[halefrank]

I find myself listening to a lot of internet radio nowadays with my computer hooked up to my Bose radio. Many of the stations I like are broadcasting in 56kb and 64kb and despite the limitation of the Bose, the sound isn’t bad. I am contemplating getting a decent sound card, ear-buds and amp combination. My question is will I benefit from such an expenditure. I don’t want to got through this and find out that internet radio quality a long way from CD quality. Anybody doing something similar.

frank

 

[Mr.Radar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by halefrank My question is will I benefit from such an expenditure. I don’t want to got through this and find out that internet radio quality a long way from CD quality.

Internet radio generally sounds bad compared to CDs. To approach CD quality you need to use a good codec like Ogg Vorbis, AAC, MPC, or WMA9/WMA10 at at least 160 kbps (and many people consider 192 kbps to be an absolute minimum). Even "next generation" codecs like HE-AAC and MP3Pro don't sound very good at lower bitrates than 80 kbps, and very few internet radio stations use those formats. Most internet radio stations also have all their music already ripped in low quality formats and by reencoding them for internet broadcasting they further lower the quality.

 

[diefree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Radar Internet radio generally sounds bad compared to CDs. To approach CD quality you need to use a good codec like Ogg Vorbis, AAC, MPC, or WMA9/WMA10 at at least 160 kbps (and many people consider 192 kbps to be an absolute minimum). Even "next generation" codecs like HE-AAC and MP3Pro don't sound very good at lower bitrates than 80 kbps, and very few internet radio stations use those formats. Most internet radio stations also have all their music already ripped in low quality formats and by reencoding them for internet broadcasting they further lower the quality.

In your opinion, what is the best encoding format for internet radio below 80kbps? An OGG variation perhaps?

 

[Magsy]

AAC+ is great at lower bitrates!

 

[Jonny K]

While many online radio streams are pretty low quality, there are also some high quality streams. Nothing that can compare to CD, but certainly decent quality.

If you run Winamp you can open up the media library and select "Internet Radio" under the streaming media section. While many of the most popular streams are 128k MP3, there are also streams at 320, 256, and 192. Sort by bitrate.

If you like Trance you can find 192k streams at ETN.fm. Additionally, there are many other websites offering high quality trance streams.

http://www.etn.fm/

And this is probably the best of the bunch...160K streaming OGG! (Ogg is much higher quality than MP3 at the same bitrate):

http://www.virginradio.co.uk/thestation/listen/ogg.html

Sometimes the virgin streams will say "we currently have a few problems" when you listen, just try it again and it'll eventually work. Additionally, sometimes it'll load a low quality stream instead of the 160k stream. Not sure why, maybe their servers are busy and they automatically switch you to a low quality one. Just retry again.


Jonny K

 

[Phil Ramsay]

Minnesota Public Radio just started a new station 'The Current,' which they stream in Windows Media Player and AAC.

Here's the link to them.

The AAC sounds very good.

They play a really refreshingly eclectic mix of new indie, indie fav's from the last 20 years or so, hip hop, old jazz, R&B greats, old classic country, and quite a bit of local talent as well.

Not uncommon to hear a mix something like: The Clash, Moby, Nas, James Brown, Elvis Costello, Hendrix, Chemical Brothers, Beck, Modest Mouse, The Jayhawks, Iggy Pop, Beastie Boys, Billy Holiday, The Pixies, The Ramones, Soul Coughing, The The, Mathew Sweet, Hank Williams Sr., Psychedelic Furs, Bjork, Dean Martin, The Cure, etc. (O.K. you get the idea)

I'm hearing lots of 'old favorites' for sure, but quite a bit of music I've never heard of before, which is great.

The bonus is, as a Public Radio station, there's not the usual commercial after commercial crap. By far the best part is that the DJ's actually can and do pick their own music - not the homoginized Clear Channel 'formula' with no surprises, no adventure. The DJ's clearly are having a good time and it shows.

If you like 'different', this may be for you.


Be advised though, they're currently in the midst of their first 'pledge drive', so if you check in on them, you might get a bigger dose of 'guilt' than typical.

 

[gerG]

I avoid stations below 128 kbps (mp3). As noted above, just sort by bitrate first. Of course it will use more of your bandwidth.

I would be thrilled to see more stations using AAC. It is a more efficient codec.

I am frightened by AAC+. It uses reconstruction to rebuild signal above the bandwidth of the codec. XM uses it, and the result is some serious nastiness above 5 khz. It might work better if they were using 64 kbps or above, but it looks like (if I am interpreting my data correctly) they are running at 32 to 40 kbps. I hope this does not catch on with the internet radio broadcasters.


gerG

 

[450]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerG I am frightened by AAC+. It uses reconstruction to rebuild signal above the bandwidth of the codec. XM uses it, and the result is some serious nastiness above 5 khz. It might work better if they were using 64 kbps or above, but it looks like (if I am interpreting my data correctly) they are running at 32 to 40 kbps. I hope this does not catch on with the internet radio broadcasters.

I will catch on. Broadcasters will almost always be excited to save bandwidth. Who wouldn't really? [size=xx-small]<-- Dont answer that

[/size]

 

[sclemmons]

I like internet radio on iTunes to Airtunes to hi-fi as well as I like XM to Airtunes to hi-fi. Thanks for the link to Minnesota Public Radio. Sounds Great.

 

[llmobll]

I love internet radio, i get most of my music from there.(Ambient, chillout) Although it is true that below 128kbps isn't great, haveing a good Source always helps.

 

[sgrossklass]

It should be mentioned that the sample rate is very important when looking at stream data rates. 32 kHz is still equivalent to what FM can do but drops data rate requirements noticeably when compared to 44.1 kHz, at least with MP3. 112 kbps with 32 kHz is perfectly OK, the same data rate with 44.1 kHz material probably wouldn't sound that great.

 

[Kikkoman]

The radio station I listen to fairly often, Digitaly Imported ( http://www.di.fm/ ), is in the process of testing out AAC+, and soon they will be replacing their higher quality mp3 streams with it. Right now they only have 24kbps for all chanels and 56kbps for a select few chanels. They said once they have everything in order they are going to make 96kbps AAC+ their highest available, but it's only going to be available to subscribers. They havn't said what all bitrates will be available for their free service, but I would assume they would keep the 56kbps stream as their highest free bitrate.