"Most BBC radio stations to become unavailable for international users"

[Dermot]

I have just noticed this afternoon that BBC stations (incl. Radio 3) have returned to VRadio app, but at the reduced bitrate of AAC 96k instead of the previously available 320k....the rate that is available via Sounds app. This 96k stream may be the one available for smart speakers, although looking at comments online suggest that many owners of smart speakers (and just about all streamers) are unable to access BBC radio via internet radio.

I can see no reason why listeners abroad cannot access BBC stations via VRadio...albeit in reduced quality.

https://james.cridland.net/blog/2025/bbc-radio-overseas/

[Roger Webb]

I have just noticed this afternoon that BBC stations (incl. Radio 3) have returned to VRadio app, but at the reduced bitrate of AAC 96k instead of the previously available 320k....the rate that is available via Sounds app. This 96k stream may be the one available for smart speakers, although looking at comments online suggest that many owners of smart speakers (and just about all streamers) are unable to access BBC radio via internet radio.

I can see no reason why listeners abroad cannot access BBC stations via VRadio...albeit in reduced quality.

[Roger Webb]

It would be interesting to know how Qobuz acquire CD quality recordings. I had images of an intern endlessly pressing eject on a ripper.

I've done a bit of research into how Qobuz (and other streaming networks) get their streams to put out to us consumers.

The record company doesn't send a CD for Qobuz to 'rip'...nothing so crude! The record company (usually) goes through an intermediary - a specialist middle man who has contacts with the streaming companies, and has expertise in formatting them to the exact requirements of both the record company and streaming company, they also organise the metadata and deliver to Qobuz the content in either a WAV or FLAC file at the appropriate bitrate, depending on the quality of the source material.

Most reviews say that Qobuz has meticulous standards handling their streams, and this is bourne out by most listening tests...they are extremely robust too; it's rare to have glitches - and of course they haven't had the embarrassment of the Tidal MQA scandal!

Your comment about the equivalent 16/44.1 stream vs CD...even from a really top class CD player is valid, and it's quite remarkable given a streamer with a good DAC just how good it can sound.

With record companies going through their back catalogue and remastering at higher bitrates (and taking more trouble to get the streams optimum, something they were a bit cavalier with Cds!), we are, perhaps, hearing these recordings in the best possible sound. The Turandot (Mehta) that you mentioned, I had played on Lp coincidentally, and I can report the Qobuz stream sounds fantastic - it's very clean sounding but with no loss of body compared with the LPs, and the bass has extraordinary weight, but tight and, I think less distortion than the LPs.

If care is taken, streaming can equal or exceed sound quality of CD.....vinyl is another matter, I still love playing LPs!....often for reasons not connected with sound quality.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes I've read several articles on CD vs Qobuz (I've tried Spotify and Tidal, Qobuz is better IME), it really depends, as you say, on how the streams are sent to the streaming companies (I'm not sure they 'rip' them themselves) from the record company, many are being a lot more careful than they were in the early days of streaming, with higher bitrates and special remasterings (not always successful).

I've, in many cases CD, Lp and Qobuz to compare. Results vary but CD and Qobuz are usually more 'accurate' than Lp (Thorens/SME/Goldring E4), CD player is Marantz 6007uk, middling quality, I suppose. Qobuz via Quad preamp and monitored on Quad electrostatics 2812s.

One thing I slightly take issue with is the claim that Qobuz is 'gapless', it now is in 90% of cases, but many/some Decca (especially) masterings are not entirely gapless. The first time they put up Solti's Ring it wasn't, but the remastered 24/96k one on there now is the best I've ever heard these famous recordings. Try Respighi/Montréal/Dutoit the Pines is supposed to run one into the next, it doesn't. That Turandot I played on Lp a little while ago - great engineering Wilkinson/Lock.....must try it on Qobuz!

That recording was supposedly remastered in 2013 - sounds very good ,
It would be interesting to know how Qobuz acquire CD quality recordings. I had images of an intern endlessly pressing eject on a ripper.
I’m tempted to rip mine but I calculate it’s 166.66 hours of hard labour

[Roger Webb]

Re CD vs same CD on Qobuz being better. That gets to the nub of the issue - well one issue anyway . Qubuz will be streaming ripped CD’s .If they use a high qual ripper AND their stream is working effectively it should be better than a CD player . Some CD players use a lot of error correction , some have duff lasers. I’m betting you’ve got a very good CD player but , in theory , a ripped CD on a high qual ripper should be better. Where is gets complicated is if the Qobuz stream has errors within it then your CD might better.

My Turandot review last night was an eye (ear) opener . The remastered 24 bit Mehta recording on Qobuz was very good indeed.

This is a good explanation

https://blog.audiot.co.uk/blog/2024/3/28/what-sounds-better-streaming-or-cd

analogue was simpler wasn’t it ?

yes nothing beats live or even comes close with the possible exception of what you can hear in a professional recording cubicle but you’re looking at
£ 250,000 of gear and the same in acoustic treatment and it’s not a very relaxing environment. On the other hand at home - no coughs , no perfume etc…

Yes I've read several articles on CD vs Qobuz (I've tried Spotify and Tidal, Qobuz is better IME), it really depends, as you say, on how the streams are sent to the streaming companies (I'm not sure they 'rip' them themselves) from the record company, many are being a lot more careful than they were in the early days of streaming, with higher bitrates and special remasterings (not always successful).

I've, in many cases CD, Lp and Qobuz to compare. Results vary but CD and Qobuz are usually more 'accurate' than Lp (Thorens/SME/Goldring E4), CD player is Marantz 6007uk, middling quality, I suppose. Qobuz via Quad preamp and monitored on Quad electrostatics 2812s.

One thing I slightly take issue with is the claim that Qobuz is 'gapless', it now is in 90% of cases, but many/some Decca (especially) masterings are not entirely gapless. The first time they put up Solti's Ring it wasn't, but the remastered 24/96k one on there now is the best I've ever heard these famous recordings. Try Respighi/Montréal/Dutoit the Pines is supposed to run one into the next, it doesn't. That Turandot I played on Lp a little while ago - great engineering Wilkinson/Lock.....must try it on Qobuz!

[Ein Heldenleben]

I agree with everything you say. For live choral music FM may 'sound' better, but I think that is maybe because the restricted upper frequency limit filters out the components that have always been troublesome for recordings....in the same way a cassette copy of a CD doesn't have those distortion components that the original has. It has always been a problem for the very top of strings too.

I've just listened to some Bax from early Chandos recordings, I have LP, CD and Qobuz to compare. The LP is pristine and plays with a pleasing 'roundness' to the sound...but still a little distortion on the top strings. The CD cleaner body to the sound, but marked edginess to the top. The Qobuz at 16/44.1 should be the same as the CD, but sounds best of all....don't know why.

I agree about live (and I mean live) broadcasts...BBC Proms etc (not forgetting Monday Wigmore Hall), and I listen to many continental live concerts - they vary, as I said earlier France Musique is worst for auto-compression, WDR3 have high standards...although a recent Blomstedt Bruckner 9 was awful, but perhaps they had bought it in already 'limited'. RBB3 have very good 'live' engineered concerts, as does BR Klassik, probably my favourite for live concerts (Rattle in his new home!) and BTW the broadcast of many that are available on their own label CDs...Haitink, etc.

For me nothing beats a live concert in-the-flesh, but living in the sticks now it's difficult - my main source of live music making is Hellens, Much Marcle, a remarkable venue for chamber music....shortly Daniel Tong is heading up a Beethoven series to play all the major works for piano and strings. His previous visits have given music making of superlative quality. We also get Christian Blackshaw who heads the Hellens Music festival every year.

Re CD vs same CD on Qobuz being better. That gets to the nub of the issue - well one issue anyway . Qubuz will be streaming ripped CD’s .If they use a high qual ripper AND their stream is working effectively it should be better than a CD player . Some CD players use a lot of error correction , some have duff lasers. I’m betting you’ve got a very good CD player but , in theory , a ripped CD on a high qual ripper should be better. Where is gets complicated is if the Qobuz stream has errors within it then your CD might better.

My Turandot review last night was an eye (ear) opener . The remastered 24 bit Mehta recording on Qobuz was very good indeed.

This is a good explanation

https://blog.audiot.co.uk/blog/2024/3/28/what-sounds-better-streaming-or-cd

analogue was simpler wasn’t it ?

yes nothing beats live or even comes close with the possible exception of what you can hear in a professional recording cubicle but you’re looking at
£ 250,000 of gear and the same in acoustic treatment and it’s not a very relaxing environment. On the other hand at home - no coughs , no perfume etc…

[AuntDaisy]

The changes for International listeners made PM yesterday, ~26:48 in on Sounds.
Interesting discussion between Evan Davis & James Cridland, Radio Futorologist (& part-time Madame Sosostris?), but I'm still no clearer as to how things will work long term or if it might impact UK non-Sounds users.
There's mention of a possible (temporary?) Smart Speaker loophole and VPNs (~31mins in).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00298p9

[Roger Webb]

The internal PCM a distribution system used by the BBC is way better than most of the codecs used in digital transmission (or so they tell me - I couldn’t hear the difference .

I read somewhere that effective bit “sampling “ rate of FM is estimated to be the equivalent of 3,000 kbps . That’s why if you listen to Choral Evensong it sounds so much more present and warm on FM than on Sounds. There’s all sorts of jiggery pokery even on the better streamers like Qobuz which means that (unless you download) even the hi end stuff is never as good as they claim.

However as you say re FM it’s only 40db range and is not noiseless.
As for compression that’s a volume on its own. All recordings are artefacts and there is range control built into the system - just by moving faders up and down - it’s not the same as automatic compression but it’s still range control. I still think some of the best sound to be heard anywhere is on a live Royal Albert Hall / Royal Opera House relay - mainly because there’s been so little processing between mic and loudspeaker . Yes you can hear the compression slam in but it doesn’t sound so processed almost unnaturally brilliant like many modern studios recordings . I reckon all sorts of sweetening goes on.

I agree with everything you say. For live choral music FM may 'sound' better, but I think that is maybe because the restricted upper frequency limit filters out the components that have always been troublesome for recordings....in the same way a cassette copy of a CD doesn't have those distortion components that the original has. It has always been a problem for the very top of strings too.

I've just listened to some Bax from early Chandos recordings, I have LP, CD and Qobuz to compare. The LP is pristine and plays with a pleasing 'roundness' to the sound...but still a little distortion on the top strings. The CD cleaner body to the sound, but marked edginess to the top. The Qobuz at 16/44.1 should be the same as the CD, but sounds best of all....don't know why.

I agree about live (and I mean live) broadcasts...BBC Proms etc (not forgetting Monday Wigmore Hall), and I listen to many continental live concerts - they vary, as I said earlier France Musique is worst for auto-compression, WDR3 have high standards...although a recent Blomstedt Bruckner 9 was awful, but perhaps they had bought it in already 'limited'. RBB3 have very good 'live' engineered concerts, as does BR Klassik, probably my favourite for live concerts (Rattle in his new home!) and BTW the broadcast of many that are available on their own label CDs...Haitink, etc.

For me nothing beats a live concert in-the-flesh, but living in the sticks now it's difficult - my main source of live music making is Hellens, Much Marcle, a remarkable venue for chamber music....shortly Daniel Tong is heading up a Beethoven series to play all the major works for piano and strings. His previous visits have given music making of superlative quality. We also get Christian Blackshaw who heads the Hellens Music festival every year.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Well it's not possible for any radio network to transmit the complete dynamic range of, say, an orchestra which can be 90db, the quietest sounds would be lost in the noise floor and the loudest could not be accommodated by the limit of the distribution system.

In the 'good old days' of FM it was thought - still is by some - that the problem was that the distribution system (GPO lines, then PCM) was the limiting factor, and to some extent that's true, but only because it wasn't thought necessary to provide anything better as the dynamic range that the FM system was capable of was only about 40 db.....that people think that FM is superior to digital never ceases to amaze me!..especially as the distribution network is digital...the dynamic range for this service is curtailed at source, and if necessary at other points along the distribution chain.

DAB is a bit better, but the system adopted by the BBC (Radio Authority) ie MP2 at varying bitrates (max 192kbts) is simply not enough and the system is considered too lossy to be classed as 'HiFi', although I can enjoy concerts on my old DAB tuner when the internet is down!

The HLS/Dash AAC at 320 that the BBC puts out allows a pretty good dynamic range, but will not accommodate 90db and some compression is inevitable - but is much more subtle than the old 'Optimod' devices used in the past, but I believe the BBC sometimes uses the 'wrong' feed for internet radio, resulting in obvious dynamic range manipulation.

There are stations that broadcast using FLAC files ( the BBC experimented with these for a Prom season a few years ago, but not since) and an example are the two Cesky Rozhlas stations, classical and jazz, available via VRadio app in FLAC 944k....but a warning, these are massive files and require good wifi - I use a tablet plumbed into ethernet and fed to the DAC in my preamp, with excellent results.

The internal PCM a distribution system used by the BBC is way better than most of the codecs used in digital transmission (or so they tell me - I couldn’t hear the difference .

I read somewhere that effective bit “sampling “ rate of FM is estimated to be the equivalent of 3,000 kbps . That’s why if you listen to Choral Evensong it sounds so much more present and warm on FM than on Sounds. There’s all sorts of jiggery pokery even on the better streamers like Qobuz which means that (unless you download) even the hi end stuff is never as good as they claim.

However as you say re FM it’s only 40db range and is not noiseless.
As for compression that’s a volume on its own. All recordings are artefacts and there is range control built into the system - just by moving faders up and down - it’s not the same as automatic compression but it’s still range control. I still think some of the best sound to be heard anywhere is on a live Royal Albert Hall / Royal Opera House relay - mainly because there’s been so little processing between mic and loudspeaker . Yes you can hear the compression slam in but it doesn’t sound so processed almost unnaturally brilliant like many modern studios recordings . I reckon all sorts of sweetening goes on.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I'm sure there are many, many of us out here in the rest of the world who would happily pay a sub to be able to continue to listen to a global treasure like Radio 3. If there was a mechanism to do it.
I see that Radio 4 and World Service are moving to BBC.COM, which is supposedly run by the commercial arm of the BBC. Why would they not make that a commercial-free, subscription platform for us to listen to all the stations we are going to lose? Then we COULD contribute to the BBC. Currently there is no mechanism for that, outside the UK.

It is a deeply sad time to lose access to Radio 3. Particularly ironic as the US is destroying it's overseas broadcasting services.

They’ve probably done the calculations and worked out that the subscriptions wouldn’t cover the cost of the global music streaming rights which even time limited to 30 days would be very large. There is no mechanism other than the licence fee or some sort of tax for paying for BBC services that meets the universality criterion. One of the consequences of the tech revolution is that vast amounts of money are now spent on analogue , digital terrestrial , satellite, and internet distribution. All money that’s been taken from programme making. Uk TV broadcasting is in crisis and I very much fear R3 and R4 will suffer considerable collateral damage in the looming crash.

[Roger Webb]

That's interesting to know. Come to think of it I have read somewhere that there was no processing done on Radio 3 at all?

Well it's not possible for any radio network to transmit the complete dynamic range of, say, an orchestra which can be 90db, the quietest sounds would be lost in the noise floor and the loudest could not be accommodated by the limit of the distribution system.

In the 'good old days' of FM it was thought - still is by some - that the problem was that the distribution system (GPO lines, then PCM) was the limiting factor, and to some extent that's true, but only because it wasn't thought necessary to provide anything better as the dynamic range that the FM system was capable of was only about 40 db.....that people think that FM is superior to digital never ceases to amaze me!..especially as the distribution network is digital...the dynamic range for this service is curtailed at source, and if necessary at other points along the distribution chain.

DAB is a bit better, but the system adopted by the BBC (Radio Authority) ie MP2 at varying bitrates (max 192kbts) is simply not enough and the system is considered too lossy to be classed as 'HiFi', although I can enjoy concerts on my old DAB tuner when the internet is down!

The HLS/Dash AAC at 320 that the BBC puts out allows a pretty good dynamic range, but will not accommodate 90db and some compression is inevitable - but is much more subtle than the old 'Optimod' devices used in the past, but I believe the BBC sometimes uses the 'wrong' feed for internet radio, resulting in obvious dynamic range manipulation.

There are stations that broadcast using FLAC files ( the BBC experimented with these for a Prom season a few years ago, but not since) and an example are the two Cesky Rozhlas stations, classical and jazz, available via VRadio app in FLAC 944k....but a warning, these are massive files and require good wifi - I use a tablet plumbed into ethernet and fed to the DAC in my preamp, with excellent results.

[groundedgrid]

The BBC, to its credit broadcasts at a higher dynamic range - especially on live concerts - an effect of this on high quality streams is to make the average level seem lower. Many European stations limit the dynamic range to all delivery methods, DAB, FM and internet streams....just listen to France Music live concerts! One minute, during a quiet bit, you can hear every shuffle and cough in the audience, next the orchestra comes in tutti and it disappears to the back of the stage. FM in this country used to be like this ( maybe it still is), but the stream online is not compressed at source...although the AAC codec is a form of compression, it is much more subtle than simply turning the wick up on quiet bits and down on the loud ones!

That's interesting to know. Come to think of it I have read somewhere that there was no processing done on Radio 3 at all?

[groundedgrid]

There seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread about the removal of these stations. It’s all to do with rights costs . When the BBC buys rights to music and indeed most copyrighted content it generally buys rights for UK transmission only. That’s because foreign rights ,especially US ones , are very expensive. A Tv programme could pay thousands of pounds to licence some US commercial tracks if they wanted global clearance. That’s why you don’t hear much Elvis Presley in BBC dramas.
Although radio “needle time” costs are much less they still add up.
To those who listen to or watch the BBC abroad and don’t pay the licence fee I would invite them to make a contribution to the BBC’s costs. To those who complain about constant cuts I’d just point out the 30 per cent cut the BBC has had in real terms to the licence fee since 2000 plus additional costs of services like S4C and The World Service. The German TV licence fee is considerably more expensive - but it’s much less of an issue in that country.

I'm sure there are many, many of us out here in the rest of the world who would happily pay a sub to be able to continue to listen to a global treasure like Radio 3. If there was a mechanism to do it.
I see that Radio 4 and World Service are moving to BBC.COM, which is supposedly run by the commercial arm of the BBC. Why would they not make that a commercial-free, subscription platform for us to listen to all the stations we are going to lose? Then we COULD contribute to the BBC. Currently there is no mechanism for that, outside the UK.

It is a deeply sad time to lose access to Radio 3. Particularly ironic as the US is destroying it's overseas broadcasting services.

[french frank]

Forgive me, but doesn't one of the "B's" in BBC stand for "Broadcasting" ? The definition of that word must have changed in the BBC dictionary.

The BBC dictionary diverges from other dictionaries of English on several entries (e.g. 'live music').