PDA

View Full Version : Audio files format and the quest for answers



StanleyB
17-06-2009, 07:11
I tend to use WAV and mp3 myself, but I can't help feeling that the inventors of the various formats may well have been pushing their warez in the same way that we were told how much better Freeview reception would be compared to good old analogue. So I have now started to rip a number of my discs into a range of formats. My intention is to then sit down and listen to each format across a range of musical dimensions.

My aim is to try to find out if one audio format is more suitable for a particular type of instrumental arrangement over another. Or if even male and female vocals sound better in one over the other.

I got the idea after accidentally noticing that the so called lossless ripping formats did not equate to an equally dynamic and engaging encounter between one track and another. I use air pressure level ( i.e. chest thumps and gut pains) and floor vibrations to make certain observations when I tweak my DACs.

If anyone has done any similar work, please spill the beans. All research material and input are most welcome. Let's drag that old wife out of the cupboard and hear what tales he has to tell us.

STan

DaveK
17-06-2009, 07:47
"Let's drag that old wife out of the cupboard and hear what tales he has to tell us."
:scratch:

lovejoy
17-06-2009, 07:57
Hi Stan,
Yes, I know exactly what you mean. The marketing machine has definately been at work with regards to the different compression formats. I got caught out by the AAC bandwagon - on paper it looks like an amazing format - much more efficient than MP3 and purported to be as good as 128Kbps MP3 at just 64kbps. Well, whilst I'm not interested in lower bitrates I equated that AAC must also be better at the higher rates I like to encode my CDs with. Well, some extended listening tests have proven this not to be the case.

To illustrate, using EAC I ripped a handful of the same CDs using LAME for MP3 encoding (which I have always regarded as the best MP3 encoder) and the Nero encoder for AAC. Both encodings are done using 'extreme' settings, equating to between 200-280kbps. The differences are subtle and take a little while to pick up, but AAC sounds constrained and rather nasal in comparison with the MP3 which is much more open and dynamic and seems pretty flat in its response. I think AAC is much better suited to live internet streaming than it is to encoding a music collection, so for compressed music I have stopped using AAC altogether and returned to keeping the library in MP3 format - which for the most part I have a very hard time telling the difference between it and the original CD.

Similarly, I'm not a fan of Apple Lossless. Though, admittedly this is mostly because I committed a few 24-bit albums to ALAC and later found out I could not uncompress them to 24-bit format again. It took a bit of pleading to some of the record companies I bought the albums off to get them to allow me to re-download the originals too :-(.

StanleyB
17-06-2009, 08:12
"Let's drag that old wife out of the cupboard and hear what tales he has to tell us."
:scratch:
Not everyone wearing a skirt is a female... Watch C4 tonight at 11.10PM.

twelvebears
17-06-2009, 10:36
To be honest, I simply avoid anything other than lossless encoding unless I have absolutely no choice, I am however confused by debates over one form of lossless format vs another. While there are diffrences in terms of compatibility with some hardware and software for things like iTunes and Apple products with FLAC for example, and some regarding tagging, from a data perspective one lossless fromat should perform identically to another with the same DA conversion as it should be a bit-perfect copy.

This is obviously only the case with standard 16 bit CD recordings, not with 24 bit stuff that gets down-sampled.

Would be interested in other's views/experiences.

StanleyB
17-06-2009, 10:55
The problem that I see with all these formats boils down to one basic fact: they all have to be translated in real time to the digital format that the audio decoding chip can recognize and work with. The real time translating process appears to catch them out.

Having looked at some of the software source code, I noticed that there tends to be 'error correction' routines in the code that tries to take care of speed and timing issue when the decoding process cannot keep pace with the required playback speed.

Examples of such 'playback lag' are on slow processors and computers running all sorts of virus etc. software.

Stan

Stratmangler
17-06-2009, 11:11
Pretty well all of my digital music collection is ripped from CD to FLAC using EAC.

What I like about FLAC is that it is not a proprietory encoding method tied into any manufacturer at all (ie completely opensource, and available for free off the internet).

You can get FLAC frontend here http://flac.sourceforge.net/download.html

Chris:)

Stratmangler
17-06-2009, 11:36
AAC+ radio streaming can sound incredible - check out Radio Paradise.
It would be nice to see the BBC adopt AAC+ at 128 kbs for their internet streams, but I'm not holding my breath.

I use a Squeezebox SB3 into a TC7510 (modded).

Access is controlled using Squeezecenter.

Chris:)

twelvebears
17-06-2009, 11:40
I must admit that during a brief 'damn Apple and their Big Brother like attempts to control the music world!' period, I did try and avoid Apple Lossless and use FLAC but because I do like iTunes as a music mangement tool, I now use Apple Lossless exclusively.

What REALLY, REALLY worries me is the future of digital music. At the moment, I can get CDs with their 'full fat' version of the original music and then rip using error correction to a lossless format of my choice, but I can see a future where the need for physical medium gets ditched in favour of downloading, but do we really think anyone will be offering lossless formats?

I know there will be millions of discs out there, much like vinyl now, but it could still mean trouble for the longterm availbility of new mainstream material in a truely high resolution format.....

lovejoy
17-06-2009, 12:28
The BBC already does use AAC/AAC+ - you just need to go to the iPlayer front page, click the BBC labs link at the bottom right of the screen, then on the next screen click the "I want to become a labs tester" box and when you go back to the main iPlayer page, all your radio streams will now be AAC/AAC+ and will sound rather good.

Codifus
17-06-2009, 14:47
Hello all,

I have a strong feeling on this issue. 1st, I agree that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there, and if you are going to generate the best MP3s, then you would use the insane setting to create 320 kbps, fixed rate, audio files. I also enjoy well encoded MP3s created by my DAW application, CoolEdit 2000. CoolEdit 2000 is now called Adobe Audition from when Adobe bought Syntrillium software.

AAC is hands down better than MP3. That's because AAC is MP4 with a bit of Apple proprietary coding for DRM thrown in. If you google MP3 AAC, OGG, and WMA, you'll find gobbs of articles showing the merits of AAC. The only reason MP3 is still with is because it is ubiquitous. It made a helluva a big splash.

The consortoum of companies who got together to create MP3, such as Fraunhoffer, Apple, Dolby labs, as well a a few others, set out to create a better MP3: MP4.

If you want to make the best AAC/MP4 files, use iTunes and set your import to AAC at 320 kbps. Actually, import your music as AIFF or WAV using error correction. Afterwards, select those WAVs/AIFFs and convert them to AAC. It's a wonderfully easy process to do in iTunes.

Forgive me if I sound too aggressive in my response. I just think that many users may be translating a dislike of Apple the company to any product they produce, whether that product deserved it or not. Remember how everyone said that iTunes DRMed everything? I kept on, and still keep on, correcting Windows centric users in that iTunes only DRMs music purchased from the itunes store. And recently, since the iTunes store went to 256 kbps downloads, the DRM, if it's still there, is much less restrictive. Better quality music, less lockdown.


Anyhow, sorry for my rant. Moving right along:)

SteveW
17-06-2009, 18:29
The BBC already does use AAC/AAC+ - you just need to go to the iPlayer front page, click the BBC labs link at the bottom right of the screen, then on the next screen click the "I want to become a labs tester" box and when you go back to the main iPlayer page, all your radio streams will now be AAC/AAC+ and will sound rather good.

You sir are a star!!!!
I've just done this, and using airfoil and an airport express to my main system, I'm playing just great sounding radio.
Thank you so much for pointing this gem of a feature out.
When I get a couple of minutes I'll do a direct comparison between iplayer radio and live FM through my Linn Kremlin.

DaveK
17-06-2009, 20:23
Attn. Lovejoy,
Hi again Rich,
Just installed iPlayer on my PC running Vista Home Premium - everything seemed to go OK and I have got all the web pages and tabs etc..When I click on TV Stations, choose any and click 'Now Playing' I get the required programme.
However, when I click on Radio Stations, choose any, then 'Now Playing', I get the little rotating thingummy on a small blank screen. Then everything stops and I get the message that Explorer has stopped working, is looking for a solution and then restarts. Clicking again on 'now playing' gets exactly the same response - any ideas?
In short, I get the TV OK but cannot get radio. If it makes any difference, the first thing I did, before exploring any TV or radio stations, was to sign up as a lab tester to get the higher resolution music streams.
Thanks for any help that you may be able to offer.

Stratmangler
18-06-2009, 00:11
The BBC already does use AAC/AAC+ - you just need to go to the iPlayer front page, click the BBC labs link at the bottom right of the screen, then on the next screen click the "I want to become a labs tester" box and when you go back to the main iPlayer page, all your radio streams will now be AAC/AAC+ and will sound rather good.

Hi Lovejoy

It may have been your good self who has already mentioned in a previous post about the AAC/AAC+ streams.

I usually access the BBC radio services via my Squeezebox SB3, and use the iPlayer plugin available for Squeezecenter.

When I am at my desktop I sometimes play iPlayer content and I am already registered with the Beeb as a Labs Tester.

Doing a URL sniff whilst using the Lab Rat stuff playing Radio 2 live gives me the bog standard URL feed that I already have in the iPlayer plugin on Squeezecenter.

The feed is this http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r2.asx and it is WMA, not AAC/AAC+ , and comes out at 96kbs.

The listen again service operates at 128kbs , and is also a WMA feed.

If the stream were AAC/AAC+ then it would be more like this http://www.radioparadise.com/musiclinks/rp_128aac-1.m3u , the end bit being the most relevant bit of infomation (ie. m3u).

You are correct in your statement that these iPlayer streams can sound "rather good" (personally I describe it as noticably better than the Real Audio streams used normally, but still nothing to write home about).

The Radio Paradise stream actually is AAC+ , and sounds f*****g incredible, way, way better than anything coming out from Auntie Beeb.

To repeat something I have already stated somewhere on this forum, I just wish that the BBC would stop selling us short and actually give us some properly decent internet radio feeds. I also hope that they sort out the DAB service so that really decent sound quality is possible, 'cos it sounds poor compared to FM broadcast, and the recent declaration of FM switch-off is not necessarily (but probably will be) a bad thing, and sound quality is being eroded, as it has been constantly over the last decade and longer.

Chris:)

Stratmangler
18-06-2009, 00:33
Hello all,

I have a strong feeling on this issue. 1st, I agree that LAME is the best MP3 encoder out there, and if you are going to generate the best MP3s, then you would use the insane setting to create 320 kbps, fixed rate, audio files. I also enjoy well encoded MP3s created by my DAW application, CoolEdit 2000. CoolEdit 2000 is now called Adobe Audition from when Adobe bought Syntrillium software.

AAC is hands down better than MP3. That's because AAC is MP4 with a bit of Apple proprietary coding for DRM thrown in. If you google MP3 AAC, OGG, and WMA, you'll find gobbs of articles showing the merits of AAC. The only reason MP3 is still with is because it is ubiquitous. It made a helluva a big splash.

The consortoum of companies who got together to create MP3, such as Fraunhoffer, Apple, Dolby labs, as well a a few others, set out to create a better MP3: MP4.

If you want to make the best AAC/MP4 files, use iTunes and set your import to AAC at 320 kbps. Actually, import your music as AIFF or WAV using error correction. Afterwards, select those WAVs/AIFFs and convert them to AAC. It's a wonderfully easy process to do in iTunes.

Forgive me if I sound too aggressive in my response. I just think that many users may be translating a dislike of Apple the company to any product they produce, whether that product deserved it or not. Remember how everyone said that iTunes DRMed everything? I kept on, and still keep on, correcting Windows centric users in that iTunes only DRMs music purchased from the itunes store. And recently, since the iTunes store went to 256 kbps downloads, the DRM, if it's still there, is much less restrictive. Better quality music, less lockdown.


Anyhow, sorry for my rant. Moving right along:)

I have a very strong dislike of propriatory processing methods. You can't get iTunes to work fully unless you enter personal information such as credit card details as the assumption is that you have bought into the Apple way of doing things. It pisses me off. Why can't you buy ALAC files in the iTunes store - these will sound better than the recently improved bitrate tracks. Why the DRM thing at all - if I bought the bloody thing I want to be able to back it all up and play using different devices, NOT just the machine that did the download or a bloody iPod.

I could go on, but I'll stop there.

Chris:steam:

webby
18-06-2009, 09:47
What REALLY, REALLY worries me is the future of digital music. At the moment, I can get CDs with their 'full fat' version of the original music and then rip using error correction to a lossless format of my choice, but I can see a future where the need for physical medium gets ditched in favour of downloading, but do we really think anyone will be offering lossless formats?



This is EXACTLY my worry too. Lossless downloads should be offered now! So many people into digital audio only buy the cd's to rip into their computers losslessly. Then what's to stop them selling that cd? Nothing really. Give them the option to download the music losslessly. Oh, and don't charge £7.99 for it. There's no packaging or sleeve notes so why should it cost the same as the physical disc?

Stratmangler
18-06-2009, 12:38
This is EXACTLY my worry too. Lossless downloads should be offered now! So many people into digital audio only buy the cd's to rip into their computers losslessly. Then what's to stop them selling that cd? Nothing really. Give them the option to download the music losslessly. Oh, and don't charge £7.99 for it. There's no packaging or sleeve notes so why should it cost the same as the physical disc?

:exactly:

Chris:)

Codifus
18-06-2009, 12:39
I have a very strong dislike of propriatory processing methods. You can't get iTunes to work fully unless you enter personal information such as credit card details as the assumption is that you have bought into the Apple way of doing things. It pisses me off. Why can't you buy ALAC files in the iTunes store - these will sound better than the recently improved bitrate tracks. Why the DRM thing at all - if I bought the bloody thing I want to be able to back it all up and play using different devices, NOT just the machine that did the download or a bloody iPod.

I could go on, but I'll stop there.

Chris:steam:

Hi Chris,

I'll continue, then:)

1st off, the only time you ever have to enter credit card info into iTunes is if you purchase music from the iTunes store. Period. Full stop.

In another scenario, let's say you have 500 CDs. You can RIP them all into iTunes in whatever format you choose, MP3, AAC, ALAC, WAV, or AIFF. Whatever. If you never use the store then you never have to put the credit card info.

It would be nice for Apple to offer ALAC downloads, but I don't think it's Apple preventing it. Think RIAA.

DRM does not prevent you from backing up your iTunes. I'm doing it right now using carbon copy cloner.

Also, DRM is flexible in that you can authorize up to 5 itunes applications, anywhere on the internet, to play your DRM files.

If you are not using AAC or ALAC, then you can copy your music to other players such as an iRiver, or Sony. I did that for a time with MP3s. It is clumsy and not very efficient process, but it is do-able. So iTunes prefers an iPod. I could understand Apple's choice if the iPod was the most popular portable music player out and there, very very easy to use, and provides high fidelity output for those of audiophiles who want it. Oh wait, the iPod does that and it is all that:ner:

The proprietary aspects of iTunes and the iPod are minmally intrusive in my experience, and Apple does make a great piece of software and hardware. From out of nowhere iTunes has become the defacto music management software of choice. It's free and has a great GUI. And the iPod is a bit popular too:)

I'll just chill out, and enjoy my Apples, then.

Cheers!:cool:

StanleyB
18-06-2009, 13:01
Storage method is one thing. Payback method is another. Are any of these other methods better than WAV in terms of reproduction?

twelvebears
18-06-2009, 13:48
I agree with David (Codifus) on this point re iTunes.

Yes the iTunes Store is pants, and if you care about real sound quality, you'd steer clear anyway. However, this doesn't detract from the fact that as a music managment tool, (in my case many hundreds of CDs ripped to lossless) iTunes is actually very good.

As far as I am aware, the only iTunes features which are dependant on an iTunes Store account (hence the personal details) are Genius and the artwork download.

Given that Genius is pretty rubbish (there are much better iTunes apps for creating truely 'smart' playlist) and that it's advisable not to leave the artwork to iTunes anyway because it sticks in a library and doesn't actually embed it into the ID3 tag, just ignore iTunes Store completely.

twelvebears
18-06-2009, 13:56
Hi Stan.

Nothings better than WAV for playback as that's comepletely uncompressed, but any lossless format will perform just as well because when uncompressed they also produce a bit-perfect version of the original (allowing for any 'normal' errors of course).

The limitation with WAV is storage space (needing approx double the space of lossless files, though this is less of an issue now with HD space being so cheap) and the fact that WAV files don't support ID3 tagging, which means that any song info, artwork etc. only exists in a referenced library and not within the song file itself. This is fine if all is well, but lose your library for any reason and sorting out your music files could be a hell of a job.

StanleyB
18-06-2009, 15:31
...WAV files don't support ID3 tagging, which means that any song info, artwork etc. only exists in a referenced library and not within the song file itself. This is fine if all is well, but lose your library for any reason and sorting out your music files could be a hell of a job.

If you use TAG&RENAME you can now add tags. The same goes for if you use Mediamonkey. I have been using them for a while now. Both can add the tags automatically via the freedb online database.

Stan

Stratmangler
18-06-2009, 15:31
My rant about the Apple/iTunes thing earlier got a little bit out of hand - I've been in hospital for the best part of a week having a very serious op and initial recuperation, and as a result I am very tired - them hospitals are bloody noisy places and it's hell trying to get any sleep ! Thankfully I'm back at home now, and get all the rest I need.

And it's the first time I've needed to use a portable personal music player in 12 years or so - radio on the Patientline bedside terminals is very limited. A friend lent me a Creative Labs player for the duration.

At home I use Squeezebox a huge amount, and as I've said, nearly all of my music is FLAC.
Which is free, and not tied into any company.

I have played around a little bit with the iTunes App and it seems to be a fairly friendly program, just so long as you don't want to see album covers, 'cos then you need to open an account and enter CC details. I doubt if I would want to purchase music from the store, as it's all MP3.

I did rip a CD in both AAC and ALAC formats (Steely Dans' Two Against Nature) just to see if I could play them using Squeezebox and to compare them with my FLAC rip. They did both play, and IIRC the FLAC and ALAC rips were pretty well indistinguishable from each other. Then I found out that the Squeezecenter Server converts ALAC to FLAC on the fly - not a good comparison then !

It is possible to buy FLAC downloads from sites such as http://www.hdtracks.com/ , so why not ALAC (or FLAC - will an iPod play FLAC ? Oh yeah, FLAC is not propriatory to Apple, is it ?) from the iTunes store. RIAA considerations may not be too big an issue.

I think that the iPod is a well designed, sexy to handle and easy to use piece of kit. I personally have little need for one though. So I don't have one.

As far as source equipment is concerned, each to his (or her) own. You enjoy your iPod Codifus - I'll stick to my Squeezebox:ner:

Cheers all:cool:


Chris:)

lovejoy
18-06-2009, 17:47
Doing a URL sniff whilst using the Lab Rat stuff playing Radio 2 live gives me the bog standard URL feed that I already have in the iPlayer plugin on Squeezecenter.

The feed is this http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/listen/live/r2.asx and it is WMA, not AAC/AAC+ , and comes out at 96kbs.

The listen again service operates at 128kbs , and is also a WMA feed.

Chris:)

Hi Chris,

It looks like you're looking in the wrong place. The link you provide is indeed 96kbps WMA, but if you go here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_radio_two

...and look at the properties for the stream and you get:
BBC Media Player V2.14.10344.10570 bbc_radio_two | 128 | aac | AK

The same goes for the other stations.

lovejoy
18-06-2009, 17:55
Attn. Lovejoy,
Hi again Rich,
Just installed iPlayer on my PC running Vista Home Premium - everything seemed to go OK and I have got all the web pages and tabs etc..When I click on TV Stations, choose any and click 'Now Playing' I get the required programme.
However, when I click on Radio Stations, choose any, then 'Now Playing', I get the little rotating thingummy on a small blank screen. Then everything stops and I get the message that Explorer has stopped working, is looking for a solution and then restarts. Clicking again on 'now playing' gets exactly the same response - any ideas?


Hi Dave, when you say you installed iPlayer, what did you actually install? You should need no extra software other than your internet browser and make sure Flash is installed which is required for all BBC iPlayer material, so I assume that if you have TV playback OK, then you must have Flash already.

Might just be worth making sure you have the latest versions of your browser and Flash plugin. Nothing else springs to mind immediately though.

DaveK
18-06-2009, 18:23
Hi Chris,

It looks like you're looking in the wrong place. The link you provide is indeed 96kbps WMA, but if you go here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/playlive/bbc_radio_two

...and look at the properties for the stream and you get:
BBC Media Player V2.14.10344.10570 bbc_radio_two | 128 | aac | AK

The same goes for the other stations.

Hi Rich,
First of all, thanks for your response on the iPlayer radio no-play situation - I'll persist a bit more.
The main reason for posting this message is regarding the above quote (a bit). I have my Sky HD box coupled up to the DAC7520 using optical and use this facility to listen to digital Radio. Just out of interest have you any idea what is the quality of the signal of radio broadcasts on Sky?
Cheers.

lovejoy
18-06-2009, 18:42
Hi Dave,
Last time I looked at this, the vast majority of radio stations on Sky are broadcast at 192kbps MP2. Certainly better than DAB and better than the standard BBC iPlayer WMA streams.

Stratmangler
18-06-2009, 18:59
Thanks for the link Rich.

What are you using to analyse the streams ?

I am very tired atm (see earlier hospital mention) and stumped !

Chris:)

Just caught the right click button o my mousepad and lo and behold the properties show up as AAC stream - told you I was tired.

Stratmangler
18-06-2009, 19:16
Hi Rich

Just done another URL snoop using URLSnooper 2 and get the same stream as I've posted coming back.

Everything else is showing as flash media, which Squeezecenter won't play ball with.

And I've also had what may be a very relevant thought - my DSL is less than 2meg, and iPlayer may be set to limit streams available to me.

Dunno !

Chris:)

now that I've seen that the streams are flash I now know why Squeezecenter won't see the damned things.

Stratmangler
18-06-2009, 19:25
Hi Dave,
Last time I looked at this, the vast majority of radio stations on Sky are broadcast at 192kbps MP2. Certainly better than DAB and better than the standard BBC iPlayer WMA streams.

Hi Dave

I also seem to remember reading that the Sky stations are 192kbs MP2.

The analog outputs on a Sky+ box are quite shouty - can't comment on HD box. I have hooked my Sky+ box up to my TC7510 and TV & radio sound much better (read as really good).

I can imagine that your TC7520 sounds quite a bit better than the analog outs on the HD box.

Chris:)

lovejoy
18-06-2009, 19:46
Hi Chris,
I think the problem may well be that these streams only seem to be available through the Flash player. If I try playing the live stream through VLC then I get the same 96kbps WMA stream that you get, but playing via my web browser on the BBC iPlayer flash page for Radio2 and right clicking in the flash window I can get the properties of the stream which is showing as 128k AAC. It's quite easy to discern the improvement in sound quality between it and the 96k WMA too.

lovejoy
18-06-2009, 19:48
Hi Dave


The analog outputs on a Sky+ box are quite shouty - can't comment on HD box. I have hooked my Sky+ box up to my TC7510 and TV & radio sound much better (read as really good).

I can imagine that your TC7520 sounds quite a bit better than the analog outs on the HD box.

Chris:)

Yes, the analogue output from a Sky box is horrible. WAY too high. I used to have to reduce the volume down to around 2 bars in order for it to stop distorting though my amp. WAY WAY better to have the optical out connected - I have done the same thing with my Virgin V+ box (which I believe carries the same bit rate for radio as Sky does) and that sounds pretty good.

DaveK
18-06-2009, 19:51
Hi Rich and Chris,
Thanks both for your responses. I certainly rate it better than my DAB, but my DAB is a 'toy' (Bug) given to me as a birthday present - my family think of me as 'Gadget Man', with some justification I must admit! ;) The speakers on the Bug are not great, making direct comparison unfair, but they can't be blamed for the poor reception and top notch interference.:steam:
I must now start scanning R3 and Classic FM schedules with a bit more interest.:)
Cheers,

PS to Chris,
Sorry but I missed your earlier post about your incarceration in hospital - hope your recovery continues apace so that you 'get back in harness' soon (but not too soon!!). I was there about 18 months ago (bit of a false alarm - mini stroke) but I know what you mean about lack of decent entertainment and noisy nights.
Take care.:)

Stratmangler
18-06-2009, 20:03
Thanks for your concern Dave - I have just sent you PM

Chris:)

lovejoy
18-06-2009, 20:17
HOLEY MOLEY!

Whilst the subject came up I thought I'd have a scan around the other BBC stations. I've just been listening to "Performance on 3", which turns out to be - wait for it - 192kbps AAC...

WOW, that sounded STUNNING! Not my kind of music at all, but when it sounds that good I could be persuaded.

Stratmangler
18-06-2009, 21:43
Hi Chris,
I think the problem may well be that these streams only seem to be available through the Flash player. If I try playing the live stream through VLC then I get the same 96kbps WMA stream that you get, but playing via my web browser on the BBC iPlayer flash page for Radio2 and right clicking in the flash window I can get the properties of the stream which is showing as 128k AAC. It's quite easy to discern the improvement in sound quality between it and the 96k WMA too.

Thanks Rich

I amended both of my earlier posts - I was feeling very tired and missing the bleeding obvious.

My problems stem from the fact that the streams are flash streams and Squeezecenter won't see them and play ball.

Looks like I'll just have to live with the lower bitrate streams for now - perhaps in the fullness of time the Beeb will provide m3u streams as well as the flash bolt on stuff.

Chris:)

lovejoy
19-06-2009, 07:51
That's OK, always happy to help.

I guess these are still test streams, and HOPEFULLY at some point, they will become the norm and the BBC will finally drop its dependence on old proprietary formats like RealPlayer and WMA. I just hope these test streams don't go the way of their ogg vorbis test streams.

Stratmangler
19-06-2009, 09:23
If the Beeb do adopt the AAC stuff I'd bet that they don't change the format - I believe that the chap heading the development program is pretty scathing of hardware players, and is unlikely to devote resources towards accomodating such devices.

Still, you never know for sure what will happen.

Chris:)

StanleyB
19-06-2009, 09:25
I mentioned in my adverts for the TC-75xx that they make a substantial improvement to the audio playback of digital audio transmissions. I would seriously encourage anyone with a digital output of the audio on their satellite or freeview box to try out a DAC.

STan

Stratmangler
20-06-2009, 16:21
Hi Stan

I ran an experiment yesterday to see how radical the differences were on playback between wav, mp3 and flac files.

All files were ripped using EAC set to maximise accuracy.

The mp3 and flac versions were ripped and converted automatically by EAC.

Mp3 was found to be very good, but lacking air ,space and detail compared to the other two formats (to be expected really).

I could not hear any audible differences between wav and flac.

I won't say that the test was absolutely conclusive, as the listening was done using some crappy earbud 'phones that came with a Creative MP3 player, and the feed to the phones was using the headphone out on my laptop, but it may be sufficient to prompt you to maybe try the same comparison using your DAC and a decent pair of cans.

If you're up for it I for one would be very interested in your findings.

Chris:)

freddiecas
23-06-2009, 17:45
some years ago when posting demos from synthesiser keyboards on the net I compared mp3 with ogg and at the same lowish bitrates ogg was noticeably superior in treble "cleanness" and high frequency separation at say 128. Unfortunately many downloaders did not have the codec and it became a pain explaining how to decode in the days before many had broadband so I ended up using 160 lame mp3 as a reasonable compromise between download time and quality. Today with cheap large hard drives all my music is saved in original wave format to avoid having to re-rip hundreds of backup cds to a new format.

Stratmangler
23-06-2009, 19:51
Ive had the pleasure today of playing with my Bro'In Law's iPod Classic, and all I can say is it has been a pleasure - it is one of the nicest pieces of portable gear to handle and operate. I've also managed to educate Bro'In Law about the pleasures of losslessly compressed music.

Big shame tho' about iPod's incompatability with FLAC, and that it turn makes it a PITA to have to accomodate - either unearth and rerip CD's to ALAC, or jump through hoops converting files over.

Ah well.....

Chris:)

fungke
07-07-2009, 15:04
Yep, I use a Mac and I have to say that Apple Lossless is also the route I took. It seems pointless to store files in AIFF* (MAC equivalent of WAV), why waste the extra storage needed. MP3 or music compression just isn't an option. I want a faithful reproduction, not a photocopy!

I don't mind using ALAC either, it's compatible with my iPhone which I use daily on the way, and at work. IMO iTunes is an excellent jukebox software.

The only weak link is ripping using iTunes. I prefer to use XLD to encode into ALAC and then add into my library. At least I've got some way of telling if the rip was good or bad. XLD also allows me to convert FLAC to ALAC.

*AIFF allows you to add 'enbedded' meta information as part of its spec. WAV does not without a companion tool, and if you loose that library, you loose your tagging. BWAV allows meta tagging but nobody supports it outside the radio industry.