People may be interested in this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio3/po...Surround-Sound

I'd be interested in knowing what Linux distros/browsers work (or not).
Both for my own interest and to pass on to the BBC for their info. Hope is
to make the final 4.0 systems as accessible as possible as well as as high
quality as possible.

I'd also like to give it a try myself, but almost certainly would need to
install a suitable new distro, etc, to do so. Hence reports from other
Linux users re what works/not would help me. Is Chrome vital, or will FF
work? etc.

Although a problem I have is that I'd want to be able to capture the 4.0
for later analysis. So again, any ideas on that would be welcome as I'd
have to do it via an 'internal' method like catching the 4.0 stream. I
don't have any 'surround sound' audio kit! My first thought is an alsa tee
or divert, but I don't know how easy that will be for 4.0, particularly if
I'm also converting to stereo for listening. That said, I can not bother
with 'live' listening and just deal with that later if I can capture the
audio to then process/examine/listen to later on!

Cheers,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:47:48 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

People may be interested in this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio3/po...Surround-Sound

I'd be interested in knowing what Linux distros/browsers work (or not).
Both for my own interest and to pass on to the BBC for their info. Hope is
to make the final 4.0 systems as accessible as possible as well as as high
quality as possible.

I'd also like to give it a try myself, but almost certainly would need to
install a suitable new distro, etc, to do so. Hence reports from other
Linux users re what works/not would help me. Is Chrome vital, or will FF
work? etc.

I think that last question is answered by information from two
different pages. See under "What new technology is being used?"
on the page you quote and the second paragraph under "What will
I need?" on the FAQ page.

If you are happy using Chrome and it works on your current
distro why change it?

Although a problem I have is that I'd want to be able to capture the 4.0
for later analysis. So again, any ideas on that would be welcome as I'd
have to do it via an 'internal' method like catching the 4.0 stream. I
don't have any 'surround sound' audio kit! My first thought is an alsa tee
or divert, but I don't know how easy that will be for 4.0, particularly if
I'm also converting to stereo for listening. That said, I can not bother
with 'live' listening and just deal with that later if I can capture the
audio to then process/examine/listen to later on!

What follows is something of a rant!

You may, or may not, be aware that there is a local radio
station, Radio Jackie, near where Brian Gaff lives. They have a
web page, below, which gives the URLs for a number of streams so
that people can use the software of their choice. Why oh why
can't the BBC do the same? They hide the iPlayer streams behind
Flash (which I refuse to have on the grounds of too many
security problems) and now they are hiding the surround sound
stream behind only one browser which works on a non-Microsoft
operating system. From my point of view Chrome is not an option
because it includes Flash.

http://www.radiojackie.com/listennowpage.asp

See if you can persuade someone at the BBC that there are people
who have a clue, who want to use their own choice of software,
and therefore only need the stream's URL. On one of the web
pages, of course, not in a private email.
--
Roger

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:25:47 +0100, Roger
wrote:

See if you can persuade someone at the BBC that there are people
who have a clue, who want to use their own choice of software,
and therefore only need the stream's URL. On one of the web
pages, of course, not in a private email.

+1
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article , Java Jive
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 13:25:47 +0100, Roger
wrote:

See if you can persuade someone at the BBC that there are people who
have a clue, who want to use their own choice of software, and
therefore only need the stream's URL. On one of the web pages, of
course, not in a private email.

+1

I'd agree. But I suspect that the methods are dictated by those in charge
who feel it necessary for 'content access control' reasons to keep medja
lawyers happy. It won't bother them if that dictates only one browser or a
limited set of methods. Once one is usable they can say they've provided a
method we can use.

This may change - I hope it does, because I agree that choice is needed.
But to discuss this it helps me to establish what is possible now with the
4.0 test streams. I have more chance now to put arguments than when things
become set as practice.

However at present I have no idea even of which version(s) of Chrome with
which distro(s) work, and what doesn't.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

In article , Roger
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 09:47:48 +0100, Jim Lesurf

I'd also like to give it a try myself, but almost certainly would need
to install a suitable new distro, etc, to do so. Hence reports from
other Linux users re what works/not would help me. Is Chrome vital, or
will FF work? etc.

I think that last question is answered by information from two different
pages. See under "What new technology is being used?" on the page you
quote and the second paragraph under "What will I need?" on the FAQ page.

If you are happy using Chrome and it works on your current distro why
change it?

I'm not using Chrome, and so far haven't ever used it. I've avoided it as
unnessary given FF works OK (so far).

[snip]

What follows is something of a rant!

You may, or may not, be aware that there is a local radio station, Radio
Jackie, near where Brian Gaff lives. They have a web page, below, which
gives the URLs for a number of streams so that people can use the
software of their choice. Why oh why can't the BBC do the same? They
hide the iPlayer streams behind Flash (which I refuse to have on the
grounds of too many security problems) and now they are hiding the
surround sound stream behind only one browser which works on a
non-Microsoft operating system. From my point of view Chrome is not an
option because it includes Flash.

FWIW decided some years ago to sigh and put up with Flash simply to access
the iplayer. Not what I'd wish, but simply as a means to the end I require.
One of the questions I'm now unclear about is if we now will in future be
given no choice on Linux other than Chrome.

Chances are the BBC will 'unify' at some future point as I know some of
them don't like using Flash, either, for various reasons. So future stereo
streams may end up following 4.0 away from flash to the newer approach. But
again, I don't know if Chrome is better or worse in these respects.

Hence in part my questions. However if the BBC do switch methods then I'd
hope that the FF developers deal with it!

See if you can persuade someone at the BBC that there are people who
have a clue, who want to use their own choice of software, and therefore
only need the stream's URL. On one of the web pages, of course, not in a
private email.

I've discussed this with a few people before. Alas, think these decisions
are made by people who *don't* speak to me, and are then set as
requirements by them for others to impliment. No doubt I'll be asking
again, though. Again, one reason for my questions is to get people to try
things and tell me the situation so I can feedback. My problem here,
though, is that I'm disadvantaged when the specific is 4.0 audio as I don't
have any 4.0 kit at all. My own main interest is good stereo.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:40:23 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

I'm not using Chrome, and so far haven't ever used it. I've avoided it
as unnessary given FF works OK (so far).

I'm with you on that. I prefer to have as little to do with Google as
possible. They are entirely too careless of other people's privacy for my
taste and seem to show an unholy glee in proving that their motto is the
opposite of what they practise. No, I don't use their search engine:
IXquick works well for me.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

In article , Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:40:23 +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

I'm not using Chrome, and so far haven't ever used it. I've avoided it
as unnessary given FF works OK (so far).

I'm with you on that. I prefer to have as little to do with Google as
possible. They are entirely too careless of other people's privacy for
my taste and seem to show an unholy glee in proving that their motto is
the opposite of what they practise. No, I don't use their search
engine: IXquick works well for me.

I share your caution wrt google. FWIW I use DuckDuckGo for websearches.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

Roger wrote:

What follows is something of a rant!

Yea, I had a similar moan in response to the announcement on sursound.

To be fair the BBC Guy did reply with some links/explanation, but wanted
further questions to be via their web page.

In article , Andy
Furniss spam@spam wrote:
Roger wrote:

What follows is something of a rant!

Yea, I had a similar moan in response to the announcement on sursound.

To be fair the BBC Guy did reply with some links/explanation, but wanted
further questions to be via their web page.



The basic hangup here is that the BBC people essentially divide into two
categories.

1) Managers and suits: Concerned about IPR control and looking over their
shoulder at lawyers and the big meeja companies.

2) Engineers and producers: Simply want to make things available as best
they can.

Category (1) aren't likely to talk to me or care about the availability
being more open and flexible. They want control over access on terms
they're happy with.

Category (2) may talk to me and consider feedback. They'd probably welcome
access being as wide and flexible as possible. But may not be able to do
what (1) reject.

To get any effect on either, what helps is evidence. Hence one of the
reasons for asking about this. If the reality is that *only* Chrome does
(or ever will) work for Linux, that needs spelling out. And the reasons
people object, ditto.

For obvious reasons I can't say who I may talk to. They won't want to be
bothered/blamed/etc if they aren't able to do what people would want, and
they can't act as spokespersons for BBC policies - regardless of what they
may think of them. Their interest is in developing better quality and new
services.

However AIUI at present the engineers are really at the stage of testing
and seeing how well their 4.0 streams may work. They hope the new streams
will be good. Their main focus will be on that. From their POV a limit on
browser choice probably isn't their concern *at present* since it isn't a
standard service. Mine at present would be on assessing sound quality *if*
I can manage to capture a stream!

That they are using Proms for the tests is good, as the quality has the
potential to he high, and the results impressive.

So I am prepared to install a suitable distro and chrome on, say, my
laptop, for the purposes of such a test. Even if I then replace the
distro/chrome once done and get rid of it. LIke others, I don't trust
Chrome, and also prefer a choice of browsers to be available. Not a
monopoly dicatated by one desired use.

I'm hoping FF developers can and will realise this issue needs addressing.
It probably won't go away.

But at present I don't know:

A) Which distro(s) would work.

B) If any other browser or software would work.

C) If I can capture the 4.0.

So info on those points would be welcome. Failing that I may try something
like xfce Mint sometime. But its a bit of a faff as a temporary measure if
someone can tell me in advance that won't do the job and point me at a
better choice. (I'm asking at the BBC about this as well.)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page 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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Andy
Furniss spam@spam wrote:


snip
Agree.

Below is probably flawed/outdated - just first impressions from a bit of
random searching.

However AIUI at present the engineers are really at the stage of testing
and seeing how well their 4.0 streams may work. They hope the new streams
will be good. Their main focus will be on that. From their POV a limit on
browser choice probably isn't their concern *at present* since it isn't a
standard service. Mine at present would be on assessing sound quality *if*
I can manage to capture a stream!

As I see it the browser is the player here and chrome is closed and
using it's own licensed AAC dec (maybe fdkaac which is available in
source form). The open version of chrome by default at least will only
play open codecs to avoid IP issues. I also don't know if it will do
DASH - maybe, as it's javascript that the the BBC use - as stated in the
link Rupert gave it's a version of an open reference implementation.

Also the link says the stream is 320kbit fixed rate and the DASH is only
used for chunking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/03...rce-extensions

So currently I don't think you will be able to cap the stream as easily
as using wget or mplayer on the R3 HD stream.

For capping decoded PCM - I guess you can already do that - follow the
sursound thread for others experience and some ready made samples.


That they are using Proms for the tests is good, as the quality has the
potential to he high, and the results impressive.

So I am prepared to install a suitable distro and chrome on, say, my
laptop, for the purposes of such a test. Even if I then replace the
distro/chrome once done and get rid of it. LIke others, I don't trust
Chrome, and also prefer a choice of browsers to be available. Not a
monopoly dicatated by one desired use.

I'm hoping FF developers can and will realise this issue needs addressing.
It probably won't go away.

From reading their tracker threads they are addressing it - but of
course their are (were?) potential IP/licence issues that come when
anything with MPEG in the name is is involved, so both DASH and the
browser being the player could be/have been tricky.

It will be handy if they do manage - open source = can cap the raw
stream, I am not so sure content providers will be as pleased.

But at present I don't know:

A) Which distro(s) would work.

B) If any other browser or software would work.

C) If I can capture the 4.0.

So info on those points would be welcome. Failing that I may try something
like xfce Mint sometime. But its a bit of a faff as a temporary measure if
someone can tell me in advance that won't do the job and point me at a
better choice. (I'm asking at the BBC about this as well.

Seems to be just chrome currently, as for distro - no idea.