com59841503560232 Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Best thing ever invented, you can choose your vintage and add appropriate channels. Takes me back to driving to and from work in the early 70's even the 60's and 80's are pretty good. No ads either which is even better.
alanh Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 com5984, If you think that internet radio is the best thing ever invented, then wait until 1st May this year for a competitor Digital Radio AlanH
DrP Posted January 20, 2009 Posted January 20, 2009 Anyone that believes that 'digital radio' will be a serious competitor to 'internet radio' is seriously mislead at best, or perhaps even a tad naive. What will 'digital radio' bring to the Australian marketplace? More of the same that is already heard on 'analogue radio'. It simply can't compete with what is delivered via the internet which already offers literally thousands of channels to listen to with every possible taste catered for.
JeffNK Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Anyone that believes that 'digital radio' will be a serious competitor to 'internet radio' is seriously mislead at best, or perhaps even a tad naive. What will 'digital radio' bring to the Australian marketplace? More of the same that is already heard on 'analogue radio'. It simply can't compete with what is delivered via the internet which already offers literally thousands of channels to listen to with every possible taste catered for. I recommended radioio.com
50mxe20 Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Best thing ever invented, you can choose your vintage and add appropriate channels. Takes me back to driving to and from work in the early 70's even the 60's and 80's are pretty good. No ads either which is even better.Yes, t'is good!
alanh Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 DrP, The sound quality is better and internet radio is not combining pictures etc. AlanH
DrP Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 Wrong and wrong. (as usual, I can and will provide examples to back this up if required)
alanh Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 DrP, How can you say I am wrong when Australian DAB+ is yet to start. How can you make comparison. Test transmissions are just that! DrP the first to knock! AlanH
DrP Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) alanh, weren't you the one claiming here that 'The sound quality is better and internet radio is not combining pictures etc.' You can't have it both ways. Will you now invalidate your claim since 'Australian DAB+ is yet to start'? As for 'pictures' with your radio, internet radio does that, and far far more right now. As for 'sound quality', you have made several claims (links can be provided) stating that Australian DAB+ will be under 96k (you claimed 64k) hence the need for SBR. Arguably the use of 64k + SBR is lower quality than the 192k MP3 streams and most certainly of lower quality than the 128k AAC (and another advanced formats) that are available right now ... you guessed it, via internet radio. Now as for providing samples, its not too hard to imagine a person using a standalone commercial grade encoder to produce a 64k + SBR AAC stream and a 192k MP3 stream of the same content for comparison. Would you like me to do that for you alanh, so you can make a comparison for yourself? alanh, the first to make it up when he doesn't really know what he's talking about. Edited January 21, 2009 by DrP
alanh Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 DrP, In independent tests overseas, which were double blind they found that AAC with SBR and PS is infact better when the listeners do not know the source. No golden ears are allowed. AlanH
DrP Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) Hmm, left the bit rates out there eh alanh? Why is that? Could it be that you don't know the bit rates that will be used in Australian DAB+ 'live' transmissions instead of in tests? Doesn't that invalidate your claim that 'digital radio' will sound better than 'internet radio'? What about the shameless dynamic range compression employed by commercial radio operators? What about the boom-tiss level boosting employed by commercial radio operators? What about overspeaking music as employed by commercial radio operators? To be as fair as possible WRT to the differences between codecs, please provide an AAC based encode of any musical track you wish to. Clearly state the encoding parameters (these should be the parameters you believe will be used in Australian broadcast digital radio). I will then source a copy of the same thing from 'internet radio' and then the readers of this forum can make their own choice. Edited January 21, 2009 by DrP
com59841503560232 Posted January 21, 2009 Author Posted January 21, 2009 I recommended radioio.com Thats the one I listen to mostly
alanh Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 DrP, The data rate is included. As for signal processing that is a policy decision of the stations involved, however there is less need for it. One of the reasons DAB+ is better is the regeneration of low level signals which are usually reverberation which does not happen in MP3 compression. Nearly all lossy compression systems remove the low level information below the loudest sound. AlanH
DrP Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) The data rate is included. DrP,In independent tests overseas, which were double blind they found that AAC with SBR and PS is infact better when the listeners do not know the source. No golden ears are allowed. AlanH Really? Could you indicate where you mentioned the 'data rate'? One of the reasons DAB+ is better is the regeneration of low level signals which are usually reverberation which does not happen in MP3 compression. I'm not even sure where to start with that bit of claptrap. Perhaps this is a very poor reference to SBR, and if so, it shows a complete lack of understanding as to what SBR is, how it works and what the use of it achieves. As for signal processing that is a policy decision of the stations involved, however there is less need for it. There's absolutely no need for boom-tiss, and excessive & large amounts of dynamic range compression on commercial FM radio right now, yet its still there. What makes you imagine that the situation will be any different under a digital transmission system? You came here and stated quite clearly "The sound quality is better", yet when your opinion (I have to rate it as opinion in its current completely unsupported position) was challenged you came back with dribble about digital radio not starting in Australia therefore any challenge must be baseless. Well I put this to you, if you discount my comments that you area wrong (and I can prove my claim, can you prove yours?) your claim "The sound quality is better" is as baseless as you suggest my counter-claim is. You quote (and I use the term extremely generously) overseas supposedly double blind testing to support your claim of superior quality but then fail the provide even the most basic information about the comparison being made. You have made a blanket statement saying digital radio has better sound quality than 'internet radio'. Support your position with more than hollow claims and hot air. Provide a sample of audio encoded in the manner that you claim Australian broadcast digital radio will be encoded to allow for meaningful comparison between it and a sample of 'internet radio'. Essentially, put up or shut up. Edited January 22, 2009 by DrP
alanh Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 DrP, Controlled double blind testing done by research institutes is far more valid than you opinion. The reason I have not mentioned bit rates is because they have been doing the comparison you claim is wrong. It is their experiments I am quoting not my own opinion. The fact is that the compression systems used in DAB+ radio are a much closer approximation of the human listening system than the older methods. It is so good that Dolby bought the company which developed it in Europe. SBR has nothing to do with low level signals it recreates high pitch signals. I do not see any accredited research by you. Considering the way you encode AAC it is easy to generate an amount of compression signal in the receiver. Then the compression can be high in a portable and car radio but much less compression in the Home Theatre receiver. You are always deriding every thing I say not with any proof. For example the coverage of Obama on all but TEN had plenty of NTSC signals on the other channels. You were saying that the US networks exports to Australia is all digital from the source. This is not alwayst the case by any means. See all the complaints about the Obama coverage on this site. Gee! I hope there are no poppies in your garden. AlanH
fawlty99 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Anyone that believes that 'digital radio' will be a serious competitor to 'internet radio' is seriously mislead at best, or perhaps even a tad naive. What will 'digital radio' bring to the Australian marketplace? More of the same that is already heard on 'analogue radio'. It simply can't compete with what is delivered via the internet which already offers literally thousands of channels to listen to with every possible taste catered for. I don't think it's just a matter of what is better as surely the 2 sources compliment each other. You can't say what it is that digital radio will bring to the market because you simply don't know. Much too early for that sort of statement. The cheapest option for broadcasters is to duplicate existing programs but down the track i know there are plans for many additional services for niche markets. When & if they eventuate is anyones guess and in the current economic climate I doubt much will happen soon. You won't see me buying a digital radio any time soon because it delivers nothing for me (apart from the fact there is no real broadcasting available now anyway). It might see me tempted in the future however. Internet radio is a wonderful thing apart from the lack of portability & I'm not paying excessive download fees for a mobile service.
DrP Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Controlled double blind testing done by research institutes is far more valid than you opinion. The reason I have not mentioned bit rates is because they have been doing the comparison you claim is wrong. It is their experiments I am quoting not my own opinion. That's a pretty weak reason alanh. If you know the encoder configurations upon which you are basing your claim, please state them. If you refuse one can only guess that you have something to hide. The fact is that the compression systems used in DAB+ radio are a much closer approximation of the human listening system than the older methods. It is so good that Dolby bought the company which developed it in Europe. Yes, but without stating the encoder configurations implemented it is all meaningless. If Australian digital radio is transmitted at 32kbit/sec (with or without SBR) it will sound terrible. Do you get it now? SBR has nothing to do with low level signals it recreates high pitch signals. At least you seem to know what SBR is. It 'recreates' (that really means fakes totally based upon extrapolation of what the lower frequencies are doing) which is why any 'audiophile' is dead set against it. I do not see any accredited research by you. Considering the way you encode AAC it is easy to generate an amount of compression signal in the receiver. Then the compression can be high in a portable and car radio but much less compression in the Home Theatre receiver. I see nothing from you but hot air. You still refuse to post any meaningful information and yet no doubt stand behind your 'digital radio' quality being higher than 'internet radio' statement. Are you going to post anything that actually supports your claim? Remember, you point blank stated that digital radio audio in Australia will be higher quality than 'internet radio'. Prove it. You are always deriding every thing I say not with any proof. Too right. Simply because a lot of what you say is total rubbish. Anyone recall the 'MPEG4 video is all faked' comment? What about endless threads about progressive video? For example the coverage of Obama on all but TEN had plenty of NTSC signals on the other channels. You were saying that the US networks exports to Australia is all digital from the source. This is not alwayst the case by any means. See all the complaints about the Obama coverage on this site. I challenge you to indicate where I said any such thing. Please provide links to the posts. Edited January 22, 2009 by DrP
alanh Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 DrP, You come from the position that you are never wrong. I do not have to get posts about the Obama being NTSC. I can see the crosscolour in the pictures which will only ever occur in NTSC and PAL. It can never occur in pure digital signals. The poor resolution is also a feature of these transmissions. This also occurs with NTSC. The university tests always use the original sound between each sample. As I said this research was done during the development of the AAC+ with SBR and PS. Australian DAB+ is using a higher data rate than 32kbit/s, you have this "fact" wrong. All of the current audio compresssions systems were tested to ensure that it is better. AlanH
DrP Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 You made a claim that I posted certain statements. You can not provide any links to those statements because they do not exist. Australian DAB+ is using a higher data rate than 32kbit/s, you have this "fact" wrong. Fact? I see no fact, nor claim of any fact. Please do not make things up. The fundamental of all this is you made a claim and you can not support the claim. Either admit that you can not support your claim of 'digital radio' being higher quality than 'internet radio' or provide proof. Here's a tip for you too alanh, 'internet radio' encompasses many things, including the use of AAC. Think about this next time you mouth your completely unsupported claim.
alanh Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 DrP, I have just listened to your "evidence" for SBR. This is not evidence. You cannot say it has no faults if you cannot hear the original. There was no lossless file to compare it with. There is no indication of what tracks use SBR. Were the tracks compressed with SBR, then decoded and then MP3 compressed to put on the web. If so compressing a signal which has been compressed before can produce strange results, which are not characteristic of either system. The examples used have no dynamic range to see what the quantising errors are like in MP3 or AAC. Most of the examples have musical instruments which are electronic which produce their own harmonics on purpose. So how do you tell which are supposed to be there and which are recreated. All you can say is that there is high frequencies present. The player says that the bit rate is 96kbit/s however the files are around 3 MB for about 7:50 of sound . This is an actual data rate of around 43 kBit/s. So the player must be inserting an identical sample after each real sample. So how can this be a valid arguement for the use of SBR or not? As you say where is the evidence? AlanH
DrP Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) I have just listened to your "evidence" for SBR.This is not evidence. You cannot say it has no faults if you cannot hear the original. There was no lossless file to compare it with. There is no indication of what tracks use SBR. Were the tracks compressed with SBR, then decoded and then MP3 compressed to put on the web. If so compressing a signal which has been compressed before can produce strange results, which are not characteristic of either system. The examples used have no dynamic range to see what the quantising errors are like in MP3 or AAC. Most of the examples have musical instruments which are electronic which produce their own harmonics on purpose. So how do you tell which are supposed to be there and which are recreated. All you can say is that there is high frequencies present. The player says that the bit rate is 96kbit/s however the files are around 3 MB for about 7:50 of sound . This is an actual data rate of around 43 kBit/s. So the player must be inserting an identical sample after each real sample. So how can this be a valid arguement for the use of SBR or not? As you say where is the evidence? Oh dear. It was not for SBR, it is against SBR. If a 96k MP3 can sound as 'good' as those samples, and Australian digital radio will be run at atleast 96k AAC, there is absolutely no need for the damage caused by SBR. SBR has not been used in the MP3 files, something you would be able to tell if you had done any actual examination of the files. None of the files are 7:50 duration. If you can't even get the basics right how on earth do you expect people to believe anything else you say? If you would like the PCM from which the MP3 files were generated please PM me to arrange delivery of the source files on disc. I doubt you will. Note that one should be comparing MP3 to AAC, not MP3 to PCM. If you suggest what you imagine will be the encoding parameters used for Australian FTA digital radio I will provide you with the audio encoded as such. Note that even though the PCM was sourced from CD this is not a guarantee that lossy compression was not used in the production of the 'original' content. I assume you know the method to determine if a PCM source has had lossy compression used in its creation to determine which of the source tracks has had such treatment during production (its pretty obvious). However, you have made a claim that 'digital radio' will have better sound quality than 'internet radio'. Support your claim. Prove it. How hard can it be for you to support your claim? Edited January 22, 2009 by DrP
aztec Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 However, you have made a claim that 'digital radio' will have better sound quality than 'internet radio'. Support your claim. Prove it. How hard can it be for you to support your claim? Sorry for getting in the middle here but I have heard ads about digital radio having CD quality sound, that would imply no compression and no dynamic range compression, right? Or are they lying?
DrP Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) I can't say for sure, but the 'CD quality' claim has been bandied about by more than just the radio stations. Remember Foxtel and the FTA networks also claimed 'CD quality' audio... which of course is demonstrably false. I have no doubt the same will be proven in time with digital radio. There will be lossy compression, of that there can be no doubt at all. Transmitting uncompressed PCM (or even lossless compression) is completely impractical. Will there be considerable dynamic compression? Almost certainly. One only needs to consider what is done with audio on commercial FM radio to understand this. Edited January 22, 2009 by DrP
Puss in Books Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I think the technical merits of digital radio versus internet radio is not the point. The topic starter was taken with IR's choice and content. Whether DR will have that choice and content is yet to be seen. I can't say I'm hopeful nor that I really care.
SDL Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 What? Sound is available from the internet in the form of music? What will they think of next? I know perhaps they will put porn on there and I can stop buying Playboy
Recommended Posts