I just browsed through over 340 some stations streaming with Liquid Compass by tweaking the url ID and they were mostly all stations I've either heard or were boring news or Christian stations. BTW have to say Magic 105.1 in Detroit is one of the best ACs I've ever heard. So hopefully as the years go on by more and more stations will be able to afford streaming. Though stations who have no websites at all or sites that aren't updated like the WY and MT ones it's doubtful unless they bring in more money. I still feel all stations should be streaming like the international ones and am a very strong demander in that field. I send e-mails to stations requesting streams and they either tell me they might do it soon or tell me not at all in the near future. I would encourage everyone to write to the record companies and tell them to lower the royalty rates. I want to hear even more and cannot travel. And I'm sure others feel the same way.
-
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
Quite a demand for streaming radio!
- Thread starter icycool7227
- Start date
icycool7227 said:
Just want to point out that record royalties are not set by record labels. They are set by the Copyright Royalty Board, a group of judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress. They have been charged, under the terms of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, with setting royalty rates. Two years ago, Congress passed a law that allows SoundExchange, the subsidiary of the RIAA that oversees collection and disbursal of royalties, to hold hearings with broadcasters and grant discounts on the rate based on certain points made by the broadcasters. In the case of local OTA streams, the NAB represented all commercial radio at its hearing with SoundExchange, and was granted a small discount and a couple of exemptions.
For the most part, however, the problem with digital royalties, from what I can see, lies in the law itself, that is antiquated and needs to be re-written, taking the CRB out of the mix, and turning the process more like what all broadcasters do with songwriting royalties. But it's unlikely the Congress will revisit this issue.
The NAB proposed a compromise for the RIAA's Performance Rights Act, that incorporates some points that could help OTA streaming, but it's unlikely to be approved by the RIAA.
But to your main point, I think most broadcasters are very excited about prospects for digital streaming. It moves OTA radio to new platforms that more people use. If we can just settle this stupid royalty issue, we could all move forward.
Mainstream needs to get back to basics, musicians play music because they love it! The availability streaming provides means Everyone can have a piece of the pie, and you know who doesn't like that idea!
A
Abeattie
Guest
I hear what your saying and aggree compleatly?
Im tired of the same lack of variety of local radio stations?
I flick the dial from AM or FM to "www" and add thousands of new stations to my listening menu.
You can listen to stations from just about any city or country around the globe.
It's perfect for expats wanting a slice of life from the old country.
I think the future is here and the record companys need to get on board.
Its amazing im happy to pay for internet access so I dont have to listen to FM.
Im tired of the same lack of variety of local radio stations?
I flick the dial from AM or FM to "www" and add thousands of new stations to my listening menu.
You can listen to stations from just about any city or country around the globe.
It's perfect for expats wanting a slice of life from the old country.
I think the future is here and the record companys need to get on board.
Its amazing im happy to pay for internet access so I dont have to listen to FM.
If there were so much demand, server sites would be paying those who put up an audio stream,
not asking ME to pay for carrying the audio! And the more unique the stream is, the more it would worth.
Fortunately the laws of physics has no billing department, and the facilities are permanently 'on'.
Tom Wells said:
If there were so much demand, server sites would be paying those who put up an audio stream,
not asking ME to pay for carrying the audio! And the more unique the stream is, the more it would worth.
Fortunately the laws of physics has no billing department, and the facilities are permanently 'on'.
Well I think until there is free wi-fi in most communities and we see wi-fi radios that work in vehicles Internet broadcasting will only be a niche medium.
It will happen though and the people broadcasting now have a distinct advantage over the field when that day arrives.
Starbucks said:
Most people have paid for cable TV mainly to get better quality picture of local stations, and perhaps a handful of extra channels. HOWEVER, with multicasting on HDTV, you can get digital quality picture over the air that's better than cable, and many local stations will be adding sub-channels that will compete with cable channels. They include movies, 24/7 news, music, and lots of other options that will challenge the cable monopolies for content and quality. I foresee a day when a big chunk of the cable audience will free themselves of their monthly bill by using OTA HDTV. Or just watch streaming video via the internet hooked up to their 50 inch HDTV. Mine has a jack to do just that right now.
Nope, don't pay for TV. Over the air TV looks great. And I don't watch a lot of TV anyway. I do pay for satellite radio and internet services, and neither has ever provided stations with the audio of a high-quality, well-processed analog radio station (as heard on a high-quality radio).
on the issue with watching tv on the internet..i have been researching available options to do just that so as to get rid of cable tv..i use comcast.and have no problems with the internet service usually getting 0ver 20 megs down and close to three up with my package..but i seldom watch the cable channels..as im an old fart and find plenty to watch on hulu and other sites similar...only down side i see to internet tv is having to hook a pc up to the tv for a source..and no remote..lol...i could care less about local news in my area..but only watch tv for a handfull of shows on discovery, sci fi, etc ..maybe six or seven channels at all...and football..the only sport i care for..
Starbucks said:
for audio absolutely.....most mp3 streams (including mine) at 128kbps stereo is usually the minimum accepted for decent quality for streaming, then you have source material considerations, as if you're streaming from mp3 sources, you do have mp3 onto mp3 and like analog tape, if you go down more then a couple of generations, you do notice quality loss. If source mp3 was "cleaned up" from vinyl or analog tape which can be poorly done, it only makes it worse....
there's many considerations to look at in the stream chain.
to me though, most FM sound severely overprocessed and brickwalled compared to a lot of the 128kbps streams out there I've heard. But the sad thing is, as FM over processed is the standard, it's creeping into streams more and more by people who think that is "the sound" and while they might be right, that doesn't necessarily make good audio and wear easy on your ears.
I've got a cheap compressor limiter on my stream processing chain to keep stuff in line, but that's it. it's not maxxing everything out, and go figure, you can still hear a bit of dynamic range.....it's an analog chain so it's a bit dirty, but that isn't always bad.
Your right....for instance , any record label who lost recordings due to a fire, (like Atlantic) alot of there recordings from the 60's transfered from Disc to digital CD.....gets like an AAD rating. And you can't recreate what was done in the studio at the time to make it sound like a genuine remaster. So alot of that gets rebroadcast on the streams (if your an oldies station or soul) but by the 90's , the recordings that are straight digital and someone's stream and recordings is 128 and 320....they sound great. Processing is another thing on top of that. That's up to the individual on what he puts out. Also some times your cable company can have an effect on it where it sounds alittle choking or narrow when there doing ther own test.
Plus besides the Logictech Z 5500...there's not many computer sound sytems that go in the direction like them. Puting out a 500 watt sub woofer along with optical and direct modes and 96khz....it's one of the finest audio systems to hook up with the internet streams at the moment. The sound about rivaled my analog Energy APS power woofers. You just can't judge on the $50.00 computer speakers you pick up at Best Buy.
Plus besides the Logictech Z 5500...there's not many computer sound sytems that go in the direction like them. Puting out a 500 watt sub woofer along with optical and direct modes and 96khz....it's one of the finest audio systems to hook up with the internet streams at the moment. The sound about rivaled my analog Energy APS power woofers. You just can't judge on the $50.00 computer speakers you pick up at Best Buy.
My monitor for my stream is in "production" running through my audio console and a decent set of speakers. when i'm not producing something for the stream. It's not exactly audiophile, but it's reasonable....and only about 10 watts. You don't need a lot of power for audio personal listening....a decent pair of speakers, a decently acoustically dead room and amp and speakers.
AAD isn't as bad as you think. it's more of a source master thing. In the early days of CDs, record companies were cheap and didn't know better, they would source from LP masters, a couple generations down from the session tapes and EQ'd for the limitations of the LP. times have changed since then, as noise reduction technology has advanced, and some are sourcing from the session masters or a generation closer to the session. less hiss and noise.
CD's 16 bit resolution to me is just bare minimum for digital sampling anyway. been playing with some 50 year old jingle tapes at 15ips and transferring them to 24 bit 192khz sampling rate and the comparison is noticeably different to the CD quality transfers I made 10 years ago.....I think that's 1/2 the problem why people think digital is cold. digital recording need to be of a higher resolution.
AAD isn't as bad as you think. it's more of a source master thing. In the early days of CDs, record companies were cheap and didn't know better, they would source from LP masters, a couple generations down from the session tapes and EQ'd for the limitations of the LP. times have changed since then, as noise reduction technology has advanced, and some are sourcing from the session masters or a generation closer to the session. less hiss and noise.
CD's 16 bit resolution to me is just bare minimum for digital sampling anyway. been playing with some 50 year old jingle tapes at 15ips and transferring them to 24 bit 192khz sampling rate and the comparison is noticeably different to the CD quality transfers I made 10 years ago.....I think that's 1/2 the problem why people think digital is cold. digital recording need to be of a higher resolution.
Another problem was for someone Bill Inglott who was one of Rhinos top producers, would purchase a song or two from a person that happens to own the rights to it...and had to hastily work and clean the hiss and noise on a analog master tape within time limits and restraints from a recording studio.
- Status