• 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

Why are internet streams so poor

B

BS1012

I tried pulling in WALC-FM out of Charleston just a minute ago. Great mix of music; one problem, the internet stream is absolutely pitifull.

This is what I can't figure out for the life of me. I'm hearing people all over talk about how people will be able to stream the radio over their computers, cars, ETC ETC. Really though, with streams in 32 KBPS, 48 kBPS, and maybe 64 KBPS at best it's going to be a grim reality.

With WALC, listening to John Mayer or Incubus at a pitifull 32 KBPS is unacceptable. It's not listenable, it's simply poor. However, WALC seems to be the norm, not the acception. The Clear Channel stations in my area stream online at 48 KBPS; KLLC out of San Fran streams at 64, and KROQ LA streams at 100. Perhaps I'm missing something, somewhere, but I doubt it. The 64 KBPS streams are listenable, and KROQ's stream is very decent, but please, don't fool yourselves with the notion that internet radio will ever survive If streams cannot get past 32 KBPS. Listeners might be dumb, but nobody's going to put up with that type of quality.
 
That's why the only terrestrial radio stations I listen to online (regularly, anyway) are news/talk stations. The music stations I listen to online are all Internet-only (except for XM's 20 on 20, Hitlist and BPM). The lowest bit rate (going by averages) among any of the music stations is 64k, but they usually hit the max at 128k.

Once again the terrestrial stations find a way to give up their advantage.
 
Most terrestrial broadcasters do not want to fork out the money for a large server that they cannot make money from (can't play the OTA ads on the internet MOST of the time, they must be blanked out).
 
A lot of the quality issues also have to do with the quality of the implementation of the codec itself.

We're running a VBR mp3 stream that averages 84kbps (thanks, Barix) and for folks with less bandwidth, a mono mp3 stream and 48kbps AAC stream. The Barix stream sounds fantastic... even at a 32kHz sampling rate. We only do some very light leveling on the Barix stream. The air signal feeds the other two.

wxryfm.org or mobile.wxryfm.org
 
There's always MP3Pro, as well, though I've found the codec a bit hard to locate without doing a search (the most popular media players and devices don't have it and don't know where to download it from). Not as good as aacPLUS, mind you, but it still sounds great in stereo at only 64k.

I've actually found many stations are airing national commercials again... apparently someone is paying the additional money required. But that's not necessarily why stations keep their stream quality so low. The simple truth is that those streams are merely there because those stations want to make it seem as if they actually want to adopt the technology. The fact of the matter is that they think that by simply having a stream they're somehow competing with the Internet-only stations. Of course, they aren't; because their product (the programming, not just the audio quality), in more cases than they'd care to admit, is by and large inferior to the wide variety of offerings online. If it weren't for their delusions of grandeur, those streams wouldn't be there at all.
 
My assumption is that many of the programmers don't actually listen to their stream to notice the quality. I can access internet streams via my cell phone, and with an adapter can listen thru my car speakers. You can only imagine how bad 32k or 48k sounds on car speakers.

Someone will come around one day and offer legitimate bitrates. Many owners may be stand off-ish due to a lack of clear understanding of how to monetize their streams, but again... someone will come around eventually... hopefully.
 
Rico Garcia said:
Many owners may be stand off-ish due to a lack of clear understanding of how to monetize their streams, but again... someone will come around eventually... hopefully.
Click to expand...

I've heard recently that WJR in Detroit is beginning to sell all-local ads specifically for their stream. There's one way.
 
About four or five years ago I e-mailed someone at Capital FM in London and asked them about the low quality of their stream. Of course, back then the internet wasn't a hotspot for streaming media and I was also in High school. Nevertheless, later that day someone actually took a minute to personally replied to my address and told me that they would look into the concerns and would pass them on.

Last time I checked, capital now has a clear 128 KBPS stream. But, maybe you have a point about the station manager not knowing about the poor quality. Still, I have a feeling most of them would just shrug it off as no big a deal. Maybe capital was better than the rest of them--it wouldn't surprise me; or, maybe people really don't realize how bad the 32 kbps streams really are.
 
Some of it has to do with your existing listening base, and how they get on the Internet. My station streamed at 32 Kbs for a long time. It didn't sound all that bad, but obviously, It could be a lot better. We decided to try 64 Kbs, which was a huge improvement in quality. The funny thing is we got TONS of complaints from people whose Internet connection couldn't keep up.

Our format is aimed at an older demographic. Most of our listeners are age 45 and up. Many of them are dial up customers. The music we play sounded OK on an AM radio when it was new, so I guess there is a point where "good enough" is just that.

We're now back to 40 Kbs, which seems to be a reasonable compromise, at least for now.
 
Chuck said:
Some of it has to do with your existing listening base, and how they get on the Internet. My station streamed at 32 Kbs for a long time. It didn't sound all that bad, but obviously, It could be a lot better. We decided to try 64 Kbs, which was a huge improvement in quality. The funny thing is we got TONS of complaints from people whose Internet connection couldn't keep up.

Our format is aimed at an older demographic. Most of our listeners are age 45 and up. Many of them are dial up customers. The music we play sounded OK on an AM radio when it was new, so I guess there is a point where "good enough" is just that.

We're now back to 40 Kbs, which seems to be a reasonable compromise, at least for now.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. You could also offer two seperate streams. One at 32k the other at a higher rate.
 
Rico Garcia said:
Makes sense. You could also offer two seperate streams. One at 32k the other at a higher rate.
Click to expand...

True enough, but that does increase the cost quite a bit. At least for us, streaming is a real negative number generator. Other than about $100 in donations that came directly from Internet listeners last year, it is otherwise supported by the same underwriting that supports our on air broadcasting.

Maybe we should try some Google ads to pay for it....
 
Well, part of the problem is lack of knowledge and research. The AAC+ codec is excellent at 64k and even stereo at 16k! You can acheive 5.1 surround with 96k. Try it out sometime, its the way to go for now.
 
KillerOldiesJock said:
Well, part of the problem is lack of knowledge and research. The AAC+ codec is excellent at 64k and even stereo at 16k! You can acheive 5.1 surround with 96k. Try it out sometime, its the way to go for now.
Click to expand...
You are right that AAC+ is a far better codec. The problem is a lot of computers won't decode it without downloading and installing the software. Of course, that isn't hard to do, but when you are dealing with an older audience such as my station has, it can be more daunting than you might expect.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom