Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.

Of course they didn't say WHEN!!

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>
>Of course they didn't say WHEN!!

January 2024:
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgrading%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.

In message <obbbiilih740b40rl1ona85i9t2hc9t8c0@4ax.com> at Tue, 10 Oct
2023 21:03:01, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>>to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>>
>>Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
>
>January 2024:
>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-qualit
>y/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgradi
>ng%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.

Thanks for that. I'll pass it on to one I know who's a Classic listener.

Well, I'll pass on
https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
..
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

For this star a "night on the tiles" means winning at Scrabble - Kathy Lette
(on Kylie), RT 2014/1/11-17

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 21:44:29 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <obbbiilih740b40rl1ona85i9t2hc9t8c0@4ax.com> at Tue, 10 Oct
>2023 21:03:01, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>>>to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>>>
>>>Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
>>
>>January 2024:
>>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-qualit
>>y/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgradi
>>ng%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.
>
>Thanks for that. I'll pass it on to one I know who's a Classic listener.
>
>Well, I'll pass on
>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
>.
'Not for me, a friend' :-)

The old longer links than anyone can remember syndrome is well entrenched
these days and as many links are embedded and hence hidden, this appears to
be where the snooping is being carried out. Many are clicking through
several third party sites that just record your details before going on to
the site. Its to get around the cookies rules, and as its not thee company
themselves doing it, any number of cookie choices get ignored on the click
throughs.
I love the way that DAB plus is seen as an upgrade but is often used to get
further coverage without boiling mud from the same bit rate or lower I
guess. A while back a part of an old Bee Gees concert at the BBC was
rebroadcast, and it sounded decidedly gritty and flat with hf smoothing.
Bland might be the description, but I have a CD of the original broadcast in
2001 and its wide dynamic range and good hf and bass make it sound far
better.
Seems to me that BBC are just getting lazy, as they have a medium capable
of far better than they now put out.
Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
sounds like any more.
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.!
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:60xupiZtebJlFwTV@255soft.uk...
> In message <obbbiilih740b40rl1ona85i9t2hc9t8c0@4ax.com> at Tue, 10 Oct
> 2023 21:03:01, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:38:26 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>>>to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>>>
>>>Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
>>
>>January 2024:
>>https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-qualit
>>y/#:~:text=From%20January%202024%2C%20Classic%20FM%20will%20be%20upgradi
>>ng%20from%20DAB,of%20legacy%20DAB%20radio%20devices.
>
> Thanks for that. I'll pass it on to one I know who's a Classic listener.
>
> Well, I'll pass on
> https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/upgrading-dab-plus-broadcast-quality/
> .
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> For this star a "night on the tiles" means winning at Scrabble - Kathy
> Lette
> (on Kylie), RT 2014/1/11-17

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:02:02 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

>The old longer links than anyone can remember syndrome is well entrenched
>these days and as many links are embedded and hence hidden, this appears to
>be where the snooping is being carried out. Many are clicking through
>several third party sites that just record your details before going on to
>the site. Its to get around the cookies rules, and as its not thee company
>themselves doing it, any number of cookie choices get ignored on the click
>throughs.
> I love the way that DAB plus is seen as an upgrade but is often used to get
>further coverage without boiling mud from the same bit rate or lower I
>guess. A while back a part of an old Bee Gees concert at the BBC was
>rebroadcast, and it sounded decidedly gritty and flat with hf smoothing.
>Bland might be the description, but I have a CD of the original broadcast in
>2001 and its wide dynamic range and good hf and bass make it sound far
>better.
> Seems to me that BBC are just getting lazy, as they have a medium capable
>of far better than they now put out.
> Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
>sounds like any more.

Is it not all cost-driven?

On Tue 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
> Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
> to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>
> Of course they didn't say WHEN!!

It set me digging of course. If you want to listen to Classic on your
domestic hifi, unless your hifi is one of these shoe-box units by the
likes of Denon, Yamaha, Teac etc etc, what are you going to do for a
tuner. There are plenty around but many (most) of them are DAB, not DAB+.

Accepted DAB with or without the +) will not sound as good as FM, but
surely it is inevitable that in due course FM will be ceased and
replaced with DAB+ or an even more advanced system. What will FM
listeners do then. Yes, FTTP could be a good alternative but then you
would need a good quality data radio - and there a few of them as well!

In article <ug5kpt$1nkdl$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
> The old longer links than anyone can remember syndrome is well entrenched
> these days and as many links are embedded and hence hidden, this appears
> to be where the snooping is being carried out. Many are clicking through
> several third party sites that just record your details before going on
> to the site. Its to get around the cookies rules, and as its not thee
> company themselves doing it, any number of cookie choices get ignored on
> the click throughs. I love the way that DAB plus is seen as an upgrade
> but is often used to get further coverage without boiling mud from the
> same bit rate or lower I guess. A while back a part of an old Bee Gees
> concert at the BBC was rebroadcast, and it sounded decidedly gritty and
> flat with hf smoothing. Bland might be the description, but I have a CD
> of the original broadcast in 2001 and its wide dynamic range and good hf
> and bass make it sound far better. Seems to me that BBC are just getting
> lazy, as they have a medium capable of far better than they now put out.
> Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
> sounds like any more.

Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 10:17:09 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Tue 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
>> Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are changing
>> to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>>
>> Of course they didn't say WHEN!!
>
>It set me digging of course. If you want to listen to Classic on your
>domestic hifi, unless your hifi is one of these shoe-box units by the
>likes of Denon, Yamaha, Teac etc etc, what are you going to do for a
>tuner. There are plenty around but many (most) of them are DAB, not DAB+.
>
>Accepted DAB with or without the +) will not sound as good as FM, but
>surely it is inevitable that in due course FM will be ceased and
>replaced with DAB+ or an even more advanced system. What will FM
>listeners do then. Yes, FTTP could be a good alternative but then you
>would need a good quality data radio - and there a few of them as well!
>
I suspect issues such as these - and political considerations - have
delayed any analogue switchover.

I see it as an ironic 'back to the future' twist that in the early
days - with Rediffusion, Radio Rentals and others - the radio channels
were distributed by cable to boxes in the home that acted as
loudspeakers. It feels we are heading back in that direction.

On 11/10/2023 10:17, Woody wrote:
> On Tue 10/10/2023 16:38, Woody wrote:
>> Just heard and in-house 'advert' by Classic FM to say they are
>> changing to DAB+ - as was discussed on here in the last few weeks.
>>
>> Of course they didn't say WHEN!!

> It set me digging of course. If you want to listen to Classic on your
> domestic hifi, unless your hifi is one of these shoe-box units by the
> likes of Denon, Yamaha, Teac etc etc, what are you going to do for a
> tuner. There are plenty around but many (most) of them are DAB, not DAB+.
>
> Accepted DAB with or without the +) will not sound as good as FM, but
> surely it is inevitable that in due course FM will be ceased and
> replaced with DAB+ or an even more advanced system. What will FM
> listeners do then. Yes, FTTP could be a good alternative but then you
> would need a good quality data radio - and there a few of them as well!

You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
it won't overload the amp.)

--
Max Demian

On 11/10/2023 12:00, charles wrote:
> Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.

And the big Radio 2 concert from Leicester which I think was live.

And I think they are doing another series with the BBC Piano shortly.

On 11/10/2023 12:38, Max Demian wrote:
> You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
> should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
> for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
> it won't overload the amp.)

My DAB(+) radio has Line Out and I think some previous ones did also.

Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the
telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
reception.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 11/10/2023 12:38, Max Demian wrote:
>> You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
>> should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
>> for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
>> it won't overload the amp.)
>
>My DAB(+) radio has Line Out and I think some previous ones did also.
>
>Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the
>telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
>away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
>suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
>reception.
>
Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
assessment.

In message <ug63d0$1qju7$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:11:11,
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> writes
>On 11/10/2023 12:00, charles wrote:
>> Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.
>
>
>And the big Radio 2 concert from Leicester which I think was live.
>
>And I think they are doing another series with the BBC Piano shortly.
>
>
At first I read that as meaning the BBC now have only one piano left.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I believe we made up god just to have someone to blame for our
mistakes - "Sarah Sidle" (Jorja Fox), CSI

In message <5af1a1e063charles@candehope.me.uk> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
11:00:02, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> writes
>In article <ug5kpt$1nkdl$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
><brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
>> and bass make it sound far better. Seems to me that BBC are just getting
>> lazy, as they have a medium capable of far better than they now put out.
>> Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
>> sounds like any more.
>
>Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.
>
I think Brian was saying that the transmission medium is being (ab)used
in such a way that what comes out isn't adequate quality, rather than
anything to do with whether the source is "live" or not.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I believe we made up god just to have someone to blame for our
mistakes - "Sarah Sidle" (Jorja Fox), CSI

In message <ug61em$1q4k6$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:38:00,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
[]
>You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
>should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good
>enough for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level
>reduction that it won't overload the amp.)
>
In theory, an impedance mismatch could skew the frequency response,
though that way round - low impedance output feeding higher impedance
input - probably marginal if at all. Certainly the other way round can,
though (one of the reasons ceramic pickups got a worse recognition than
they deserve - sure, magnetic _are_ better, but ceramic OK if properly
loaded [and by something that can take their huge output!]).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I believe we made up god just to have someone to blame for our
mistakes - "Sarah Sidle" (Jorja Fox), CSI

On 11/10/2023 13:35, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the
>> telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
>> away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
>> suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
>> reception.
>>
> Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
> hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
> not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
> digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
> assessment.
>
This.

One main difference between analogue and any digital transmission is
that with analogue, the quality is on a sliding scale between "almost as
good as when it left the source" and "Thank goodness I can still make
some sense of this", whereas with digital, you get either perfect
quality or nothing, with a very narrow region where the error correction
can't quite cope. This applies to both audio and video broadcasting.

I am reminded of a BBC broadcasting house engineer's relief when they
started using digital landline transmission for outside broadcasts. He
was very happy that he no longer had to spend time tuning EQ and faffing
with settings to reproduce the original sound. With digital, if he could
hear the signal, he knew it was as good as when it left the source.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message <me5diiptm9fqgf3a7m5urna1gpu2qophnn@4ax.com> at Wed, 11 Oct
2023 13:35:17, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On 11/10/2023 12:38, Max Demian wrote:
>>> You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
>>> should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
>>> for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
>>> it won't overload the amp.)
>>
>>My DAB(+) radio has Line Out and I think some previous ones did also.
>>
>>Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the
>>telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
>>away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
>>suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
>>reception.

A _good_ FM signal is of more than adequate quality for most purposes. A
_good_ DAB signal can be better - _if_ the broadcaster has used
sufficient bits.
>>
>Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
>hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is

*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)

In the early days, no processing was done - certainly at the consumer
end - because there just wasn't the processing power; the electronics in
a CD player was just about up to the task of decoding (error-correcting)
the data stream off the CD. Thus "digital" came to mean excellent (full
16 bit stereo unprocessed) quality.

Unfortunately, when electronics progressed to the level that mp2 (and
later mp3 and others) decoding was practical at the consumer end, what
was still "digital" gained the _capability_ of being, basically, grotty.
In the early days, it was a matter of storage costs (how many songs you
could get into an mp3 player's memory) as much as radio transmission
costs, though the latter soon became dominant. Basically, "digital"
nowadays rarely means "CD quality", though much confusion between the
two exists - some of it I'm sure deliberate.

>not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that

Film - especially "slow" film - is _capable_ of higher resolution than
_a lot of_ digital: certainly in the field of moving pictures, it far
exceeds SD, and often even HD; that's why anything old that was shot on
film (Star Trek TOS, for example) it is worthwhile re-scanning into HD,
or even Blu-Ray, 4K, or whatever. (Anything shot on the larger formats -
70mm, IMAX, etc. - is probably _still_ better than can _practically_ be
achieved.) Ditto _large_-format old stills - big glass plates etc. -
though digital is catching up. (IMO, it's already too big for general
use.) In _some_ circumstances, film _can_ also arguably have a greater
dynamic range - though, ironically, to actually _see_ the shadow or peak
detail in it, it's a lot easier to use a digital scan! _Colour_ film is
arguably lower resolution than monochrome _of the same sensitivity_,
though that's mostly a second degree matter.

>digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
>assessment.

For a lot of older material, there is actually no _actual_ content above
a surprisingly low cutoff: however, it can initially sound "worse"
because the surface noise (or tape hiss) is no longer evident. (That
applies even in the analogue domain of course - low-pass filters were
around before digital; it's just a lot easier to play with them in
digital.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

In message <konkvtF8pseU1@mid.individual.net> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
14:07:09, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>On 11/10/2023 13:35, Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the
>>> telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
>>> away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
>>> suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
>>> reception.
>>>
>> Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
>> hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
>> not as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
>> digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
>> assessment.
>>
>This.
>
>One main difference between analogue and any digital transmission is
>that with analogue, the quality is on a sliding scale between "almost
>as good as when it left the source" and "Thank goodness I can still
>make some sense of this", whereas with digital, you get either perfect
>quality or nothing, with a very narrow region where the error
>correction can't quite cope. This applies to both audio and video
>broadcasting.

I think this is a different matter to the question of degraded quality
due to inadequate bit bandwidth being used. If you use too few bits, you
can still get a perfect transmission in terms of receiving all the bits
that were transmitted, but it can still sound bad - varying from
distortion only audible to good ears, to actual artefacts (especially
during e. g. applause).

The "digital cliff" is certainly annoying - to me, anyway - with video,
because until you get very close to it, you're unaware anything's wrong,
then it suddenly, well, falls off a cliff. With analogue, you could see
it was deteriorating (and, I submit, still watch it, unless it was
_very_ bad).

Incidentally, have other folk noticed a lot of dropout lately? I'm
wondering if there are "lifts", i. e. co-channel interference from
distant transmitters. I lose (suddenly, see above) picture (and sound),
and it comes back minutes later; I'd wondered if (e. g.) my aerial
amp/distributor was at fault, but (a) I can't see why that should make
it come and go, (b) it varies with channel.
>
>I am reminded of a BBC broadcasting house engineer's relief when they
>started using digital landline transmission for outside broadcasts. He
>was very happy that he no longer had to spend time tuning EQ and
>faffing with settings to reproduce the original sound. With digital, if
>he could hear the signal, he knew it was as good as when it left the
>source.
>
Yes, I can see that. A digital link used by the BBC would be good enough
that it would be well above the "digital cliff", whereas an analogue one
- even a BBC one - would be subject to e. g. thermal variation meaning
it _had_ to be tweaked, however good quality the line. As you say, with
digital, he knew that if he could get it at all, he was getting what was
sent.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:31:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <5af1a1e063charles@candehope.me.uk> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
>11:00:02, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> writes
>>In article <ug5kpt$1nkdl$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff
>><brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>[]
>>> and bass make it sound far better. Seems to me that BBC are just getting
>>> lazy, as they have a medium capable of far better than they now put out.
>>> Kind of makes you wonder if anyone really knows what live music actually
>>> sounds like any more.
>>
>>Well. there's just been the Proms season. All live.
>>
>I think Brian was saying that the transmission medium is being (ab)used
>in such a way that what comes out isn't adequate quality, rather than
>anything to do with whether the source is "live" or not.

To Brian. I don't mean this in any way as pjorative, but do you have
extra good hearing? Does this mean you can hear high frequences (above
10 kHz)? Does it mean you are 'musical' in the sense that you are
particularly aware of notes that are off-tune or distorted. I ask in
all seriousness because, for all the criticism of audio quality, I
don't find I can tell much difference unless it's really bad. I do
have tinnitus, which doesn't assist.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 14:28:08 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <me5diiptm9fqgf3a7m5urna1gpu2qophnn@4ax.com> at Wed, 11 Oct
>2023 13:35:17, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:18:15 +0100, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/10/2023 12:38, Max Demian wrote:
>>>> You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
>>>> should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good enough
>>>> for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level reduction that
>>>> it won't overload the amp.)
>>>
>>>My DAB(+) radio has Line Out and I think some previous ones did also.
>>>
>>>Funny how some will claim VHF FM is better yet tolerate waggling the
>>>telescopic antenna around to reduce distortion. A friend a few miles
>>>away and can barely get VHF FM because of the hills around him, I
>>>suggested he try DAB, he bought a DAB radio and found it far better
>>>reception.
>
>A _good_ FM signal is of more than adequate quality for most purposes. A
>_good_ DAB signal can be better - _if_ the broadcaster has used
>sufficient bits.
>>>
>>Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
>>hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is
>
>*CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
>the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
>processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
>bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)
>
>In the early days, no processing was done - certainly at the consumer
>end - because there just wasn't the processing power; the electronics in
>a CD player was just about up to the task of decoding (error-correcting)
>the data stream off the CD. Thus "digital" came to mean excellent (full
>16 bit stereo unprocessed) quality.
[snip]

I recall in the early days, when processing was not a factor, some
music buffs claimed that the digital form was harsh and lacked the
rounded sound of vinyl, and vinyl still has its fans. Even if the CD
was technically better, the analogue sounded subjectively better. Who
was I to argue?

In article <gaQIyeloLqJlFwjG@255soft.uk>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made
> from the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression
> or other processing.

Certainly it will measure significantly better that's true. In the
early days of CD before ~1988 my friends and I thought CD players
were unpleasant to listen to. Brash, harsh lacking involvement were
the comments of the day.

That changed for me/us when Meridian produced the 207 later bettered
by the 208. At that point, provided you had a recording that was well
made, CD became unbeatable. Though having said that, I understand and
sympathise to some degree with people who still prefer Vinyl, it
still does have a comfortable presentation. To 'prefer' is not to say
"better than"!

Due I suspect to fewer and fewer people having any experience of
vinyl and of those that do, far fewer still have ever heard good
vinyl played on a good system. Indeed, the abomination of the USB
turntable now available adds to this problem by being truly awful.

Very, very few people have any idea how good vinyl with all it's
faults and user hassle can actually sound and it does piss me off
when folks wax about how awful vinyl is when in fact that is their
false perception due to lack of experience. By all means slag it off
for hassle and lack of practicality and even price, good vinyl repro
is expensive.

Ironically, hassle and practicality have now killed off CD for me. I
now stream all of my music from flac files stored on a NAS.

> (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24 bits
> are used.

I wouldn't claim that particularly but it's interesting to try it. CD
quality done right is really good enough even though it can be
bettered. Having said that, I have this week purchased a new
recording of Mozart's Mass in C minor which is 24 bits and 192K
sample rate.

> I found even NICAM was good.)

Yes, so did I but to some extent it's about what your reference for
broadcast sound was at the time. What we compared it against.

> In the early days, no processing was done - certainly at the
> consumer end - because there just wasn't the processing power; the
> electronics in a CD player was just about up to the task of
> decoding (error-correcting) the data stream off the CD. Thus
> "digital" came to mean excellent (full 16 bit stereo unprocessed)
> quality.

> Unfortunately, when electronics progressed to the level that mp2
> (and later mp3 and others) decoding was practical at the consumer
> end, what was still "digital" gained the _capability_ of being,
> basically, grotty. In the early days, it was a matter of storage
> costs (how many songs you could get into an mp3 player's memory)
> as much as radio transmission costs, though the latter soon became
> dominant. Basically, "digital" nowadays rarely means "CD quality",
> though much confusion between the two exists - some of it I'm sure
> deliberate.

Can't disagree there.

Bob.

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]
> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
> processing.

That is the main factor behind the CD v. Analogue sound argument. The
equipment necessary to produce and market analogue recordings was only
found in established recording studios and only experienced recording
engineers were employed to use it. To get analogue recordings to sound
good, the recording engineer needed a wide range of skills acquired over
a long period of apprenticeship.

When CDs came in, a new skill set was needed in addition to the existing
skills of a recording engineer. Many people who had digital skills but
lacked the artistic skills, and some of the technical ones, joined the
industry. The major companies were under great pressure to remaster
their repertoire digitally, so they couldn't afford to be fussy about
who they employed to get the job done. This was the point where the
public began to realise that some re-issues didn't sound as good as the
originals.

The technology became cheaper and more available as consumer items, so
soon every cloth-eared numbskull who could work a keyboard became a
'recording engineer'. All sorts of special effects and exotic
processing became available in software - and having been purchased,
they had to be used on every possible occasion. Those keyboard
operators who couldn't originate recordings took existing recordings and
messed them up under the guise of re-mastering (and nowadays
'sampling'). Instead of correcting faults in the analogue chain, the
recordings were digitised and then processed in software to disguise the
faults (and create a whole lot of different faults).

The industry fell apart and record companies couild no longer afford to
employ top-quality engineers, so the majority of the public now believes
that the over-compressed rubbish churned out by 99% of the music
industry is how recordings should sound.

CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did - but very
few of the later commercial ones do.

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

On 11/10/2023 13:35, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ug61em$1q4k6$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:38:00,
> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
> []
>> You could connect a DAB+ portable using the headphone socket. This
>> should be stereo even if the set is mono. And the quality is good
>> enough for my ears. (The impedance mismatch gives enough level
>> reduction that it won't overload the amp.)
>>
> In theory, an impedance mismatch could skew the frequency response,
> though that way round - low impedance output feeding higher impedance
> input - probably marginal if at all. Certainly the other way round can,
> though (one of the reasons ceramic pickups got a worse recognition than
> they deserve - sure, magnetic _are_ better, but ceramic OK if properly
> loaded [and by something that can take their huge output!]).

I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause distortion.

I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.

I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for hi-fi
magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in parallel. I don't
know whether this would work.

--
Max Demian

In article <5af1be9288bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <gaQIyeloLqJlFwjG@255soft.uk>,
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> > *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made
> > from the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression
> > or other processing.

> Certainly it will measure significantly better that's true. In the
> early days of CD before ~1988 my friends and I thought CD players
> were unpleasant to listen to. Brash, harsh lacking involvement were
> the comments of the day.

> That changed for me/us when Meridian produced the 207 later bettered
> by the 208. At that point, provided you had a recording that was well
> made, CD became unbeatable. Though having said that, I understand and
> sympathise to some degree with people who still prefer Vinyl, it
> still does have a comfortable presentation. To 'prefer' is not to say
> "better than"!

> Due I suspect to fewer and fewer people having any experience of
> vinyl and of those that do, far fewer still have ever heard good
> vinyl played on a good system. Indeed, the abomination of the USB
> turntable now available adds to this problem by being truly awful.

> Very, very few people have any idea how good vinyl with all it's
> faults and user hassle can actually sound and it does piss me off
> when folks wax about how awful vinyl is when in fact that is their
> false perception due to lack of experience. By all means slag it off
> for hassle and lack of practicality and even price, good vinyl repro
> is expensive.

> Ironically, hassle and practicality have now killed off CD for me. I
> now stream all of my music from flac files stored on a NAS.

> > (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24 bits
> > are used.

> I wouldn't claim that particularly but it's interesting to try it. CD
> quality done right is really good enough even though it can be
> bettered. Having said that, I have this week purchased a new
> recording of Mozart's Mass in C minor which is 24 bits and 192K
> sample rate.

> > I found even NICAM was good.)

> Yes, so did I but to some extent it's about what your reference for
> broadcast sound was at the time. What we compared it against.

apart from Wrotham, which had a dedicated radio link, radio sound was
distributed by GPO lines which went all the way up to 8kHz

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle