|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|2015-03-30 10:07 PM|
Yes, thanks, probably some of them I've tried have been at 64 kbps. I think some at 128.
[ I know some MP3's I have and play, sound ok and show 128 or 192 as the recording rate ]
[ and yes - you can hear the difference in sound fidelity / or audio bandwidth, with the lower kb rates ... like down around 64, but hey, sometimes that is not so much a problem - because you're maybe listening to an AM radio station and a TALK show ... so 64 kbps might be quite all right in fact, in that case ... anyway , I digress ]
But as I have tried to mention in earlier posts - it's probably not so much the number of Kb's of the stream that is the problem with the quality of the audio produced - but more other issues - like:
- disruption of the stream due to transport - over the internet (INTERNET issues) (issues with your connection, or your ISP)
- issues with the computer playing the stream i.e. the hardware and software being used. (sound card / operating system / software / other processes interrupting the reception and playout of the stream. Clicks, pops, hiccups, dropouts, other sounds getting inserted / added, other "digital" effects due to the hardware being used to play out that stream ... i.e. your computer)
That is why I ask about, and seek - maybe - a dedicated internet radio player.
Something dedicated/designed to do just / only that. Stream and play internet radio. And do it well.
|2015-03-29 08:30 PM|
I find anything at least at 128 kbps is way better than any fm radio.
When I put music on my USB stick for listening to in pickup. usually at 192 kbps a tad better than 128, but not so so amazing much better.
If listening though head phones, on the go, or plugging mobile phone (Tune in Radio) which most are at 128 kbps, into car jack, It sure sounds even better than sirius xm, or any fm radio. Some also stream at 192 kbps
I too have Sonos, Play 5's and Play 1's all over the house. Simple, & great sound.
Use Tune in Radio for most listening, or Deezer a bit better quality, or stream from my own computer in Lossless, or some at 192 kbps. I really dont see much differencebetween 192 or above. I Enjoy good music with great sound, Or I play 5.1 bluerays I have purchased of favorite musicians/ Bands though PS3, but there too you need the proper settings, bitsteam or pcm or DD5.1 are the options.
I am wondering what you have been listening to over the web, was it possibly at 64 kbps, cause that does sound pretty ****ty
|2015-03-29 03:39 PM|
Thanks - after asking my question, I Searched some myself on the internet to see what sorts of products are out there. Seems there are quite a few. And different reviews about them.
I'll look at the SONOS products you mention. Thanks for the tip.
I have seen many different "implementations" of internet radio / streaming - from others. Computers / laptops / hand held devices over home wireless network.
Over other wireless - like cell towers / the cellular networks of carriers.
I've heard of other things too / perhaps not strictly considered "internet radio streaming" or "internet radio" - like for example: iHEART radio / satelite radio.
I have not experimented much myself with any of these sorts of "radio" yet - other than clicking on a link in a website and getting a radio stream that way ... and just listening in with a set of headphones.
Yes - I've hooked it up to my "hi fi" before, via the headphone output of the computer - more as just an experiment.
But I never wanted to DEDICATE a computer or laptop as an internet radio receiver to a sound system - just to receive internet radio.
Perhaps a dedicated receiver like the SONOS you mention - would work / would be a better solution - in my idea of things.
As you mention - if the SONOS type equipment is "rock steady" that would be better - and simpler - as an internet radio receiver.
A device DEDICATED to receiving streaming audio over the internet.
|2015-03-24 03:28 PM|
Originally Posted by mrvanwinkles
The "standard" is streaming MP3 or AAC data, and there are many, many player devices that you can use. Everything from streaming boxes that hook up to your TV (e.g. Roku) to devices like Sonos, or even as a feature built in to new AV Receivers and TVs.
Myself, I quite like Sonos devices. They're not cheap, but they're rock solid and easy to use.
|2015-03-24 02:14 PM|
So yes, Thought / idea / question:
Has the industry "standardized" on any sort of format? - h/w & s/w - for a simplified internet receiver? An internet (streaming) receiver ? In a box ?
[ A series of consumer products / streaming internet receivers that are: simple, easy to connect and use, have good sound quality, reasonable cost, are reliable, widely available ? ]
[ The industry = internet broadcasters / radio stations + the manufacturers / the hardware and software people ... those who would make the receivers ... in theory ]
|2015-03-24 01:55 PM|
I've worked in a bunker before - where there are *NO* signals whatsoever.
[ All signals blocked - on purpose. No wireless devices work. Zero signals from outside. None. Nada. Of any type. No cell phone. No radio or TV. No smartphone. No wireless device. Nothin. AM does not even penetrate. Due to the sensitive location and nature of the workplace - all shielded and blocked.]
And ... other restrictions.
Not allowed to stream or play music on the (work) computer provided.
[ Not allowed to introduce any outside media, disk, memory stick, or whatever - onto the work computer. Streaming blocked, and not allowed anyway. ]
If and when you are "permitted" (work rules) to listen to music at work - you play your own recorded material on your own personal device - which cannot be a computer and cannot be connected to any work internet [ not allowed to bring a personal laptop into work - work rules ]
Maybe a portable CD player, or DVD player, or on your handheld device ... that's it.
Restrictive?... yes ? You like this sort of workplace ?
|2015-03-24 01:40 PM|
Yes - a simple WEB radio. A standardized thing / product.
Yes, I was thinking of that as well - as a possibility - for a much simpler setup.
A dedicated "internet radio" radio receiver.
I Have heard of those products as well.
Maybe that is a much more simpler and standardized solution for many.
Or, similar idea, as you describe - a DUAL receiver. Regular radio & Internet combined.
Both Regular radio (FM / AM / other bands?) and Internet Radio - all in the same receiver / same unit / same box. (HD digital radio ? also ?)
So I am imagining that the back of that DUAL receiver also has maybe an Ethernet connection - for direct connection to your (high speed) internet source - home network? Home router or hub - or maybe even a wireless card, for connection to your home wireless network?
Then the radio has some menus / displays where you enter, I'm not sure - an IP address of the stream, or a web address of a stream, or gives you a menu of available radio station streams.
Or some standardized interface / menus to either enter - or search for and find the internet streams / stations, program them in. Add a description beside them. Just like you'd enter your "Preset" radio station buttons, or into the memory locations of your radio.
Something a lot simpler like that ...
A dedicated internet radio / quality receiver - dedicated for streaming audio.
I'm sure there are many such products around.
I wonder if the streaming industry / streaming radio stations - are all "standardized" to work on such products.
? Do they all work ? Or some yes / some no ?
? Can you stream them all? From all over the world ?
Do they all work? Most of them?
|2015-03-24 01:27 PM|
mrvanwinkles: How about just accept the fact that not everything revolves around you? People want choice in how they listen to music, and thus, have every right to complain about the sad state of streaming radio from Canadian stations (which, again is not what this thread is about anyways, but I digress. ).
Also, some people may work at their computers all day not near an FM Radio (or one that can get good reception).
|2015-03-24 12:55 PM|
Originally Posted by mrvanwinkles
In addition, many Internet radio apps also provide the ability to listen to past shows that you missed, in podcast format. I find myself doing this more often than listening to live streams.
I have a Yamaha AV receiver which can receive both FM signals and Internet radio (via a Sonos Connect), and the streaming radio version of, say, CBC radio sounds at least as good as the FM version.
|2015-03-24 12:24 PM|
Radio Receiver - and antenna.
Thanks for the tips and advice.
Yes - some of the ideas are really good and helpful - for example - take a digital output from the computer to your sound system / or use an external amp and speakers / headphones ...
But I think I will stick with a much simpler setup - to listen to local radio.
That being: A radio receiver - and an antenna.
Streaming off the internet - I find ... just too many issues and too much equipment needed for this simple task.
I don't know / "dunno" - why I should need:
1. A high speed internet connection and account.
2. A computer - with all the h/w and software.
3. Other external hardware and/or another External connection to another sound system.
Just in order to listen to a local or near-local (say even 40, 50, or 60 miles away for FM) radio station that already broadcasts over the air.
I think I will just stick with radio receivers and antenna.
|2015-03-21 02:01 AM|
They are inoperable in any Windows OS after XP thanks to all the Palladium DRM crap Microsoft put in, but they work beautifully in Linux, so it is great to have that capability. Shame that I have to repeat myself to you.
For anyone reading this thread to learn about Best Audio Ripping Settings, hang in there. Back on topic.
|2015-03-21 12:36 AM|
Originally Posted by stampeder
What "DRM-based driver problems" are you speaking of? The only thing I imagine could be related to what you're talking about is that the driver model changed for audio and video drivers in Vista, and the primary change was that a significant part of the driver code migrated from kernel mode to user mode. The reason for this move was to increase the stability of the Windows kernel since buggy kernel mode audio drivers are able to crash the OS and user mode drivers aren't.
The existence of PUMA (Protected User Mode Audio) wouldn't have affected the hardware vendor's ability to write new audio drivers. It's not like the audio card vendor even needed to support PUMA. And PUMA only matters if the player application "opts in" to PUMA, and if your sound card didn't support PUMA, then you just wouldn't hear any audio if you were playing (for example) a Blu-ray disc.
If you would like to learn more about it, here is a high level overview.
This change required companies to re-write their audio drivers, and in some cases there were sound cards that previously supported hardware accelerated audio that wouldn't work in the new driver model.
But we're talking about ripping audio, so none of this would ever matter for ripping and transcoding audio tracks.
|2015-03-21 12:20 AM|
You would encounter DRM-based driver problems running those cards on any Microsoft OS since Vista. Ain't possible, no way, no how. Linux runs them beautifully.
About semantics: if black is truly white, then I'll get into such discussions with you. Not now though.
|2015-03-21 12:17 AM|
Originally Posted by stampeder
|2015-03-21 12:10 AM|
DV to the rescue for DAC
Just adding that one time when I needed to do an analogue capture while my available HTPC audio-in ports were being used I took my old Sony video camera and plugged in the audio player's RCA output jacks into an adapter and then into the camera, then I plugged the camera into one of the Firewire-1394 ports. I hit record on the camera and then paused it, so the camera did the DAC for me in real time and I was able to do the capture with Kino that way in 16-bit stereo, saving it in FLAC. Having said that, the camera's audio sampling specs are a bit low by today's standards although the bitrate is raw and huge, as seen in these specs from a DV file:
AUDIO_RATE=32000 AUDIO_NCH=2 (Stereo) AUDIO_CODEC=pcm AUDIO_BITRATE=1024000
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|