If they're going to put a station in mono on D1 then why not Capital Extra which replaced Smooth Radio 70's at 80 kbps ???????
Dreadful decision GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
This'll cost Absolute listeners.
Why? Because the stations that changed last night are owned by Bauer, and Capital Xtra is owned by Global. And Bauer can't change Globals station bitrates.
There's no evidence at all to suggest this will be the case. As discussed earlier, I personally feel 80k mono sounds better than 112k stereo. I'd rather have more frequencies and more consistency in the sound than stereo. Both would be lovely, of course, but most people aren't listening intently through headphones and listen in-car in a noisy environment or through equipment with poor / no stereo separation.
I'd wager few listeners outside these forums will even notice.
Seeing that nobody really cares about sound any more (witness the majority of people completely satisfied with the 3cm speakers in their wafer thin panel TV's and 64KBPS MP3's) I don't know why more stations don't just get on with it and use 32KBPS mono. Anyone noticing, caring and grumbling online can soon be cut down with comments such as 'we are not all audiophiles with £20,000 speaker cables', 'most of us just want some nice music and chat' or 'haven't you got anything better to do than waste time complaining'.
The audiophile excuse was spun years ago when bitrates were higher.
Only a matter of time before a music station goes down to 56kbps mono LSF with the old "better encoders" excuse wheeled out. Anyone who gives a damn about digital audio quality migrated to Internet radio long ago.
Generally though there aren't any 'major' stations broadcasting at 96kbps and besides - which station should get the extra 16kbps? One thing Bauer have done tonight is harmonise their services to all run at the same bitrate and I don't think it'd be unreasonable for Global to do the same and if that means LBC goes to 80kbps because they can't really use the 16kbps for anything else then I can see some logic in that.
It's just sad that in 2015 I'm saying that a ruck of mono music radio stations is logical.
The Scottish Bauer stations are broadcasting at 128kbps in stereo on DAB, so Bauer have not harmonised all their stations to broadcast at the same bitrate of 80kbps in mono.
Seeing that nobody really cares about sound any more (witness the majority of people completely satisfied with the 3cm speakers in their wafer thin panel TV's and 64KBPS MP3's) I don't know why more stations don't just get on with it and use 32KBPS mono. Anyone noticing, caring and grumbling online can soon be cut down with comments such as 'we are not all audiophiles with £20,000 speaker cables', 'most of us just want some nice music and chat' or 'haven't you got anything better to do than waste time complaining'.
Thing is, nobody has ever really cared about sound.
With FM, there was never any benefit to dropping to mono, and there was no such thing as bitrates so they couldn't be cut.
So the audiophile was kept happy, and the average Joe was oblivious either way.
Its only now where quality can be dropped to save money that the audiophile is losing out.
But, in all fairness, audiophiles are a tiny minority, and your average Joe listening in the kitchen, in the car on the school run, really has better things to bother about than high frequencies dropping out at 80kbps.
The Scottish Bauer stations are broadcasting at 128kbps in stereo on DAB, so Bauer have not harmonised all their stations to broadcast at the same bitrate of 80kbps in mono.
My mistake as I missed a key word in my original post. I meant to say they have harmonised their 'national' stations at 80kbps, except for Kisstory on the local multiplexes which seems to be the only 'national' station at 64kbps for some reason.
Well, seeing that a large percentage of LBC's output is people talking down a "telephone line", it hardly makes a difference.
I'm not talking about the callers, I'm talking about the presenters. Nick Ferrari has one of the best voices in UK radio history, and the difference between 48k DAB and the output from Sky was very noticeable.
Is it not the case that most staions and DAB uptake in general increased when more stations arrived, ablit in mono? It's fairly obvious people want more choice, not a few stations soundibg exactly the same in stereo ...remember what we don't have we don't miss.
Thing is, nobody has ever really cared about sound.
With FM, there was never any benefit to dropping to mono, and there was no such thing as bitrates so they couldn't be cut.
So the audiophile was kept happy, and the average Joe was oblivious either way.
Its only now where quality can be dropped to save money that the audiophile is losing out.
But, in all fairness, audiophiles are a tiny minority, and your average Joe listening in the kitchen, in the car on the school run, really has better things to bother about than high frequencies dropping out at 80kbps.
If you only have a portable mono kitchen DAB set it won't really matter whether it's stereo broadcast or not. But if you have a DAB stereo set and stereo headphones then it will really matter that the broadcast is in stereo.
But I'll still take an 80kbps mono DAB broadcast over am AM or LW broadcast.
Is it not the case that most staions and DAB uptake in general increased when more stations arrived, ablit in mono? It's fairly obvious people want more choice, not a few stations soundibg exactly the same in stereo ...remember what we don't have we don't miss.
FM is still on a DAB mono or stereo set just like it is on a standard analogue radio so buying a DAB set was an upgrade in that respect that the DAB broadcasts are vastly superior to the AM broadcasts of the same stations whether it's in stereo or in mono.
But there were a number of stereo stations > 100kbps on DAB and still are right now. But you still have the FM stereo broadcast of the same stations in some areas you can still listen to on the same DAB set if it's a better quality broadcast than the DAB broadcast.
Absolutely there are many stations you can listen to on DAB that can't be picked up on the standard radio. Nobody in the right mind who has DAB wants to go back to old style AM or LW radio.
DAB sets are vastly superior to old analogue sets.
Why should pop music expect the same bandwidth as classical?
Suggesting Classic FM could broadcast in mono is ridiculous. Quality music needs stereo.
"Quality" is entirely subjective. Many Queen tracks are, in my opinion, greatly superior to many classical pieces that were churned out for cash or to meet a publishing deadline. More to the point, classical music tends to make more use of frequencies towards the end of the scale and listening to an orchestra will benefit from stereo due to its scale.
Thing is, nobody has ever really cared about sound.
With FM, there was never any benefit to dropping to mono, and there was no such thing as bitrates so they couldn't be cut.
So the audiophile was kept happy, and the average Joe was oblivious either way.
Its only now where quality can be dropped to save money that the audiophile is losing out.
But, in all fairness, audiophiles are a tiny minority, and your average Joe listening in the kitchen, in the car on the school run, really has better things to bother about than high frequencies dropping out at 80kbps.
Well actually there is. A mono FM transmitter is alot cheaper than a stereo one and you can cover a bigger area on less power. I don't if there still is but certainly some BBC locals used to broadcast in mono on some relays. Even Radio solent who only had the one frequency at the time on 96.1 was broadcasting in mono up until about 1990.
Well actually there is. A mono FM transmitter is alot cheaper than a stereo one and you can cover a bigger area on less power. I don't if there still is but certainly some BBC locals used to broadcast in mono on some relays. Even Radio solent who only had the one frequency at the time on 96.1 was broadcasting in mono up until about 1990.
Hang on, all sorts of sweeping generalisations there !!
An FM stereo transmission, is a mono one, with a difference channel on a 38 kHz subcarrier. Mono receivers simply ignore the difference channel. Stereo receivers take the difference channel, and through matrixing produce the left and right outputs.
FM transmissions have what's called a triangular noise spectrum, the higher the modulating frequency, the higher the noise. That's why the mono channel employs pre emphasis, to give the HF ( aka Treble) more of a boost, the receiver restores the EQ to flat response post demod. Because of that triangular noise spectrum, the difference channel (that is quadrature modulated 15 kHz either side of 38 kHz) is very vulnerable
to noise. That is the reason you require 15 ish dB more signal to achieve the same s/n ratio for stereo reception, than for mono.
What most car radios do, is based upon the signal level, they reduce the influence of the difference channel as the signal become weaker, which results in a gradual blend
of stereo separation down to mono.
A couple of BBC relays do indeed broadcast in mono, only because their received off air feed is too poor to retransmit a noise free stereo signal. Stereo transmitters are not significantly more expensive than mono ones, all they usually consist of is a mono transmitter with a stereo encoder bolted on the front. That stereo encoder is usually combined with the RDS coder. Oh and RDS can (and does exist) with mono transmissions, to dispel another myth
The reason Radio Solent transmitted in mono up until 1990, was simply because until that year the studios were housed in the Cunard Hotel in Southampton, and were only mono capable. In 1990 they moved to new studios and equipment in Havelock Road (followed in 1991 by the TV)
So you have to be an audiophile to want decent sound quality? What a load of rubbish.
I am not an audiophile. I don't know anything about high frequencies and all that. Nor am I a geek with an internet radio. If I want the internet I can get it on my computer and mobile phone so why would I buy a radio for that?
Based on my own listening experience and nothing else, I think that 80 kbps is the minimum good mono audio quality and 128 kpbs is the minimum good stereo quality. Anything less doesn't sound good enough. This even applies to talk.
Those who dismiss people like me as being audiophiles, would surely complain if stations were reduced to 1kbps to make more room for more choice. There would surely be a limit on how much stations lowered their bitrates before they became by their own definitions, audiophiles.
Regarding LBC, when I heard it online, having heard it on the regional multiplexes, Clive Bull sounded like a completely different person.
So you have to be an audiophile to want decent sound quality? What a load of rubbish.
I am not an audiophile. I don't know anything about high frequencies and all that. Nor am I a geek with an internet radio. If I want the internet I can get it on my computer and mobile phone so why would I buy a radio for that?
Based on my own listening experience and nothing else, I think that 80 kbps is the minimum good mono audio quality and 128 kpbs is the minimum good stereo quality. Anything less doesn't sound good enough. This even applies to talk..
Same here on the audiophile comment. When listening in the car I don't notice a massive difference between the 256kbps MP3/AAC tracks on my iPod and the 128kbps MP2 streams on my DAB radio. An audiophile absolutely would.
However anything below 128kbps on DAB sounds flawed in one way or another. However, even though I don't like listening to 112kbps stereo or 80kbps mono, I can live with it. 64kbps mono though - [shudder].
I really hope we see more movement towards DAB+ this year, While the Fun Kids test at 64kbps sounded poorer than 128kbps MP2 to me, it sounded better than most stations I've heard that broadcast at 112kbps MP2 and lower.
The fact that Absolute has been reduced, Magic is at 80k and Abs 80s has been increased to 80kbps certainly is a reflection of where these stations sit in Bauer's brand strategy now that they are on an even keel.
Same here on the audiophile comment. When listening in the car I don't notice a massive difference between the 256kbps MP3/AAC tracks on my iPod and the 128kbps MP2 streams on my DAB radio. An audiophile absolutely would.
Not necessarily. It also depends on the quality of the car's stereo and its speakers.
Comments
Don't forget that outside London there is no FM option, so mono DAB is still an improvement over AM.
Why? Because the stations that changed last night are owned by Bauer, and Capital Xtra is owned by Global. And Bauer can't change Globals station bitrates.
There's no evidence at all to suggest this will be the case. As discussed earlier, I personally feel 80k mono sounds better than 112k stereo. I'd rather have more frequencies and more consistency in the sound than stereo. Both would be lovely, of course, but most people aren't listening intently through headphones and listen in-car in a noisy environment or through equipment with poor / no stereo separation.
I'd wager few listeners outside these forums will even notice.
Only a matter of time before a music station goes down to 56kbps mono LSF with the old "better encoders" excuse wheeled out. Anyone who gives a damn about digital audio quality migrated to Internet radio long ago.
http://aacplus-ar-128.timlradio.co.uk/
http://aacplus-ac-128.timlradio.co.uk/
http://aacplus-a0-128.timlradio.co.uk/
http://aacplus-a9-128.timlradio.co.uk/
http://aacplus-a8-128.timlradio.co.uk/
http://aacplus-a7-128.timlradio.co.uk/
http://aacplus-a6-128.timlradio.co.uk/
I'm sure you can work out which stream leads to which station ;-)
The Scottish Bauer stations are broadcasting at 128kbps in stereo on DAB, so Bauer have not harmonised all their stations to broadcast at the same bitrate of 80kbps in mono.
With FM, there was never any benefit to dropping to mono, and there was no such thing as bitrates so they couldn't be cut.
So the audiophile was kept happy, and the average Joe was oblivious either way.
Its only now where quality can be dropped to save money that the audiophile is losing out.
But, in all fairness, audiophiles are a tiny minority, and your average Joe listening in the kitchen, in the car on the school run, really has better things to bother about than high frequencies dropping out at 80kbps.
My mistake as I missed a key word in my original post. I meant to say they have harmonised their 'national' stations at 80kbps, except for Kisstory on the local multiplexes which seems to be the only 'national' station at 64kbps for some reason.
I'm not talking about the callers, I'm talking about the presenters. Nick Ferrari has one of the best voices in UK radio history, and the difference between 48k DAB and the output from Sky was very noticeable.
If you only have a portable mono kitchen DAB set it won't really matter whether it's stereo broadcast or not. But if you have a DAB stereo set and stereo headphones then it will really matter that the broadcast is in stereo.
But I'll still take an 80kbps mono DAB broadcast over am AM or LW broadcast.
FM is still on a DAB mono or stereo set just like it is on a standard analogue radio so buying a DAB set was an upgrade in that respect that the DAB broadcasts are vastly superior to the AM broadcasts of the same stations whether it's in stereo or in mono.
But there were a number of stereo stations > 100kbps on DAB and still are right now. But you still have the FM stereo broadcast of the same stations in some areas you can still listen to on the same DAB set if it's a better quality broadcast than the DAB broadcast.
Absolutely there are many stations you can listen to on DAB that can't be picked up on the standard radio. Nobody in the right mind who has DAB wants to go back to old style AM or LW radio.
DAB sets are vastly superior to old analogue sets.
Suggesting Classic FM could broadcast in mono is ridiculous. Quality music needs stereo.
"Quality" is entirely subjective. Many Queen tracks are, in my opinion, greatly superior to many classical pieces that were churned out for cash or to meet a publishing deadline. More to the point, classical music tends to make more use of frequencies towards the end of the scale and listening to an orchestra will benefit from stereo due to its scale.
Hang on, all sorts of sweeping generalisations there !!
An FM stereo transmission, is a mono one, with a difference channel on a 38 kHz subcarrier. Mono receivers simply ignore the difference channel. Stereo receivers take the difference channel, and through matrixing produce the left and right outputs.
FM transmissions have what's called a triangular noise spectrum, the higher the modulating frequency, the higher the noise. That's why the mono channel employs pre emphasis, to give the HF ( aka Treble) more of a boost, the receiver restores the EQ to flat response post demod. Because of that triangular noise spectrum, the difference channel (that is quadrature modulated 15 kHz either side of 38 kHz) is very vulnerable
to noise. That is the reason you require 15 ish dB more signal to achieve the same s/n ratio for stereo reception, than for mono.
What most car radios do, is based upon the signal level, they reduce the influence of the difference channel as the signal become weaker, which results in a gradual blend
of stereo separation down to mono.
A couple of BBC relays do indeed broadcast in mono, only because their received off air feed is too poor to retransmit a noise free stereo signal. Stereo transmitters are not significantly more expensive than mono ones, all they usually consist of is a mono transmitter with a stereo encoder bolted on the front. That stereo encoder is usually combined with the RDS coder. Oh and RDS can (and does exist) with mono transmissions, to dispel another myth
The reason Radio Solent transmitted in mono up until 1990, was simply because until that year the studios were housed in the Cunard Hotel in Southampton, and were only mono capable. In 1990 they moved to new studios and equipment in Havelock Road (followed in 1991 by the TV)
I am not an audiophile. I don't know anything about high frequencies and all that. Nor am I a geek with an internet radio. If I want the internet I can get it on my computer and mobile phone so why would I buy a radio for that?
Based on my own listening experience and nothing else, I think that 80 kbps is the minimum good mono audio quality and 128 kpbs is the minimum good stereo quality. Anything less doesn't sound good enough. This even applies to talk.
Those who dismiss people like me as being audiophiles, would surely complain if stations were reduced to 1kbps to make more room for more choice. There would surely be a limit on how much stations lowered their bitrates before they became by their own definitions, audiophiles.
Regarding LBC, when I heard it online, having heard it on the regional multiplexes, Clive Bull sounded like a completely different person.
Same here on the audiophile comment. When listening in the car I don't notice a massive difference between the 256kbps MP3/AAC tracks on my iPod and the 128kbps MP2 streams on my DAB radio. An audiophile absolutely would.
However anything below 128kbps on DAB sounds flawed in one way or another. However, even though I don't like listening to 112kbps stereo or 80kbps mono, I can live with it. 64kbps mono though - [shudder].
I really hope we see more movement towards DAB+ this year, While the Fun Kids test at 64kbps sounded poorer than 128kbps MP2 to me, it sounded better than most stations I've heard that broadcast at 112kbps MP2 and lower.