The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "DAB sounds worse than FM"
Subject: Re: Good Electronmagnetism Books?
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:26:49 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Dec 2002 23:30:18 GMT
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
"g0mem" wrote in message
> "DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote
> in message news:email@example.com...
> > The vast majority of people in the UK are able to receive very good FM
> > reception. But to receive very good FM reception you need a "proper"
> > I don't mean external, just not a piece of wire.
> > Do you have a wire aerial for FM by any chance?
> On my old FM tuner I was using an indoor dipole. But dipole antennas are
> an option for most portable radios, where I was getting most of the
> multipath distortion. External antenna is not an option as I live in a
> of flats. And the multipath interference is caused by the surrounding
> hi-rise blocks of flats.
Okay. I stick by my original statement though that the vast majority of
people would get a good FM reception with a dipole. Most people don't bother
with a dipole though and just go for the piece of wire aerial.
> > Purchasing a £15 FM dipole aerial is guaranteed to significantly improve
> > reception on FM when compared to a wire aerial.
> > Assuming that you get good reception on both DAB and FM then DAB does
> > definitely sound worse than FM on all of the 128kbps stations on DAB,
> > 95% of all the stereo music stations on UK DAB use 128kbps, so all the
> > simulcast stations on FM and DAB sound better on FM than on DAB.
> > Audio quality and reception are two totally different things.
> In my case I found that the 128k rate to be very acceptable, much better
> than the multipathed reception I used to get . I also find no problem with
> 128k MP3 files.
128k on DAB is 128k mp2, not 128k mp3. mp3 is about 33% more efficient than
mp2, so a 128k mp3 encoding will be similar to a 160k mp2 encoding.
I cannot agree with you about 128k, although it depends what you listen to.
For music 128k is not capable of matching a good FM signal and on average it
is worse than an average FM signal in terms of audio quality. See Section
1.2.3 and in particular Figure 1.2 on page 7 on here:
> I do use a Wavefinder on my PC. And I have a VideoLogic Evoke for portable
> use, which works anyplace in the flat, with no problems, except
> in the kitchen where there is occasional bubbling sounds. FM in the same
> kitchen works but very hissy and distorted. I also have a WorldSpace
> satellite radio.
A lot of people have reported reception problems on DAB.
> > You seem to be lucky, but from reading the newsgroups a lot of people
> > having similar problems with reception on DAB as myself.
> I think I am lucky. Even Freeview TV worked straight away thru the
> TV antenna system. I like listening to Talk Sport, Five Live, BBC 6 Music
> Brunel Classic Gold which you can't get on FM anyway.
Talksport and Five Live are only otherwise on MW and I have no argument that
DAB is better than MW.
It is interesting that all 4 of the stations that you mention are on digital
satellite (DSat) at higher bit rates than on DAB; 6 Music and Classic Gold
are both 160kbps on DSat while they are 128kbps on DAB and TalkSport and
Five Live are 96kbps on DSat while they are 64kbps and 80kbps respectively
on DAB, although DSat is not much good in a block of flats unfortunately.
www.digitalradiotech.co.uk -- Subscribe for free to the DAB Listeners Group
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup