UK Residents - Petition to save FM radio!!! - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Everything Else

Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools......

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th July 2009, 12:08 AM   #11
star882 is offline star882  United States
diyAudio Member
 
star882's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by AndrewT
My TV reception can only be by Digital signal. The Analogue has already been switched off.
During the dual transmission phase of changeover, I was able to compare picture quality. The Analogue was definitely better.
Now that I cannot directly compare I rue the day we lost Analogue, each time I see the Digital artefacts ruining a noise free picture.
Watch faces in particular. They distort noticeably.
Is this our human evolution picking up subtle facial features being especially sensitive to expression etc?

Then there are drop outs and/or pixelisation rather than Analogue's noise increase.

Sound wise the Digital is very similar to the Digital NICAM signal we had. The older FM audio signal, although mono and only 12kHz bandwidth, had it's nice to listen to sound. The TV sound technicians do a good job when allowed.

The Digital Standard that was hurriedly rushed out is poor.
The ability to squeeze in more channels by increasing channel compression leaves out of control of the signal we receive.
No matter how good our receivers, we cannot recover the lost information.
Will HDTV be significantly better? When will it take over and the "new" Digital receivers and decoders become obsolete?

I have filled out the petition. Thanks for posting it.
In my experience, if you're getting a good signal, you can have very, very good digital TV. Weak signals, of course, are not very good. But a good antenna does not cost much and can even be DIYed. The current receivers can receive both HD and SD, even the $40 specials.

If you're recording TV or streaming it, the advantages of digital are even more clear. Simply put, even the best realtime video compressors for home use cannot match the $10,000 and up units they use at the stations. (Interestingly enough, that's also a cheaper approach if recording is widespread. Even if the compressor they use at the station costs a million dollars, when spread out over a mere 100,000 viewers, that's an equivalent cost of only $10 per viewer. Just try to find a complete video compressor for $10, let alone one that can even approach the quality of the one at the station. If the station compressor is cheaper than a million and/or there are more than 100,000 viewers, it turns out even cheaper. And don't forget that modern TV stations are turning to digital content distribution, which means the cost of a compressor could potentially be spread over hundreds of millions of viewers.)
__________________
"Fully on MOSFET = closed switch, Fully off MOSFET = open switch, Half on MOSFET = poor imitation of Tiffany Yep." - also applies to IGBTs!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 05:30 AM   #12
Enzo is offline Enzo  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lansing, Michigan
I think you are confusing the cost of compressing the transmission with the post by Andrew wherein he complains about the RESULT of compressing. He has no desire to compress anything in his home. SO he , nor I , am in the market to buy a $10 compressor. We don;t want to compress anything. he was complaining that due to the compression, information was lost. And no matter how good your receiving equipment might be, you can never recover that lost data.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 09:35 AM   #13
AndrewT is offline AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
Star,
you are back to front.
Enzo has seen the point.
__________________
regards Andrew T.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 04:34 PM   #14
star882 is offline star882  United States
diyAudio Member
 
star882's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally posted by Enzo
I think you are confusing the cost of compressing the transmission with the post by Andrew wherein he complains about the RESULT of compressing. He has no desire to compress anything in his home. SO he , nor I , am in the market to buy a $10 compressor. We don;t want to compress anything. he was complaining that due to the compression, information was lost. And no matter how good your receiving equipment might be, you can never recover that lost data.
In my experience, the quality loss from compression is much less than quality lost through analog transmission. Analog can be quite good but not after being sent through the air with plenty of noise sources all around. (And I guess you like to watch everything live?) Oh, and digital also gives the program guide, which turns out to be the main reason why I greatly prefer it for MythTV.

In real life, I do not know anybody who claims analog TV is better quality than digital TV.

Then don't forget that not only does digital save bandwidth when transmitting it to your home, it also saves bandwidth within the industry. And TV is already going digital right at the cameras. Don't forget computer-generated graphics that have been 100% digital all along...
__________________
"Fully on MOSFET = closed switch, Fully off MOSFET = open switch, Half on MOSFET = poor imitation of Tiffany Yep." - also applies to IGBTs!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 05:55 PM   #15
brianco is offline brianco  Ireland
diyAudio Member
 
brianco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scottish Borders - Kelso; on the famous Tweed River!
As I live in the same area of Scotland as Andrew T I totally share his experience with regard to digital TV broadcasts.

With regard to proposals to abolish FM radio, there will be substantial downgrading of sound value due to compression. It is fine for background listening to speech broadcasts, but those famous BBC lunchtime live concerts of classical music, late night jazz etc, will loose out very greatly. I spent a lot of money on a good tuner specifically so that I could listen to those programmes at the highest sound quality available. Now I am to be the owner of a piece of junk and subjected to sound quality at the lowest broadcast quality. For kitchen radios and portables fine, but for experiencing top quality sound, forget digital.

The same seems to be happening with the making of CDs - far too often the sound is compressed to such an extent that any overtones are lost.

There seem to be no standards in place for recorded music. I cannot but feel that the record companies should agree a professional standard for the sound quality of their products .... and stick to such standards. The MP3 seems to dictate the highest standard required in reproduction of music. I have old 15" ips master tapes (final mixes) as sent to the record companies in the 60s and 70s for record cutting. Played on an ancient Revox A77/G36 through a decent amp and speakers these are about as good as it gets. I also have somewhere a few acetates and they too are excellent. Even the recordings were generally far better then. The advances in technique is entirely - it would seem - to the benefit of the recording companies profit margins. The replaying and home equipment designer can easily produce systems which show up the failings of the modern media.

In the UK CDs etc are an extortionate price and - now - most pop and dance music is being downloaded - again at very high cost, but very low quality. It is time that the end user should have a decent standard of media available br it broadcast or bought on plastic.

[I even have one which was mixed down to stereo, mono and quad-sound in the Power Station in NY: it is a Who track and has the splices between versions in place and also the hand written mix-notes.]
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 06:25 PM   #16
Spiny is offline Spiny  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Spiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally posted by star882

In my experience, the quality loss from compression is much less than quality lost through analog transmission. Analog can be quite good but not after being sent through the air with plenty of noise sources all around. (And I guess you like to watch everything live?) Oh, and digital also gives the program guide, which turns out to be the main reason why I greatly prefer it for MythTV.

In real life, I do not know anybody who claims analog TV is better quality than digital TV.
Probably because your in the US of A where NTSC was/is the analogue standard (often known as Never Twice the Same Colour) at 525 lines interlaced, having seen it I agree almost anything is better.... Here in the UK we have PAL, a later version (Perfect at Last ) at 625 lines interlaced. This gives a very good analog picture which degrades gracefully. The digital TV system uses mpeg compression and shows artifacts of the format as well as blocking when the signal falters (rain for example) So here the Digital is worse than the Analog picture (IMHO)

On topic - the Digital radio here is worse than the TV as the compression is wound up to reduce the channel bandwidth resulting in AM/MP3 quality on most channels. some of the BBC channels like R3 (classical concerts) have slightly less compression but the differance between the R3 output on FM and Digital is marked.

Still my main gripe is the lack of thought put into this as the cost of DAB far outstrips FM radios. dosn't work on portables without an external aerial and the decoders eat batteries in portables. (the cost addition for TV's is minimal so thats a different story)

I just want a portable that works as a portable, lasts a reasonable amount of time on a set of batteries and is not huge... DAB delivers none of the above IMHO

Alan
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2009, 07:06 PM   #17
Mooly is offline Mooly  United Kingdom
diyAudio Moderator
 
Mooly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Very interesting views on digital.
As for Freeview in the UK. If you view it on a good CRT receiver (which sadly are not available now) as opposed to an LCD or Plasma the digital artifacts are far less apparent. In fact I would go so far as to say on screen sizes up to 32" given the right hardware the results are trully outstanding. Our region gets switched off this autumn, personally I can't wait as it will mean that transmitter powers should be able to be increased and channels re allocated. If you have reasonable field strength at your location pixellation just is not an issue, it just shouldn't happen... some digital multiplexes are "outside" the old regions channel groupings so a wideband aerial is required in those situations. Amplifiers often make the problem worse.
As for DAB... thats a mixed bag. It has (had) the potential to provide excellent quality with MP2 compression, chosen because it "mauled" the signal less. It was not however suitable for lower bitrates and the quality of some of the channels is diabolical to say the least. But don't blame the technology.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th July 2010, 07:40 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
I'm very much against digital radio as a direct replacement to FM here in the Uk. There is a new group on facebook for those that want to contribute to the debate.

Welcome to Facebook
  Reply With Quote
Old 19th July 2010, 01:06 AM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
indianajo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jeffersonville, Indiana USA
Default FM radio in UK

Yes, all you B&B owners and AA listed motel (inn?) owners and managers in the UK please write your MP supporting free broadcast of FM radio on 88mhz to 108mhz. I'm a US citizen, when I went to the UK I took a pocket radio, listened to FM illegally, I suppose. Cable TV in our room was vile. I DO NOT own an IPOD, think MP3 is fuzzy, the latest version of the 8 track tape. Would like to know the weather tomorrow if nothing else. Listening to what other people think is popular is part of my cultural experience of a city or country. Even local commercials would be interesting if they want to turn off the BBC-FM and abandon the bandwidth. Classical radio in the US is mostly listener supported and "underwritten" by sponsors trying to reach the cultured crowd.
I'm NOT going to buy or rent a locally useful "digital" radio when I go over there. If the UK spec exactly matches a USA spec, then maybe a universal digital radio would be interesting. However, digital TV here in the US absolutely requires a roof yagi antenna hooked up to the receiver in bad weather, and doesn't work very well even then if the wind is high. I'm 4 miles from the tri-county DTV antenna, direct line of sight from the roof.
__________________
Dynakit ST70, ST120, PAS2,Hammond H182(2 ea),H112,A100,10-82TC,Peavey CS800S,1.3K, SP2-XT's, T-300 HF Proj's, Steinway console, Herald RA88a mixer, Wurlitzer 4500, 4300

Last edited by indianajo; 19th July 2010 at 01:12 AM. Reason: new digital music?
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikkfurie - The a La Menthe (France residents please read) grimberg Music 8 23rd May 2006 08:46 PM
Home Entertainment 2003! Attn: San Francisco Bay area residents vsr123 Pass Labs 2 20th June 2003 04:39 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:45 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2