Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
Linearity of the modulator is the main issue. Traditionally this was done by phasing and mixing. More recently some might use a VCO and some form of PLL. Latest ones will do it digitally. But again we have to be clear whether we are talking of professional broadcast transmitters or personal ones - there is a small difference in price and performance!
I suspect the last time you gave MP3 an unbiased listen was in the late '90s. As with FM, not all MP3 compression is equal. Compression CODECs went through significant revisions over the years. If used correctly, modern CODECs are excellent. This is not a matter of opinion.
I must say that MP3 is not my first choice, and I much prefer ogg Vorbis. Transparency is easily reached at quality level 7 (~224kbps).
Again, I do apologize to all for being off topic. It just irks me how many supposedly educated audiophiles simply dismiss MP3 (and other modern CODECs) simply because of a bad experience with 128kbps crap from the distant past.
Regarding my views on FM, I will admit that DF96 is correct. I simply cannot tolerate the dynamic range compression applied to commercial radio broadcasts. That type of compression is far, far more detrimental than proper digital compression. I'll also note that I have never heard any FM broadcast (or in-car transmitter) that could be described as "good" (never mind "excellent"), and I do not think God has anything to do with it.
Last edited:
UK government policy is still (I think) to move wholly to DAB for national and regional radio services, and retain FM for local ones. However, the public reaction has meant that the attempt to set a deadline for 'FM switch off' has been pushed back from 2015 to some unknown date in the future. It may never happen - I hope so. DAB could provide reasonably good sound quality, but in the UK we have gone for quantity (of stations) over quality so it sounds awful.
I couldn't agree more. I'd challenge anyone to be able to differentiate between > 224kbps mp3/ogg and flac/wav in a double blind test.
For that reason, and also for convenience - it might be easier to use a wifi network and control an old laptop or PC via a phone/tablet for playback. Much better sound than FM transmitters.
Based on my experience with the change from analogue video transmission to digital video transmission, then the existing Standard Definition (SD) is far to analogue.
I am in one of the first areas to have analogue switched off in the UK.
I have been wholly Digital for about 4 years.
Quality of reception is a big issue. Some channels are consistently quite good. Many channels are very variable with repeated pixelation and/or drop outs and distorted or chirping sound.
High Definition (HD) is much better quality, when reception is good.
In my view the change over from analogue to digital should have been delayed until the Country was ready to go to HD for all channels.
But I rarely watch HD because BBC moved their HD channels onto a part of the MUX that gives bad reception. It is rarely watchable.
If the same logic of change to obtain more money from the advertisers/transmitters, then it is likely DAB quality will be worse than FM.
FM in the UK is capable of very good quality and very good rejection of interference even during bad weather conditions. Choose the stations that match, or better, the standard you require.
I do not look forward to the backwards step of switching off FM in the UK.
I am in one of the first areas to have analogue switched off in the UK.
I have been wholly Digital for about 4 years.
Quality of reception is a big issue. Some channels are consistently quite good. Many channels are very variable with repeated pixelation and/or drop outs and distorted or chirping sound.
High Definition (HD) is much better quality, when reception is good.
In my view the change over from analogue to digital should have been delayed until the Country was ready to go to HD for all channels.
But I rarely watch HD because BBC moved their HD channels onto a part of the MUX that gives bad reception. It is rarely watchable.
If the same logic of change to obtain more money from the advertisers/transmitters, then it is likely DAB quality will be worse than FM.
FM in the UK is capable of very good quality and very good rejection of interference even during bad weather conditions. Choose the stations that match, or better, the standard you require.
I do not look forward to the backwards step of switching off FM in the UK.
Last edited:
Digital Radio/TV
DAB in the UK is TOTALLY Crap ! I won't listen to it ever. DAB+ is "supposed" to be better, but apparently they rushed into it & went with DAB. Whether DAB+ is better ? I doubt if it's anywhere near as good as Good FM can be though.
Re Digital TV.
Regular non HD is also Crap compared to the analogue it replaced. How do i know ? Easy, as before the switch over i could view & compare both.
Why they should choose to replace, or try & replace Very good analogue transmissions with Vastly inferior digital, is a mystery
DAB in the UK is TOTALLY Crap ! I won't listen to it ever. DAB+ is "supposed" to be better, but apparently they rushed into it & went with DAB. Whether DAB+ is better ? I doubt if it's anywhere near as good as Good FM can be though.
Re Digital TV.
Regular non HD is also Crap compared to the analogue it replaced. How do i know ? Easy, as before the switch over i could view & compare both.
Why they should choose to replace, or try & replace Very good analogue transmissions with Vastly inferior digital, is a mystery
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
The analogue TV spectrum is worth a lot of wonga, perhaps the government can sell off big chunks of it if the digital channels require less spectrum.
I do like the idea of using a tablet to pick my music from but I thought an FM transmitter hanging off the top of the tablet could save me from needing PC + wi-fi. I can see the main benefit of the PC + wi-fi approach being access to internet sources.
I do like the idea of using a tablet to pick my music from but I thought an FM transmitter hanging off the top of the tablet could save me from needing PC + wi-fi. I can see the main benefit of the PC + wi-fi approach being access to internet sources.
This is laughable and love the DBX pejorative, anyone not able to hear the difference between MP3 and flac , is either deaf or have a very poor system ...
Period ....
@andrew
Is your digital reception cable or antenna , agree on digital HD, best picture period when viewed via aerial ...
This is laughable and love the DBX pejorative, anyone not able to hear the difference between MP3 and flac , is either deaf or have a very poor system ...
Period ....
Hogwash. The statement above is utter nonsense. It is the default audiofool mantra. People such as yourself just repeat it over and over till it becomes your religion. Guess what? It is a cult. I can't imagine how you can hear your incredible system with your fingers in your ears and your mouth emitting that "blah-blah-blah" sound.
Re Digital TV.
Regular non HD is also Crap compared to the analogue it replaced. How do i know ? Easy, as before the switch over i could view & compare both.
Why they should choose to replace, or try & replace Very good analogue transmissions with Vastly inferior digital, is a mystery
All I can say is that it sounds like the implementation of DB in UK is sub-optimal. In Canada, digital OTA TV is far superior to anything else available, including cable and satellite. We are talking raw (uncompressed) 1080p streams. It is basically Blu-ray over the air.
I don't have cable. They don't do little villages, not enough profit.
I won't do satellite, they like too much profit.
Aerial pointing to TV transmitter.
Cog,
maybe your analogue TV was much worse than our analogue TV.
Here in the UK we have a distribution that guarantees that the transmitted signal is as good near the studio as it is at the far north of Scotland.
That means I can could compare our analogue to our SD digital.
Analogue was better.
My old analogue TV shows a better picture using HD than it does showing SD.
That tells me that the domestic analogue receiver is capable of better than SD digital.
I won't do satellite, they like too much profit.
Aerial pointing to TV transmitter.
Cog,
maybe your analogue TV was much worse than our analogue TV.
Here in the UK we have a distribution that guarantees that the transmitted signal is as good near the studio as it is at the far north of Scotland.
That means I can could compare our analogue to our SD digital.
Analogue was better.
My old analogue TV shows a better picture using HD than it does showing SD.
That tells me that the domestic analogue receiver is capable of better than SD digital.
During the transition years here in Canada, we went through a time when SD analog and SD digital could be directly compared. SD analog, if the signal was free from interference, was often better than SD digital. SD digital was compressed at this time, and the CODECs used were not good at all. I distinctly remember pixelation/blocks/jaggies that looked very much like low-bitrate DivX/MP4 video. At that point, I still preferred analog.
But then the OTA HD (broadcast HDTV) transition occurred and everything changed. I lived in Toronto at the time, and what that meant for me was that I could stick a $40 antenna on my roof and get 24 channels (both Canada and USA) of raw HDTV. If you have not seen this, then I understand your reservations about digital. When you do see it, you will understand. Analog, SD or otherwise, simply cannot compare. As I said, it is basically like Blu-ray over the air.
The broadcasters in the city I now live in opted out of this technology completely, so the only option is cable or satellite. I refuse to pay for either. I spend my "couch potato" time in front of my hi-fi audio system and my children read many books. We still have an HDTV, but the little content that we do watch now all comes from the internet. Our daily dose of Coronation Street, for example.
HDTV over here, on a Good TV, is very good It's SD that's a lot worse than the analog it replaced. Of course having a good analog TV made/makes a Big difference. I always had Sony's.
DAB radio over here is awful/nasty & mushy, & annoying to listen to. Questions have even been asked in parliament as to why it is !
It's SD that's a lot worse than the analog it replaced. Of course having a good analog TV made/makes a Big difference. I always had Sony's.DAB radio over here is awful/nasty & mushy, & annoying to listen to. Questions have even been asked in parliament as to why it is !
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I think the more pertinent point is that most of what is on TV is a bunch of tosh and seeing Tosh with greater clarity doesn't do much for me. I don't have a TV anymore - I started to stop watching it when I was still in Old Blighty but over here where there are more adverts than actual programming it was easy to pull the plug and never look back.
The sound quality of the "transmitter on a chip" things aren't great.. (BA1404,BH1417,etc.) They can be improved with some tweaking,but IME,it might be better just to build a good mono transmitter from discrete parts. Then you can feed it a MPX/composite stereo signal from the soundcard of your computer. (Check out "stereo tools" for Winamp,as one example) You can even encode RDS,etc.if your sound card has a high enough bitrate. (192khz)
You'll probably want a PLL of some sort wrapped around the VCO,to keep it stable.
(PS-I'm half deaf from loud concerts,and I can hear a difference between FLAC and high bitrate MP3. So much so that I deleted my entire MP3 collection,got a bigger HDD,and started over in FLAC. -Ugh. But worth it.)
You'll probably want a PLL of some sort wrapped around the VCO,to keep it stable.
(PS-I'm half deaf from loud concerts,and I can hear a difference between FLAC and high bitrate MP3. So much so that I deleted my entire MP3 collection,got a bigger HDD,and started over in FLAC. -Ugh. But worth it.)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.