"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message


In article
, Arny
Krueger

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? :-)


I agree that 192k AAC should be very good.

I therefore vacate my earlier statements that the baseline was probably
poor. It could be really very good.

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.

I went to listen to it, but found that I couldn't easily get a file to do a
more careful analysis with.

I wanted to verify that the bitrate was the only signficiant difference, for
example.