J
JimmyJames
Guest
Can anyone point me towards an automation system that handles uncompressed audio? Seems most of them want to force me into compression, and as an audio purist, I'm not liking that idea.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I didn't realize anyone used compression anymore. Who is trying to force you that way? Every modern system works with .wav
Take a look at Station Playlist Pro. http://www.stationplaylist.com
It can work with a lot of different formats (including .wav and various other uncompressed files).
I would be surprised if a quality automation package forced you to use compressed audio - no one would
buy it, as just about every commercial station I know of uses uncompressed files.
It can work with a lot of different formats (including .wav and various other uncompressed files).
I would be surprised if a quality automation package forced you to use compressed audio - no one would
buy it, as just about every commercial station I know of uses uncompressed files.
RCS Nexgen can handle uncompresed audio..
BSI Simian will work with uncompressed audio, they encourage it. On the freeware front, Zararadio will handle .wav files.
J
JimmyJames
Guest
Thanks for the recommendations!
I haven't been able to find out if MediaTouch (what we're currently working with) will handle uncompressed files, so I was looking for alternatives.
I haven't been able to find out if MediaTouch (what we're currently working with) will handle uncompressed files, so I was looking for alternatives.
I'm a "grandstand coach" watching the business from the outside these days.
I understand that early in the computer-based automation phase people used mp3 and other compression methods because the hard drives were not large like they are today, and they were not affordable like they are today.
I remember reading conversations here and in other forums where certain automation systems came equipped to do ONLY MP2 or some other "fringe" (?) technology and part of the game was that they would write their software to require that format.
Would those earlier systems accommodate .wav? (I have worked data systems and automation systems in other industries and I am well aware that vendors sometimes use arcane methodology so the customer is required to purchase expansion equipment and replacement equipment from the vendor. When you have a small customer base, it is a survival technique to keep your prices up and the your customers loyal or the vendor cannot survive. Easy for me to say when I am not the one writing the check for the seemingly over-priced stuff!)
Timewise.... when did it become practical, possible and common to use .wav rather than compressed files. And as a practical matter.... how many stations are still using mp3 and other formats because it would be costly to take the time to do a full conversion of technology?
I understand that early in the computer-based automation phase people used mp3 and other compression methods because the hard drives were not large like they are today, and they were not affordable like they are today.
I remember reading conversations here and in other forums where certain automation systems came equipped to do ONLY MP2 or some other "fringe" (?) technology and part of the game was that they would write their software to require that format.
Would those earlier systems accommodate .wav? (I have worked data systems and automation systems in other industries and I am well aware that vendors sometimes use arcane methodology so the customer is required to purchase expansion equipment and replacement equipment from the vendor. When you have a small customer base, it is a survival technique to keep your prices up and the your customers loyal or the vendor cannot survive. Easy for me to say when I am not the one writing the check for the seemingly over-priced stuff!)
Timewise.... when did it become practical, possible and common to use .wav rather than compressed files. And as a practical matter.... how many stations are still using mp3 and other formats because it would be costly to take the time to do a full conversion of technology?
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:I'm a "grandstand coach" watching the business from the outside these days.
I understand that early in the computer-based automation phase people used mp3 and other compression methods because the hard drives were not large like they are today, and they were not affordable like they are today.
I remember reading conversations here and in other forums where certain automation systems came equipped to do ONLY MP2 or some other "fringe" (?) technology and part of the game was that they would write their software to require that format.
Would those earlier systems accommodate .wav? (I have worked data systems and automation systems in other industries and I am well aware that vendors sometimes use arcane methodology so the customer is required to purchase expansion equipment and replacement equipment from the vendor. When you have a small customer base, it is a survival technique to keep your prices up and the your customers loyal or the vendor cannot survive. Easy for me to say when I am not the one writing the check for the seemingly over-priced stuff!)
Timewise.... when did it become practical, possible and common to use .wav rather than compressed files. And as a practical matter.... how many stations are still using mp3 and other formats because it would be costly to take the time to do a full conversion of technology?
MP3 came later, not earlier to the automation party.
ADPCM, MPEG2, & Apt-X were big players early on, when storage was at a premium. I think it is universally acceptable to say that most stations at this point run primarily uncompressed wav files. Actually, I wouls say that they run a mixture of wav and mp3's that labels send out as early promo's & remixes. However, the labels are wiser now and are sending .wav links to almost everything as well.
Thank you, ChrisCollins. After I clicked on the [post] button I had another thought-question: I would have been maybe in the Summer of 1996 that I stopped in at one of the Jerrell Shepherd stations (not the home base) and observed that they had a network between their stations that would facilitate transferring audio-news-stories between their stations. On that same trip to my hometown to look after an ailing father, I walked into a small station and announced: I need to get up to speed on this automation business. The owner was running the operation that day. He handed me this big thick operating manual, pointed me to the very comfortable "family room" break room and said: "Read to your hearts content." Helpful, but... at the time... over my head.
When I returned to work I was determined to figure out this computerized audio. I was working for a distributor of corporate computer equipment and when the Creative Sound guy came in for his next training meeting.... "I took him prisoner." And each time he returned for the next year or two I would again corner him. It turns out he didn't have a clue about someone wanting to take a broadcast quality mic and feed it into a Sound Blaster. I had to bang my head against the wall for quite a while before I realized the MIC input on a sound card expected one of those slightly amplified computer mics. When I dug deep and bought my first pre-amp... the world changed. Today we ALL understand that process. But in 1997 even Sound Blaster reps were a bit clueless. Well. Mine was anyway. And when I told him of my discovery of the pre-amp technique his reply was something kin to: "Well... duh!"
Trying to learn digital audio as a lone-wolf with no audio teckies around turned out to be a tough job for 1996-1997. Virtually no books out there. Magazine articles on computer sound seemed to focus on how to get the output audio of your computer games into your stereo. Mic input? Bah! Who needs that.
OOPS~! Sorry for the side-track.
After looking at the news transferring network and thinking about it as I learned digital audio... I concluded that with the cost of networks and the speed of early networks... radio groups had another incentive to go with compressed files: To get them transferred from location to location in minimum time and cost. Any comments of that... and how that element has changed as networks have become faster and more economical?
When I returned to work I was determined to figure out this computerized audio. I was working for a distributor of corporate computer equipment and when the Creative Sound guy came in for his next training meeting.... "I took him prisoner." And each time he returned for the next year or two I would again corner him. It turns out he didn't have a clue about someone wanting to take a broadcast quality mic and feed it into a Sound Blaster. I had to bang my head against the wall for quite a while before I realized the MIC input on a sound card expected one of those slightly amplified computer mics. When I dug deep and bought my first pre-amp... the world changed. Today we ALL understand that process. But in 1997 even Sound Blaster reps were a bit clueless. Well. Mine was anyway. And when I told him of my discovery of the pre-amp technique his reply was something kin to: "Well... duh!"
Trying to learn digital audio as a lone-wolf with no audio teckies around turned out to be a tough job for 1996-1997. Virtually no books out there. Magazine articles on computer sound seemed to focus on how to get the output audio of your computer games into your stereo. Mic input? Bah! Who needs that.
OOPS~! Sorry for the side-track.
After looking at the news transferring network and thinking about it as I learned digital audio... I concluded that with the cost of networks and the speed of early networks... radio groups had another incentive to go with compressed files: To get them transferred from location to location in minimum time and cost. Any comments of that... and how that element has changed as networks have become faster and more economical?
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:Thank you, ChrisCollins. After I clicked on the [post] button I had another thought-question: I would have been maybe in the Summer of 1996 that I stopped in at one of the Jerrell Shepherd stations (not the home base) and observed that they had a network between their stations that would facilitate transferring audio-news-stories between their stations. On that same trip to my hometown to look after an ailing father, I walked into a small station and announced: I need to get up to speed on this automation business. The owner was running the operation that day. He handed me this big thick operating manual, pointed me to the very comfortable "family room" break room and said: "Read to your hearts content." Helpful, but... at the time... over my head.
When I returned to work I was determined to figure out this computerized audio. I was working for a distributor of corporate computer equipment and when the Creative Sound guy came in for his next training meeting.... "I took him prisoner." And each time he returned for the next year or two I would again corner him. It turns out he didn't have a clue about someone wanting to take a broadcast quality mic and feed it into a Sound Blaster. I had to bang my head against the wall for quite a while before I realized the MIC input on a sound card expected one of those slightly amplified computer mics. When I dug deep and bought my first pre-amp... the world changed. Today we ALL understand that process. But in 1997 even Sound Blaster reps were a bit clueless. Well. Mine was anyway. And when I told him of my discovery of the pre-amp technique his reply was something kin to: "Well... duh!"
Trying to learn digital audio as a lone-wolf with no audio teckies around turned out to be a tough job for 1996-1997. Virtually no books out there. Magazine articles on computer sound seemed to focus on how to get the output audio of your computer games into your stereo. Mic input? Bah! Who needs that.
OOPS~! Sorry for the side-track.
After looking at the news transferring network and thinking about it as I learned digital audio... I concluded that with the cost of networks and the speed of early networks... radio groups had another incentive to go with compressed files: To get them transferred from location to location in minimum time and cost. Any comments of that... and how that element has changed as networks have become faster and more economical?
Bandwidth is just so cheap now, everyone has a big pipe for audio distribution. About the only thing I see mp3 happening in alot still is voicetracking.
As I said, the industry overall is graduating from the mp3 to the wav. Actually, from a computer standpoint, a wav is easier to work with. Less cpu load.
Things have changed a lot and with the big guys starting to do HD and cram all these sub channels in, you can REALLY hear it if you pass bit reduced audio to that encoder. I think that is helping as well.
On a personal note, I hate compressed audio. I am cursed with ears that can hear it. I have also seen poorly encoded mp3's bring my automation system to it's knees before... Of course, that is a lot better now.
Now correct me if I'm mistaken, but I have heard many people say they use uncompressed audio for on-air music and use compressed files for spot - mostly those delivered from agencies.
We inherited a Wave Station that was using MPEG-2 for audio when we bought a station. This was on a Windows 98 system that went in when the station signed on in 2000, never upgraded (well, they did update the music).
We promptly installed new computers with Simian, and replaced the music library with standard 44 khz .wav files (just had TM send us a hard drive with the library).
Most commercials we get are either MPEG-3 or -2, either e-mailed or downloaded from an FTP server somewhere. We also ship weather, in-house production back and forth between our two studios by MP-3. Simian, of course, doesn't care (the system does need a special module to decode MPEG-2).
We promptly installed new computers with Simian, and replaced the music library with standard 44 khz .wav files (just had TM send us a hard drive with the library).
Most commercials we get are either MPEG-3 or -2, either e-mailed or downloaded from an FTP server somewhere. We also ship weather, in-house production back and forth between our two studios by MP-3. Simian, of course, doesn't care (the system does need a special module to decode MPEG-2).
Bill DeFelice said:Now correct me if I'm mistaken, but I have heard many people say they use uncompressed audio for on-air music and use compressed files for spot - mostly those delivered from agencies.
It used to be that way but the stations I work with now use wav-only - saves the trouble of getting the "right" compression.
I don't know any broadcast stations doing this, but for my internet stream I'm using FLAC which is a free lossless compressor that takes the file size down to about half.
StationPlaylist Studio supports it, and it saves hard drive space (and delivery time) with no loss of fidelity, so it works well for us.
If, in the future, I move to a system that doesn't support FLAC, I can batch convert the files to .wav with no loss.
StationPlaylist Studio supports it, and it saves hard drive space (and delivery time) with no loss of fidelity, so it works well for us.
If, in the future, I move to a system that doesn't support FLAC, I can batch convert the files to .wav with no loss.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.