Re: BBC radio 3 DAB in full stereo again

"Ade" <madge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:300d13c2-cad0-4c5c-a5f8-4a43f7269524@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 8 Aug, 14:43, "DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote:

% share will be in terms of hours.

See above.
Thanks for the clarification.
Are there figures for number of listeners too? Would be interesting
to
see how they relate (even if it's straying OT)


They have listener numbers listed as well as listening share on here:

http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php


No, I'm not saying that everything should be based on popularity,
but
bit rates shouldn't be allocated on the basis of UNpopularity
either!

But Radio 3 is not getting an order of magnitude "unfair" bandwidth
by
your measure. And I still believe it's by far and away the most
unique
channel, without being obscure.


Radio 3 receives about 10 - 13 times the bit rate per listener that
R1, R2 and R4 get.

Basically, proportion of listening or bit rate listener aren't a fair
way to allocate bit rates, and IMO the only fair way to allocate bit
rates is to do it according to what bit rate actually needs to be used
for the content being carried. But even on that score Radio 3 doesn't
deserve what it currently gets relative to the other BBC music
stations.


You haven't demonstrated anything scientific. By "scientific" I'm
talking about scientific (psychoacoustic) arguments to justify the
use
of bit rate levels, i.e. if the audio is harder for a perceptual
audio
codec (e.g. MP2, MP3, AAC etc) to encode then it requires a higher
bit
rate, and vice versa. And on that basis, Radio 3 certainly doesn't
require a bit rate that's 50% higher than the other music stations.
But that's what it gets on DAB and now on the BBC iPlayer on-demand
streams as well.
OK, I thought you were talking about statistics :p
So, what are the audio frequency ranges of, say, the 80th percentile
of the audio output on radios 1, 2, 3, and 4?
Same question for the entire dynamic range. I'm sure Radio 1 and 3
"win" here, which would argue in their favours.


The audio bandwidth and the dynamic range are not measures of audio
quality. In fact, audio with a wider dynamic range should be simpler
for a perceptual audio codec to encode than audio with a flat
spectrum, because that would inhibit the audio masking. The audio
bandwidth is related to how much bit rate you should use, but the last
time I looked Radio 3 was lowpass filtered at about 15 kHz like all
the other music stations on DAB are.


I'm not saying it is. What I'd like to know though is why Radio 3
is
allocated a bit rate that's 50% higher than R1 and R2 use, even
though
the audience is only about 15 - 20% of R1 and R2 get, and there's
no
scientific reason for R3 to use a higher bit rate.
Well, I've yet to be convinced of that, on your definition.
But beyond quality of broadcast, there's quality of content. If you
considered, say, the man hours of work per minute of broadcast,
perhaps you would see Radio 3 as hard done by in its paultry
bandwidth
share?


It's impossible to view Radio 3 as being hard done by when it has a
bit rate that's 50% higher than that used for Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio
4, 6 Music and 1Xtra.

I couldn't give a monkeys about how many man hours were involved in
producing the content, because I don't work in the BBC accounts
department.


It's all down to what yardstick you wish to use. As I
understand it, you're using audio dynamic range as the yardstick.


There is only one yardstick to use, and that's whether Radio 3
deserves to use a higher bit rate on scientific grounds, and if it
doesn't then it receives preferential treatment. It's only Radio 3
listeners that introduce additional, but totally irrelevant,
yardsticks that by an amazing coincidence always happen to try and
justify Radio 3's 50% higher bit rate allocation.

A good experiment would be for the BBC to reduce Radio 3 to 128 kbps
for 3 months, just so Radio 3 listeners can appreciate what 128 kbps
actually sounds like with music. For example, someone copied a quote
made on the Radio 3 message board and posted it on here recently, and
it said words to the effect of "Steve may go over the top regarding
the UK's implementation of DAB, but he knows what he's talking about
when it comes to DAB". Basically, whoever said that should be forced
to listen to at least 3 months of Radio 3 at 128 kbps, and then I
wouldn't have an issue with them saying that I go OTT over the UK's
implementation of DAB.


Basically, it is definitely preferential treatment.
Yes, it is. That in itself is not an arguement to end its
preferential
treatment. Some programmes receive preferential treatment in other
ways, such as their time slot. New at Ten is a perfect demonstration
that perceived importance (eventually) overcame higher viewing
figures
of popular movies on ITV. Again with ITV, and more topically, their
status as meeting public service obligations returns a privileged
position on the Freeview and Sky channel order.


What you're basically sticking up for is for other radio stations -
which have far higher listener numbers - to have their audio quality
degraded by the BBC.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/incompetent_adoption_of_dab.htm


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DAB 15x the cost of FM ??????
    ... Then again, the BBC is just one big raw nerve waiting to be hit when it comes to digital radio, isn't it? ... But if we're going to use extreme examples, do you think you should be answerable for the audio "quality" on Kerrang on DAB, for example? ... But I'm afraid that I would still say that my knowledge of *how* broadcasting systems work will trump yours any day of the week - simply because I understand teh theory, and I very much doubt you do. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: The BBC is shortchanging consumers on digital radio
    ... used in the UK for DAB (digital audio broadcasting) is obsolete, ... sound quality is inferior to FM radio and that we should be preparing to ... BBC radio should not now be falling short of 1982 CD ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: TV Band ?
    ... Can you hear to television broadcasts in that band? ... It's the audio portion of a TV broadcast. ... The study was also the source of some mirth among Radio wags. ... Radios transmit information in audio form that is heard by a listener ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: TV Band ?
    ... Can you hear to television broadcasts in that band? ... It's the audio portion of a TV broadcast. ... The study was also the source of some mirth among Radio wags. ... Radios transmit information in audio form that is heard by a listener ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Expert tears DAB to pieces in Norwegian newspaper
    ... No wonder the vast majority of DAB sets sold is small portables. ... They bought a DAB digital radio because they wanted to listen to certain radio-stations and -in most cases- the radio they bought is a "kitchen-radio" as that is what they need and want to use. ... Nobody buys proper tuners to listen to low audio quality. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)