![]() |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article , Jim Lesurf
scribeth thus 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. And where it came from in the first place;)... Slainte, Jim -- Tony Sayer |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus 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. So you don't seem to mind that your work can be degraded?.. -- Tony Sayer |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
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 -- 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 , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote: 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. The above sums up my own experience of DAB. Although these days I mainly listen to DTTV rather than DAB. 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 , Ian Jackson
wrote: In message , Jim Lesurf writes [1] Or 8kHz for those regions of the world where 8kHz spacing was adopted. 9kHz isn't uniform around the world IIRC. Out of interest, which region is 8kHz? I thought it was only 9 or 10. I've had a quick look, but can't find 8. Afraid I've forgotten! :-) It may be either Africa or the USA, but I can't recall. I do remember that the World Conferences established some regions as 8kHz and others 9kHz. Think this was when the BBC on long wave went from 200kHz to 198kHz to suit. But alas my memory of this is hazy. IIRC one of the Quad AM tuners also had a choice of notch filter frequency to cater for the region. 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
"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
... In message , Jim Lesurf writes [1] Or 8kHz for those regions of the world where 8kHz spacing was adopted. 9kHz isn't uniform around the world IIRC. Out of interest, which region is 8kHz? I thought it was only 9 or 10. I've had a quick look, but can't find 8. Yup, it's 9kHz or 10kHz dependiing on region. There's no 8. David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
"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? David. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
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. -- *Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
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? 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? d -- Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Internet radio - classical music, etc
In article , David Looser
wrote: "Ian Jackson" wrote in message ... In message , Jim Lesurf writes [1] Or 8kHz for those regions of the world where 8kHz spacing was adopted. 9kHz isn't uniform around the world IIRC. Out of interest, which region is 8kHz? I thought it was only 9 or 10. I've had a quick look, but can't find 8. Yup, it's 9kHz or 10kHz dependiing on region. There's no 8. In that case, my error. I assume I was confusing that with 8kHz. Memory fault. 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 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:40 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