Proms 2017 in FLAC

[Bryn]

I think that the quoted figures are probably unrepresentative of the potential audience. Access to the stream was limited to a specific browser from a non-standard part of the BBC website.

If the lossless feed is to gain traction (and I certainly hope that the pilot has indicated an interest) then it has to be integrated into the iPlayer site and also made available to the sundry other ways (NAS, etc) in which listeners nowadays access the media.

We should not pretend that this is at the forefront of audio technology - it gives us the same quality that CDs brought in 1982. The world has moved on and true hi-res (96/24) is now available for commercial streaming, not to mention multichannel.

Given the amount of investment into improvement in the quality of visual media, HD and recent 4K trials, it would seem appropriate that high quality audio should also be adopted as an option.

Audio data rates on Freeview HD TV are dreadful. According to http://www.astra2sat.com/televison/tv-bitrates/ they are 128 to 160 kbps AC3[sic] (my receivers all say HE-AAC). Standard Freeview BBC ONE and TWO use 256 kbps mp2, and BBC FOUR gets to make do with 192 kbps mp2. So much for 'HD'.

[Dave2002]

Audio data rates on Freeview HD TV are dreadful. According to http://www.astra2sat.com/televison/tv-bitrates/ they are 128 to 160 kbps AC3[sic] (my receivers all say HE-AAC). Standard Freeview BBC ONE and TWO use 256 kbps mp2, and BBC FOUR gets to make do with 192 kbps mp2. So much for 'HD'.

It's curious that the audio bitrates given in that table for SD channels seem to have higher bit rates, but the codecs aren't specified explicitly - except for AC3. Also, noting your comment about AC3 - (can your receivers detect any services with AC3 coding?) - it seems as though the table may not actually represent the real situation.

I guess that for most TV we're not too bothered about the audio - nor in truth about the video. Although I can tell the difference between HD and SD video - and prefer HD - it's not essential for many programmes, where the "content" is more important than the appearance. However, some programmes - nature, sport - do benefit enormously from HD. Another reason for not using HD channels is that they require more storage on PVRs - which many of us now rely on if we don't simply stream from iPlayer or similar.

However, for programmes such as the Proms TV broadcasts, I do believe that it's worth going the extra mile to have decent audio, and trying to combine TV audio with radio audio doesn't always work well because of delays in transmission.

Oddly, for a satellite related web site, there doesn't seem to be any information in that table for satellite channels - or Freesat.

[johnb]

I think that the quoted figures are probably unrepresentative of the potential audience. Access to the stream was limited to a specific browser from a non-standard part of the BBC website.

If the lossless feed is to gain traction (and I certainly hope that the pilot has indicated an interest) then it has to be integrated into the iPlayer site and also made available to the sundry other ways (NAS, etc) in which listeners nowadays access the media.

I have no doubt that that is the intention (should the lossless streaming be further developed). The Radio 3 320kbps HD streaming was introduced in a very similar way - first as a trial during the Proms, using a separate webpage, then integrated into the iPlayer for live only, later extended to On Demand as well. Finally extended to all BBC Radio chanels with the later changes in streaming formats.

Incidentally, users of Squeezebox devices (yes those products that were discontinued in 2012) could enjoy the lossless streaming on their audio systems during both of this year's trials - due to the quick response of one of the third party developers (and the continued development of the various plugins and of Logitech Media Server).

We should not pretend that this is at the forefront of audio technology - it gives us the same quality that CDs brought in 1982. The world has moved on and true hi-res (96/24) is now available for commercial streaming, not to mention multichannel.

Given the amount of investment into improvement in the quality of visual media, HD and recent 4K trials, it would seem appropriate that high quality audio should also be adopted as an option.

That seems a rather curmudgeonly response to the trial. While it might be correct to say that a minority of enthusiasts have become enamored of Hi-Ref most people don't have "golden ears" and most people, even those with high end audio systems, are happy with CD quality (even though they might enjoy the odd foray into HiRes).

[Gweefry]

That seems a rather curmudgeonly response to the trial. While it might be correct to say that a minority of enthusiasts have become enamored of Hi-Ref most people don't have "golden ears" and most people, even those with high end audio systems, are happy with CD quality (even though they might enjoy the odd foray into HiRes).

Sorry, my comments were unclear. My suggestion was that, given the increasing availability of much higher standards of audio nowadays, it would not be unreasonable to expect the lossless quality which we've had during the trial as a permanent fixture. I wasn't suggesting that we should be expecting a leapfrog to high-end audio!

[Cockney Sparrow]

There is a paper submitted to AES by the BBC research dept here:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19397

Commented on here by a Mr Jim Lesurf:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/Flac/LackAlas.html

(where I found the link to the paper).

I have yet to read the paper all the way through. I have read Mr Lesurf's comments. It seems, from a quick read** that :

a) not enough of the participants in the trials heard the difference in quality between the AAC and FLAC streams

b) it was difficult enough to get all the browsers, dedicated streamers (internet radios, all those glitzy boxes incorporating streaming, web browsers) updated to stream the high quality AAC stream - and inevitably there was confusion, resentment and complaint from listeners when manufacturers/software providers were slow to update to accommodate the improvement. The BBC would need a very good reason - presumably with mass appeal and benefit - to go there again.

c) When a user's internet connection is poor, to avert breaking up, the player switches to a lower bitrate stream. There is a problem with FLAC, because it is by definition lossless. Providing for a switch to a format allowing for a lower bit rate with a poor connection is yet another problem in rolling out the stream.

**feel free - as if you need my consent - to correct me.

Jim Lesurf does raise the point - why not continue the availability of the Lossless stream in the same way as the Proms trial - and see whether it gathers users and support to make a rollout a realistic prospect? I suspect though, that the issue is done and dusted within the BBC.

Have you heard the quality at which twenty and thirty somethings listen to their podcasts, Spotify and Y Tube streams. That's the audience the BBC are interested in, it seems to me. Also, many of them live in "compact" accommodation, given the price of rentals and their means. They cannot see the need for a conventional Hi-Fi as opposed to more living space.

I'm going to link to this this message in a brief 2019 thread I have found on this topic. The other thread is here:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?20518-High-Resolution-Stream

If in the future the links do not work, I have copies of this material - PM me for a copy.

(I first picked this up with a reference in the issue of "Hi-Fi world" (BTW, the link gven there I could not make work). I used to buy that magazine, and was bemused by the almost alchemy of matching CD player to amplifiers, and then to speakers, together with a rich cocktail of interconnects and speaker cables. I never got drawn into Hi Fi box swapping - and the items they unreservedly recommended always seemed to be verging on "big ticket" price point - with lesser offerings always having some comments such as "decent but unfortunately with these drawbacks and outclassed by....). I never thought that sort of expenditure was justified by the number of hours (when it comes to it, in a busy life) I actually sat down with undivided attention to the music.

I now have a look on the newsagents shelves to see what is being pushed nowadays, and the prices being asked. I came to realise that everything nowadays is a digital 0 or 1 up to the point of the signal to the speaker. That is, unless you are into analogue vinyl etc, which, like wax cylinder reproduction as a hobby, is an area I won't comment on. I've been happy with my equipment in that knowledge and in particular my loudspeakers and I'm conscious that, as I progress through my 60's, my hearing will present more limitations than my equipment).

[Goon525]

Jim Lesurf, who used to work for Armstrong Audio, is a regular contributor to Hi Fi News and Record Review.

[Goon525]

I’ve just read the BBC paper. Have I missed it, or has this otherwise fairly comprehensive report failed to mention what audio equipment was used for the tests (other than the codecs)?

[richardfinegold]

Jim Lesurf, who used to work for Armstrong Audio, is a regular contributor to Hi Fi News and Record Review.

I remember Hi Fi News running a letter to the Editor from jlw at the time touting the benefits of hearing the Proms in flac

[richardfinegold]

There is a paper submitted to AES by the BBC research dept here:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=19397

Commented on here by a Mr Jim Lesurf:

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/Flac/LackAlas.html

(where I found the link to the paper).

I have yet to read the paper all the way through. I have read Mr Lesurf's comments. It seems, from a quick read** that :

a) not enough of the participants in the trials heard the difference in quality between the AAC and FLAC streams

b) it was difficult enough to get all the browsers, dedicated streamers (internet radios, all those glitzy boxes incorporating streaming, web browsers) updated to stream the high quality AAC stream - and inevitably there was confusion, resentment and complaint from listeners when manufacturers/software providers were slow to update to accommodate the improvement. The BBC would need a very good reason - presumably with mass appeal and benefit - to go there again.

c) When a user's internet connection is poor, to avert breaking up, the player switches to a lower bitrate stream. There is a problem with FLAC, because it is by definition lossless. Providing for a switch to a format allowing for a lower bit rate with a poor connection is yet another problem in rolling out the stream.

**feel free - as if you need my consent - to correct me.

Jim Lesurf does raise the point - why not continue the availability of the Lossless stream in the same way as the Proms trial - and see whether it gathers users and support to make a rollout a realistic prospect? I suspect though, that the issue is done and dusted within the BBC.

Have you heard the quality at which twenty and thirty somethings listen to their podcasts, Spotify and Y Tube streams. That's the audience the BBC are interested in, it seems to me. Also, many of them live in "compact" accommodation, given the price of rentals and their means. They cannot see the need for a conventional Hi-Fi as opposed to more living space.

I'm going to link to this this message in a brief 2019 thread I have found on this topic. The other thread is here:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?20518-High-Resolution-Stream

If in the future the links do not work, I have copies of this material - PM me for a copy.

(I first picked this up with a reference in the issue of "Hi-Fi world" (BTW, the link gven there I could not make work). I used to buy that magazine, and was bemused by the almost alchemy of matching CD player to amplifiers, and then to speakers, together with a rich cocktail of interconnects and speaker cables. I never got drawn into Hi Fi box swapping - and the items they unreservedly recommended always seemed to be verging on "big ticket" price point - with lesser offerings always having some comments such as "decent but unfortunately with these drawbacks and outclassed by....). I never thought that sort of expenditure was justified by the number of hours (when it comes to it, in a busy life) I actually sat down with undivided attention to the music.

I now have a look on the newsagents shelves to see what is being pushed nowadays, and the prices being asked. I came to realise that everything nowadays is a digital 0 or 1 up to the point of the signal to the speaker. That is, unless you are into analogue vinyl etc, which, like wax cylinder reproduction as a hobby, is an area I won't comment on. I've been happy with my equipment in that knowledge and in particular my loudspeakers and I'm conscious that, as I progress through my 60's, my hearing will present more limitations than my equipment).

The FLAC stream wasn’t made available in the States at the time, but I read about it with great interest. I thought the only way to access it was via a PC which then had to be connected via usb to a DAC. So I am a bit confused about the comments
About “high quality AAC” stream. AAC is a lossy, compressed Codec. Compared to FLAC, it is by definition a lower quality codec, essentially MP3.
Over here the BBC bitstream is limited to 64 bps, so I rarely listen to it. Is more than one option offered in the U.K.? Or were they temporarily offering a higher stream rate during that Prom?
Regarding the desirability of higher quality transmission in general, many of the problems that you cited apply to streaming in general. When it works, it’s wonderful. However, if one has less than pristine internet service, or if there are hardware issues with decoding, then it is problematic. Physical media still have an advantage there. My prediction is that with continued improvements in technology the problems will recede. And curiously, I find that higher end equipment can do a lot for poor sound. My Bryston streamer makes the low Bit rate BBC listenable in a way that my midfield equipment doesn’t

[Goon525]

A lot of kit - such as my Linn Akurate DSM network player - allows access to a 320k stream. This actually sounds pretty reasonable, though certainly not as good as the 2017 FLAC stream. But I much prefer it to FM with its limited dynamics and signal to noise ratio. I know others disagree.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Richard F- to access the 2017 Proms trial FLAC stream, yes - it had to be via the Firefox browser - a specific web page (IIRC).
We would welcome a repeat of that. However, it seems the BBC were more interested in the potential to roll out FLAC as the standard for the iPlayer service - maybe for Radio 3 only or maybe all over (I'm not sure how many BBC stations were potentially in line for lossless).

Per Lesurf
"The current arrangements use aac which is a ‘lossy’ codec. If your internet connection and receiving setup can cope, the BBC’s system will send you 320k aac (if you live in the UK). However if the sending system finds that your connection can’t cope with this it will automagically" (sic) "drop down to a lower rate. This is because it is assumed listeners will find this preferable to audible ‘drop outs’ or the audio suddenly ceasing and a connection lost."

The help page below states that these bit rates are delivered:
AAC-LC 320kbs. Failing that - 128kbs, or HE-AACv1 96kbs or 48kbs. Or MP3 128kbs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/help/codecs_bitrates

During the 2017 trial, I was able to output from my PC via optical Toslink (as my soundcard has that facility - Apple laptops had the same facility I think - maybe not the recent models (I am a Windows user). That end depends on the users equipment / arrangements.

I appreciate you are an onlooker from afar RFG, and am glad that your system manages to put some life into the low rate stream you receive. 320kbs, for those of us with a good internet connection, not being subject to the compression/dynamic limiting systems they use for FM broadcasts means we have access to the best regular radio quality so far provided. Apart, that is, from the material from the 2017 FLAC trial!

And, like you, I have CDs. Many, many (really - an extraordinary quantity of) CDs and even some vinyl for sentimental attachment reasons. The task of ripping all the CDs into FLAC files would be a totally irrational use of my time, so I continue to use CDs, stream the Naxos Music Library and the iPlayer, etc.

[jayne lee wilson]

Jim LeSurf's excellent website.....

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk

AS aforementioned, he has a monthly column in HIFiNews as well....

I would just add again, that an outboard DAC/processor (of which there are many good ones, at almost all price levels now) will give you better-sounding results off (say) the 320 kbps aac stream, than any internal computer sound card, even if upgraded...

I use filtered & regenerated USB to the DAC with very good results on the Proms and R3 Sounds at 320 aac... Optical can be very good too ,but depends on the quality of - cable, terminations, and how the specific DAC deals with the signal. Some are very even across all inputs, others tend to favour coax or usb etc.
After the broadband speed/stability, the Media Player can be influential too: Qobuz is perfectly stable here in Audirvana (and sounds better), less so off the Qobuz site itself...

Alas for dear old FM, which once sounded very good indeed, before heavier Optimodded-DRC was applied, extravagantly large roof-aerials notwithstanding, unless you lived in the shadow of a transmitter....
(I have an 8-element Triax up there, well now a 7 and a half, whether due to storms or Magpies remains undetermined...)....

[Stunsworth]

Jim Lesurf, who used to work for Armstrong Audio, is a regular contributor to Hi Fi News and Record Review.

And a member of the Pinkfishmedia music and hifi forum.

[ANON]

I would just add again, that an outboard DAC/processor (of which there are many good ones, at almost all price levels now) will give you better-sounding results off (say) the 320 kbps aac stream, than any internal computer sound card, even if upgraded...

I use filtered & regenerated USB to the DAC with very good results on the Proms and R3 Sounds at 320 aac...

Most of this is 100% WRONG.
AAC always sounds like crap, whatever they want to do with it.

As for computer sound cards.
This is nonsense.

Professional audio cards which lots of us use, are 100x better than any USB solution, and the DACs are often FAR superior on those than an of the overpriced rubbish you see being fed to "audiophools".

Here's a nice one from ARCAM costing 1000s.
Top trace is my own sound card DAC.





hey, some of us are actually recording music with computers.
Now who would have thought that?

[Cockney Sparrow]

Most of this is 100% WRONG.
AAC always sounds like crap, whatever they want to do with it.

Maybe you are blessed with much more perfect hearing - many of us here are, well, past the first (or even second) flush of youth. For myself this means I can't claim my hearing to be as good as it was. And the path into the future is all downward - although I can still hear high pitches, as I found out on a walk with an RSPB group yesterday.

Over the years, I've thought about audio, reproduction etc. I've decided to just listen to the music - unless the reproduced sound is too bad to warrant toleration; although I do appreciate what seems to be really excellent sound when I come across it. How often do I get to sit down in front of my qood (OK - excellent, to my ears) main speakers and give undivided attention to the music - only a few hours each week.

I go to live music a fair bit, and listen on active speakers with inbuilt DACs often using optical outputs from a PC, or from CD players or using other streaming systems. A lot of it is very acceptable and 320kbs AAC seems good enough to me, in context and in the knowledge the BBC will not provide better.

If you are recording music, I assume you have to listen to the recorded sound in an analytical, comparative way in itself - I'd rather not start listening in that way, in case I end up dwelling too much on the reproduction and the sound, unable to shed that perspective.

So, I stick to my optical leads from CD, soundcards - into DACs and active speakers -also using (for the moment) the Chromecast audio (failing on the lossless criteria as does iPlayer). Its a mixture, and workable for me.

I'm with you on matching interconnects, power regenerators etc, but have come to accept that its a relatively harmless pursuit, as long as folks like you are allowed to cry out as to the Emperor's New Clothes. As a new arrival here, you should expect the defenders of audio bling and hype - enmeshed in magazine articles and delivered into the hands of Hi End Audio Dealers - to be massing to respond, as I type.......