iradio--What's it all About?
Posted by: Russ on 04 October 2012
I sit here tonight listening to Linn Classics and my mind wanders back to either 1958 or '59, sitting in my grandparents' house, listening breathlessly to the rantings of a new leader in Cuba named Fidel Castro. Of course we didn't understand a word of it, but still it was thrilling, hearing him through the static on the trusty old A****er Kent, on which they had listened 20 years before to reporting from London during the Blitz.
I have been listening to and breaking in my new Superuniti/Guru QM10 two system. I have been listening to CD s on a cheapie player, which, though better than anything I have ever experienced in the audio realm, will no doubt improve with streaming. But primarily, I have been listening to and quite literally amazed by the quality of internet radio. Even my untrained and somewhat aging ears can hear the difference between 22, 48, and 56 kb/sec on the one hand and Linn Classics at 320, on the other. I have to admit that the difference between 296 and 320 escapes me. But what truly amazes is how good the stations streaming at lower bit rates sound. And the higher ones are, to put it conservatively--simply astounding. I am too old to really be a fan of the kind of music Radio Paradise plays--but I do not have to tell anyone here, I am certain, about the sound quality. And, Heaven help me--a lot of the music is starting to interest me. (There is nothing worse than an old man getting interested in younger women or young people's music! 
)
I do find myself wondering--should anyone know:
First, what are the economics of internet streaming radio. Some "stations" are commercial and have advertising just as they do with broadcast frequencies. Others are publicly supported and get at least some of their support from listeners. I suppose still others such as Linn create inferences in listeners' minds relating the quality of their stations with the quality of their boxes--not to mention the fact that they provide the best possible reasons to download their music. But I have listened to some which are of very high quality and for at least an hour, I never hear anyone speak a word. Are these stations only doing it for the good feelings and vibrations they get from providing such a fine service?
Second, is it hugely more expensive to host a station streaming at 320 kb/sec than, say, at 22? If so, where does the bulk of the greater expense lie?
And finally, does it appear that, like almost everything in the electronics/audio/video/computer sphere that with time will come even higher bit rates--something resembling CD quality or (gasp!) truly hidef stuff similar to 24 x 192 download quality? Or do contractual or hardware costs stand in the way?
As for me, I have become such an Iradio junkie that I may never need vinyl, CD s, FM, or streaming ever again! At any moment, I expect the young Fidel to begin holding forth once again as on the day he siezed power--but without all the static.
Best regards,
Russ
biglebo and Greg: Unlike Gary, I do not consider RParadise "dire", but I am just too damned old to appreciate the music--even though I have no doubt those who do are not misguided. My son says I need to be put on porch in a rocker with someone to spoon oatmeal into my mouth and wipe off my chin when I drool. 
What keeps me listening to the station, though is the unique sound you mention, Lebo, and the particular kind of bass. It enables me to hear what my speakers are capable of--something you have to go way up on the volume dial, I think, to appreciate with most (and I emphasize most) symphonic music. Am I correct in thinking that part of what one hears on RParadise is some sort of optimizing of what people call pace, rythmn and timing? Also, part of what I think I am hearing is separation of instruments and voices from each other beyond what I hear elsewhere.
Russ
In my last post, I intended to mention BBC 3. I don't know whether, with the 320 test version I am really getting 320--since it says something like 64 kb/sec. Maybe that is influencing me, but it sounds way less sharply defined and of lesser quality than say, Linn Classical.
By the way, my wife just walked in as I was listening to RParadise. Now, keep in mind that in spite of being my age, she listens to Queen and Bob Marley and loves them. She pointed to the system and said: "Are you having some kind of break down?"
I have not tried Radio 1 but will just to be able to say I'm glad I didn't step in it.
Russ
George Frederick: Far from being uninteresting! Even if everyone in the UK understood that, I certainly did not, so thank you. I can only wish that Public Radio in the 'States were "fiercely independent" of government. The fact is that it is fiercely independent, but only when it does not support the current administration. Otherwise, I believe the word is "pandering". A TV tax, huh? I suppose we can expect that in this country soon enough, followed shortly thereafter by a tax on flushing toilets with running water. Ah well, I suppose then I shall have to either buy a shovel or adjust my definition of what constitutes an acceptable odor. 
(I find I am already doing that on a daily basis. 
In any case, you have explained why HD doesn't sound like HD--'cause here, it aint! You are correct, though--the content of BBC 3 is so good I will continue to listen to it. And I know I say this ad nauseum--but the SU and Gurus, even brand new, are so superior, even with 64 kb/sec source, to anything I have ever owned, that it will do just fine.
Best regards,
Russ
George: I don't mind political point of view--so long as it isn't biased--either to the left or the right. I have to admit my own bias is somewhat to the right, but that having been said, it is fine for me--or anyone else--to have a bias. It is even OK for a privately financed station to have one--just so long as folks like Rush Limbaugh or Charles Mathews don't expect me to take them seriously--I dont' have to listen or pay their sponsors anything. But I deeply resent my tax dollars going to present political point of view-----even if it happens to be my own incorrect one.
Geoff: I am not familiar with using itunes, and have only really used it to download free apps on my iphone. Is there a charge for the BBC3 you describe? And is it an app? Thanks.
Russ
Dear Russ,
I did reply, and I did delete it, as it struck me as an uninteresting reply. I delete more posts by not pressing the post icon or deleting shortly after!
The thrust was that outside the UK on Radio Three you will get a reduced bit rate compared to the UK unless you use a Proxy Server for you internet, as the quality is reserved for the UK for reasons of finance, contracts, and licensing. It is a State organisation that, while it is fiercely independent of government, it is never-the-less financed by a tax on watching television via the TV License Fee, which the government sets in a long term arrangement longer than a parliamentary term. It is answerable for expenditure to a critical public quite as much an often even more critical government. I believe the BBC has it right when the government is critical. It would not be good if the relationship were too comfortable or smooth!
Sorry that you don't get the full quality, but Radio Three is one of the best classical music senders, and the content alone should allow you to overcome the sonic limitations outside the UK.
Very best wishes from George
George, I have to correct you. The BBC is NOT a "state organisation", it is a publicly-funded public service broadcaster - a subtle but very important difference.
Its nominal owner is the Crown (not the state or government - another important difference) in the name of the British public. In effect, it is owned by the licence fee payers (although it is not always fully accountable to them, as we all know ).
It was originally set up in 1922 by six radio set manufacturers under the auspices of the General Post Office - but in 1927 it was incorporated under Royal Charter and became a fully non-commercial entity (although it has never carried adverts at any time in its history). It is in theory at least semi-autonomous (at worst) from the government, and has generally acted thus - particularly in times of strife or crisis (eg govt criticism during the General Strike, the Second World War and the Falklands War). I very much doubt if any government would try to interfere too much as the public would not tolerate Auntie being an arm of the state. It's rather like the NHS in that regard - we all like to moan about it but most of us wouldn't be without it.
The licence fee is certainly set by the government (usually the Home Sec and the Culture Sec) but is subject to negotiation with both the Beeb itself (in the form of the DG) and the BBC Trust - any settlement also has to be approved by Parliament.
The World Service was for many years something of an anomaly - it was paid for by a grant from the Foreign Office, though not under its control. Nowadays it is paid for out of the licence fee. The World Service could thus be deemed to be an instrument of British foreign policy but it generally operates free from F&CO interference.
Of course, how the BBC is funded once the current Charter expires (in 2017 I think) is another question, as the licence fee in its current form in this digital multi-channel age is looking rather untenable. That said, they scored an awful lot of brownie points with the Olympics coverage, and the waning (hopefully!) power of the malign Murdoch in this country means that BBC-bashers no longer have the influence they used to have.
Otherwise I am in full agreement with you