Have you noticed the increasing delay in the digital formats of radio
stations over the last couple of years. If you listen to, sayBBC radio 2 on
FM and tune in on DAB, Freeiew or online, the delays can be up to 30 seconds
or even more on line. So if you were going to broadcast live coverage of the
end of the world, it would be cut short!

Back in the Days of Nicam, the delay was very very short, hence the term
near instantaneous. On TV, trying to synchronise picture and voice can still
be a problem today.
When I could see, I remember some interviews being watched on a Nicam set,
and you got this sneaking feeling that the lips and the sound were not quite
right, so how they do it now must surely mean that thre is some deliberate
delay going on to make them natch.

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.!

On 13/12/2023 10:22, Brian Gaff wrote:

> Have you noticed the increasing delay in the digital formats of radio
> stations over the last couple of years. If you listen to, sayBBC radio 2 on
> FM and tune in on DAB, Freeiew or online, the delays can be up to 30 seconds
> or even more on line. So if you were going to broadcast live coverage of the
> end of the world, it would be cut short!

Bring back analogue! Actually, even some FM receivers (such as the ones
that some mobile phones have) introduce a small delay; presumably they
are software based (with an FM tuner chip).

--
Max Demian

On 13/12/2023 10:22, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Have you noticed the increasing delay in the digital formats of radio
> stations over the last couple of years. If you listen to, sayBBC radio 2 on
> FM and tune in on DAB, Freeiew or online, the delays can be up to 30 seconds
> or even more on line. So if you were going to broadcast live coverage of the
> end of the world, it would be cut short!

Don't forget that ITV would have to have a few adverts first so they
would miss it anyway!

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 11:22:24 +0000, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>On 13/12/2023 10:22, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> Have you noticed the increasing delay in the digital formats of radio
>> stations over the last couple of years. If you listen to, sayBBC radio 2 on
>> FM and tune in on DAB, Freeiew or online, the delays can be up to 30 seconds
>> or even more on line. So if you were going to broadcast live coverage of the
>> end of the world, it would be cut short!
>
>Bring back analogue! Actually, even some FM receivers (such as the ones
>that some mobile phones have) introduce a small delay; presumably they
>are software based (with an FM tuner chip).

I thought FM was itself delayed compared to long wave but maybe only
by milliseconds.

I thought the world might have ended last night. I woke up about 3 am
and tried counting my fingers in time with the ticking of the clock,
when the ticking stopped. It turned out a new battery was needed. What
are the odds against witnessing and experiencing this exact moment?

In message <ulc0m2$454i$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:22:56,
Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>Have you noticed the increasing delay in the digital formats of radio
>stations over the last couple of years. If you listen to, sayBBC radio 2 on
>FM and tune in on DAB, Freeiew or online, the delays can be up to 30 seconds
>or even more on line. So if you were going to broadcast live coverage of the
>end of the world, it would be cut short!

And of course the BBC countdown, when they show it (and they've changed
it from frames to centiseconds, presumably meaning they now miss every
second one), it isn't actually counting down to anything - even if there
_wasn't_ the digital delay.
>
>
>Back in the Days of Nicam, the delay was very very short, hence the term
>near instantaneous. On TV, trying to synchronise picture and voice can still
>be a problem today.

Although it _was_ fairly quick, I don't think the "near instantaneous"
meant that the overall delay was short, but that the companding was
rapid - i. e. there wasn't much of a delay connected with the change in
coded level, unlike (some) analogue AGCs (and without the tiring
punchiness you got with an analogue AGC with short response times).

> When I could see, I remember some interviews being watched on a Nicam set,
>and you got this sneaking feeling that the lips and the sound were not quite
>right, so how they do it now must surely mean that thre is some deliberate
>delay going on to make them natch.
>
>Brian
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than
to those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US
president, architect and author (1743-1826)

On 13/12/2023 13:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ulc0m2$454i$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:22:56,
> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>> Have you noticed the increasing delay in the digital formats of radio
>> stations over the last couple of years. If you listen to, sayBBC radio
>> 2 on
>> FM and tune in on DAB, Freeiew or online, the delays can be up to 30
>> seconds
>> or even more on line. So if you were going to broadcast live coverage
>> of the
>> end of the world, it would be  cut short!
>
> And of course the BBC countdown, when they show it (and they've changed
> it from frames to centiseconds, presumably meaning they now miss every
> second one), it isn't actually counting down to anything - even if there
> _wasn't_ the digital delay.
>>
>>
>> Back in the Days of Nicam, the delay was very very short, hence the term
>> near instantaneous. On TV, trying to synchronise picture and voice can
>> still
>> be a problem today.
>
> Although it _was_ fairly quick, I don't think the "near instantaneous"
> meant that the overall delay was short, but that the companding was
> rapid - i. e. there wasn't much of a delay connected with the change in
> coded level, unlike (some) analogue AGCs (and without the tiring
> punchiness you got with an analogue AGC with short response times).
>
>> When I could see, I remember some interviews being watched on a Nicam
>> set,
>> and you got this sneaking feeling that the lips and the sound were not
>> quite
>> right, so how they do it now must surely mean that thre is some
>> deliberate
>> delay going on to make them natch.
>>

ISTM much depends on what is meant by "broadcast live coverage of the
end of the world".

At one extreme there's an instantaneous and non-local event. E.g. all
matter everywhere is converted to energy at UTC 0:00. Analogue can't
broadcast that. It can broadcast up until that time (ideally from a
camera by the transmitter to minimise signal path). But of course that
signal can't reach viewers before they cease to exist.

OTOH if the "end of the world event" is something different it may well
be capable of being broadcast and received by digital services. E.g. if
the event is a planet-busting asteroid striking Australia a
more-than-glancing blow they'd be plenty of time to view in the UK
pictures of the impact from cameras in space and on the surface there or
thereabouts. Takes about 20 minutes for the seismic wave to reach us.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 13/12/2023 12:37, JMB99 wrote:
> On 13/12/2023 10:22, Brian Gaff wrote:

>> Have you noticed the increasing delay in the digital formats of radio
>> stations over the last couple of years. If you listen to, sayBBC radio
>> 2 on
>> FM and tune in on DAB, Freeiew or online, the delays can be up to 30
>> seconds
>> or even more on line. So if you were going to broadcast live coverage
>> of the
>> end of the world, it would be  cut short!

> Don't forget that ITV would have to have a few adverts first so they
> would miss it anyway!

Iodine tablets and gas masks?

--
Max Demian

On 13/12/2023 14:45, Robin wrote:
> OTOH if the "end of the world event" is something different it may well
> be capable of being broadcast and received by digital services.  E.g. if
> the event is a planet-busting asteroid striking Australia a
> more-than-glancing blow they'd be plenty of time to view in the UK
> pictures of the impact from cameras in space and on the surface there or
> thereabouts.  Takes about 20 minutes for the seismic wave to reach us.

As long as 20 minutes. Put like that, it seems a long time. Mind you,
that's 8000 miles in 20 minutes so 24,000 mph - considerably faster than
the speed of sound through the air (if, hypothetically you could hear an
event happening on the other side of the world)

I think a lot of it is because there are many d to a a to d and all that in
the feed to some transmitters as well.
Sadly the mega compression idiocy has hit even Radio 2 in recent years so
it all sounds flat and uninteresting I have two recordings of the same Kiki
Dee concert from the 70s, One broadcast at the time, and the other more
recently. Clearly the original is far superior on dynamics and detail and
most other things.
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.!
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:ulc45g$4lbe$1@dont-email.me...
> On 13/12/2023 10:22, Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> Have you noticed the increasing delay in the digital formats of radio
>> stations over the last couple of years. If you listen to, sayBBC radio 2
>> on
>> FM and tune in on DAB, Freeiew or online, the delays can be up to 30
>> seconds
>> or even more on line. So if you were going to broadcast live coverage of
>> the
>> end of the world, it would be cut short!
>
> Bring back analogue! Actually, even some FM receivers (such as the ones
> that some mobile phones have) introduce a small delay; presumably they are
> software based (with an FM tuner chip).
>
> --
> Max Demian
>

On 14/12/2023 09:22, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Sadly the mega compression idiocy has hit even Radio 2 in recent years so
> it all sounds flat and uninteresting I have two recordings of the same Kiki
> Dee concert from the 70s, One broadcast at the time, and the other more
> recently. Clearly the original is far superior on dynamics and detail and
> most other things.

In the 1970s with analogue distribution and few limiters in the
transmitter input, they would probably be over-deviating . It could be
expensive if they did that now.

On 13/12/2023 14:45, Robin wrote:
> ISTM much depends on what is meant by "broadcast live coverage of the
> end of the world".

At least there will be no luvvie asking for a repeat because he forgot
to press a button.

There is a Twighlight Zone story about where an alien thinks the world
should be destroyed but he takes a human up to explain why he is destroying
cities. The guy he chose asked to be put back just before the alien picked
him up, and he blew up the spacecraft before the guy got out of it and the
world never ended.
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.!
"JMB99" <mb@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uleje9$1b45m$3@dont-email.me...
> On 13/12/2023 14:45, Robin wrote:
>> ISTM much depends on what is meant by "broadcast live coverage of the
>> end of the world".
>
>
>
> At least there will be no luvvie asking for a repeat because he forgot to
> press a button.
>
>
>