I have found quite a few stations with high quality sound (for streaming).....classic rockers 181.FM Eagle and DC Rock (on Live 365) to name a couple. Both of these stations stream at 128 MP3. It's obvious to me that both strive to produce a high quality sound. I have also noticed that CBS stations streamed at 64 AAC are sounding very good lately as well. But nothing sounds "perfect", even though I would think the technology is there to better approach perfection while consuming a "reasonable" amount of bittage..... My question is...will streaming sound quality increase in the future? Or is it mandated somewhere that sound quality of internet broadcasts cannot surpass a certain level? Just wondering this because if I owned a station I would stream at 128 AAC (don't know if this exists), theoretically doubling the sound quality of 128 MP3 and 64 AAC, to try to achieve ever increasing sound quality. Can people in the know comment on the future trend of sound quality over the internet?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Has streaming quality reached its (possibly mandated) highest plateau?
- Thread starter Bobf
- Start date
I used 128 AAC for a bit, but as an alternate channel. I think the issue here is overall accessibility. MP3 is the defacto standard, everything can use it. While there are some tweaks and certain versions of LAME to eek out the best possible sound from an MP3 stream, you're right, it's not as good as it could be.
AAC is kind of breaking through, but is still not mainstream. I completely think it's a much more superior codec and I hope it becomes more standard.
AAC is kind of breaking through, but is still not mainstream. I completely think it's a much more superior codec and I hope it becomes more standard.
Honestly most 128k mp3 stations would be better off streaming at 48kbps or 64kbps HE-AAC v2.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
xmusicmatt said:
I agree 100%. Anything over 64 is wasted on computer speakers. Not many users stream to really good audio units and speakers that can reproduce better sound. Same for car radio's. Besides, high-speed streams through a mobile device (1) eat more of your data plan (few people have unlimited data) and (2) are more subject to drop-outs.
He-AAC (or AAC+) is a primarily streaming format that is designed to put out good quality sounds at much lower bitrates than mp3 or wma. I've heard decent quality audio as low as 32kbps. It's a very economical format bitrate-wise, and 56-64 kbps will yield quality as good as or better than 128k mp3. This is also an advantage when streaming over 3G networks with a smartphone (like I do). Pandora, Slacker, IHeart, CBS and just about every other big webcasting concern uses AAC+.
However, as AAC+ is a format designed for high quality with lower bitrates, anything over 64K yields very little difference in perceived sound quality. So 128k AAC+ would essentially be wasted (I wish the people at WFMT Chicago realized this).
There are many advantages to streaming in HE-AAC. Bandwidth costs are slashed considerably and no royalty is required to use the codec. Mp3 and WMA are pretty stale as far as streaming technology is concerned. And considering that virtually every media player is compatible with it, and most of the big webcasting concerns have adopted it, I"d say the codec has reached mainstream status.
So, will it get even better? I'd say yes. There are already rival codecs doing the same thing, the open source Ogg Vorbis, perhaps the closest in quality to AAC+. However, it's not used by many streamers and not compatible with some such as iTunes. There is also WMA Professional, but it isn't used much. And I'm sure there are efforts to yield even better results at lower bitrates.
If you're looking for perfect though, then you likely won't find it in streaming audio. All streams use lossy compression, so there will be loss of sound quality no matter what. A few stations do stream at 320k, which is the closest you can probably get, but it may be subject to buffering on slower connections. Compressed audio has improved greatly over the years, and I still see it getting better.
However, as AAC+ is a format designed for high quality with lower bitrates, anything over 64K yields very little difference in perceived sound quality. So 128k AAC+ would essentially be wasted (I wish the people at WFMT Chicago realized this).
There are many advantages to streaming in HE-AAC. Bandwidth costs are slashed considerably and no royalty is required to use the codec. Mp3 and WMA are pretty stale as far as streaming technology is concerned. And considering that virtually every media player is compatible with it, and most of the big webcasting concerns have adopted it, I"d say the codec has reached mainstream status.
So, will it get even better? I'd say yes. There are already rival codecs doing the same thing, the open source Ogg Vorbis, perhaps the closest in quality to AAC+. However, it's not used by many streamers and not compatible with some such as iTunes. There is also WMA Professional, but it isn't used much. And I'm sure there are efforts to yield even better results at lower bitrates.
If you're looking for perfect though, then you likely won't find it in streaming audio. All streams use lossy compression, so there will be loss of sound quality no matter what. A few stations do stream at 320k, which is the closest you can probably get, but it may be subject to buffering on slower connections. Compressed audio has improved greatly over the years, and I still see it getting better.
FredLeonard said:
I don't know what others have as their speakers but my Yamaha computer speakers and my car Lexicon speakers are noticeably better, much better, at higher bit rates than at low. I am a music listener exclusively (no ball games or rant radio) so audio quality is important to me.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
landtuna said:
I think you may be the exception rather than rule. I'd also guess you are listening to recorded audio (on CD, on USB stick or on a phone or other music player), not to streaming audio.
In any case, Internet broadcasters should offer both high and low bandwidth streams. My pet peeve is techies who have a mother-knows-best, we-eat-what's-set-before-us attitude. I'm partial to consumer choice.
FredLeonard said:
The majority of my listening is streaming terrestrial stations over the 'Net via computer and not phone. When in the car it is exclusively FM-HD2.
And I'm willing to bet that a number of cars have upgraded audio systems. Even the modestly priced econo-boxes have upgrade options for their audio systems.
We chose the AAC format, offering two streams, one for "bandwidth saving" at 48k (much better than a comparable mp3 stream yet QUITE good) and a 128k, same format. NO complaints, in fact "compliments" are frequent. And, when stacked against many a corporate large-city stream, our bandwidth is wider and the stream is cleaner. We're actually wider than some FM's! It's all up to the operators (station owners) to provide a good quality stream. Fully agree that the mp3 format is inferior and hopefully, "on its way out." (as people discover better quality through the AAC)
Is there a huge difference in going higher than what we chose? Sure, if we TELL you its better, you might listen for it. But, most listeners, if the stream doesn't have that annoying"mp3-ish ringing" in it will stay and listen, to an even moderate quality stream. We chose, however to provide an exceptional one in the newer format.
Choose a player and tell us what you think, relative to this thread's topic!
http://i1430.com/Listen.html or visit the google play and I-tunes stores searching for "WION"
Is there a huge difference in going higher than what we chose? Sure, if we TELL you its better, you might listen for it. But, most listeners, if the stream doesn't have that annoying"mp3-ish ringing" in it will stay and listen, to an even moderate quality stream. We chose, however to provide an exceptional one in the newer format.
Choose a player and tell us what you think, relative to this thread's topic!
http://i1430.com/Listen.html or visit the google play and I-tunes stores searching for "WION"
Verizon Wireless seems to heave the most coverage. Their limited data however will discourage most people from using them. If you want Unlimited data your stuck with T-Mobile, Straight Talk, Net 10, Virgin Mobile, Boost Mobile, Sprint
Virgin Mobile and Boost Mobile use Sprint towers and are pre paid options and Straight Talk to get a nice phone you'll have to shell out $350 up front for an Android. Tmobile, Virgin, offer the iPhone and soon Straight Talk and Net 10.
As for sound quality I wish more stations that are ran by hobbyist could run Stereo Tool as it really cleans up their stations especially for Progressive Rock, Classic Rock, Country, 80s, 70s, 60s formats when set to Web Radio - Pheonix - Pristine and turn off the Stereo Boost.
If more stations used good audio processing I think more folks would take Internet Radio more seriously. Plus it is time more used AAC+ 64Kbps with 44.1 Khz sample rates. This sounds as good as 128K Mp3 but at lessor bandwidth.
Virgin Mobile and Boost Mobile use Sprint towers and are pre paid options and Straight Talk to get a nice phone you'll have to shell out $350 up front for an Android. Tmobile, Virgin, offer the iPhone and soon Straight Talk and Net 10.
As for sound quality I wish more stations that are ran by hobbyist could run Stereo Tool as it really cleans up their stations especially for Progressive Rock, Classic Rock, Country, 80s, 70s, 60s formats when set to Web Radio - Pheonix - Pristine and turn off the Stereo Boost.
If more stations used good audio processing I think more folks would take Internet Radio more seriously. Plus it is time more used AAC+ 64Kbps with 44.1 Khz sample rates. This sounds as good as 128K Mp3 but at lessor bandwidth.
I agree that AAC+ has certainly jumped up in accessibility in recent years. I remember when iTunes 9 added streaming AAC+ support, it was a huge boon to us streamers!
I don't think, however, that AAC+ is mainstream enough to eliminate MP3 altogether. It seems like a risky move to only provide AAC+ stream options. As much as I'd LOVE to have a 128 AAC+ and 64 or 48 AAC+ stream, I still think I'd loose a large chunk of listeners who don't have the players compatible with it.
What are your thoughts? Are we ready, as webcasters, to permanently move off the MP3 train? If not, how soon? What's left in the way? If so, let's do it! Start a movement! HOORAH! etc...
Thanks.
I don't think, however, that AAC+ is mainstream enough to eliminate MP3 altogether. It seems like a risky move to only provide AAC+ stream options. As much as I'd LOVE to have a 128 AAC+ and 64 or 48 AAC+ stream, I still think I'd loose a large chunk of listeners who don't have the players compatible with it.
What are your thoughts? Are we ready, as webcasters, to permanently move off the MP3 train? If not, how soon? What's left in the way? If so, let's do it! Start a movement! HOORAH! etc...
Thanks.
The only listeners you'd lose are Roku and some very old hardware Internet Radio devices and Web player listeners. If you depend on Web Player listeners then your stuck with Mp3 but if not its AAC+ all the way. Unfortunately for me I can't move to AAC+ because RadioLoyalty does not support it (yet) but there will be a new player coming out soon and when that happens maybe AAC+ support and I'll probably move towards it with them. It same cases you'd get more listeners due to the fact that many Android users are stuck with 3G not 4G (Staight Talk, Net10) unless they shell out the $350 for a 4G phone to really support 128K all day long. Plus in areas like Elizabeth City, NC where internet is a damn Joke at upload speeds of 0.10 (Time Warner's Road Runner at their wide band price) and CenturyLink with a mere 0.71 (less than a meg) it is a strain on the net. When Verizon Wireless goes back to Unlimited data I won't have to shell out $575/Mo to just have fast enough Internet upload to support a stable Radio Station. If I could go AAC+ 64K my joke of an Internet here may support it better. Its a real financial strain having to use my Verizon Jetpack to successfully broadcast.
thelegacy said:
We started in the aac format, (had never streamed previously) and have a web player with no issues. Roku loss is no biggie, and not worth the "extra" mp3 badwidth for very few listeners on that platform (vs the larger audience of phone and web.)
Not ONE complaint of "no mp3" stream.
thelegacy said:
Sorry but Stereo Tool is too much of a PC resource hog and as a result I can't use it. I use Breakaway Live instead. Otherwise, I'm with you on net stations using processing.
R
I'd be interested in your AAC+ web player! Is it Flash? HTML5? Other? How about cross-platform/cross-browser compatibility?
Thanks. [/quote]
It's a slightly modified mini browser player, provided by viastreaming.com, modified for appearance and some minor tweaks by our
engineer. If their site doesn't help you to understand it, PM me and I'll have our engineer answer as much as he can to assist you. Works well on all browsers thus far! Flash based.
www.i1430.com and click on the "listen live" for the player to (quickly) load.
Thanks. [/quote]
It's a slightly modified mini browser player, provided by viastreaming.com, modified for appearance and some minor tweaks by our
engineer. If their site doesn't help you to understand it, PM me and I'll have our engineer answer as much as he can to assist you. Works well on all browsers thus far! Flash based.
www.i1430.com and click on the "listen live" for the player to (quickly) load.
AMradiofan,
I've listened to your 128 AAC AM stereo stream. At first I did not understand what you meant by "AM Stereo stream", then I went into your site and found that you stream the actual AM broadcast from the stereo in your office that is picking up the signal from the AM airwaves. The sound is fantastic for AM! This is not the normal way a station streams is it? I always assumed the streamed signal was picked up prior to transmission, processed and streamed. The same signal is also sent to the transmitter....That's why streams of KYW and WPHT (CBS AMs in Philadelphia) sound great at 64 AAC....CBS isn't streaming their "AM" signals are they? In my original post I was implying that streaming quality should beat FM.....and maybe even one AM station I know of.
I've listened to your 128 AAC AM stereo stream. At first I did not understand what you meant by "AM Stereo stream", then I went into your site and found that you stream the actual AM broadcast from the stereo in your office that is picking up the signal from the AM airwaves. The sound is fantastic for AM! This is not the normal way a station streams is it? I always assumed the streamed signal was picked up prior to transmission, processed and streamed. The same signal is also sent to the transmitter....That's why streams of KYW and WPHT (CBS AMs in Philadelphia) sound great at 64 AAC....CBS isn't streaming their "AM" signals are they? In my original post I was implying that streaming quality should beat FM.....and maybe even one AM station I know of.
OTA stations streaming on the web need to be using an audio source feed other than their AM/FM signals. Using those sources subjects the already multiband processed audio to further degradation. Preferably, you should use a signal straight from the program channel, and process it with a separate processor that is designed specifically for webcasting.
R
R
- Status