I've now managed to build a version of ffmpeg that lets me fetch and record
the R3 flac stream. The process of making this is a bit geeky at present,
but if anyone is interested it is being discussed on uk.comp.os.linux.

Managed to capture the programs that were on R3 from 12 - 2 today. But so
far 'tests' have just been: "Yes, it is flac. Yes, I can hear it." But
quite promising as a start. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Huge
scribeth thus
On 2017-04-07, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 07/04/17 08:39, Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, it does not have to be that way. certainly back in 2000 r2 put out a
Bee Gees concert with wonderful dynamic range and quality on DAB. Some of
the concerts recorded for radio 1 in the 70s and 80s were very good also,
but when more recently they have rebroadcast some of them they are
compressed to hell and back. I know this as I have high quality recordings
from FM of the originals.
As I say, they need to decide what they are aiming for. Its not just
classical lovers who like good quality output.
The standards at the bbc have fallen to a new low and now I suspect most
listeners would be astounded just how realistic and good so called pop
concerts can be.

Pop music was always second to classical with regard to funding (elitism
etc...), hence why the Pop's reliance on dynamic range compression to
cope with limited bandwidth, and now an unfortunate addiction to using
it from the industry - even for CDs FFS.

I would suggest that Pop's reliance on dynamic range compression was more to
do with the "loudness wars" than limited bandwidth, especially since it
predates digital media.


It often has to be so, a lot of radio is listened to under far less than
ideal conditions where a wide dynamic range would be waste and no
bugger would hear it.

Course there is a world of difference between a tranny kicked up against
the sawmill in our local wood works compared to what I might want to
listen to on Radio 3 at home here....

And even that sometimes benefits from a bit of dynamic range reduction
depending on where you might be listening to it ..

However you the listener should have the choice of source of course...
--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:


It often has to be so, a lot of radio is listened to under far less than
ideal conditions where a wide dynamic range would be waste and no
bugger would hear it.

To some extent the pop/rock obsession with level compression goes
hand-in-hand with their wish for LOUDNESS. Hearing curves tend to also
compress at high levels. So to a fair extent, banded level compression has
a result similar to winding up the level of less-compressed pop/rock.
Mimics being able to get a higher level from cheap replay systems.

In some ways a modern equivalent to balancing everything to make the best
of being played on a Dansette or a tiny speaker.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:


It often has to be so, a lot of radio is listened to under far less
than ideal conditions where a wide dynamic range would be waste and no
bugger would hear it.

To some extent the pop/rock obsession with level compression goes
hand-in-hand with their wish for LOUDNESS. Hearing curves tend to also
compress at high levels. So to a fair extent, banded level compression
has a result similar to winding up the level of less-compressed
pop/rock. Mimics being able to get a higher level from cheap replay
systems.

In some ways a modern equivalent to balancing everything to make the best
of being played on a Dansette or a tiny speaker.

Never quite understood the fashion for making everything as loud as
possible. Does anyone have replay equipment where it is turned up full -
so it would actually be louder?

I well remember when demos started coming in on DAT rather than cassette.
There was some need to keep the level up on cassette to beat the inherent
background noise - but 'they' did exactly the same on DAT, often to the
point of clipping.

--
*Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:


It often has to be so, a lot of radio is listened to under far less
than ideal conditions where a wide dynamic range would be waste and no
bugger would hear it.

To some extent the pop/rock obsession with level compression goes
hand-in-hand with their wish for LOUDNESS. Hearing curves tend to also
compress at high levels. So to a fair extent, banded level compression
has a result similar to winding up the level of less-compressed
pop/rock. Mimics being able to get a higher level from cheap replay
systems.

In some ways a modern equivalent to balancing everything to make the best
of being played on a Dansette or a tiny speaker.

Never quite understood the fashion for making everything as loud as
possible. Does anyone have replay equipment where it is turned up full -
so it would actually be louder?

Simple. But it is not a fashion. People construe
"louder" as "better". I am sure we have all tried the
simple test with two identical amps, from a common
source,one just 2dB louder than the other, switched
to drive the same pair of speakers. Listeners seem
to invariably choose the louder of the two.

The same with CD mastering, (and broadcast?)
The phenomenon is not only to do with peak level.
With pop music, perceived loudness is also achieved
by increasing the average level i.e. compression.
The Durrough meter is a very useful tool in this
process. If applied carefully, and in moderation,
compression works. Sadly even when over-applied,
people still seem to prefer it.

I am very happy that for the music in which I am
most interested, Baroque and early Jazz, the finished
mix master is used for CD production without being
subjected to "mastering enhancement"

I have some very good audio clips (no pun intended!)
of the various stages in mastering, including what is
commonly known as "impact" and "spread", and
multiband compression with EQ.

Some tracks peak at -1dB FS and have a
dynamic of 6dB. But they have been
skillfully processed and sound a lot better than
one would expect. Perhaps this would be a
good topic for a new thread?

Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

I am very happy that for the music in which I am most interested,
Baroque and early Jazz, the finished mix master is used for CD
production without being subjected to "mastering enhancement"

I have some very good audio clips (no pun intended!) of the various
stages in mastering, including what is commonly known as "impact" and
"spread", and multiband compression with EQ.

Some tracks peak at -1dB FS and have a dynamic of 6dB. But they have
been skillfully processed and sound a lot better than one would expect.
Perhaps this would be a good topic for a new thread?

Probably. However mainly because others may be less careful than yourself!

I just bought a couple of 'new' (i.e. remastered) sets of CDs of classic
Jazz. Both are noticable LOUD and hit the 0dBF led on my meters regularly.
(I'm currently using some old CDRW audio recorders as CD drives. They have
useful meters so show this up.)

I've not checked in detail because I'm otherwise distracted (by the topic
of this thread). But I suspect if I analyse them they will show many peak
or near peak sample values and probably 'overs' in between.

For modern pop/etc if people want loudness (or clipping) as an effect, fair
enough. My problem is when reissues of music that can endure gets messed
about.

BTW coming back on topic. People may find these preliminary results of
interest.

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/in...lacresults.png shows a comparison
between the flac and aac streams over a period of 35 mins. The lower (diff)
shows how much *below* the flac audio level the 'difference' between the
two is.

http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/temp/spectraflacvaac.png shows comparison
spectra for a 1000 sec period. This was mainly to show that the standard HF
rolloff above about 20kHz is present, but also shows the differences
between the two.

For both of the above the versions were time aligned to a sample.

I'm currently trying to get stats on how often 'blocks' of flag fail to
arrive and leave a 'lost' section in the received signal. But these are
rare enough most of the time to make this hard to assess beyond "it does
happen ever now and then". Sadly, a lost 4 sec in the middle of a long
classical work can be a bit of a distraction! So even occasional lost
chunks can be annoying.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...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 message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

I am very happy that for the music in which I am most interested,
Baroque and early Jazz, the finished mix master is used for CD
production without being subjected to "mastering enhancement"

I have some very good audio clips (no pun intended!) of the various
stages in mastering, including what is commonly known as "impact" and
"spread", and multiband compression with EQ.

Some tracks peak at -1dB FS and have a dynamic of 6dB. But they have
been skillfully processed and sound a lot better than one would expect.
Perhaps this would be a good topic for a new thread?

Probably. However mainly because others may be less careful than yourself!

I just bought a couple of 'new' (i.e. remastered) sets of CDs of classic
Jazz. Both are noticable LOUD and hit the 0dBF led on my meters regularly.
(I'm currently using some old CDRW audio recorders as CD drives. They have
useful meters so show this up.)


I too have a couple of redundant CD recorders, which are very useful for
metering.
My master recorder has a peak hold button which is very useful.

I also have a number of RTW PPMs taken from various consoles. They
have a D conncector for 24VDC, and signal inputs. But my favourite is the
so-called
"table-top" model, the 1206 which has a built in psu, and so just needs an
IEC
mains cable and signal inputs - balanced on XLR +6dBu/1.55V 10k or on
RCA connectors adjustable from 155mV to 30V 47k

https://www.google.fi/search?q=rtw+1...ILd_Is0FnjRMM:

One interesting idea for PPMs is the "matchdead" display - a single red
segment to
show peak, while the green column shows perceived level.

Useful too is the Dorrough range of meters.
Their 40-A is a loudness meter and
found in most mastering suites.

https://www.google.fi/search?q=dorro...7kJ6HlvkM828M:


Iain

On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 6:13:44 AM UTC-7, Jim Lesurf wrote:
People may find this test interesting. Despite the date on one page it is
*not* an April Fool! Note that it may only run for 4 weeks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/taster/projects...d/inside-story

https://radio-3-concert-sound.pilots...dstudio.co.uk/

The DASH manifest is at:
https://vs-dash-ww-rd-live.bbcfmt.hs...t_manifest.mpd

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

This morning I plunk the BBC Radio 3 FLAC manifest.mpd URL (aich tee tee pee colon slash slash) vs-dash-ww-rd-live.bbcfmt.hs.llnwd.net/al/lossless/client_manifest.mpd into the VLC 3.0.0 nightly build, and voila! The music plays. Then, almost as though on cue, the muted horn does a "Waa-waa, waa, waaaaaaaaaaaaa," and the music stops. I try it again, because of course it's just a fluke. No, stream still only plays for a few seconds, then quits. Am I the only one?

Ironically, it may well be possible that my email a week ago to the BBC R&D department handling the BBC Proms 2017 FLAC stream, requesting that they put up the stream a couple of days early so bugs like this could be solved, is a success, but that I will still be sitting here with mute speakers long after the live music starts tomorrow morning (U.S. time).

Frustrating.

wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

https://vs-dash-ww-rd-live.bbcfmt.hs...t_manifest.mpd

stream still only plays for a few seconds, then quits. Am I the only one?

Plays OK in my few months old VLC3 nightly, there was a stutter a few
seconds in which made me think it was going to give the problem you
mentioned, but it didn't happen again when I closed and re-started VLC.

In article , Andy Burns
wrote:
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

https://vs-dash-ww-rd-live.bbcfmt.hs...t_manifest.mpd

stream still only plays for a few seconds, then quits. Am I the only
one?

Plays OK in my few months old VLC3 nightly, there was a stutter a few
seconds in which made me think it was going to give the problem you
mentioned, but it didn't happen again when I closed and re-started VLC.

FWIW I tried to access a couple of days ago but got no response. However
I've just tried again, successfully. This is using the same command as I
employed during the test. I just put

xterm -fn 10x20 -sb -rightbar -sl 200 -e "./ffmpeg_r3flactest -i
https://vs-dash-ww-rd-live.bbcfmt.hs...t_manifest.mpd -c
copy new_recording.mkv 2&1 | tee recording_log.txt"

into an executable file and run that.

Note that "ffmpeg_r3flactest" is the filename I gave to a local build of
the version of ffmpeg that can handle this kind of streaming.

The tee into a file lets me check afterwards for any hiccups.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html