Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

FWIW I've now had a chance to record some mp3 streams 'broadcast' by
some of the net stations. This meant I could write the results onto a
CDRW and listen to them on some players. Have examples at
128/192/256kbps. What I've found interesting is that the results
*didn't* show that the 'higher the bitrate the better the sound'. This
was a totally uncontrolled test, so is suspect, but it does strengthen
my bias towards feeling that the way the specific encoder is used (and
the details of the sound patterns to be encoded) can matter more that
the output bitrate chosen.


I don't suppose it makes a great deal of difference if you record using
a lossless format, but isn't it more logical to just capture the
streamed audio?

Erm... that is what I have been doing. Recording the mp3 stream as an mp3
file on my computer. Then writing these files into a CDRW for playing on
various 'audio'/'video' disc players.


No, you're not capturing the *stream* AIUI, you're capturing the audio
once it's been through your sound card, and you've then converted it
again to mp3.

To use a video analogy, you're allowing video to stream through your
media player, assuming your clockwork computer has such a thing, and
capturing the video using screen capture software. Better to capture the
stream before it hits software.

If you are going to do it your way (recalcitrance on software noted!)
you're better as a point of accuracy to use lossless capture, and then
do whatever you need in terms of compression. You're still taking a
(tiny) hit through the D-A-D conversion though. I think you might also
have a problem if different compression codecs are used at source (radio
station) and destination (your end).

Stream capture captures the data before it hits the sound card - I use
Xstreamripper. Quality isn't that much of an issue for me - but what
capturing the stream does is record the song data which also contains
things like artist, album and song, so you can save it as a nice
labelled file. I happen to listen to non-English stations so this works
well for me. This also happens to be the 'purest' and quickest method of
capturing the audio.

As ever, happy to stand corrected ;-)

Rob

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Perhaps that's the difference between us. I'm only interested in the
sound I hear in my room. I don't really care how it is unacceptably
degraded.

That I find a really odd attitude from someone who works as a sound
recordist;?..
No, IMHO, the correct one. It's the end result that matters - not what
equipment is used.


Rates of pay/unionisation/working
conditions/education-training-apprenticeships; equipment/process:
'green', efficient, effective, reliable, replicable, universal, under
review. And so on really. Tragic IMO - I'd have thought all these things
matter?

And what do they have to do with equipment?

Equipment can be: 'green', efficient, effective, reliable, replicable,
universal, under
review. I would be surprised if none of that was important to you.
It's even of passing interest to me.


I have noticed this 'what matters is what works' has become more
pervasive, although even Labour had the sensitivity/expediency to remove
the phrase from their policy docs.

Sigh. Perhaps I should explain again.

Those who moan about current 'DAB quality' are almost certainly listening
to pop music stations - as R3&4 have a just about adequate data rate for
the material they carry. Or at least during the times I listen to them.
And *every* pop and light music station is so heavily processed on all
wavebands that - to me - they are simply dreadful to listen to. Ones like
R2 the worst - given the amount of speech they transmit.
Of course it obviously doesn't offend others. People are not the same.


I'd agree with all of that - although I'm not an especially critical
radio listener, mainly R4.

Rob

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
I'm of a view that if you do have an opportunity to provide something to a
high standard, you take it. Not everyone will appreciate it, maybe, small
price. I found the whole roll-out of DAB wrong-headed.


How high is high?


Mmm. Quite. Well, firstly it could have been higher:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Secondly, regulation could have enabled higher bitrates. I know it
sounds fruitless, elitist, and I'd be the first to admit that most
people don't seem to care if it's 32kbps or 256, but *I think* it could
have been a bit higher than it is - perhaps at the cost of a few radio
stations. I accept the fact you don't, and really, I don't lose any
sleep over the whole thing.

Rob

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:17:43 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...

I'm of a view that if you do have an opportunity to provide something
to a high standard, you take it. Not everyone will appreciate it,
maybe, small price. I found the whole roll-out of DAB wrong-headed.


How high is high?

Indeed. Most of these comments come with the benefit of hindsight. DAB was
a long time in the planning - and making radical changes late in that
process would have been difficult.
I remember driving round Birmingham on a coach equipped with a
demonstration system long before actual transmissions started - and the
difference in reception between that and FM was quite astounding.

How come you didn't go on the Kingswood Warren coach? Much more
convenient.

d

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article , Rob
scribeth thus
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
om...
I'm of a view that if you do have an opportunity to provide something to a
high standard, you take it. Not everyone will appreciate it, maybe, small
price. I found the whole roll-out of DAB wrong-headed.


How high is high?


Mmm. Quite. Well, firstly it could have been higher:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Secondly, regulation could have enabled higher bitrates. I know it
sounds fruitless, elitist, and I'd be the first to admit that most
people don't seem to care if it's 32kbps or 256, but *I think* it could
have been a bit higher than it is - perhaps at the cost of a few radio
stations. I accept the fact you don't, and really, I don't lose any
sleep over the whole thing.

Rob

I reckon that Dab as we know it will die away left behind by other radio
tech, and theres still no firm date for digital changeover indeed a lot
of the commercial sector can't afford to run DAB and FM transmissions..

Some are wondering if we really need T-DAB as it stands if we should
have digital then either Internet or satellite for home use .. and well,
Dab for mobile?, except that the receiver's in cars is a tricky one;!..
--
Tony Sayer

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The above sums up my own experience of DAB. Although these days I mainly
listen to DTTV rather than DAB.

Indeed - and DDTV tuners are rather cheaper than DAB ones. And most will
already have a UHF aerial. Only slight snag can be selecting the correct
station without having a TV attached.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article 498e8bea.169358828@localhost,
Don Pearce (Don Pearce) wrote:
Indeed. Most of these comments come with the benefit of hindsight. DAB was
a long time in the planning - and making radical changes late in that
process would have been difficult.
I remember driving round Birmingham on a coach equipped with a
demonstration system long before actual transmissions started - and the
difference in reception between that and FM was quite astounding.

How come you didn't go on the Kingswood Warren coach? Much more
convenient.

It was laid on for an IBS meeting taking place at Pebble Mill. I don't
know which came first - but Birmingham bull ring is (was?) notorious for
poor FM reception. Could have been the same coach - it was said to have
state of the art aerials and receivers for both DAB and FM.

--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I reckon that Dab as we know it will die away left behind by other radio
tech, and theres still no firm date for digital changeover indeed a lot
of the commercial sector can't afford to run DAB and FM transmissions..

If enough pull out of DAB it will force the 'rental' costs down. They were
ludicrous to start with.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Erm... that is what I have been doing. Recording the mp3 stream as an
mp3 file on my computer. Then writing these files into a CDRW for
playing on various 'audio'/'video' disc players.


No, you're not capturing the *stream* AIUI, you're capturing the audio
once it's been through your sound card, and you've then converted it
again to mp3.

Erm, again. My computer doesn't have a 'sound card'. I use an application
(software) that can fetch the steam and this can then either save it to a
file and/or covert it for playing.

To use a video analogy, you're allowing video to stream through your
media player, assuming your clockwork computer has such a thing, and
capturing the video using screen capture software. Better to capture the
stream before it hits software.

You may be right. However I wonder if you know much about how my computer
system works. It is easy to presume that what happens with the OS/hardware
you are accustomed to is 'universal'.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' 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

Internet radio - classical music, etc
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:41:02 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


I don't suppose it makes a great deal of difference if you record
using a lossless format, but isn't it more logical to just capture
the streamed audio?

Erm... that is what I have been doing. Recording the mp3 stream as an
mp3 file on my computer. Then writing these files into a CDRW for
playing on various 'audio'/'video' disc players.


Can you really do that - record an MP3 stream as an MP3 file, I mean? I
thought the file got decoded to straight PCM, the recoded as MP3 for
writing to the file. How else would you generate the file header?

I've just been judging by results. I record a steam which plays as an mp3
on my computer, and when written as a data file onto CDRW plays as an mp3
on the DVD Video/CD Audio players I have that can recognise mp3. The size
of the file agrees with the bitrates specified for the radio streams.

Not clear to me why the program would have to do more than simply write the
data as it arrives (via the buffering for transfer delays) since I am
recording mp3 from an mp3 stream.

I'll do some experiments to check. I'll also ask the author of the software
as he explained to me how to do recordings in the first place.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' 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