Electric proms in HD sound now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/electricproms/2010/

--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...

Electric proms in HD sound now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/electricproms/2010/

--

Hi Ken, I only found your post just now, I thought this group was dead?
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?
From what I can discern the BBC's "HD Sound" is just a higher bit rate,
a search reveals nothing else apart from it is the Beebs higher bit rate
and only available via it's iplayer, so internet only on a browser and from
the Beeb only!
I did a quick search on "Hi-Def sound", then widened it to "Hi-Def audio",
try it, you'll get results covering everything from Dolby/DTS, through to
Blu-Ray, SACD etc etc, covering 16/48, 24/96, 24/192, etc. 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?




Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in
message

Hi Ken, I only found your post just now, I thought this
group was dead?

Despite you bringing the RAO guttersnipes in, the group seems to have
recovered.

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.

From what I can discern the BBC's "HD Sound" is just a
higher bit rate,

That would appear to be very similar to other practice in the industry.

a search reveals nothing else apart from it is the Beebs
higher bit rate and only available via it's iplayer, so
internet only on a browser and from the Beeb only!

Not exactly an industry standard, check!

I did a quick search on "Hi-Def sound", then widened it
to "Hi-Def audio", try it, you'll get results covering
everything from Dolby/DTS, through to Blu-Ray, SACD etc
etc, covering 16/48, 24/96, 24/192, etc.

I think we should take "Hi Def" to mean "higher def". While it is relatively
easy to raise the definition of a recording in technical terms, it is hard
to raise the defintion of a recording in terms of reliable perceptions.

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.


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.

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

"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.

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message



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.

OK. I was able to make some recordings. The BBC also kindly let me have a
few 'source side' LPCM versions for comparison. All being well, the results
should appear shortly.

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

There were some other differences. Hard to be sure of their significance.
But once I've published what I found, you and others can draw what
conclusions you feel are appropriate on that! :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
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

"Fed Up Lurker" wrote in message
...

I did a quick search on "Hi-Def sound", then widened it to "Hi-Def audio",
try it, you'll get results covering everything from Dolby/DTS, through to
Blu-Ray, SACD etc etc, covering 16/48, 24/96, 24/192, etc. 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?


Well I'm not falling for *your* guff!

I deprecate the use of the term "high definition" in respect to audio as
it's meaning is anything but clear. Anyway is "definition" what we want from
audio? what's wrong with the old-fashioned "fidelity", we know what that
means, the reproduced sound being faithful to the original.

It's easy to throw numbers at digital audio, 96k/192k, 16bit/24bit/32bit
etc, but it's all meaningless unless there is a subjective improvement. And
I'm far from convinced that these larger numbers actually make for improved
subjective results under normal listening conditions.

David.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger
wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message



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.

OK. I was able to make some recordings. The BBC also
kindly let me have a few 'source side' LPCM versions for
comparison. All being well, the results should appear
shortly.

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

There were some other differences. Hard to be sure of
their significance. But once I've published what I found,
you and others can draw what conclusions you feel are
appropriate on that! :-)

Based on other evidence I've seen, saying there were "some other
differences" would have to be British understatement, to almost an extreme
degree! ;-)