I'm Ditching Digital Radio

[datvman]

Well, after moving up here to the sticks (Caboolture) and having to rig up an external antenna to get ANY reception, I'm going back to analog. Not only that, listening to 4KQ, Triple M and the 97.3 ensemble hurts my ears. The sound quality is horrible!

Back to CD's and Internet radio for me! No ads either.

[dkint3]

do you mean to say that you don't like the music played (rather than the digital/analogue radio sound quality) on 4KQ, 4MMM, 97.3 etc ???

If reception was the issue, it makes me wonder why digital radio signals are vertically polarised (car radio antennas perhaps?) rather than horizontally (which would have meant that listeners in fringe metro areas like Caboolture could have used their metro VHF Band III TV antennas to get digital radio reception).....

i haven't been impressed with the sound 'quality' on digital radio either....

To my ears, clear FM stereo radio reception sounds better than digital radio.

But I'd also say that digital radio or internet radio is still better sound quality than AM mono...

[GoForMoe]

  dkint3 said:

which would have meant that listeners in fringe metro areas like Caboolture could have used their metro VHF Band III TV antennas to get digital radio reception

I'd try it regardless of polarisation, I do DAB on my PC through a horizontal antenna - works fine.

As for sound quality there is no excuse - they have two mostly empty multiplexes, no reason to have low bit rates.

[alanh]

datvman,

Caboolure Licence Area

You have moved well out of the range of the Brisbane DAB+ transmitters, however you are still in the Brisbane Licence area.

The problem for planners is that ABWQ9A, Mt Goonaneman which is also vertically polarised. So they have had to use vertical downward tilt, to prevent interference.

There is good news however, when the digital dividend restack occurs ABWQ will change channels so as to free space for DAB+ then the tilt can be removed. Date is currently unknown.

AlanH

[MLXXX]

Alanh, if you re-read post#1 you will see that datvman is dissatisfied with the quality of the DAB+ broadcasts. That would be related to low bitrate of the particular stations and/or excessive processing for commercial punch, not to insufficiency of signal strength.

There would be little, if any, "good news" for him in the prospect of the same poor sound quality, at a higher signal strength.

[alanh]

MLXXX,

We all know what your opinion is. It was not the only thing he complained of.

AlanH

[Rock in stereo]

I can understand Datvman's concerns. The programming itself seems to have deteriorated. There seems to be an element of complacency, I wouldn't mind something like Zoo (Sydney) with some innovative '80s. From my perspective, 4KQ Plus is less interesting than it used to be, plus it now has ads. Now I really only flick between Koffee & ABC Dig or ABC Country. ABC Country sounds like it is coming out of pipe, if it is noticeable to me with the mono speaker on a Pure portable than God help someone who uses a hifi setup! The sound quality is strictly tolerable to me provided the music is superior to analogue. Radio Free is a mess, I regularly find two great tracks on there & then it's onto something entirely different so I can't stick with that for long! 90's & 80's Chemist Whorehouse provides no point of difference between 97.3 FM so that was a wasted opportunity in my estimation. More often than not, I am switching between Koffee & Mix 92.7 on FM or less frequently 4AAA 98.9 (which is usually more refreshing than both The Buckle & ABC Country) on my portable.

With the analogue FM commercial choice in Brisbane, imho Rebel & Zinc in particular (Rebel was receivable in Sunshine Beach so I guess it would be OK in the Caboolture area) digital needs to provide something particularly 'spesh' to be competitive. I'm not contemplating abandoning DAB+ but I am certainly listening less than I used to six months ago & more to analogue FM. On the Sunshine Coast itself, the programming on analogue FM is probably only going to get better with the offloading of Sea 91.9 & Mix 92.7 FM by Southern Cross Austereo.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Rock in stereo

[MLXXX]

Rock in stereo, I see your comments are about the quality of the program content. Mine below are about the actual sound quality.

  alanh said:

We all know what your opinion is.

Yes it is that 48kbps as used by KQ, and 97.3, is a rock bottom DAB+ nominal bitrate barely suitable for speech, let alone music. (Triple M uses nominal 64kbps, a big improvement over nominal 48kbps, but still with clearly audible codec artifacts for many listeners).

It appears that datvman is also unimpressed.

As you seem to have much more tolerant ears alanh, you will just have to accept that many other people do not find the HE-AAC v1 codec at all impressive at a nominal 48 or 64 kbps. For such people, the sound is distinctly inferior to good signal strength stereo FM. For others, the sound quality may be ok, particularly in comparison to AM reception.

Edited September 30, 2011 by MLXXX

[alanh]

MLXXX,

  Quote

Well, after moving up here to the sticks (Caboolture) and having to rig up an external antenna to get ANY reception

was the comment I was answering.

The quality of the sound is irrelevant because he cannot easily receive the DAB+ signal.

As far as 4KQ goes its as you know an AM station. Since there is very little in high frequency audio in AM portable radios, he could turn the treble down to make the sound similar. The end result either way is poor sound.

Alanh

[mtv]

  alanh said:

MLXXX,

was the comment I was answering.

The quality of the sound is irrelevant because he cannot easily receive the DAB+ signal.

As far as 4KQ goes its as you know an AM station. Since there is very little in high frequency audio in AM portable radios, he could turn the treble down to make the sound similar. The end result either way is poor sound.

Alanh

The quality of the sound is what is in question here, not the signal, which datvman rectified installing an external antenna.

The audio bit rate will not improve in stronger signal areas.

This is a digital format, it's basically there, or it isn't.. and for datvman, it's there... but with poor audio quality which he (and numerous others, including myself) find unacceptable, compared to FM.

[DrP]

I see the dribble factor from the usual suspect hasn't diminished during my absence.

[MLXXX]

Welcome back, DrP. Actually, things have been relatively quiet, on the whole, from that particular quarter.

[datvman]

  alanh said:

datvman,

Caboolure Licence Area

You have moved well out of the range of the Brisbane DAB+ transmitters, however you are still in the Brisbane Licence area.

The problem for planners is that ABWQ9A, Mt Goonaneman which is also vertically polarised. So they have had to use vertical downward tilt, to prevent interference.

There is good news however, when the digital dividend restack occurs ABWQ will change channels so as to free space for DAB+ then the tilt can be removed. Date is currently unknown.

AlanH

Its the 'Caboolture' licence area.....whats that got to do with this post? Thats just the licence area for 101.5FM.

I am still in the Brisbane Licence area and cannot get DAB+ without using an external antenna. Not really that portable is it?

And not only that, the programming, the quality and everything else is poor. The 973 80's channel had promise but its just a 6 hour loop or something. You end up hearing the same songs in the same order at the same time.

[alanh]

datvman,

I have acknowledged that you should have coverage from Mt Cooth-tha but you don't because vertical tilt has been used to prevent interference to ABWQ9A (ABC DTV) in Wide Bay. Once the digital restack occurs then the vertical tilt can be removed to give you a normal strength signal. This will happen before the end of 2014. Then you can have a portable DAB+ radio.

As for program choice on the supplementary 4BFM's programming complain to the station about repetition.

So you have a case to whinge about the lack of DAB+ signal, which cannot be easily fixed in the short term.

AlanH

MTV,

He was complaining about having to have an external antenna.

AlanH

Edited October 3, 2011 by alanh

[MLXXX]

  datvman said:

And not only that, the programming, the quality and everything else is poor.

Alanh, what you posted back at #4, could have been better prefaced with a rider along the following lines:

Just on the question of signal strength, ...

Although low signal strength was a matter of concern for datvman, he had found a way to overcome that, with the external antennna.

Datvman's other concerns, about program content, and sound quality, cannot be overcome simply with a stronger signal. A glaring issue is the use of 48kbps nominal for KQ and for 97.3. The ABC reserves that low bitrate for News Radio, and for good reason. It is a bitrate poorly suited to music. This could be why in Datvman's words the "ensemble hurts my ears".

For people who listen to music carefully, the wooshy hollow quality of low bitrate DAB+, punctuated with bursts of artificial sounding treble, can be a real trial.

The other glaring issue, that datvman has raised tonight, is repetition of a loop of music.

I've noticed Alanh that you so often ignore or reject any criticism related to DAB+ sound quality. You are fortunate if sprays of spectral band replication atop a low bitrate AAC core don't worry your hearing. But please acknowledge, rather than ignore, the reports of others who have found DAB+ sound quality disappointing.

Sticking one's head in the sand thinking a low bitrate doesn't matter may suffice when comparing with AM, though personally I'd prefer AM over 48kbps [nominal] codec compression. But it will not go the distance towards convincing the public to give up FM. You can fool* some of the people some of the time with moderate bitrate digital radio, but you cannot fool* enough people with 48kbps compared to FM.

____________________________

*Fool = "trick the ear into thinking that what it is hearing is real recorded sound, rather than a digitally manufactured version of those elements of the recorded sound the perceptual codec has identified as being important enough to be retained, consistent with the available bitrate"

Edited October 3, 2011 by MLXXX

[datvman]

MLXXX

Whats the internet streams of 97.3's ensemble and other commercial stations like? I have a pretty crappy internet connection so can't test these out for myself. I'm only guessing they would be on par and if not better than the bitrates sampled on the DAB+ Transmitters.

[DrP]

Two cents...

While I can't speak for that particular radio stream, DMG used to supply 128k streams of its broadcasts via their corp site and also a few ISPs that mirrored them. The sound quality was excellent as one might imagine. At some stage the wheels fell off and when the service returned it was at a miserable 48kbit/sec (ie, a similar rate to the audio component of the DAB+ broadcasts*) and the quality suffered quite severely as a result. Listening to it on anything better than elcheapo speakers is not particularly pleasant.. much the same as listening to low bit rate DAB+ broadcasts (hardly surprising considering the same compression schemes are used).

^{*when your radio shows the DAB+ transmission rate at 64kbit/sec that typically includes DAB+'s additional error correction blocks, alternate data streams (text, pictures, etc) as well as the audio. Depending on the precise configuration the actual audio bit rate is usually 48kbit/sec to 56kbit/sec in these instances.}

Edited October 5, 2011 by DrP

[MLXXX]

  datvman said:

Whats the internet streams of 97.3's ensemble and other commercial stations like? I have a pretty crappy internet connection so can't test these out for myself. I'm only guessing they would be on par and if not better than the bitrates sampled on the DAB+ Transmitters.

That's right. Generally no better. For example NovaNation streams at 48kbps and the DAB+ is at a nominal 64kbps.

97.3 appears to stream at only 31kbps and the DAB+ is at a nominal 48kbps.

[ A version of the 97.3 stream (aac plus sbr) playable by VLC player can be found at http://player.arn.com.au/alternate/973fm.pls ]

Bear in mind, as DrP has just mentioned, that a nominal DAB+ broadcast bitrate in Australia will not use all of the bits for the actual audio. There will be overheads.

[I am not a duck]

A lot of my listening is via my ISP ('cos they're free to me) (Internode) which provides a large number of streams at varying bit rates.

Now my ears are shot due to lifestyles choices & tinnitus, however, I have found (and I use a good 2.1 system to listen to these) that anything under 64kbps becomes tiresome to listen to after only a short while.

Edited October 5, 2011 by M'bozo

[DigitalRadioNow]

  datvman said:

Not only that, listening to 4KQ, Triple M and the 97.3 ensemble hurts my ears. The sound quality is horrible!

ARN and Southern Cross Austereo control the end sound of their stations, there is no commonality in audio presentation simply because it is on digital.

[DigitalRadioNow]

  alanh said:

As far as 4KQ goes its as you know an AM station. Since there is very little in high frequency audio in AM portable radios, he could turn the treble down to make the sound similar. The end result either way is poor sound.

Why should the end user have to adjust their treble settings for digital? The engineers at the station should devote even a skerrick of time to audio presentation of the digital output.

[MLXXX]

  DigitalRadioNow said:

  alanh said:

As far as 4KQ goes its as you know an AM station. Since there is very little in high frequency audio in AM portable radios, he could turn the treble down to make the sound similar. The end result either way is poor sound.

Why should the end user have to adjust their treble settings for digital? The engineers at the station should devote even a skerrick of time to audio presentation of the digital output.

The main issue seems to be the low bitrate available to the engineers. Although nominally 48kbps, it is around 43kbps for the actual audio when I play the stream back with VLC player. This means that not only does the spectral band replication (SBR) have to work very hard for the upper frequencies but the basic AAC codec has to work very hard for the lower frequencies.

The treble boost that commercial stations like to use makes the SBR even more prominent (that's something the engineers could control if they got the go ahead to do so, i.e. provide a more neutral sound). AlanH's suggestion of applying treble cut will remove those nasties from being heard. However this will not hide weaknesses in the lower frequency sound. Low bitrate AAC has the classic features of a perceptual audio codec at a suboptimum bitrate. It gets swimmy, phasey or flangey. It may also sound hollow and lacking in bite. Despite this, low bitrate AAC+ may superficially give a good impression, as there is no harsh harmonic distortion and no noticeable background noise (e.g. hiss or static). I think this is why AAC+ has performed well in formal tests.

  M said:

A lot of my listening is via my ISP ('cos they're free to me) (Internode) which provides a large number of streams at varying bit rates.

Now my ears are shot due to lifestyles choices & tinnitus, however, I have found (and I use a good 2.1 system to listen to these) that anything under 64kbps becomes tiresome to listen to after only a short while.

Yes I find that too, M'bozo. Although HE-AAC v1 gives a bright sound, that brightness has little character to it. It becomes boring to listen to very quickly. It is also frustrating to listen to: the low noise and apparent clarity encourage me to listen intently, but then I start noticing odd swirling sounds...