I was once told that WCBS-FM 101.1 when they were oldies were using Wave Files to play all their music, jingles etc. Does anyone know what type of wave files they used for their oldies format or if they had any compression? I have a seperate big hard drive in my computer and i wanted my music files from my audio cds to sound just as good after i rip them to computer. Does anyone have this info or info on what type of files most oldies stations like cbsfm uses? I would appreciate it.
-
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
What Type of files do Radio stations use?
- Thread starter Oldiesmike101
- Start date
9
99-5jamz
Guest
> I was once told that WCBS-FM 101.1 when they were oldies
> were using Wave Files to play all their music, jingles etc.
> Does anyone know what type of wave files they used for their
> oldies format or if they had any compression? I have a
> seperate big hard drive in my computer and i wanted my music
> files from my audio cds to sound just as good after i rip
> them to computer. Does anyone have this info or info on what
> type of files most oldies stations like cbsfm uses? I would
> appreciate it.
>
We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done. Waves are too large.<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
> were using Wave Files to play all their music, jingles etc.
> Does anyone know what type of wave files they used for their
> oldies format or if they had any compression? I have a
> seperate big hard drive in my computer and i wanted my music
> files from my audio cds to sound just as good after i rip
> them to computer. Does anyone have this info or info on what
> type of files most oldies stations like cbsfm uses? I would
> appreciate it.
>
We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done. Waves are too large.<P ID="signature">______________
[email protected]</P>
> > I was once told that WCBS-FM 101.1 when they were oldies
> > were using Wave Files to play all their music, jingles
> etc.
> > Does anyone know what type of wave files they used for
> their
> > oldies format or if they had any compression? I have a
> > seperate big hard drive in my computer and i wanted my
> music
> > files from my audio cds to sound just as good after i rip
> > them to computer. Does anyone have this info or info on
> what
> > type of files most oldies stations like cbsfm uses? I
> would
> > appreciate it.
> >
>
> We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done. Waves
> are too large.
>
I know of a station that uses 128kbps MP3 and sounds just fine over the air. No digital noise. When using MP3, it all depends on the encoder. If you use the MP3 encoder (MP3 Pro I think) that Adobe Audition uses, you'll get pretty decent quality. I use 112kbps MP3s encoded in Audition and they sound about as good as 128.
Other stations use various PCM formats. I know there are compressed WAV formats that make each file about 15MB. I think its AAC or something like that. Uncompressed WAVs will come out to 30-50mb per song.
<P ID="signature">______________
AIM: JeremyA1069</P>
> > were using Wave Files to play all their music, jingles
> etc.
> > Does anyone know what type of wave files they used for
> their
> > oldies format or if they had any compression? I have a
> > seperate big hard drive in my computer and i wanted my
> music
> > files from my audio cds to sound just as good after i rip
> > them to computer. Does anyone have this info or info on
> what
> > type of files most oldies stations like cbsfm uses? I
> would
> > appreciate it.
> >
>
> We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done. Waves
> are too large.
>
I know of a station that uses 128kbps MP3 and sounds just fine over the air. No digital noise. When using MP3, it all depends on the encoder. If you use the MP3 encoder (MP3 Pro I think) that Adobe Audition uses, you'll get pretty decent quality. I use 112kbps MP3s encoded in Audition and they sound about as good as 128.
Other stations use various PCM formats. I know there are compressed WAV formats that make each file about 15MB. I think its AAC or something like that. Uncompressed WAVs will come out to 30-50mb per song.
<P ID="signature">______________
AIM: JeremyA1069</P>
E
eastsidah
Guest
> > > I was once told that WCBS-FM 101.1 when they were oldies
>
> > > were using Wave Files to play all their music, jingles
> > etc.
> > > Does anyone know what type of wave files they used for
> > their
> > > oldies format or if they had any compression? I have a
> > > seperate big hard drive in my computer and i wanted my
> > music
> > > files from my audio cds to sound just as good after i
> rip
> > > them to computer. Does anyone have this info or info on
> > what
> > > type of files most oldies stations like cbsfm uses? I
> > would
> > > appreciate it.
> > >
> >
> > We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done.
> Waves
> > are too large.
> >
>
> I know of a station that uses 128kbps MP3 and sounds just
> fine over the air. No digital noise. When using MP3, it all
> depends on the encoder. If you use the MP3 encoder (MP3 Pro
> I think) that Adobe Audition uses, you'll get pretty decent
> quality. I use 112kbps MP3s encoded in Audition and they
> sound about as good as 128.
>
> Other stations use various PCM formats. I know there are
> compressed WAV formats that make each file about 15MB. I
> think its AAC or something like that. Uncompressed WAVs will
> come out to 30-50mb per song.
any station using any bitrate mp3 on the air, especially for music, is doing themselves and their listeners a great disservice....that's asking for trouble somehow someday, it causes the processor to work harder to decode and play the tunes above all...just not a good idea, spend the bucks on a larger harddrive.
For personal use, if you want your music to sound as good as CD, most people can't tell the difference at 192kbps, but it depends on the encoder.
>
>
> > > were using Wave Files to play all their music, jingles
> > etc.
> > > Does anyone know what type of wave files they used for
> > their
> > > oldies format or if they had any compression? I have a
> > > seperate big hard drive in my computer and i wanted my
> > music
> > > files from my audio cds to sound just as good after i
> rip
> > > them to computer. Does anyone have this info or info on
> > what
> > > type of files most oldies stations like cbsfm uses? I
> > would
> > > appreciate it.
> > >
> >
> > We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done.
> Waves
> > are too large.
> >
>
> I know of a station that uses 128kbps MP3 and sounds just
> fine over the air. No digital noise. When using MP3, it all
> depends on the encoder. If you use the MP3 encoder (MP3 Pro
> I think) that Adobe Audition uses, you'll get pretty decent
> quality. I use 112kbps MP3s encoded in Audition and they
> sound about as good as 128.
>
> Other stations use various PCM formats. I know there are
> compressed WAV formats that make each file about 15MB. I
> think its AAC or something like that. Uncompressed WAVs will
> come out to 30-50mb per song.
any station using any bitrate mp3 on the air, especially for music, is doing themselves and their listeners a great disservice....that's asking for trouble somehow someday, it causes the processor to work harder to decode and play the tunes above all...just not a good idea, spend the bucks on a larger harddrive.
For personal use, if you want your music to sound as good as CD, most people can't tell the difference at 192kbps, but it depends on the encoder.
>
D
Drew5164
Guest
> We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done. Waves
> are too large.
>
Poo. Hard drive space is cheap these days. There's no reason not to use WAV files(a tad over 10.33 MB per minute 44.1k 16 bit).
> are too large.
>
Poo. Hard drive space is cheap these days. There's no reason not to use WAV files(a tad over 10.33 MB per minute 44.1k 16 bit).
> > > > I was once told that WCBS-FM 101.1 when they were
> oldies
> >
> > > > were using Wave Files to play all their music, jingles
>
> > > etc.
> > > > Does anyone know what type of wave files they used for
>
> > > their
> > > > oldies format or if they had any compression? I have a
>
> > > > seperate big hard drive in my computer and i wanted my
>
> > > music
> > > > files from my audio cds to sound just as good after i
> > rip
> > > > them to computer. Does anyone have this info or info
> on
> > > what
> > > > type of files most oldies stations like cbsfm uses? I
> > > would
> > > > appreciate it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done.
> > Waves
> > > are too large.
> > >
> >
> > I know of a station that uses 128kbps MP3 and sounds just
> > fine over the air. No digital noise. When using MP3, it
> all
> > depends on the encoder. If you use the MP3 encoder (MP3
> Pro
> > I think) that Adobe Audition uses, you'll get pretty
> decent
> > quality. I use 112kbps MP3s encoded in Audition and they
> > sound about as good as 128.
> >
> > Other stations use various PCM formats. I know there are
> > compressed WAV formats that make each file about 15MB. I
> > think its AAC or something like that. Uncompressed WAVs
> will
> > come out to 30-50mb per song.
>
> any station using any bitrate mp3 on the air, especially for
> music, is doing themselves and their listeners a great
> disservice....that's asking for trouble somehow someday, it
> causes the processor to work harder to decode and play the
> tunes above all...just not a good idea, spend the bucks on a
> larger harddrive.
>
> For personal use, if you want your music to sound as good as
> CD, most people can't tell the difference at 192kbps, but it
> depends on the encoder.
Actually, I'd have to say that I agree with that statement partially, and the other part is flat-out wrong. The wrong part first: MP2's are compressed, and stations have been using the format for quite some time now. I haven't heard anyone complain of processing problems (and yes, I'm talking computer processing, not audio) due to the use of compressed formats. MP3's are no exception to that. If you're having trouble running compressed audio formats on your automation computer, maybe you should try not using that computer for any other purpose. That's most likely where the problem lies.
Secondly, if you decide to go with MP3's, the only bitrate you should ever use for broadcasting is 320 kbps. That's as close to CD quality as MP3's get. I've heard stations use as high a bitrate as 256 kbps, and it still sounds substandard, especially because all the artifacts are brought out of the background by the audio processor (and believe me, more listeners than you'd think will notice the difference). 192 is out of the question, and anything below that is insanity (yes, even if the audio is encoded in Audition, I'm sorry to say).
All in all, MP3's encoded at 320 kbps will give you both the sound quality and the compression you want<P ID="signature">______________
"Congratulations to Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, they had a baby yesterday. Spears said he sleeps 18 hours a day and so does the baby.
-- Conan O'Brien
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
> oldies
> >
> > > > were using Wave Files to play all their music, jingles
>
> > > etc.
> > > > Does anyone know what type of wave files they used for
>
> > > their
> > > > oldies format or if they had any compression? I have a
>
> > > > seperate big hard drive in my computer and i wanted my
>
> > > music
> > > > files from my audio cds to sound just as good after i
> > rip
> > > > them to computer. Does anyone have this info or info
> on
> > > what
> > > > type of files most oldies stations like cbsfm uses? I
> > > would
> > > > appreciate it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done.
> > Waves
> > > are too large.
> > >
> >
> > I know of a station that uses 128kbps MP3 and sounds just
> > fine over the air. No digital noise. When using MP3, it
> all
> > depends on the encoder. If you use the MP3 encoder (MP3
> Pro
> > I think) that Adobe Audition uses, you'll get pretty
> decent
> > quality. I use 112kbps MP3s encoded in Audition and they
> > sound about as good as 128.
> >
> > Other stations use various PCM formats. I know there are
> > compressed WAV formats that make each file about 15MB. I
> > think its AAC or something like that. Uncompressed WAVs
> will
> > come out to 30-50mb per song.
>
> any station using any bitrate mp3 on the air, especially for
> music, is doing themselves and their listeners a great
> disservice....that's asking for trouble somehow someday, it
> causes the processor to work harder to decode and play the
> tunes above all...just not a good idea, spend the bucks on a
> larger harddrive.
>
> For personal use, if you want your music to sound as good as
> CD, most people can't tell the difference at 192kbps, but it
> depends on the encoder.
Actually, I'd have to say that I agree with that statement partially, and the other part is flat-out wrong. The wrong part first: MP2's are compressed, and stations have been using the format for quite some time now. I haven't heard anyone complain of processing problems (and yes, I'm talking computer processing, not audio) due to the use of compressed formats. MP3's are no exception to that. If you're having trouble running compressed audio formats on your automation computer, maybe you should try not using that computer for any other purpose. That's most likely where the problem lies.
Secondly, if you decide to go with MP3's, the only bitrate you should ever use for broadcasting is 320 kbps. That's as close to CD quality as MP3's get. I've heard stations use as high a bitrate as 256 kbps, and it still sounds substandard, especially because all the artifacts are brought out of the background by the audio processor (and believe me, more listeners than you'd think will notice the difference). 192 is out of the question, and anything below that is insanity (yes, even if the audio is encoded in Audition, I'm sorry to say).
All in all, MP3's encoded at 320 kbps will give you both the sound quality and the compression you want<P ID="signature">______________
"Congratulations to Britney Spears and Kevin Federline, they had a baby yesterday. Spears said he sleeps 18 hours a day and so does the baby.
-- Conan O'Brien
http://theradioblog.blogspot.com</P>
B
bigwoody
Guest
> > We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done.
> Waves
> > are too large.
> >
> Poo. Hard drive space is cheap these days. There's no reason
> not to use WAV files(a tad over 10.33 MB per minute 44.1k 16
> bit).
>
If it's a CC station, then they use Prophet NexGen, which is Mp2 after dubbing the audio in. Data compression is 5:1. Reason for Mp2's is not storage as much as it is the ability to send audio via the WAN. Millions of GB's are sent daily from station to station, market to marketl; includes voicetracks, songs, imaging, bits, etc, etc. Mp2's makes it a lot faster. I could order a song from Covington and get it in Raleigh within 15 minutes. Song would auto load to the proper number. I'd be alerted with an email. I LOVE Prophet! It's the Lexus of automation systems. The Gremlin? Maestro. What a piece of crap!<P ID="signature">______________
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.</P>
> Waves
> > are too large.
> >
> Poo. Hard drive space is cheap these days. There's no reason
> not to use WAV files(a tad over 10.33 MB per minute 44.1k 16
> bit).
>
If it's a CC station, then they use Prophet NexGen, which is Mp2 after dubbing the audio in. Data compression is 5:1. Reason for Mp2's is not storage as much as it is the ability to send audio via the WAN. Millions of GB's are sent daily from station to station, market to marketl; includes voicetracks, songs, imaging, bits, etc, etc. Mp2's makes it a lot faster. I could order a song from Covington and get it in Raleigh within 15 minutes. Song would auto load to the proper number. I'd be alerted with an email. I LOVE Prophet! It's the Lexus of automation systems. The Gremlin? Maestro. What a piece of crap!<P ID="signature">______________
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.</P>
B
bigwoody
Guest
Only true audiophiles can tell. Average person cannot. What do people listen to on the iPods? MP3's. And not 320kp3. Often 128kps. People just want to hear their favorite song.<P ID="signature">______________
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.</P>
Everyone is entitled to my opinion.</P>
> > > We use MP2's. But 192kbp MP3's will get the job done.
> > Waves
> > > are too large.
> > >
> > Poo. Hard drive space is cheap these days. There's no
> reason
> > not to use WAV files(a tad over 10.33 MB per minute 44.1k
> 16
> > bit).
> >
>
>
> If it's a CC station, then they use Prophet NexGen, which is
> Mp2 after dubbing the audio in. Data compression is 5:1.
> Reason for Mp2's is not storage as much as it is the ability
> to send audio via the WAN. Millions of GB's are sent daily
> from station to station, market to marketl; includes
> voicetracks, songs, imaging, bits, etc, etc. Mp2's makes it
> a lot faster. I could order a song from Covington and get it
> in Raleigh within 15 minutes. Song would auto load to the
> proper number. I'd be alerted with an email. I LOVE Prophet!
> It's the Lexus of automation systems. The Gremlin? Maestro.
> What a piece of crap!
> AMEN on that.love my nexgen and that prophet support team is awesome...should you ever need them....
> > Waves
> > > are too large.
> > >
> > Poo. Hard drive space is cheap these days. There's no
> reason
> > not to use WAV files(a tad over 10.33 MB per minute 44.1k
> 16
> > bit).
> >
>
>
> If it's a CC station, then they use Prophet NexGen, which is
> Mp2 after dubbing the audio in. Data compression is 5:1.
> Reason for Mp2's is not storage as much as it is the ability
> to send audio via the WAN. Millions of GB's are sent daily
> from station to station, market to marketl; includes
> voicetracks, songs, imaging, bits, etc, etc. Mp2's makes it
> a lot faster. I could order a song from Covington and get it
> in Raleigh within 15 minutes. Song would auto load to the
> proper number. I'd be alerted with an email. I LOVE Prophet!
> It's the Lexus of automation systems. The Gremlin? Maestro.
> What a piece of crap!
> AMEN on that.love my nexgen and that prophet support team is awesome...should you ever need them....
I thought that iPod uses AAC..now THERE'S a great compression format. If I could figure out how to encode to AAC with Audition I would do it, and move all of my client over to it too. It is going to be the new standard for internet streaming.
> Secondly, if you decide to go with MP3's, the only bitrate
> you should ever use for broadcasting is 320 kbps. That's as
> close to CD quality as MP3's get. I've heard stations use
> as high a bitrate as 256 kbps, and it still sounds
> substandard, especially because all the artifacts are
> brought out of the background by the audio processor (and
> believe me, more listeners than you'd think will notice the
> difference). 192 is out of the question, and anything below
> that is insanity (yes, even if the audio is encoded in
> Audition, I'm sorry to say).
>
> All in all, MP3's encoded at 320 kbps will give you both the
> sound quality and the compression you want
Nah...At only 4:1 compression, 320kbps is overkill. With a properly encoded, joint-channel stereo mp3, you WILL NOT hear a difference between a 192kbps file and a 320kbps file being broadcast on FM...At least if you use the Fraunhofer encoder (the one in Audition). You might hear a few artifacts if you use LAME at 192, though. Most of the compression from a Fraunhofer-encoded 192kbps file comes from frequency loss above 16kHz, which is fine, since you won't be broadcasting those frequencies anyway. But there's no need to worry about the masking frequencies in audible frequencies, if you've properly encoded the file. Also, the file must only be encoded one time...Saving and re-saving mp3 files will destroy the quality VERY quickly.
If you encode as dual-channel mp3's, of course you're going to get artifacts at 192kbps...You'll get about the same quality as a 112kbps joint-stereo file.
The largest problem with compressed formats is stability. That's one reason why MPEG-2 files are so popular with automation software. The "broadcast wave" file is an MPEG-2 file with a .wav extension. It provides high sound quality, a nice compression ratio, and it remains a rock-solid format.
However, there's no replacement for uncompressed PCM. There are a million compression types out there, including many lossless algorithms...But with compression comes a loss of stability. Of you have the ability, always run pcm wav files.
With ANY integer-based format, you're going to lose quality with amplitude changes. That means any 16-bit audio file (or 24-bit to a lesser degree) is going to lose quality in a digital chain where amplitude is affected.
I think the next big broadcast format will be MPEG-4 Audio files. I don't know much about .m4a files, but I know they sound better than mp3 and seem to be more stable.
> you should ever use for broadcasting is 320 kbps. That's as
> close to CD quality as MP3's get. I've heard stations use
> as high a bitrate as 256 kbps, and it still sounds
> substandard, especially because all the artifacts are
> brought out of the background by the audio processor (and
> believe me, more listeners than you'd think will notice the
> difference). 192 is out of the question, and anything below
> that is insanity (yes, even if the audio is encoded in
> Audition, I'm sorry to say).
>
> All in all, MP3's encoded at 320 kbps will give you both the
> sound quality and the compression you want
Nah...At only 4:1 compression, 320kbps is overkill. With a properly encoded, joint-channel stereo mp3, you WILL NOT hear a difference between a 192kbps file and a 320kbps file being broadcast on FM...At least if you use the Fraunhofer encoder (the one in Audition). You might hear a few artifacts if you use LAME at 192, though. Most of the compression from a Fraunhofer-encoded 192kbps file comes from frequency loss above 16kHz, which is fine, since you won't be broadcasting those frequencies anyway. But there's no need to worry about the masking frequencies in audible frequencies, if you've properly encoded the file. Also, the file must only be encoded one time...Saving and re-saving mp3 files will destroy the quality VERY quickly.
If you encode as dual-channel mp3's, of course you're going to get artifacts at 192kbps...You'll get about the same quality as a 112kbps joint-stereo file.
The largest problem with compressed formats is stability. That's one reason why MPEG-2 files are so popular with automation software. The "broadcast wave" file is an MPEG-2 file with a .wav extension. It provides high sound quality, a nice compression ratio, and it remains a rock-solid format.
However, there's no replacement for uncompressed PCM. There are a million compression types out there, including many lossless algorithms...But with compression comes a loss of stability. Of you have the ability, always run pcm wav files.
With ANY integer-based format, you're going to lose quality with amplitude changes. That means any 16-bit audio file (or 24-bit to a lesser degree) is going to lose quality in a digital chain where amplitude is affected.
I think the next big broadcast format will be MPEG-4 Audio files. I don't know much about .m4a files, but I know they sound better than mp3 and seem to be more stable.
> Actually, I'd have to say that I agree with that statement
> partially, and the other part is flat-out wrong. The wrong
> part first: MP2's are compressed, and stations have been
> using the format for quite some time now. I haven't heard
> anyone complain of processing problems (and yes, I'm talking
> computer processing, not audio) due to the use of compressed
> formats.
Most stations use expensive Sound Cards that can do MP2 or MP3 on board so the CPU Processing power don't really matter.
MP2 has been in use for many years. Most listeners cant tell the difference.
<P ID="signature">______________
Lenks
Program Director/Music Director
X Music Online
The X
Today's Best Music
http://www.xmusiconline.com/</P>
> partially, and the other part is flat-out wrong. The wrong
> part first: MP2's are compressed, and stations have been
> using the format for quite some time now. I haven't heard
> anyone complain of processing problems (and yes, I'm talking
> computer processing, not audio) due to the use of compressed
> formats.
Most stations use expensive Sound Cards that can do MP2 or MP3 on board so the CPU Processing power don't really matter.
MP2 has been in use for many years. Most listeners cant tell the difference.
<P ID="signature">______________
Lenks
Program Director/Music Director
X Music Online
The X
Today's Best Music
http://www.xmusiconline.com/</P>
> Nah...At only 4:1 compression, 320kbps is overkill. With a
> properly encoded, joint-channel stereo mp3, you WILL NOT
> hear a difference between a 192kbps file and a 320kbps file
> being broadcast on FM...At least if you use the Fraunhofer
> encoder (the one in Audition). You might hear a few
> artifacts if you use LAME at 192, though.
I have to disagree. In double-blind listening tests on HYDROGENAUDIO.ORG, The newer versions of LAME actally out-perform the Fraunhofer encoder. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Fraunhofer MP3 encoder hasn't been updated in quite a long time; while development is still going strong on LAME.
The next format? AAC is where my money is. A local station started streaming using AAC @ 32 kbps in stereo. While not perfect, it's amazingly good at such a low bitrate!! Check it out if you have the latest version of Winamp installed:
Click to listen
Now to give another opinion to the on-air format...Lotus Broadcasting in Las Vegas uses standard uncompressed 16-Bit 44.1 KHz WAV files for all music and imaging. The commercials are compressed as MP2 files at 256 kbps. As cheap as hard drives are now, why compress? And it will be even more important to keep the entire audio chain as uncompressed as possible with HD radio coming. Otherwise, the digital artifacts from the cascading codecs will sound like complete sheeeet.
> properly encoded, joint-channel stereo mp3, you WILL NOT
> hear a difference between a 192kbps file and a 320kbps file
> being broadcast on FM...At least if you use the Fraunhofer
> encoder (the one in Audition). You might hear a few
> artifacts if you use LAME at 192, though.
I have to disagree. In double-blind listening tests on HYDROGENAUDIO.ORG, The newer versions of LAME actally out-perform the Fraunhofer encoder. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Fraunhofer MP3 encoder hasn't been updated in quite a long time; while development is still going strong on LAME.
The next format? AAC is where my money is. A local station started streaming using AAC @ 32 kbps in stereo. While not perfect, it's amazingly good at such a low bitrate!! Check it out if you have the latest version of Winamp installed:
Click to listen
Now to give another opinion to the on-air format...Lotus Broadcasting in Las Vegas uses standard uncompressed 16-Bit 44.1 KHz WAV files for all music and imaging. The commercials are compressed as MP2 files at 256 kbps. As cheap as hard drives are now, why compress? And it will be even more important to keep the entire audio chain as uncompressed as possible with HD radio coming. Otherwise, the digital artifacts from the cascading codecs will sound like complete sheeeet.
- Status