On 12/04/2012 18:28, tony sayer wrote:

As only you see it...

The evidence speaks for itself. Calling classical music "serious", for
example, implies that other kinds of music are not to be taken seriously.

It's nothing short of cultural facism.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:07:48 +0100, Silk wrote:

On 12/04/2012 12:43, J G Miller wrote:
On Thursday, April 12th, 2012, at 08:42:31h +0100, Silk declared:

The "elite" still don't regard anything other than classical
durges as real music.

Wotsa "durge" mate?

A bit like a dirge, only spelt diferently. I did that to bait the
classical "music" fans.

If there is one thing more unattractive than snobbery, it is inverted
snobbery.

d

On 12/04/2012 19:54, Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:07:48 +0100, wrote:

On 12/04/2012 12:43, J G Miller wrote:
On Thursday, April 12th, 2012, at 08:42:31h +0100, Silk declared:

The "elite" still don't regard anything other than classical
durges as real music.

Wotsa "durge" mate?

A bit like a dirge, only spelt diferently. I did that to bait the
classical "music" fans.

If there is one thing more unattractive than snobbery, it is inverted
snobbery.

You're making the assumption that classical music is the higher art.
It's not, it's just another kind of music, just like Jazz, Rock n Roll,
Reggae, etc. All music deserves to be treated equally.

On Thursday, April 12th, 2012, at 21:47:48 +0100, Silk pronounced:

All music deserves to be treated equally.

Including Inuit

http://www.youtube.COM/watch?v=8IqOegVCNKI

and Tuvan throat singing.

http://www.ubu.COM/ethno/soundings/tuva.html

On 12/04/2012 22:52, J G Miller wrote:
On Thursday, April 12th, 2012, at 21:47:48 +0100, Silk pronounced:

All music deserves to be treated equally.

Including Inuit

http://www.youtube.COM/watch?v=8IqOegVCNKI

and Tuvan throat singing.

http://www.ubu.COM/ethno/soundings/tuva.html

If there's a large enough audience, then it deserves the best quality.

By the same measure, if hardly anyone listens to it, why should it be
broadcasted in higher quality than genres with a higher audience?

Statistically, almost no one listens to Radio 3, yet it gets priority
treatment. Why is this?

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:11:04 +0100, Silk wrote:

On 12/04/2012 22:52, J G Miller wrote:
On Thursday, April 12th, 2012, at 21:47:48 +0100, Silk pronounced:

All music deserves to be treated equally.

Including Inuit

http://www.youtube.COM/watch?v=8IqOegVCNKI

and Tuvan throat singing.

http://www.ubu.COM/ethno/soundings/tuva.html

If there's a large enough audience, then it deserves the best quality.

By the same measure, if hardly anyone listens to it, why should it be
broadcasted in higher quality than genres with a higher audience?

Statistically, almost no one listens to Radio 3, yet it gets priority
treatment. Why is this?

It is to do with matching the technical quality of the broadcast
medium with that of the recorded medium. Current pop music with its
clipping, limiting and severely restricted dynamic range does not
require a high bit rate to carry it.

d

It is to do with matching the technical quality of the broadcast
medium with that of the recorded medium. Current pop music with its
clipping, limiting and severely restricted dynamic range does not
require a high bit rate to carry it.

d

Radio 1 broadcasts quite a bit of live music so the source material would
benefit from decent quality reproduction.

Mike

Le 11/04/12 18:28, froggy a écrit :
Hi everyone.

Has anyone noticed that the sampling rate of the BBC on-line aac streams
has moved from 44,100 kHz to 32,000 kHz?
The bit rate however is still the same (128kbit/s except radio 3,
320kbit/s).
Anyone with an explanation?



OK.
I've found the answer to my my own question.

Those of us who were not fortunate enough to possess a UK ip address
could, nevertheless, still listen to the BBC aac on-line radio stream in
all its glory (320 kbit/s, 44,1 kHz for R3, 128 kbit/s for all the
others) without going through the website's flash player.
The streams were available through iTunes and through other players such
as foobar.
It seems however that Auntie has recently changed its streaming policy
and us unwashed on the wrong side of both ponds are stuck with a reduced
version of the stream: 55 kbit/s bit rate and 32,000 kHz sampling rate.
The decision seems to me to be quite churlish as it's fairly easy to get
round the problem....

Thanks for all your contributions.

--
Froggy

Baldrick: I've got this big growth in the middle of my face.
Blackadder: That's your nose, Baldrick.

(Blackadder the Third)

On 4/13/12 4:53 PM, froggy wrote:
The decision seems to me to be quite churlish as it's fairly easy to get
round the problem....

I would love to know how. A proxy server is too slow.

gr, hwh

On Friday, April 13th, 2012, at 16:53:16h +0200, Froggy wrote:

It seems however that Auntie has recently changed its streaming policy
and us unwashed on the wrong side of both ponds are stuck with a reduced
version of the stream

No, it would appear that you are using the wrong URL to try and play
the AAC 320k stream which emanates from a hosting company

bbcmedia.ic.llnwd.net

and not the BBC themselves.