This just squeezed its way into my inbox, and no mention of it on usenet 
yet, so...
http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL

No rivals on Froogle or Kelkoo, prices on Ciao range from 66 to 89.
http://www.ciao.co.uk/Sharp_FVDB1E__5725100

Therefore, I declare this to be a bargain :)

-- 
Adam, UK Party Store
http://www.ukpartystore.co.uk/
Price Promise, Free UK Mainland Postage in August

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:57:05 +0100, "Adam \(UK Bargain Party Store\)"
 wrote:


>This just squeezed its way into my inbox, and no mention of it on usenet 
>yet, so...
>http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
>
>No rivals on Froogle or Kelkoo, prices on Ciao range from 66 to 89.
>http://www.ciao.co.uk/Sharp_FVDB1E__5725100
>
>Therefore, I declare this to be a bargain :)


Just bear in mind that it's a case on quantity over quality..many DAB
stations are in mono, a 50 FM radio will sound better. However, some
stations are on DAB that aren't on FM.

Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years as
these may make DAB redundant.

sponix

Sponix wrote:

> Adam wrote:
> > http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
> > No rivals...this to be a bargain.
> Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years
> as these may make DAB redundant.




I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy from what I
got so far.  Could you point me to a source where some preliminary
explanation may be pursued?  The Wikiverse, for example, starts somewhat at
a level I feel not basic enough for me (I do understand radio transmission
and have built amplifier sets before).

This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a suitable
DAB!!

-- 
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].

"--s-p-o-n-i-x--"  wrote in message 
news:51d0h1tejud2ij33hqgtdn1h7qbni6np7h@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:57:05 +0100, "Adam \(UK Bargain Party Store\)"
>  wrote:

>>http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
>>Therefore, I declare this to be a bargain :)
>
> Just bear in mind that it's a case on quantity over quality..many DAB
> stations are in mono, a 50 FM radio will sound better. However, some
> stations are on DAB that aren't on FM.


The thing about the Sharp is that it's stereo AND portable (battery). I paid 
65 from Boots for a mono, mains only lump called the Pure Evoke 1 this time 
last year, although quite bizarrely, it seems to have gone back up in price! 
http://audiovisual.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/sbs/123101/9084414.html
Although digital radio stuff tends to have random and arbitary prices - 
anyone remember the Wavefinder? It started at something like 300 (no 
speakers, no amp, plugged into your PC), about 9 months later is was being 
jobbed off in PC world for 50 (bought one then, took it back one day 
later!) and a short while after that, they were giving them away free on the 
UK Digital Radio site.
So look around; you'll probably be able to get what you want at the price 
you want.


> Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years as
> these may make DAB redundant.


"Lin Chung"  wrote in message 
news:BlXPe.107$t4.106@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...


> This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a suitable
> DAB!!


I wouldn't let it -note Sponix' use of the word MAY, and "few years"....


> I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy from what 
> I
> got so far.  Could you point me to a source where some preliminary
> explanation may be pursued?  The Wikiverse, for example, starts somewhat 
> at
> a level I feel not basic enough for me (I do understand radio transmission
> and have built amplifier sets before).


Try these:
http://www.drm.org/
http://drm.sourceforge.net/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/factsheets/text/onthemove_factsheet.html


-- 
Adam, UK Party Store
http://www.ukpartystore.co.uk/
Price Promise, Free UK Mainland Postage in August

Adam wrote:

> Lin Chung wrote:
> > Could you point me to a source where some preliminary
> > explanation may be pursued?  This DRM 'news'...
> Try these:
> http://www.drm.org/
> http://drm.sourceforge.net/
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/factsheets/text/onthemove_factsheet.html



Brilliant!  These are just the right materials for me for the moment. For
those wishing to explore the topic, it is best to read in sequence in
reverse order starting from the last link.

Thanks.

-- 
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].

Lin Chung wrote:

> Sponix wrote:
>> Adam wrote:
>>> http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
>>> No rivals...this to be a bargain.
>> Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years
>> as these may make DAB redundant.
>
>
>
> I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy from
> what I got so far.  Could you point me to a source where some
> preliminary explanation may be pursued?  The Wikiverse, for example,
> starts somewhat at a level I feel not basic enough for me (I do
> understand radio transmission and have built amplifier sets before).
>
> This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a
> suitable DAB!!



Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message 
news:9mZPe.266$h4.109@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

>
>
> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>


Could you just expand on that please? I thought the idea of DAB is that it 
is super-brilliant. What am I missing?


BTW, I am not getting at you. I am sure you are an expert, and I just want 
to be spoon-fed with the info please.

GB wrote:

> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
> news:9mZPe.266$h4.109@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>
>>
>> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>>
>
> Could you just expand on that please? I thought the idea of DAB is
> that it is super-brilliant. What am I missing?



You're missing the fact that all the adverts that suggest that DAB 
sounds super-brilliant are lies. They use the term 'digital quality 
sound' to try and make the listener think that DAB provides CD-quality 
sound. But the term 'digital quality sound' is really meaningless, 
because sound on your mobile phone is digital quality sound, but nobody 
would ever say it sounds good. So, they use that term because the 
Advertising Standards Authority will let them get away with using it 
because of this meaningless definition.



> BTW, I am not getting at you. I am sure you are an expert, and I just
> want to be spoon-fed with the info please.



Put simply: DAB sounds far worse than FM.

The reason why it sounds crap is that 98% of all stereo radio stations 
on DAB use a bit rate of 128kbps. That wouldn't be bad if the codec that 
DAB uses was MP3, but it's not, because DAB uses the MP2 codec, which 
requires a bit rate of 224kbps to provide audio quality as good as FM.

The radio station with the best audio quality on DAB is Radio 3, because 
it uses 192kbps. But even that sounds better on FM.

Basically, DAB was designed in the late-1980s, so it shouldn't really be 
surprising that it isn't up to the job today.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

In article <430f8186$1_2@x-privat.org>,
 "Adam \(UK Bargain Party Store\)"  wrote:


> This just squeezed its way into my inbox, and no mention of it on usenet 
> yet, so...
> http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
> 
> No rivals on Froogle or Kelkoo, prices on Ciao range from 66 to 89.
> http://www.ciao.co.uk/Sharp_FVDB1E__5725100
> 
> Therefore, I declare this to be a bargain :)


Somebody gave a fix for the sens prob of this radio.

I did it, and it is now as sens a my Pure DRX 702 !!

Is there a page about the fix ???

Somebody offering 59 pounds ???

--

In message 
          --s-p-o-n-i-x--  wrote:


> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:57:05 +0100, "Adam \(UK Bargain Party Store\)"
>  wrote:
> 
> >This just squeezed its way into my inbox, and no mention of it on usenet 
> >yet, so...
> >http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
> >
> >No rivals on Froogle or Kelkoo, prices on Ciao range from 66 to 89.
> >http://www.ciao.co.uk/Sharp_FVDB1E__5725100
> >
> >Therefore, I declare this to be a bargain :)
> 
> Just bear in mind that it's a case on quantity over quality..many DAB
> stations are in mono, a 50 FM radio will sound better. However, some
> stations are on DAB that aren't on FM.
> 
> Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years as
> these may make DAB redundant.


But while you are waiting, you would miss years of interesting and
enjoyable listening to DAB programmes that your 50 quid could have
bought you.

As with computers, there's little benefit in hanging back in the hope
of finding something better at some indeterminate time in the future.
What matters is whether the products available now can provide
something approximating to you want. We've simply no idea yet what
programmes will be available via DRM or any of the other new
technologies that get discussed here.

-- 
Richard L.

> Put simply: DAB sounds far worse than FM.
>
> The reason why it sounds crap is that 98% of all stereo radio stations on 
> DAB use a bit rate of 128kbps. That wouldn't be bad if the codec that DAB 
> uses was MP3, but it's not, because DAB uses the MP2 codec, which requires 
> a bit rate of 224kbps to provide audio quality as good as FM.


Would you say that ALL the stations that currently broadcast on our AM 
wavebands that have taken residence in the DAB world too sound worse?


> The radio station with the best audio quality on DAB is Radio 3, because 
> it uses 192kbps. But even that sounds better on FM.


I thought but correct me if I'm wrong that Virgin radio also broadcast at 
192kbps.

I'd also like to say that someone sent me a recording from a Pure bug set 
(the one with a CF card slot) on CD of a Radio 4 programme and it sounds 
really quite superb through my system. Even shocked me!

Steve

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

> 
> GB wrote:
> > "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote in message
> > news:9mZPe.266$h4.109@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
> >>
> >
> > Could you just expand on that please? I thought the idea of DAB is
> > that it is super-brilliant. What am I missing?
> 
> You're missing the fact that all the adverts that suggest that DAB
> sounds super-brilliant are lies. They use the term 'digital quality
> sound' to try and make the listener think that DAB provides CD-quality
> sound. But the term 'digital quality sound' is really meaningless,
> because sound on your mobile phone is digital quality sound, but nobody
> would ever say it sounds good. So, they use that term because the
> Advertising Standards Authority will let them get away with using it
> because of this meaningless definition.
> 
> > BTW, I am not getting at you. I am sure you are an expert, and I just
> > want to be spoon-fed with the info please.
> 
> Put simply: DAB sounds far worse than FM.
> 
> The reason why it sounds crap is that 98% of all stereo radio stations
> on DAB use a bit rate of 128kbps. That wouldn't be bad if the codec that
> DAB uses was MP3, but it's not, because DAB uses the MP2 codec, which
> requires a bit rate of 224kbps to provide audio quality as good as FM.
> 
> The radio station with the best audio quality on DAB is Radio 3, because
> it uses 192kbps. But even that sounds better on FM.
> 
> Basically, DAB was designed in the late-1980s, so it shouldn't really be
> surprising that it isn't up to the job today.


I thought that the reason that DAB is crap was the greed of selling as
many broadcast licences as possible in the band. If it would improve 
by changing to mp3, then why don't they do this?

Stevie Boy wrote:

>> Put simply: DAB sounds far worse than FM.
>>
>> The reason why it sounds crap is that 98% of all stereo radio
>> stations on DAB use a bit rate of 128kbps. That wouldn't be bad if
>> the codec that DAB uses was MP3, but it's not, because DAB uses the
>> MP2 codec, which requires a bit rate of 224kbps to provide audio
>> quality as good as FM.
>
> Would you say that ALL the stations that currently broadcast on our AM
> wavebands that have taken residence in the DAB world too sound worse?



No. But is DAB the best thing since sliced bread because some stations 
on the 80-year-old AM radio system sound better on the 15-year-old DAB 
system?



>> The radio station with the best audio quality on DAB is Radio 3,
>> because it uses 192kbps. But even that sounds better on FM.
>
> I thought but correct me if I'm wrong that Virgin radio also
> broadcast at 192kbps.



Virgin uses 160kbps, and it actually sounds crap on DAB.



> I'd also like to say that someone sent me a recording from a Pure bug
> set (the one with a CF card slot) on CD of a Radio 4 programme and it
> sounds really quite superb through my system. Even shocked me!



And what about music? Music on DAB sounds utterly dreadful.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

Johannes wrote:

> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
>> The reason why it sounds crap is that 98% of all stereo radio
>> stations on DAB use a bit rate of 128kbps. That wouldn't be bad if
>> the codec that DAB uses was MP3, but it's not, because DAB uses the
>> MP2 codec, which requires a bit rate of 224kbps to provide audio
>> quality as good as FM.
>>
>> The radio station with the best audio quality on DAB is Radio 3,
>> because it uses 192kbps. But even that sounds better on FM.
>>
>> Basically, DAB was designed in the late-1980s, so it shouldn't
>> really be surprising that it isn't up to the job today.
>
> I thought that the reason that DAB is crap was the greed of selling as
> many broadcast licences as possible in the band. If it would improve
> by changing to mp3, then why don't they do this?


Presumably because all the digital radios out there (or most of them) don't 
support MP3 compression
-- 
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk    www.ebayfaq.co.uk

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:52:21 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM  
<dab.is@low.quality> wrote:


> Lin Chung wrote:
>> Sponix wrote:
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>> http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
>>>> No rivals...this to be a bargain.
>>> Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years
>>> as these may make DAB redundant.
>>
>>
>>
>> I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy from
>> what I got so far.  Could you point me to a source where some
>> preliminary explanation may be pursued?  The Wikiverse, for example,
>> starts somewhat at a level I feel not basic enough for me (I do
>> understand radio transmission and have built amplifier sets before).
>>
>> This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a
>> suitable DAB!!
>
>
> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>
>


Don't forget, the choice is MUCH better than analog, so you pays yer  
money, and takes yer choice..  Not everyone has a problem that their DAB  
is broadcasting at 160Kb/Sec or 128Kb/Sec, that bitrate sounds fine to me,  
and I can get many channels that would previously be unavilable.

Just because you don't like the audio quality of DAB, don't assume  
everyone has the same buying criterea as you.

Black Shuck wrote:

> 
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:52:21 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM
> <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:
> 
> > Lin Chung wrote:
> >> Sponix wrote:
> >>> Adam wrote:
> >>>> http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
> >>>> No rivals...this to be a bargain.
> >>> Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years
> >>> as these may make DAB redundant.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy from
> >> what I got so far.  Could you point me to a source where some
> >> preliminary explanation may be pursued?  The Wikiverse, for example,
> >> starts somewhat at a level I feel not basic enough for me (I do
> >> understand radio transmission and have built amplifier sets before).
> >>
> >> This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a
> >> suitable DAB!!
> >
> >
> > Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
> >
> >
> 
> Don't forget, the choice is MUCH better than analog, so you pays yer
> money, and takes yer choice..  Not everyone has a problem that their DAB
> is broadcasting at 160Kb/Sec or 128Kb/Sec, that bitrate sounds fine to me,
> and I can get many channels that would previously be unavilable.
> 
> Just because you don't like the audio quality of DAB, don't assume
> everyone has the same buying criterea as you.


I'm old enough to remember when FM was introduced, that was a real break
through in transmitted sound quality, it was amazing. Hence it's sad to
see technology going backward.

Johannes wrote:

> DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

>>> I thought that the reason that DAB is crap was the greed of selling
>>> as many broadcast licences as possible in the band. If it would
>>> improve by changing to mp3, then why don't they do this?
>>
>> It's already too late to change the audio codec on DAB in the UK,
>> because about 1.5 million DAB receivers have been sold already. But
>> the WorldDAB Technical Committee are thinking about adding the HE
>> AAC / AAC audio codecs to DAB so that other countries caan take
>> advantage of them. It's too late for the UK though.
>
> Perhaps the music industry isn't too unhappy that you don't get the
> best quality over the airwaves?



Maybe, but FM with good reception provides excellent audio quality.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:


> > This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a
> > suitable DAB!!
> 
> 
> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.


Here we go again.

Don't you consider your 'campaign' to be more than a bit obsessive? -
thought about getting out a bit more.

FWIW, since I've moved to an area that can't, currently, receive DAB, I
miss it badly. If I'm in the kitchen I get crackly, hissy FM as I don't
want to rewire the house for a decent FM aerial on the roof. Also miss
the choice of stations.

OK, so you can have Freeview / Sky for radio (I have Sky), but that's
not much use when the box is in the lounge and I'm in the garage /
garden.

For 99% of radio listeners, DAB is 'the best thing since sliced bread' -
on balance, portable / car DAB radios give better quality reception than
equivalent FM units.
-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Black Shuck wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:52:21 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM
> <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:
>
>> Lin Chung wrote:
>>> Sponix wrote:
>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>> http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
>>>>> No rivals...this to be a bargain.
>>>> Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years
>>>> as these may make DAB redundant.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy from
>>> what I got so far.  Could you point me to a source where some
>>> preliminary explanation may be pursued?  The Wikiverse, for example,
>>> starts somewhat at a level I feel not basic enough for me (I do
>>> understand radio transmission and have built amplifier sets before).
>>>
>>> This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a
>>> suitable DAB!!
>>
>>
>> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>>
>>
>
> Don't forget, the choice is MUCH better than analog,



I don't know where you live, but I can receive shitloads of stations in 
Manchester on analogue.



> so you pays yer
> money, and takes yer choice..  Not everyone has a problem that their
> DAB is broadcasting at 160Kb/Sec or 128Kb/Sec, that bitrate sounds
> fine to me,



What kind of DAB receiver do you own? Would it be a small mono portable 
radio by any chance? If so, how can you assess whether the quality is 
good enough?



> and I can get many channels that would previously be
> unavilable.



Good for you. There's absolutely nothing of interest to me on DAB that 
isn't available on FM.



> Just because you don't like the audio quality of DAB, don't assume
> everyone has the same buying criterea as you.



I would never suggest that everybody has the same buying criteria as 
myself; just the clear majority:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/images/digital_radio_benefits_q80.jpg

(Ofcom-commissioned market research carried out by MORI. People surveyed 
were analogue radio listeners.)

There's been a few market research surveys, and they all say the same 
thing: audio quality is what people want most from digital radio, and 
extra stations aren't anywhere near as important. Unfortunately, the 
broadcasters don't want to provide good audio quality, and Ofcom are too 
toothless to make them provide good audio quality, so DAB is really just 
ripping-off the general public.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

Johannes wrote:

> Black Shuck wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:52:21 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM
>> <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:
>>
>>> Lin Chung wrote:
>>>> Sponix wrote:
>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>> http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
>>>>>> No rivals...this to be a bargain.
>>>>> Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years
>>>>> as these may make DAB redundant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy
>>>> from what I got so far.  Could you point me to a source where some
>>>> preliminary explanation may be pursued?  The Wikiverse, for
>>>> example, starts somewhat at a level I feel not basic enough for me
>>>> (I do understand radio transmission and have built amplifier sets
>>>> before).
>>>>
>>>> This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a
>>>> suitable DAB!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Don't forget, the choice is MUCH better than analog, so you pays yer
>> money, and takes yer choice..  Not everyone has a problem that their
>> DAB is broadcasting at 160Kb/Sec or 128Kb/Sec, that bitrate sounds
>> fine to me, and I can get many channels that would previously be
>> unavilable.
>>
>> Just because you don't like the audio quality of DAB, don't assume
>> everyone has the same buying criterea as you.
>
> I'm old enough to remember when FM was introduced, that was a real
> break through in transmitted sound quality, it was amazing. Hence
> it's sad to see technology going backward.



Absolutely.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

SteveH wrote:

> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:
>
>>> This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a
>>> suitable DAB!!
>>
>>
>> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>
> Here we go again.
>
> Don't you consider your 'campaign' to be more than a bit obsessive? -
> thought about getting out a bit more.



Interesting. How do you know my whereabouts 24/7?



> FWIW, since I've moved to an area that can't, currently, receive DAB,
> I miss it badly.



Don't you have digital TV then?



> If I'm in the kitchen I get crackly, hissy FM



When did you move to the Outer Hebrides?



> as I
> don't want to rewire the house for a decent FM aerial on the roof.
> Also miss the choice of stations.
>
> OK, so you can have Freeview / Sky for radio (I have Sky), but that's
> not much use when the box is in the lounge and I'm in the garage /
> garden.



Then you'll be pleased to find out about the Sky Gnome, which will allow 
you to do exactly what you desire:

http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=1488

30m range from your Sky digibox.



> For 99% of radio listeners, DAB is 'the best thing since sliced
> bread'



So why have literally hundreds of people emailed me via my website to 
thank me for my website and agreeing completely with me that the audio 
quality on DAB is crap?




-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:00:05 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM  
<dab.is@low.quality> wrote:


> Black Shuck wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:52:21 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM
>> <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:
>>
>>> Lin Chung wrote:
>>>> Sponix wrote:
>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>> http://ws2.richersounds.com/showproduct.php?cda=showproduct&pid=SHAR-FVDB1-SIL
>>>>>> No rivals...this to be a bargain.
>>>>> Maybe better to wait until DRM digital sets appear in a few years
>>>>> as these may make DAB redundant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy from
>>>> what I got so far.  Could you point me to a source where some
>>>> preliminary explanation may be pursued?  The Wikiverse, for example,
>>>> starts somewhat at a level I feel not basic enough for me (I do
>>>> understand radio transmission and have built amplifier sets before).
>>>>
>>>> This DRM 'news' has now stopped me in my track in searching for a
>>>> suitable DAB!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Don't forget, the choice is MUCH better than analog,
>
>
> I don't know where you live, but I can receive shitloads of stations in
> Manchester on analogue.
>


I think this sums it up, in Manchester, and perhaps most major cities in  
the UK, analog radio selection is decent(ish), but where I live, I can get  
Radio 1 - 4, 2 local stations, and that's it.  I get plenty more on DAB,  
and some of those are specialist, which don't broadcast on analog fullstop.

I'm not really suggesting that DAB sounds fantastic, it's adequete (and to  
be honest, @160k sounds as good as FM to me on a 60 cheapo stereo DAB  
box), but the killer feature for me, is the increase in channels.

I'm not a Hi-Fi nut.  I enjoy music, for the music itself, which is not  
tied to the quality of the recording at all.  I have some demo tapes I  
simply love, recorded with tape-hiss and all, whilst spending a moderate  
amount of money on DAB is OK, I would not go overboard.  Unfortunatly, DAB  
is still very overpriced, and until that changed, peoples expectations  
will perhaps be too high..

Black Shuck  wrote:


> >
> > Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
> >
> >
> 
> Don't forget, the choice is MUCH better than analog, so you pays yer
> money, and takes yer choice..  Not everyone has a problem that their DAB
> is broadcasting at 160Kb/Sec or 128Kb/Sec, that bitrate sounds fine to me,
> and I can get many channels that would previously be unavilable.
> 
> Just because you don't like the audio quality of DAB, don't assume  
> everyone has the same buying criterea as you.


Ignore him, he's been posting this obsessive anti-DAB bollocks for years
now.
-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:


> > OK, so you can have Freeview / Sky for radio (I have Sky), but that's
> > not much use when the box is in the lounge and I'm in the garage /
> > garden.
> 
> 
> Then you'll be pleased to find out about the Sky Gnome, which will allow
> you to do exactly what you desire:
> 
> http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=1488
> 
> 30m range from your Sky digibox.


Do you seriously believe that will be any good?

It's just a repackaged AV sender - I have one for the kitchen telly, and
it's crap. No matter what I do, my WiFi kit interferes with it, as does
the microwave and power tools in the garage.
-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

>>
>> Would you say that ALL the stations that currently broadcast on our AM
>> wavebands that have taken residence in the DAB world too sound worse?
>
>
> No. But is DAB the best thing since sliced bread because some stations on 
> the 80-year-old AM radio system sound better on the 15-year-old DAB 
> system?
>


I would since the horendous interference you get on AM and variable 
reception rate depending on your location and time of day. May not be the 
case for FM but it certainly is an advance forward for those AM broadcasting 
stations.



>
> Virgin uses 160kbps, and it actually sounds crap on DAB.
>


But better for those who can't receive their FM transmission. Quality on FM 
also suffers the further you get away from the signal.


>> I'd also like to say that someone sent me a recording from a Pure bug
>> set (the one with a CF card slot) on CD of a Radio 4 programme and it
>> sounds really quite superb through my system. Even shocked me!
>
>
> And what about music? Music on DAB sounds utterly dreadful.
>
>

Well I did not mention that and are generally in agreement with you but at 
least it shows it does have potential.

While I agree with a good signal and tuner FM to me sounds superior it still 
could be better using much less compression than it does. You only need to 
*pull* in some overseas stations to realise how much clearer and extended 
the bass and top end could be.

Steve

In message <IiHQe.5028$h4.2620@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
          "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:


> SteveH wrote:
> 
> > If I'm in the kitchen I get crackly, hissy FM
> 
> When did you move to the Outer Hebrides?


I spent the weekend in and around Taunton, where I found BBC FM
reception to be generally pretty disappointing, with fizzing,
crackling and mono fallback on portable sets and car radios alike. And
this is a county town, not a remote outpost of civilization. DAB, on
the other hand, was fine, even on my pocket radio. 

-- 
Richard L.

Stevie Boy wrote:

>>> Would you say that ALL the stations that currently broadcast on our
>>> AM wavebands that have taken residence in the DAB world too sound
>>> worse?
>>
>>
>> No. But is DAB the best thing since sliced bread because some
>> stations on the 80-year-old AM radio system sound better on the
>> 15-year-old DAB system?
>>
>
> I would since the horendous interference you get on AM and variable
> reception rate depending on your location and time of day. May not be
> the case for FM but it certainly is an advance forward for those AM
> broadcasting stations.



As I said, providing better audio quality than sodding AM radio is 
hardly something to shout about. This is the 21st century remember. 
We're getting HDTV next year, so why is radio actually going backwards 
in terms of quality??



>> Virgin uses 160kbps, and it actually sounds crap on DAB.
>>
>
> But better for those who can't receive their FM transmission.



How many people does that apply to? Very few. There *will* always be 
some, but it's not a very large percentage of people. I've lived in 
various places all over the country and I've always had good FM 
reception. Was I extremely lucky, or is FM reception actually a hell of 
a lot better than it's made out to be?



> Quality
> on FM also suffers the further you get away from the signal.



I take it you mean transmitter rather than signal?



>>> I'd also like to say that someone sent me a recording from a Pure
>>> bug set (the one with a CF card slot) on CD of a Radio 4 programme
>>> and it sounds really quite superb through my system. Even shocked
>>> me!
>>
>>
>> And what about music? Music on DAB sounds utterly dreadful.
>>
>>
> Well I did not mention that and are generally in agreement with you
> but at least it shows it does have potential.



But you have to remember what DAB was designed for in the first place; 
it's primary purpose was to provide CD-quality sound on the radio and 
better reception, and the latter was arguably to allow the former. And 
I'm afraid it's just not good enough for the broadcasters to provide 
crap audio quality on music stations, especially because the vast 
majority of radio listening is to music stations.



> While I agree with a good signal and tuner FM to me sounds superior



Indeed.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

Richard L  wrote:


> In message <IiHQe.5028$h4.2620@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
>           "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:
> 
> > SteveH wrote:
> > 
> > > If I'm in the kitchen I get crackly, hissy FM
> > 
> > When did you move to the Outer Hebrides?
> 
> I spent the weekend in and around Taunton, where I found BBC FM
> reception to be generally pretty disappointing, with fizzing,
> crackling and mono fallback on portable sets and car radios alike. And
> this is a county town, not a remote outpost of civilization. DAB, on
> the other hand, was fine, even on my pocket radio. 


FM reception in the Welsh valleys is bloody hopeless. Especially in the
car. Unfortunately, there's no DAB around here, so I don't have that
option either.
-- 
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE -  COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Black Shuck wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:00:05 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM
> <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:

>>> Don't forget, the choice is MUCH better than analog,
>>
>>
>> I don't know where you live, but I can receive shitloads of stations
>> in Manchester on analogue.
>>
>
> I think this sums it up, in Manchester, and perhaps most major cities
> in the UK, analog radio selection is decent(ish), but where I live, I
> can get Radio 1 - 4, 2 local stations, and that's it.  I get plenty
> more on DAB, and some of those are specialist, which don't broadcast
> on analog fullstop.



That's unfortunate. But it doesn't justify the use of low audio quality 
on DAB.



> I'm not really suggesting that DAB sounds fantastic,



I should hope not.



> it's adequete



For you.



> (and to be honest, @160k sounds as good as FM to me on a 60 cheapo
> stereo DAB box),



But 98% of all stereo stations on DAB in the UK use 128kbps.



> but the killer feature for me, is the increase in
> channels.



Which is at the expense of audio quality, which is unacceptable to a 
large number of people.



> I'm not a Hi-Fi nut.  I enjoy music, for the music itself, which is
> not tied to the quality of the recording at all.



Better audio quality improves the listening experience. People in market 
research surveys say they want good audio quality on DAB, so they should 
be provided with it.



> I have some demo
> tapes I simply love, recorded with tape-hiss and all, whilst spending
> a moderate amount of money on DAB is OK, I would not go overboard. 
> Unfortunatly, DAB is still very overpriced, and until that changed,
> peoples expectations will perhaps be too high..



People's expectations of it should have been very high, because this is 
the 21st century, and it is possible to provide very good audio quality. 
They chose to use a 15-year-old system, which uses technology that is 
generations out-of-date, and the audio quality is crap as a result. DAB 
should not have been the way it is. Sorry.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

SteveH wrote:

> DAB sounds worse than FM <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:
>
>>> OK, so you can have Freeview / Sky for radio (I have Sky), but
>>> that's not much use when the box is in the lounge and I'm in the
>>> garage / garden.
>>
>>
>> Then you'll be pleased to find out about the Sky Gnome, which will
>> allow you to do exactly what you desire:
>>
>> http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=1488
>>
>> 30m range from your Sky digibox.
>
> Do you seriously believe that will be any good?



Hold on, you've just told someone else to ignore me; why are you 
replying to me?

To answer your question: why shouldn't the Sky Gnome be any good?????



> It's just a repackaged AV sender - I have one for the kitchen telly,
> and it's crap. No matter what I do, my WiFi kit interferes with it,
> as does the microwave and power tools in the garage.



I would expect the Sky Gnome to use Wi-Fi. In which case, I would 
imagine that the audio quality will not be degraded at all.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM a crit :


> That's unfortunate. But it doesn't justify the use of low audio quality 
> on DAB.


how do you tell about low quality DAB whereas this person don't receive 
correctly radio stations FM or AM !?



> People's expectations of it should have been very high, because this is 
> the 21st century, and it is possible to provide very good audio quality.


theorical !


> They chose to use a 15-year-old system, which uses technology that is 
> generations out-of-date, and the audio quality is crap as a result. DAB 
> should not have been the way it is. Sorry.


you exagerrate.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:28:48 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM  
<dab.is@low.quality> wrote:


>
>
>> (and to be honest, @160k sounds as good as FM to me on a 60 cheapo
>> stereo DAB box),
>
>
> But 98% of all stereo stations on DAB in the UK use 128kbps.
>


Well perhaps that depends upon the transponder, as on mine, at least 30%  
are either 160kbps or 192kbps.  My transponder only has BBC DAB and  
DigitalOne.  The other answer of course, is that your stats were quickly  
made up, like the rest of your arguments...

Pierre PANTALON wrote:

> DAB sounds worse than FM a crit :
>
>> That's unfortunate. But it doesn't justify the use of low audio
>> quality on DAB.
>
> how do you tell about low quality DAB whereas this person don't
> receive correctly radio stations FM or AM !?



I repeat: That's unfortunate. But it doesn't justify the use of low 
audio quality on DAB.



>> People's expectations of it should have been very high, because this
>> is the 21st century, and it is possible to provide very good audio
>> quality.
>
> theorical !



DMB: working in Korea.
DRM: transmissions in various countries
HD Radio: 500 stations on-air



>> They chose to use a 15-year-old system, which uses technology that is
>> generations out-of-date, and the audio quality is crap as a result.
>> DAB should not have been the way it is. Sorry.
>
> you exagerrate.



No I do not. Why don't you pop over or under the English channel one 
day, buy a DAB radio and actually listen???


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM a crit :


> DMB: working in Korea.

exact

> DRM: transmissions in various countries


In AM, and we can't say that sound is good actually (need
double-bandwith and don't have listen to sample with DB)


> HD Radio: 500 stations on-air


very very difficult to introduce, and I don't know If it's you who give
me a link about complaint US men because IBOC needs too far bandwith per
HDradio


>>>They chose to use a 15-year-old system, which uses technology that is
>>>generations out-of-date, and the audio quality is crap as a result.
>>>DAB should not have been the way it is. Sorry.
>>
>>you exagerrate.
> 
> 
> 
> No I do not. Why don't you pop over or under the English channel one 
> day, buy a DAB radio and actually listen???


I go to manchester last week-end of november ... ;)

Pierre PANTALON wrote:

> DAB sounds worse than FM a crit :
>
>> DMB: working in Korea.
>
> exact


What?


>> DRM: transmissions in various countries
>
> In AM, and we can't say that sound is good actually (need
> double-bandwith and don't have listen to sample with DB)



The maximum bit rate that DRM can carry in a 20kHz channel is 72 kbps. 
So, it can provide good audio quality now.



>> HD Radio: 500 stations on-air
>
> very very difficult to introduce, and I don't know If it's you who
> give me a link about complaint US men because IBOC needs too far
> bandwith per HDradio



DAB requires about 285 kHz of spectrum to provide good audio quality 
(1710kHz / 6)!



>>>> They chose to use a 15-year-old system, which uses technology that
>>>> is generations out-of-date, and the audio quality is crap as a
>>>> result. DAB should not have been the way it is. Sorry.
>>>
>>> you exagerrate.
>>
>>
>>
>> No I do not. Why don't you pop over or under the English channel one
>> day, buy a DAB radio and actually listen???
>
> I go to manchester last week-end of november ... ;)



Seriously then, buy yourself a DAB receiver which can receive both Band 
III and L-band when you're in Manchester and listen for yourself. Then, 
when you're back home you'll be able to hear how bad the 128kbps 
stations are in Paris as well!!!!!


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM a crit :


>>>DMB: working in Korea.
>>
>>exact
> 
> What?


I want to say : true


>>>DRM: transmissions in various countries
>>
>>In AM, and we can't say that sound is good actually (need
>>double-bandwith and don't have listen to sample with DB)
> 
> 
> 
> The maximum bit rate that DRM can carry in a 20kHz channel is 72 kbps. 
> So, it can provide good audio quality now.


But I never listen to DB DRM.
With SB of 9 or 10 kHz, it only can use mono.


>>>HD Radio: 500 stations on-air
>>
>>very very difficult to introduce, and I don't know If it's you who
>>give me a link about complaint US men because IBOC needs too far
>>bandwith per HDradio
> 
> 
> 
> DAB requires about 285 kHz of spectrum to provide good audio quality 
> (1710kHz / 6)!


Yes but it's another bandwidth !
DMB can reduce it at 95 kHz (64kbps PL3A).


>>>>>They chose to use a 15-year-old system, which uses technology that
>>>>>is generations out-of-date, and the audio quality is crap as a
>>>>>result. DAB should not have been the way it is. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>>you exagerrate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No I do not. Why don't you pop over or under the English channel one
>>>day, buy a DAB radio and actually listen???
>>
>>I go to manchester last week-end of november ... ;)
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously then, buy yourself a DAB receiver which can receive both Band 
> III and L-band when you're in Manchester and listen for yourself. Then, 
> when you're back home you'll be able to hear how bad the 128kbps 
> stations are in Paris as well!!!!!


I come from Lyon ;)
I listened to DAB at 128kbps at Lyon, and I can't understand what do you 
find so bad on this system.
But I go to listen to England DAB.

Black Shuck wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:28:48 +0100, DAB sounds worse than FM
> <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> (and to be honest, @160k sounds as good as FM to me on a 60 cheapo
>>> stereo DAB box),
>>
>>
>> But 98% of all stereo stations on DAB in the UK use 128kbps.
>>
>
> Well perhaps that depends upon the transponder,



Transponders are on satellites. I presume you're referring to 
transmitters.

Here's the totals:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/worldwide_dab.htm

327 stations using 128kbps
6 stations using 160kbps
1 station using 192kbps



> as on mine, at least
> 30% are either 160kbps or 192kbps.



The only 192kbps station is Radio 3. The 160kbps stations are:

Virgin (national)
Classic FM (national)
Key 103 (Manchester)
Capital FM (London)
2 stations in Cardiff

So, the maximum number of 160 or 192kbps stations you will be able to 
pick up is 5 if you live in Cardiff, or 4 in Manchester or London.

If "at least 30% are either 160kbps or 192kbps" then you clearly cannot 
receive many radio stations on DAB!!



>  My transponder only has BBC DAB
> and DigitalOne.



Ah! So you really do live in the middle of nowhere then.



>  The other answer of course, is that your stats were
> quickly made up, like the rest of your arguments...



In your dreams.



-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

Pierre PANTALON wrote:

> DAB sounds worse than FM a crit :

>>> In AM, and we can't say that sound is good actually (need
>>> double-bandwith and don't have listen to sample with DB)
>>
>>
>>
>> The maximum bit rate that DRM can carry in a 20kHz channel is 72
>> kbps. So, it can provide good audio quality now.
>
> But I never listen to DB DRM.
> With SB of 9 or 10 kHz, it only can use mono.



But the fact is that it can use 20kHz channels and there's bound to be 
some spectrum for DRM to use. 20kHz will be okay until it is extended to 
120 MHz.



>>>> HD Radio: 500 stations on-air
>>>
>>> very very difficult to introduce, and I don't know If it's you who
>>> give me a link about complaint US men because IBOC needs too far
>>> bandwith per HDradio
>>
>>
>>
>> DAB requires about 285 kHz of spectrum to provide good audio quality
>> (1710kHz / 6)!
>
> Yes but it's another bandwidth !
> DMB can reduce it at 95 kHz (64kbps PL3A).



Absolutely.



>>>> No I do not. Why don't you pop over or under the English channel
>>>> one day, buy a DAB radio and actually listen???
>>>
>>> I go to manchester last week-end of november ... ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> Seriously then, buy yourself a DAB receiver which can receive both
>> Band III and L-band when you're in Manchester and listen for
>> yourself. Then, when you're back home you'll be able to hear how bad
>> the 128kbps stations are in Paris as well!!!!!
>
> I come from Lyon ;)



Could you go and strangle Croiset for me please?



> I listened to DAB at 128kbps at Lyon, and I can't understand what do
> you find so bad on this system.



But you're talking about Nicolas Croiset's DAB audio samples where he 
carefully selected the audio to encode so that it made DAB sound better 
than it actually does in reality.



> But I go to listen to England DAB.



Yes, do.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

In message <l0LQe.201$w4.96@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>
          "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:



> The maximum bit rate that DRM can carry in a 20kHz channel is 72 kbps. 
> So, it can provide good audio quality now.


....except that there aren't any 20kHz AM channels yet to put it in.

-- 
Richard L.

In message <kmLQe.154$n4.135@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>
          "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:


> Pierre PANTALON wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I go to manchester last week-end of november ... ;)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Seriously then, buy yourself a DAB receiver which can receive both
> >> Band III and L-band when you're in Manchester and listen for
> >> yourself. Then, when you're back home you'll be able to hear how bad
> >> the 128kbps stations are in Paris as well!!!!!
> >
> > I come from Lyon ;)
> 
> 
> Could you go and strangle Croiset for me please?


Beware: perhaps Croiset has arranged for him to come to Manchester in
order to strangle *you*.

-- 
Richard L.

In message <RlJQe.107$w4.58@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>
          "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:



> I would expect the Sky Gnome to use Wi-Fi. In which case, I would 
> imagine that the audio quality will not be degraded at all.


Then you would expect quite wrongly. I believe we've been told
elsewhere more that the Sky Gnome uses ordinary analogue low power
radio modules -- which would be far cheaper and would require no
computing power in the receiver. Welcome to the real world, Steve.

-- 
Richard L.

Gegroet,


SteveH schreef:

>>>OK, so you can have Freeview / Sky for radio (I have Sky), but that's
>>>not much use when the box is in the lounge and I'm in the garage /
>>>garden.
>>Then you'll be pleased to find out about the Sky Gnome, which will allow
>>you to do exactly what you desire:
>>http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=1488
>>30m range from your Sky digibox.

> Do you seriously believe that will be any good?
> It's just a repackaged AV sender - I have one for the kitchen telly, and
> it's crap. No matter what I do, my WiFi kit interferes with it, as does
> the microwave and power tools in the garage.


I have the same problem. I have a AV transmittor too which my wive uses 
to watch TV upstairs.
Any wifi equipement I use interferes with it killing off the AV-link.


As this is audio-only, it can be a 864 Mhz-system (with a 433 Mhz 
return-channel for the remote-control); which would be better then any 
2.4 Ghz-based system.



Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Gegroet,


DAB sounds worse than FM schreef:

>>>>OK, so you can have Freeview / Sky for radio (I have Sky), but
>>>>that's not much use when the box is in the lounge and I'm in the
>>>>garage / garden.

>>>Then you'll be pleased to find out about the Sky Gnome, which will
>>>allow you to do exactly what you desire:
>>>http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news.php?newsId=1488
>>>30m range from your Sky digibox.

>>It's just a repackaged AV sender - I have one for the kitchen telly,
>>and it's crap. No matter what I do, my WiFi kit interferes with it,
>>as does the microwave and power tools in the garage.

> I would expect the Sky Gnome to use Wi-Fi. In which case, I would 
> imagine that the audio quality will not be degraded at all.


You're guessing again!
Hifi has a range of 100 meter. The specs of gnome mention 30 meter!





Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.

Richard L a crit :

> In message <kmLQe.154$n4.135@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>
>           "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@low.quality> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Pierre PANTALON wrote:
>>
>>>>>I go to manchester last week-end of november ... ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Seriously then, buy yourself a DAB receiver which can receive both
>>>>Band III and L-band when you're in Manchester and listen for
>>>>yourself. Then, when you're back home you'll be able to hear how bad
>>>>the 128kbps stations are in Paris as well!!!!!
>>>
>>>I come from Lyon ;)
>>
>>
>>Could you go and strangle Croiset for me please?
> 
> 
> Beware: perhaps Croiset has arranged for him to come to Manchester in
> order to strangle *you*.


lol

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:07:50 +0100, "GB" 
wrote:


>> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>>
>
>Could you just expand on that please? I thought the idea of DAB is that it 
>is super-brilliant. What am I missing?


DAB *could* be good but unfortunately the broadcastsers try to cram
too many stations into too small a space. The result is the digital
equivalent of medium wave.

sponix

"--s-p-o-n-i-x--"  wrote in message 
news:rv89h1hjk30ba1mj5f8fd8v1ctorr4vpfu@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:07:50 +0100, "GB" 
> wrote:
>
>>> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>>>
>>
>>Could you just expand on that please? I thought the idea of DAB is that it
>>is super-brilliant. What am I missing?
>
> DAB *could* be good but unfortunately the broadcastsers try to cram
> too many stations into too small a space. The result is the digital
> equivalent of medium wave.


Have to agree, in most cases DAB *does* sound worse than FM.
But sometime you just gotta sit back, relax, and remember that one day, this 
could be you:
http://digitaltoast.co.uk/mad/aud/dead_ringers/dead_ringers_feedback_spod.mp3

Jonathan wrote:

> "--s-p-o-n-i-x--"  wrote in message
> news:rv89h1hjk30ba1mj5f8fd8v1ctorr4vpfu@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:07:50 +0100, "GB" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't forget that the audio quality on DAB is dreadful.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could you just expand on that please? I thought the idea of DAB is
>>> that it is super-brilliant. What am I missing?
>>
>> DAB *could* be good but unfortunately the broadcastsers try to cram
>> too many stations into too small a space. The result is the digital
>> equivalent of medium wave.
>
> Have to agree, in most cases DAB *does* sound worse than FM.
> But sometime you just gotta sit back, relax, and remember that one
> day, this could be you:
> http://digitaltoast.co.uk/mad/aud/dead_ringers/dead_ringers_feedback_spod.mp3



Awwww, bless.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm

DAB sounds worse than FM a crit :


>>Have to agree, in most cases DAB *does* sound worse than FM.
>>But sometime you just gotta sit back, relax, and remember that one
>>day, this could be you:
>>http://digitaltoast.co.uk/mad/aud/dead_ringers/dead_ringers_feedback_spod.mp3
> 
> 
> 
> Awwww, bless.


exact ! ;)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 10:35:13 GMT, "Lin Chung"
 wrote:


>I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy from what I
>got so far.  


Radio Luxembourg is back, and is carrying out test transmissions on
DRM:

http://www.radioluxembourg.co.uk/

sponix

Sponix wrote:

> Lin Chung wrote:
> > I looked up DRM (Digital Radio Mondiale) but the info is patchy....
> Radio Luxembourg is back, and is carrying out test transmissions on
> DRM:  http://www.radioluxembourg.co.uk/




Great!  Now I can experience DRM at first hand, and test listening at home
if it is as hot as has been written up.

-- 
Lin Chung
[Replace "the Water Margin" with "ntlworld" for e-mail].

>>
>> Have to agree, in most cases DAB *does* sound worse than FM.
>> But sometime you just gotta sit back, relax, and remember that one
>> day, this could be you:
>> http://digitaltoast.co.uk/mad/aud/dead_ringers/dead_ringers_feedback_spod.mp3
>
>
> Awwww, bless.
>
>


Very funny. I enjoyed that :)

BTW is there a agreed turn off time to analogue FM/AM radio? Also does this 
mean ALL wavebands for broadcast media will eventually go digital, such as 
those on SW?

Steve

>
> Radio Luxembourg is back, and is carrying out test transmissions on
> DRM:
>
> http://www.radioluxembourg.co.uk/
>


You mean without the fades and whistles? :)

Steve

>
> Great!  Now I can experience DRM at first hand, and test listening at home
> if it is as hot as has been written up.
>
> -- 


Listening to it now! Not perfect without doubt but could change my PC 
*playing* hours :)

Steve

Stevie Boy wrote:

>>> Have to agree, in most cases DAB *does* sound worse than FM.
>>> But sometime you just gotta sit back, relax, and remember that one
>>> day, this could be you:
>>> http://digitaltoast.co.uk/mad/aud/dead_ringers/dead_ringers_feedback_spod.mp3
>>
>>
>> Awwww, bless.
>>
>>
>
> Very funny. I enjoyed that :)
>
> BTW is there a agreed turn off time to analogue FM/AM radio?



No, not yet. It's likely to be somewhere between 2015 - 2020 when they 
set it.



> Also
> does this mean ALL wavebands for broadcast media will eventually go
> digital, such as those on SW?



Yes.


-- 
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/freeview_receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab_digital_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp3_players_large_capacity.htm