View Full Version : BBC Prom Concerts 2019 Sound Quality
With the Proms now in full flow, I would like to know what AOS members think of the sound quality over the coming months?
If you could say how you are listening, ie FM, online etc.
I've been listening on either Freeview 703, or BBC4, but only casually. Future listening will be via Radio 3 FM. I'll report back in a week's time regarding SQ.
Thanks Barry, I listen mainly on FM too.
Wakefield Turntables
23-07-2019, 06:49
I'm sure that I've read stories about the BBC trialling improved quality transmissions during the Proms or certainly experimenting.
Hi Rexton
In 2018, all concerts went out in FLAC, not this year, this year they are using their AAC codecs which is the BBC’S High Definition Sound that is used as standard by all their national stations.
Sorry Rexton it was 2017, 18 and 19 AAC was/is used.
Wakefield Turntables
23-07-2019, 13:57
Thanks for the clarification.
Light Dependant Resistor
23-07-2019, 14:17
Hi Rexton
In 2018, all concerts went out in FLAC, not this year, this year they are using their AAC codecs which is the BBC’S High Definition Sound that is used as standard by all their national stations.
Some comparison and recommendations from Stereophile here Flac vs AAC ( not as good )
https://www.stereophile.com/content/mp3-vs-aac-vs-flac-vs-cd-page-1
A national broadcaster if we care about democracy, should not be using proprietary file types like AAC - vs unencumbered community driven software & better quality Flac
lets hope they return to Flac.
The link could not be found.
Light Dependant Resistor
23-07-2019, 20:29
Sorry, here it is https://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/index.html
Lawrence001
23-07-2019, 22:41
Just out of interest is there an easy way to download the hi def files and store them for playing in the future?
Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk
A national broadcaster if we care about democracy, should not be using proprietary file types like AAC - vs unencumbered community driven software & better quality Flac
lets hope they return to Flac.
You may like to read this - from the BBC guy who headed up the move to AAC back in 2014 - wouldn't life be great if things were easy :)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/28dfd220-7ca1-3683-ac16-3938cfb4b882
Light Dependant Resistor
24-07-2019, 06:36
You may like to read this - from the BBC guy who headed up the move to AAC back in 2014 - wouldn't life be great if things were easy :)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/28dfd220-7ca1-3683-ac16-3938cfb4b882
Having worked in the broadcasting industry although not the BBC I can give some perspective as to what is actually occurring.
This quote from that site is the cream in the biscuit so to speak "the only other way that these devices can receive an audio file is to download it in an unprotected format. This would contravene the BBC’s agreements with rights holders (record companies, publishers, writers etc.) which require copyright material to be protected."
This is IMO ultra laziness on the part of the BBC that is unwilling it appears to simply save taxpayers money. With broadcasting there are generally three forms
of music licensing , payment to the artist, payment to the record companies, and thirdly payment to the record companies again for mechanical copyright.
It is this third one they very strangely are having issue with, as they are deferring to continue payment for mechanical copyright - when they could save
the taxpayer enormous sums of money by instead using Flac.
Perhaps someone should encourage they do a TV or radio programme about themselves highlighting the cost savings - and along the way the better audio quality
FLAC can provide. Now that would be worth a Night at the Proms !
I think you're over estimating the difference in SQ between lossy and lossless. The Stereophile article is from over a decade ago, haven't lossy codecs improved over that time? Also I suspect that lossy digital is still better quality than analogue FM and people were very happy with analogue FM quality for about three decades.
Light Dependant Resistor
24-07-2019, 09:04
I think you're over estimating the difference in SQ between lossy and lossless. The Stereophile article is from over a decade ago, haven't lossy codecs improved over that time? Also I suspect that lossy digital is still better quality than analogue FM and people were very happy with analogue FM quality for about three decades.
No, AAC has not improved, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding ,because in the case of AAC, a payment for licence is needed to improve that format
What a depressing state of affairs that the software will remain stagnant - and that anyone will not be rewarded for their efforts rather they have to pay to improve the AAC codec, can't see that happening any time soon - can you ? = development is deliberately stifled....
Vs Flac an open file type that the BBC should use, that is continuously receiving development to be better. https://xiph.org/flac/developers.html
Having worked in the broadcasting industry although not the BBC I can give some perspective as to what is actually occurring.
This quote from that site is the cream in the biscuit so to speak "the only other way that these devices can receive an audio file is to download it in an unprotected format. This would contravene the BBC’s agreements with rights holders (record companies, publishers, writers etc.) which require copyright material to be protected."
...
It is this third one they very strangely are having issue with, as they are deferring to continue payment for mechanical copyright - when they could save
the taxpayer enormous sums of money by instead using Flac.
:scratch: .. you will need to explain that, can't really see how using FLAC would alleviate them of the copyright obligations and restrictions imposed by distributors :scratch:
Aside from that, I listen to the BBC 320 kps streams daily and they are exemplary - particularly in comparison to FM. Can't really see FLAC improving on them much (if at all)
No, AAC has not improved, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding ,because in the case of AAC, a payment for licence is needed to improve that format
What a depressing state of affairs that the software will remain stagnant - and that anyone will not be rewarded for their efforts rather they have to pay to improve the AAC codec, can't see that happening any time soon - can you ? = development is deliberately stifled....
Vs Flac an open file type that the BBC should use, that is continuously receiving development to be better. https://xiph.org/flac/developers.html
Also worth reading the further comments in the link I posted:
"Audio Factory will deliver live streams and streams of on-demand programmes using the AAC codec. Specifically AAC-LC at 320kb/s and 128kb/s bit rate and HE-AAC(v1) at 96kb/s and 48kb/s. The AAC-LC bit rate pair will be for high quality connections (e.g. wifi) the HE-AAC (v1) will be for international streams and mobile. We have chosen v1 over v2 as this has a slightly greater range of compatible devices. This will be the same for all UK BBC radio stations. i.e. Not World Service yet.
These streams will be delivered to devices using the HLS (for iOS and Android) and HDS (for desktop) delivery methods. This will replace windows media for some devices and rtmp for desktop machines.
We have identified that many internet radio devices cannot play HLS or HDS streams. We have notified the makers of these devices and the makers of the silicon chip sets that are in a lot of these devices. Some newer devices may be able to accept these delivery formats, some may be able to accept a firmware upgrade in the future. It is not possible for us to know how the different devices will be affected.
We would like to experiment with live lossless flac streams in the future. Possibly using the DASH delivery method. We are not quite sure how to fit the technologies together yet. "
Which shows that they had an active interest in FLAC back then ... but there are real problems with all formats and reception.
Light Dependant Resistor
24-07-2019, 10:03
Any broadcaster pays a fee to the music artist - I totally agree with that , they also pay a fee to the record companies, which should be argued with an identical
invoice to each record company - as they are promoting said artist with extensive infrastructure and cost. I am of the opinion that the music artist deserves
copyright payment - which should sensibly be the end of any broadcasters copyright obligation.... but the record companies demand payment as well. A way around this
other than invoicing the record companies for the same fee they charge, would be, to exclusively play creative commons music, and pleasantly pay donations to those artists.
However because broadcasters often do not think of alternatives they invariably use proprietary types ( and AAC is an exception unless they wish to manufacture encoders and decoders, or improve that codec ) of file storage, they enter into mechanical copyright as well - which with indifference with Flac is not needed- unless nicely by donation to Xiph.org for using Flac
Technically though the question of mechanical copyright is awkward as in theory all prior files anywhere stored, such as in archives if in a proprietary file
type form requires a mechanical copyright licence. Its a dedicated radio station manager ( like myself ) who reviews all sound archives and converts them to
Flac or Ogg - both are patent free open formats.
The problem with any file type that is proprietary is as we can see with AAC it is unlikely to ever be improved upon - and the sands at anytime can shift
to create ability for the proprietors to be paid.
I just asked what people thought of the sound quality of this seasons prom broadcasts, the thread seems to have lost it’s direction somewhat!
If you ask about sound quality on a hi-fi forum you're never going to get a short answer!
I realise that! Not surprisingly, I haven’t read the lengthy posts with any real interest!
I just asked what people thought of the sound quality of this seasons prom broadcasts, the thread seems to have lost it’s direction somewhat!
Thread drift on AoS- whatever next! :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.