Philips new AM/FM/Internet radio looks interesting. It's a shelf system but
also has input for streaming audio without a PC. How does IR compare to FM?
Anybody bought one?
http://www.shoplifestyle.com/store/p...&source=CJ&AID
=7282266&PID=907648

Next logical question: anybody make an AM/FM/Internet Radio tuner?

On 8/8/04 11:26 AM, in article , "Radioman390"
wrote:

Philips new AM/FM/Internet radio looks interesting. It's a shelf system but
also has input for streaming audio without a PC. How does IR compare to FM?
Anybody bought one?
http://www.shoplifestyle.com/store/p...&source=CJ&AID
=7282266&PID=907648

Next logical question: anybody make an AM/FM/Internet Radio tuner?

FM sounds better on average - you can listen to internet streams from your
computer on headphones or route it through your home stereo speakers.

There are some high BW stream out there that have about 300kbps+ though they
tend to slow down.

It is another way to get a library of music like radio - and has more
variety - and downsides.

Radioman390 wrote:
Philips new AM/FM/Internet radio looks interesting. It's a shelf system but
also has input for streaming audio without a PC. How does IR compare to FM?
Anybody bought one?
http://www.shoplifestyle.com/store/p...&source=CJ&AID
=7282266&PID=907648

Next logical question: anybody make an AM/FM/Internet Radio tuner?

I frequently tune Shoutcast and Live365 stations with my Slimdevices
Squeezebox. I'm not really able to give you a definitive answer, because
it depends on a couple of things.

Bitrate: these are MP3 streams, so how does MP3 compare to FM? For
mustic I find that 64kbps is listenable, 128kbps is better than FM, IMO.
The streams that are at 32k sound pretty bad.

Content: Shoutcast and Live365 (for subscribers) are basically
commercial free. In either case, once you listen solidly for a week I
think you'll have heard the entire playlist of most stations.

Diversity: I can find music on the 'net that just isn't available on
local (Denver area) stations. In this reagard, IR destroys normal FM.
Want to listen to Disney area music all day? No problem. Want to listen
to radio from Amsterdam? Go for it.

"Radioman390" wrote in message
...
Philips new AM/FM/Internet radio looks interesting. It's a shelf system
but
also has input for streaming audio without a PC. How does IR compare to
FM?

Not bad, but it's lacking prismatic luminescence. I'm holding out for an
analog
Internet radio. I hear WAVAC is coming out with one, it should be a steal
at $175,000.

- Gary Rosen

Jim wrote:
Radioman390 wrote:

Philips new AM/FM/Internet radio looks interesting. It's a shelf
system but
also has input for streaming audio without a PC. How does IR compare
to FM?
Anybody bought one?
http://www.shoplifestyle.com/store/p...&source=CJ&AID

=7282266&PID=907648

Next logical question: anybody make an AM/FM/Internet Radio tuner?


I frequently tune Shoutcast and Live365 stations with my Slimdevices
Squeezebox. I'm not really able to give you a definitive answer, because
it depends on a couple of things.

Bitrate: these are MP3 streams, so how does MP3 compare to FM? For
mustic I find that 64kbps is listenable, 128kbps is better than FM, IMO.
The streams that are at 32k sound pretty bad.

Content: Shoutcast and Live365 (for subscribers) are basically
commercial free. In either case, once you listen solidly for a week I
think you'll have heard the entire playlist of most stations.

Diversity: I can find music on the 'net that just isn't available on
local (Denver area) stations. In this reagard, IR destroys normal FM.
Want to listen to Disney area music all day? No problem. Want to listen
to radio from Amsterdam? Go for it.
I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit MP3s.
The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content is a bit
flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better than 192 kbit
MP3s.

Also, mp3 radio varies quite considerably with the soundacrd you use.
When I used to listen to MP3 radio via my turtle beach santa cruz, it
sounded nice, very nice. I bought a Jazz CD and the mp3 version via
santa cruz still sounded better. SOmething was not quite right. It
should have been the other way around. I found out that the cruz's
frequency response wasn't quite neutral. I upgraded to an Echo Mia card
and, admittedly, MP3 radio sounded better on the cruz than it does via
my MIA, but I feel now that what I'm hearing from the MIA is exactly
what the sound is supposed to be, so I feel better about that. If a
track does really sound good while playing on the MIA, then I know it
really will sound good.

Hope this makes sense.



CD

What configuration would allow me to record internet radio to my hard
drive in Itunes?

Codifus wrote:

Jim wrote:

Radioman390 wrote:

Philips new AM/FM/Internet radio looks interesting. It's a shelf
system but
also has input for streaming audio without a PC. How does IR compare
to FM?
Anybody bought one?
http://www.shoplifestyle.com/store/p...&source=CJ&AID

=7282266&PID=907648

Next logical question: anybody make an AM/FM/Internet Radio tuner?



I frequently tune Shoutcast and Live365 stations with my Slimdevices
Squeezebox. I'm not really able to give you a definitive answer,
because it depends on a couple of things.

Bitrate: these are MP3 streams, so how does MP3 compare to FM? For
music I find that 64kbps is listenable, 128kbps is better than FM,
IMO. The streams that are at 32k sound pretty bad.

Content: Shoutcast and Live365 (for subscribers) are basically
commercial free. In either case, once you listen solidly for a week I
think you'll have heard the entire playlist of most stations.

Diversity: I can find music on the 'net that just isn't available on
local (Denver area) stations. In this regard, IR destroys normal FM.
Want to listen to Disney area music all day? No problem. Want to
listen to radio from Amsterdam? Go for it.

I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit
MP3s. The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content
is a bit flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better
than 192 kbit MP3s.

Also, mp3 radio varies quite considerably with the soundacrd you use.
When I used to listen to MP3 radio via my turtle beach santa cruz, it
sounded nice, very nice. I bought a Jazz CD and the mp3 version via
santa cruz still sounded better. SOmething was not quite right. It
should have been the other way around. I found out that the cruz's
frequency response wasn't quite neutral. I upgraded to an Echo Mia
card and, admittedly, MP3 radio sounded better on the cruz than it
does via my MIA, but I feel now that what I'm hearing from the MIA is
exactly what the sound is supposed to be, so I feel better about that.
If a track does really sound good while playing on the MIA, then I
know it really will sound good.

Hope this makes sense.



CD

Codifus wrote:
Jim wrote:
Radioman390 wrote:

Philips new AM/FM/Internet radio looks interesting. It's a shelf
system but
also has input for streaming audio without a PC. How does IR compare
to FM?
Anybody bought one?
http://www.shoplifestyle.com/store/p...&source=CJ&AID

=7282266&PID=907648

Next logical question: anybody make an AM/FM/Internet Radio tuner?


I frequently tune Shoutcast and Live365 stations with my Slimdevices
Squeezebox. I'm not really able to give you a definitive answer, because
it depends on a couple of things.

Bitrate: these are MP3 streams, so how does MP3 compare to FM? For
mustic I find that 64kbps is listenable, 128kbps is better than FM, IMO.
The streams that are at 32k sound pretty bad.

Content: Shoutcast and Live365 (for subscribers) are basically
commercial free. In either case, once you listen solidly for a week I
think you'll have heard the entire playlist of most stations.

Diversity: I can find music on the 'net that just isn't available on
local (Denver area) stations. In this reagard, IR destroys normal FM.
Want to listen to Disney area music all day? No problem. Want to listen
to radio from Amsterdam? Go for it.
I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit MP3s.
The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content is a bit
flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better than 192 kbit
MP3s.

Also, mp3 radio varies quite considerably with the soundacrd you use.
When I used to listen to MP3 radio via my turtle beach santa cruz, it
sounded nice, very nice. I bought a Jazz CD and the mp3 version via
santa cruz still sounded better. SOmething was not quite right. It
should have been the other way around. I found out that the cruz's
frequency response wasn't quite neutral. I upgraded to an Echo Mia card
and, admittedly, MP3 radio sounded better on the cruz than it does via
my MIA, but I feel now that what I'm hearing from the MIA is exactly
what the sound is supposed to be, so I feel better about that. If a
track does really sound good while playing on the MIA, then I know it
really will sound good.


But AIUI the *cards* aren't where the MP3s are being decoded, are they? So
whatever flaws or benefits any card has, will manifest for any audio source
played through them, not just MP3s.


--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

"Gary Rosen" wrote in message ...
"Radioman390" wrote in message
...
Philips new AM/FM/Internet radio looks interesting. It's a shelf system
but
also has input for streaming audio without a PC. How does IR compare to
FM?

Not bad, but it's lacking prismatic luminescence. I'm holding out for an
analog
Internet radio. I hear WAVAC is coming out with one, it should be a steal
at $175,000.

- Gary Rosen
That would either become;

a - satellite radio passing along the internet radio that it's streaming.
b - FM radio passing along the internet radio that it's streaming.
c - AM stereo radio enhanced to produce a large range of the audio frequency.

A & B are easily do-able, but you'd be paying for A.
C looks to be quite a technical challenge.

CD

Codifus wrote:

I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit MP3s.
The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content is a bit
flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better than 192 kbit
MP3s.

I beg to differ, although in my limited experience, I could be wrong.

You're compressing an already compressed format (FM) even farther by saving the
file as a 192 kbit MP3. Of course it's going to sound inferior to the original
(FM). But that doesn't mean that FM sounds superior to 192 kbit MP3s. Rip a
track from a redbook CD into a 192 kbit MP3, and I'll bet it sounds at least as
good as most FM, if not better.

Jeff

On 8/11/04 11:36 PM, in article , "UnionPac2001"
wrote:

Codifus wrote:

I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit MP3s.
The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content is a bit
flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better than 192 kbit
MP3s.

I beg to differ, although in my limited experience, I could be wrong.

You're compressing an already compressed format (FM) even farther by saving
the
file as a 192 kbit MP3. Of course it's going to sound inferior to the
original
(FM). But that doesn't mean that FM sounds superior to 192 kbit MP3s. Rip a
track from a redbook CD into a 192 kbit MP3, and I'll bet it sounds at least
as
good as most FM, if not better.

I don't think FM in general compresses sound - though it is not full
frequency by any means.

B&D wrote:



I don't think FM in general compresses sound - though it is not full
frequency by any means.

I THINK you are correct in that FM doesn't in itself compress the sound. But
most FM radio stations DO use some form of compression ( but stations that
specifically play Classical music are less likely to do so).

On 13 Aug 2004 03:28:35 GMT, (UnionPac2001)
wrote:

B&D wrote:

I don't think FM in general compresses sound - though it is not full
frequency by any means.

I THINK you are correct in that FM doesn't in itself compress the sound. But
most FM radio stations DO use some form of compression ( but stations that
specifically play Classical music are less likely to do so).

However, level compression is a completely different beast from MP3
data reduction.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Compression in the context of FM modulation has nothing at all to do with
compression as it applies to MP3.
FM is bandwidth limited - I forget the lower limit but, IMS, the upper limit
is 15khz. The only compression that might be a factor is dynamic range
compression. The "compression" that is relevant in MP3 encoding is a
totally different animal, having to do with how much data you use to
describe the original signal. MPEG layer 3 (audio) encoding accomplishes
this decrease in file size by throwing out data that it deems unimportant.

"UnionPac2001" wrote in message
...
B&D wrote:



I don't think FM in general compresses sound - though it is not full
frequency by any means.

I THINK you are correct in that FM doesn't in itself compress the sound.
But
most FM radio stations DO use some form of compression ( but stations that
specifically play Classical music are less likely to do so).

UnionPac2001 wrote:
Codifus wrote:

I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit MP3s.
The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content is a bit
flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better than 192 kbit
MP3s.

I beg to differ, although in my limited experience, I could be wrong.

You're compressing an already compressed format (FM) even farther by saving the
file as a 192 kbit MP3.

Those are two different, unrelated forms of compression. One is dynamic
range compression, the other is file size (data) compression.


--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

On 8/12/04 11:28 PM, in article ,
"UnionPac2001" wrote:

B&D wrote:



I don't think FM in general compresses sound - though it is not full
frequency by any means.

I THINK you are correct in that FM doesn't in itself compress the sound. But
most FM radio stations DO use some form of compression ( but stations that
specifically play Classical music are less likely to do so).

Yeah- A lot of rock stations in my area over boost the bass - and reduce the
dynamic range with special sound compressors. Luckily there is one rock
station, a jazz and a classical FM in my area that does NOT do this - or at
least it doesn't seem like they do.

"jw" wrote:



Compression in the context of FM modulation has nothing at all to do with
compression as it applies to MP3.

I realize that. But the poster I originally responded to claimed that a 192kbs
MP3 sounds inferior to FM. But the MP3 he was referring to was ripped from an
FM broadcast, which would OBVIOUSLY sound inferior to the original broadcast.
The way he worded it made it sound like a 192kbs would always sound inferior to
an FM broadcast, which is incorrect. A 192kbs MP3 ripped from a redbook CD
should be at least the equal of any FM broadcast.

FM is bandwidth limited - I forget the lower limit but, IMS, the upper limit
is 15khz. The only compression that might be a factor is dynamic range
compression. The "compression" that is relevant in MP3 encoding is a
totally different animal, having to do with how much data you use to
describe the original signal. MPEG layer 3 (audio) encoding accomplishes
this decrease in file size by throwing out data that it deems unimportant.

I pretty much have an understanding of all this too.
My point was that MOST FM stations use some form of compression or limiting,
already compromising sound quality. And ripping an MP3 from such a broadcast
is just adding insult to injury... : )

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 13 Aug 2004 03:28:35 GMT, (UnionPac2001)
wrote:

B&D wrote:

I don't think FM in general compresses sound - though it is not full
frequency by any means.

I THINK you are correct in that FM doesn't in itself compress the sound.
But
most FM radio stations DO use some form of compression ( but stations that
specifically play Classical music are less likely to do so).

However, level compression is a completely different beast from MP3
data reduction.
--

I realize this. Apparently I worded my post incorrectly, leading to some
confusion. My bad. Sorry. : )

B&D wrote:



Yeah- A lot of rock stations in my area over boost the bass - and reduce the
dynamic range with special sound compressors. Luckily there is one rock
station, a jazz and a classical FM in my area that does NOT do this - or at
least it doesn't seem like they do.

Seems like all the stations (at least rock) in my area sound like sh*t through
a tin horn. Although some seem better than others.

Steven Sullivan wrote:



UnionPac2001 wrote:
Codifus wrote:

I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit MP3s.
The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content is a bit
flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better than 192 kbit
MP3s.

I beg to differ, although in my limited experience, I could be wrong.

You're compressing an already compressed format (FM) even farther by saving
the
file as a 192 kbit MP3.

Those are two different, unrelated forms of compression. One is dynamic
range compression, the other is file size (data) compression.

I fully realize this. Doesn't change the fact that both forms degrade the
sound quality.
It also doesn't mean that " FM is better than 192 kbit MP3s.", as stated by
another poster. A 192kbs MP3 ripped from a redbook CD sounds superior to any
FM broadcast in my area (at least to my ears).

On 8/13/04 8:58 PM, in article , "UnionPac2001"
wrote:

B&D wrote:



Yeah- A lot of rock stations in my area over boost the bass - and reduce the
dynamic range with special sound compressors. Luckily there is one rock
station, a jazz and a classical FM in my area that does NOT do this - or at
least it doesn't seem like they do.

Seems like all the stations (at least rock) in my area sound like sh*t through
a tin horn. Although some seem better than others.

The 3 stations in my area (Rochester, NY) are 90.5 (Rock), 90.1 (Jazz) and
91.5 (Classical) - none of the 3 seem to do a lot of "extra" processing to
the music. About every other station out there appears to do things to
sound "better" in cheap car radios.

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Codifus wrote:

Jim wrote:

Radioman390 wrote:


Philips new AM/FM/Internet radio looks interesting. It's a shelf
system but
also has input for streaming audio without a PC. How does IR compare
to FM?
Anybody bought one?
http://www.shoplifestyle.com/store/p...&source=CJ&AID

=7282266&PID=907648

Next logical question: anybody make an AM/FM/Internet Radio tuner?


I frequently tune Shoutcast and Live365 stations with my Slimdevices
Squeezebox. I'm not really able to give you a definitive answer, because
it depends on a couple of things.

Bitrate: these are MP3 streams, so how does MP3 compare to FM? For
mustic I find that 64kbps is listenable, 128kbps is better than FM, IMO.
The streams that are at 32k sound pretty bad.

Content: Shoutcast and Live365 (for subscribers) are basically
commercial free. In either case, once you listen solidly for a week I
think you'll have heard the entire playlist of most stations.

Diversity: I can find music on the 'net that just isn't available on
local (Denver area) stations. In this reagard, IR destroys normal FM.
Want to listen to Disney area music all day? No problem. Want to listen
to radio from Amsterdam? Go for it.

I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit MP3s.
The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content is a bit
flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better than 192 kbit
MP3s.


Also, mp3 radio varies quite considerably with the soundacrd you use.
When I used to listen to MP3 radio via my turtle beach santa cruz, it
sounded nice, very nice. I bought a Jazz CD and the mp3 version via
santa cruz still sounded better. SOmething was not quite right. It
should have been the other way around. I found out that the cruz's
frequency response wasn't quite neutral. I upgraded to an Echo Mia card
and, admittedly, MP3 radio sounded better on the cruz than it does via
my MIA, but I feel now that what I'm hearing from the MIA is exactly
what the sound is supposed to be, so I feel better about that. If a
track does really sound good while playing on the MIA, then I know it
really will sound good.



But AIUI the *cards* aren't where the MP3s are being decoded, are they? So
whatever flaws or benefits any card has, will manifest for any audio source
played through them, not just MP3s.


Yes, exactly. It's the driver for the card that's "altering" the sound.
I couldn't quite put the thoughts to words before, but you brought the
point home.

CD

UnionPac2001 wrote:

Codifus wrote:


I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit MP3s.
The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content is a bit
flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better than 192 kbit
MP3s.


I beg to differ, although in my limited experience, I could be wrong.

You're compressing an already compressed format (FM) even farther by saving the
file as a 192 kbit MP3. Of course it's going to sound inferior to the original
(FM). But that doesn't mean that FM sounds superior to 192 kbit MP3s. Rip a
track from a redbook CD into a 192 kbit MP3, and I'll bet it sounds at least as
good as most FM, if not better.

Jeff
Good point. I stand corrected.

CD

UnionPac2001 wrote:
"jw" wrote:



Compression in the context of FM modulation has nothing at all to do with
compression as it applies to MP3.

I realize that. But the poster I originally responded to claimed that a 192kbs
MP3 sounds inferior to FM. But the MP3 he was referring to was ripped from an
FM broadcast, which would OBVIOUSLY sound inferior to the original broadcast.
The way he worded it made it sound like a 192kbs would always sound inferior to
an FM broadcast, which is incorrect. A 192kbs MP3 ripped from a redbook CD
should be at least the equal of any FM broadcast.

FM is bandwidth limited - I forget the lower limit but, IMS, the upper limit
is 15khz. The only compression that might be a factor is dynamic range
compression. The "compression" that is relevant in MP3 encoding is a
totally different animal, having to do with how much data you use to
describe the original signal. MPEG layer 3 (audio) encoding accomplishes
this decrease in file size by throwing out data that it deems unimportant.

I pretty much have an understanding of all this too.
My point was that MOST FM stations use some form of compression or limiting,
already compromising sound quality. And ripping an MP3 from such a broadcast
is just adding insult to injury... : )

Or, making an MP3 of it might have no audibly degradative effect whatsoever.
It all depends on what's on the broadcast, and how the mp3 was encoded.
The audible effects of audio compression and file size compression are not
necessarily additive.

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

UnionPac2001 wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:



UnionPac2001 wrote:
Codifus wrote:

I record FM broadcasts to my computer, then save them as 192 kbit MP3s.
The quality does go down just a wee bit. High frequency content is a bit
flatter, and the bass a bit lighter, too. So FM is better than 192 kbit
MP3s.

I beg to differ, although in my limited experience, I could be wrong.

You're compressing an already compressed format (FM) even farther by saving
the
file as a 192 kbit MP3.

Those are two different, unrelated forms of compression. One is dynamic
range compression, the other is file size (data) compression.

I fully realize this. Doesn't change the fact that both forms degrade the
sound quality.

They *can*, but it's quite possible that you couldn't tell a good MP3 from the
original.

It also doesn't mean that " FM is better than 192 kbit MP3s.", as stated by
another poster.

Agreed.

A 192kbs MP3 ripped from a redbook CD sounds superior to any
FM broadcast in my area (at least to my ears).

That speaks more to the difference between CD playback vs FM broadcast
practice, than to anything about 192 kpbs mp3 vs FM.


--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth