On 19/07/2022 13:28, Max Demian wrote:
> Buskers are all very well, but amplifiers and recorded accompaniment
> should be banned.

Definitely should be controls of any sort of amplification in public
place, would also shut up that idiot in London who shouts over
interviews near parliament. His amplifier was taken off him but someone
bought him a new one.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:58:54 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:

>On 19/07/2022 12:35, Woody wrote:
>> On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
>>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the
>>>>> money" and
>>>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the
>>>>> impact
>>>>> on quality.
>>>>
>>>> Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
>>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
>>>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
>>>> likely recognise.
>>>
>>> What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway?  We need some rebuttal :-)
>>
>> And DABSWTFM means....?
>
>DAB Is Worse Than FM

I think it was DAB sounds worse than FM.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:35:36 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and
>>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
>>>> on quality.
>>>
>>> Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
>>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
>>> likely recognise.
>>
>> What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
>
>And DABSWTFM means....?

'DAB sounds worse than FM' was a very prolific poster a few years back
with a visceral hatred of DAB.

On Tue 19/07/2022 13:42, Java Jive wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 12:58, SH wrote:
>> On 19/07/2022 12:35, Woody wrote:
>>> On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>> DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the
>>>>>> money" and
>>>>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the
>>>>>> impact
>>>>>> on quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people
>>>>> want
>>>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
>>>>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can
>>>>> quite
>>>>> likely recognise.
>>>>
>>>> What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway?  We need some rebuttal :-)
>>>
>>> And DABSWTFM means....?
>>
>> DAB Is Worse Than FM
>
> Ah!  That's partly why I was confused, should've been DABIWTFM!
>

Unless it was DAB sounds worse than FM

On 19/07/2022 15:27, Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:35:36 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
>>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and
>>>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
>>>>> on quality.
>>>>
>>>> Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
>>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
>>>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
>>>> likely recognise.
>>>
>>> What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
>>
>> And DABSWTFM means....?
>
> 'DAB sounds worse than FM' was a very prolific poster a few years back
> with a visceral hatred of DAB.

and he also stated that the BBC actually stood for "Bit Burgling
Cretins" when they were adjusting the bit rates on the BBC radio
stattions on their BBC DAB ensemble.....

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:46:18 +0100, SH <i.love@spam.com> wrote:

>On 19/07/2022 15:27, Scott wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 12:35:36 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue 19/07/2022 11:35, Scott wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 12:41:35 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/07/2022 11:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>>> DAB is fine for choice of 'info' purposes. But less so for things like
>>>>>> classical music concerts. Main problem is OfCom "going for the money" and
>>>>>> allowing many low-rate stations to be crammed in regardless of the impact
>>>>>> on quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Terrible when they want to use bandwidth for programmes that people want
>>>>> to listen to rather use excessive amounts of bandwidth for programmes
>>>>> with very few listeners and who want higher quality than they can quite
>>>>> likely recognise.
>>>>
>>>> What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
>>>
>>> And DABSWTFM means....?
>>
>> 'DAB sounds worse than FM' was a very prolific poster a few years back
>> with a visceral hatred of DAB.
>
>and he also stated that the BBC actually stood for "Bit Burgling
>Cretins" when they were adjusting the bit rates on the BBC radio
>stattions on their BBC DAB ensemble.....

I remember when someone suggested DAB sound was okay and he responded
with a link to RNID.

MB wrote:

> That was the great thing about John Peel

[...]

> Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track

John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
"Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for it!

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 13:24:10 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>As you get older, your hearing gets worse while the quality of the
>equipment you can afford gets better, until there is a crossover and it
>doesn't make any difference.

True, and as your remaining life expectancy reduces as you get older,
the total running time of your music collection increases as you add
more recordings to it. There must be an uncomfortable crossover point
associated with that too.

It suggests an opportunity for a radio programme, though the obvious
title "Deathbed discs" is probably already taken.

Rod.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:53:26 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>> What happened to DABSWTFM (Steve) anyway? We need some rebuttal :-)
>>>>
>>>> And DABSWTFM means....?
>>>
>>> 'DAB sounds worse than FM' was a very prolific poster a few years back
>>> with a visceral hatred of DAB.
>>
>>and he also stated that the BBC actually stood for "Bit Burgling
>>Cretins" when they were adjusting the bit rates on the BBC radio
>>stattions on their BBC DAB ensemble.....
>
>I remember when someone suggested DAB sound was okay and he responded
>with a link to RNID.

It doesn't seem like the action of a true obsessive simply to give up
or move elsewhere of his own accord having realised that nobody else
shares his obsession, so I wonder if something actually did happen?
Somebody who likes to have the last word would surely realise that by
leaving he would effectively relinquish that honour to somebody else.

Rod.

On 20/07/2022 09:03, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
> It doesn't seem like the action of a true obsessive simply to give up
> or move elsewhere of his own accord having realised that nobody else
> shares his obsession, so I wonder if something actually did happen?
> Somebody who likes to have the last word would surely realise that by
> leaving he would effectively relinquish that honour to somebody else.

I suspect that you're right ...

To start with, when was his last post? I've just checked that he isn't
in my plonkers list, but I can't remember the last time I actually saw
one, and the last one I can find searching my newsgroup software here is
dated 2006, and a brief search online 2010. His site is down too ...

h t t p : / / w w w . d i g i t a l r a d i o t e c h . c o . u k /

.... and when you put it into whois.domaintools.com you find that it was
'created in 2018', which I'm guessing is actually the date the current
advertising content default 'home page' for a lapsed site was created.

So it looks like something happened to him between 2010 and 2018.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 19/07/2022 15:27, Scott wrote:
>
>> And DABSWTFM means....?
> 'DAB sounds worse than FM' was a very prolific poster a few years back
> with a visceral hatred of DAB.
Yes, Steve Green. Mostly in the first half of the 00s.  Google his name
and 'DAB' and you'll dig out a lot of his musings, on usenet and elsewhere

On 20/07/2022 16:35, Mark Carver wrote:
> Yes, Steve Green. Mostly in the first half of the 00s.  Google his name
> and 'DAB' and you'll dig out a lot of his musings, on usenet and elsewhere

I remember thoses, it was rather reminiscent of the "experts" writing
letters to the newspapers to claim that VHF FM radio did not work in
vehicles, when the move from MW to VHF FM was announced.

On 20/07/2022 22:04, MB wrote:
> I remember thoses, it was rather reminiscent of the "experts" writing
> letters to the newspapers to claim that VHF FM radio did not work in
> vehicles, when the move from MW to VHF FM was announced.

Caused a lot of amusement in the Highlands and Islands because VHF FM
had been used there for years by then!

In article <g5ucdhhrtgm5b3e8vuu22c3rava6n2kgc1@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> I used to think that the aim of hi-fi was to replicate the experience of
> a live performance, and some of the manufacturers' advertising seemed to
> be along those lines ("The closest approach to the original sound..."),
> until a friend once said to me that it should best be regarded as a
> *reminder* of what the real thing should sound like, rather than an
> attempt to replace it. This makes a lot more sense to me (and is cheaper
> too).

"Closest approach" makes sense when the listener wants to enjoy types of
acoustic music that are often played live in a venue/hall. Reproduced will
always be a 'reminder' to some extent, but can be pretty close. And if the
'captured source' is good, then it makes sense to aim at that. The snag is
that a lot of 'popular' music is constructed in a studio and no one live
'performance' is what you get. So in those cases the home audio system
becomes a 'music box' which the user chooses as most pleasing for the kind
of music they like in their circumstances.

I tend to re-read old Hi-Fi mags and the change in content over the years
is quite clear. One obvious change is that old HFN has literally hundreds
of record reviews each month - divided into a range of types from folk to
orchestral via spoken word and classical. Now they just pick a few cherries
of a few types. Often items where no original performance of any kind is
represented.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <jjngnvFejc4U1@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells
<hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >> But, however much it matters to you, it just isn't of any interest to
> >> them at all.
> >
> > Chicken and egg situation. If someone has never been to a live
> > orchestral (or Big Band) concert they have no idea of the sheer impact
> > it makes on you. Not just a question of loudness, either. Experiencing
> > anything like it via broadcast or recordings requires good kit. Still
> > doesn't match.

> Things that you or I value, though, are not necessarily what others do.

Snag is, you're talking about people who may often be judging the 'value'
of things they've not heard.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:05:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>I tend to re-read old Hi-Fi mags and the change in content over the years
>is quite clear. One obvious change is that old HFN has literally hundreds
>of record reviews each month - divided into a range of types from folk to
>orchestral via spoken word and classical. Now they just pick a few cherries
>of a few types. Often items where no original performance of any kind is
>represented.

The last time I looked at a hi-fi magazine, another change since my
main elecronic building days in the 1960s and 1970s was very clear to
me. The magazines used to include constructional articles about lots
of things you could build for yourself, a bit like Wireless World,
Practical electronics and various others, but lately they just seemed
to be full of articles (sponsored no doubt) about things you could
buy. Also, any discussion about how things actually worked had
descended into ignorant and sometimes almost superstitious waffle.

That's one reason why I haven't bothered with "technical" magazines
for many years. The other reason is that much more up to date
information is available on the internet. It's usually pretty clear
which Youtube presenters actually know what the yare talking about.

Rod.

In article <acbidh9fkvgttgn83hi45gql4p7qti0bsu@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:05:32 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:

> >I tend to re-read old Hi-Fi mags and the change in content over the years
> >is quite clear. One obvious change is that old HFN has literally hundreds
> >of record reviews each month - divided into a range of types from folk to
> >orchestral via spoken word and classical. Now they just pick a few cherries
> >of a few types. Often items where no original performance of any kind is
> >represented.

> The last time I looked at a hi-fi magazine, another change since my
> main elecronic building days in the 1960s and 1970s was very clear to
> me. The magazines used to include constructional articles about lots
> of things you could build for yourself, a bit like Wireless World,
> Practical electronics and various others, but lately they just seemed
> to be full of articles (sponsored no doubt) about things you could
> buy. Also, any discussion about how things actually worked had
> descended into ignorant and sometimes almost superstitious waffle.

> That's one reason why I haven't bothered with "technical" magazines
> for many years. The other reason is that much more up to date
> information is available on the internet. It's usually pretty clear
> which Youtube presenters actually know what the yare talking about.

> Rod.

I gave up such magazines when one of them, which had been a serious one,
told me that a gold plated mains plug increased the stereo separation on an
FM tuner.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 13:21:47 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>On 19/07/2022 09:57, MB wrote:
>> On 19/07/2022 08:15, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> Could it be that it*would*  be of interest to them but they've never
>>> experienced it and don't know what they're missing?
>>
>> That was the great thing about John Peel, you could be listening one
>> minute to some jazz then pop music followed by classical.
>>
>> I remember once hearing an American "expert" on broadcasting being
>> interviewed, he said that a station needs to increase their listening
>> figures then they should reduce their playlist! Perhaps explains a lot
>> about commercial radio!
>
>I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial
>stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for quantity,
>so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.

I didn't think so. I thought royalty was paid on very copyright track
so it would make no difference whether they played one track 100 times
or 100 tracks once. Do different tracks attract different royalties
with some cheaper than others? I don't think playing 1950s cover
versions (or tracks in another language) to save money would be a
successful business plan.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 18:08:11 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>MB wrote:
>
>> That was the great thing about John Peel
>
>[...]
>
>> Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track
>
>John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
>"Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for it!

He opened our new Union. When I spoke to him, he remarked that he did
not think much of David Hamilton as a new signing to Radio 1.

On 19/07/2022 13:21, Max Demian wrote:
>
> I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial
> stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for
> quantity, so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.
>
No, that's got nothing to do with it. Apparently, broadly speaking,
listeners will only listen at length, if the music is 'familiar' to
them, and they've heard it recently before ! Always been the case, and
more or less also the case with BBC Radio 1, 2, and BBC Local during
'prime hours', though I'm inclined to think it's one of those self
fulfilling prophesies. A bit like the claim that far more people will
watch an event on BBC 1 rather than BBC 2. As the BBC never dare put a
major event on BBC 2 it's impossible to prove one way  or the other.

Thank goodness for streaming music services, and playlists, and being
able to have a random selection of music from hundreds of thousands of
choices

On 21/07/2022 03:15 pm, Scott wrote:

> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> MB wrote:
>
>>> That was the great thing about John Peel
>
>> [...]
>
>>> Reductio ad absurdum would mean that a station would only play one track
>
>> John Peel was booked for one of our freshers' week discos, for openers he played
>> "Blue Monday" six times in a row as a protest at how much he'd been asked for it!
>
> He opened our new Union. When I spoke to him, he remarked that he did
> not think much of David Hamilton as a new signing to Radio 1.

I wonder what he had against diversity?

When R1 was in its heyday, David Hamilton was probably a better fit for
it than John Peel could ever have been.

Can you imagine John Peel playing "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep" or other
tracks off the R1 daytime playlist of the day? That was what the
audience wanted.

DH was R1 mainstream while JP, for all his merits, was non-peak hours
niche programming.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 15:26:40 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 19/07/2022 13:21, Max Demian wrote:
>>
>> I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial
>> stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for
>> quantity, so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.
>>
>No, that's got nothing to do with it. Apparently, broadly speaking,
>listeners will only listen at length, if the music is 'familiar' to
>them, and they've heard it recently before ! Always been the case, and
>more or less also the case with BBC Radio 1, 2, and BBC Local during
>'prime hours', though I'm inclined to think it's one of those self
>fulfilling prophesies. A bit like the claim that far more people will
>watch an event on BBC 1 rather than BBC 2. As the BBC never dare put a
>major event on BBC 2 it's impossible to prove one way  or the other.

Good point. At the weekend, a friend of mine stated that if his
junior football club is promoted, they will need to install
floodlights. At the moment, winter games are played at 2 pm. My
brother observed: if the games are played at 2 pm why do they need
floodlights? The irony seemed to be lost.

On 21/07/2022 15:26, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 19/07/2022 13:21, Max Demian wrote:
>>
>> I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason commercial
>> stations have such limited playlists. Probably a reduction for
>> quantity, so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays of one track.
>>
> No, that's got nothing to do with it. Apparently, broadly speaking,
> listeners will only listen at length, if the music is 'familiar' to
> them, and they've heard it recently before ! Always been the case, and
> more or less also the case with BBC Radio 1, 2, and BBC Local during
> 'prime hours', though I'm inclined to think it's one of those self
> fulfilling prophesies. A bit like the claim that far more people will
> watch an event on BBC 1 rather than BBC 2. As the BBC never dare put a
> major event on BBC 2 it's impossible to prove one way  or the other.
>
> Thank goodness for streaming music services, and playlists, and being
> able to have a random selection of music from hundreds of thousands of
> choices

I wish streaming services (like Spotify and Amazon Music) could made
some sort of attempt at determining my taste rather than just playing
tracks at random. I mean the free services - I'm not paying £10 pcm for
buggerall.

I would have thought that access to tracks I already have on my
smartphone and me skipping tracks I don't want might give them a clue.

--
Max Demian

On 21/07/2022 17:04, Max Demian wrote:
> On 21/07/2022 15:26, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 19/07/2022 13:21, Max Demian wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect the way they pay for the music is another reason
>>> commercial stations have such limited playlists. Probably a
>>> reduction for quantity, so it's really cheap to pay for 10,000 plays
>>> of one track.
>>>
>> No, that's got nothing to do with it. Apparently, broadly speaking,
>> listeners will only listen at length, if the music is 'familiar' to
>> them, and they've heard it recently before ! Always been the case,
>> and more or less also the case with BBC Radio 1, 2, and BBC Local
>> during 'prime hours', though I'm inclined to think it's one of those
>> self fulfilling prophesies. A bit like the claim that far more people
>> will watch an event on BBC 1 rather than BBC 2. As the BBC never dare
>> put a major event on BBC 2 it's impossible to prove one way  or the
>> other.
>>
>> Thank goodness for streaming music services, and playlists, and being
>> able to have a random selection of music from hundreds of thousands
>> of choices
>
> I wish streaming services (like Spotify and Amazon Music) could made
> some sort of attempt at determining my taste rather than just playing
> tracks at random. I mean the free services - I'm not paying £10 pcm
> for buggerall.
>
> I would have thought that access to tracks I already have on my
> smartphone and me skipping tracks I don't want might give them a clue.
>
I don't think they're terribly interested in serving freeloaders

On 21/07/2022 17:04, Max Demian wrote:

> I wish streaming services (like Spotify and Amazon Music) could made
> some sort of attempt at determining my taste rather than just playing
> tracks at random. I mean the free services - I'm not paying £10 pcm for
> buggerall.

It will of course depend on what sort of music you like. There's Radio
Paradise, which is free and supported by donations:

https://radioparadise.com/player

The tablet app lets you skip tracks.

There's also Linn Radio which is also free:

https://www.linn.co.uk/linn-radio

The sound quality of these internet stations is much better than DAB
and, depending on what tier you're on, better than the paid-for services.

--
Lew