On 10 Jul, 15:21, "DAB sounds worse than FM" dab.is@dead wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On 10 Jul, 02:11, "Max Power" wrote:
Pros and cons of NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)

Disadvantages

NICAM
-- J.17 Emphasis curve
-- 32 kHz sample rate
-- 14 bits vs 16 bits of modern systems; requires resampling for 16
bit origin material
Still, if one were designing a DAB system in the mid-1980s ... NICAM
is near perfect.
-- IF AND ONLY IF "RDS" datastream is added

14 bits and 32Khz near perfect? Even CD players managed 16 bits 44.1
Khz in the mid 80s. You're also forgetting that NICAM has virtually
sod all error correction. The slightest dodgy signal and its off into
wax cylinder audio mode (though you won't here it on most TVs , they
mute or switch to the FM sound as soon as the bitstream goes wonky)

MP2 has no error correction either, you dummy, they add the error correction
prior to transmission.

I was refering to the whole transmission , not just the codec.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
On 10 Jul, 15:21, "DAB sounds worse than FM" dab.is@dead wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On 10 Jul, 02:11, "Max Power" wrote:
Pros and cons of NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)

Disadvantages

NICAM
-- J.17 Emphasis curve
-- 32 kHz sample rate
-- 14 bits vs 16 bits of modern systems; requires resampling for 16
bit origin material
Still, if one were designing a DAB system in the mid-1980s ...
NICAM is near perfect.
-- IF AND ONLY IF "RDS" datastream is added

14 bits and 32Khz near perfect? Even CD players managed 16 bits 44.1
Khz in the mid 80s. You're also forgetting that NICAM has virtually
sod all error correction. The slightest dodgy signal and its off
into wax cylinder audio mode (though you won't here it on most TVs
, they mute or switch to the FM sound as soon as the bitstream goes
wonky)

MP2 has no error correction either, you dummy, they add the error
correction prior to transmission.

I was refering to the whole transmission , not just the codec.


What you said he

"You're also forgetting that NICAM has virtually
sod all error correction. The slightest dodgy signal and its off into
wax cylinder audio mode"

suggests that you were trying to say that NICAM having "virtually sod all
error correction" means, for example, that it would be worse than DAB, which
doesn't make sense because MP2, MP3, AAC etc etc don't have any error
correction either, it's added prior to transmission.


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

On 10 Jul, 23:20, "DAB sounds closer to AM" dab.is@dead wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On 10 Jul, 15:21, "DAB sounds worse than FM" dab.is@dead wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On 10 Jul, 02:11, "Max Power" wrote:
Pros and cons of NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)

Disadvantages

NICAM
-- J.17 Emphasis curve
-- 32 kHz sample rate
-- 14 bits vs 16 bits of modern systems; requires resampling for 16
bit origin material
Still, if one were designing a DAB system in the mid-1980s ...
NICAM is near perfect.
-- IF AND ONLY IF "RDS" datastream is added

14 bits and 32Khz near perfect? Even CD players managed 16 bits 44.1
Khz in the mid 80s. You're also forgetting that NICAM has virtually
sod all error correction. The slightest dodgy signal and its off
into wax cylinder audio mode (though you won't here it on most TVs
, they mute or switch to the FM sound as soon as the bitstream goes
wonky)

MP2 has no error correction either, you dummy, they add the error
correction prior to transmission.

I was refering to the whole transmission , not just the codec.

What you said he

"You're also forgetting that NICAM has virtually
sod all error correction. The slightest dodgy signal and its off into
wax cylinder audio mode"

suggests that you were trying to say that NICAM having "virtually sod all
error correction" means, for example, that it would be worse than DAB, which
doesn't make sense because MP2, MP3, AAC etc etc don't have any error
correction either, it's added prior to transmission.

Stop splitting hairs, everyone generally just refers to it as NICAM
and not the-NICAM-code-in-digital-TV-sound.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
On 10 Jul, 23:20, "DAB sounds closer to AM" dab.is@dead wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On 10 Jul, 15:21, "DAB sounds worse than FM" dab.is@dead wrote:
Boltar wrote:
On 10 Jul, 02:11, "Max Power" wrote:
Pros and cons of NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)

Disadvantages

NICAM
-- J.17 Emphasis curve
-- 32 kHz sample rate
-- 14 bits vs 16 bits of modern systems; requires resampling for
16 bit origin material
Still, if one were designing a DAB system in the mid-1980s ...
NICAM is near perfect.
-- IF AND ONLY IF "RDS" datastream is added

14 bits and 32Khz near perfect? Even CD players managed 16 bits
44.1 Khz in the mid 80s. You're also forgetting that NICAM has
virtually sod all error correction. The slightest dodgy signal
and its off into wax cylinder audio mode (though you won't here
it on most TVs , they mute or switch to the FM sound as soon as
the bitstream goes wonky)

MP2 has no error correction either, you dummy, they add the error
correction prior to transmission.

I was refering to the whole transmission , not just the codec.

What you said he

"You're also forgetting that NICAM has virtually
sod all error correction. The slightest dodgy signal and its off into
wax cylinder audio mode"

suggests that you were trying to say that NICAM having "virtually
sod all error correction" means, for example, that it would be worse
than DAB, which doesn't make sense because MP2, MP3, AAC etc etc
don't have any error correction either, it's added prior to
transmission.

Stop splitting hairs, everyone generally just refers to it as NICAM
and not the-NICAM-code-in-digital-TV-sound.


I'm not splitting any hairs. You implied that because NICAM doesn't have
"built-in" error correction then it would be unusable as a digital radio
format. It would be unusable as a digital radio format due to its bandwidth,
but not because it lacks error correction, because the other codecs don't
have that either.


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

On 11 Jul, 10:06, "DAB sounds closer to AM" dab.is@dead wrote:
I'm not splitting any hairs. You implied that because NICAM doesn't have
"built-in" error correction then it would be unusable as a digital radio
format. It would be unusable as a digital radio format due to its bandwidth,
but not because it lacks error correction, because the other codecs don't
have that either.

I was assuming he meant as-is. Ie same transmission system, albeit
different frequency, as well as same codec. In which case it would be
unsuitable.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
On 11 Jul, 10:06, "DAB sounds closer to AM" dab.is@dead wrote:
I'm not splitting any hairs. You implied that because NICAM doesn't
have "built-in" error correction then it would be unusable as a
digital radio format. It would be unusable as a digital radio format
due to its bandwidth, but not because it lacks error correction,
because the other codecs don't have that either.

I was assuming he meant as-is. Ie same transmission system, albeit
different frequency, as well as same codec. In which case it would be
unsuitable.


You made absolutely no reference to NICAM being unsuitable due to the high
bit rate it uses, and you only mentioned its lack of error correction.


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

Boltar wrote:


Stop splitting hairs, everyone generally just refers to it as NICAM
and not the-NICAM-code-in-digital-TV-sound.

But if they were to use NICAM for a new digital radio system, and they
wanted it to work in a mobile environment, they would presumably add
some error correction.

Richard E.