RE: [backstage] So was *this* what Mr. Cridland was referring to recently?
Currently we're using old servers held together by string and sealing wax, run on our behalf by Siemens, and being waited on hand and foot by trained engineers to eke the very last amount of life out of their tired motherboards. They use software from Digital Rapids: http://www.digital-rapids.com/ http://www.digital-rapids.com/ Judging by the number of tickets I've seen raised for the boxes over the last couple of weeks, James really isn't joking! -- Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global News Division * http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ * 702NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH
Re: [backstage] So was *this* what Mr. Cridland was referring to recently?
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Woods wrote: Tech question - what encoder(s) are you using? If it's software in realtime or close-to-realtime, please (please please) say it's Lame 3.97. If the backend is using the Fraunhofer FhG codec, I think I might contemplate going and banging my head against a wall for a little while. Currently we're using old servers held together by string and sealing wax, run on our behalf by Siemens, and being waited on hand and foot by trained engineers to eke the very last amount of life out of their tired motherboards. They use software from Digital Rapids: http://www.digital-rapids.com/ Coyopa goes live shortly (actually, shhh, it's live now, we're just not publishing the files yet) and it will be using software from twofour: http://www.twofourgroup.com/ - I don't know the actual codec we're using; it's a choice for our contractor. MP3 is not our longterm codec choice. I think many are of the opinion that Lame is a higher quality and more efficient software codec than the FhG codec. It certainly excels at VBR encoding and quality at lower bitrates (circa 128kbps, which is where the BBC is initially encoding their stuff). In fact, it's (from memory) 80k for 5live and 5livese, 128k for everything else, except 192k for Radio 3. Again, this is not our longterm bitrate choice neither. I refuse to be drawn! ;) A question / request to BBC techies who have sorted this out: VBR is widely supported across PC, portable and handheld devices. Is VBR encoding on the cards for the future / could it be? No, it's not; VBR is not a good solution for streaming files, which requires CBR to work effectively as I recall. While Coyopa will be creating files to download, given those same files will be used for streaming, we'll be using CBR for those. We're currently prohibited from using, say, progressive download techniques for our streams, due to rights reasons. The BBC Embedded Media Player buffers approx five seconds of audio as a result (which also enables us to offer full navigation throughout audio and video files). Hope all that's interesting to people.
RE: [backstage] So was *this* what Mr. Cridland was referring to recently?
Christopher Woods wrote: Tech question - what encoder(s) are you using? If it's software in realtime or close-to-realtime, please (please please) say it's Lame 3.97. If the backend is using the Fraunhofer FhG codec, I think I might contemplate going and banging my head against a wall for a little while. Wait, what? You don't believe in inventors being able to profit directly from their inventions by selling software? I mean, there are lots of things wrong with the patent system, but it's not like FhG are patent trolls or this is a submarine. They're (co-)inventors, and they even sell software based on it, not simply lying back and collecting on past IP... I'm more for the best quality for the price, regardless of whether it's free or not :) The FhG codec has some strange alternatives to otherwise-standard VBR techniques, (Original File Length), and didn't actually have VBR encoding capability until comparatively recently (both Lame and Xing (spit) had VBR before that). I think many are of the opinion that Lame is a higher quality and more efficient software codec than the FhG codec. It certainly excels at VBR encoding and quality at lower bitrates (circa 128kbps, which is where the BBC is initially encoding their stuff). If they're using really expensive hardware codecs then that's their choice, but I suspect they've gone the software route because it's far more cost-effective. And above that, Lame is FOSS. Bar the possible licencing to Fraunhofer for overall use of the MP3 technology, which is likely unavoidable, it'd make little sense not to use it. A question / request to BBC techies who have sorted this out: VBR is widely supported across PC, portable and handheld devices. Is VBR encoding on the cards for the future / could it be? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] So was *this* what Mr. Cridland was referring to recently?
YES!! Just for the lazy, One thing conspicuously missing from the current iPlayer site is the provision of RSS feeds http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedfactory/. For those who want to consume our content via their RSS reader, or who want to create mashups http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6375525.stm of the iPlayer site - good news - every page has an RSS feed. You can even subscribe to a feed of an arbitrary search query, allowing you to use third party feed readers to alert you when your favourite programmes arrive Be happy backstagers Dafyd Jones wrote: See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/06/bbc_iplayer_20_sneak_preview.html... lots of pictures :D On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/25/bbc_iplayer_update/ our MP3 prediction was correct! Woohoo! Plus, streaming radio gets a live rewind button. These updates look really nice and long-awaited, so kudos to all who helped make it a reality. :) (MP3! Yes!) Tech question - what encoder(s) are you using? If it's software in realtime or close-to-realtime, please (please please) say it's Lame 3.97. If the backend is using the Fraunhofer FhG codec, I think I might contemplate going and banging my head against a wall for a little while. -- e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] w: www.dafyd.me.uk http://www.dafyd.me.uk m: 07834 356 324 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] So was *this* what Mr. Cridland was referring to recently?
Christopher Woods wrote: Tech question - what encoder(s) are you using? If it's software in realtime or close-to-realtime, please (please please) say it's Lame 3.97. If the backend is using the Fraunhofer FhG codec, I think I might contemplate going and banging my head against a wall for a little while. Wait, what? You don't believe in inventors being able to profit directly from their inventions by selling software? I mean, there are lots of things wrong with the patent system, but it's not like FhG are patent trolls or this is a submarine. They're (co-)inventors, and they even sell software based on it, not simply lying back and collecting on past IP... adam - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] So was *this* what Mr. Cridland was referring to recently?
2008/6/26 Adam Lindsay [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Christopher Woods wrote: Tech question - what encoder(s) are you using? If it's software in realtime or close-to-realtime, please (please please) say it's Lame 3.97. If the backend is using the Fraunhofer FhG codec, I think I might contemplate going and banging my head against a wall for a little while. Wait, what? You don't believe in inventors being able to profit directly from their inventions by selling software? The holders of software _idea_ patents don't profit directly from their software - that's what free software businesses do - they profit from government-granted monopoly. Don't you believe in free markets? :-) -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
