FredLeonard said:
How about my 1966 vintage Fisher 400 receiver and 1957 vintage AR2 speakers?
I think the source material bit rate has a lot to do with sound quality, too, not just the stream rate by itself.
-
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
How about my 1966 vintage Fisher 400 receiver and 1957 vintage AR2 speakers?
I think the source material bit rate has a lot to do with sound quality, too, not just the stream rate by itself.
Robert Bass said:
Would you wear a different pair of EARS to listen to the web vs. over the air too? That would seem an appropriate parallel statement. Sorry, your statement doesn't make sense to me.
Our station gets nothing but COMPLIMENTS on a stream which is AM stereo from a high end consumer receiver because the audio is piped to the web with no additional processing AT ALL, and straight from a high end consumer receiver--because the SOURCE is of great quality, then UPstream to viastreaming.net through a professional multi-channel sound card used for broadcast.
In our case, we're Proud of our on air sound and want to showcase it! It creates positive talk, which terrestrial radio needs! Obviously we could easily choose an FM stream from our translator if we wanted to with the push of one button, but AM stereo is our choice for its unique (high) quality and what it does for us in marketing!
If the BROADCAST sound (of any station) is the best it can be, then piped down the line for web that's what the stream listeners will hear: the station...at it's BEST. There's no "degredation" if the proper engineering is done for webcasting and fed from an on-air receiver.
The AAC format was chosen for WION after testing other technologies. Nothing compared! Our stream's bandwidth is only limited by the NRSC mask mandated by the FCC for the AM stereo signal, but it's still wider than at least 5 big-city Corporate FM's that we've measured on their webstreams from nearby cities! Thus, an AM stereo stream can sound better than some FM streams for sound quality!
We chose to do AM stereo to draw attention to the (high) quality that AM can be, and to put ourselves on the map. We're achieving our goal in both cases, with listeners and engineers!
And to Bob: No, big city stations wouldn't do this. Our goal is to showcase high quality BROADcasting, not just provide an "audio copy" of what's on the air for NETcasting. But, when you dissect the question, it's actually EASIER and less expensive our way. Some stations do this by feeding the web from their modulation monitors. Separate web processing means adding more electrical boxes at more cost for theweb stream, and duplicate chances to introduce more noise or distortion into a SECOND audio chain.
A "real" stream from a receiver means the listener on the web hears what WE hear, and gives us a chance to prove as station owners (AM or FM) how good our stations actually sound!
AMradiofan said:
You just voided your own argument with that statement. Most of your web listeners will be listening with "different ears". By that, I mean cheap PC speakers. That fact throws out whatever audio quality you think your AM receiver has, because most of your web audience won't hear it.
But let's throw audio quality out for a moment and get you thinking outside the box from another, more obvious perspective. Say your AM transmitter gets knocked off the air. What does that leave your web audience with? Not only have you lost your local OTA audience, you've also lost your web audience!
Then there's the EAS system to think about. Why subject your web audience to EAS content that in most cases won't even apply to them? Do you use EAS for weather alerts in your market? If so, your web listener a thousand miles away likely has no use for this content.
Why not put up a separate audio stream as I previously described, in addition to the set up you already have? Then maybe check your web listener statistics after a few months and see if that justifies streaming in both modes? I bet dollars to donuts your higher quality web stream would get more listeners than your “AM receiver” stream does.
R
Robert Bass said:
Unless you've figured out a way to generate income from those distant web listeners, they are largely irrelevant. Sure it is nice to have people all around the world tuned in. It's good for your ego, but not much else. The web listeners who do make a difference are your local listeners. It isn't unusual for people to tune into a station's web stream at work. There are a variety of reasons they do it. The most common is because, in many industrial buildings, it is hard to get decent over the air reception. That is especially true for AM, where massive amounts of fluorescent lights, computers and other interference generators abound. I think you owe it to those people to pass on your EAS alerts. If somebody in the Ukraine is offended by them, they have plenty of other choices. In reality, it probably doesn't bother them very much. One thing you know for sure is those far distant listeners are very unlikely to patronize your local sponsors.
OK AMRadiofan....I think I'm getting closer to an answer to my original question. If you do a side by side comparison of your broadcast AM stereo and your feed of the same broadcast, how does the 128 AAC stream sound different? How about if you do the same comparison with your FM broadcast? With your system, do you have the ability to change the rates on the fly? For example, could you bump it up to 192 or down to 64 and make the same comparison? Now for the real test....How about if you stream a CD being played through your amplifier at 128 AAC? I would love to hear that! The AM and FM feeds are already compressed and degradations may be harder to hear if the stream is good quality. But maybe not.... The CD will definitely not sound the same when streamed, but what quality will the 128 or 192 AAC stream produce? I just hate to hear sizzle and swirl....and that thin, harsh sound.....a little compression never hurts though and can actually be a nice (powerful sounding) effect. Compression is used in a recording studio for that purpose. Have you experimented in these ways?
I listen through an iPhone 3GS (usually Tunein) in the car and through my stereo at home (also with the phone...laptop makes noise), so high quality sound is very important to me. I'm still using 3G and have no streaming problems at any rate I've streamed....But a tip...If you are in the car, turn off your WIFI. I have found through experience that as you drive by WIFI spots, the phone reacts and wants to connect and this "interference" causes dreaded buffering. No persistent buffering problems after I figured out my problem....
I listen through an iPhone 3GS (usually Tunein) in the car and through my stereo at home (also with the phone...laptop makes noise), so high quality sound is very important to me. I'm still using 3G and have no streaming problems at any rate I've streamed....But a tip...If you are in the car, turn off your WIFI. I have found through experience that as you drive by WIFI spots, the phone reacts and wants to connect and this "interference" causes dreaded buffering. No persistent buffering problems after I figured out my problem....
While there's something to be said for being able to switch from the air stream to a board feed if you get knocked off the air, I'm stunned someone is suggesting an AM radio station won't be suitable for listening over tiny PC speakers!
First, garbage in = garbage out. If you feed a heavily over-compressed signal to a data-reduced stream and then listeners tune in via a cheap soundcard and tiny speakers, a bad situation will be made worse. Not only that, if they upgrade to a nicer PC sound system, they'll notice NO improvement from your nasty stream, but improvement from a ton of other streams. Why shouldn't they feed the highest fidelity stream now?
Not only that, but a lot of people have portable internet radio with good fidelity, the ability to listen through their blu ray players or smart TVs, hook up their sound card to an old stereo, or pipe it in to their car stereo with an FM transmitter, cassette adapter, or aux input.
I'd think any AM station which sounds good over the horrible AM radios most people have will sound just fine on any PC speakers out there... including laptop speakers.
Robert, you also argue in the same post:
and
Which is it? Does better sound quality attract more listeners, or is it irrelevant?
Also, have you LISTENED to his stream from the Carver AM stereo receiver he has hooked up? It is GORGEOUS. Sounds fantastic in the car and on the home stereo. His stream is really an example of what AM can do... beats most FMs I've heard for fidelity and fatigue-less listening, hour after hour. I wouldn't change a thing!
(Even if I would, I doubt he'd touch it... this is a man with seriously deep radio convictions.)
First, garbage in = garbage out. If you feed a heavily over-compressed signal to a data-reduced stream and then listeners tune in via a cheap soundcard and tiny speakers, a bad situation will be made worse. Not only that, if they upgrade to a nicer PC sound system, they'll notice NO improvement from your nasty stream, but improvement from a ton of other streams. Why shouldn't they feed the highest fidelity stream now?
Not only that, but a lot of people have portable internet radio with good fidelity, the ability to listen through their blu ray players or smart TVs, hook up their sound card to an old stereo, or pipe it in to their car stereo with an FM transmitter, cassette adapter, or aux input.
I'd think any AM station which sounds good over the horrible AM radios most people have will sound just fine on any PC speakers out there... including laptop speakers.
Robert, you also argue in the same post:
and
Which is it? Does better sound quality attract more listeners, or is it irrelevant?
Also, have you LISTENED to his stream from the Carver AM stereo receiver he has hooked up? It is GORGEOUS. Sounds fantastic in the car and on the home stereo. His stream is really an example of what AM can do... beats most FMs I've heard for fidelity and fatigue-less listening, hour after hour. I wouldn't change a thing!
(Even if I would, I doubt he'd touch it... this is a man with seriously deep radio convictions.)
NightAire, Yes that Carver does sound excellent! WION's 128 AAC feed seems to reproduce it perfectly, but I have never heard AM sound so great so I can't be a good judge. They used to make better AM radios back in the day, but now??? I listened to your AAC 96 stream and you have something to be proud of there as well!
Thank you for the kind words; I keep tweaking away at it.
I remember in 1989 hearing a local AM using a 3-band "David" processor, I think it was called? (an Inovonics product, anyway) on the TX11a and being absolutely blown away at how open, rich and clean the sound was... the local FMs sounded constipated next to this little AM stereo station (KXTD-AM 1530, Wagoner, OK).
Certainly the differences in processors and how they are set make a huge difference in the sound; I'll never argue AM sounds better than FM... OK, I will on a bad night when I feeling particularly crotchety... but when reason is in my head, there's just something about cleanly reproduced amplitude modulation which, even with the potential noise interference, does something nice to sound waves.
I suspect it is partially the "tube amplifier" effect: audiophiles swear by tube amps vs. solid state, techs run the specs and discover the tubs are adding pleasing distortion to the original signal. 8)
WION doesn't sound quite as crisp as I remember KXTD sounding (long since sold, all equipment changed out, and different programming today), but I wonder if KXTD was using the NRSC curve at the time... not sure it was mandatory yet... someone else will remember better than I do. WION is also processed less aggressively than KXTD was (even with their simple box)... WION exchanges KXTD's "punch" for openness and depth... which works for me.
There is a partial truth that is the basis for the original "process web streams independently," and that is that the lower the density and the less peak clipping performed, the better time the data compression codec (mp3, AAC+, etc.) will have deciding what to keep and throw away... in other words, it will sound better.
Consider that most FM stations are compressing the SNOT out of their programming, and you can see why plugging the output of an FM tuner into a sound card and encoding it might give less than ideal results...
...but how about FM radio stations stop FREAKING OUT about being the loudest thing on the dial and process for fidelity? Then they will have a great on-air signal (with no loss in coverage since density = coverage only applies to AM), and it will double as a quality web stream, too.
Yeah, I know: keep dreaming... :
The density vs. fidelity issue is one of the things I struggle with on my little web stream. Here I am, trying to duplicate the sound of the hot-rockin', flame-throwin' top 40s of the 1980s, and many of them created a "wall of noise." I aim more for the track-to-track consistency and limited fade-outs than actually getting the kind of density you'd see from a couple of Audio Prizims in front of an 8100A with an XT/2 limiter chassis, all set for "blowtorch."
Most stations today (I believe, based on listening) don't use a ton of AGC but deeply limit and clip for most of their density. The result is programming that doesn't pump and breathe, but is razor-flat across the top... very loud, and fatiguing to my ears.
Stations in the 80s were more likely to use TONS of AGC, resulting in "coloring" of the recordings in some pretty unique ways. You'd hear the record and find this isolated hand-clap or that isolated guitar lick wasn't NEARLY as loud on the record as it was in the recording... the compressors had sucked it all up.
It was an extension of what had been done in the 60s and 70s, just with new tools: in the 60s, AM stations used singleband compression to create maximum coverage and the result was an exciting (some would say fatiguing) sound. Multiband compression came out in the 70s, and suddenly stations could run more compression with less obviousness and also end up with more consistent eq and "texture" from song to song and source to source.
One of the things I do is run the attacks just as slow as I feel I can get away with... in some bands, attacks are as high as 75 milliseconds. Why? Analog processors couldn't react instantly to peaks without clipping the way today's digital boxes can. That "sloppiness" (hopefully) helps re-create the sound of the analog 80s radio station.
A fantastic side-effect is that the songs that have had all the life beaten out of them by the local digitally-processed AC suddenly sound alive and punchy again!
Anyway, I'm rambling... thanks for the kind words, and I hope many people take a listen to WION's audio stream to hear how good both AM and web streams can sound!!
Chuck said:
Thanks Chuck. It's extremely thoughtful of you to inform us distant web listeners that we are irrelevant. Don't take it personally though. I'm sure OTA music radio says the same thing about me since I won't listen to the the music formats they want to ram down my throat, and as far as I'm concerned they can all go to hell.
Woaw! Let's keep this thing from going to the "dark" side and insults.
Personally, as a radio station owner, who operates a stream, I'm thankful for my "long distance" listeners. They choose OUR station over others (their locals) when on our stream, and that, first of all is a compliment. Secondly, they reinforce and ENDORSE the fact that our steam is something different than they have locally, and they choose it for a reason, thus validating our efforts as good programmers and owners.
No, far away listeners won't drive from Washington State or Canada for a brew at my local pub the Lamplight Grill, but...listeners on the web in driving distance but out of my terrestrial range may visit my town, and they have!
I value the OPINION of my distant listeners to the station, and the POTENTIAL of those in driving distance to visit our advertisers.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility for them to come an hour or more for something they believe is worthwhile.
Personally, as a radio station owner, who operates a stream, I'm thankful for my "long distance" listeners. They choose OUR station over others (their locals) when on our stream, and that, first of all is a compliment. Secondly, they reinforce and ENDORSE the fact that our steam is something different than they have locally, and they choose it for a reason, thus validating our efforts as good programmers and owners.
No, far away listeners won't drive from Washington State or Canada for a brew at my local pub the Lamplight Grill, but...listeners on the web in driving distance but out of my terrestrial range may visit my town, and they have!
I value the OPINION of my distant listeners to the station, and the POTENTIAL of those in driving distance to visit our advertisers.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility for them to come an hour or more for something they believe is worthwhile.
I listen to the WION radio stream often, as it has the wildest mix of music... you never know what your going to hear next.
Listening to it I would have NEVER guessed that it was being fed to the internet by an AM Stereo radio, I always thought the audio was coming from the console itself!
In fact listening to hundreds of AM radio stations, I think that the WION sound is the best sounding one out there.
If their AM sounds this good, I can only imagine what their FM sounds like. In fact I am so curious I am planning on going out to Ionia, MI from Connecticut this summer, just so I can hear it myself.
Listening to it I would have NEVER guessed that it was being fed to the internet by an AM Stereo radio, I always thought the audio was coming from the console itself!
In fact listening to hundreds of AM radio stations, I think that the WION sound is the best sounding one out there.
If their AM sounds this good, I can only imagine what their FM sounds like. In fact I am so curious I am planning on going out to Ionia, MI from Connecticut this summer, just so I can hear it myself.
northwoods said:
You probably won't listen to my station either. I don't mean to insult anybody, but the cold hard truth is distant listeners cost the station money and generally speaking they are not a source of income for the station. That is assuming you are streaming legally and play by the rules as imposed by Congress via Sound Exchange. Streaming stations are required to pay a royalty fee for every listener and for each song played. We get the pleasure of making a monthly report telling Sound Exchange how many people listened to each song we play. Did you know that? It is an accounting nightmare for a commercial broadcaster that can cost a lot of money. I don't like these rules, but they are what they are.
Personally, I am very flattered that distant listeners want to hear my radio station. It is a great ego boost. I also value their opinions because they went out of their way to find my station. Sometimes the distant listeners are ex-patriots from my area. Sometimes they are people serving in our military. Others are people who discovered the station and like the music. I think it is great that they choose to listen, but lets be realistic. Most of those Internet listeners are not likely to support my (mostly local) sponsors. I am running a business as are other commercial broadcasters. I don't want or need to "get rich quick" but I'd also like to avoid going broke in the process.
As is easy to do on message boards like this, you have taken my comments out of context. If you will re-read my post, I was making the point that OTA broadcast stations that stream should pass on their EAS alerts because LOCAL people listen on line too. I believe they deserve to be alerted if a problem occurs in their community. If that inconveniences distant listeners, well, that's too bad. The alert will be over shortly. Meanwhile some lives may have been saved.
Chuck said:
First off, for clairification purposes, I did not take your comments out of context. I'm actually in agreement with you on the EAS alerts. Secondly, I understand the cost issue on royalties and think there should be an even playing field for all involved, whether they be OTA based, web-based, or satellite radio based, as well as the monthy reporting being a streamlined process. I also agree that when you are running a business, you need to watch the bottom line.
FWIW, I've actually seen your station's website, and it's a station I wouldn't mind listening to. It may not be my favorite format, but it's one I'd consider listening to. My issue that I was trying to make is the music based OTA stations that stick to the half-dozen or so formats (Country, Hot AC, Classic Rock, Hip Hop, and CHR), thinking that's what everyone wants to listen to, where I absolutely refuse to listen to any of them. It's possible their advertisers may receive my business, but it isn't because I listen to the station they advertise on.
Music wise, about 90% of what I listen to is primarily web-based. Mostly all the OTA based that carry a web stream that I listen to is Talk based.
northwoods said:
It sounds to me like we actually agree on most of these things. If Internet radio is to prosper, something needs to give. If a station actually gets popular, the costs skyrocket. That can be quite a burden for the broadcaster and is quite the opposite of how a free market usually works. Generally buying in bulk, it is cheaper than buying in small quantities. Internet radio is the opposite, costing more for each listener. That is a business model that doesn't work very well for the broadcaster. There may be some ways to help finance this on the horizon, but so far, web streams are pretty much a subsidy on the part of the provider, hoping that one day they may become something other than a loss leader.
As for my station, it's original reason for being was to offer something that no other broadcasters in the area provided. When I moved from Dallas to East Texas, I couldn't handle listening to any of the local offerings. At the time, many of them were owned by large group broadcasters and sounded like "McRadio." Most of the rest sounded like they had just fallen off of the turnip wagon. In any case, there were huge format holes. How many country stations do you need in a given market?
I wanted to do something different. Making a large profit was not the primary concern, but I also did not want to go broke in the process. Somewhere, there is a happy medium. It has taken a long time, but the station has a loyal following, and good group of sponsors who say it works for them. Some have been with us for many years. Unfortunately, those sponsors aren't willing to pay a premium for out of market web listeners, even if they do enjoy occasionally hearing from one.
The station has been successful enough that we were able to buy a second one, which is also locally programmed. I don't have any plans to stream it though, except when local sports broadcasts are being aired. I'd like to, but the music royalties make it financially impractical.
I encourage EVERY small broadcaster (terrestrial) to look at streaming. Don't let the rumors of 'high cost" keep you from doing so. It did, for us for too long, then we did our homework. It took time, but we worked out all the kinks we were warned-of!
We're a town of 6-8 thousand, the station has only two part time salespeople on an AM stereo/FM translated station, and it was EASY to get our business community to back our streaming costs! THEY want to be heard by loyal listeners who take devices with them, and enjoy being part of bringing the station to a bigger audience!
Tip to save money: Don't buy a "McPackage" (playing on language of previous post) of streaming from people who show up in your inbox daily pushing their services under contract. Learn to do MOST OF IT YOURSELF (most good engineers with software knowledge can do this)....with only the actual listener streams provided by an outside company, and you can probably save more than 50 percent over what the most popular streamers want you to pay under contract. We provide the (artist/title) information, the head-end audio, two UPstreams to the provider, and we track our own usage with the help of the providers' server. (Make sure you're not getting a song and dance by some providers who want you to BELIEVE they track your usage and find out they don't!!!)
We didn't even have to have third party software installed on our air-machine. That's my life and income, and NOBODY touches it....Our engineer found a way to integrate software over our intranet to report song, title, duration as required from our air machine to the streaming machine in my office, and then send it UP to the provider.
We did it contract-free, Total bandwidth cost per month for 50 concurrent listeners on 48k AAC: $8. Total Bandwidth cost for 50 listeners on 128k AAC per month: $18. Sam Broadcaster: (talks to the final provider's server) around $200 (buyout) Soundexchange small market will vary, count on $600 per year to start, (probably overpaying.) Two of your three other licenses INCLUDE the streaming, leaving only one for additional fees. YOUR COSTS MAY VARY...(insert disclaimer here) but if WE can do it, most anyone can. Get your permissions from any syndicated shows to include them in a "continual stream" (not on-demand) and do it! If need grows, we add bandwidth. If usage grows, we add sponsors. It's that simple. And we found no need of video ads, covering network spots, or ad insertion! Listeners don't look at "video ads" or "banner ads" on startup. They hit start on your stream and move on with their computing or they put the mobile device down to enjoy the music. Let your web listeners hear the "real" station with 'real" local ads!
Your costs may vary, but it CAN be done, and done in small markets without giving your money to anybody's big streaming system named for a piece of anatomy, (or similar) and with proper planning, YOU remain in control of how it's done, even to the point of helping design your own apps! (instead of one that's part of someone else's empire.)
Now, do your homework...and let's hear y'all on the web. It adds fun, it adds another topic about which to talk, and it adds excitement to your local station!
We're a town of 6-8 thousand, the station has only two part time salespeople on an AM stereo/FM translated station, and it was EASY to get our business community to back our streaming costs! THEY want to be heard by loyal listeners who take devices with them, and enjoy being part of bringing the station to a bigger audience!
Tip to save money: Don't buy a "McPackage" (playing on language of previous post) of streaming from people who show up in your inbox daily pushing their services under contract. Learn to do MOST OF IT YOURSELF (most good engineers with software knowledge can do this)....with only the actual listener streams provided by an outside company, and you can probably save more than 50 percent over what the most popular streamers want you to pay under contract. We provide the (artist/title) information, the head-end audio, two UPstreams to the provider, and we track our own usage with the help of the providers' server. (Make sure you're not getting a song and dance by some providers who want you to BELIEVE they track your usage and find out they don't!!!)
We didn't even have to have third party software installed on our air-machine. That's my life and income, and NOBODY touches it....Our engineer found a way to integrate software over our intranet to report song, title, duration as required from our air machine to the streaming machine in my office, and then send it UP to the provider.
We did it contract-free, Total bandwidth cost per month for 50 concurrent listeners on 48k AAC: $8. Total Bandwidth cost for 50 listeners on 128k AAC per month: $18. Sam Broadcaster: (talks to the final provider's server) around $200 (buyout) Soundexchange small market will vary, count on $600 per year to start, (probably overpaying.) Two of your three other licenses INCLUDE the streaming, leaving only one for additional fees. YOUR COSTS MAY VARY...(insert disclaimer here) but if WE can do it, most anyone can. Get your permissions from any syndicated shows to include them in a "continual stream" (not on-demand) and do it! If need grows, we add bandwidth. If usage grows, we add sponsors. It's that simple. And we found no need of video ads, covering network spots, or ad insertion! Listeners don't look at "video ads" or "banner ads" on startup. They hit start on your stream and move on with their computing or they put the mobile device down to enjoy the music. Let your web listeners hear the "real" station with 'real" local ads!
Your costs may vary, but it CAN be done, and done in small markets without giving your money to anybody's big streaming system named for a piece of anatomy, (or similar) and with proper planning, YOU remain in control of how it's done, even to the point of helping design your own apps! (instead of one that's part of someone else's empire.)
Now, do your homework...and let's hear y'all on the web. It adds fun, it adds another topic about which to talk, and it adds excitement to your local station!
Evidently, you qualify as a "Small Radio Broadcaster." For some time, I did essentially the same thing you just described. It worked fine until we became popular and no longer qualified as "small." That Sound Exchange cap is pretty low, it wasn't that hard to exceed it.
As you point out, the streaming cost is insignificant, but the music royalties aren't if you have a reasonable number of listeners. The current Sound Exchange rate for 2013 as a commercial radio broadcaster is $0.0022 per listener, per song. That doesn't sound like much, but it really adds up. It isn't just $600 per year. The costs can be staggering for a small OTA radio station. Take a look:
Let's say you play 12 songs per hour. That is 288 songs per day, or 105120 songs per year. If you average 200 listeners over that year, that's 21024000 "performances." Sound Exchange charges $0.0022 per "performance." If my math is correct, that works out to be $46252.80 for a mere 200 listeners. It is hard to justify that kind of expense.
As you point out, the streaming cost is insignificant, but the music royalties aren't if you have a reasonable number of listeners. The current Sound Exchange rate for 2013 as a commercial radio broadcaster is $0.0022 per listener, per song. That doesn't sound like much, but it really adds up. It isn't just $600 per year. The costs can be staggering for a small OTA radio station. Take a look:
Let's say you play 12 songs per hour. That is 288 songs per day, or 105120 songs per year. If you average 200 listeners over that year, that's 21024000 "performances." Sound Exchange charges $0.0022 per "performance." If my math is correct, that works out to be $46252.80 for a mere 200 listeners. It is hard to justify that kind of expense.
Chuck said:
If Sound Exchange had any brains (which is a debatable topic on it's own), they could have a staggered flat rate system per year for OTA streamers. Using a range of say 0-100 listeners per year, they could have a rate of $1000 per year. For 101-200 listeners, the rate could be an extra 2-3%, and so on. Or they could just raise the cap. But then again, I'm trying to apply common sense here, which may just be beyond their comprehension level.
Soundexchange is actually easy to deal with, have real people to talk-to, and are easier-going than the "big 3."
I believe the example quoted a few posts ago is not (small market) typical. The numbers given would imply 200 listeners 24/7 all year, never any less. This is NEVER the case. Listeners come and go. Small market stations can afford a properly selected streaming service with proper sales planning, because the streaming is an extra service used when (the listener is) NOT in range, or in a place where private listening is the only option. And, it gives small stations the chance to compete with the big boys where portability, branding, and service is concerned!
If we had that 200 listener 24/7 scenario described a bit earlier, as our engineer put it, "We would easily have a few hundred thousand dollars income from advertisers banging down our door and throwing money at us." I tend to agree. If you're that popular as an OTA broadcaster, you've got the advertising dollars and you won't be worrying.
I believe the example quoted a few posts ago is not (small market) typical. The numbers given would imply 200 listeners 24/7 all year, never any less. This is NEVER the case. Listeners come and go. Small market stations can afford a properly selected streaming service with proper sales planning, because the streaming is an extra service used when (the listener is) NOT in range, or in a place where private listening is the only option. And, it gives small stations the chance to compete with the big boys where portability, branding, and service is concerned!
If we had that 200 listener 24/7 scenario described a bit earlier, as our engineer put it, "We would easily have a few hundred thousand dollars income from advertisers banging down our door and throwing money at us." I tend to agree. If you're that popular as an OTA broadcaster, you've got the advertising dollars and you won't be worrying.
The example I gave is real, but to clarify, I said an average of 200 listeners, which means sometimes it would naturally be less, but sometimes it would be more. I am an OTA broadcaster in an Arbitron rated market, but not one of the bigger ones. Think somewhere between market 100 and 200. We did become that popular on the Internet. But let's say you only averaged 100 listeners, that is still $23,000. Can you really sell enough ads to pay for that with only an average of 100 listeners? More power to you if you can.AMradiofan said:
Perhaps you have an unrealistic idea of how challenging it is to sell advertising. It's hard enough to sell over the air radio, much less the Internet. According to Radio Locator, there are 36 stations vying for attention in my zip code. That means the advertising pie is sliced pretty thin. In many places, it is much worse than that. I don't know of any station where people "bang down the doors throwing money at you." Maybe they did in the past, when there were only a handful of stations in a city and no other entertainment distractions, but not today. Even back in the "good old days," there were plenty of stations that barely made a living. I know of several that went dark due to lack of sales. They still do. Radio has always been hard work. The only time a "quick buck" was made was back in the days of consolidation, when large companies paid stupid prices for radio stations. Some people did make fortunes buying, selling, moving and dissecting stations, but those days are over.
I'm lucky. I have great sponsors, many of whom have been with us for years, but they aren't particularly impressed with how many Internet listeners we have. That may change. That hope is why many stations stream. They are banking on the future, by not getting paid much, or losing money today. It is uncertain if that will pay off. If the music licensing fees were more reasonable, and simpler to administer, it would be easier to make that happen.
As for the cost of streaming being insignificant to an OTA broadcaster, evidently you don't have to meet payroll, pay employment taxes, pay commercial property tax, pay tower rent, pay a large electric bill, deal with various governmental agencies, replace expensive equipment when lightning strikes your tower, etc. It is relatively expensive to operate a commercial broadcast station. Sure, you can make money, but the profit margins aren't as big as most people think they are.
If you've been successful selling your Internet stream, I'd love to hear how you do it. Really
- Status