advertisement


Good Tuner for FM, DAB, and DAB+ for comparisons/tests/use?

Jim Audiomisc said:
I've emailed Henley and I'll give it a day or few to see if I get a response.
Click to expand...
I bought a Pro-Ject Tuner Box S3 from Fanthorpes in Hull. Found out it was out of stock and will have to come via Henley, who are the distributor for Pro-Ject. Henley told me there will be none delivered before the middle of February.

I think you can buy one off the shelf from Richer Sounds, so I'm a bit peeved about the wait.
 
Paul A. Perry said:
Might sound excessive, but you might get the best from an FM tuner and DAB tuner being separate, I.e two different ones!
Click to expand...

I do tend to use my existing FM tuners (QUAD FM and an Armstrong 626 - plus a slightly frail Yamaha CT-7000). But the new tuner that should reach me soon, has that alongside the DAB/DAB+. That will allow comparisons (add in gip fetched 320 aac from iPlayer).

Dual aim: To do some comparisons, and to get DAB+ and still be able to access the speech stations that may vanish from DAB (and never have been on FM).
 
What is the broadcast quality pit out by the respective formats these days? That could logically which it’s worth focusing on.

In my case I use a Yamaha T-88 with roof aerial for ‘free’ daily convenience and then have internet radio available via the streaming set-up. Sadly the latter is better for ClassicFM whenever I directly compare, as one example. Ergo, I’m surprised CFM was included in the earlier post alongside R3 as an example of quality.
 
Paul L said:
Ergo, I’m surprised CFM was included in the earlier post alongside R3 as an example of quality.
Click to expand...
Well, not the epitome of s.q. That is R3, as I said, Paul. However, it's pretty good and certainly better than a decade or so ago. Unfortunately, I've no idea about internet radio and doubt I ever shall. There are so many variables to FM reception; Xmitter distance, quality and height of antenna and cabling plus potential topographical problems.

Tacolneston is about 9 crow's miles from my 6 element on 12' mast on chimney half way up a steep hill and I get all LEDs showing on my Akai tuner (not that this is definitive). I simply couldn't imaging radio broadcasts to be better than R3 studio live performances. In my naivety, I still can't understand how steam radio CAN sound so good even IF given a head start.
 
I’m not surprised if R3 quality is still good Mike though with something like CFM I’m guessing they’re pushing out a digital signal at 128kbps or so which means I wouldn’t worry if I’m using FM, DAB or streaming.
 
Doesn't Sangean sell in good ol' Blighty? 😮

I have a WFT-3; it provides FM, DAB+ and Internet radio.
 
Paul L said:
What is the broadcast quality pit out by the respective formats these days? That could logically which it’s worth focusing on.

In my case I use a Yamaha T-88 with roof aerial for ‘free’ daily convenience and then have internet radio available via the streaming set-up. Sadly the latter is better for ClassicFM whenever I directly compare, as one example. Ergo, I’m surprised CFM was included in the earlier post alongside R3 as an example of quality.
Click to expand...

Overall for 'radio' broadcasts expect FM to be best. Although that depends on the broadcaster to an extent.

That said, BBC 320k iPlayer is much more faithful to what came from the producer than FM. Main limit there tends to be the producer of the programme and their mic setup, etc.
 
Mike Reed said:
Well, not the epitome of s.q. That is R3, as I said, Paul. However, it's pretty good and certainly better than a decade or so ago. Unfortunately, I've no idea about internet radio and doubt I ever shall. There are so many variables to FM reception; Xmitter distance, quality and height of antenna and cabling plus potential topographical problems.

Tacolneston is about 9 crow's miles from my 6 element on 12' mast on chimney half way up a steep hill and I get all LEDs showing on my Akai tuner (not that this is definitive). I simply couldn't imaging radio broadcasts to be better than R3 studio live performances. In my naivety, I still can't understand how steam radio CAN sound so good even IF given a head start.
Click to expand...

The BBC tend to make very well-crafted use of their 'Optimod Exciters' for R3 on FM. The result is more level compressed than iPlayer, but tilts towards being 'listener pleasing' in its effects. What you get from other stations depends on the producers. e.g. R4 tend to suffer from poor level control, which is more obvious on iPlayer than FM.
 
I use a cheap and cheerful DAB radio headphone out for DAB only. It may be worth giving it a try for £30. FM is better than DAB anyway when correctly applied with a decent aerial etc.

I would also look at internet radio first.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The BBC tend to make very well-crafted use of their 'Optimod Exciters' for R3 on FM.
Click to expand...
Don't care what they use, Jim The end result with the right broadcast (live studio) is almost up there with my other main sources (CD/vinyl) Signal strength is lower than R2, 4 and C/FM but it has been wherever I've lived. Hence optimum reception ancillaries required.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
The BBC tend to make very well-crafted use of their 'Optimod Exciters' for R3 on FM. The result is more level compressed than iPlayer, but tilts towards being 'listener pleasing' in its effects. What you get from other stations depends on the producers. e.g. R4 tend to suffer from poor level control, which is more obvious on iPlayer than FM.
Click to expand...
I haven’t noticed the difference between FM broadcast and subsequent iPlayer transmission, perhaps because there’s usually a lapse of time. But it would be a pity if the latter is less good, because if an FM broadcast is really good I record it later from iPlayer, and so end up with the less good version. But until I’ve heard the first broadcast, I don’t know if I want to keep it.
 
GavinA said:
I haven’t noticed the difference between FM broadcast and subsequent iPlayer transmission, perhaps because there’s usually a lapse of time. But it would be a pity if the latter is less good, because if an FM broadcast is really good I record it later from iPlayer, and so end up with the less good version. But until I’ve heard the first broadcast, I don’t know if I want to keep it.
Click to expand...

The maing differences for R3 is that the iPlayer files tend to simply be an LPCM -> 320k aac encode using the BBC's standard sample rate of 48k. Whereas the FM gets processed to compress the dynamics a bit, altering the relative HF at times, then converted to 32k sample rate NICAM. The result is lower resolution and bandwidth, and can audibly alter the peak-sustain ratio foir things like piano music. In sound quaiity terms gives more 'sustain warmth'. This is all needed to fit the music into the info 'envelope' of VHF. Lower bandwidth, higher noise floor, and less resolution at times, than iPlayer can deliver. But very sympathetically done usually on R3.

Other BBC stations are more ad-hoc. Hence, for example, the wild variations in speech level on R4 from one programme to another.
Result of 'independent' productions all doing it their own way, then transmitted as BBC progs.
 
I'm surprised there isn't an equivalent of Video's R128 audio normalising for radio broadcast. But I guess radio is so diverse it isn't as much of an issue as it is with ads and film explosions etc. on TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top