On my website I have a Demand Radio page with little Flash Player Buttons that play particular radio programs simply by pressing play. The radio programs are recorded in mp3 format with bit-rate 56kbps.
Today a listener reported trouble hearing a constant stream from that page, and it entered my mind that perhaps slower computers cannot sustain the 56kbps bit-rate….. my old computer certainly wouldn’t do it…..
To experiment with this idea, I will change all the programs on that page tp 24-kbps and ask the listener to “try it now.”
It will be about two days.
Comments are welcome.
Ten-Year-Old
Just about any ten-year-old computer should be able to handle 56 kbps audio stream without a problem.
However, and this is important to know, using a Flash player for streaming means it just works while the current page, on which the Flash wrapper code or inserted CSS resides, is live and in front.
IOW, if you open another window, it will likely start pulsing or quit altogether. The cure is to go back to the page where the player is, click the STOP button, then click the PLAY button again, and leave it there.
Otherwise, don’t use the Flash player … instead, have the default or some chosen player open the stream source.That should continue running, unless the user has too many live windows running, such as other streams or video players.
HTH …
Agreed
I fully agree with Ken’s analysis, it is probably your listeners having too many apps running in the background, hogging up not just CPU power but bandwidth on their connection too. And there is not anything you can do about net congestion either, or if their internet connection is on a shared tier and the entire neighborhood is yanking on that shared tier all at the same time!
If your show files are spooling from a co-located web site hosting server, then the location of where those files are is not the issue either. Chances are, the entire problem is with the end user and their PC and what it’s running at the time of the problem.
Besides that, 32kps audio files even in mono sound like hammered poo poo. Keep them at 56. And I suggest you have a LQ version (56k) and an HQ version (96k or better) version too…for those who know the difference between the two and appreciate the better sound and have the ears for it, as well as stations playing your program trying to adhere to the quality standards on their FM’s and AM Stereo stations!! (hint hint)
Like the guy said in the article about good sounding AM radio, it is NOT tin can ham two way telephone voice radio! Neither is FM, stereo or mono, nor is direct audio file playback! We live in the age of high definition video and audio..keep up with the times..or find yourself left behind real fast!
RFB
HQ & LQ
The master recordings and editings are done by KDX at 44.1kHz sampling rate in the WAV format.
The broadcast and distribution version is put out at 59kbps 44.1kHz sampling in the MP3 format.
Another place we could shave off a little CPU or bandwidth overhead is the sampling rate, perhaps 22.1kHz would help some listeners?
I think our LQ is MQ.
Sorry, RFB, but I disagree
Sorry, RFB, but I disagree with your analysis of bitrates. I stream at 40KBps mono and it sounds great through a number of different speakers and audio setups. Better than standard FM, and significantly better than 32KBps, although it is generally regarded as an equivalent for standard mono FM (and that’s about right, although maybe a little over optimistic). I noted very little difference between 40, and say, 56 or 64.
If you’re an audiophile, with audiophile equipment, you probably wouldn’t be listening to MP3 streamed mono recordings in any event.
In my opinion, anything over 40Kbps (unless it’s stereo, of course) is just a waste of bandwidth. In my case, that is significant, since I run my own servers and thus wasting bandwidth means fewer potential listeners. Reminds me of the guys who encode MP3’s in 320Kbps CBR who claim that it sounds better. I don’t particularly believe that that potential infintessimal improvement is worth double or triple the file size.
The bottom line, in any event, is the type of material you are streaming. Talk, old mono recordings from vinyl (and even a lot from CD) would not benefit from increased bitrates, even if you are one of the rare few that CAN tell the difference.
Change of Plan
Based on the interesting comments from Artisan Radio I think that I’ll try 40kbps and not 24kbps as I earlier said.
Making that change is still a way off but I will post some kind of notice so users know.
In my experience
In my experience I’ve found 128 kbps to be superior to that of 64 40 and 32 kbps using mp3.
On my FM I can certainly tell something that is being fed from a 64 kbps source.
Pondering Back and Forth
I agree that with mp3 the higher bit rates sound better as you go up, but this is a problem of slower computers skipping because they can’t keep up with an incoming stream.
I know, for example, that for dial up internet listeners 16kbps is about right….
Making Sense of Filetypes, Bitrates, and Resolution
It’s nearly impossible to make a case for agreement, or not, when dealing with this stuff, for a number of reasons, the main ones being alignment of files being played to stream conditions and program material.
MP3 files are particularly vulnerable to these conditions (an MP3 stream sending MP3 files on it), but we can’t spend all our time switching things … it’s like the weather, and in a wireless world, actual weather (including Solar weather) also affect stream conditions.
How about streaming an AIFF music file, then right after it in the playlist is a MP3 file? How much can we expect from an Internet stream to handle the digital data in perfect alignment?
One day the stream sounds fine with a particular file in the playlist, then the next time the same file sounds swishy and noisy.
From what I’ve read, AAC+ is a good solution for now, if we can convince the world to kick the MP3 habit.
40kbps For Now
The new Low Power Hour No. 26 has been released at 40kbps, and I already noticed it sounds different from the sound I was getting at 56kbps, but it still sounds acceptable and we’ll wait for comments to come in from the listener(s) who had difficulty.
What we need in life are more choices. Bli-bli-bli-bli-bli (stroking lower lip).
Get With The Times
“I agree that with mp3 the higher bit rates sound better as you go up, but this is a problem of slower computers skipping because they can’t keep up with an incoming stream. I know, for example, that for dial up internet listeners 16kbps is about right”
Well you can’t solve the problems for everyone with a one size fits all. Those with the “slow” computers are either still messing around with 486 machines, or have so much crap loaded up and running, there isn’t a thing you can do to solve that.
What you gonna do…crunch down your show files and streams to such a low bit rate you begin to sound like telephone?
Ya there are still some dialups out there. At one time the web content was geared for that. This is the era of broadband and all the sites and media stream outlets are geared for that broadband.
There was a time during the transition from creepy crawly dialup to broadband where sites and media content outlets had provided a choice, even for their web pages between heavy content like that for broadband, and weakling content for the dialups. These days…very very rare to find that anymore because the majority is on broadband.
So why not do what was once done during the transitions? Put up a low bit rate and a higher bit rate so your not forcing everyone down into the poo poo.
JMO.
RFB
The Discussion Has Taken a Turn
It’s a good turn, in which the discussion has moved from being about streaming bit-rates as a general subject to the question of “What internet speed most people have.”
In 2006, when I started messing, I heard some computer geeks on the radio say “50% of the world has dial-up either because there is nothing better available in their area or because they are satisfied with dial-up.”
No it is 2012, and I wonder where those statistics are to be found? How many people actually have broadband, and what about slow DSLs, one of which I had for awhile that worked, didn’t work, never the same two days in a row.
One thing that is probably very common, which RFB said, is that many people have old slow computers or over-burdened computers, owing in my opinion to the non-technical mentality of the general population.
Only one broadcast machine at a time
I broadcast to the internet, normally, at 96 kbps which sounds great most of the time. Occasionally, someone’s cellphone or computer when the Internet is locally loaded up, bandwidth gets more scarce, and the whole thing slows down, will skip.
I need at least that much for music, but I do live remotes at 64 kbps .. basically just voice.
But as I alluded to before, the better the files, the better it sounds online in any case. Twilight Zone Radio Dramas always sound fabulous because the downloaded files are MP3 320 kbps 44.1 kHz sample rate. Same goes for AIFF files, AAC files, WAV files at quality rates, Ogg Vorbis, etc.
But MP3 files like I get from most of the OTR online sources are much less quality. I get the feeling they sounded much better when they were originally broadcast, if you had a good console radio.
Old Time Quality
Yes you are right, Ken at Tiny Radio, the early broadcasters very soon invented good microphones and very high fidelity disc transcription, putting the best of old-time radio on 16″ electrical transcriptions which still today sound very excellent.
Many of the collectors made the mistake of putting their archives on reel-to-reel tape at 3 3/4-inches-per-second quarter-track, a very low fidelity medium. They did this so they could economize on tape, but when generations of dubbing have given us later copies, the quality is worthless.
What I Use
Well AR, I got 3 streams, 128kps 44.1, 48kps 22.050, and 24kps AAC+ 44.1, and they all sound better than most out there with a ton of processing on the front end. Been that way for over 4 years plus and still going good and I never get ANY complaints or problems from listeners. I get tons
of submissions by indie artists who tell me my streams sound excellent and they flood me with tons of their music.
I run an AM stereo station and an FM stereo station and those too sound better than the locals.
I think I will stick to what is working and let everyone else continue to debate the debacle. Mine works fine..and will continue to do so the way I do it.
What works for everyone else..is what works for everyone else! 😀
..ps…audiophile?..HA! Man I was listening and recording audio on 2 inch open reel to reel industrial decks sporting 24 tracks running at 30IPS long before any of this mp3 stuff and compressed audio was even a dream. Thing is..if there was a WAV streaming method for the web, that’s what my streams would be running..at 64k sampling to boot!
RFB
First of all, I think it’s
First of all, I think it’s important, when discussing streaming bit rates, to be precise about whether you are streaming mono or stereo. 128Kbps in stereo would be identical to 64Kbps in mono (without the separation, of course).
Another thing is subjectivity. Some may hear the difference between 64Kbps and 40Kbps, but I can’t tell a significant difference. At least with the kind of stereo equipment and speakers that I have (which is probably better than most, but certainly not audiophile, not even close). And I’ve been told I have a pretty good ear.
Still yet another thing is the type of program material you’re streaming. There’s absolutely no reason to stream, say OTR, at rates that are higher than what they are probably encoded in. Talk and old vinyl recordings are still other sources that really don’t need it.
I’ve never found variability in listening to the same MP3 file from the Internet, as Ken asserts. I’ve had my connection drop out (i.e., stop), but that’s about it.
And it’s all very well to say that your listeners should tech up and come into the modern age, so to speak. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who wants to listen to my station should be able to, as long as they have a computer. After all, I (and most others here, declarations notwithstanding) probably don’t have listeners they can afford to turn away (we’re all struggling to be heard).
So Carl, I would just go ahead and try lowering your bit rate and not worry. It’s admirable that you actually care.
My philosophy was, and still is – I will help anybody listen to my station if they approach me, no matter what the issues. And that’s one of the reasons that I chose the bitrate I did – low enough to not be a burden on virtually any computer or Internet connection (you can still listen via dialup and I did test that, at least a while ago), low enough to allow me to support close to 50 simultaneous users (it was 25 but my ISP upgraded my connection) and maybe more, and yet still sounding more than good enough for what I play (vintage Jazz, 50’s/60’s, OTR, and the occasional 80’s and even classical). I’m even prepared to go down to 32Kbps mono if I need the bandwidth (I wish I had the problem of not enough bandwidth to support the number of users that want to listen over the Internet).
But of course, that’s entirely my opinion.
Learning Everyday
Artisan Radio has taught me a new fact I never knew: that 128kbps stereo is comprised of two 64kbps streams in tandem.
My mp3 stream is 24kbps, 22.1kHz, mono, CBR…. but the start of this discussion was not about my main stream, but about secondary “on demand” streams available on my website, where listeners can hear particular programs by pressing a Play button on a Flash Player. The files on the Demand site are mp3 at 56kbps, 44,1kHz, mono, and I think those are the “streams” a user had trouble playing due to skipping.
Come to think of it even the audiofiles on my main stream are recorded at 56kbps but during the streaming process get re-shuffled on-the-fly down to 24kbps.
Another issue that is only now entering this discussion is between CBR and VBR (Constant Bit Rate and Variable Bit Rate). I am streaming at CBR because I cannot find a way to do VBR, but a VBR stream I heard somewhere impressed me by seeming to sound better than a comparitive CBR stream, but Artisan Radio struck the nail on the noggin when he reminded me that many of these judgements are subjective.
I have something to say about subjective judgement. I have noticed that my subjective judgement about the exact same sound will not always be the same. At times a file that sounded good yesterday doesn’t sound as good today. Am I being subjectively subjective?
VBR
Edcast does VBR.
But keep in mind, not all players support VBR.
Windows Media Player certainly doesn’t
(Unless you have Vista or Win 7)
Talk About Edcast
I’d like to know more about Edcast, even knowing that not all players support VBR (Variable Bit Rate).
When I first started experimenting about 5-years ago, I think I tried Edcast at that time and hit some snags, but upgrades have no doubt happened and it’s a new day.
I think a real advantage of VBR is that it constantly re-adjusts itself to drain more or less bandwidth as needed for top-quality sound.
New MP3 Situation
To avoid starting a new blog/forum I am tacking onto this older one, but the situation is different than those discussed up until now.
This is a very unusual problem trying to convert an mp3 file into a wav file, something I have done many times before.
There is a small chunk I wish to use from an Alex Jones podcast 0f 4/25, which is 32kbps, 22kHz, CRC, mono, all very standard.
But every attempt to convert to wav crashes Audacity, the editing program.
I then updated to Audacity v 2.0.0, updated LAME the mp3 encoder to the latest version, but crash, crash, crash. Very unusual.
Sound like anything you’ve encountered?
Hey Guess What
Ya, in the time when no one had yet come back with any opinions, I fixed it, and it’s VERY unusual, I think, so I hope there are opinions about how, why and what.
In the Meta Data window for the mp3 file was a line as follows:
Software: LAME 64bits version 3.9.9.5 (http://lame.sf.net)
By simply removing that line I was able to convert from mp3 to wav.
???