BBC iPlayer - really rather good!

":Jerry:" wrote in message
...


Sorry about that duplicate, I think the server hiccupped...

:Jerry: wrote:
":Jerry:" wrote in message
...


Sorry about that duplicate, I think the server hiccupped...


No, Degreeless Jezza, you are simply grossly incompetent.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...

grossly incompetent.

Being truthful about yourself again 'Stevie-boy'?

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
wrote:
As I believe I've commented befo it's not ATRAC3, but the RealAudio
G2 codec. This was introduced with RealAudio 6. Atrac3 didn't come
about until RealAudio 8.

That's even worse then.

There are also Windows Media Audio streams, although the only one I
can get to play is rather tinny and mono.

Yep, the ones I've heard sound worse as well, and only R1-4 are using 64
kbps, with the others mostly using 40 kbps and the World Service using just
20 kbps on both WMA and Real.

I don't know how much it costs to stream the World Service, although I'd
imagine a huge audience base (a weekly reach of 173 million for its
programes, I understand, over various platforms) on a global scale.
Bandwidth for that probably isn't cheap, so using a very low bitrate
probably mitigates the cost.

As an occasional domestic listener, I find the quality of WS on
Freeview/DAB to be acceptable (my biggest bug-bear being such aggressive
compression; I'm on digital in London, not on SW in Lagos). Not good,
obviously, but acceptable. Certainly better than 648kHz, but I concede
that should not even be a point to make!

Any comments on my assertion that the BBC's audio engineering of the streams
prior to them being encoded to the Real codec is grossly incompetent? I've
been told that they're received off-air via digital satellite, then
transcoded to an even lower bit rate. "Butchery" is the word I think I'm
looking for.

The joys of out-sourcing. Siemens receive the stations from digital
satellite in Maidenhead and transcode them there. I understand plans are
afoot to have the BBC encode the radio streams, direct from network
distribution, at Broadcasting House.

I was also told by someone that the streams used to be at 64 kbps and they
were then reduced to 32 kbps, which is the bit rate they stayed at until
2007. Do you know which year it was they were reduced from 64 kbps?

The streams went from a top rate of 64k to a top rate of 44k when Listen
Again came about. I wasn't aware of a top limit of 32k at any point, but
I seldom listen online.

wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
wrote:
As I believe I've commented befo it's not ATRAC3, but the
RealAudio G2 codec. This was introduced with RealAudio 6. Atrac3
didn't come about until RealAudio 8.

That's even worse then.

There are also Windows Media Audio streams, although the only one I
can get to play is rather tinny and mono.

Yep, the ones I've heard sound worse as well, and only R1-4 are
using 64 kbps, with the others mostly using 40 kbps and the World
Service using just 20 kbps on both WMA and Real.

I don't know how much it costs to stream the World Service, although
I'd imagine a huge audience base (a weekly reach of 173 million for
its programes, I understand, over various platforms) on a global
scale. Bandwidth for that probably isn't cheap, so using a very low
bitrate probably mitigates the cost.

As an occasional domestic listener, I find the quality of WS on
Freeview/DAB to be acceptable (my biggest bug-bear being such
aggressive compression; I'm on digital in London, not on SW in
Lagos). Not good, obviously, but acceptable. Certainly better than
648kHz, but I concede that should not even be a point to make!


The WS is a bit of a one-off, I'll grant you. About what proportion of
people listen to the Internet radio streams (excluding the WS) are UK
residents and what proportion come from overseas?


Any comments on my assertion that the BBC's audio engineering of the
streams prior to them being encoded to the Real codec is grossly
incompetent? I've been told that they're received off-air via
digital satellite, then transcoded to an even lower bit rate.
"Butchery" is the word I think I'm looking for.

The joys of out-sourcing.


According to what Dickie Mint has said about the relationship between
Siemens and the BBC, he said that the BBC can still specify how things and
what equipment to use and so on, and they're still in overall control. If
that is the case then the BBC is fully responsible, IMO.


Siemens receive the stations from digital
satellite in Maidenhead and transcode them there. I understand plans
are afoot to have the BBC encode the radio streams, direct from
network distribution, at Broadcasting House.


Any idea when this will be implemented? And more importantly, do you know
what bit rate and audio codec the streams will be using?

BTW, I heard that the BBC is going to start using a Content Delivery Network
to help with its streaming bandwidth requirements. Is that true, and if so
any idea when they'll start using it?


I was also told by someone that the streams used to be at 64 kbps
and they were then reduced to 32 kbps, which is the bit rate they
stayed at until 2007. Do you know which year it was they were
reduced from 64 kbps?

The streams went from a top rate of 64k to a top rate of 44k when
Listen Again came about. I wasn't aware of a top limit of 32k at any
point, but I seldom listen online.


I wrote in an article in September 2006 on my website that R1, R2 and R3
were 32 kbps, so I will have checked that that was the bit rate they were
using prior to writing the article, and from memory I think they were using
32 kbps for some time before that as well. I remember that

The perpetrators should definitely be tried for crimes against audio, that's
for sure.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

wrote:
The DOG is there on all content, but if it's BBC Three content, the
small transparent "BBC" in the very top left corner of the iPlayer
version is vastly preferable to the broadcast BBC Three logo.

I am afraid to report that the DOG on recent BBC Three iPlayer content
is now consistent with the broadcast version.

ESB

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:44:13 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
[email protected] wrote:

GCap, the UK's largest commercial radio group, provides 128 kbps WMA
Internet streams for virtually all of the stations it owns, and these are at
far higher quality than the stations are at on DAB.

I'm not sure that GCap are shining examples of a commitment to
quality, really.

The BBC on the other hand is providing 64 kbps ATRAC3 streams, at very poor
audio quality, and towards the end of 2006 they were using just 32 kbps
ATRAC3 for the streams.

Last time I looked the BBC were providing RealMedia streams using
'Real' codecs. Where does this ATRAC3 stuff come from?

--

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:25:41 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
[email protected] wrote:

I wrote in an article in September 2006 on my website that R1, R2 and R3
were 32 kbps, so I will have checked that that was the bit rate they were
using prior to writing the article, and from memory I think they were using
32 kbps for some time before that as well. I remember that

ISTR that the streaming adjusts to the speed of your internet
connection... So if your kit is not up to 64kbps streaming then it'll
step down to 56, 52, 48, 44, 40, 36, 32, 24, etc...
--

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:25:41 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
[email protected] wrote:

I wrote in an article in September 2006 on my website that R1, R2
and R3 were 32 kbps, so I will have checked that that was the bit
rate they were using prior to writing the article, and from memory I
think they were using 32 kbps for some time before that as well. I
remember that

ISTR that the streaming adjusts to the speed of your internet
connection... So if your kit is not up to 64kbps streaming then it'll
step down to 56, 52, 48, 44, 40, 36, 32, 24, etc...


I was on broadband at the time, so my connection could easily handle the bit
rates that the BBC provides for its Internet streams.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Zero Tolerance wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:44:13 GMT, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
[email protected] wrote:

GCap, the UK's largest commercial radio group, provides 128 kbps WMA
Internet streams for virtually all of the stations it owns, and
these are at far higher quality than the stations are at on DAB.

I'm not sure that GCap are shining examples of a commitment to
quality, really.


They've been providing quality that outclasses the quality of the BBC's
Internet radio streams for about a year now, so what does that say about the
BBC?


The BBC on the other hand is providing 64 kbps ATRAC3 streams, at
very poor audio quality, and towards the end of 2006 they were using
just 32 kbps ATRAC3 for the streams.

Last time I looked the BBC were providing RealMedia streams using
'Real' codecs. Where does this ATRAC3 stuff come from?


I thought they'd be using ATRAC3, which is a codec that's available in
RealAudio 8. Real supports loads of different codecs, not just ones that it
designs itself.

Anyway, someone else has already said that the BBC is using the Real G2
audio codec for its streams, which is even worse than if they'd have been
using ATRAC3!


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm