Breakaway Advice

[ChiefOperator]

I think I may try Breakaway and use the 8200 as a stereo encoder. I just want to see what it sounds like. I'll go up late one night (midnight or so) and give it a shot.

Please let us know how it works.

I've read about many people evaluating this software. Is there anyone who has permanently installed Breakaway as the station's main processor, especially in a competitive market, who can give a report? I'm curious how it's working out?

Thanks!

 

[chriscollins]

I think I may try Breakaway and use the 8200 as a stereo encoder. I just want to see what it sounds like. I'll go up late one night (midnight or so) and give it a shot.

Please let us know how it works.

I've read about many people evaluating this software. Is there anyone who has permanently installed Breakaway as the station's main processor, especially in a competitive market, who can give a report? I'm curious how it's working out?

Thanks!

Will do, chief. I just want to see what all the fuss is about. I actually have the 8200 sounding quite nice now. My market is behind the times on processing. One of my other stations has an 8300 (which is the highest end box in my market). It sounds really nice, because I don't have to push it too hard to equal the loudness of the other stations.

 

[gtomas]

More HQ streams:
http://208.85.243.168:8010/listen.pls (Breakaway Live)
http://216.83.140.146:8850/listen.pls (Breakaway Broadcast Processor)
http://turadioenvivo.com/cast/tunein.php/feelings/playlist.pls (Stereotool 6.10)

If HQ is supposed to stand for high quality, that is not 48 kbps or 64 (despite the HE-AAC), but 128 kbps...


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[satech]

If HQ is supposed to stand for high quality, that is not 48 kbps or 64 (despite the HE-AAC), but 128 kbps...

One station around here is calling their 128 kbps MP3 stream "full CD quality".

With AAC/MP4, anything less than 64 kbps sounds awfully sizzly and metallic to me -- but still better than the swishy "underwater" sound of low-bitrate WMA streams.

 

[gtomas]

One station around here is calling their 128 kbps MP3 stream "full CD quality".

If it was AAC at 128 kbps, they could claim that with some credibility (AAC at 128 kbps was found to be transparent in the EBU listening test). But MP3 needs over 160 kbps to approach that.

With AAC/MP4, anything less than 64 kbps sounds awfully sizzly and metallic to me -- but still better than the swishy "underwater" sound of low-bitrate WMA streams.

When you say "AAC/MP4" (typically a container format) you are probably referring to HE-AAC aka aacPlus codec. And yes HE-AAC aka aacPlus has that metallic sound of the high end, which is a consequence of using SBR technology to achieve full frequency bandwidth at these low bitrates. HE-AAC aka aacPlus was never found to be transparent (indistinguishable from the original) for that very reason.

Nevertheless, HE-AAC is the best codec for very low bitrates and definitely sounds much better than typical swishy low-bitrate WMA (or MP3) stream. It's just not as good as regular AAC with bitrates higher than 96 kbps.


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[satech]

And yes HE-AAC aka aacPlus has that metallic sound of the high end, which is a consequence of using SBR technology to achieve full frequency bandwidth at these low bitrates. HE-AAC aka aacPlus was never found to be transparent (indistinguishable from the original) for that very reason.

I just wish HE-AAC stream players and HD Radios had the option to turn off the SBR. There is usually a delay after starting the stream or tuning in the HD channel before the SBR kicks in, and before it does I can hear that the audio is more narrowband but also much less artificial-sounding. Especially with "troublesome" program material (bells, tambourines, muted trumpets, etc.) I'd rather hear smooth 7 or 8 kHz audio than sizzly, screechy 15 kHz audio.

 

[gtomas]

HE-AAC vs AAC (was e: Breakaway Advice)

There is usually a delay after starting the stream or tuning in the HD channel before the SBR kicks in, and before it does I can hear that the audio is more narrowband but also much less artificial-sounding.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about! Until the SBR kicks in, you are only hearing the low band which is encoded with AAC but at half sample rate, so the response is roughly up to 8 kHz. The SBR then fills the rest of the spectrum (the high band) but as it is artificially re-generated, it always has that metallic sound to it. It never has the fidelity to the source material.

Especially with "troublesome" program material (bells, tambourines, muted trumpets, etc.) I'd rather hear smooth 7 or 8 kHz audio than sizzly, screechy 15 kHz audio.

Well that makes two of us

Let me again clearly state that no other codec performs better than HE-AAC, at very low bitrates. This IS the best codec for very low bitrate streaming.

But at higher bitrates (96 kbps and above) there are better codecs, such as the AAC on its own. It's unfortunate that HE-AAC wasn't made scalable, so that at certain (high enough) bitrate, the SBR is turned off. The way they made it, HE-AAC always has replicated high frequencies, even if the bitrate is high enough that AAC alone would do a better job.

From my extensive listening to these codecs, that threshold bitrate is 96 kbps. Up to 64 kbps HE-AAC sounds better, but at 96 kbps and above, AAC is much more natural and faithful in the high frequencies and practically artifact free.

Even at 96 kbps, but especially at 128 kbps, AAC sounds amazing - better than analog FM radio, what should have been the goal of any digital radio transmission, if you ask me. HE-AAC aka aacPlus (aka AAC+) can never sound as good.


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[ChiefOperator]

AAC sounds amazing - better than analog FM radio, what should have been the goal of any digital radio transmission

I agree Goran that that should be the goal. Unfortunately, the HD stations that I've heard sound indistinguishable from regular FM and the program content is mediocre to say the least. True to history, and once again, radio gives a half-a$$ effort.

 

[BobOnTheJob]

AAC sounds amazing - better than analog FM radio, what should have been the goal of any digital radio transmission

I agree Goran that that should be the goal. Unfortunately, the HD stations that I've heard sound indistinguishable from regular FM and the program content is mediocre to say the least. True to history, and once again, radio gives a half-a$$ effort.

I agree with HD on FM sounding about equal to analog FM--as long as there isn't an HD-2 channel involved. Once they split the data stream allocation, the HD-1 sounds inferior to analog FM to my ears. So to re-cap : 1) no improvement in quality 2) less coverage than analog 3) causes interference to adjacent frequency neighbors 4) costs a lot to implement and use 5) dramatically ups the transmitter site HVAC cost 6) dramatically increases the transmitter site utility bill 7) almost no one is listening and 8) at best, it splits the audience that's already listening into smaller pieces--know any newcomers to FM radio that were lured in by the appeal of HD Radio? What's not to love about a technology like that?

 

[ChiefOperator]

AAC sounds amazing - better than analog FM radio, what should have been the goal of any digital radio transmission

I agree Goran that that should be the goal. Unfortunately, the HD stations that I've heard sound indistinguishable from regular FM and the program content is mediocre to say the least. True to history, and once again, radio gives a half-a$$ effort.

I agree with HD on FM sounding about equal to analog FM--as long as there isn't an HD-2 channel involved. Once they split the data stream allocation, the HD-1 sounds inferior to analog FM to my ears. So to re-cap : 1) no improvement in quality 2) less coverage than analog 3) causes interference to adjacent frequency neighbors 4) costs a lot to implement and use 5) dramatically ups the transmitter site HVAC cost 6) dramatically increases the transmitter site utility bill 7) almost no one is listening and 8) at best, it splits the audience that's already listening into smaller pieces--know any newcomers to FM radio that were lured in by the appeal of HD Radio? What's not to love about a technology like that?

LMAO.. Your comments are so true and made me laugh! Yes, remember all the HD cheerleaders predicting that HD was going to save radio? When I mention HD to my friends, they think I'm talking about satellite! When I explain to them HD or even let them listen to a HD channel, most simply yawn and reply, "Yah, so what, radio around here sucks anyway."