Internet radio stations & other alternatives to Radio 3

[Nick Armstrong]

Odd that you can’t find them on your iPad - that can’t be right.

My main gripe is that I can’t play Radio 3 through iTunes. That used to be very convenient.

Edit: How come you have R3, but I can’t find it?

R3 has disappeared in the past but it's in the classical list constantly these days - and in sound which belies its rather lowly bit rate...

Can't you see it in the alphabetical classical list if you rank it like this:



after quite a lot of dross starting with 'A'?

[Beef Oven!]

Odd that you can’t find them on your iPad - that can’t be right.

My main gripe is that I can’t play Radio 3 through iTunes. That used to be very convenient.

Edit: How come you have R3, but I can’t find it?

[Nick Armstrong]

Several months ago I noticed that iTunes radio stations disappeared. I didn’t think anything much about it at the time, things are always changing with Apple, but they have not reappeared, re-vamped or otherwise. What’s going on?

Not really sure, some do come and go - I suspect some are private 'stations' set up by individuals, who sooner or later give up. I remember there was an early music station some years back that was good but then literally disappeared into the ether.

A good new classical one is in the 'individual' category - someone called 'Davide' seems to run it http://davideofmimic.blogspot.co.uk and it's popped up on iTunes: good HQ sound and interesting selections.

FWIW this is my current radio playlist ranked by bit rate:




(An allied point - I can't find any of these via iTunes on my iPad, which is annoying when on travels - would be good to have them in hotel rooms etc, esp as the speakers on my iPad Pro are surprisingly good. Any tips from anyone?)

[Beef Oven!]

Several months ago I noticed that iTunes radio stations disappeared. I didn’t think anything much about it at the time, things are always changing with Apple, but they have not reappeared, re-vamped or otherwise. What’s going on?

Thank you for that, I have found an android app for my phone. I listen to KUSC via an app too, thanks to someone on this site

[Radio64]

...Apps, shmapps .... now the only (and best) way for me to listen to BBC Radio on the i-pad is through the straightfoward web site. End of.

The Morning Tweet has been restored! .. and the rest of it..

[DracoM]

http://yle.fi/radio/yleklassinen/suora/

Try this Finnish station. Just music with minimal intros and genuinely out of the way selections as well as warhorses. Really worth it.

[Dave2002]

not sure if this has been flagged up anywhere. a nice listing of some apparently excellent internet stations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10409420/The-best-internet-radio-stations.html

Sweden's P2 rather appealed to me.

can't understand a word , but the music sounds good !!

IIRC P2 - http://sverigesradio.se/sida/kanal.aspx?ProgramId=3633 is worth hearing, but the ToryGraph has the text all wrong - not bought up by Tesco at all!

Poor proof reading has the stations out of step with the headings.

Ochså klassiskt - webbkanal - http://sverigesradio.se/sida/default...programid=1603

[teamsaint]

not sure if this has been flagged up anywhere. a nice listing of some apparently excellent internet stations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10409420/The-best-internet-radio-stations.html

Sweden's P2 rather appealed to me.

can't understand a word , but the music sounds good !!

[anotherbob]

This is a good read, but a long one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/977a1954-658f-4fb2-a23c-71680c49882f?filter=none#comments

[Dave2002]

Wow Dave. Thanks ... I will peruse and inwardly digest - after this evening's Ravel-feast at the RFH....

Enjoy! For the avoidance of doubt **** equivalent to "expletive deleted", rather than 4 star recording.

[johnb]

One factor that is emerging is that the new HLS/HDS/DASH streams support changes in bitrate without any rebuffering. So when the network or the servers become congested the servers can seamlessly send a lower bitrate for the duration of the overload.

[Nick Armstrong]

It's perhaps slightly more complicated... no matter how good technically the transmission system is, if the basic recording is **** then the replay will also be ****.

Wow Dave. Thanks ... I will peruse and inwardly digest - after this evening's Ravel-feast at the RFH....

[Phileas]

...you should try to pick up the best of the R3 streams - which others seem to have now confirmed is a 320 kbps compressed stream...

This is only available on devices compatible with the new HLS streams. Whether that includes iTunes I'm not sure.

(Sorry for snipping most of your reply to Caliban)

[Dave2002]

Dave thanks - one of the things that occurred to me is that the reason the Airport is so useful is that it's enabled a Naim amp. to be used with iTunes, but only by means of an analogue cable from Airport to amp. The Airport's internal DAC is doing the work - and I've read that "The DAC is however limited to CD quality output (16-bit PCM encoding at 44.1 kHz sampling rate) which means if you send it a higher resolution encoding it will be down sampled to 16-bit/44.1 kHz."

Now I don't really understand your "didactic bit" sufficiently to know how that impacts on the above.

Does it mean that there is unlikely to be any difference between the two grades of streaming you describe, or is it irrelevant?

And turning to downloads, is there no point in me spending money on anything higher res than 16bit/44.1 kHz, as it is just going to be compressed to that value anyway in the DAC?

It's perhaps slightly more complicated, but maybe not too much.

Your link will "reduce" everything to CD quality - 44.1 kHz sampling at 16 bits. Some people claim that higher sampling frequencies and more bits are better. It is certainly the case that for producing the CDs there are a lot of advantages in using higher sampling rates and more bits per sample, or other techniques such as DSD. However, for the final produced article many engineers and mathematicians would argue that 44.1 kHz at 16 bits is good enough. Most humans can't hear above 20 kHz, so 44.1 kHz sampling should be enough.

Some equipment may work better with higher sample rates, or more bits, or may simply be better made. It's very difficult to tell IMO.
My personal hunch is that having a few more than 16 bits may give improved sound quality - it will reduce the noise floor, and in turn that may increase the apparent loudness of the sound.

Oddly that is where mp3 and similar systems may do slightly better than 16 bit PCM, as it's quite easily possible to enocde masters at 20 bits or 24 bits using these compression forms. However, most lossy compression algorithms introduce significant artefacts/noise, which would tend to have the opposite effect on perceived audio quality. You may remember the R3 DAB bit rate debacle from quite a few years ago, when the DAB bit rate was reduced to 160 kbps. Many people complained, and said it was clearly inferior to the 192 kbps streams. DAB was designed to work at 256 kbps, but by reducing the bit rate broadcasters can fit more stations on to the same transmission system. DAB uses a codec called mp2, which in terms of audio quality is considered less good than mp3. For example we might establish a rough equivalence of 160 kbps DAB (mp2) with 128 kbps mp3, and 256 kbps DAB (mp2) with 192 kbps mp3. AAC is considered to sound better than either of these for a given bit (data) rate. This means it actually discards more data than other codecs, but it only attempts to discard data corresponding to sound which we probably wouldn't hear anyway. At 256 kbps and above, most lossy codecs should sound more or less indistinguishable to most people, but at lower bit rates there are clear differences, and noticeable quality loss.

I am more sceptical about the use of higher sampling rates.

At very low bit rates, quality suffers a lot, and lossy codecs might only be considered suitable for speech, or very limited (comparable to AM radio perhaps) audio, and stereo isn't great either. One of the problems is a loss of high frequencies, which really dulls the sound. However, quite a few years ago, a system called SBR (Spectral Band Replication) was developed, which "regenerates" the missing high frequencies to give a more acceptable result. It doesn't actually regenerate them - it's a fake process, but fools the ear into thinking that the sound is closer to what the original might have been. This has been developed into AAC-HE which can give passable results for many not too critical listeners.
This way the broadcasters can send out more channels without using up all the spectrum they have available. There are other trade offs possible. For example, rather than trying to send out two very high quality channels, they could perhaps transmit 5 or more somewhat lower quality channels for surround sound systems using the same overall data rates. It is possible that many users would prefer that - if they had appropriate playback equipment.

If you are happy with your system as it is, then don't worry too much about it. The Airport express link should be capable of delivering much higher quality (CD quality) than the streamed audio from the BBC. However, you should try to pick up the best of the R3 streams - which others seem to have now confirmed is a 320 kbps compressed stream. If you find you are picking up a lower bit rate stream you might notice the lower quality.

One other thing - it would not be worth spending a lot more for studio master downloads at (say) 24/192, as with your link these would be transformed down to 16/44.1 - though if you ever got equipment which could play 24/192 you might then get a benefit. If you are always going to use that link, then don't even try to improve quality by buying any so-called hi-res files - they may sound OK, but shouldn't be any better than regular CD quality. That should answer your last point.

Despite all this, do remember that perceived audio quality isn't always determined by bit rates and all this technical stuff. A relatively poor technical system may be capable of giving very musical results on some material (may depend on the instruments and music), and in contrast, no matter how good technically the transmission system is, if the basic recording is **** then the replay will also be ****.