In message <kq1vmeFuaf6U1@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 27 Oct 2023
15:27:25, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
[]
>I had a friend who worked at Denham studios many years ago. He used to
>give me offcuts of 35mm movie stock, then process it and print rolls of
>slides from the resulting negatives. Both processes used the same film
>stock, machinery and processing.
[]
Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative,
penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it!
("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides. (I
preferred slides to prints - still do really, but they're inconvenient
of course.) Involved a box of extra chemicals from Johnsons (one of the
powders was orange), and a re-exposure - so many inches from a
lightbulb! - part way through the process. I remember the film - or the
images on it - were a pretty blue colour at that point.

(Yes, my slides had a row of holes along one edge. But given they
included the full width of where a 35mm image would go, you just had to
bear that in mind when shooting. Could hide the holes if you used
ordinary 35mm mounts.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:46:06 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <kq1vmeFuaf6U1@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 27 Oct 2023
>15:27:25, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>[]
>>I had a friend who worked at Denham studios many years ago. He used to
>>give me offcuts of 35mm movie stock, then process it and print rolls of
>>slides from the resulting negatives. Both processes used the same film
>>stock, machinery and processing.
>[]
>Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative,
>penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it!
>("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides. (I
>preferred slides to prints - still do really, but they're inconvenient
>of course.) Involved a box of extra chemicals from Johnsons (one of the
>powders was orange), and a re-exposure - so many inches from a
>lightbulb! - part way through the process. I remember the film - or the
>images on it - were a pretty blue colour at that point.
>
>(Yes, my slides had a row of holes along one edge. But given they
>included the full width of where a 35mm image would go, you just had to
>bear that in mind when shooting. Could hide the holes if you used
>ordinary 35mm mounts.)

Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
Would jpeg be the best format to use?

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:tjjnji9nn2imod29rip5ukqa0achmk21vd@4ax.com:
35mm mounts.)
>
> Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
> files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
> Would jpeg be the best format to use?

For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-
Required/dp/B08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=
35mm+slide+scanner&qid=1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=
8-16

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:03:26 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
>news:tjjnji9nn2imod29rip5ukqa0achmk21vd@4ax.com:
>35mm mounts.)
>>
>> Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
>> files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
>> Would jpeg be the best format to use?
>
>For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt
>
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-Required/dp/B08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=35mm+slide+scanner&qid=1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=8-16
But this would mean scanning each one individually, which would take
hours. I wondered if a professional processor could pass them through
and automated process (while maintaining reasonable quality control,
such as colour balance and brightness).

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:hpknji1nhqt61qt8dp1498in62qdomu9nb@4ax.com:

>>
>>For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt
>>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-Required/dp/
> B08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=35mm+slide+scanner&qi
> d=1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=8-16 But this
> would mean scanning each one individually, which would take hours. I
> wondered if a professional processor could pass them through and
> automated process (while maintaining reasonable quality control, such
> as colour balance and brightness).

30p each, if you have 1000 or more

https://www.filmscanuk.co.uk/SlideScanning.php

It took me 15 seconds to find on google, I have no idea how good or bad
they are, I simply did a search.

On 27/10/2023 15:53, Scott wrote:

> Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
> files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
> Would jpeg be the best format to use?
>
Yes. Even I have the equipment here to do it for 35mm slides, using a
digital camera and a holder, and when quality matters, I use RAW format,
then edit to suit before compression. JPEG is a lossy format, so is not
the best choice when editing, as you get generational losses each time
you change something in a saved image. I can even restore slides where
the fading is different in each layer, going as far as the odd occasion
when one or more colour layers has, in effect, reverted to a negative.

For a very reasonable price, you can buy a slide scanner which will scan
the slides or film roll onto an SD card or into your computer, and most
image editing programs have a range of automatic filters which can do a
rough balance on a batch of images. The current batch of scanners can do
any where from 150dpi to 7,000 dpi, with prices to match.

There are companies advertising the service both for stills and movies.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:21:24 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
>news:hpknji1nhqt61qt8dp1498in62qdomu9nb@4ax.com:
>
>>>
>>>For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt
>>>
>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-Required/dp/
>> B08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=35mm+slide+scanner&qi
>> d=1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=8-16 But this
>> would mean scanning each one individually, which would take hours. I
>> wondered if a professional processor could pass them through and
>> automated process (while maintaining reasonable quality control, such
>> as colour balance and brightness).
>
>
>30p each, if you have 1000 or more
>
>https://www.filmscanuk.co.uk/SlideScanning.php
>
>It took me 15 seconds to find on google, I have no idea how good or bad
>they are, I simply did a search.

That's helpful, thanks. I could equally search Google but I wondered
if anyone here had personal recommendations or tips.

In message <XnsB0AAA01445DC9rootgmailcom@81.171.91.128> at Fri, 27 Oct
2023 14:44:12, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> writes
[]
>16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the
[]
By double sprocket, do you mean as used by (standard) 8mm cameras, or
just that it had holes each side?

I've occasionally wondered where the idea for standard 8 came from; it's
sometimes presented as someone having an idea (like - was it Mr. Leica?
- did for 35mm still cameras), but needing the double perforation (which
I doubt could be added - it'd have to be done all at once to get the
precision needed) is an extra step. Or was the double perforation
already present on some stock for some reason (if so what)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... unlike other legal systems the common law is permissive. We can do what we
like, unless it is specifically prohibited by law. We are not as rule-bound
and codified as other legal systems. - Helena Kennedy QC (Radio Times 14-20
July 2012).

In message <hpknji1nhqt61qt8dp1498in62qdomu9nb@4ax.com> at Fri, 27 Oct
2023 16:13:47, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 15:03:26 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
>
>>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
>>news:tjjnji9nn2imod29rip5ukqa0achmk21vd@4ax.com:
>>35mm mounts.)
>>>
>>> Do you think I could get all my father's slides bulk scanned to jpeg
>>> files taking account of colour, brightness and alignment (at a price)?
>>> Would jpeg be the best format to use?
>>
>>For 45 quid, this might be worth a punt
>>
>https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenro-converts-Negatives-Portable-Required/dp/B
>08599N8DK/ref=sr_1_16?crid=O15FR05VG44O&keywords=35mm+slide+scanner&qid=
>1698418884&sprefix=35mm+slide+scanner%2Caps%2C79&sr=8-16
>But this would mean scanning each one individually, which would take
>hours. I wondered if a professional processor could pass them through
>and automated process (while maintaining reasonable quality control,
>such as colour balance and brightness).

There are lots of such devices, from about 20 quid (probably less s/h)
up to ones that have things like infrared to detect scratches etcetera.
But, as you say, would take hours for all but a small number.

I take it they're mounted? I've seen scanners with a hopper you can feed
them into, then operate pump-action like a shotgun: if you've not _too_
many, that might be worth an investigate. (I don't know how well they
work with the different types of mount - Kodak thin card, Agfa thick
plastic, Boots thin plastic ... maybe OK if not mixed?) How many slides
are you talking about - and what are they in? If projector magazines,
maybe something could be done with the projector, though I've not heard
of anyone doing that. Obviously those wouldn't automate exposure/colour.

For personal recommendations, maybe you have a local photographic
club/society/whatever? Look in your local library at the notice-board.
(Include historical.) I imagine most of those _will_ have done it
themselves, but there might be some who've used an outside source and
can recommend (or the opposite!).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... unlike other legal systems the common law is permissive. We can do what we
like, unless it is specifically prohibited by law. We are not as rule-bound
and codified as other legal systems. - Helena Kennedy QC (Radio Times 14-20
July 2012).

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in news:g$wNtBDFsPPlFwgp@
255soft.uk:

> In message <XnsB0AAA01445DC9rootgmailcom@81.171.91.128> at Fri, 27 Oct
> 2023 14:44:12, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> writes
> []
>>16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the
> []
> By double sprocket, do you mean as used by (standard) 8mm cameras, or
> just that it had holes each side?

"16mm double sprocket" means sprocket holes down both edges (leaving no
room for sound (comopt or stripe), I suppose that in the digital era it
would be possible to cram some digital info in the gaps).

Standard 8 (as I understand it is) is 16mm stock with two sprocket holes
per frame, and was, IIRC, a Kodak Eastman innovation.

In message <XnsB0AB8D36AACA5rootgmailcom@81.171.91.128> at Sat, 28 Oct
2023 12:52:56, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> writes
>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in news:g$wNtBDFsPPlFwgp@
>255soft.uk:
>
>> In message <XnsB0AAA01445DC9rootgmailcom@81.171.91.128> at Fri, 27 Oct
>> 2023 14:44:12, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> writes
>> []
>>>16mm Neg (usually double sprocket) doesn't carry mag stripe, hence the
>> []
>> By double sprocket, do you mean as used by (standard) 8mm cameras, or
>> just that it had holes each side?
>
>"16mm double sprocket" means sprocket holes down both edges (leaving no
>room for sound (comopt or stripe), I suppose that in the digital era it
>would be possible to cram some digital info in the gaps).

Gotcha.
>
>Standard 8 (as I understand it is) is 16mm stock with two sprocket holes

Yes, it is; one per 8mm frame. The camera shot down one half of the film
width, then you turned it over (swapped the reels) and it went back
along the other half. I had (still have!) one.

>per frame, and was, IIRC, a Kodak Eastman innovation.
>
>
Interesting.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The best things in life aren't things. - Bear Grylls (RT 2015/2/14-20)

On 27/10/2023 15:46, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <kq1vmeFuaf6U1@mid.individual.net> at Fri, 27 Oct 2023
> 15:27:25, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
> []
>> I had a friend who worked at Denham studios many years ago. He used to
>> give me offcuts of 35mm movie stock, then process it and print rolls
>> of slides from the resulting negatives. Both processes used the same
>> film stock, machinery and processing.
> []
> Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative,
> penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it!
> ("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides.

The master at my school who ran the photographic club bought a bulk load
of B&W negative film and dispensed it to us in reusable plastic 35 mm
canisters which we could develop and print. Sadly there was a bit of
grit in the felt light-trap of his bulk loader, so everyone's films
ended up with a tramline all the way down :-(

I've only once experimented with B&W slide film. I forget the precise
details, but I remember that it was *very* slow - either 16 or 32 ASA -
and I think it may have been made by Agfa.

I can't remember how the reversal was achieved - whether it was
performed chemically or whether it involved the film being exposed to
uniform light after first development and bleaching. Maybe I overexposed
it to the reversal light or overdeveloped it after that (second
development) but all the slides were a bit dark and muddy.

I'm trying to remember which way round it was for Kodachrome and E6
(Ektachrome) - one was chemical reversal and one used a light exposure
after first-dev. I think Kodachrome used light and E6 used chemical
(non-light) reversal, but I may have that the wrong way round.

When it comes to scanning negs and slides, I've found that slides are a
*lot* easier and require considerably less faffing around and tweaking
of settings in the scanner's control app. Slides usually "just work",
and the only adjustment necessary is exposure, whereas negs can look
muddy, over-saturated and "larger-than-life" - a look which you often
used to get in 1940s/50s books that included "colour plate"
illustrations. Also I got horrendous blooming around dark objects (eg
chimneys of a building) against a light background (eg sky) and very
coarse grain. That was the case both for a flat-bed scanner and a
dedicated Minolta film scanner. After a lot of faffing (with different
parameters for every single frame) I got some good results which showed
details in shadow and highlight which were bleached out or lost in
blackness of a print from the same neg.

I was staggered at the amount of highlight detail that I could recover
from overexposed slides. I took some Ektachrome slides of night-time
scenes - eg floodlit buildings such as the Cabot Tower in Bristol when I
was at university there - complete with a deep blue filter to correct
tungsten lighting to daylight film. I had to make wild guesses at
exposures, and some guesses were better that others! Some slides looked
washed out when projected, but when I scanned them many years later, I
was able to get pretty good results with highlight detail that I though
had been lost forever.

Scary that nowadays a DSLR can give instant feedback of correct
exposure, even if you have to alter the metered exposure by n stops
until the picture looks right, and you can colour-correct immediately by
the time-honoured process of taking a photo of a white piece of paper
which is illuminated by the same light. My experience is that digital
cameras tend to produce better results with discontinuous spectrum
lights such as fluorescent or LED - none of the sickly green cast that
fluorescents gave with Kodachrome ;-)

On 28/10/2023 13:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> There are lots of such devices, from about 20 quid (probably less s/h)
> up to ones that have things like infrared to detect scratches etcetera.
> But, as you say, would take hours for all but a small number.

One cautionary tale. I have found that the IR dust/scratch correction of
slides does not work with Kodachrome, because that film absorbs IR by
different amounts according to density of image. Ektachrome and the Agfa
slide films absorb IR uniformly, irrespective of image density, so they
can distinguish between image and dust. For Kodachrome, you must turn
off IR and retouch dust manually; with it turned on, the results are not
pretty :-(

In message <4rCcnX9jKYd0nqL4nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Mon,
30 Oct 2023 01:16:24, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
>On 27/10/2023 15:46, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> Our music master at school used to sell bulk (monochrome) negative,
>>penny-a-frame IIRR. I used to refill 126 cartridges with it!
>>("Instamatic"), and then reversal process: black-and-white slides.
[]
>I've only once experimented with B&W slide film. I forget the precise
>details, but I remember that it was *very* slow - either 16 or 32 ASA -
>and I think it may have been made by Agfa.

The slides I produced didn't use dedicated B&W slide film - I didn't
even know such a thing existed. The process used ordinary B/W negative
film, with extra chemicals from Johnsons and instructions, including the
re-exposure part way through the process.
[]
>When it comes to scanning negs and slides, I've found that slides are a
>*lot* easier and require considerably less faffing around and tweaking
>of settings in the scanner's control app. Slides usually "just work",
>and the only adjustment necessary is exposure, whereas negs can look
>muddy, over-saturated and "larger-than-life" - a look which you often
>used to get in 1940s/50s books that included "colour plate"
>illustrations. Also I got horrendous blooming around dark objects (eg
>chimneys of a building) against a light background (eg sky) and very
>coarse grain. That was the case both for a flat-bed scanner and a
>dedicated Minolta film scanner. After a lot of faffing (with different
>parameters for every single frame) I got some good results which showed
>details in shadow and highlight which were bleached out or lost in
>blackness of a print from the same neg.

I've always thought slides - though I admit, and negatives - probably
contain much better depth than prints; the only disadvantage likely
being that it's much easier to obtain good resolution by scanning a
print, assuming you've got a good print that is.
[]
>paper which is illuminated by the same light. My experience is that
>digital cameras tend to produce better results with discontinuous
>spectrum lights such as fluorescent or LED - none of the sickly green
>cast that fluorescents gave with Kodachrome ;-)

I suspect the light sources have improved somewhat too.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... behaving morally does not require religious adherence. - The Right Rev
Nigel McCulloch\Bishop of Manchester (Radio Times, 24-30 September 2011

On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 15:41:06 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Not knowingly;

Ah, thanks! I knew it was a long shot! I am just curious how good it
would look because I really like the KodaChrome slides I have!

However, I am VERY glad that digital cinema exists :D

On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
[snip]

Any update on the bitrate to be used from January? They are
repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
to be in a position to substantiate this claim.

What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)? More robust
reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)

Scott wrote:

> They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
> will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.

Who's going to hold them to their (subjective) claim?

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:48:28 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>
>Scott wrote:
>
>> They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
>> will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>
>Who's going to hold them to their (subjective) claim?

Either Ofcom or ASA I believe fined Channel 4 because the adverts were
louder than the programme. AIUI, the rule was changed from measured to
subjective volume.
https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/a5f7af81-2f67-4b79-b04c8ce60130e93d.pdf
Having established the principle of a subjective test, it is a very
short step to saying that that any claim made needs to be
substantiated. Surely advertising yourself is subject to similar rules
to advertising a product?

In message <ok59mi5k5ca5npri975vvu2rhpcnsnsoi6@4ax.com> at Mon, 27 Nov
2023 13:23:49, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:48:28 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Scott wrote:
>>
>>> They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
>>> will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>
>>Who's going to hold them to their (subjective) claim?
>
>Either Ofcom or ASA I believe fined Channel 4 because the adverts were
>louder than the programme. AIUI, the rule was changed from measured to
>subjective volume.
>https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/a5f7af81-2f67-4b79-b04c8ce60130e93d.pdf
>Having established the principle of a subjective test, it is a very
>short step to saying that that any claim made needs to be
>substantiated. Surely advertising yourself is subject to similar rules
>to advertising a product?

Even if limited to objective, "better sound quality" cannot be claimed
without substantiation: however discredited, there must exist a table of
"x bits at DAB+ is better than y bits at DAB": without some such, the
claim can surely be "disproved".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

At the age of 7, Julia Elizabeth Wells could sing notes only dogs could hear.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 17:43:00 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <ok59mi5k5ca5npri975vvu2rhpcnsnsoi6@4ax.com> at Mon, 27 Nov
>2023 13:23:49, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 12:48:28 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they
>>>> will need to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>>
>>>Who's going to hold them to their (subjective) claim?
>>
>>Either Ofcom or ASA I believe fined Channel 4 because the adverts were
>>louder than the programme. AIUI, the rule was changed from measured to
>>subjective volume.
>>https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/a5f7af81-2f67-4b79-b04c8ce60130e93d.pdf
>>Having established the principle of a subjective test, it is a very
>>short step to saying that that any claim made needs to be
>>substantiated. Surely advertising yourself is subject to similar rules
>>to advertising a product?
>
>Even if limited to objective, "better sound quality" cannot be claimed
>without substantiation: however discredited, there must exist a table of
>"x bits at DAB+ is better than y bits at DAB": without some such, the
>claim can surely be "disproved".

Yes, essentially that is what I am saying. Global will need to be able
to back up their claim with some sort of evidence and things could go
badly if they don't.

On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Any update on the bitrate to be used from January? They are
> repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>
> What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
> range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)? More robust
> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)

My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.

Is there any technical advantage to the baseband signal carried by DAB+
compared with DAB? Or is DAB+ just a more efficient compression and
coding system so the same subjective quality of baseband signal requires
a lower bitrate and therefore a mux can carry more channels?

Is it like the benefit of DVB-T2 (or S2) over DVB-T (or S) digital
television, that H264 is a more efficient codec than MPEG-1, so you can
squeeze more channels into the same mux (or transmit baseband signals
with more pixels and hence a higher bitrate, without reducing the number
of channels carried)?

Maybe (all pigs fuelled and ready to take off!) channels will actually
increase the subjective quality of the received signal, with lower
levels of compression artefacts.

On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
> On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> Any update on the bitrate to be used from January?  They are
>> repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>
>> What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
>> range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)?  More robust
>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
>
> My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.

That was unfortunate
>
> Is there any technical advantage to the baseband signal carried by DAB+
> compared with DAB? Or is DAB+ just a more efficient compression and
> coding system so the same subjective quality of baseband signal requires
> a lower bitrate and therefore a mux can carry more channels?

The above, plus with a marginal signal level the reception is more robust.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:35:39 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
>> On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Any update on the bitrate to be used from January?  They are
>>> repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
>>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>>
>>> What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
>>> range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)?  More robust
>>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
>>
>> My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
>> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
>> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
>
>That was unfortunate

Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
from an Australian site.

Silly question, I thought all new DAB radios had to include DAB. Is
it possible it will receive DAB+ when this becomes available even if
this is not obvious from the instructions?

On 28/11/2023 10:07, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:35:39 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
>>> On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Any update on the bitrate to be used from January?  They are
>>>> repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
>>>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>>>
>>>> What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
>>>> range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)?  More robust
>>>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
>>>
>>> My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it stopped
>>> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one. And
>>> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
>>
>> That was unfortunate
>
> Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
> from an Australian site.

Maybe

>
> Silly question, I thought all new DAB radios had to include DAB.

Oh, I think they all do :-)

But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+

> it possible it will receive DAB+ when this becomes available even if
> this is not obvious from the instructions?

Very, I'd think !

On Tue 28/11/2023 10:47, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 28/11/2023 10:07, Scott wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 08:35:39 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/11/2023 23:42, NY wrote:
>>>> On 27/11/2023 12:45, Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 12:52:56 GMT, A N Source <foo@bar.baz> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Any update on the bitrate to be used from January?  They are
>>>>> repeatedly saying it is better sound quality so I think they will need
>>>>> to be in a position to substantiate this claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are the practical consequences likely to be? Wider frequency
>>>>> range? More detail? Purer notes musically (sine waves)?  More robust
>>>>> reception? (Or is it just a lower carriage charge?)
>>>>
>>>> My mum is not happy. She bought a DAB radio ages ago and when it
>>>> stopped
>>>> working earlier this year, she managed to buy another identical one.
>>>> And
>>>> it can only do DAB, and not DAB+.
>>>
>>> That was unfortunate
>>
>> Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
>> from an Australian site.
>
> Maybe
>
>>
>> Silly question, I thought all new DAB radios had to include DAB.
>
> Oh, I think they all do  :-)
>
> But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
> say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+
>
>> it possible it will receive DAB+ when this becomes available even if
>> this is not obvious from the instructions?
>
> Very, I'd think !
>

Look on the unit label. I picked up a Sandstrom (Currys) at the tip -
the label said DAB/DAB+. Plugged in a power supply and it works sitting
here on the end of my desk. I found a second elsewhere (not the tip this
time)and it was distorted. The loudspeaker cone edge had frayed in
places so it was waffling. Found a new speaker on line, fitted it, and
that now sits on the end of my s-in-l's desk (he's a home worker.)