Re: "Listeners don't want DAB"

"Peter Watson" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7g1g9oF2n8pkpU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 31/08/2009 02:46, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
"Peter Watson"<peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7g060eF2nl1oaU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 30/08/2009 16:48, steve41@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 30, 3:24 pm, "jamie powell"<jamie_...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM"<dab...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in

Shame the diagram you keep posting is wrong then isn't it? :)


It looks about right to me with regards to the stuff below 53 kHz,
which covers all the signals that have been discussed in this
thread.

If you've found something wrong with the figure above 53 kHz, I'm
afraid I pity you for even mentioning it on here considering that
that
stuff hasn't been mentioned at all, and it would simply highlight
what
an incredibly pedantic fool you are.

Look at the diagram again Steve - The error is probably a typo but
it's
there nevertheless. Always check the accuracy of someone else's
work
before you quote it :)


I think that very nicely summarises the difference between you and me.
I look at the bigger picture, and I largely ignores the trivial
details, whereas you seem to take the exact opposite approach. This is
not a bad thing from either perspective, but it helps to explain why I
came up with the idea that led to DAB+ being designed, whereas you
probably mend clock radios for a living. Each to their own.


Pedantic - "Pots and kettles" I think!


I suggest you have a look at the definition of the word pedantic:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=pedantic&ls=a

"adjective: marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning
especially its trivial aspects"

I couldn't be less interested in the trivial aspects of anything. I
leave pedantry to the kind of people who consider a diagram to be
"wrong" because the person who drew it got one of the frequencies
wrong by a few kHz, when the rest of the diagram is probably correct.
It's the same as the DAB+ inventor vs the clock radio mender thing I
mentioned above.


Er, if you recall, the discussion of this began when I had
reviewed a
Roberts DAB/FM portable radio which did have hiss present on the
mono
speaker because it had incorrectly been set to stereo mode by
default.
I contacted Roberts saying that was a fault with this radio,
precisely
because "stereo hiss" should not be present on a mono speaker.

...and the *reason* you concluded that the hiss shouldn't be there
was
because the radio was set to Stereo but *if* Mono was derived for
the
speaker either by combining L&R *or* using the Mono output of the
FM
stage then the mode *shouldn't* have made any difference!

The conclusion therefore is that the receiver was faulty (you got
that
bit right) because the derivation of Mono didn't work correctly,
*not
because the receiver was set to Stereo*...


Oh, have you got the circuit diagram for the Roberts radio I
reviewed
as well then? Out of interest, how did you manage to figure out
which
Roberts radio I reviewed when I haven't mentioned it? Do you have
supernatural powers there, Petey? And out of interest, how do you
know
that there wasn't a software bug in the software-defined radio FM
receiver implementation, when, IIRC, theory shows that it's
impossible
to prove that no bugs exist in a piece of software?

Your wriggling again :)


"You're", not "your".


Circuit diagram and precise model not required
to challenge your conclusion... *If* there was a 'bug' that meant
there
was a difference in noise performance between Stereo and Mono, then
what
I said still stands - Mono was derived incorrectly.


That's a circular argument - what you're basically saying is that any
eventuality that didn't lead to mono being derived correctly implies
that mono has been derived incorrectly. Yeah, well done Peter. I take
my hat off to you for making such an astounding observation.

If you go back to what I said originally on this issue, I said that a
mono radio obviously shouldn't be set to stereo by default. Using your
circular argument, that would come under "software bugs" that lead to
mono beign incorrectly derived.

So to sum up. Do I think that mono should be incorrectly derived? No,
Peter, I honestly think that mono should be correctly derived.


--
Steve - www.savefm.org - stop the BBC bullies switching off FM

www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

"It is the sheer volume of online audio content available via
internet-connected devices which terrifies the UK radio industry. I
believe that broadband-delivered radio will explode in the years to
come, offering very local, unregulated content, as well as opening a
window to the radio stations of the world." - from the Myers Report


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ibiquity AM hybrid digital radio provides little consumer benefits
    ... Other than the cubical radio all my listening has ... And it's mono. ... with speaker far enough apart for good stereo. ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: OT. FM stereo noise cancellation.
    ... One idea I had was to record the output from a radio, while switch the radio between stereo and mono mode. ... Then you could listen for any subtle changed that might occur at the points where the radio was switched between stereo and mono. ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: Ofcom rules about mono and stereo in DAB broadcasting
    ... Ofcom has concluded stereo and mono broadcasting on DAB should be regulated ... Regarding the audio characteristics change... ... Such an example may be where a multiplex using its full capacity for stereo radio ...
    (alt.radio.digital)
  • Re: FM frequency response , possible above 15000hz ?
    ... that so the subcarrier does not leak in. ... Could be mono, couldn't it? ... few more kHz at the top. ... A quick glance at the radio confirms it...and I don't ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: "Listeners dont want DAB"
    ... Mono portable radios obviously would not have this arrangement. ... radio is turned on just in case someone wants to listen in stereo ... That's just needlessly wasting power. ... as much power to drive your headphones as to drive your loudspeakers" ...
    (alt.radio.digital)