• 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

If you could put a new FM station on in Corpus Christi......

Scott Holt said:
We are sending the audio to our transmitter sight via broadband internet. This is becoming common place with many TV and radio station throughout the country.
Click to expand...

I actually picked up the station in San Antonio once and the station didn't sound the best a station has. No offense but I think the audio sounded a bit low quality, almost as if the stream wasn't set at a high bitrate. If you're going to feed it through the internet, make the stream at least 128 KBPS, preferably higher.
 
The stream sounds like it's either a 128 or a 192 but it has so much compression that it sounds really muddy. Sort of like codec clashing or something. I don't know if they are streaming via a MP3 stream but that could be why. If the music source they use is via MP3 and they are encoding again via MP3 then that's where all that codec clashing is happening. The audio quality sounds like a typical internet stream on my laptop. lol

A lot of broadcasters are sending audio to the transmitter site via T1's but they are using equipment like Intraplex's or Moseley Starlink's that are uncompressed. The Shark sounds heavily compressed and squashed. It sounds like they are using a laptop or something to stream the audio to the transmitter site. What happen to using a good ole STL ?? ???
 
I definitely heard the swirling artifacts on the high end. It sounded okay, but it wasn't great - kind of like how I can tolerate the low bitrate on most XM music channels even though I really don't like it and it gets fatiguing after awhile.

Musically, I didn't hear any duds. It's a fairly broad mix, but it works.

There's a station in Houston that uses the Barix for their STL, and I don't hear those artifacts. They're a university and part of the original ARPAnet backbone, so they have no shortage of bandwidth - that may make a difference.
 
I think the Barix can run un-compressed if you have enough bandwidth.
Since this station is in an LMA, they may be used to get from one studio location over to the "official" studio.
 
As best I can tell the "Studio" IS the official studio.

I have always been suspect of internet Stls.

106.5 has not changed my mind. A 950 is a lot easier and more reliable. I see that a 950 shot will not work from their studio to the transmitter. That would have been a "NO GO" item for me. MOVE THE STUDIO...

YMMV

Clouseau
 
Rick_G said:
Your audio board is basically one setp up from a DJ mixer.
Click to expand...

I've actually worked with that same model of board - for a low-cost model, it does pretty well, and gets the job done.

If the Shark debuts a Morning Zoo-type program, are they going to need something better? Absolutely. But considering the station's low-frills, automated format, it seems like a high-end SAS Rubicon would just be a waste of money.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom