Radio Bitrates?

[pinnahertz]

  They run 3 different FM radio stations. It didn't look low end.

What bit rate?  What was the broadcast software?

 

[drtechno]

can't remember the program's name. It was a few weeks ago but I do believe the mp3s  were 256Kbps lossless.

 

[pinnahertz]

  can't remember the program's name. It was a few weeks ago but I do believe the mp3s  were 256Kbps lossless.

There's no such thing as a 256Kbps lossless mp3.  All mp3s are lossy.  
 
However, if the files are indeed mp3 at 256Kbps, there are no audible effects of the lossy compression, and as I've said a couple of times, the use of .mp3 is not a factor in the difference in the sound of radio stations.  
 
So, backing up to your original post in this thread 2 days ago, "the reason why some radio stations sound better is some are using CDs others are using MP3s".  The statement is completely false.  

 

[spruce music]

  can't remember the program's name. It was a few weeks ago but I do believe the mp3s  were 256Kbps lossless.

Yes, no such thing as 256kbps lossless mp3.  So we're not assuming too much?

 

[pinnahertz]

 
Yes, no such thing as 256kbps lossless mp3.  So we're not assuming too much?

Yeah, I dunno.  I hate to assume anything, good, bad or otherwise.  But facts is facts, and misinfo is misinfo.  I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

 

[drtechno]

seeing the computer they are using in less than 30 seconds on a tour with the station manager and recalling it 3 weeks later. I didn't soak in little details like that. Because file format has nothing to do with the job. Its what ever they are using.
 
but at last, I am beginning to get tired of pennehertz and the rest of this trio.

 

[pinnahertz]

  seeing the computer they are using in less than 30 seconds on a tour with the station manager and recalling it 3 weeks later. I didn't soak in little details like that. Because file format has nothing to do with the job. Its what ever they are using.
 
but at last, I am beginning to get tired of pennehertz and the rest of this trio.

"seeing the computer they are using in less than 30 seconds on a tour with the station manager and recalling it 3 weeks later. I didn't soak in little details like that. Because file format has nothing to do with the job. Its what ever they are using."
 
Hardly makes it worth stating something as industry norm and a cause of quality, does it?
 
"but at last, I am beginning to get tired of pennehertz and the rest of this trio."
 
You're posting in "Sound Science".  We don't swallow inaccuracies, conjecture, and hearsay easily.  At the same time, we do welcome fact-based posts with good information. 

 

[drtechno]

I never really said it was an industry standard. But to clarify it is what I saw. So not every station has the same practice in their process. So that is why some are slightly different sounding than others. Not all of them have the same final limiter settings either (if you want to remove the source as a variable)

 

[pinnahertz]

I never really said it was an industry standard. But to clarify it is what I saw. So not every station has the same practice in their process. So that is why some are slightly different sounding than others. Not all of them have the same final limiter settings either (if you want to remove the source as a variable)

The audio storage format for all radio has been high-rate MP3 or better (uncompressed wav) for well over 15 years. To attribute the difference in station sound to a difference in audio format or codec is simply wrong, and has been for a very long time. It's not even a factor.

Audio processing, on the other hand, has offered an extremely broad palette of qualities and adjustments for over 40 years. That palette it's gotten bigger by orders of magnitude with the advent of DSP based processing in the 1990s. That palette has always been used as the stations final opportunity to customize it's sound, to brand it, and to place a signature (theoretically one that attracts and holds listeners) on their air sound.

To state otherwise is representative of a gap in understanding of the industry.

 

[drtechno]

"To state otherwise is representative of a gap in understanding of the industry."
 
 
I don't know about that. There are plenty of places out there where they don't keep in pace with technology.
 
 
Like the camera crew for a local tv station I saw down town the other day: The Photog (camera guy) was using a U-matic video recorder.
 
I haven't seen those dinosaurs in ages.

 

[pinnahertz]

"To state otherwise is representative of a gap in understanding of the industry."
 
 
I don't know about that. There are plenty of places out there where they don't keep in pace with technology.
 
 
Like the camera crew for a local tv station I saw down town the other day: The Photog (camera guy) was using a U-matic video recorder.
 
I haven't seen those dinosaurs in ages.

You can always find an exception, but it means nothing in terms of the industry. I'm sure people somewhere ride horses to work, and while one might cause a traffic backup that way once in a while, horses are not the cause of traffic jams in general.

Almost every station uses computer based audio storage and playback. Every single station uses an audio processor. Since my point here seems to be perpetually missed, again: audio storage has nothing to do with why stations sound different, audio processing is responsible, has thousands of adjustments, is designed to change how stations sound, and is used intentionally to do so.

edit: The actual likelihood that some guy was using a U-matic for a TV station anywhere that qualifies for "downtown" is extremely low. What machines there are now suffer from lack of available parts, and introduce a rather problematic compatibility issue with current DTV. For the cost of basic maintenance of any old U-matic gear the station can pick up modest, but current and far more capable digital video gear. Using U-matic gear today would serve no purpose to any station, economic or otherwise, other than the desire to deliberately create a vintage look. Very vintage. Like more than 35 years, since U-matic wasn't used for broadcast once Betacam took over the ENG market. And that was in the early 1980s.

I'm guessing this was an observational error/

 

[spruce music]

You didn't address the radio stations that use horses for the daily traffic reporter.

 

[drtechno]

You didn't address the radio stations that use horses for the daily traffic reporter.

well they are backwards here and stuck about 20 years or so past. Last year the concert hall here finally went digital. When I was hired to mix a symphony-orchestra the soundcraft board was replaced by a Yamaha LS9 on Cobranet (why cobranet? I don't know, maybe the got a deal on the equipment. I would have suggested Dante)

 

[pinnahertz]

  well they are backwards here and stuck about 20 years or so past. Last year the concert hall here finally went digital. When I was hired to mix a symphony-orchestra the soundcraft board was replaced by a Yamaha LS9 on Cobranet (why cobranet? I don't know, maybe the got a deal on the equipment. I would have suggested Dante)

One instance of the use of equipment not quite up to the state of the art doesn't mean "they" (all) are backwards.
 
If you mixed an orchestra for radio, it was probably for a public/ non-commercial station.  That means under-funded.  That means less expensive, possibly donated, gear.  Judging all stations there as backwards because the local concert hall used the earlier audio network standard?  Really? If you'd said they were antiquated because their gear put actual analog audio over twisted pair, I'd still question your generalized judgement.