|
|
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
m Very few stations seem to be above evn 64kbits and the windows formats do seem to be able to squeeze listenable stuff out of this, albeit with some loss of phase resolution on stereo. There are over 8,000 Internet radio streams on http://classic.shoutcast.com/ that are using MP3 (or AAC+) at bit rates of 128 kbps or higher. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
Hi, During the last week or so I finally changed over to broadband for my connection. One of the things I have since started to explore is 'internet radio'. However I haven't yet found much that is interesting. Wondering if this is because I haven't yet looked in the right places, or if it isn't present! :-) My interest is in three areas of music. 1) 'Classical' music. By this I don't just mean clones of Classic FM. But stations that are as likely to play Stravinsky or Britten as Beethoven or Brahms. 2) 'Classical Indian'. Again, I don't just mean Ravi Shankar or Bangra. :-) I am also interested in other forms of non-European 'classical' music like those from the 'far east'. 3) Jazz. As with the above, with a decent range of content. Not just 'easy listening' or 'MOR' under another name. FWIW Since I don't use windows/mac/linux I can't access 'real audio' or 'wma' streams. So am looking for open formats based on mp3, etc. Preferrably 192kbps or 128kbps to make the results worth hearing. Anyone know of some good stations, or can point me to websites that list them? Or don't they exist?... I'd suggest going to http://classic.shoutcast.com/ (that's the old "look" of shoutcast, which provides more information than the new version), and have a look through the stations for the genres you're looking for (e.g. there's classical, contemporary, opera, symphonic). For example, there's 8 pages for "classical", and 25 statinos per page, so there'll be about 200 stations. It shows the bit rate and whether it's MP3 or AAC+, and for most stations it lists what they're currently playing (you need to refresh the page occasionally though if you have the page there for a while and you want to see what's actually being playing at the time because it doesn't update itself). -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
In article , James R wrote: Why bother with the radio when you can listen through a PC. As always, if it is "digital" it's crap - so sounds like a Medium wave station on a good day. Some stations are mono with low bitrates like the "crystal clear" DAB system the UK was inflicted with. Worse than FM stereo! You may not have noticed that Mr Lesurf is mainly interested in classical music and R3 uses a higher bitrate than other DAB stations. Which will in most cases sound better than FM if you have a less than perfect signal for that. Hardly a fair comparison. Other option is a FreeView tuner for radio. Not everyone will want a noisy PC in the room if they're doing serious radio listening. BTW - I've never heard a decent DAB radio sound as bad as MW. Try listening to Kerrang. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
In article , David Looser wrote: Where I live in East Anglia, MW is pretty much useless. The only station I can at anything approaching usable quality is BBC World Service, everything else is buried under a mush of interference. OTOH I do get excellent BBC FM from a transmitter just a few miles away and I also use digital satellite for stations that aren't on FM. Until recently I had never listened to DAB, but I bought my daughter a DAB radio for Christmas (she's a fan of BBC7) and I was pleasantly surprised at how good it sounded after seeing DAB regularly rubbished here. Indeed. But of course it's fashionable to slag off DAB - even from those who normally listen to their music off low bitrate MP3, etc. To say 128kbps DAB sounds worse than MW is simply nonsense and does no credit to its opponents. I also wonder how many who say 'internet' radio sounds better than DAB are comparing like for like. Do they have a DAB tuner fed into the same sound system as their PC? Or are they comparing their PC sound system to a DAB portable radio? Utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone compare the quality on a DAB portable radio with what you hear on a hi-fi system?? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... I also wonder how many who say 'internet' radio sounds better than DAB are comparing like for like. Do they have a DAB tuner fed into the same sound system as their PC? Or are they comparing their PC sound system to a DAB portable radio? I'm no great enthusiast for the concept of "internet radio". I appreciate "Listen Again" to allow me to catch up on Radio 4 programmes I have missed, but the quality is crap, The quality of BBC listen again is crap? When did you last try it? so I don't bother with internet music. But as I said I was pleasantly surprised by DAB, it sounded fine to me. Which stations "sound fine"? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
... I do find this phrase "BBC is biased towards DAB", odd to say the least. DAB simply stands for "Digital Audio Broadcasting" it says nothing about coding standards or bit rates. And internet radio is a completely different animal, which can exist alongside digital broadcasting, but is hardly a replacement for it. David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... I don't supposed you've listened to that much net radio .. some indeed is poor but some is very good... -- Well no, I haven't, I don't see the point. I've got FM radio, I've got satellite radio, I've got CDs and tapes galore, why do I need internet radio? If you think DAB sounds fine, Internet radio either already does or will in the near future provide much better quality. I don't want to tie up my broadband connection Tie up your broadband? We're talking about sub 200 kbps streams here. (and risk paying extra because I've exceeded my monthly download allowance). What's your monthly bandwidth allowance? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message ... I normally listen on FM of course, but yesterday I checked on the bit rate on Radio 4 yesterday morning and it was 128 kbps. Noticeably inferior to FM. FM doesn't have a "bit rate", so it's meaningless to say that 128kb/s is "noticeably inferior" to it. Or perhaps you mean that the sound quality was "noticeably inferior"?, in what way?, and what scientific listening tests did you set up to determine it? I have noticed that this thread seems to be afflicted by a similar phenomenon to digital camera "megapixelitis", when it's the number of megapixels that matter, not the quality of the pictures. For perceptual audio coding, the following always holds: "with all else being equal, a higher bit rate will always provide a higher level of quality than a lower bit rate level, and vice versa" -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"Rob" wrote in message om... Of course. In fairness the centre of the DAB 'whinge' was always that it could have been so much better, and not that it was/is intrinsically bad. 'Better', as you seem to suggest below, can't always be detected even if it has theoretical advantages. Of course it could have been better, broadcasting quality is a compromise between performance and cost, always has been. The broadcaster's aim is to provide a quality that is "good enough" without being too expensive, both for themselves and the buyers of receiving equipment. And you're an expert on the history of DAB now, are you? The reality is that the BBC screwed up *massively*. They had the opportunity to upgrade the system to use AAC, and the BBC R&D engineeers were advising the execs to do that, but the execs ignored them, and the quality is **** as a result. The problem is that what is good enough for the bulk of the audience may not satisfy the enthusiasts, how much cost do you impose on the system to satisfy a small minority? Better quality would have benefitted all. They had the chance, but the non-technical execs thought they knew better than the engineers. In the particular case of DAB I think a small improvement is justified, as it can be done at little extra cost. But even as things are now the notion that DAB is clearly worse than FM is challenged by some serious commentators. Such as? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
I wouldn't say it has to satisfy the enthusiasts as such but one would have hoped for something as good as the existing system - or better would have been used.. I am not persuaded that, taking all real-world factors into account, DAB is not at least as good as FM. Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha hahaahahaaha!!! Well cost = MUX bitspace so it isn't that simple and seeing that the UK is going to be lumbered with the ancient system we have whereas other countries are adopting better ones!.. It's important to adopt common standards with other countries. And now would be a good time to do so. If you're not aware, most of the rest of Europe turned their noses up at using DAB. It is important to adopt common standards, but it's very important that the standard is fit for purpose in the first place, and the DAB standard simply isn't - all the countries who originally supported DAB but then chose not to use it obviously didn't consider it to be fit for purpose, so it's not just me saying that. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message BTW - I've never heard a decent DAB radio sound as bad as MW. Try listening to Kerrang. I'd never heard of it, but I've just looked at it's website. It looks dreadful, why should I be interested in listening to that? Round here there is *nothing*, other than BBC World Service that can be heard on MW that isn't buried under a mush of interference. David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"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? Higher than the **** we've got now. 128 kbps MP2 is the equivalent of about 80 kbps MP3. How many people use 80 kbps? No-one, basically. Everyone uses higher bit rates, and many use 192k+ these days. DAB is a ridiculous system. (cue Lesurf sticking up for this FAILURE of a system using some pedantry or other) -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message I appreciate "Listen Again" to allow me to catch up on Radio 4 programmes I have missed, but the quality is crap, The quality of BBC listen again is crap? When did you last try it? I'm listening to it now. Are you *seriously* suggesting that it's better than DAB? David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
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. Here's the 3rd post on THE THREAD announcing that the BBC had just reduced their bit rate levels on 21st December 2001: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...97a3eb21?hl=en "MP2 was designed as a high-bitrate codec, below 192kbps it becomes very inefficient and isn't best suited." Hindsight, eh? DAB was a long time in the planning - and making radical changes late in that process would have been difficult. YOu haven't got a clue. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
In article , Mike O'Sullivan wrote: 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. A high bit rate I'd imagine, it being a demo, not the real commercial world. Nope - IIRC the same bitrates as used at the start of the service. the current reduced ones came later. I've been told they used 256 kbps in that demo. Then when they launched they used 192 kbps for Radios 1, 2, 3, 4. Then in 2002 they slashed the bit rates of R1, 2, 4 to 128k and 6 Music and 1Xtra started using 128k, and Asian Network's in mono and Radio 7's in mono, and Radio 4 is in mono in the evenings when R5 Sports Extra is on-air, and R3 is 160k in teh daytime when R5 Sports Extra is on-air You're sticking up for a national disgrace, Plowman. But just to point out, bitrates have little to do with actual reception. Gosh, how insightful. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
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. Really? You were disputing that the transmission costs were high a week or two ago. You seem to have changed your tune. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... Well the number of the bits and the way you use them do affect the quality of both Sound and Vision;!.. -- Indeed, but it's not necessarily the case that it's "more bits the better". With all else being equal, more bits the better does apply. There's teh garbage-in garbage-out principle, of course, but that isn't the fault of the encoder, and you should actually expect radio stations to handle their audio properly. Some recent digital cameras with high "megapixel counts" produce poorer pictures than older ones with fewer megapixels. Similarly an audio stream with a high number of bits/sec may sound worse than one with fewer, all depending on other factors. If you're resorting to using garbage-in garbage-out as an excuse for the **** quality on DAB then I pity you. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
In article , David Looser wrote: "tony sayer" wrote in message ... You went involved in the MP2 codec tests for the development of DAB?.. No, voice codecs only, but the principle is the same. More to the point I know just how hard it is, and the lengths we had to go to, to eliminate bias from listening tests. 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. It is ridiculous to suggest that using a higher bit rate lowers the audio quality, right? The reality is that you're just using the garbage-in garbage-out principle to stick up for the use of low bit rates. And this is supposed to be a NG on audio. Strewth. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:41:02 +0000 (GMT), 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. Slainte, Jim Can you really do that - record an MP3 stream as an MP3 file, I mean? There's various stream grabbers. Streamripper for Winamp will save an MP3 stream as MP3, and that's free. There's quite a few altogether though. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... I do find this phrase "BBC is biased towards DAB", odd to say the least. DAB simply stands for "Digital Audio Broadcasting" it says nothing about coding standards or bit rates. Que? What have coding standards or bit rates have to do with the BBC being biased towards DAB??? And internet radio is a completely different animal, which can exist alongside digital broadcasting, but is hardly a replacement for it. But the BBC is extremely biased against Internet radio, so the BBC is going to push everyone forcefully towards DAB whether that's the best system for them or not. That's the point. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message BTW - I've never heard a decent DAB radio sound as bad as MW. Try listening to Kerrang. I'd never heard of it, but I've just looked at it's website. It looks dreadful, why should I be interested in listening to that? I was responding to the fact that Kerrang sounds worse on DAB than MW stations sound. Who cares whether you would be interested in it or not? Round here there is *nothing*, other than BBC World Service that can be heard on MW that isn't buried under a mush of interference. That makes it alright for Kerrang to sound like MW in Manchester then, presumably? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message I appreciate "Listen Again" to allow me to catch up on Radio 4 programmes I have missed, but the quality is crap, The quality of BBC listen again is crap? When did you last try it? I'm listening to it now. Are you *seriously* suggesting that it's better than DAB? I can't say I've listened to every single listen again programme available, but yes, the quality of the listen again programmes I've listened to recently have been significantly better quality than on DAB. So, what are you listening to? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
... I was responding to the fact that Kerrang sounds worse on DAB than MW stations sound. Who cares whether you would be interested in it or not? I'd assumed you were putting Kerrang forward as an MW station that sounds good, but from the above I guess you are saying it's not on MW. So what was the point of mentioning it? if it's not on both MW and DAB there's nothing to compare. David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
... I can't say I've listened to every single listen again programme available, You couldn't, unless you are capable of listening to many programmes at the same time 24 hours a day. but yes, the quality of the listen again programmes I've listened to recently have been significantly better quality than on DAB. Well don't listen to DAB then. Analogue radio will be with us for the forseeable future, and most radio stations are now available as an internet stream. So why get so excercised over DAB? So, what are you listening to? Yesterday's "Any Questions". Curiously I often notice the distortion is most noticable on the voices of the continuity announcers. David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... I can't say I've listened to every single listen again programme available, You couldn't, unless you are capable of listening to many programmes at the same time 24 hours a day. Gosh, how do you come out with such clever comebacks? but yes, the quality of the listen again programmes I've listened to recently have been significantly better quality than on DAB. Well don't listen to DAB then. That's missing the point though, because the rest of the general public are being forcefully pushed towards DAB even though for millions of people the Internet or even digital TV woudl be a better platform for what they want. Also, because the BBC is so biased towards DAB and DAB offers crap quality it's trying to keep the quality down on other platforms. Basically, everything revolves around DAB. If they provided the best quality they could on other platforms and acknowledged taht there are problems with DAB's audio quality then I wouldn't mind. Analogue radio will be with us for the forseeable future, and most radio stations are now available as an internet stream. So why get so excercised over DAB? See above. So, what are you listening to? Yesterday's "Any Questions". Curiously I often notice the distortion is most noticable on the voices of the continuity announcers. Yes, I have actually heard R4's listen again streams are screwed up at the moment. That's a temporary problem though, not an inherent problem. R4's listen again streams use 128 kbps MP3, whereas R4 on DAB uses 128 kbps MP2. And MP3 is a far better codec to use at 128 kbps than MP2 is, that's for sure. To be fair, speech on DAB isn't the main problem. The main problem is music. BTW, the BBC's live and listen again streams should be moving over to using AAC/AAC+ over the next week or two (if you're not aware, AAC/AAC+ is an excellent codec). And the bit rates should increase over time, because Internet bandwidth costs are plummetting. Stick to DAB if you like, but you'd be sticking with the lowest quality digital platform. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... I was responding to the fact that Kerrang sounds worse on DAB than MW stations sound. Who cares whether you would be interested in it or not? I'd assumed you were putting Kerrang forward as an MW station that sounds good, but from the above I guess you are saying it's not on MW. So what was the point of mentioning it? if it's not on both MW and DAB there's nothing to compare. I see you've snipped what I was responding to, so here's what Plowman said: "BTW - I've never heard a decent DAB radio sound as bad as MW." So I was saying that Kerrang on DAB sounds as bad as MW. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 09:43:07 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote: In article , Don Pearce wrote: [big snip] Interesting. Presumably the player just ignores the first data chunks until it finds a frame header, then uses the info from that to read the succeeding stuff. I will be doing some more checking later today if I get a chance. But IIUC I am editing by snipping at chunk (frame) boundaries. That is certainly what I am trying to get my edit program to do. If so, here will be a frame header at the start of each output file because it was present at the relevant point in the source file. I do have a (three, actually) general editor(s) that display hex. So will check that way. Can also then scan for hex patterns (sequences) to find where header declarations repeat. May also write a simple util for this. Thanks for giving me the URL for the info on the mpeg file format. It means I can modify my track editor to read the file and determine the frame size and data rate. At present I have to tell it the value in kbps to get the times and durations of the snipped files correct. Is there a similar spec for ac3 (Dolby)? I'm also looking at files of that type. I can export the ac3 stream from home-recorded video VOB files and then play these on my computer. Can also edit them, but again I have currently to tell my track editor what bitrate to presume as I don't know how to read this from the actual ac3 data. At some point I'd also like to be able to transcode ac3 to mp3 - ideally with no 'losses' if that is possible. At present I'd have to convert via using LPCM as an intermediate. That is fine, but slower and probably gives more scope for losses - although I suppose I could use 32bit LPCM to minimise this. :-) FWIW I'm currently writing a series of articles and utility applications for a RO computer mag - and for my own use. This in turn is useful as a basis for finding out things that might then pop up in HFN. So am finding this very interesting. Slainte, Jim Try this for a start http://rmworkshop.com/dvd_info/related_info/ac3hdr.html d |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article 49910797.332092281@localhost, Don Pearce (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 09:43:07 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf wrote: [snip] Is there a similar spec for ac3 (Dolby)? I'm also looking at files of that type. I can export the ac3 stream from home-recorded video VOB files and then play these on my computer. Can also edit them, but again I have currently to tell my track editor what bitrate to presume as I don't know how to read this from the actual ac3 data. Try this for a start http://rmworkshop.com/dvd_info/related_info/ac3hdr.html Thanks again! :-) 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 ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: I also wonder how many who say 'internet' radio sounds better than DAB are comparing like for like. Do they have a DAB tuner fed into the same sound system as their PC? Or are they comparing their PC sound system to a DAB portable radio? Utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone compare the quality on a DAB portable radio with what you hear on a hi-fi system?? Wondered when you'd turn up. Your search on DAB topics seems a bit slow compared to usual. But you could try reading *carefully* before replying. -- *Gaffer tape - The Force, light and dark sides - holds the universe together* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article ,
David Looser wrote: "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... I do find this phrase "BBC is biased towards DAB", odd to say the least. DAB simply stands for "Digital Audio Broadcasting" it says nothing about coding standards or bit rates. And internet radio is a completely different animal, which can exist alongside digital broadcasting, but is hardly a replacement for it. He's simply a sad person who spends his whole life grizzling about the BBC and DAB. -- *Is there another word for synonym? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
In article , BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: I also wonder how many who say 'internet' radio sounds better than DAB are comparing like for like. Do they have a DAB tuner fed into the same sound system as their PC? Or are they comparing their PC sound system to a DAB portable radio? Utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone compare the quality on a DAB portable radio with what you hear on a hi-fi system?? Wondered when you'd turn up. Your search on DAB topics seems a bit slow compared to usual. I don't search for DAB topics - I just stumbled across this thread. But you could try reading *carefully* before replying. I'm happy with what I said first time around, thanks. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message 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. Really? You were disputing that the transmission costs were high a week or two ago. You seem to have changed your tune. Are you thick or just a fool? I argued that DAB costs aren't intrinsically higher than any other transmission medium. But since this is too difficult for you to understand I'll not bother again. -- *Can atheists get insurance for acts of God? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: BTW - I've never heard a decent DAB radio sound as bad as MW. Try listening to Kerrang. Just had a brief listen for the first time ever. Sounds exactly the same as any other pop station. And far better quality than off MW. A serious question - does your hearing cut off at under 5 kHz? Perhaps you've been listening to pop music at too high a level for a long time. -- *Don't use no double negatives * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article ,
BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: I see you've snipped what I was responding to, so here's what Plowman said: "BTW - I've never heard a decent DAB radio sound as bad as MW." So I was saying that Kerrang on DAB sounds as bad as MW. Nice to see your logic is as always. But if you take just one parameter, Kerrang on DAB is plainly transmitting higher frequencies than you'll get off any AM broadcast. If you can't hear that it explains a lot. -- *Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
In article , David Looser wrote: "BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... I do find this phrase "BBC is biased towards DAB", odd to say the least. DAB simply stands for "Digital Audio Broadcasting" it says nothing about coding standards or bit rates. And internet radio is a completely different animal, which can exist alongside digital broadcasting, but is hardly a replacement for it. He's simply a sad person who spends his whole life grizzling about the BBC and DAB. Awwwww, can't David attack what I write so he has to try and attack the person instead? -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
In article , BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message 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. Really? You were disputing that the transmission costs were high a week or two ago. You seem to have changed your tune. Are you thick or just a fool? Oh, the irony. I argued that DAB costs aren't intrinsically higher than any other transmission medium. But since this is too difficult for you to understand I'll not bother again. And Tony Sayer told you that DAB was intrinsically more expensive. What would you know about this anyway? Your early comments on this subject seemed to suggest that you thought that it was mainly down to electricity bills, which shows how utterly clueless you are about the whole subject of transmission costs. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:13:22 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: I see you've snipped what I was responding to, so here's what Plowman said: "BTW - I've never heard a decent DAB radio sound as bad as MW." So I was saying that Kerrang on DAB sounds as bad as MW. Nice to see your logic is as always. But if you take just one parameter, Kerrang on DAB is plainly transmitting higher frequencies than you'll get off any AM broadcast. If you can't hear that it explains a lot. OK this needs to be settled. I've recorded 10 seconds of Kerrang from DAB, followed by 10 seconds of a MW pop station, both from decent tuners. As far as I am concerned there is no contest - DAB wins hands down. Van Gogh would have heard the difference. The DAB goes to 12kHz, the mw is dying by 4kHz. http://81.174.169.10/odds/dab_mw.mp3 d |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message
... But the BBC is extremely biased against Internet radio, so the BBC is going to push everyone forcefully towards DAB whether that's the best system for them or not. That's the point. Is it? well well, so all those BBC internet streams are a figment of my imagination are they? David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
In article , BBC is biased towards DAB wrote: BTW - I've never heard a decent DAB radio sound as bad as MW. Try listening to Kerrang. Just had a brief listen for the first time ever. Sounds exactly the same as any other pop station. The fact that you'd say that speaks volumes about this entire issue. And far better quality than off MW. Listening to it now. It has improved since I last heard it, and I'd put it at just above MW now - a triumph for 21st century digital radio. Previously it was worse than MW. Seriously. And I bet the one you can hear is **** as well, but you won't admit that, because it doesn't suit your argument. A serious question - does your hearing cut off at under 5 kHz? Fool. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"David Looser" wrote in message
"BBC is biased towards DAB" wrote in message ... But the BBC is extremely biased against Internet radio, so the BBC is going to push everyone forcefully towards DAB whether that's the best system for them or not. That's the point. Is it? well well, so all those BBC internet streams are a figment of my imagination are they? Where did I say that? Hint: I didn't. I said "push everyone forcefully towards DAB". That's correct. I didn't say "force everyone to get DAB", just give them a massive shove in that direction for the next 10 years. Why? Because they're trying to protect their audiences, because if people listen via the Internet they think they'll lose listeners. That's the modern-day dishonest BBC for you. -- Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting: http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk