Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
the wax removed from my ears :-)

On 02/06/2023 11:31, Scott wrote:

> Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
> as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
> the wax removed from my ears :-)

I expect they've increased the (dynamic range) compression.

I prefer Radio 3 which has none that I am aware of.

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:u5chjl$35dn8$1@dont-email.me...
> On 02/06/2023 11:31, Scott wrote:
>
>> Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
>> as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
>> the wax removed from my ears :-)
>
> I expect they've increased the (dynamic range) compression.
>
> I prefer Radio 3 which has none that I am aware of.

Depends how you listen. If you listen on headphones, or on speakers in a
quiet room where you won't disturb other people, you want as little
compression as possible to give the full dynamic range, especially for
classical music. But if you listen on a small radio in the kitchen as you
are cooking, or you listen in the car where there's road noise in the
background, the compression of Classic FM is actually a bonus so you can
hear the quiet bits over the background noise without blasting your earwax
out on the crescendos (crescendi?). Thern there is the matter of whether you
want to hear full concertos with all their movements, or the best, most
tuneful and most well-known extracts. I feel an Inspector Morse to Sergeant
Lewis put-down coming on ;-)

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:51:35 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>On 02/06/2023 11:31, Scott wrote:
>
>> Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
>> as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
>> the wax removed from my ears :-)
>
>I expect they've increased the (dynamic range) compression.
>
>I prefer Radio 3 which has none that I am aware of.

Interestingly, a friend of mine who played double bass for the RSNO
said she preferred compression where the music is there for background
(citing while ironing as an example). I know some think it is better
for in-car listening. As I recall, when DAB was developed, there was
an option to set DRC.

On Fri 02/06/2023 17:48, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:51:35 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2023 11:31, Scott wrote:
>>
>>> Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
>>> as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
>>> the wax removed from my ears :-)
>>
>> I expect they've increased the (dynamic range) compression.
>>
>> I prefer Radio 3 which has none that I am aware of.
>
> Interestingly, a friend of mine who played double bass for the RSNO
> said she preferred compression where the music is there for background
> (citing while ironing as an example). I know some think it is better
> for in-car listening. As I recall, when DAB was developed, there was
> an option to set DRC.

Back in the day there was an American compression/decompression system
for LPs - I can't for the life of me remember what it was called, but as
a system for domestic use IMO it worked quite well. However copy the
compressed audio directly from the LP onto a cassette for the car and
the compressed audio sounded superb - you could hear every single note!

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:u5chjl$35dn8$1@dont-email.me...
> > On 02/06/2023 11:31, Scott wrote:
> >
> >> Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
> >> as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
> >> the wax removed from my ears :-)
> >
> > I expect they've increased the (dynamic range) compression.
> >
> > I prefer Radio 3 which has none that I am aware of.
>
> Depends how you listen. If you listen on headphones, or on speakers in a
> quiet room where you won't disturb other people, you want as little
> compression as possible to give the full dynamic range, especially for
> classical music. But if you listen on a small radio in the kitchen as you
> are cooking, or you listen in the car where there's road noise in the
> background, the compression of Classic FM is actually a bonus so you can
> hear the quiet bits over the background noise without blasting your earwax
> out on the crescendos (crescendi?). Thern there is the matter of whether you
> want to hear full concertos with all their movements, or the best, most
> tuneful and most well-known extracts. I feel an Inspector Morse to Sergeant
> Lewis put-down coming on ;-)

A long time ago, when a compressor was a large and expensive piece of
kit, it made sense to add compression (if any) before the transmitter.
Nowadays it would be a trivial matter to build a variable compressor
into every radio, so that the user could choose the degree of
compression, depending on circumstances and personal preference.

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

On 02/06/2023 19:17, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:u5chjl$35dn8$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 02/06/2023 11:31, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
>>>> as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
>>>> the wax removed from my ears :-)
>>>
>>> I expect they've increased the (dynamic range) compression.
>>>
>>> I prefer Radio 3 which has none that I am aware of.
>>
>> Depends how you listen. If you listen on headphones, or on speakers in a
>> quiet room where you won't disturb other people, you want as little
>> compression as possible to give the full dynamic range, especially for
>> classical music. But if you listen on a small radio in the kitchen as you
>> are cooking, or you listen in the car where there's road noise in the
>> background, the compression of Classic FM is actually a bonus so you can
>> hear the quiet bits over the background noise without blasting your earwax
>> out on the crescendos (crescendi?). Thern there is the matter of whether you
>> want to hear full concertos with all their movements, or the best, most
>> tuneful and most well-known extracts. I feel an Inspector Morse to Sergeant
>> Lewis put-down coming on ;-)
>
> A long time ago, when a compressor was a large and expensive piece of
> kit, it made sense to add compression (if any) before the transmitter.
> Nowadays it would be a trivial matter to build a variable compressor
> into every radio, so that the user could choose the degree of
> compression, depending on circumstances and personal preference.

Which most car radios have I think.

And I don't see why compression should require "large kit". It's just
AGC I would have thought. And Dolby NR uses compression, just that it
expands on playback, and that has been around donkey's years.

--
Max Demian

On 02/06/2023 19:17, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> A long time ago, when a compressor was a large and expensive piece of
> kit, it made sense to add compression (if any) before the transmitter.
> Nowadays it would be a trivial matter to build a variable compressor
> into every radio, so that the user could choose the degree of
> compression, depending on circumstances and personal preference.

I doubt whether many would pay more a radio with adjustable compression.

Not something I have checked but I suspect that the majority of radios
have no tone controls and if they do then will be rarely used.

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 19:17:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

>A long time ago, when a compressor was a large and expensive piece of
>kit, it made sense to add compression (if any) before the transmitter.
>Nowadays it would be a trivial matter to build a variable compressor
>into every radio, so that the user could choose the degree of
>compression, depending on circumstances and personal preference.

Even better to build an expander into every radio, or every radio that
hi-fi enthusiasts were willing to pay extra for. Compress the signal
before transmission to a level that doesn't sound too offensive if
nothing is subsequently done to it, so it will work with existing
simple radios that don't have the extra circuitry.

The audio data could be accompanied by metadata to specify exactly how
the original dynamic range is to be restored.

The broadcasters could start tomorrow without any disruption to users.
Nobody would need to buy any new equipment if they didn't want to.

Rod.

On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 09:49:08 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 19:17:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>
>>A long time ago, when a compressor was a large and expensive piece of
>>kit, it made sense to add compression (if any) before the transmitter.
>>Nowadays it would be a trivial matter to build a variable compressor
>>into every radio, so that the user could choose the degree of
>>compression, depending on circumstances and personal preference.
>
>Even better to build an expander into every radio, or every radio that
>hi-fi enthusiasts were willing to pay extra for. Compress the signal
>before transmission to a level that doesn't sound too offensive if
>nothing is subsequently done to it, so it will work with existing
>simple radios that don't have the extra circuitry.
>
>The audio data could be accompanied by metadata to specify exactly how
>the original dynamic range is to be restored.
>
>The broadcasters could start tomorrow without any disruption to users.
>Nobody would need to buy any new equipment if they didn't want to.
>
Would DAB be able to support this within the existing bitrate?

On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 10:06:09 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jun 2023 09:49:08 +0100, Roderick Stewart
><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 19:17:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
>>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>>
>>>A long time ago, when a compressor was a large and expensive piece of
>>>kit, it made sense to add compression (if any) before the transmitter.
>>>Nowadays it would be a trivial matter to build a variable compressor
>>>into every radio, so that the user could choose the degree of
>>>compression, depending on circumstances and personal preference.
>>
>>Even better to build an expander into every radio, or every radio that
>>hi-fi enthusiasts were willing to pay extra for. Compress the signal
>>before transmission to a level that doesn't sound too offensive if
>>nothing is subsequently done to it, so it will work with existing
>>simple radios that don't have the extra circuitry.
>>
>>The audio data could be accompanied by metadata to specify exactly how
>>the original dynamic range is to be restored.
>>
>>The broadcasters could start tomorrow without any disruption to users.
>>Nobody would need to buy any new equipment if they didn't want to.
>>
>Would DAB be able to support this within the existing bitrate?

Given that DAB is capable of bitrates up to several hundred kb/s and
normally transmitted with considerably lower ones, without knowing the
precise details I would guess it probably could. Metadata that simply
controlled gain wouldn't need as much bandwidth as the audio itself.

Rod.

On 03/06/2023 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> Given that DAB is capable of bitrates up to several hundred kb/s and
> normally transmitted with considerably lower ones, without knowing the
> precise details I would guess it probably could. Metadata that simply
> controlled gain wouldn't need as much bandwidth as the audio itself.

You need to get receivers on the market and for that you need standards
to be agreed, that takes time.

Then you need to convince manufacturers that there is a demand for it
etc etc.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 10:37:36 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 03/06/2023 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> Given that DAB is capable of bitrates up to several hundred kb/s and
>> normally transmitted with considerably lower ones, without knowing the
>> precise details I would guess it probably could. Metadata that simply
>> controlled gain wouldn't need as much bandwidth as the audio itself.
>
>
>You need to get receivers on the market and for that you need standards
>to be agreed, that takes time.
>
>Then you need to convince manufacturers that there is a demand for it
>etc etc.
>

Inded, but advertisers are very good at selling the public things they
don't really need if there's money to be made.

Rod.

In message <u5dhf9$397o4$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 2 Jun 2023 20:55:23,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>On 02/06/2023 19:17, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>> news:u5chjl$35dn8$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 02/06/2023 11:31, Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
>>>>> as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
>>>>> the wax removed from my ears :-)
>>>>
>>>> I expect they've increased the (dynamic range) compression.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer Radio 3 which has none that I am aware of.
>>>
>>> Depends how you listen. If you listen on headphones, or on speakers in a
>>> quiet room where you won't disturb other people, you want as little
>>> compression as possible to give the full dynamic range, especially for
>>> classical music. But if you listen on a small radio in the kitchen as you
>>> are cooking, or you listen in the car where there's road noise in the
>>> background, the compression of Classic FM is actually a bonus so you can
>>> hear the quiet bits over the background noise without blasting your earwax
>>> out on the crescendos (crescendi?). Thern there is the matter of whether you

Peaks. Crescendi (?) come before peaks. (-:

>>> want to hear full concertos with all their movements, or the best, most
>>> tuneful and most well-known extracts. I feel an Inspector Morse to Sergeant
>>> Lewis put-down coming on ;-)
>> A long time ago, when a compressor was a large and expensive piece
>>of
>> kit, it made sense to add compression (if any) before the transmitter.
>> Nowadays it would be a trivial matter to build a variable compressor
>> into every radio, so that the user could choose the degree of
>> compression, depending on circumstances and personal preference.

I remember - I think '70s or '80s - someone (I'm pretty sure it was
Blaupunkt) sold a car radio with compression; I can't remember whether
it was user-controllable or not, or if so whether it was just an on/off
option. It seemed to me an excellent idea for car radios, but AFAIK
nobody else offered it and I haven't heard of it since.
>
>Which most car radios have I think.

I don't ever remember hearing of such, apart from the above example -
certainly I've never seen mention of it in the either instructions or
advertising copy for them.
>
>And I don't see why compression should require "large kit". It's just
>AGC I would have thought. And Dolby NR uses compression, just that it
>expands on playback, and that has been around donkey's years.
>
To do it in a way that wouldn't be obvious might require a bit more kit
than a plain AGC: I remember when I was more of a radio amateur
occasionally coming across someone who had vicious AGC, and it rendered
them tiring to listen to, and sometimes quite hard to understand. Ditto
some cassette recorders with it produced something horrible too. Though
I agree with Liz that nowadays it shouldn't involve much if anything
(probably digital domain in many cases).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

In message <u5enr7$3gcl1$2@dont-email.me> at Sat, 3 Jun 2023 07:50:15,
MB <MB@nospam.net> writes
>On 02/06/2023 19:17, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> A long time ago, when a compressor was a large and expensive piece of
>> kit, it made sense to add compression (if any) before the transmitter.
>> Nowadays it would be a trivial matter to build a variable compressor
>> into every radio, so that the user could choose the degree of
>> compression, depending on circumstances and personal preference.
>
>
>I doubt whether many would pay more a radio with adjustable compression.

If suitably marketed, I think it would influence enough people - not
necessarily make them pay more, but make them select one that had it
over one that didn't. Especially if the term wasn't used - "help you
hear the quiet bits without the loud bits blasting you", probably with
some spurious new name: "Acme's special 'hushboost' circuitry helps you
....".
>
>Not something I have checked but I suspect that the majority of radios
>have no tone controls and if they do then will be rarely used.

In the case of car ones, certainly, if they're there they're buried in a
menu structure. I think you're right for domestic trannies.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

In message <7nul7i1u09rklr8fm91h86917n8cqtiij3@4ax.com> at Sat, 3 Jun
2023 09:49:08, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 19:17:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
>(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>
>>A long time ago, when a compressor was a large and expensive piece of
>>kit, it made sense to add compression (if any) before the transmitter.
>>Nowadays it would be a trivial matter to build a variable compressor
>>into every radio, so that the user could choose the degree of
>>compression, depending on circumstances and personal preference.
>
>Even better to build an expander into every radio, or every radio that
>hi-fi enthusiasts were willing to pay extra for. Compress the signal
>before transmission to a level that doesn't sound too offensive if
>nothing is subsequently done to it, so it will work with existing
>simple radios that don't have the extra circuitry.

Now that does sound like a good idea. (With maybe Radio 3 - at least its
analogue FM output - remaining the one exception.)
>
>The audio data could be accompanied by metadata to specify exactly how
>the original dynamic range is to be restored.

Wasn't that one of the main aspects of NICAM - I think that's what the C
stood for! Granted, I think that was so that it could use a reduced bit
_depth_ - i. e. 14 or 12 bits, but still give the quality of 16 bit in
quieter passages - but the principle was there.
>
>The broadcasters could start tomorrow without any disruption to users.
>Nobody would need to buy any new equipment if they didn't want to.

That sounds good.
>
>Rod.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They are public servants, so we will threat them rather as Flashman treats
servants. - Stephen Fry on some people's attitudo to the BBC, in Radio Times,
3-9 July 2010

They have seemingly got a lower dynamic range since they went mono on
freeview. I don't know if the two events are related or just that they
decided everyone listens in cars. To me DAB is a missed opportunity to make
real hi-fi. All stations could transmit full dynamic range now, and receiver
makers could have a compression adjustment in them using software. So a car
system could make the quiet stuff louder and so on. However the same optimod
and the like seems to be used as on FM. When I first started to listen to
DAB in 2000, the in concerts that radio 2 and 3 had were wonderfully
dynamic, but compressed on fm. Now they are all compressed, in radio 2s case
almost as bad as radio 1. I recorded apop concert on FM back in the 70s on a
DBX tape, and the same concert more recently. The latter transmission was
painful to listen to due to pumping and splish splash type emphasis on the
eq.
There is no real reason why the simple act of compression could not be on
the media site its sent out through.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Scott" <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l2hj7ipjk46h3n5lbuk48pmft1t52q7ur0@4ax.com...
> Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
> as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
> the wax removed from my ears :-)

Are you talking DBX. A linear compander which worked very well for his
removal and preserving dynamics, as its max recording level was way lower
and hence less distortion.
If you listened to it raw, though it was awful which was why they went on
using dolby on tape. The snag was that it needed to be calibrated, and was
not linear, so it made tapes of different sensitivities sound bad unless it
was set up before recording.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:u5d9us$38c6u$1@dont-email.me...
> On Fri 02/06/2023 17:48, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:51:35 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/06/2023 11:31, Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it possible Classic has increased the volume or changed the codec
>>>> as 9 on the the bedside radio seems louder? Maybe it is because I got
>>>> the wax removed from my ears :-)
>>>
>>> I expect they've increased the (dynamic range) compression.
>>>
>>> I prefer Radio 3 which has none that I am aware of.
>>
>> Interestingly, a friend of mine who played double bass for the RSNO
>> said she preferred compression where the music is there for background
>> (citing while ironing as an example). I know some think it is better
>> for in-car listening. As I recall, when DAB was developed, there was
>> an option to set DRC.
>
> Back in the day there was an American compression/decompression system for
> LPs - I can't for the life of me remember what it was called, but as a
> system for domestic use IMO it worked quite well. However copy the
> compressed audio directly from the LP onto a cassette for the car and the
> compressed audio sounded superb - you could hear every single note!

In article <u5f1l0$3hd16$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> scribeth
thus
>On 03/06/2023 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> Given that DAB is capable of bitrates up to several hundred kb/s and
>> normally transmitted with considerably lower ones, without knowing the
>> precise details I would guess it probably could. Metadata that simply
>> controlled gain wouldn't need as much bandwidth as the audio itself.
>
>
>You need to get receivers on the market and for that you need standards
>to be agreed, that takes time.
>
>Then you need to convince manufacturers that there is a demand for it
>etc etc.
>
>

Plus do serious classical listeners take Classic fm that seriously?..

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 05/06/2023 11:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
> There is no real reason why the simple act of compression could not be on
> the media site its sent out through.
>

With analogue transmission you have to apply compression before
transmission, you can't do so at the receiver because if the reception
is poor, you'll just wind up the noise too.

For digital it makes perfect sense to make compression a user definable
thing within the receiver

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 21:29:17 +0100, tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <u5f1l0$3hd16$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> scribeth
>thus
>>On 03/06/2023 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> Given that DAB is capable of bitrates up to several hundred kb/s and
>>> normally transmitted with considerably lower ones, without knowing the
>>> precise details I would guess it probably could. Metadata that simply
>>> controlled gain wouldn't need as much bandwidth as the audio itself.
>>
>>
>>You need to get receivers on the market and for that you need standards
>>to be agreed, that takes time.
>>
>>Then you need to convince manufacturers that there is a demand for it
>>etc etc.
>>
>>
>
>Plus do serious classical listeners take Classic fm that seriously?..

I find Classic FM easy to recieve. I listen to it. I hate
adverts and so I don't listen to it for long.

On 06/06/2023 12:00, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 05/06/2023 11:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> There is no real reason why the simple act of compression could not be on
>> the  media site its sent out through.

> With analogue transmission you have to apply compression before
> transmission, you can't do so at the receiver because if the reception
> is poor, you'll just wind up the noise too.

It's done in cars where the background noise should mask the hiss; in
any case, on FM you only get significant hiss on stereo, and car radios
mostly have a "blended" stereo decoding which progressively reduces the
stereo effect as reception gets poorer, so the hiss level remains low.

To apply compression before transmission would require a new radio
standard to specify it, and for bog standard radios to have expanders,
unless it's assumed that most people will want everything to be compressed.

--
Max Demian

On Mon 05/06/2023 21:29, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <u5f1l0$3hd16$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> scribeth
> thus
>> On 03/06/2023 10:26, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> Given that DAB is capable of bitrates up to several hundred kb/s and
>>> normally transmitted with considerably lower ones, without knowing the
>>> precise details I would guess it probably could. Metadata that simply
>>> controlled gain wouldn't need as much bandwidth as the audio itself.
>>
>>
>> You need to get receivers on the market and for that you need standards
>> to be agreed, that takes time.
>>
>> Then you need to convince manufacturers that there is a demand for it
>> etc etc.
>>
>>
>
> Plus do serious classical listeners take Classic fm that seriously?..
>
>

Never listened to Scala then Tony?

On 06/06/2023 16:51, Max Demian wrote:
> On 06/06/2023 12:00, Mark Carver wrote:

> To apply compression before transmission would require a new radio
> standard to specify it, and for bog standard radios to have expanders,
> unless it's assumed that most people will want everything to be compressed.
>
That is, indeed, the assumption that Classic FM make. There definitely
seems to be an Optimod or software equivalent somewhere in their signal
chain.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 15:19:27 +0100, Mary Wolstenholme
<mary@easynn.com> wrote:
[snip]>
>I find Classic FM easy to recieve. I listen to it. I hate
>adverts and so I don't listen to it for long.

I think there are fewer adverts at off-peak times. I have heard them
say there will be x minutes (maybe an hour) uninterrupted.