On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 23:06:16 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>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.

IME, and this applies across Legal and Financial as well, these
watchdogs are setup to protect the supplier from the consumer and not
the other way around.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>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.

That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
eight-track cartridge?

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 12:13:43 GMT, nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 23:06:16 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>IME, and this applies across Legal and Financial as well, these
>watchdogs are setup to protect the supplier from the consumer and not
>the other way around.

When I raised a cashback claim on my credit card, I got the distinct
impression that the proceedings were biased in my favour. It was
almost (but not quite): 'We need to wait to see what the other side
say before we uphold your claim'.

On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
> equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
> eight-track cartridge?
>
They all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the
formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.

In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise
on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
artefacts in MP3.

Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
used to sound worse than cassettes, despite having a higher tape speed,
due to the lubrication on the tape,which clogged up the heads, and the
problem of getting the tape speed to stay constant on the endless loop,
not to mention the problems most players had aligning the head every
time it switched between tracks. Top end players had an 8 track fixed
head, cheap ones used a two track head on a moving mount.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:40:39 +0000, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
>> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
>> equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
>> eight-track cartridge?
>>
>They all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the
>formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.
>
>In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
>similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise
>on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
>artefacts in MP3.
>
>Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
>used to sound worse than cassettes, despite having a higher tape speed,
>due to the lubrication on the tape,which clogged up the heads, and the
>problem of getting the tape speed to stay constant on the endless loop,
>not to mention the problems most players had aligning the head every
>time it switched between tracks. Top end players had an 8 track fixed
>head, cheap ones used a two track head on a moving mount.

You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
> equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
> eight-track cartridge?

It becomes even more interesting when you add 78s, wax cylinders and
digitalpiano and organ rolls to that list. The rolls win hands down if
they are on a good player.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:40:39 +0000, John Williamson
> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
>>> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
>>> equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
>>> eight-track cartridge?
>>>
>> They all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the
>> formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.
>>
>> In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
>> similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise
>> on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
>> artefacts in MP3.
>>
>> Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
>> used to sound worse than cassettes, despite having a higher tape speed,
>> due to the lubrication on the tape,which clogged up the heads, and the
>> problem of getting the tape speed to stay constant on the endless loop,
>> not to mention the problems most players had aligning the head every
>> time it switched between tracks. Top end players had an 8 track fixed
>> head, cheap ones used a two track head on a moving mount.
>
> You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
> early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.

It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:36:52 +0000, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:40:39 +0000, John Williamson
>> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
>>>> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
>>>> equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
>>>> eight-track cartridge?
>>>>
>>> They all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the
>>> formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.
>>>
>>> In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
>>> similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise
>>> on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
>>> artefacts in MP3.
>>>
>>> Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
>>> used to sound worse than cassettes, despite having a higher tape speed,
>>> due to the lubrication on the tape,which clogged up the heads, and the
>>> problem of getting the tape speed to stay constant on the endless loop,
>>> not to mention the problems most players had aligning the head every
>>> time it switched between tracks. Top end players had an 8 track fixed
>>> head, cheap ones used a two track head on a moving mount.
>>
>> You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
>> early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
>
>It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
>decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
>the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
>but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
Maybe correctly but I am sure I remember radios marked 'VHF'.

On 03/01/2024 14:36, Woody wrote:
> On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:

>> You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
>> early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
>
> It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
> decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
> the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
> but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?

There's also AC/DC where AC refers to mains and DC to (internal) battery.

--
Max Demian

On 03/01/2024 12:58, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
>> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
>> equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
>> eight-track cartridge?
>
> It becomes even more interesting when you add 78s, wax cylinders and
> digitalpiano and organ rolls to that list. The rolls win hands down if
> they are on a good player.

That's cheating as that isn't sound recording. You might as well include
reproducing pianos.

--
Max Demian

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:54:27 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>On 03/01/2024 14:36, Woody wrote:
>> On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
>
>>> You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
>>> early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
>>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
>>
>> It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
>> decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
>> the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
>> but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
>
>There's also AC/DC where AC refers to mains and DC to (internal) battery.

I thought AC/DC meant that the radio could operate on either AC or DC
mains (like a vacuum cleaner with a universal motor).

In message <1esapilt7lkom15ehsfgck8nvcoet95vc9@4ax.com> at Wed, 3 Jan
2024 14:41:02, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:36:52 +0000, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:40:39 +0000, John Williamson
>>> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
[]
>>>>> That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
>>>>> equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
>>>>> eight-track cartridge?

In theory, for vinyl, cassettes, and eight-track, there's frequency
range and dynamic range, and that's about it - along with reel-to-reel
for any one given combination of track width and tape speed. If you
allow excessive level, there's also what type of distortion you prefer.
(Also tape type.)

Certainly, for mp3 and reel-to-reel, you have to specify additional
parameters.
>>>>>
>>>> They all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the
>>>> formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.

(You have to ask _why_ though. And are they including non-sound-quality
factors in their choice - such as filesize [mp3] or convenience
[cassette vs. record/reel-to-reel]?)
>>>>
>>>> In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
>>>> similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise
>>>> on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
>>>> artefacts in MP3.

(Indeed; personally I find digital artefacts much more intrusive - when
I can hear them at all. But if I can't, I tend to prefer digital.)
>>>>
>>>> Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track

Definitely!
[]
Did 8-track always carry four tracks, or did it sometimes carry 8 mono
tracks?
>>>
>>> You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
>>> early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
>>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.

"Richness" - another one to go with "musicality"? Or just a synonym for
bass.
>>
>>It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
>>decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
>>the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
>>but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
>
>Maybe correctly but I am sure I remember radios marked 'VHF'.

Me too.
--
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 Wed, 3 Jan 2024 16:32:26 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <1esapilt7lkom15ehsfgck8nvcoet95vc9@4ax.com> at Wed, 3 Jan
>2024 14:41:02, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:36:52 +0000, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 12:40:39 +0000, John Williamson
>>>> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/01/2024 12:21, Scott wrote:
>[]
>>>>>> That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
>>>>>> equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
>>>>>> eight-track cartridge?
>
>In theory, for vinyl, cassettes, and eight-track, there's frequency
>range and dynamic range, and that's about it - along with reel-to-reel
>for any one given combination of track width and tape speed. If you
>allow excessive level, there's also what type of distortion you prefer.
>(Also tape type.)
>
>Certainly, for mp3 and reel-to-reel, you have to specify additional
>parameters.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They all have measurable problems, but the problem is that some of the
>>>>> formats that measure poorly are preferred by many listeners.
>
>(You have to ask _why_ though. And are they including non-sound-quality
>factors in their choice - such as filesize [mp3] or convenience
>[cassette vs. record/reel-to-reel]?)
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of cassette and 128kbps MP3, while the quality is broadly
>>>>> similar the types of distortion are different. Tape distortion and noise
>>>>> on a cassette does not sound the same as the digital compression
>>>>> artefacts in MP3.
>
>(Indeed; personally I find digital artefacts much more intrusive - when
>I can hear them at all. But if I can't, I tend to prefer digital.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also. you need to compare the playback equipment quality, as 8 track
>
>Definitely!
>[]
>Did 8-track always carry four tracks, or did it sometimes carry 8 mono
>tracks?
>>>>
>>>> You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
>>>> early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
>>>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
>
>"Richness" - another one to go with "musicality"? Or just a synonym for
>bass.

I don't think it was just the bass. It was probably reverberation or
something similar as some people considered that FM sound was bland
and lacking in character in comparison with MW they were used to. This
was before the days of heavy duty audio processing.
>>>
>>>It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
>>>decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
>>>the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
>>>but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
>>
>>Maybe correctly but I am sure I remember radios marked 'VHF'.
>
>Me too.

Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> On 03/01/2024 12:58, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:28:14 +0000, John Williamson
> >> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> That's an interesting thought. Is there any way to determine
> >> equivalence between MP3, vinyl, cassettes, reel-to-reel tape or
> >> eight-track cartridge?
> >
> > It becomes even more interesting when you add 78s, wax cylinders and
> > digitalpiano and organ rolls to that list. The rolls win hands down if
> > they are on a good player.
>
> That's cheating as that isn't sound recording. You might as well include
> reproducing pianos.

Those are the digital recordings I was referring to. They degrade far
less than analogue recordings of the same date and the quality of
playback isonly limited by the instrument they are played on - just like
modern digital recordings.

Wax cylinders are capable of surprisingly good results - they can
achieve the sound quality of a poor cassette recording if they are
recorded and played back on suitable equipment.

78s cen give better quality than the bext analogue tape recordings if
the right material is used for the discs. The BBC changed over to tape
for the convenience of use and editing; discs gave superior sound
quality, but convenience won over quality. There are 78s from the 1890s
still in playable condition, how many modern recordings will have
survived and be playable in 128 years time?

Example from 1898 at:
www.poppyrecords.co.uk/HXP103/HXP103MP3s/13.mp3

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 03/01/2024 15:08, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:54:27 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/01/2024 14:36, Woody wrote:
>>> On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
>>
>>>> You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
>>>> early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
>>>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
>>>
>>> It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
>>> decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
>>> the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
>>> but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
>>
>> There's also AC/DC where AC refers to mains and DC to (internal) battery.
>
> I thought AC/DC meant that the radio could operate on either AC or DC
> mains (like a vacuum cleaner with a universal motor).

It used to, in the days of DC mains. Portable radio cassette recorders
adopted the designation I stated.

--
Max Demian

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 14:54:27 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 03/01/2024 14:36, Woody wrote:
> >> On Wed 03/01/2024 12:47, Scott wrote:
> >
> >>> You are right; there is a large subjective element. I remember in the
> >>> early days of FM (when it was called VHF), some people did not like it
> >>> because it lacked bass and richness compared to the medium wave.
> >>
> >> It was always (correctly) called VHF/FM - it was only because the Japs
> >> decided to suit the Merkin idiots and just called it AM or FM. Of course
> >> the Yanks don't use LW so AM was probably technically correct for them
> >> but why should the rest of the World have to suffer their idiocy?
> >
> >There's also AC/DC where AC refers to mains and DC to (internal) battery.
>
> I thought AC/DC meant that the radio could operate on either AC or DC
> mains (like a vacuum cleaner with a universal motor).

Yes, that is what it meant. A set that could work on mains or batteries
was called a Mains/Battery set. Usually the term AC/DC was a big
warning flag to a serviceman because it meant the whole chassis could be
live.

Some domestic appliences were marked AC/DC because they were just based
on a simple resistance element and that would work on either type of
supply, wouldn't it? One electric blanket manufacturer made that
assumption, so 'Which' magazine took him up on it and tested the blanket
on DC. The element worked OK but the thermostat or the mains switch
(don't remember which) started an arc which set fire to the whole thing.
....It would have warmed up the bed all right!

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 12:30:12 +0000, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Jan 2024 12:13:43 GMT, nospam@please.invalid (AnthonyL)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 23:06:16 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>IME, and this applies across Legal and Financial as well, these
>>watchdogs are setup to protect the supplier from the consumer and not
>>the other way around.
>
>When I raised a cashback claim on my credit card, I got the distinct
>impression that the proceedings were biased in my favour. It was
>almost (but not quite): 'We need to wait to see what the other side
>say before we uphold your claim'.

Indeed, I've only had to have a couple of transactions reversed, one a
credit card and the other a direct debit. Weirdly the credit card is
for an upsold voucher, received as pdf by email, with nothing on it to
stop it from still being used.

But neither of those cases involved a watchdog/ombudsman who of course
may have come into play had the bank/credit card company played hard
ball.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:1qmrr1x.1ezcqm4dy4e0wN%> Wax cylinders are capable of surprisingly good
results - they can
> achieve the sound quality of a poor cassette recording if they are
> recorded and played back on suitable equipment.
>
> 78s cen give better quality than the bext analogue tape recordings if
> the right material is used for the discs. The BBC changed over to tape
> for the convenience of use and editing; discs gave superior sound
> quality, but convenience won over quality. There are 78s from the 1890s
> still in playable condition, how many modern recordings will have
> survived and be playable in 128 years time?

The problem with mechanical reproduction (wax, shellac or vinyl) is that no
matter how good the frequency response and linearity, they invariably (in my
experience) suffer from one flaw which overrides all others in my
experience - impulse noise from dust and scratches, and dirt embedded in the
groove. If you use them in a clean room with filtered air, and if you take
exaggerated care to avoid jogging the needle, causing scratches, then they
are probably pretty good. But for use in a normal home environment where you
can't keep things clean, and where handling can mar the surface, they are
inferior to mag tape and dramatically worse than good digital media such as
CDs (ie without compression artefacts of MP3 etc).

For me, background noise (and I don't mean something constant like hiss,
which the brain soon learns to filter out) is far more noticeable than a
small amount of distortion or a limited frequency response.

While digital media such as CDs and DVDs *may* not survive 128 years, they
have the advantage that it is possible to make a bit-for-bit copy into new
media at any time before the original disc degrades, at which point the
"degradation clock" starts again from zero.

Woody wrote:

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

In the car, I've been listening to both Classic FM/DAB and Radio3
FM/DAB, I prefer each station's DAB output (due to FM having more hiss
and less treble).

In article <l0cn14F5ah5U2@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> scribeth thus
>Woody wrote:
>
>> CFM is still on FM band, so why not compare analogue with digital under
>> identical conditions?
>
>In the car, I've been listening to both Classic FM/DAB and Radio3
>FM/DAB, I prefer each station's DAB output (due to FM having more hiss
>and less treble).

Thats very odd that, FM and Dabble sound much the same in the car!...

Mind you thats to the north of here, closest FM 'mitter for Classic is
Peterborough..

Tho the reported signal strength on Classic DAB isn't as good as it once
was!..

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 15/01/2024 13:50, tony sayer wrote:
> Thats very odd that, FM and Dabble sound much the same in the car!...

I originally used a Pure Highway in one of my earlier cars, I removed it
once when the car was going into the garage. I had not been using VHF
FM for some time so what I noticed was the background hiss on VHF FM and
the 'flutter' driving up the road.

Obviously if I got in some hills there would be some multipath distortion.

I have driven up and down the Great Glen for years, for many years with
just coverage from two VHF FM sites, now three. DAB was not complete
coverage but I still found reception better, just had to accept that it
would drop out at times.

tony sayer wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> In the car, I've been listening to both Classic FM/DAB and Radio3
>> FM/DAB, I prefer each station's DAB output (due to FM having more hiss
>> and less treble).
>
> Thats very odd that, FM and Dabble sound much the same in the car!...

I know people generally say cars aren't great places to listen, but
there are times when I'd disagree, e.g. there are several
misheard-lyrics which I actually heard properly when in a car, or
noticing how low bitrate MP3s would "concentrate" on different frequency
bands throughout the course of a song.

> Mind you thats to the north of here, closest FM 'mitter for Classic is
> Peterborough..

Which ain't too far from these parts, though probably Sutton Coldfield
stronger/closer.

> Tho the reported signal strength on Classic DAB isn't as good as it once
> was!..

No indication on my car of DAB signal strength in my car (apart from a
red cross when it's too low.)

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?

Note that there are multiple ways to use AAC.

You can get away with (by some unspecified definition of "get away
with") halving the bitrate of AAC, if you use a feature of the newest
version of AAC called "Spectral Band Replication" (SBR) however doing so
limits the quality of the top octave of the reproduced sound.

DAB+ stations that use low bitrates like 40k, 32k and 24k must surely be
using SBR.

Someone said Classic FM are using AACv1 for their new 64k DAB+ which, I
think, means no SBR.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:09:21 +0000, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

>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?
>
>Note that there are multiple ways to use AAC.
>
>You can get away with (by some unspecified definition of "get away
>with") halving the bitrate of AAC, if you use a feature of the newest
>version of AAC called "Spectral Band Replication" (SBR) however doing so
>limits the quality of the top octave of the reproduced sound.
>
>DAB+ stations that use low bitrates like 40k, 32k and 24k must surely be
>using SBR.
>
>Someone said Classic FM are using AACv1 for their new 64k DAB+ which, I
>think, means no SBR.

But does it mean in broad terms 3 x 64 = 192 kbps equivalence that
would put it on a par with R3?

Brian Gregory wrote:

> Someone said Classic FM are using AACv1 for their new 64k DAB+ which, I
> think, means no SBR.

It does, but is PS (parametric stereo) a mandatory or optional part of
AACv1? My takeaway from the wiki articles is that PS is like mono with
a small amount of steering? I would think plenty of classical works
need 'proper' stereo ... maybe not in a car ...