Malich

Members
  • Content count

    961
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Malich

  • Rank
    AV Forum Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,099 profile views
  1. Please don't start lying again, Alan. I proposed nothing. I did ask a question, admittedly in jest. I thought my use of a question mark, and the inclusion of a smiley, would've made that clear enough - but apparently not... As I and other people pointed out after you once proposed use of NVIS @ 26MHz for DRM in Tasmania and several other part of Australia, that mode is simply not suitable for that frequency. The links you've provided above - some of which we supplied to you earlier - also state that that mode is not suitable at that frequency (e.g. BS.2251-2012 says, on p43, "this type of propagation is rarely possible in the 26 MHz band"). You strenuously disagreed with us at the time, and have continued to disagree ever since. Are you now admitting your earlier proposal had severe technical errors that made if unworkable, saying that you now agree with our original position, and that NVIS @ 26MHz simply can't work?
  2. That's not a benefit exclusive to DRM though - HF AM can do this just as easily (in fact, did do this at one stage) and, unlike DRM, HF AM has the advantage of a huge number of receivers already installed as well as a variety of well-built receivers both cheaply & currently available. To be fair, since actual technical discussion of TV & radio on this forum is being pushed further and further towards the margins in favour of pixel-peeping & spec-sheet comparison of consumer gear, the "Television and Radio - Off Topic" sub-forum is really the only section left...
  3. "Never" is such a strong word, isn't it? You should take more care in using it. Note that I've refrained from linking to your ACMA submission where you suggested exactly that... I'm glad, after several of us here spent many years trying to convince you it wasn't possible, that you now believe us...
  4. Since Alan is never going to give a clear answer to anything: would anyone else care to take a guess at what the heck that's supposed to mean? Is it meant as an insult? If so, it's not a terribly good one... I clearly know a bit more about modern transmitters than you do. Things have obviously changed a bit since you last had anything to do with one (you no longer have to shovel coal into them to make them run, for one... ). You might like to look up some of the things I mentioned - Nautel, for one, has some good articles & white papers on those techniques, and there's plenty of real-world case studies confirming the efficiency gains from them...
  5. Using NVIS @ 26Mhz, no doubt?
  6. Yes absolutely, dear reader, what is conveniently omitted is the person wanted to use VHF, was shaded from the local transmitter and was located on a bearing of minimum ERP from the local site, in other words VHF from Brisbane was superior. This possibly was the pinnacle of the poster’s display of ineptness and belligerence, I would welcome anyone interested in SFN’s to read my posts of a decade or so ago. It's a pity those posts - in fact, most of the content of those threads, plus any other posts that quoted or even linked to the missing posts - have been lost to the forum. It'd certainly help set the record straight if they still existed here. Let's hope the new management are paying a bit more attention to backups & general data integrity... If in fact Alan's numbers are accurate, let's put them in a bit of context: "between 1 and 2 million dollars a year" amounts to ~0.1% of the ABC's annual budget. Isn't it also true that modern AM transmitters using MDCL/AML/DCC/PDM etc at typical settings are just as power-efficient as DRM transmitters? And due to the differing peak-to-average power ratio, duty cycle, etc, of DRM vs AM transmission, a DRM transmitter putting out (for example) 20kW has to basically be equivalent in construction to a (more expensive) 50kW AM transmitter? Seems to me that the first step - at least until there's hope of more than a small handful of DRM receiver models being available - would be to update their transmitters to a modern AM design. They'd be just as energy efficient on AM as DRM; broadcasts could easily be converted now or in the future to either AM/DRM simulcast or 100% DRM (you basically can't buy a plain AM-only transmitter any more - they're all DRM capable out of the box); and you'd save the whole population having to upgrade to radios that don't really exist despite the DRM consortium trying hard for the last ~15 years...
  7. Your list is also incomplete: Mahindra TUV300. This was the first Indian car (SUV in this case) with DRM back in late 2015/early 2016. As I understand it, currently at least the T6 and above ship with a radio that supports DRM (although it's not mentioned on the website / in brochures). The DRM Consortium also state in their submission to the current ABC enquiry / private member's bill that Maruti Suzuki (i.e. Suzuki India) "have already incorporated DRM receivers in their vehicles, now for sale in India". Although from what I understand locals report that second isn't currently true - no current Suzuki has a DRM radio, and dealers know nothing about it. It may be that DRM Consortium jumped the gun with that, or it may just be their usual misrepresentation (though they're usually less direct/blatant about that).
  8. Interesting article by a guy who has reverse-engineered the [US, FM band] HD Radio format, and created the first (that I know of) open-source HD Radio software decoder for SDR. RECEIVING NRSC-5 It looks much more similar to DRM+ (& DAB) than I expected, and the audio coding looks like a stripped-down, shuffled, and obfuscated version of AAC. So close, in fact, that I wonder how they didn't infringe the AAC-related patents. Oh, and there's a short explanation about how COFDM guard intervals work / what actually goes on with them, which may be of interest to some people...
  9. It's not that far. Reflection / refraction most likely, due to the rain & cloud of the weekend being right between & over the two. In similar circumstances e.g. the rare times we get rain coming up from the south, it's not unusual for me to see shape of the Gold Coast channels pop up on my SDR - despite those transmitters pointing away from me...
  10. Related: I rang & emailed them a couple of weeks ago about a couple of possibly related ALC/AGC/DRC issue (sharp loud sounds in programme audio, or the change from loud promo to normal programme, causing the compressor to wind back the gain for several seconds). In a quick email back-and-forth with a tech they mentioned without much detail that they were dealing with a few audio issues & gave the same sort of timeframe. FWIW, from experience contacting them as a normal viewer over several years, complaints like this usually go: Initial complaint, canned response. If the complaint is new to them, or they think you might have useful info (e.g. in the past I've sent them .ts files to show issues), one of their/MediaHub's tech staff will contact you by email. They usually quietly resolve it in 4~6 weeks. A couple of weeks after that, you may get a followup contact to see if the problem has been resolved to your satisfaction.
  11. The base model Mazda3 Neo doesn't; the Mazda3 Maxx (2nd-bottom model) & above do. Same goes for the Mazda2. The Mazda6 has it in all levels. (I checked them out a little while ago when we were looking at a 2, and just verified the above on the Mazda Australia site.)
  12. A quick update on the Titus II: PantronX had received ~2000 pre-orders by February. They’ve improved the shielding & sensitivity since the prototype - SNR for reliable decoding is now about 3dB better most other receivers. The first pre-production units were expected March~April, but due to component sourcing & manufacturing issues they now expect production units to be available sometime in June. At HFCC A17, the TWR representative said it will support AM (MW & SW), FM, DRM-30, DRM+ & DAB at launch. Still waiting to hear back if that includes DAB+. In May the RRI Batam (Indonesia) DRM trial demonstrated a Titus II with Journaline, which confirms what I’d already heard & said about support for that. (Sources: TWR, PantronX, DRNMA, DRM Consortium, pers. comm.) In other related news (so I guess not so quick an update!): Gospell GR-216: Still in hardware/software development in January. Initial trial production in March. Part sourcing & preparing for production in April. No Journaline at launch (but Gospell have said it’ll be made available “in an update”). No slideshow / multimedia support (according to Gospell the display does not have “enough colors’, but they say they’re working on a future ‘pro’ version that will support multimedia). AM (MW & SW), FM, & DRM-30. (Sources: DRMNA, HFCC A17, pers. comm.) Avion AV-DR-1401: Became unavailable in late 2016, but as of May 2017 is again available for order on Amazon India (ship date early June). The unconfirmed information I’ve received from Indian enthusiasts is that they believe no major hardware or software changes have been made - so new units will probably have the same extremely poor performance as previous units. (Sources: Amazon.in, pers. comm.) Hyundai Modis / NXP (factory fitted car radios, India): Not much info - Indian sources say it’s not a bad performer, if a bit insensitive. (Source: pers. comm.) The DRM Consortium has also stated that Maruti Suzuki (i.e. Suzuki India) “have already incorporated DRM receivers in their vehicles, now for sale in India” (quote from the Consortium’s submission to the current ABC SW restoration bill). The Indian SW/DRM enthusiasts I’ve asked in the last few days know nothing about this, and the Suzuki dealers they’ve asked also know nothing about DRM. Upcoming model? No-one cares? More DRM Consortium flim-flam (like their habit of claiming every "DRM-capable" transmitter as a DRM sale, or including radios that haven't been made for 10 years in demonstrations/presentations)? Who knows…
  13. Yeah, yeah, you keep saying that. But you never actually bother to prove it. It's self-evident that you lack both the technical knowledge and ability to even support any of your own claims, let alone prove to the whole world why you others are wrong. You have a big chance to take me down a peg or two and prove your superior understanding simply by explaining what you mean by "DAB+ overcomes this problem [multipath] by transmitting the data in bursts allowing for the reflected signals to dissipate before the next burst" - and you're completely unable to do it! By the way, while I was writing this comment another extremely technically knowledgeable forum member PM'd to query me about a particular aspect of my explanation above. On reflection I agreed with the overall point of his criticism, and explained my particular reasoning. I don't know if he thinks I'm correct or not - that's up to him to decide - but we did have a short & interesting discussion. Irrelevant. Your claim, and this discussion it has spawned, is about the effect of reflected/multipath signals on reception - not identifying the source. Rather than you once again derailing yet another thread with off-topic pointlessness, feel free to start your own thread explaining how "find[ing] the source of reflected signals using a digital field strength meter" invalidates my rough explanation above of DAB/DAB+ reception under multipath conditions, and validates your claim of "dissipates". I'm sure that it will be up to your usual standard of technical competence...
  14. Yeah, that's the thing. Quite frankly, it's amazing what HE-AAC can do. Providing 'acceptable' (i.e. approximately FM-quality) at bitrates around 7% that of uncompressed audio is an impressive feat. Unfortunately, in my opinion the average listener is being mislead by 2 things: Firstly, the perception - supportable in some aspects, but over-sold by marketing to the point that it's popularly believed to be the case in all aspects - that digital is always better. And secondly, the fact that - as well-documented in other posts here and elsewhere - broadcasters choose & prefer to use inappropriately low bitrates. The latter seems to be a particularly hard thing for some to accept, mostly because of the former... I'd generally agree with that, with one small proviso: SBR shouldn't even begin to be operational in HE-AAC at 128kbps. From memory the spec only characterises it up to 96kbps, and even there it's considered a 50:50 bet against HE-AAC without SBR (i.e. AAC-LC). Above that, it more commonly sounds subjectively worse! Really, SBR should only be used up to ~80kbps and, as far as I'm aware, the standard profiles enforce that. Chances are, if you have 128kbps files that are reported as "HE-AAC" or "AAC-LC, SBR", they're in fact simply AAC-LC... (I won't go in to the details of AAC/MP4 metadata, but if you're curious there's a short relevant run-down in the answer here. Note carefully the distinction between "MPEG-2 AAC LC" and "MPEG-4 Audio" object types, and the specific audio object types available under "MPEG-4 Audio".)
  15. So, by the common rules of discussion you have failed to support your claim. And by your own "rules": since I made a statement above, you have challenged it, but can't back up that challenge up - you have also failed to support your claim. So, in the end, to quote your own words back at you, "it can only be concluded that you don't know, so I am right."