What are the big successes of For3?

[Serial_Apologist]

I tend to think that, though it sounds a bit like a get-out for any programming which effectively stops people 'listening live' to anything.

There's a difference between listening On Demand because you've missed a programme or want to hear it again, and listening On Demand as a substitute for what's being played (e.g. listening to TTN while Breakfast or Essential Classics are on) or because a programme is on too late for live listening (listening to Drama on 3 at a time of one's own choosing when it was on at 10pm). This is the result of poor scheduling.

A large majority of listening is still 'live' or linear even if some people have moved over to creating their own schedule with the iPlayer.

This may sound pseudo-mystical, and maybe is, but there's something "about" having something actually live on to listen to, when other people are also listening.

[Lat-Literal]

This may sound pseudo-mystical, and maybe is, but there's something "about" having something actually live on to listen to, when other people are also listening.

You are on to something there but I doubt it is about other people listening because other people might also be listening to "Listen Again".

Rather it is about locating self in the here and now rather than "Ladies and Gentlemen We Are Floating in Space" as per Spiritualized etc.

[Dave2002]

A large majority of listening is still 'live' or linear even if some people have moved over to creating their own schedule with the iPlayer.

Not sure if it is actually a majority, but there are many people who can't yet cope with computers and all the modern stuff which enables people to listen to material on demand. That's a perfectly good reason for providing repeats.

I do have a slight problem with TV repeats though, where I've missed a programme - and then a repeat does turn up. I don't really want to be disrespectful, but there really outght to be a technical way to avoid embedding the Audio Described images from some repeats into the transmission. What part of split the video into several parts which can be merged inside the set can't be figure out now that we have the technology? That would make AD videos possible not just for special repeats, but also indeed for every TV transmission, with the end user deciding whether to have them switched on, or not.

I can do this kind of thing easily using Final Cut Pro X in my iMac, so why can't it be a feature of modern "smarter" TV sets, plus the distribution system?

[french frank]

Not sure if it is actually a majority, but there are many people who can't yet cope with computers and all the modern stuff which enables people to listen to material on demand. That's a perfectly good reason for providing repeats.

It would be a reason to repeat many programmes: why not the daily lunchtime concert? why not repeat all the post 10.00pm programmes the following morning?

However, with average weekly viewing now taking up more than an entire (24-hour) day every week - and people underestimating how much they watch - I can't help feeling people should be encouraged to watch less not more

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Not sure if it is actually a majority, but there are many people who can't yet cope with computers and all the modern stuff which enables people to listen to material on demand. That's a perfectly good reason for providing repeats.

I think it probably is a majority. A significant proportion of radio listening takes place in car journeys, and I suppose programmes like Breakfast, EC and In Tune are geared to that. (Also, would you really want to "listen again" to those programmes? )

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And then there's buffering.

[teamsaint]

And then there's buffering.

I had problems with that the other day, when I was trying to" listen again", on the train.

[french frank]

is that when you listen again, on the train?

No, it's what that TV Licensing link said: "the older we are, the more TV we tend to watch."

[teamsaint]

No, it's what that TV Licensing link said: "the older we are, the more TV we tend to watch."

Well in that case we definitely don't want anything hitting the buffers.

[Old Grumpy]

Well in that case we definitely don't want anything hitting the buffers.

Very good!

[Dave2002]

My view exactly. Listening to a broadcast the other night via the iplayer app, the ChordMojo I use for OTG listening was registering 24/192, so I think the FM/DAB debate may be old hat.

No, it's not. I'm not quite sure what form of OTG (On The Go) listening you are doing, but there are parts of the country where there is no good radio coverage, and where mobile internet is not really available. Some people will still be concerned about that.

I'm guessing that your Chord Mojo would always show 24/192 - as that's only showing the rate between your receiver devices and your DAC.

[Sir Velo]

I'm guessing that your Chord Mojo would always show 24/192 - as that's only showing the rate between your receiver devices and your DAC.

I was sceptical initially but then played some FLAC files of ripped CDs through the Foobar 2000 app and the display then changed to show a rate of 16/44. I double checked this by then playing the same (and different) files through the Onkyo HF Player and the same 16/44 rate displayed. Switching back to the iplayer and again 192khz sample rate showed. Likewise HiRes files would display 24/96 or 24/192 according to the source, so I am happy with the Mojo's accuracy at correctly displaying the sample rates of the source material.

[french frank]

so I am happy with the Mojo's accuracy at correctly displaying the sample rates of the source material.

We did that … FoR3. One of our big successes. Not many people know that.

[Bryn]

When I open a Radio3 iPlayer aac file in Sound Forge it displays as 48kHz sample rate and 32 bit quantization. The quantization depth is just an anomaly due to the nature of aac encoding. The true quantization depth is 16 bit.

[Dave2002]

When I open a Radio3 iPlayer aac file in Sound Forge it displays as 48kHz sample rate and 32 bit quantization. The quantization depth is just an anomaly due to the nature of aac encoding. The true quantization depth is 16 bit.

I'm going to throw another spanner in the works and ask "how do you know that?" With lossy compression such as aac the quantization depth can vary depending on the content surely. If the original is 24/192 then the effective bit depth could be anything from (say) 8 to 24. Also, if the original is (say) only 12/32 it might be possible for an apparent bit depth of 16 to show up due to artifacts - noise padding out the bits to give 16 bits per sample.

Maybe you know something about aac which I don't.