Radio 3 FM Quality.

[Pharos]

I might have either met him or studied with him at Wood Norton, but my memory of TV chaps was that they looked down on radio staff; I remember one who visited Bush saying to me condescendingly; "Do they still do radio?"

[Mike Reed]

well done , i had to take down my huge galaxie aeriel this week. I shall miss it a lot. Rather confess i like classic FM rather than Radio 3 which is even worse quality

G17 or G14, Phil? Either way, it's a great shame and mandatory for R3, I'd say, because of the lower output. Not sure whether you're saying R3 is better or worse than Classic FM, but although (i.m.o.) Classic FM has improved in s.q. terms over past years, nothing touches R3 for music.

I get mine via a 6 element from Tacolneston near Norwich (9 miles or so) and although I only listen to Sat. afternoon jazz generally, s.q, is very good. In fact, going from 'Requests (1600 to 1700) to 'J to Z' featuring studio stuff, the uplift in s.q. is marked. Used to have a serviced 01 but am surprised how my cheap Ebay NAD 402 lacks little in comparison.

[Barry]

R3 announcements on LJ are often poor, but his is IMO more to do with a cultural decline, universal, speech having deteriorated, and emotional gesticulation taking over from clear and grammatical expression. (Arm waving on TV).

LJ was good until they made it later, I seem to remember that it used to start at 2200, and it becoming 'anything goes' to fill up air time. This correlates with our (IMO) cultural decline.

My interest in 'serious music', really was ruined by being forced in childhood to listen to all the classics, it being promulgated as the only valid form, and intellectual.

I do however disagree with your opinion of R4 speech, often on news it is so poor that there is a complete loss of the presence range, so important for intelligibility, and nothing is coming from my tweeters.

We receive Rf signals from different transmitters for FM: Newhaven for you and Wrotham for me. I'm listening to R4 right now, and can tell you there is nothing wrong with the quality of the speech: there is significant content above 7kHz coming from my speakers.

Perhaps there is a problem with your transmitter?

[JimK]

I don't listen to R3, but it is notorious for being at an averagely low level compared with the other BBC stations, and this does present SQ problems. (Used to listen to Late Junction before it was run by fans of smart arses with samplers.)

Optimod is something to consider, it adds artefacts.


Personally, as an ex BBC engineer, I am of the view that they are not bothered about SQ, and I'm not even sure that they have the staff able to produce good sound anyway. I remember just how good it was in the early 70s.

I used to like Late Junction, still listen to it occasionally but it is crap these days.

[Pharos]

"We receive Rf signals from different transmitters for FM: Newhaven for you and Wrotham for me. I'm listening to R4 right now, and can tell you there is nothing wrong with the quality of the speech: there is significant content above 7kHz coming from my speakers.

Perhaps there is a problem with your transmitter? "

Well I think that there may be a problem with the transmitters, but unlikely.

Ashley James of AVI said that he listened to a pair of ADAMs without any adjustments recently, and that they were not good on voice and piano.

Currently I am unhappy with voices on both R4 and films from DTV*, but these problems were evident with my own ESS/Rogers redesign, and even on my old CRT Sony TV several years ago with an oval 3 or 5" speaker.

Differences on voice with my ADAMs are more marked, and their (referred to in an earlier post), dynamics may be revealing mic techniques in a more revealing way. Intermittently the R4 voices are very good, but often on intensive news not so, eg. the Today programme.

In the studio they have a large round table surrounded by large diaphragm mics, and a computer screen directly in front of each presenter which will produce a cavity, and when they talk to each other they turn their heads at right angles to the mic axes, and so lose top and presence.

I notice the cavity effect if I am singing as I walk up to the kitchen units to wash up, an increase in volume in the few hundred Hz range.

I'm hoping like hell that my speakers are not a failed design in the voice respect, and that their extrememly fast response is just revealing stuff previously missed on monitors.

A recent writeup by Keith Howard of the ATC 100s stating a slight mid range 'BBC dip' may be an accurate description of what they use, although they now use Genelec monitors.
This 'BBC dip' was called the 'Gundry dip' after the designer.

*Films on TV show cultural change with various decades, many current are American mumble, and many late 60s and early 70s have good sound.

A good test IMO is the nature of voices on films showing open air scenes, eg. cowboys in a desert, where they should not be thick and boxy, but thin and open.

[Pharos]

I measured the spls this morning on R4 at 9.30, and it peaked 60dB, and much of the speech was poor, but from experience live speech in my room typically peaks 70dB, so Munsen curves may be a factor here because broadcast O/Ps vary so much in level.