Proms 2017 in FLAC

[Bryn]

USB 1.1 was indeed pretty useless for audio applications. However, that was a long time ago in IT development terms. USB 3.0 and 3.1 are miles better and do a far better job, feeding a decent external DAC, than the internal audio circuitry of all but the most sophisticated/expensive dedicated audio computers. Also, an external USB connected audio processor can be easily used with more than one computer. I started recording using a computer back in the days of W98. Not via USB, of course, but Terratec EWS88MT. These days I prefer to use dedicated recording devices, then transfer to a computer for editing.

Re. the BBC's 320kbps VBR,48k sample rate AAC-LC, when I capture it and load it into Sound Forge Pro 13, it generates a 32-bit floating point quantization LPCM file. VLC Player also identifies it as a 32-bit floating point. Now, why would that be? Surely the Beeb only uses 16-bit quatization for its AAC-LC processing?

[Dave2002]

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?

What trace? Was there at least one image intended here?

[Dave2002]

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.

Getting the balance right can be an issue. I have ripped many CDs, but hardly ever listen to the rips - though they're still there. CDs nearly always win out in my world, compared with streaming, but they're perhaps not alway so convenient because of access problems - i.e. finding where the CDs are.

I don't compare rips directly with CDs often enough to assert that the rips are as good (or possibly better, some might argue, depending on what DAC is used).

One problem with the BBC streams is the possible downgrading of the stream if the link is compromised. AAC at the highest bit rate isn't too bad, and indeed many people may not hear any difference between that and other systems. The differences at lower bit rates, and using some other codecs, which seem to be in the BBC's fall back chain, could be very noticeable. Apart from other reasons, not mentioned by the BBC (cost etc.), it seems to be the fall back/failure modes which have moved them away from FLAC. However, there are technical solutions based on multicast, data carousels etc. which should work even with FLAC. If they are broadcasting TV in 4k (sometimes) concerns about the bandwidth and other requirements for FLAC must surely be relatively inconsequential in comparison. One might suspect that perhaps it's standardisation/laziness which encourages them to stick with lossy codecs.

I've yet to try Blu Ray - though I now have one Blu Ray audio disc, scheduled for playing in the not too distant future.

If one is actually playing CDs through a computer, then the extra time to rip to hard drive isn't too much, and the ripping process can be streamlined, but I tend to agree that for most of us it's a waste of time, most of the time.

[jayne lee wilson]

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?

Is that because my ears and equipment are faulty and yours Godlike?

What an utterly confused, confusing, evidence-free, arrogant post....big loud claims with only egocentricity behind them....no wonder your profile page is so laughably boastful.

You want to reduce audio discussions to a slanging match? OK, but you can do it without me. Go start an argument in an empty room, that should suit you...

***

But...
Just noticed your comment #16 on Prom 22:
"in mp3 via the internet stream the effect was electric"

If this was BBC Sounds or iplayer, it will have been AAC, so......
If another source you omit to specify , are you claiming that AAC is "crap" but mp3 "electric"?
You don't even offer the supposed-mp3 bitrate in that post. Shoddy stuff....

[Goon525]

Is that because my ears and equipment are faulty and yours Godlike?

What an utterly confused, confusing, evidence-free, arrogant post....big loud claims with only egocentricity behind them....no wonder your profile page is so laughably boastful.

You want to reduce audio discussions to a slanging match? OK, but you can do it without me. Go start an argument in an empty room, that should suit you...

***

But...
Just noticed your comment #16 on Prom 22:
"in mp3 via the internet stream the effect was electric"

If this was BBC Sounds or iplayer, it will have been AAC, so......
If another source you omit to specify , are you claiming that AAC is "crap" but mp3 "electric"?
You don't even offer the supposed-mp3 bitrate in that post. Shoddy stuff....

I'm with Jayne. And although I'm one that's argued for bringing back the FLAC stream, I have to say that I've heard some pretty decent Proms at 320 AAC this year. I'm not that easily impressed, and the bulk of my listening is at better than CD resolution. I certainly prefer 320 AAC to FM.

It so happens that my network player manufacturer, Linn, aren't big fans of USB either, so I can't comment on that as they don't provide an input. But there are loads of good USB based DACs around these days, so I reckon it can't be that bad.

Anyway, the worst thing about EST1's post is the tone of voice he's adopted. I see he/she is in Russia. It's not the right tone for this forum. Please be polite!

[Stunsworth]

You don't even offer the supposed-mp3 bitrate in that post. Shoddy stuff....

Speaking of bitrates, it seems that this year the TV audio on the iPlayer is only 128k. Obviously this doesn't apply to the original broadcasts on BBC2/4.

[Stunsworth]

I'm with Jayne. And although I'm one that's argued for bringing back the FLAC stream, I have to say that I've heard some pretty decent Proms at 320 AAC this year. I'm not that easily impressed, and the bulk of my listening is at better than CD resolution. I certainly prefer 320 AAC to FM.

The Proms I've been able to catch have been replayed from a Mac Mini via USB. I think the sound has been very good this year, but I'd prefer FLAC. I thought the sound was exceptional the year that they broadcast that way. I'm noticing a bit of compression on peaks that I didn't before, of course there are 101 possible reasons why that's happening, so it may be pure coincidence. I _do_ notice that I have to set the volume on my pre-amp higher than normal to get realistic levels (in a home at least), that may have something to do with it.

[Goon525]

Speaking of bitrates, it seems that this year the TV audio on the iPlayer is only 128k. Obviously this doesn't apply to the original broadcasts on BBC2/4.

I’d felt that the sound via tv iplayer was below radio.

[vinteuil]

.

https://www.wine-searcher.com/regions-est+est+est+di+montefiascone

(tho' the wine, despite its grand claims, turns out to be shrill and unsatisfactory... )


.

[ANON]

......pretty decent Proms at 320 AAC this year. I'm not that easily impressed, and the bulk of my listening is at better than CD resolution. I certainly prefer 320 AAC to FM.

You are comparing apples with oranges.
FM Stereo is NOT analogue, never has been.
It used to go through PCM links, now has to go through a whole network of different digital multiplex systems out to the main 88-108mhz analogue network.
This is good and bad, because of lots of reasons.

Whilst FM stereo used to give a much better experience as hifi in the beginning, now when you go direct to AAC, you are going direct from one digital format to digital.
This is good and bad, but if you look at what one hi end DAC does it will make you faint!
That one cost 3000USD.
KOOL!
When advised, the manufacturer appeared not to give a toss!
Here it is again for reference:-





Gerzon used to berate the BBC constantly in terms which called a spade a spade.
I am just not very polite.

In this audio case, the A-D is in the Albert Hall, then it disappears completely usually via a big IP network into a full digital mixing setup, then on via various preemphasis, compression, degradations due to algorithm treatment all the way out on IPV4 your ISP over TCP/IP to the final D-A in the client computer.
(don't even start me on the sound from smartphones, with the earplug zombies).

As a result, the sound quality of the proms over mp3 is highly variable, with a lot of instability of the audio image.

In my recent testing most DACs were crap, which is pretty suprising when you read their claims.
My results with them only came to light entirely by accident, when struggling to find the source of HF distortion in a high power amplifier.
The manufacturer of that sound card also went into denial.

[Stunsworth]

@est1 I realise you only joined today, but I think if you want to stay here for any length of time your posts need to be less insulting and aggressive.

I’m not a mod, and I’ve not reported any of your posts, but I suspect you’re currently walking a fine line.

[Bryn]

@est1 I realise you only joined today, but I think if you want to stay here for any length of time your posts need to be less insulting and aggressive.

I’m not a mod, and I’ve not reported any of your posts, but I suspect you’re currently walking a fine line.

Indeed.



House Rules