[peel] Re: DAB vs FM

[lollygagger]

Well from the replies either I have had exceptional FM reception (near CD quality) or the DAB box which I  also use for tv just isn't up to the job. Over the last 10years I have bought DAB radio's from hifi shops believing that they would be better than FM but instead I was disappointed so returned them. From the replies internet shows like Dandelionradio (128kb) should also sound better than FM. well maybe its my broadband that's failing me. Hifi shops have told me that due to compression the quality compared to FM just isn't there.

It would be great if DAB (with all of its compression) and broadband radio were better than FM but my ears tell me a different story but then my ears tell me that ogg is better than mp3 for compressing music and getting the best quality...but that's something else....

Gordon



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Humphrey 
  To: peel@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 5:03 PM
  Subject: [peel] Re: DAB vs FM


    
  The current BBC6 web-broadcast quality is pretty good, and compares well to the old FM. The former uses AAC (advanced audio codec) at a variable bit rate which can go above 200 kbps (at 44 kHz). Up until a few years ago, however, the quality was awful - 64 kbps and even lower. FM is/was equivalent to 192 kbps (I think I read somewhere), which is of course "lossy". I recently discovered to my surprise that some audiophiles regard cds as "lossy" and prefer vinyl ! I'm not sure my 50-year-old, rock-battered ears could tell the difference between 192kbps and a CD, ha ha ....

  --- In peel@yahoogroups.com, "Stuart" <stuartb@...> wrote:
  >
  > There's no excuse for less dynamic range on DAB after all we were always
  > told the compression on FM was to avoid the hiss taking over in poor signal
  > areas during quiet passages. DAB and other digital sources should be using
  > the full dynamic range that we all seem to be supposed to cope with on CD
  > and DVD audio. And many internet radio stations are now in far better SQ
  > than DAB due to not using dynamic range compression. And while Radio 1 does
  > have the "excuse" it broadcasts on FM and so some studio-stage compression
  > takes place, 6music only broadcasts digitally so should use CD style
  > uncompressed (dynamic range wise)
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > The bit rate is another matter.. Radio 3 does get the full 192kbps and R1
  > 160kbps but 128kbps is rather poor for a serious music station.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Incidentally I find the current FM Radio 1 quality some way below the best
  > of my early 1980s Peel show mixtapes...
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Stuart
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > _____ 
  > 
  > From: peel@yahoogroups.com [mailto:peel@...m] On Behalf Of
  > lollygagger
  > Sent: 04 June 2012 15:56
  > To: peel@yahoogroups.com
  > Subject: [peel] DAB vs FM
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Hi All
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > I don't pipe up much...having been seemingly spoilt with Radio 1's FM
  > quality for Peel's shows then found I had to search out radio shows for
  > tracks that Peel would have likely played i.e. Giles Peterson then Hew
  > Stephens (more white boys with guitars) and Rob Da Banks low key left of
  > centre of music...and some internet listening from dadelionradio
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > When Giles left Radio 1 to DAB Radio 6 128kbs...what a come down in sound
  > quality where have the dynamics gone! On the plus side I have discovered
  > that Tom Ravenscroft does appear to have weekly slot on Radio 6...yeh I am a
  > bit slow to pick up on these things.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > What a shame though Radio 1 gets FM to play mainly regurgitated X factor
  > music. Music lovers with a variety of tastes, who do notice the difference,
  > get low fi 128kbs...grrrr.... just my gripe.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Gordon
  >



  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2425/5050 - Release Date: 06/05/12