73 posts / 0 new
Last post
John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23070
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

Alec wrote:

John Duncan wrote:
So reality is only an objective thing? Or does it only make sense as an individual's subjective experience? For example, red is red, but if you're colour blind, your red is not my red. I'm not starting a fight btw, I'm just interested...

Or trying to discuss something about which there can be no discussion. fr0g is entirely right. But you prefer whatever you prefer, and may not be able to hear differences, that's fine. It doesn't matter weather the argument is circular or rhombus shaped, it's still absolutely correct and if otherwise perfectly intelligent people can't see it then...

So inceredibly tiresome.

I wasn't trying to talk about hifi or anything else. I just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. You know, like perfectly intelligent people do.

As for it being something you can have no discussion about, I'm fairly sure that Kant or Popper or any other number of scientific philosophers would disagree.

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com
Kit in state of flux

Overdose's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 08/02/2008 - 18:23
Posts: 3626
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

Alec wrote:

Overdose wrote:

[Pedantic mode on]

323Kbps is lossy and is not CD quality (1400Kbps), so is not going to be, in any way, better in quality than CD.

 

You're off by 11.2.

ROFL

Harrumph! :grin:

Alec's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 08/10/2007 - 21:06
Posts: 6114
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

Whatever John. What you seem to want to talk about has nothing to do with what fr0g said, which doesn't call for any help from Popper et al.

Thanks for the education, Your Cleverness.

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23070
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

Alec wrote:

Whatever John. What you seem to want to talk about has nothing to do with what fr0g said, which doesn't call for any help from Popper et al.

Thanks for the education, Your Cleverness.

It isn't a response to any argument he was making, no. But he mentioned 'reality' and it got me thinking in a different direction. That's all.

And in matters philosophical, I'm more of a Kant than anything...

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com
Kit in state of flux

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23070
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

Alec wrote:

Whatever John. What you seem to want to talk about has nothing to do with what fr0g said, which doesn't call for any help from Popper et al.

Thanks for the education, Your Cleverness.

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com
Kit in state of flux

Alec's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 12 hours ago
Joined: 08/10/2007 - 21:06
Posts: 6114
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

John Duncan wrote:

Alec wrote:

Whatever John. What you seem to want to talk about has nothing to do with what fr0g said, which doesn't call for any help from Popper et al.

Thanks for the education, Your Cleverness.

It isn't a response to any argument he was making, no. But he mentioned 'reality' and it got me thinking in a different direction. That's all. And in matters philosophical, I'm more of a Kant than anything...

Then I shall do the unprecedented and unreservedly apologise. I probably need to top my fluids up.

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23070
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

That's alright. I could see how, from previous experience, you might think I was picking a fight Smile

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com
Kit in state of flux

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 2951
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

John Duncan wrote:

Alec wrote:

John Duncan wrote:
So reality is only an objective thing? Or does it only make sense as an individual's subjective experience? For example, red is red, but if you're colour blind, your red is not my red. I'm not starting a fight btw, I'm just interested...

Or trying to discuss something about which there can be no discussion. fr0g is entirely right. But you prefer whatever you prefer, and may not be able to hear differences, that's fine. It doesn't matter weather the argument is circular or rhombus shaped, it's still absolutely correct and if otherwise perfectly intelligent people can't see it then...

So inceredibly tiresome.

I wasn't trying to talk about hifi or anything else. I just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion. You know, like perfectly intelligent people do. As for it being something you can have no discussion about, I'm fairly sure that Kant or Popper or any other number of scientific philosophers would disagree.

 

We're on mixed mental threads here.

Alec I think gets what I am saying.

 

There are some things which warrant no discussion as the answer is obvious.

eg... MP3 CANNOT be better than the CD it was ripped from. It's impossible. If someone comes on these forums (or the Teapot enthusiast forum in Zambia) and claims that it sounds better, they *could* be right subjectively, but objectively, from measurements, it is entirely impossible for it to be so.

FM *cannot* be *better* than the CD the music was taken from. It makes no sense, there is no logical reason for it to be so. HOWEVER, given the added distortion involved, it *can* sound different, and where there is a difference there *can*be a preference, and so long as we are talking individual preference, then there is *no* right and wrong.

 

 

 

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23070
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

fr0g wrote:

We're on mixed mental threads here.

Almost completely, yes.  A phrase you used set me off on a tangent that I thought was interesting.  You may have noticed me do this.

As for 320 vs CD vs FM vs whatever, of course from a technical point of view there can be no argument about their respective qualities.  From a subjective point of view, anybody can think what they like.

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com
Kit in state of flux

chebby's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 43 min ago
Joined: 02/06/2008 - 09:40
Posts: 16316
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

I guess that - for me at least - radio (particularly BBC radio and even more particularly Radio 4 since I was 17 years-old) carries a lot of 'baggage' with it.

The old televisions and the radiogram (when I was very small in the 1960s) that both had radio built in. Both had valves and large wooden enclosures of course. Also the kitchen radio (that was plugged into a home-made corner enclosure amp/speaker that my father had DIY'ed - probably from a kit some years before - including aerial/antenna on the shed roof).

There was also the car radio (in the Wolseley) that had a large oval speaker set into a wooden surround and was also (almost certainly) valve driven given the car's vintage.  

So during my formative years, BBC radio (music from Radio one and two and comedies and 'serials'), ALL emanated from valve driven speakers in large wooden enclosures of one kind or another. So it was all rather 'lush' and smooth and even 'plummy' (as were some of the accents still, at least outside of Radio 1).

The kitchen radio (corner enclosure near ceiling) was replaced during a re-decorate with one of these around the time I was at junior school (I hunted a long time to find a photograph of the exact model) and this became my favourite for a long time. (Lovely tuning scale, lashings of chrome, great sound). I used to love sitting in semi darkness and scanning the frequencies.

Whilst at sixth form college I worked Saturdays at a local hi-fi/TV/radio/records shop and bought (at enormous discount) a gorgeous Roberts R800 radio. Yet again a fantastic sounding, lush, radio with a solid wooden enclosure and a decent amount of chrome! I had that radio for the next 10 years until we replaced it with a Roberts R737 that I had to travel to Harrods to collect in exactly the colour we wanted! (The www was only a few years old and internet shopping hadn't quite yet started.)

Along with stereo FM tuners (from Sony, Yamaha, Rega, Arcam, Naim and now Marantz) radio has always been my most important 'source' and I have an expectation of what it should sound like. (And b@gger the measurements!)

In a perfect world (ok my perfect world)  FM would continue forever and I would have a lunking great big Sony ES tuner with loads of lights and polished wood end panels Smile It would feed a factory restored Accuphase (Class A) amp from the same era and speak to me via some big Harbeths in an oak panelled study or library.

I don't care about the measurements, or that the BBC play music from CDs and WAV files (70 - 80 percent of my radio listening is non-musical anyway). Turn off some lights and listen to a well recorded radio play or a live broadcast and it's magical.

TuneIn Radio Pro on my iPhone is rather spiffy (and allows the higher BBC R3 bitrates) and even seems to encourage a bit of 'lushness' that Jazz FM seem to add to their broadcast. (Niiiice...)

DAB is a dog. (Except, for some unaccountable reason, on the Vita R1 Deluxe in the kitchen.)

Freeview radio is better than DAB (and I can record it).

But FM is the King and no amount of Ashleys (with their anti Beeb bias) or fr0gs or oohs will convince me otherwise.

I cannot be argued with on this point in any rational way Smile  Even if you are actually right, you will be wrong.

(Exuant with ' Sailing By' playing on a Roberts Radio in the background.)

"We are currently awaiting the loading of our complement of small lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment and hygiene during the journey."

Overdose's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 08/02/2008 - 18:23
Posts: 3626
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

chebby wrote:

I guess that - for me at least - radio (particularly BBC radio and even more particularly Radio 4 since I was 17 years-old) carries a lot of 'baggage' with it.

The old televisions and the radiogram (when I was very small in the 1960s) that both had radio built in. Both had valves and large wooden enclosures of course. Also the kitchen radio (that was plugged into a home-made corner enclosure amp/speaker that my father had DIY'ed - probably from a kit some years before - including aerial/antenna on the shed roof).

There was also the car radio (in the Wolseley) that had a large oval speaker set into a wooden surround and was also (almost certainly) valve driven given the car's vintage.  

So during my formative years, BBC radio (music from Radio one and two and comedies and 'serials'), ALL emanated from valve driven speakers in large wooden enclosures of one kind or another. So it was all rather 'lush' and smooth and even 'plummy' (as were some of the accents still, at least outside of Radio 1).

The kitchen radio (corner enclosure near ceiling) was replaced during a re-decorate with one of these around the time I was at junior school (I hunted a long time to find a photograph of the exact model) and this became my favourite for a long time. (Lovely tuning scale, lashings of chrome, great sound). I used to love sitting in semi darkness and scanning the frequencies.

Whilst at sixth form college I worked Saturdays at a local hi-fi/TV/radio/records shop and bought (at enormous discount) a gorgeous Roberts R800 radio. Yet again a fantastic sounding, lush, radio with a solid wooden enclosure and a decent amount of chrome! I had that radio for the next 10 years until we replaced it with a Roberts R737 that I had to travel to Harrods to collect in exactly the colour we wanted! (The www was only a few years old and internet shopping hadn't quite yet started.)

Along with stereo FM tuners (from Sony, Yamaha, Rega, Arcam, Naim and now Marantz) radio has always been my most important 'source' and I have an expectation of what it should sound like. (And b@gger the measurements!)

In a perfect world (ok my perfect world)  FM would continue forever and I would have a lunking great big Sony ES tuner with loads of lights and polished wood end panels Smile It would feed a factory restored Accuphase (Class A) amp from the same era and speak to me via some big Harbeths in an oak panelled study or library.

I don't care about the measurements, or that the BBC play music from CDs and WAV files (70 - 80 percent of my radio listening is non-musical anyway). Turn off some lights and listen to a well recorded radio play or a live broadcast and it's magical.

TuneIn Radio Pro on my iPhone is rather spiffy (and allows the higher BBC R3 bitrates) and even seems to encourage a bit of 'lushness' that Jazz FM seem to add to their broadcast. (Niiiice...)

DAB is a dog. (Except, for some unaccountable reason, on the Vita R1 Deluxe in the kitchen.)

Freeview radio is better than DAB (and I can record it).

But FM is the King and no amount of Ashleys (with their anti Beeb bias) or fr0gs or oohs will convince me otherwise.

I cannot be argued with on this point in any rational way Smile  Even if you are actually right, you will be wrong.

(Exuant with ' Sailing By' playing on a Roberts Radio in the background.)

DAB is digitally and dynamically compressed and is therefore horribly compromised, FM is much better by comparison. I won't argue with you on that one.

:grin:

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 2951
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

chebby wrote:

But FM is the King and no amount of Ashleys (with their anti Beeb bias) or fr0gs or oohs will convince me otherwise.

 

If you see what I say, then you would realise that I wouldn't want to. 

In the same way, I think the best car ever made is the original Mini.

Kevin Stephens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 16/04/2009 - 18:36
Posts: 186
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

just interrupting the usual WHF thread degeneration into inter-nicene squabbles to report:

 

Radio 3 FM Late Junction: SUBLIME

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 2951
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

Kevin Stephens wrote:

just interrupting the usual WHF thread degeneration into inter-nicene squabbles to report:

 

Radio 3 FM Late Junction: SUBLIME

 

I think 2 and a half weeks pause is enough to not worry about interupting Smile

Where were we?

 

Wink

shooter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/05/2008 - 16:45
Posts: 2714
RE: FM tuner vs. CD sound quality?

Overdose wrote:

chebby wrote:

I guess that - for me at least - radio (particularly BBC radio and even more particularly Radio 4 since I was 17 years-old) carries a lot of 'baggage' with it.

The old televisions and the radiogram (when I was very small in the 1960s) that both had radio built in. Both had valves and large wooden enclosures of course. Also the kitchen radio (that was plugged into a home-made corner enclosure amp/speaker that my father had DIY'ed - probably from a kit some years before - including aerial/antenna on the shed roof).

There was also the car radio (in the Wolseley) that had a large oval speaker set into a wooden surround and was also (almost certainly) valve driven given the car's vintage.  

So during my formative years, BBC radio (music from Radio one and two and comedies and 'serials'), ALL emanated from valve driven speakers in large wooden enclosures of one kind or another. So it was all rather 'lush' and smooth and even 'plummy' (as were some of the accents still, at least outside of Radio 1).

The kitchen radio (corner enclosure near ceiling) was replaced during a re-decorate with one of these around the time I was at junior school (I hunted a long time to find a photograph of the exact model) and this became my favourite for a long time. (Lovely tuning scale, lashings of chrome, great sound). I used to love sitting in semi darkness and scanning the frequencies.

Whilst at sixth form college I worked Saturdays at a local hi-fi/TV/radio/records shop and bought (at enormous discount) a gorgeous Roberts R800 radio. Yet again a fantastic sounding, lush, radio with a solid wooden enclosure and a decent amount of chrome! I had that radio for the next 10 years until we replaced it with a Roberts R737 that I had to travel to Harrods to collect in exactly the colour we wanted! (The www was only a few years old and internet shopping hadn't quite yet started.)

Along with stereo FM tuners (from Sony, Yamaha, Rega, Arcam, Naim and now Marantz) radio has always been my most important 'source' and I have an expectation of what it should sound like. (And b@gger the measurements!)

In a perfect world (ok my perfect world)  FM would continue forever and I would have a lunking great big Sony ES tuner with loads of lights and polished wood end panels Smile It would feed a factory restored Accuphase (Class A) amp from the same era and speak to me via some big Harbeths in an oak panelled study or library.

I don't care about the measurements, or that the BBC play music from CDs and WAV files (70 - 80 percent of my radio listening is non-musical anyway). Turn off some lights and listen to a well recorded radio play or a live broadcast and it's magical.

TuneIn Radio Pro on my iPhone is rather spiffy (and allows the higher BBC R3 bitrates) and even seems to encourage a bit of 'lushness' that Jazz FM seem to add to their broadcast. (Niiiice...)

DAB is a dog. (Except, for some unaccountable reason, on the Vita R1 Deluxe in the kitchen.)

Freeview radio is better than DAB (and I can record it).

But FM is the King and no amount of Ashleys (with their anti Beeb bias) or fr0gs or oohs will convince me otherwise.

I cannot be argued with on this point in any rational way Smile  Even if you are actually right, you will be wrong.

(Exuant with ' Sailing By' playing on a Roberts Radio in the background.)

DAB is digitally and dynamically compressed and is therefore horribly compromised, FM is much better by comparison. I won't argue with you on that one.

:grin:

It is worse by a considerable margin but interestingly the dynamic range is the same. The process of DAB strips the PCM (CD quality) signal back to MPEG 1 Layer 2, and its a complex one, after that its padded out with zero's to achieve a dynamic range of 71db.

So what your getting is a signal of 1537 padded out to 2048 which equates to 71db dynamic range which is the same as FM radio but FM is 2048 without the padding. PCM is 32768 giving us 96db.

All we need to do now is convert MPEG's 1537 into db's and we have the answer Smile

Pages

Log in or register to post comments