Re: AM stereo




"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3oSCe.2807$Wi3.1791@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Anorak wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:AtwCe.1669$Wi3.196@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Anorak wrote:
>>>> Ahh one of my fav subjects! Right to put a few things straight
>>>> about am stereo, it is in use in the USA, Australia, Japan, France
>>>> and quite a few other countries. Sound quality can and does sound
>>>> very good if not better than FM stereo when a nice wide bandwidth by
>>>> the
>>>> station is used
>>>
>>>
>>> Why does it sound better than the superb FM system? And how often
>>> does it actually sound better than the superb FM system when you
>>> have to provide transmitter powers about 20 dB higher?
>>>
>>
>> IMO the charaxcterists of AM sound has a richeness you just can't get
>> with FM.
>
>
> That sounds more like AM adds more distortion than FM....

No you've obviously never heard wideband am stereo, quality is great on a
good wideband receiver


>> Also you get better stereo seperation with AM over FM.
>>
>> I'm looking forward to the DRM module from radioscape out in a few
>> months with DRM and DAB.
>
>
> Yeah? It'll be out of date in 2 or 3 years' time because they're updating
> the DRM spec to work up to 120 MHz.

How will it be out of date ? It has DRM !

>
>> Let's hope this time next year we have a
>> handful at least of AM stereo stations in digital DRM stereo on the
>> MW band...
>
>
> Have you ever heard DRM stereo? Somehow, it manages to sound even worse
> than DAB. IMO, that is a major feat.

No it sounds very good certainly on SW with the new codec

>
>>This is a another chance 15 years later to inject a bit of
>> life in our dull AM band, let's hope Ofcom don't screw things up like
>> they did with c-quam am stereo
>
>
> DRM depends on the system design that they're currently doing and the
> speed at which they do the design. Apparently they're deliberately going
> slow to give DAB the best chance of success without DRM being a competing
> system, because DRM could potentially wipe the floor with DAB -- not
> difficult, seeing as DAB is the worst digital communication system
> currently in use anywhere in the world.
>
>

No DAB is fine for most, even if stations don't sound good to some it still
gives you more choice over FM in your local area. Have a listen to DAB on a
good hi-fi, at least no stations use compression unlike on FM


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: AM stereo
    ... I still find it difficult to understand how it can sound better than the ... >>> Also you get better stereo seperation with AM over FM. ... >>> months with DRM and DAB. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: DAB 2 FM
    ... Perceived sound quality can be a bit of a personal thing. ... Some people actually seem to be convinced that DAB sounds good and some don't want to accept anybody saying that it does not sound good. ... The worst problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the use of intensity stereo, which now has to be used on all stereo stations. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Article on DAB / DRM in The Times today
    ... >>> I have heard DRM and DAB sounds better. ... It sounds far better than DAB MP2. ... > You compare aacplus and DRM. ... > But actual DRM broadcasts are only 18-20 kbps, and sound are worse ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Ofcom knocks back BBC DRM plans
    ... DRM has lower bitrates and is not superior to DAB. ... Even AM stereo sounds better than DAB. ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)