Internet radio stations & other alternatives to Radio 3

[french frank]

Does this have anything to do with the fact that the 320Kbps stream of Radio 3 on iTunes is no longer available, just the 128Kbps version?

I think it's called 'levelling down'.

[Radio64]

A rare animal - You should be preserved!

Well from where I am you just have to be grateful for small mercys. As they say here "you can't complain that your broth has too much fat"....or something like that.

[Nick Armstrong]

I think it's called 'levelling down'.

Intimately linked with the Lowest Common Denominator...

As they say here "you can't complain that your broth has too much fat"....or something like that.

Gallina vecchia fa buon brodo? Oh no, that's something else...

Ah... our Italian cousins!

[Radio64]

Gallina vecchia fa buon brodo? Oh no, that's something else...

Ah... our Italian cousins!

Nice try.. Mai lamentarsi del brodo grasso! ..

(deliciously OT!)

[Nick Armstrong]

Nice try.. Mai lamentarsi del brodo grasso! ..

(deliciously OT!)

Yum!

[Beef Oven!]

Does this have anything to do with the fact that the 320Kbps stream of Radio 3 on iTunes is no longer available, just the 128Kbps version?

I streamed it through the Wifi/Apple Airport thingamajig last night and it sounded wonderful. I didn't know that Kbps had been cut. What difference does it make? (what's a Kbps?)

[Nick Armstrong]

I streamed it through the Wifi/Apple Airport thingamajig last night and it sounded wonderful. I didn't know that Kbps had been cut. What difference does it make? (what's a Kbps?)

It's the amount of data passing per second so in theory the higher the rate the better the sound. But it all varies depending on the individual, the kit, etc etc. I agree, listening to the now-normal R3 stream sounds fine on our Airport/Naim combos - whether one would tell the difference switching from the current 128Kbps to 320Kbps and back, I don't know. I suppose it's like choosing between a 3.0 litre engine in a car, and a 4.2 litre - in extreme circumstances, there's a difference but for normal sensible use, the 3.0 is going to get you where you want to go quite quickly enough...

I'm only aware of it since I had made a playlist of the dozen or so internet stations on iTunes that I listen to, for ease of access - and the R3 item in the playlist had ceased to function as it was the 320Kbps stream. Going into the main internet radio section and playing the 128Kbps Radio 3 stream works, as you say, perfectly well.

[Beef Oven!]

It's the amount of data passing per second so in theory the higher the rate the better the sound. But it all varies depending on the individual, the kit, etc etc. I agree, listening to the now-normal R3 stream sounds fine on our Airport/Naim combos - whether one would tell the difference switching from the current 128Kbps to 320Kbps and back, I don't know. I suppose it's like choosing between a 3.0 litre engine in a car, and a 4.2 litre - in extreme circumstances, there's a difference but for normal sensible use, the 3.0 is going to get you where you want to go quite quickly enough...

I'm only aware of it since I had made a playlist of the dozen or so internet stations on iTunes that I listen to, for ease of access - and the R3 item in the playlist had ceased to function as it was the 320Kbps stream. Going into the main internet radio section and playing the 128Kbps Radio 3 stream works, as you say, perfectly well.

Thanks for the explanation Caliban.

Can't wait to listen tonight, through our Airport/Naim combos

[Dave2002]

I streamed it through the Wifi/Apple Airport thingamajig last night and it sounded wonderful. I didn't know that Kbps had been cut. What difference does it make? (what's a Kbps?)

Not everyone will be able to tell the difference, but 320kbps streams should provide a significantly higher quality level than 128 kbps. At the current time I think the 128 kbps streams - which I believe use aac encoding - deliver a quality level roughly comparable to 192 kbps mp3. Most of the time it'll sound OKish, but at critical moments it probably won't work for anyone with good quality equipment and good hearing. Most of the time compression methods such as aac deliver audio quality which is good enough for speech, and also for "casual" music listening - such as R4 programmes about music, but for high quality reproduction I'd suggest that 320kbps is preferable, and should be the norm for R3.

[didactic bit - kbps = kilobits/second which for lossy compressed formats does have an impact on audio quality.So called hi-res audio masters - 24 bits/192 kHz -> 9.216 Mbps for 2 channels or 23.040 Mbps for 5 channel (surround) master tapes. These bit rates are far too high for most normal broadcast streaming, so compression methods are used to compress the bit stream. 16 bits/44.1 kHz -> 1.4112 Mbps CD quality - uncompressed - or 1.536 Mbps for basic 48 kHz/16 bit audio. It is only possible to get a factor of about 2 reduction by using lossless compression, such as FLAC, which would get CD quality audio down to around 700 kbps. Lossy compression does "better" by throwing some of the data away, hopefully in ways which are not detectable by most people - but that's where there can be significant arguments.]

[Phileas]

I assumed if you use the iPlayer app on e.g. an iPad, you still get the 320kbps AAC stream?
Also, if your internet radio is compatible with the new Flash-wrapped AAC streams?

If you use the Shoutcast streams, accessible in various ways on Internet radios, you will get 128kbps MP3 (but this will be switched off at some point in the future)?

Just trying to determine all the details of this change at the moment.

[Beef Oven!]

Not everyone will be able to tell the difference, but 320kbps streams should provide a significantly higher quality level than 128 kbps. At the current time I think the 128 kbps streams - which I believe use aac encoding - deliver a quality level roughly comparable to 192 kbps mp3. Most of the time it'll sound OKish, but at critical moments it probably won't work for anyone with good quality equipment and good hearing. Most of the time compression methods such as aac deliver audio quality which is good enough for speech, and also for "casual" music listening - such as R4 programmes about music, but for high quality reproduction I'd suggest that 320kbps is preferable, and should be the norm for R3.

[didactic bit - kbps = kilobits/second which for lossy compressed formats does have an impact on audio quality.So called hi-res audio masters - 24 bits/192 kHz -> 9.216 Mbps for 2 channels or 23.040 Mbps for 5 channel (surround) master tapes. These bit rates are far too high for most normal broadcast streaming, so compression methods are used to compress the bit stream. 16 bits/44.1 kHz -> 1.4112 Mbps CD quality - uncompressed - or 1.536 Mbps for basic 48 kHz/16 bit audio. It is only possible to get a factor of about 2 reduction by using lossless compression, such as FLAC, which would get CD quality audio down to around 700 kbps. Lossy compression does "better" by throwing some of the data away, hopefully in ways which are not detectable by most people - but that's where there can be significant arguments.]

Thanks for the explanation. I enjoyed last night's broadcast and thought the sound was superb. I have bad hearing and good equipment.

[Dave2002]

I assume if you use the iPlayer app on e.g. an iPad, you still get the 320kbps AAC stream?

If you use the Shoutcast streams, accessible in various ways on Internet radios, you will get 128kbps MP3 (but this will be switched off at some point in the future). Not sure about 128 kbps AAC?

If you are right about the 320kbps AAC then there is less to worry about, but I can see that changes have been made, and some people have been affected. Maybe it's only people who use some formats with some devices (eg. some Microsoft formats, and Android phones) - and chances are that unless the codecs are in hardware, that new apps will appear which will sort out the issues. What I would definitely be against would be a move to downgrade the audio across all possible player devices or systems.

[Nick Armstrong]

Not everyone will be able to tell the difference, but 320kbps streams should provide a significantly higher quality level than 128 kbps. At the current time I think the 128 kbps streams - which I believe use aac encoding - deliver a quality level roughly comparable to 192 kbps mp3. Most of the time it'll sound OKish, but at critical moments it probably won't work for anyone with good quality equipment and good hearing. Most of the time compression methods such as aac deliver audio quality which is good enough for speech, and also for "casual" music listening - such as R4 programmes about music, but for high quality reproduction I'd suggest that 320kbps is preferable, and should be the norm for R3.

[didactic bit - kbps = kilobits/second which for lossy compressed formats does have an impact on audio quality.So called hi-res audio masters - 24 bits/192 kHz -> 9.216 Mbps for 2 channels or 23.040 Mbps for 5 channel (surround) master tapes. These bit rates are far too high for most normal broadcast streaming, so compression methods are used to compress the bit stream. 16 bits/44.1 kHz -> 1.4112 Mbps CD quality - uncompressed - or 1.536 Mbps for basic 48 kHz/16 bit audio. It is only possible to get a factor of about 2 reduction by using lossless compression, such as FLAC, which would get CD quality audio down to around 700 kbps. Lossy compression does "better" by throwing some of the data away, hopefully in ways which are not detectable by most people - but that's where there can be significant arguments.]

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?

[Phileas]

If you are right about the 320kbps AAC then there is less to worry about, but I can see that changes have been made, and some people have been affected. Maybe it's only people who use some formats with some devices (eg. some Microsoft formats, and Android phones) - and chances are that unless the codecs are in hardware, that new apps will appear which will sort out the issues. What I would definitely be against would be a move to downgrade the audio across all possible player devices or systems.

I've edited my post slightly Dave. I'm actually still trying to find out the exact details of the changes, so don't take my word for anything.

[Bryn]

I am having some trouble checking the data rate of the current iPlayer stream but today's Afternoon on 3 and Choral Evensong are definitely available at 320kbps AAC-LC via the iPlayer's 'Listen Again' facility.

[O.k., using Bandwidth Monitor it appears that the live stream is also still at 320kbps.]