Top posted for Brians sake

I have just tried it, and to my untrained ear it sounds brilliant.
R3 FM where I live is a bit hissy at the moment, which usually means
a trip round the house cleaning all the fm connections, notably to
my home-made dipole in the loft (pointing to Rowbridge).

Via my computer, all this hiss has gone and without any of the
awful dab bubbling mud.

WIN 7 Pro 32 bit. Firefox 52.0.2,Gigabyte GA-880GM-UDH2 Mboard with
onboard sound connected using a 2-metre slim coax with a 3.5 plug
each end into AUX2 on my Onkyo CR515 MiniHifi and the Onkyo speakers.

No buffering or dropouts, and now that the helpful Paddy on the
BT community forums has sorted out my broadband I seem to be getting
a decent download (see below) but one fly in the ointment is I need to
turn up the volume on my Onkyo to hear it. If I switch back to FM
the existing FM channels are way too loud.

The speakers are set to 100% on the Realtek Audio mixer. Is there
some way of arranging for R3 FM and R3 Flac to have the same
volume ?.

Also, since my (desktop) computer is upstairs, and the main TV etc
together with my Home Hub 3 downstairs, how could I get the output
from my soundcard connected to a hifi system downstairs ?. There is
CAT5e cable connecting HH3a to my PC and I have a Netgear GS105
sitting boxed, waiting for an application.

The weak-link at the moment seems to be the need for firefox 51+
on a desktop so any solution using a tablet seems to be out of the
question (for now).

Andrew

1. Product name: BT Home Hub
2. Serial number: +nnnnnnnnnnn
3. Firmware version: Software version 4.7.5.1.83.8.94.1.52 (Type A) Last
updated 30/09/16
4. Board version: BT Home Hub 3.0A
5. ADSL uptime: 1 days, 18:57:59
6. Bandwidth: 1239 / 17143
7. Data sent/received: 0.0 / 0.1
8. Broadband username:
9. BT FON: No
10. Wireless network/SSID: BTHub3-xxxx
11. Wireless connections: Enabled, (802.11 b/g/n (Recommended)) 20 MHz,
WPS enabled
12. Wireless security: WPA and WPA2
13. Wireless channel: Automatic / 1
14. Firewall: Default
15. MAC Address: xxxxxx
16. VPI/VCI: 0 / 38
17. Line profile: Fast
18. Software variant: -
19. Boot loader: -

On 15/04/2017 10:23, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Top posted for Brian's sake.

AIUI The point is to see if they can stream it reliably, assess any
increase in server load, etc, a changeover would require, *and* get
positive feedback that people *want* it. They could then use the feedback
to argue that it justifies a likely increase in copyright permissions
payments, etc.

Not yet sure, but I've had the impression that they are also experimenting
with the details of how the stream is being served. e.g. I got some types
of error (from ffmpeg) on the 10th that haven't recurred more recently. But
as yet that may be luck!

Up to people who want it to now react by saying they do via the relevant
feedback routes. I'll certainly write about it for HFN. But, alas, that
won't appear for 3+ months.

Jim


In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:
I don't quite get the point of this, as if you really believe the stuff
on the site, it seems totally pointless if they have no plans to
actually use it long term for anything. Brian