In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
scribeth thus
I don't quite get the point of this, as if you really believe the stuff on
the site, it seems totally pointless if they have no plans to actually use
it long term for anything.
Brian
It does seem to be in the lets try and see how we get on and if theres
enough interest then we might make it permanently available.
It's probably more to do with the way the BBC works and various
departments get funded than owt else;!..
The main problem, I think, in this case is the balance between "people will
want and prefer it" + "it is better" versus "music companies will want
higher IPR payments". So far as I can tell, the trial is being time limited
because of worries that music biz companies will regard it as 'Audio CD
quality' whereas the aac can be seen as 'lossy, so lower than Audio CD'.
In effect, the R3 people would like to use flac, but beancounters and suits
may say "no". Hence I think they are hoping for a positive reaction to wave
at the beancounters.
The increase in required stream bandwith per user is modest. The tests I've
run seem to turn out in the range of 450 - 500 k compared with the 320 for
aac. So a clear increase in system loading, but still piffle compared with
BBC1 streams in the 50fps video formats. But, then, for some odd reason
BBC1 gets more of the cake than R3!
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