Re: AM stereo


"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZCTCe.2885$Wi3.41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Anorak wrote:
>> "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3oSCe.2807$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
>
>
> I still find it difficult to understand how it can sound better than the
> superb FM system.
>

Have a browse though
http://www.amstereo.audio-stream.net/amstereo/files/ams.php?q=f&f=%2Fstations


>>>> 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 It'll be out of date in 2 or 3 years' time because they're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 How will it be out of date ?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 !
>
>
> At the moment it's limited to use frequencies below 30 MHz, and it's being
> extended to work at frequencies up to 120 MHz, as I said. To work at these
> higher frequencies the system has to be modified.
>
>
>>>> 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
>
>
> No, I've heard it, and it sounds crap, as I said. We're talking about
> approximately 22 kbps aacPlus. That is *** audio quality.

No it's very good far better than analogue mono with it's associated fading
and phase distortion etc. DRM sound quality will improve though

>
>>>> 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,
>
>
> Oh God. Give me strength. 'Strewth. FFS.
>
> This seems to be the new pro-DAB mantra "it's fine for most", which
> implies that those that aren't included in the "most" bit have to go and
> screw themselves.
>

Huh ? I simply mean what I say most will find it ok the rest will be on
here probably saying how dire the sound quality is, bit of an exagggeration
IMO, yes DAB is not perfect but better than no DAB IMO

>> 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,
>
>
> Oh yeah, I remember, you're the person that called yourself "AM Stereo
> Fan". And you always did talk utter nonsense.

Do I ? Just because I don't agree with you ?


>
> "Have a listen to DAB on a good hi-fi", as if I've never done that before
> in my life ever, never before, never even comtemplated it, wouldn't do it
> in a month of Sundays, wouldn't dream of it, etc.

> Why are so many Usenet posters clearly aliens from another planet? It
> confuses me. How does Usenet attract such a very, very high concentration
> of bladdy natters?

I hope you are not as insulting and rude to people in the real world

>
>> at least no stations use compression
>> unlike on FM
>
>
> Ah, right, that must mean it sounds superb. Especially on a good hi-fi
> system.

As I say not superb but fine for most. FM is not that great neither is AM
or many other modes, alwyas something to gripe about


> Is there an association of pro-DAB natters who conspire in some dark
> corner of the Internet to wind me up? There's always faking at least one
> pro-low audio quality natter. Do you have a rota system all worked out?
> Who have I got to look forward to next week? And why do all of those on
> the rota system have sub-normal IQs?
>
>
> --
> 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
>


.

Loading