| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
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 DVB (aka AAC) -- Codec complexity, coding time -- Ogg Vorbis may have a better FFT DAB (Musicam) -- Not as efficient as AAC -- FFT and filterbank perhaps too simple -- Does not support 24 bit audio, only 16 bits Still, if one were designing a DAB system in the mid-1980s ... NICAM is near perfect. -- IF AND ONLY IF "RDS" datastream is added |
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
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) B2003 |
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
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. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info |
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
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 |
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
In article . com,
Boltar writes 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) B2003 Well it was designed for distribution and for that its very good and doesn't do at all badly for domestic TV .. that reception path is usually a good one... -- Tony Sayer |
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
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 |
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
On Jul 10, 11:11 am, "Max Power" wrote:
Pros and cons of NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design) DVB (aka AAC) -- Codec complexity, coding time -- Ogg Vorbis may have a better FFT DAB (Musicam) -- Not as efficient as AAC -- FFT and filterbank perhaps too simple -- Does not support 24 bit audio, only 16 bits Still, if one were designing a DAB system in the mid-1980s ... NICAM is near perfect. -- IF AND ONLY IF "RDS" datastream is added DAB and DVB both use the MPEG1 level 2 compression (Musicam) Only DAB+ uses AAC+ |
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
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 |
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
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 |
NICAM vs DVB vs DAB (original design)
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com