I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

On Fri 07/07/2023 15:30, Scott wrote:
> I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
> They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
> verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
> is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.

The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor
signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
charging basis.

Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Fri 07/07/2023 15:30, Scott wrote:
>> I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
>> They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
>> verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
>> is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
>
>The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor
>signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
>they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
>charging basis.

I realise this but they are claiming superior sound quality. Unless
they can substantiate this, and only a minority of listeners benefit,
I think there could be trouble with Ofcom.
>
>Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!

They say it is a relatively small number:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
I assume cars with DAB will have it because it is used in other
markets.

In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri 07/07/2023 15:30, Scott wrote:
>>> I hear that Classic FM is upgrading its DAB transmissions to DAB+.
>>> They are claiming 'superior' sound quality, so I assume this has to be
>>> verifiable. Does anyone know what bitrate they will be using? Gold
>>> is 32 kbps so I assume it will have to be higher than that.
>>
>>The main advantage of DAB+ is that it is better at handling RFI/CCI/poor
>>signals that 'normal' DAB. It is also cheaper for the broadcaster as
>>they can get good quality at lower data rate and data rate is the
>>charging basis.
>
>I realise this but they are claiming superior sound quality. Unless
>they can substantiate this, and only a minority of listeners benefit,
>I think there could be trouble with Ofcom.
>>
>>Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>>loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
>
>They say it is a relatively small number:
>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>I assume cars with DAB will have it because it is used in other
>markets.

I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

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

you should be able to check it here..

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

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>wrote:
[]
>>>Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>>>loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
>>
>>They say it is a relatively small number:
>>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
[]
>I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC

I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.

>plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>
>128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
>
>you should be able to check it here..
>
>
>https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en

They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
complaints stay below a threshold they set.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

That's the key to wisdom: being delighted when you're wrong because
you've learn something. - (Professor) Brian Cox, RT 2019/5/25-31

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> tony sayer wrote:
>
>> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>
> I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about

I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible, but I don't use
it, it's relegated to the back bedroom, my radio listening at home has
all been internet streaming for 2-3 years.

In the car (67 reg) I do have DAB+ which came as standard, unlike the
previous model (11 reg) where DAB had to be specced as it wasn't standard.

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

Like all codecs, it's going to be subjective, for my radio listening
nothing falls below my quality threshold ... might be different if I
used R3 or ClassicFM.

On 08/07/2023 07:47, Andy Burns wrote:
> I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible

I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?

Sure I checked mine somewhere afterwards and received DAB+.

Both my Pure Evoke and Pure One are awaiting disposal - power socket and
plug broke too many times so got bored with fixing them.

On 07/07/2023 20:56, tony sayer wrote:
> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
> plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.

Could they be interested in having a pop-up station for some special
events? Perhaps easier on DAB+ because of the ability to use a lower
bit rate.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
>tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
>><newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>wrote:
>[]
>>>>Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>>>>loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
>>>
>>>They say it is a relatively small number:
>>>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>[]
>>I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>
>I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
>new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
>has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
>
>>plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>>be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>>
>>128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
>>
>>you should be able to check it here..
>>
>>
>>https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
>
>They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
>complaints stay below a threshold they set.

They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:26:12 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 07/07/2023 20:56, tony sayer wrote:
>> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>> plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>
>Could they be interested in having a pop-up station for some special
>events? Perhaps easier on DAB+ because of the ability to use a lower
>bit rate.
>
I am less cynical. I think they can see a way of cutting trasmission
cost and improving sound quality. I suspect the typical Classic FM
listener is not 'into' pop-up stations.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>> In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>> wrote:
>> []
>>>>> Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
>>>>
>>>> They say it is a relatively small number:
>>>> https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>> []
>>> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>>
>> I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
>>
>>> plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>>>
>>> 128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
>>>
>>> you should be able to check it here..
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
>>
>> They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.
>
> They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
> comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
> Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
> this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
>

Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a
veto on improvements forever.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>>> In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>> []
>>>>>> Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
>>>>>
>>>>> They say it is a relatively small number:
>>>>> https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>>> []
>>>> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>>>
>>> I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
>>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
>>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
>>>
>>>> plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>>>>
>>>> 128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
>>>>
>>>> you should be able to check it here..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
>>>
>>> They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
>>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.
>>
>> They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
>> comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
>> Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
>> this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
>
>Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a
>veto on improvements forever.

I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
>>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>>>> In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>>>> Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>>>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They say it is a relatively small number:
>>>>>> https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>>>> []
>>>>> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>>>>
>>>> I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
>>>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
>>>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
>>>>
>>>>> plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>>>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>>>>>
>>>>> 128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
>>>>>
>>>>> you should be able to check it here..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
>>>>
>>>> They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
>>>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.
>>>
>>> They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
>>> comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
>>> Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
>>> this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
>>
>> Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a
>> veto on improvements forever.
>
> I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
> quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
> substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
> 32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
>

Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
almost any claim they like in this arena.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
>>>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>>>>> In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> []
>>>>>>>> Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>>>>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They say it is a relatively small number:
>>>>>>> https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>>>>> []
>>>>>> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
>>>>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
>>>>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
>>>>>
>>>>>> plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>>>>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you should be able to check it here..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
>>>>>
>>>>> They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
>>>>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.
>>>>
>>>> They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
>>>> comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
>>>> Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
>>>> this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
>>>
>>> Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can?t hold a
>>> veto on improvements forever.
>>
>> I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
>> quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
>> substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
>> 32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
>>
>Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
>almost any claim they like in this arena.

I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
was interpreted subjectively:
https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/4ea0ae5f-a354-4696-941fa65169afbf54.pdf
There must be a concept of subjective measurement. Remember the
former reference to 'near CD sound quality' was banned as being
misleading.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
>>>>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>> In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
>>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>> Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>>>>>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They say it is a relatively small number:
>>>>>>>> https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>>>>>> []
>>>>>>> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
>>>>>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
>>>>>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>>>>>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you should be able to check it here..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
>>>>>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
>>>>> comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
>>>>> Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
>>>>> this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
>>>>
>>>> Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can?t hold a
>>>> veto on improvements forever.
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
>>> quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
>>> substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
>>> 32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
>>>
>> Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
>> almost any claim they like in this arena.
>
> I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
> was interpreted subjectively:
> https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/4ea0ae5f-a354-4696-941fa65169afbf54.pdf
> There must be a concept of subjective measurement. Remember the
> former reference to 'near CD sound quality' was banned as being
> misleading.
>

CD encoding doesn’t use a lossy codec. Anything that does must be inferior,
and is thus objectively poorer. Comparing a superior codec but at a
potentially lower bit rate is fraught with difficulty. All you need to do
is find a panel of 100 listeners. If the first panel doesn’t give the right
answer find another until they do.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:20:22 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 02:56:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <AJyjsjEb3GqkFw7S@bancom.co.uk> at Fri, 7 Jul 2023 20:56:11,
>>>>>>> tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>> In article <76kgail5ssjchcj3aa0jalaggodo5smqmv@4ax.com>, Scott
>>>>>>>> <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 18:06:39 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>>>> Could be a <lot> of people somewhat dischuffed however as they will
>>>>>>>>>> loose Classic FM unless they buy a new receiver!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They say it is a relatively small number:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>>>>>>> []
>>>>>>>> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect there _are_ quite a lot about - not everybody upgrades when a
>>>>>>> new standard comes out, and I also suspect the demographic who has them
>>>>>>> has a big overlap with Classic FM listeners.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>>>>>>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 128 K DAB standard will be better then say 16 K DAB plus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you should be able to check it here..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.php?mux=9A&live=183&liste=2&lang=en
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They will of course use the lowest they can get away with, when listener
>>>>>>> complaints stay below a threshold they set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
>>>>>> comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
>>>>>> Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
>>>>>> this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can?t hold a
>>>>> veto on improvements forever.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound
>>>> quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
>>>> substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
>>>> 32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
>>>>
>>> Sound ?quality? is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
>>> almost any claim they like in this arena.
>>
>> I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
>> was interpreted subjectively:
>> https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/4ea0ae5f-a354-4696-941fa65169afbf54.pdf
>> There must be a concept of subjective measurement. Remember the
>> former reference to 'near CD sound quality' was banned as being
>> misleading.
>
>CD encoding doesn’t use a lossy codec. Anything that does must be inferior,
>and is thus objectively poorer. Comparing a superior codec but at a
>potentially lower bit rate is fraught with difficulty. All you need to do
>is find a panel of 100 listeners. If the first panel doesn’t give the right
>answer find another until they do.

I am not disagreeing with this. All I am saying is (1) if they can
interpret 'near' as in 'near CD quality' there should be a method of
interpreting 'superior' as in one compared to another; (2) if Global
makes a public promise on-air of improved sound quality and large
numbers of listeners disagree this could be damaging reputationally.

How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
problem of course.

On 08/07/2023 10:12, Scott wrote:
> I am less cynical. I think they can see a way of cutting trasmission
> cost and improving sound quality. I suspect the typical Classic FM
> listener is not 'into' pop-up stations.

Only listened to them briefly a couple of times years ago and of course
no coverage here.

I just thought of pop-ups because they can be a way of linking into a
sponsored event which I believe they do though could be mistaken.

On 08/07/2023 12:09, Scott wrote:
> I thought the rule about adverts not being louder than the programmes
> was interpreted subjectively:

But nothing to do with quality.

On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:
> How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
> subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
> problem of course.

Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:42:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:
>> How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
>> subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
>> problem of course.
>
>Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
>the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).
>
And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:42:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:
>>> How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
>>> subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
>>> problem of course.
>>
>> Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
>> the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).
>>
> And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.
>

At the end of the day Classic FM will want to get the bit rate down, as
this is what they are charged for. If they can compromise by reducing it a
little rather than a lot, so that their transmissions sound
better then everyone wins. It’s all irrelevant to me though, as adverts
make commercial stations unlistenable, regardless of the bit rate. Times
Radio has reneged on its no adverts but only sponsorship announcements
launch promise.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:42:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:
>>>> How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
>>>> subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
>>>> problem of course.
>>>
>>> Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
>>> the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).
>>>
>> And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.
>>
>
>At the end of the day Classic FM will want to get the bit rate down, as
>this is what they are charged for. If they can compromise by reducing it a
>little rather than a lot, so that their transmissions sound
>better then everyone wins.

This is what I expect they will do. I was interested in predictions.
higher than 32kbps (Gold)?

>It’s all irrelevant to me though, as adverts
>make commercial stations unlistenable, regardless of the bit rate. Times
>Radio has reneged on its no adverts but only sponsorship announcements
>launch promise.

Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
and trailing its own programmes :-)

On 08/07/2023 10:12, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 08:26:12 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2023 20:56, tony sayer wrote:
>>> I dont think there that many old original DAB receivers around now AAC
>>> plus or DAB plus does give very good results at low bit rates and seems
>>> be more robust but it will depend on what rate they will use.
>> Could they be interested in having a pop-up station for some special
>> events? Perhaps easier on DAB+ because of the ability to use a lower
>> bit rate.
>>
> I am less cynical. I think they can see a way of cutting trasmission
> cost and improving sound quality. I suspect the typical Classic FM
> listener is not 'into' pop-up stations.
Global Radio Inc, will be doing this to stick a couple more stations
into the liberated bandwidth.

I suspect a bit rate of 48k for DAB+ , which will allow a couple more at
32-40k ish each

In message <u8bei7$1ndpl$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 8 Jul 2023 10:42:15,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 09:17:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
[]
>>>> They are on record as promising 'superior' sound quality (indeed
>>>> comparing it with the HD setting on Global Player). I think the
>>>> Classic FM audience may be the demographic likely to make a fuss if
>>>> this does not materialise. They won't want letters to the Times :-)
>>>
>>> Eventually you have to stand up to the change resistant. They can’t hold a
>>> veto on improvements forever.

Equally, you can't impose change too soon, especially if the target
demographic doesn't perceive they're getting anything out of it for the
money they have to spend. (Remember hearing drops off with age - I was
shocked to discover mine's only about 8 kHz, as I've not noticed
anything and never frequented places that might damage it; however, I
have discovered that's not unusual for my age [63]. Yes, I know there's
more to it than just frequency range. But I suspect a lot of Classic
FM's listenership - at least the ones who would complain! - are older
than for some stations.)
>>
>> I don't think anyone is opposed to an improvement in the sound

Of course not.

>> quality. The problem will be if Global make a claim that cannot be
>> substantiated. My guess is that the bitrate will be higher than the
>> 32 kbps used for Gold (also owned by Global).
>>
>
>Sound “quality’ is entirely subjective and unmeasurable. They can make
>almost any claim they like in this arena.
>
In the end, it is indeed - however, there are parameters that _can_ be
measured - frequency range, dynamic range, stereo separation (or
existence!), and so on. I don't know for whatever DAB+ uses (AAC) - or
even DAB (mp2?), but for mp3, I have a table for my own use of at least
frequency range vs. bitrate at various sample rates, mono/stereo, and so
on. (Plus at _very_ low bitrates, you get "artefacts" - "birdies" and
the like.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... each generation tends to imagine that its attitude to sex strikes just
about the right balance; that by comparison its predecessors were prim and
embarrassed, its successors sex-obsessed and pornified. - Julian Barnes, Radio
Times 9-15 March 2013

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:14:19 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:42:55 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/07/2023 12:28, Scott wrote:
>>>>> How does Which magazine test any audio products except by the
>>>>> subjective opinion of a suitable (*) panel? (*) wherein lies the
>>>>> problem of course.
>>>>
>>>> Not seen Which for years but reviiews always seemed to be dependent of
>>>> the prejudices of the person writing the review (whatever they claim).
>>>>
>>> And of course - as Tweed says - the selection of the testing panel.
>>>
>>
>> At the end of the day Classic FM will want to get the bit rate down, as
>> this is what they are charged for. If they can compromise by reducing it a
>> little rather than a lot, so that their transmissions sound
>> better then everyone wins.
>
> This is what I expect they will do. I was interested in predictions.
> higher than 32kbps (Gold)?
>
>> It’s all irrelevant to me though, as adverts
>> make commercial stations unlistenable, regardless of the bit rate. Times
>> Radio has reneged on its no adverts but only sponsorship announcements
>> launch promise.
>
> Is this any worse than the BBC constantly telling us how good they are
> and trailing its own programmes :-)
>

The BBC trailer argument is a bit of a trope. You don’t get Radio4
programmes being suddenly and randomly being interrupted for a programme
trail. Times Radio even tries to bookend its adverts with its own trails.