:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-
quality/>

Thanks. I see it's happening in January 2024.
--
TOJ.
tony sayer
2023-07-09 13:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by The Other John
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+. They
are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold is
32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
Where did you hear this and was there an indication of when they are going
to make my Roberts DAB only radio redundant? I've still got a Roberts FM
radio to fall back on.
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!

Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)

Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...

We'll see then..
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
Brian Gregory
2023-07-09 21:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony sayer
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
We'll see then..
I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
Scott
2023-07-10 08:33:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by tony sayer
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
We'll see then..
I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.
Mark Carver
2023-07-10 08:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by tony sayer
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
We'll see then..
I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.
It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
with metrics .

The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
provide a clue ?
Scott
2023-07-10 09:12:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:46:18 +0100, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Scott
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by tony sayer
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
We'll see then..
I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.
It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
with metrics .
The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
provide a clue ?
They should use 128 kbps DAB+ and set a world record then :-)
Woody
2023-07-10 10:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:46:18 +0100, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Scott
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by tony sayer
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
We'll see then..
I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.
It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
with metrics .
The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
provide a clue ?
They should use 128 kbps DAB+ and set a world record then :-)
If you recognise that mp2 (DAB) preceded mp3 (which most use) which in
turn preceded m4a (a.k.a. AAC+ and used for DAB+) it perhaps puts them
in perspective?
Scott
2023-07-10 11:53:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody
Post by Scott
On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:46:18 +0100, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Scott
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by tony sayer
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
We'll see then..
I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.
It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
with metrics .
The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
provide a clue ?
They should use 128 kbps DAB+ and set a world record then :-)
If you recognise that mp2 (DAB) preceded mp3 (which most use) which in
turn preceded m4a (a.k.a. AAC+ and used for DAB+) it perhaps puts them
in perspective?
If you recognise that Eureka-147 (DAB) was designed to be used at 192
kbps to provide high quality sound that could eventually replace FM,
this perhaps puts it in perspective.
wrightsaerials@aol.com
2023-07-12 21:57:18 UTC
Permalink
As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.
Bill
Scott
2023-07-13 16:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@aol.com
As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.
You must have a very cultured grandson.
wrightsaerials@aol.com
2023-07-16 02:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by ***@aol.com
As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.
You must have a very cultured grandson.
He does seem to like Classic FM. He has it on in his greenhouse sometimes. He's 13, which is about the age I was when I started to really appreciate the classical lollipops. It was possible to buy 78s from the Methodist church jumble sale for 1/-. (Some of them were actually 80rpm...)
Bill
Scott
2023-07-17 14:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@aol.com
Post by Scott
Post by ***@aol.com
As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.
You must have a very cultured grandson.
He does seem to like Classic FM. He has it on in his greenhouse sometimes. He's 13, which is about the age I was when I started to really appreciate the classical lollipops. It was possible to buy 78s from the Methodist church jumble sale for 1/-. (Some of them were actually 80rpm...)
Could you tell the difference if you played an 80 rpm disc at 78 rpm?

PS Was it Beethoven who said, 'I liked your opera. I think I'll set
it to music'?
Liz Tuddenham
2023-07-17 18:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
Post by ***@aol.com
Post by ***@aol.com
Post by ***@aol.com
As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to
Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than
normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I
normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with
the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the
journey. You must have a very cultured grandson.
He does seem to like Classic FM. He has it on in his greenhouse
sometimes. He's 13, which is about the age I was when I started to
really appreciate the classical lollipops. It was possible to buy 78s
from the Methodist church jumble sale for 1/-. (Some of them were
actually 80rpm...)
Post by Scott
Could you tell the difference if you played an 80 rpm disc at 78 rpm?
Yes, it alters the sound of the instruments and voices by enough to make
them sound 'wrong' to people who have attuned themselves to the
correct-speed version.

Columbias and Regals were all 80 rpm until the 'merger' with HMV, so
transcription engineers always check the speed if they were recorded
around that time. After 1931, they were recorded with Blumlein's
cutterhead, which had a tendency to skew the cutting tip in such a way
that one groove wall was cut slightly ahead of the other. Played back
with a stereo cartridge and analysed on an X-Y oscilloscope, the stylus
can be seen to be making circular movements as if the groove had a
helical component. Transcription engineers have to remember to skew the
cartridge to cope with this, not only on Columbia-labelled Columbias,
but on some" HMVs" that were, in fact, recorded with Columbia equipment.

In the acoustic recording days,the speed discrepancies were even
greater, Edison Bell Winners were recorded at all sorts of speeds from
about 72 rpm upwards and careful listening is the only guide to the
playback speed.

The French liked to express their individuality, so Pathé discs ran at
90 rpm, had vertical modulation, started from the centre and were dubbed
from giant wax cylinders. When played correctly, they actually sounded
amazingly good.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Brian Gregory
2023-07-15 14:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by tony sayer
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
We'll see then..
I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.
To me 48k DAB+ does sound better than 128k DAB.
But that's just me. Others will strongly disagree.
--
Brian Gregory (in England).
Scott
2023-07-17 14:35:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 15:07:59 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by Scott
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by tony sayer
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
We'll see then..
I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.
To me 48k DAB+ does sound better than 128k DAB.
But that's just me. Others will strongly disagree.
I emailed Global's customer services, who said they had spoken to
technical colleagues and there was nothing they could say at this
stage.
tony sayer
2023-07-21 11:34:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by Scott
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by tony sayer
Post by Brian Gregory
<https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-
quality/>
Post by Scott
Post by Brian Gregory
Post by tony sayer
Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
We'll see then..
I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.
To me 48k DAB+ does sound better than 128k DAB.
But that's just me. Others will strongly disagree.
It is the option of choice on the few small scale muxes i have a hand in
running and depending on the programme source, it can be quite good for
what it is!..
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.
MB
2023-07-09 08:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Other John
Where did you hear this and was there an indication of when they are going
to make my Roberts DAB only radio redundant? I've still got a Roberts FM
radio to fall back on.
Have you checked whether it is DAB+ compatible? many are already.
The Other John
2023-07-09 09:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by MB
Have you checked whether it is DAB+ compatible? many are already.
It is unlikely as it is a very early model.
--
TOJ.
Brian Gaff
2023-07-09 11:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Its rubbish really since they just moved their freeview channel into Mono.
Obviously not so convinced that all of this is not just a money making ploy.
So, I guess I will soon have to finally dump my old pure DAB radio then.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by Scott
I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
Tweed
2023-07-09 11:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff
Its rubbish really since they just moved their freeview channel into Mono.
Obviously not so convinced that all of this is not just a money making ploy.
So, I guess I will soon have to finally dump my old pure DAB radio then.
Brian
Of course it is a money making ploy. Every commercial company makes
decisions based on increasing their profits (or decreasing their losses).
At the most cynical level they’ve probably decided that those too poor or
tight to replace their old radios aren’t of interest to their advertisers.
Scott
2023-07-09 20:44:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 11:56:46 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
Post by Tweed
Post by Brian Gaff
Its rubbish really since they just moved their freeview channel into Mono.
Obviously not so convinced that all of this is not just a money making ploy.
So, I guess I will soon have to finally dump my old pure DAB radio then.
Brian
Of course it is a money making ploy. Every commercial company makes
decisions based on increasing their profits (or decreasing their losses).
At the most cynical level they’ve probably decided that those too poor or
tight to replace their old radios aren’t of interest to their advertisers.
And of course may be listening on FM anyway.
Brian Gaff
2023-07-10 09:40:34 UTC
Permalink
I do have a more modern Roberts dab, but it does not talk. There is at this
time no dab talking radio like there are talking tvs, and thus although the
talking pure radio cannot get dab plus, it is still possible to tell what
the stations are even if they are not always the current ones or are spelled
out. It cannot be that hard to use a cheap as chips talking module to speak
the display. I am now using Amazon Echo for home radio input, but its the
more portable aspect I cannot find an answer to unless one uses a smart
phone.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Post by Tweed
Post by Brian Gaff
Its rubbish really since they just moved their freeview channel into Mono.
Obviously not so convinced that all of this is not just a money making ploy.
So, I guess I will soon have to finally dump my old pure DAB radio then.
Brian
Of course it is a money making ploy. Every commercial company makes
decisions based on increasing their profits (or decreasing their losses).
At the most cynical level they've probably decided that those too poor or
tight to replace their old radios aren't of interest to their advertisers.
Loading...