Brian Gregory wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> MB wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible
>>>
>>> I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?
>>
>> Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated
>
> DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?

I would have, if they offered it ...

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

>On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
>> invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>
>>> <https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
>>>
>>
>> Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
>>
>> Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
>>
>> Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
>>
>> We'll see then..
>>
>I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.

How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
regulated environment.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:39:08 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

>On 09/07/2023 20:21, Andy Burns wrote:
>> MB wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> I still own a Pure Evoke3, which is not DAB+ compatible
>>>
>>> I thought the Pure Evokes could be upgraded?
>>
>> Some probably, but not the Evoke3, i did keep its firmware updated
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The backlight on mine is clapped-out.
>>
>DAB+ updates were often paid updates. Did you pay?

I think I paid £10 to upgrade a ONE Mini, which I than had to scrap
because the plastic case was disintegrating.

On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
>>> invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>> <https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
>>>>
>>> Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
>>>
>>> Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
>>>
>>> Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
>>>
>>> We'll see then..
>>>
>> I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
> How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
> the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
> sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
> limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
> regulated environment.
It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
with metrics .

The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
provide a clue ?

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:46:18 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
>> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:
>>>> In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
>>>> invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>> <https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
>>>>>
>>>> Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
>>>>
>>>> Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
>>>>
>>>> Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
>>>>
>>>> We'll see then..
>>>>
>>> I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
>> How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
>> the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
>> sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
>> limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
>> regulated environment.
>It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
>subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
>with metrics .
>
>The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
>to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
>They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
>provide a clue ?

They should use 128 kbps DAB+ and set a world record then :-)

I do have a more modern Roberts dab, but it does not talk. There is at this
time no dab talking radio like there are talking tvs, and thus although the
talking pure radio cannot get dab plus, it is still possible to tell what
the stations are even if they are not always the current ones or are spelled
out. It cannot be that hard to use a cheap as chips talking module to speak
the display. I am now using Amazon Echo for home radio input, but its the
more portable aspect I cannot find an answer to unless one uses a smart
phone.
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.!
"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u8e79u$24ftu$1@dont-email.me...
> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Its rubbish really since they just moved their freeview channel into
>> Mono.
>> Obviously not so convinced that all of this is not just a money making
>> ploy.
>> So, I guess I will soon have to finally dump my old pure DAB radio then.
>> Brian
>>
> Of course it is a money making ploy. Every commercial company makes
> decisions based on increasing their profits (or decreasing their losses).
> At the most cynical level they've probably decided that those too poor or
> tight to replace their old radios aren't of interest to their advertisers.

On Mon 10/07/2023 10:12, Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:46:18 +0100, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
>>> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>> In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
>>>>> invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>>> <https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
>>>>>
>>>>> Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll see then..
>>>>>
>>>> I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
>>> How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
>>> the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
>>> sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
>>> limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
>>> regulated environment.
>> It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
>> subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
>> with metrics .
>>
>> The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
>> to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
>> They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
>> provide a clue ?
>
> They should use 128 kbps DAB+ and set a world record then :-)

If you recognise that mp2 (DAB) preceded mp3 (which most use) which in
turn preceded m4a (a.k.a. AAC+ and used for DAB+) it perhaps puts them
in perspective?

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 11:55:44 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Mon 10/07/2023 10:12, Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:46:18 +0100, Mark Carver
>> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
>>>> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>> In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
>>>>>> invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>>>> <https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We'll see then..
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
>>>> How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
>>>> the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
>>>> sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
>>>> limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
>>>> regulated environment.
>>> It depends on the quality of the encoder, and on what each individual
>>> subjectively notices and is annoyed by, so almost impossible to specify
>>> with metrics .
>>>
>>> The Beeb have opted where they use DAB+ for their local radio stations,
>>> to use 64k  AAC v1, whereas they use 128k MP2 for DAB.
>>> They are only gifted 128k on any mux for their services, so that might
>>> provide a clue ?
>>
>> They should use 128 kbps DAB+ and set a world record then :-)
>
>If you recognise that mp2 (DAB) preceded mp3 (which most use) which in
>turn preceded m4a (a.k.a. AAC+ and used for DAB+) it perhaps puts them
>in perspective?

If you recognise that Eureka-147 (DAB) was designed to be used at 192
kbps to provide high quality sound that could eventually replace FM,
this perhaps puts it in perspective.

As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.
Bill

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

>As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.

You must have a very cultured grandson.

On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:
>>> In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
>>> invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
>>>
>>> Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
>>>
>>> Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
>>>
>>> We'll see then..
>>>
>> I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
>
> How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
> the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
> sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
> limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
> regulated environment.

To me 48k DAB+ does sound better than 128k DAB.
But that's just me. Others will strongly disagree.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 17:39:17 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "wrights...@aol.com"
> <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
> >As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB.. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.
> You must have a very cultured grandson.
He does seem to like Classic FM. He has it on in his greenhouse sometimes. He's 13, which is about the age I was when I started to really appreciate the classical lollipops. It was possible to buy 78s from the Methodist church jumble sale for 1/-. (Some of them were actually 80rpm...)
Bill

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 19:28:39 -0700 (PDT), "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 17:39:17 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "wrights...@aol.com"
>> <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>> >As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the journey.
>> You must have a very cultured grandson.
>He does seem to like Classic FM. He has it on in his greenhouse sometimes. He's 13, which is about the age I was when I started to really appreciate the classical lollipops. It was possible to buy 78s from the Methodist church jumble sale for 1/-. (Some of them were actually 80rpm...)

Could you tell the difference if you played an 80 rpm disc at 78 rpm?

PS Was it Beethoven who said, 'I liked your opera. I think I'll set
it to music'?

On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 15:07:59 +0100, Brian Gregory
<void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:

>On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
>> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:
>>>> In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
>>>> invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
>>>>
>>>> Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
>>>>
>>>> Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
>>>>
>>>> We'll see then..
>>>>
>>> I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
>>
>> How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
>> the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
>> sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
>> limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
>> regulated environment.
>
>To me 48k DAB+ does sound better than 128k DAB.
>But that's just me. Others will strongly disagree.

I emailed Global's customer services, who said they had spoken to
technical colleagues and there was nothing they could say at this
stage.

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

> On Sat, 15 Jul 2023 19:28:39 -0700 (PDT), "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 13 July 2023 at 17:39:17 UTC+1, Scott wrote:
> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "wrights...@aol.com"
> >> <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >As it happens I've just driven 45 miles with the radio tuned to
> >> Classic FM. I kept thinking, vaguely, that it sounded good; better than
> >> normal. When I finally looked down at the radio it was on FM. I
> >> normally listen on DAB. I'm guessing my grandson had been messing with
> >> the radio while he waited for me to come out of the house to start the
> >> journey. You must have a very cultured grandson.
> >He does seem to like Classic FM. He has it on in his greenhouse
sometimes. He's 13, which is about the age I was when I started to
really appreciate the classical lollipops. It was possible to buy 78s
from the Methodist church jumble sale for 1/-. (Some of them were
actually 80rpm...)
>
> Could you tell the difference if you played an 80 rpm disc at 78 rpm?

Yes, it alters the sound of the instruments and voices by enough to make
them sound 'wrong' to people who have attuned themselves to the
correct-speed version.

Columbias and Regals were all 80 rpm until the 'merger' with HMV, so
transcription engineers always check the speed if they were recorded
around that time. After 1931, they were recorded with Blumlein's
cutterhead, which had a tendency to skew the cutting tip in such a way
that one groove wall was cut slightly ahead of the other. Played back
with a stereo cartridge and analysed on an X-Y oscilloscope, the stylus
can be seen to be making circular movements as if the groove had a
helical component. Transcription engineers have to remember to skew the
cartridge to cope with this, not only on Columbia-labelled Columbias,
but on some" HMVs" that were, in fact, recorded with Columbia equipment.

In the acoustic recording days,the speed discrepancies were even
greater, Edison Bell Winners were recorded at all sorts of speeds from
about 72 rpm upwards and careful listening is the only guide to the
playback speed.

The French liked to express their individuality, so Pathé discs ran at
90 rpm, had vertical modulation, started from the centre and were dubbed
from giant wax cylinders. When played correctly, they actually sounded
amazingly good.

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

In article <khfnhvF92fcU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 10/07/2023 09:33, Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 22:41:48 +0100, Brian Gregory
>> <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/07/2023 14:08, tony sayer wrote:
>>>> In article <kgtirsFafbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Brian Gregory <void-
>>>> invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-
>quality/>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still doesn't mention the bit rate!
>>>>
>>>> Course they may use 128 K on DAB plus that would be 'err fine;)
>>>>
>>>> Bet it'd be nearer 96 or 112 ...
>>>>
>>>> We'll see then..
>>>>
>>> I'd bet it'll be 64k or lower, probably 48k or lower.
>>
>> How does 48k compare with the present 128 kbps DAB? I think this is
>> the first time I have ever heard a radio station claiming improved
>> sound quality (presumably because no-one wants to admit the
>> limitations of DAB) so I think the claim will have to be true in a
>> regulated environment.
>
>To me 48k DAB+ does sound better than 128k DAB.
>But that's just me. Others will strongly disagree.
>

It is the option of choice on the few small scale muxes i have a hand in
running and depending on the programme source, it can be quite good for
what it is!..
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.