[BBC News] Digital radio available on island

[Cret]

Aw, you've all made up - I was looking forward to a geek fight.

 

Stay tuned (pun intended!) - they still might.....

 

I just thought I should try to make them kiss & make up seeing as they were both trying to give me useful info.

[Slim]

I just thought I should try to make them kiss & make up seeing as they were both trying to give me useful info.

 

Sod fm quite frankly, have a listen to http://www.radioparadise.com/musiclinks/rp_192.m3u - it's the best radio station evah!

[Stu Peters]

Quad gear rocks.

 

I've still got a 45/405/FM4 (I think) stack feeding Tannoy Monitor Golds, and apart from the pan control being a bit crackly, it all sounds loverly. I'm old enough to think you need a big cone and a big box to make a proper noise too...

[Frances]

Stu - some of us still rely on aluminised mylar film + a few kV - fantastic sound !

[Slim]

Quad gear rocks.

 

I've still got a 45/405/FM4 (I think) stack feeding Tannoy Monitor Golds, and apart from the pan control being a bit crackly, it all sounds loverly. I'm old enough to think you need a big cone and a big box to make a proper noise too...

 

Stu, I hate to ask you MR questions, but do you know what the score is with the web streaming on MR? It's so low bitrate (20k!) that it sounds awful. Any plans for the bitrate can be upped to something approaching useful?

[Stu Peters]

Slim - I'd reply (or PM you) if I knew the answer, but I'm afraid I have no idea. I know we had a big server upgrade after problems streaming Radio TT, so maybe the gear is there to up the quality now (or increase the number of streams). The MD is the man to ask - I'm sure he'll give you at least the current thinking if you email him: anthonypugh@manxradio.com

 

Cheers

Stu

[Dave the Cardboard Box]

Here are the reasons to welcome DAB:

 

1. Radio 7 - without peer

 

2. Radio 5 - replacing the nearly non-existent medium wave signal in the east of the Island

 

3. Perfect Test Match Special reception on Radio 4 Long Wave.

 

4. Perfect World Service at any time of day.

 

I have had a DAB radio for a couple of years, which only works in one corner of the bathroom, if the aerial is held against the window frame, and you stick your tongue out.

 

However, despite those limitations, I could receive all the BBC Channels, plus TalkSport, Classic and a few obscure rock stations.

 

With the new signal - I can receive BBC channels everywhere and clearly - but the others have disappeared (been drowned out?).

 

Has anyone over here yet tried a portable DAB, and does it work?

 

And will TalkSport and others re-appear?

[Slim]

Slim - I'd reply (or PM you) if I knew the answer, but I'm afraid I have no idea. I know we had a big server upgrade after problems streaming Radio TT, so maybe the gear is there to up the quality now (or increase the number of streams). The MD is the man to ask - I'm sure he'll give you at least the current thinking if you email him: anthonypugh@manxradio.com

 

Fair enough ta.

 

DTCB: Guess it's the local multiplex drowning out the uk reception you were getting. I gather the commercial stations have to pay to go on in each reason, wouldn't hold your breath I'm afraid.

 

You might want to look at one of the internet radio players instead, run off your wifi if you have it.

[ai_Droid]

Ok, so what it comes down to is that you are willing to compromise sound quality in a very big way. I am not.

 

Yeah, you go ahead and make that judgement without actually hearing it. Standard audiophile snobbery bollocks, and that's coming from someone who does have a good system in his living room.

 

It's all a compromise, like you compromise quality with the belief that your old "they don't make em like they used ta!" mentality. Myself, the music I listen to is far better than the music I don't, so I'll take a good compact system that'll work in a room that otherwise wouldn't have a sound system or a mp3 streaming system that gives me access to thousands of albums over some old inflexible shite with big knobs any day.

[Cambon]

OK Droid, I (about 100 posts ago) wasn't trying to say a 70's good receiver was better than modern but just agreed with a general point from Cambon that you don't have to spend a fortune to get really good quality sound.

 

I was. I would take a Pioneer SX1980, SX1250, SX1280, Marantz 2500 and a number of other '70s vintage receivers over any receiver available today, and most components too. The reason is simple. They were state of the art products in their time and state of the art then meant quality without compromise.

 

State of the art today is still the same. The difference these days is that if you buy state of the art you are branded an audio snob by those who cannot afford it.

 

Droid - I am sure a 2.75" two way self powered speaker is capable of making some nice noises. However, to produce sound requires moving air. Your Missions, Cret's Missions, and especially Stus Tannoys will move an awful lot more air. You can argue about the A2s untill you are blue in the face, but sound and moving air are science facts.

[ai_Droid]

I was. I would take a Pioneer SX1980, SX1250, SX1280, Marantz 2500 and a number of other '70s vintage receivers over any receiver available today, and most components too. The reason is simple. They were state of the art products in their time and state of the art then meant quality without compromise.

 

That's as may be, but you'd be ignoring technology and manufacturing advances, eh?

 

Droid - I am sure a 2.75" two way self powered speaker is capable of making some nice noises. However, to produce sound requires moving air. Your Missions, Cret's Missions, and especially Stus Tannoys will move an awful lot more air. You can argue about the A2s untill you are blue in the face, but sound and moving air are science facts.

 

At no point did I say the a2's were better than the missions. Just that a pair of good powered speakers like the A2's combined with a squeezbox makes for an amazing radio setup that takes no room.

[Cambon]

I was. I would take a Pioneer SX1980, SX1250, SX1280, Marantz 2500 and a number of other '70s vintage receivers over any receiver available today, and most components too. The reason is simple. They were state of the art products in their time and state of the art then meant quality without compromise.

 

That's as may be, but you'd be ignoring technology and manufacturing advances, eh?

 

 

Funnily enough there really has not been any ground breaking new technology in amplification that has caught on. The closest thing would be digital amplification (as used by the latest B&O equipment). I have demo'ed the top of the line B&O system many times and don't like it. The high frequencies are harsh. It has a built in system which is supposed to take into account room acoustics and adjust the sound to suit. In my opinion all it does is crush the dynamics and suck the life out of the music. Will it catch on? probably, but only because of the lifestyle look and footballers wife qudos.

 

Even less advancement has been made in speaker technology. The best speakers in the world are still made of plywood / chip board, and although many manufacturers have tried using Kevlar and various plastics for bass speakers, the Aquaplas (a bit like fiberglass) is still the best. For mid/high frequencies, electrostatics still rule.

 

I have already talked about manufacturung in a previous post.

 

So no, I am not ignoring anything.

[ai_Droid]

So no, I am not ignoring anything.

 

Aye, you are. With advances over the past ten years, current budget gear will outpreform and outspec expensive gear from 30 years ago no bother. Even if you just look at the psu's in those old separates as a common factor that's radically improved, you'll see big gains, and that's ignoring other advances like Digital/optical, a mass of inputs, 5.1 & 7.1, 100's of station presets in tuners, SD card slots, USB Slots, wifi/streaming, hell even intagrated remote controls and better displays.

 

As for speakers, sure the principles havn't changed much, but the applications have, particularly multi channel and making good quality sound easier to live with in terms of space and arrangement.

 

The big progress however is in convergance and usability rather than simple sound quality, a point I've made over and over, and you seem to have no time for. Fine, you listen to your music rooted to your 5 foot speakers and massive chrome nobs, I'm sure that Zimmer of yours makes music in other places a low priority!

[Cambon]

So no, I am not ignoring anything.

 

Aye, you are. With advances over the past ten years, current budget gear will outpreform and outspec expensive gear from 30 years ago no bother. Even if you just look at the psu's in those old separates as a common factor that's radically improved, you'll see big gains, and that's ignoring other advances like Digital/optical, a mass of inputs, 5.1 & 7.1, 100's of station presets in tuners, SD card slots, USB Slots, wifi/streaming, hell even intagrated remote controls and better displays.

 

As for speakers, sure the principles havn't changed much, but the applications have, particularly multi channel and making good quality sound easier to live with in terms of space and arrangement.

 

The big progress however is in convergance and usability rather than simple sound quality, a point I've made over and over, and you seem to have no time for. Fine, you listen to your music rooted to your 5 foot speakers and massive chrome nobs, I'm sure that Zimmer of yours makes music in other places a low priority!

 

If I want music in other places I will just turn up the volume (by LCD remote of course).

 

Sorry droid. The best is the best. top of the line Krell amplifiers still look pretty much the same. ATC SCM50 active monitors look like they came out of a 70s porn film, along with Audio Research and Macintosh equipment. These are state of the art. These are no compromise, quality products that use massive power supplies very similar to what was used in the 70s before pen pushers and greed took over.

 

I am not against advancements in technology. The Linn Klimas DS is probably the finest source in the world. What I am against is technology for technology's sake which is what you thrive on regardless of compromise.

 

Quite frankly, your A2s are easily beaten hands down by the JBL control 1, available brand new for half the price. And guess what, they have been around for well over 20 year!

[ai_Droid]

If I want music in other places I will just turn up the volume (by LCD remote of course).

 

Great, I'm sure those speakers perform wonderfully through brick walls!

 

Sorry droid. The best is the best. top of the line Krell amplifiers still look pretty much the same.

 

Krell? The company who calls its amp range 'Evolution'? You're saying the 'evolution' range is pretty much the same? What about their digital amps? What about their 7.1 amps? Were they producing those 30 years ago? No, they produced huge big beasts 30 years ago, now they also produce much smaller units with more power.

 

Then

 

and now:

 

 

Yeah, you're right, they've not moved on at all!

 

I am not against advancements in technology. The Linn Klimas DS is probably the finest source in the world. What I am against is technology for technology's sake which is what you thrive on regardless of compromise.

 

Er, no, that's not true. I thrive on doing things in a better way which means I get more enjoyment out of entertainment. Rather than wank over a wallnut case and a hot valve amp, I'd rather actually listen to music, something most audiophiles in my experience seem to leave as some low priority persuit.

 

Quite frankly, your A2s are easily beaten hands down by the JBL control 1, available brand new for half the price. And guess what, they have been around for well over 20 year!

 

Um, chalk and cheese mate, the control 1's are just speakers.