Re: RRC-06 Maps

DAB sounds worse than FM a écrit :

But if the bit rate is too low the audio quality is low.

If you use a sampling rate of 5 kHz (=2500 Hz audio) at 128 kbps in mp2, you will have a very result in comparison with original 5 kHz ! but it will be sound like a phone ;)


MP2 on DAB can only be used at sampling frequencies of 48 kHz or 24 kHz (24 kHz is too low, because it only allows audio frequencies up to 11 kHz to be encoded).

But you can use lowpass filter, can't I ?


It's obviously best to have CD-like quality (although if I say that seani will go to the toilet in his nappy). But you can't say you want CD-like audio quality and mention 160 kbps MP2 at the same time.

indeed.
But with lowpass filter of 32 kHz for sampling rate you get a FM-Like.


I think the same as what David Robinson has already said: it is far better to have 1 digital radio system that provides high (CD-like) audio quality rather than the ridiculous situation where you have 1 system that is "meant" for mobile or noisy reception environments and a different system for high audio quality.

But if system have not enough bandwidth, what do it have to be position?
Continue with some radio station with high quality or plenty of radio with low quality ?!
My dream it's high quality every where, but is it possible today? And do broadcasters want it? :(

They make DAB hi-fi tuners (a bit of a contradiction in terms there with UK DAB), but they don't make hi-fi satellite receivers. DAB is integrated into micro hi-fi systems, but digital satellite receivers are not integrated into micro hi-fi systems.

In reality, it's impossible to get hifi program with low bitrate, this is a fact, like it's impossible with analog AM or digital DRM (noone use double channel at 72kbps ;) )
hifi it's only for CD. theorclly, FM it's not hifi! Sampling rate cut audio frequencies near 16 kHz !

High audio quality should not only be provided to the tiny minority that understand all the technical details. High audio quality should be provided to EVERYBODY, and that means high audio quality should be provided on DAB+, because DAB is incapable of providing high audio quality.

DAB today have an evolution, so it's time to use it!
It's more radios, more efficiency, it's more all.
simply it's better

This is the 21st century, not the 1960s.

indeed
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RRC-06 Maps
    ... But if the bit rate is too low the audio quality is low. ... They make DAB hi-fi tuners (a bit of a contradiction in terms there with UK ... micro hi-fi systems, but digital satellite receivers are not integrated into ... High audio quality should be provided ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: FAO Doug MacD - Europe is richer than US
    ... If all you define how good a system by is how much bandwidth is required ... to get a certain audio quality then DAB is a damn sight better than FM. ... FM has a bandwidth of about 200 Khz and actually provides better sound ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: [dabusb] DAB+ Mux Dump from Australia
    ... digital radio due to them being much more efficient, ... internet ranting played *any* role in DAB+ being designed. ... the transmission cost per station goes ... would a radio station choose to degrade the audio quality ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: OT Where did all the DAB car stereos go?
    ... Apart from the fact that they're buying DAB partly because they naively ... believe that the audio quality will be better on DAB than on FM, ... which would cost the BBC nothing on satellite, ... listening on those kinds of devices, ...
    (uk.tech.digital-tv)
  • Re: Is the BBC deliberately degrading FM?
    ... mostly do not require the standard of audio quality you're demanding. ... My issue is that people would not agree with the stations they want to ... People said in an Ofcom market research survey that they thought DAB would ... Radios 1-5 account for a high proportion of all radio listening, ...
    (alt.radio.digital)