On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:47:32 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
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 :-)

Yes, I realised this impeccable logic on re-reading.
>
>But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
>say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+

Is it something to do with displaying the tick of approval on the box?
>
>> it possible it will receive DAB+ when this becomes available even if
>> this is not obvious from the instructions?
>
>Very, I'd think !

On 28/11/2023 13:05, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:47:32 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>

<snip>>

>> But seriously, I don't think there are any mandatory trading laws that
>> say a DAB radio MUST be DAB+
>
> Is it something to do with displaying the tick of approval on the box?
>>

If you mean the "digitalradio [sic] approved product" tick mark then
that offers protection when buying from a reputable source. But there
is of course nothing to stop disreputable sellers using boxes with
rip-off Tick Mark logos. And your recourse is against the seller, not
Radioplayer (assuming it is they who took on the certification scheme).

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 28/11/2023 10:07, Scott wrote:
> Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
> from an Australian site.

Have you read the FAQ on the Pure website?

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 21:41:36 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 28/11/2023 10:07, Scott wrote:
>> Any chance of a software upgrade? I upgraded one of the Pure models
>> from an Australian site.
>
>Have you read the FAQ on the Pure website?

This may be of interest: https://upgrades.pure-audio.com/uk/update

On 10/10/2023 21:03, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>> to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>>
>> Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
>
> January 2024:
> https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgrading%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.

So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
you think the bit rate is ?

Mark Carver wrote:

> Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
> you think the bit rate is ?

I'll listen next time I'm in the car ...

On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
> So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
> you think the bit rate is ?

Should there be any difference?

I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.

On 02/01/2024 09:47, JMB99 wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
>> So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
>> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears
>> what you think the bit rate is ?
>
>
>
> Should there be any difference?
>
> I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
>
>
Well, that depends doesn't it !?

Replacing 256k MP2 with 24k DAB+ isn't going to sound the same, just
because it's DAB+ !
The burning question is what DAB+ rates, give the same quality for given
mp2 rates ?

Andy Burns wrote:

> Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without looking at the
>> radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what you think the
>> bit rate is ?
>
> I'll listen next time I'm in the car ...

Well, I had a listen (can't at home as only DAB there isn't DAB+) and
it's certainly "good enough" I'll leave it to Scott to decide if it's
"better".

If I was going to say anything, it would be that the presenters do
sssound quite sssibilanty, but then I switched to R3 for comparison and
the same is true there, maybe that's the new reality of back-bedroom
broadcasting from home?

On Tue 02/01/2024 12:52, Andy Burns wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>>> Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without looking at the
>>> radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what you think
>>> the bit rate is ?
>>
>> I'll listen next time I'm in the car ...
>
> Well, I had a listen (can't at home as only DAB there isn't DAB+) and
> it's certainly "good enough" I'll leave it to Scott to decide if it's
> "better".
>
> If I was going to say anything, it would be that the presenters do
> sssound quite sssibilanty, but then I switched to R3 for comparison and
> the same is true there, maybe that's the new reality of back-bedroom
> broadcasting from home?
>

CFM is still on FM band, so why not compare analogue with digital under
identical conditions?

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
>> So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
>> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
>> you think the bit rate is ?
>
>Should there be any difference?
>
>I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
>
It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.

In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
>>> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
>>> you think the bit rate is ?
>>
>>Should there be any difference?
>>
>>I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
>>
>It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
>Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.

I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just say
I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can see
OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said the Borg, "we assimilated a Pooh."

Mark Carver wrote:

> Replacing 256k MP2 with 24k DAB+

Is that what it was on DAB and is on DAB+?

On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
> 2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
>>>> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
>>>> you think the bit rate is ?
>>>
>>> Should there be any difference?
>>>
>>> I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
>>>
>> It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
>> Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
>
> I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just say
> I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can see
> OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.

A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically
removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical? Moi?

I wonder how many Classic FM listeners will be pissed off at the change.
It is an older-age sector of the market. Of all the stations to turn off
DAB, Classic FM has got to be the worst in terms of its listeners being
willing to upgrade to a new radio

My mum bought a "new" radio, an identical copy of one from about 15
years ago that she liked but which had eventually failed. She now finds
that it is useless for Classic FM. I think the seller on eBay must have
been rubbing his hands with glee that he'd sold that radio ;-)

Turns out that her Pure Evoke 1S can at least receive FM as an
alternative to DAB. I'm still trying to find a manual for the Grundig
Opus DAB radio that they have in the kitchen, to see whether that is
DAB-only or whether it can get FM as well.

On Tue 02/01/2024 20:08, NY wrote:
> On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
>> 2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>> So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
>>>>> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears
>>>>> what
>>>>> you think the bit rate is ?
>>>>
>>>> Should there be any difference?
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
>>>>
>>> It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
>>> Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
>>
>> I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just
>> say I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can
>> see OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
>
> A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically
> removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical? Moi?
>
> I wonder how many Classic FM listeners will be pissed off at the change.
> It is an older-age sector of the market. Of all the stations to turn off
> DAB, Classic FM has got to be the worst in terms of its listeners being
> willing to upgrade to a new radio
>
> My mum bought a "new" radio, an identical copy of one from about 15
> years ago that she liked but which had eventually failed. She now finds
> that it is useless for Classic FM. I think the seller on eBay must have
> been rubbing his hands with glee that he'd sold that radio ;-)
>
> Turns out that her Pure Evoke 1S can at least receive FM as an
> alternative to DAB. I'm still trying to find a manual for the Grundig
> Opus DAB radio that they have in the kitchen, to see whether that is
> DAB-only or whether it can get FM as well.

DAB only, no FM.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 19:23:11 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
>2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
>>>> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
>>>> you think the bit rate is ?
>>>
>>>Should there be any difference?
>>>
>>>I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
>>>
>>It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
>>Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
>
>I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just say
>I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can see
>OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.

I was engaging in a bit for sarcasm myself. Anyway, the mystery is
revealed. It's 64 kb/s DAB+ as compared to 128 kb/s DAB. We can debate
whether this is an upgrade.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 20:08:24 +0000, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
>> 2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 09:47:35 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/01/2024 08:53, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>> So, don't cheat. Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without
>>>>> looking at the radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what
>>>>> you think the bit rate is ?
>>>>
>>>> Should there be any difference?
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was to allow more services without any drop in quality.
>>>>
>>> It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
>>> Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
>>
>> I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just say
>> I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can see
>> OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
>
>A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically
>removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical? Moi?
>
>I wonder how many Classic FM listeners will be pissed off at the change.
>It is an older-age sector of the market. Of all the stations to turn off
>DAB, Classic FM has got to be the worst in terms of its listeners being
>willing to upgrade to a new radio
>
>My mum bought a "new" radio, an identical copy of one from about 15
>years ago that she liked but which had eventually failed. She now finds
>that it is useless for Classic FM. I think the seller on eBay must have
>been rubbing his hands with glee that he'd sold that radio ;-)
>
>Turns out that her Pure Evoke 1S can at least receive FM as an
>alternative to DAB. I'm still trying to find a manual for the Grundig
>Opus DAB radio that they have in the kitchen, to see whether that is
>DAB-only or whether it can get FM as well.

Can Pure Evoke 1S not be upgraded?
https://upgrades.pure-audio.com/uk/update

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 12:52:09 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>>> Overnight Classic FM has converted to DAB+. Without looking at the
>>> radio, or looking it up, tell me by using your ears what you think the
>>> bit rate is ?
>>
>> I'll listen next time I'm in the car ...
>
>Well, I had a listen (can't at home as only DAB there isn't DAB+) and
>it's certainly "good enough" I'll leave it to Scott to decide if it's
>"better".

Unfortunately, my only DAB+ capable radios are a bedside clock radio
and a very small Sony portable. I doubt if either of these would allow
any meaningful testing.
>
>If I was going to say anything, it would be that the presenters do
>sssound quite sssibilanty, but then I switched to R3 for comparison and
>the same is true there, maybe that's the new reality of back-bedroom
>broadcasting from home?

Interesting, I'll listen out for that. I sometimes think the Classic
FM presenter is too close to the microphone.

In message <H8acnUHnU7Kl8An4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Tue, 2
Jan 2024 20:08:24, NY <me@privacy.net> writes
>On 02/01/2024 19:23, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <lhn8pid7rtf1v2a8lnu9lc5uqerqbm9sai@4ax.com> at Tue, 2 Jan
>>2024 19:06:07, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]
>>> It has been billed as an upgrade. No doubt Global will be fined by
>>> Ofcom is Ofcom thinks this is untrue.
>> I was going to go into a lot of sarcasm, but I'll refrain, and just
>>say I don't think that will happen. If there's _any_ ambiguity, I can
>>see OfCom backing well away from taking _any_ action.
>
>A watchdog isn't a watchdog unless it has had all its teeth surgically
>removed and its bark replaced by a squeak from a cuddly toy. Cynical?
>Moi?
[]
Or, has teeth but is very unwilling to use them. Which, perhaps, is
something good in a real dog, but not one of the supervisory sort: I'm
thinking of the ASA, whose preferred action is to secure a "we won't run
that advert in that form again" promise, rather than impose _any_
punishment - and are only _re_active (i. e. someone has to complain
before they do anything). IMO, they should be absorbed into the CMA, who
seem to be doing their job much better, and _are_ proactive.

OfCom lost all credibility decades ago. Needs a complete revamp; it's
seen now as an industry spokesman.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After all is said and done, usually more is said.

On 02/01/2024 20:01, Andy Burns wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> Replacing 256k MP2 with 24k DAB+
>
> Is that what it was on DAB and is on DAB+?

No, I was just providing an extreme example to illustrate JMB99's mis
understanding of DAB+

Classic FM has gone from 128k mp2 on DAB, to 64k AACv1 on DAB+

On 02/01/2024 22:12, Scott wrote:

> I was engaging in a bit for sarcasm myself. Anyway, the mystery is
> revealed. It's 64 kb/s DAB+ as compared to 128 kb/s DAB. We can debate
> whether this is an upgrade.

64k is the chosen DAB+ rate for the three BBC local radio stations that
use it. DAB BBC LR uses 128k. (Although that's the 'free' bandwidth
granted to them by Ofcom on the commercial local muxes)

Mark Carver wrote:

> Classic FM has gone [...] to 64k AACv1

v1 ... is codec price that significant?

On 03/01/2024 09:20, Andy Burns wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> Classic FM has gone [...] to 64k AACv1
>
> v1 ... is codec price that significant?
>

Here's a rabbit hole for you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Efficiency_Advanced_Audio_Coding

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 08:13:13 +0000, Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com>
wrote:

>On 02/01/2024 22:12, Scott wrote:
>
>> I was engaging in a bit for sarcasm myself. Anyway, the mystery is
>> revealed. It's 64 kb/s DAB+ as compared to 128 kb/s DAB. We can debate
>> whether this is an upgrade.
>
>64k is the chosen DAB+ rate for the three BBC local radio stations that
>use it. DAB BBC LR uses 128k. (Although that's the 'free' bandwidth
>granted to them by Ofcom on the commercial local muxes)

I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is three
times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality
is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?

On 03/01/2024 10:04, Scott wrote:
> I read in the source of all knowledge aka Google that AAC is three
> times more efficient than MP2. This would mean that Classic FM quality
> is now equivalent to R3 192 kbps. Is this a reasonable assessment?
>
So slightly better than a Compact Cassette, then.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.