Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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. : ) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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). |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Internet Radio Quality?
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How can I capture Internet radio broadcasts on MP3? | General | |||
XM Radio quality sucks | Car Audio | |||
XM Radio - Improved Sound Quality | Car Audio | |||
Advice on Internet Radio Station Startup Requested | Pro Audio | |||
Audio quality "CD Clock Radio" | Audio Opinions |