BBC Blog Network

User Profile

RichardEvans67

Listed below are comments made by RichardEvans67 between Sunday, 14th December 2008 and Saturday, 11th July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Another exciting new sound for BBC Radio 08:24am on 11 Jul 2009 @ James Cridland

Yes, it's good news that the WMA bit rates have been increased, I noticed about 2 days ago, but was too busy at the time. I've just been trying 6 Music on my hi-fi this morning (using one of my Squeezeboxes). I reckon it sounds similar to 96k aac, just about good enough for hi-fi listening. A significant improvement over 96k WMA. Obviously it would be better to be able to play the 128k aac streams this way, but it looks like I'm gong to have to wait.
Another exciting new sound for BBC Radio 11:55pm on 24 Jun 2009 @ Dark-Avised
Good point, why use mp3.

I wonder if the answer is something to do with compatibility and cost.
The national broadcasts are provided not only in aac, for use on computers, but also in WMA for wi-fi radios and other such devices.

Perhaps for local radio it is too expensive (or too complicated) to provide multiple streams. If they need to do it using just one stream, then they can't use Flash, as wi-fi radios would not be able to handle it. (Actually as far as I know not that many wi-fi radios support aac yet either).

If they can't rely on aac being decoded by Flash Player, then they need to use a codec that the vast majority of computers can decode, without relying on the Flash player. It also has to be a codec that works on wi-fi radios.

WMA would be a possibility, as almost all PCs and wi-fi radios would support it. However I'm not sure how many Mac's and Lunix systems can decode it.

Mp3 on the other hand is a codec that has been around for a very long time now, and pretty much any device can decode it.

Perhaps that is why they chose mp3. Mp3 is not as good as aac, but mp3 encoders have improved a great deal in recent years, and a really good mp3 encoder can sound surprisingly good at 128k. Not as good as I would ideally like, and not as good as aac, but better than many people might expect.
Another exciting new sound for BBC Radio 8:04pm on 24 Jun 2009 It is certainly good news that we finally have good sound quality on the default streams. However hi-fi listening is still not well catered for.

The only way to play the high quality streams through a hi-fi is to connect a computer to the hi-fi system. Most computers don't have high quality digital to analogue converters. I also have an added problem, I find my laptop tends to produce interference when connected to my hi-fi. I don't think it was designed to be used in this way.

The WMA streams are much easier to play via a hi-fi, as they don't need flashplayer. I can easily play them using my Squeezebox. However the WMA streams are not hi-fi quality. They are good enough for portable radios, but sound disappointing on a hi-fi system.

It would make life so much easier, if high quality streams were available in non Flash format. The so called vanilla acc streams. I hope it will not be too long before these streams become available, and I hope they will sound as good as the default aac streams.
Better audio for BBC Radio online 00:11am on 18 Jun 2009 I notice that now nearly all the test streams are at 128k. I tried out 6 music a few days ago and it did sound very good. Not all streams sound good all the time, a few previous times I found sound quality to be a bit poor, especially on Radio 1. I strongly suspect however that this has more to do with what goes into the encoders. On Radio 1 I think it is mostly the dynamic compression that spoils it. The 128k encoding however does seem to be working very well, and sounds very good when the content allows it to.

My only problem now is not being able to play the streams on my Squeezeboxes. Any hints about when the vanilla aac streams will be available?

Also I can't help wondering how long are the 128k streams going to stay as test streams. Unless there are problems still to be ironed out, then why can't everybody benefit from the improved sound quality?

Richard.
Better audio for BBC Radio online 5:23pm on 20 Apr 2009 I just tried to have a listen to the Radio 1 stream, and wondered why it sounded so muffled. Then I realised that at the moment I'm only getting the 64k Real Player stream. :-(

I haven't got around to listening to the Radio 1 128k stream very much, due to the inconvenience of having to plug my Laptop into my hi-fi, and also due to an interference problem I have been getting recently when I do that. I do hope it is not too long before the so called vanilla aac streams come on line, as it would be so much easier to be able to listen on my Squeezebox.

From what I have managed to hear of the 128k Radio 1 stream, it does seem encouraging. However I haven't had time for a proper listen until today, and today I can't access the stream. I'd also like to mention that I haven't had any re buffering problems with the 128k stream.
Better audio for BBC Radio online 4:42pm on 16 Mar 2009 As I write this 6 Music are playing Open Your Heart by The Human League, and it sounds dreadful. I think it is the dynamic range compression that is spoiling it.
Better audio for BBC Radio online 1:49pm on 16 Mar 2009 Finally I got around to connecting my Laptop to my hi-fi system, so that I can try out the aac/aac+ streams.

I thought Radio 2 sounded very good (as I would have expected at 128k). Hi-fi quality digital radio at last :-) . Some of the tracks played were tracks that I also have on CD, so I could tell that the 128k stream didn’t seem to sound quite as good as CD. However there wasn’t that much difference, and part of the difference may have been to do with different DACs. I’m used to listening to CDs on my Squeezebox, but of course for the flash based streams, I had to make do with the relatively low quality DAC on my laptop.

I thought I ought to also try the 96k streams, and listened quite a lot to Radio 1 and 6 music. I found the results rather variable.

Radio 1 sounded poor most of the time, sometimes being pretty awful. I suspect that has a lot to do with the content being played being difficult to encode. However when the news was on this afternoon, containing only speech the top end sounded strange, probably SBR artefacts. Occasional tracks sound good, but over all I’m not impressed with Radio 1.

I thought 6 music sounded a lot better than Radio 1. I thought it sounded good about 80% of the time. However on some tracks that peculiar sound at the top end was creeping in again. There were a few tracks that sounded awful.

As far as re-buffering problems. Errr what re-buffering problems. Not a single re-buffering event. Looks like my 5 meg broadband connection is able to handle 96k and 128k ;-) .

Well so far my opinion has hardly changed. 96k sounds worse than I would have expected, the SBR atrefacts seem to be more of a problem than I would have expected. I think that if you must use 96k, it would be better to use aac and not aac+. The difference in sound quality between 96k and 128k is substantial and I find it hard to understand why we would have to put up with sound quality being so much lower than it could be, just for the sake of an extra 32k.

I also hope it doesn’t take too long for the vanilla aac streams to come on line, as it would make life so much easier if I were able to play the streams on my Squeezebox (using Mplayer).
BBC Radio in iPlayer - sounds even better, with more to come 2:58pm on 25 Dec 2008 I also find the BBC IPlayer TV streams sound quiet on my lap top. If however I open up my volume controlls, there are several sliders. If I turn them all full up, then it sounds just about loud enough.

Richard.
BBC Radio in iPlayer - sounds even better, with more to come 4:03pm on 15 Dec 2008 @hacker100

I actually find there is a lot of difference in volume levels between different commercial stations. Not just between the commercial stations and the BBC. Almost all stations process their audio before encoding, to control the sound levels. Some stations use a lot of processing, in order to keep their levels as high as possible, all the time. Others use less processing, and hence have to use lower levels on average, to prevent the occasional loud bits from being distorted.

The BBC apparently use less processing on their streams than many commercial broadcasters, hence their broadcasts tend to sound quieter over all. I think this is actually a step in the right direction, as I hate over processed music. In fact I even find many of the BBC streams sound over processed to me.

I don’t think there is an easy way around this at the moment. I think manufacturers ought to build into their receivers a way to deal with this problem. One way would be to be able to set a volume adjustment level for each station, when it is saved as a pre-set. Another way would be to put dynamic compression into digital receivers, so that listeners could have the option of making everything come out at the same volume. Although I wouldn’t use something like that very much, as I don’t like dynamic compression on music. (This probably shouldn’t be used for analogue reception, as it may cause noise modulation problems).
BBC Radio in iPlayer - sounds even better, with more to come 1:00pm on 14 Dec 2008 @James Cridland

Since you’re reluctant to talk about codecs and bit rates, I’ll try and keep that side of my comments to the issue of sound quality. After all it is the sound quality that is important, and I think you me and others already know which codec and bit rate would provide good sound quality.

It is true that the new web streams are a big improvement. However I think it is misleading to compare the new streams with the old. The old streams sounded dreadful, so of course the new streams are a big improvement. Even a landline phone call would have been an improvement on the old streams. I would rather talk about the current quality of the streams, and what might happen in future.

The current streams sound dull, and lack clarity. Perhaps they are OK for a small kitchen type radio, but on a hi-fi system they just don’t sound good enough. They are still low quality streams, and describing them as stunning doesn’t change this. There are a number of streams from commercial stations that sound a lot better than the BBC streams. Without mentioning the B word, I think we all know the reason for this. Shouldn’t the BBC be providing better sound quality then the commercial broadcasters?

You keep on saying that quality is not being deliberately reduced to help DAB. However actions speak louder than words. Yes rebuffering would be a problem for some people, but there are ways around this problem. You give the flimsiest of reasons for not wanting to implement any of these solutions. So it’s hardly surprising that people doubt your word on this. So far it looks like one excuse after another to avoid providing good sound quality. If this situation continues once bandwidth detection is in use, then you would effectively have proved people right. I hope that you do eventually prove them wrong.

Finally a few questions about what and when.

How long is it likely to take before bandwidth detection is implemented?

How long is it likely to be before the new vanilla streams (as you call them) are available? For people who don’t want to listen on their computer.

Will there be high quality versions of these streams? I would think that people who know how to use these streams would also know about rebuffering, and when to use a lower bit rate stream.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

RichardEvans67