In article , John R Leddy
wrote:

'Jim Lesurf[_2_ Wrote:
;94206']Well, there is jazz on R3. And the BBC do plan to upgrade
their other UK radio stations to 320k aac once the iplayer 'Audio
Factory' changes are completed.

OK, 320k aac isn't 96k/24 flac from an injuneering POV. But as other
discussions (and listening) show, good 320k aac can sound a hell of a
lot better than sloppy 'high rez'.

What use the other BBC radio stations make of it is another issue.
Their rock/pop producers may have as little clue as in the commercial
sector.
There are no Adobe products on our computers so I'm currently unable to
use iPlayer.

get_iplayer doesn't require flash. It can capture live or 'on demand'.

And IIUC ffmpeg can now play the live streams without it.


Out of idleness I did add the following stations to foobar yesterday
afternoon: Audiophile Jazz (Jazz) 320kbit/s 44.1kHz MP3 -
http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-....pls?id=160671 BBS (Swing)
320kbit/s 44.1kHz MP3 -
http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-...n.pls?id=44608 Dusty Vinyl
Radio (Big Band) 320kbit/s 48kHz MP3 -
http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-....pls?id=460269 Groove City FX
(Smooth Jazz) 320kbit/s 44.1kHz MP3 -
http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-....pls?id=535237 Jazz Piano
Magic 320k (Hard Bop) 320kbit/s 44.1kHz MP3 -
http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-....pls?id=336469 NuJazz.net
(Smooth Jazz) 320kbit/s 44.1kHz MP3 -
http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-....pls?id=643517 Quietmoney
Radio (Jazz) 320kbit/s 48kHz MP3 -
http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-....pls?id=591415 SomehowJazz
(Jazz) 320kbit/s 44.1kHz MP3 -
http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-...n.pls?id=13786 ~bEE (Jazz)
320kbit/s 44.1kHz MP3 -
http://yp.shoutcast.com/sbin/tunein-....pls?id=167874

Interesting list. But note that mp3 isn't necessarily as good as aac at the
same rate. That said, 320k mp3 should be capable of decent results, but in
practice this will depend on the care with which the streams are made.


You could keep me straight on a few things: · If replay files are to be
the same spec as working files then 24-bit 96kHz is a reasonable
compromise to address the requirements of studio work.

That's my view, yes.

· There was mention of conversion introducing destructive effects to
files.

From the POV of real engineering *all* conversions should be expected to
lose some detail or introduce some flaws. What is open to question is how
small these degradations may be or if they matter in any given case. Done
*well* the effects shouldn't matter. But my view is that now it is so easy
to keep with 96k/24 that we can simply bypass any of the risk entailed by
downcoversions. The best cables are the shortest ones that reach. :-)

· It was suggested conversion may be unnecessary due to large
capacity storage devices being of little cost. · The proposition was to
avoid potential destruction due to conversion. · The suggestion was
further processing via hardware and software should be considered with
care and preferably avoided. · It was accepted practical issues and
personal preferences would take precedence over the minutiae. · The
exercise of avoiding conversion was one of conservation and good
practice.

Yes, that's my view.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html