In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in message


Anyway, the subject of HD sound may have been discussed in this group,
but I clicked on the link above, and then in my toolbar searched "HD
Sound" and "BBC HD Sound", there isn't such a thing is there?

"HD Sound" and "BBC HD Sound" are marketing terms, and are therefore
whatever their authors want them to be.

That is my understanding of how the BBC decided to apply the term. Just a
label to distinguish it from the established streams. If anyone is upset by
that I guess their best bet is to argue with the BBC.

Personally I can't say I'm bothered by the name they've given to it. I
guess it is more 'listener friendly' than terms like 'XHQ' and 'XHX' used
during the actual Proms experiment.

In the case of this use of the terminology by the BBC, it is probable
that the previous standard was so low that subjective improvement is
actually possible.

Not sure about that. The normal R3 stream is 192k aac I personally think
that sounds quite good.[1] The 'HD Sound' is 320k aac. Measurements show it
is a bit closer to the source. But I'm not really sure how much 'better' it
sounds for various reasons. However I think the general reaction during the
Proms experiment was that it sounded 'better'.

But the Beebs claim isn't anything more than a compressed stream at a
higher bit rate. You didn't fall for the BBC guff did you Ken?

I suspect that the BBC "Hi def" material may actually sound better, on
the grounds that the earlier (baseline) effort was actually quite
audibly flawed.

Again, I would not personally go so far as to say the existing 192k stream
sounds "audibly flawed" without any context or reference point. [1 again]
May not be perfect, but what is? :-) So I'll leave such subjective
comments to those happier to pronounce on the matter who have also knocked
the weevils out of their receiving setup. FWIW I enjoy the R3 stream, and
look forwards to the choice of also having the higher rate version.

I presume that since you are outwith the UK you were unable to hear either
the 320k or the 192k streams.

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Perhaps worth qualifying that in the usual way. That the results people
will hear may be affected by the computer, etc, they use.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html