Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which audio program best to do the following

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
May 2, 2005 1:56:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

first, i hope it's the right newsgroup for my question.

I need to know which audio editing program would suit my needs the best.
I am recording from radio to my mp3 player so i will have a large mp3
file (10+ hours) . I want to edit the commercials out and save individual
songs from the file to separate mp3s.

thanks in advance for replies.

More about : audio program

May 2, 2005 1:56:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

asdf wrote:
> first, i hope it's the right newsgroup for my question.
>
> I need to know which audio editing program would suit my needs the best.
> I am recording from radio to my mp3 player so i will have a large mp3
> file (10+ hours) . I want to edit the commercials out and save individual
> songs from the file to separate mp3s.
>
> thanks in advance for replies.

If you are on a Windows machine, check out SoundForge. That will do what
you need it to do.

--
Eric

Practice Your Mixing Skills
www.Raw-Tracks.com
www.Mad-Host.com
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 1:56:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Pretty sure this is illegal. Not any different than downloading music
illegally from torrent, kaaza, etc.

garrett
Related resources
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:34:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 1 May 2005 20:47:46 -0700, garrcox@yahoo.com wrote:

>Pretty sure this is illegal. Not any different than downloading music
>illegally from torrent, kaaza, etc.
>
>garrett

As far as I know, recording off the radio has always been legal...
since the casette days if not before.

Al
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:51:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Try Audacity. It's free and will import mp3s for editing.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 3:33:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote

> As far as I know, recording off the radio has always been legal...
> since the casette days if not before.

Nobody gave a hoot with analog radio and cassette decks, but a station I
work for now streams 44.1/16 uncompressed (CD quality). Is capturing this
stream at 44.1/16 any more legal or illegal than pirating a CD? To answer
my own thread, I believe the digital copyright law that was passed a few
years ago makes copying digital broadcasts just illegal as music downloads
regardless of compression or not.

Julian
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:12:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Kcjde.443$tp.288@fed1read04...
> Try Audacity. It's free and will import mp3s for editing.

Maybe I misunderstood the original post, but I thought he wanted to record
up to 10 hours at a time in MP3 format. Audacity will only record
uncompressed, won't it? I do agree it is the best free audio program I know
of.

Julian
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:12:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Kcjde.443$tp.288@fed1read04...
> Try Audacity. It's free and will import mp3s for editing.

Maybe I misunderstood the original post, but I thought he wanted to record
up to 10 hours at a time in MP3 format. Audacity will only record
uncompressed, won't it? I do agree it is the best free audio program I know
of.

Julian
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:37:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:117bidr2qfl639b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> As far as I know, recording off the radio has always been legal...
>> since the casette days if not before.
>
> Nobody gave a hoot with analog radio and cassette decks, but a station
> I work for now streams 44.1/16 uncompressed (CD quality).

Does ANY source "broadcast" uncompressed 44K/16 audio?
No wonder the internet is so slow!
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 11:24:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote

> Does ANY source "broadcast" uncompressed 44K/16 audio?
> No wonder the internet is so slow!

Huh???!!

KEXP broadcasts uncompressed 44K/16, but you need a T-1 or greater to pull
it in. I have one at my desk at the University and I can listen to it
nicely. At home I listen to its Windows Media dial up bandwidth version,
and when I upgrade to Comcast I'll probably listen to the 128 kbps MP3
stream.

Julian
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 1:27:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ZNfde.18783$V02.1045@fe08.lga> dfsa@sadf.com writes:

> I need to know which audio editing program would suit my needs the best.
> I am recording from radio to my mp3 player so i will have a large mp3
> file (10+ hours) . I want to edit the commercials out and save individual
> songs from the file to separate mp3s.

I'd suggest that you try a free program called MP3 Direct Cut. I don't
know what its size limit is, but I use it to chop up 6-hour 192 kBPS
stereo recordings (file size roughly 600MB) made from the radio.

I can tell you that it will be a very tedious process because you have
to locate (by ear) everything you want to cut. You might find that
listening to or fast-forwarding over the commercials is prefereable.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:13:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Then why ias TIVO legal? What if you record off the radio to an analogue
source? Isn't the law that you are not aloud to re-broadcast or distribute?
Recording for ones own use has always been legal.

Neil R

"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:117bidr2qfl639b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> As far as I know, recording off the radio has always been legal...
>> since the casette days if not before.
>
> Nobody gave a hoot with analog radio and cassette decks, but a station I
> work for now streams 44.1/16 uncompressed (CD quality). Is capturing this
> stream at 44.1/16 any more legal or illegal than pirating a CD? To answer
> my own thread, I believe the digital copyright law that was passed a few
> years ago makes copying digital broadcasts just illegal as music downloads
> regardless of compression or not.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:40:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Neil Rutman" <neilrutman@bigfoot.com> wrote

> Then why ias TIVO legal?

I don't know.

> What if you record off the radio to an analogue source? Isn't the law that
> you are not aloud to re-broadcast or distribute? Recording for ones own
> use has always been legal.

I am not an expert on digital copyright law, but I do not think it is legal
to record or download any copywritten audio material without paying for it
under ANY circumstances. That includes web casting as well as MP3's as well
as ripping CD's you don't own. Ripping a CD that you own for personal use
may still be legal as you suggest. Recording copywritten music off the
radio for personal use is illegal since you don't own the original.

Julian
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 4:00:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:117ce0fgtbqoje1@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote
>
>> Does ANY source "broadcast" uncompressed 44K/16 audio?
>> No wonder the internet is so slow!
>
> Huh???!!
>
> KEXP broadcasts uncompressed 44K/16, but you need a T-1 or greater to pull
> it in. I have one at my desk at the University and I can listen to it
> nicely. At home I listen to its Windows Media dial up bandwidth version,
> and when I upgrade to Comcast I'll probably listen to the 128 kbps MP3
> stream.
>
> Julian

Hi Julian,

As a Tacoma resident that used to commute to Seattle, Bellevue, Kirkland,
Redmond etc for over 10 years I really appreciate the time and effort put
out by everyone involved with KEXP for providing an interesting and diverse
musical oasis . Thank you! :-)
--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 4:14:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi Neil,

If you go here you can look at a PDF of TIVO's legal policies. I would of
copied and pasted the relevant sections but that appeared to be illegal, as
is using recorded programs for anything other than personal viewing.

http://www.tivo.com/5.10.asp

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com

"Neil Rutman" <neilrutman@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:IvydnW0-s8sEwuvfRVn-pQ@speakeasy.net...
> Then why ias TIVO legal? What if you record off the radio to an analogue
> source? Isn't the law that you are not aloud to re-broadcast or
> distribute? Recording for ones own use has always been legal.
>
> Neil R
>
> "Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
> news:117bidr2qfl639b@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>>> As far as I know, recording off the radio has always been legal...
>>> since the casette days if not before.
>>
>> Nobody gave a hoot with analog radio and cassette decks, but a station I
>> work for now streams 44.1/16 uncompressed (CD quality). Is capturing
>> this stream at 44.1/16 any more legal or illegal than pirating a CD? To
>> answer my own thread, I believe the digital copyright law that was passed
>> a few years ago makes copying digital broadcasts just illegal as music
>> downloads regardless of compression or not.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:33:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:117bv8ed48pjo5f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ian S" <iws51remove@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Kcjde.443$tp.288@fed1read04...
> > Try Audacity. It's free and will import mp3s for editing.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood the original post, but I thought he wanted to record
> up to 10 hours at a time in MP3 format. Audacity will only record
> uncompressed, won't it? I do agree it is the best free audio program I
know
> of.
>
> Julian

Or maybe I misunderstood the OP. I thought he already was recording the mp3
files to his mp3 player and needed an editor. Some mp3 players with builtin
radio do have the ability to record from the radio to an mp3 file.
>
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:37:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <117ce0fgtbqoje1@corp.supernews.com> nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net writes:

> KEXP broadcasts uncompressed 44K/16, but you need a T-1 or greater to pull
> it in. I have one at my desk at the University and I can listen to it
> nicely. At home I listen to its Windows Media dial up bandwidth version,

I listen mostly to archived shows using the "CD Quality" (still
compressed - one step down from the uncompressed) stream and it sounds
like pretty decent radio quality.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:47:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 1 May 2005 23:33:28 -0700, "Julian Adamaitis"
<nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote:

>
>"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> As far as I know, recording off the radio has always been legal...
>> since the casette days if not before.
>
>Nobody gave a hoot with analog radio and cassette decks, but a station I
>work for now streams 44.1/16 uncompressed (CD quality). Is capturing this
>stream at 44.1/16 any more legal or illegal than pirating a CD? To answer
>my own thread, I believe the digital copyright law that was passed a few
>years ago makes copying digital broadcasts just illegal as music downloads
>regardless of compression or not.

Hmm... maybe so. I would think that if it's a commercial station the
listener has already "paid" for the music by listening to the ads.

Al
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 7:57:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

An inexpensive way to do what you want would be N-Tracks Studio for $69
(another poster supplied a $99 solution if you have an upgrade). But it
seems to me that you should be able to do what you want for cheaper. Magix
has a small version of what became Samplitude, but I don't recall the name.
I see on www.emagix.net/index.php?id=411 that audio studio is available for
$40.

Whether anything is going to allow you to write 10 hour files to disk is
questionable.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"asdf" <dfsa@sadf.com> wrote in message
news:ZNfde.18783$V02.1045@fe08.lga...
> first, i hope it's the right newsgroup for my question.
>
> I need to know which audio editing program would suit my needs the best.
> I am recording from radio to my mp3 player so i will have a large mp3
> file (10+ hours) . I want to edit the commercials out and save individual
> songs from the file to separate mp3s.
>
> thanks in advance for replies.
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 9:38:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

playon wrote:

> Hmm... maybe so. I would think that if it's a commercial station the
> listener has already "paid" for the music by listening to the ads.
>
> Al

The radio station has paid the royalties (to BMI)
for the right to broadcast the music. The listener
subsidises those payments by listening to the ads.
In our OP's case he might want to leave in one ad
to remain legal.

rd
May 2, 2005 10:09:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

just to clarify: I record from FM radio to mp3 file.
then i want to cut the good music out for my personal use.

"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:117bidr2qfl639b@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > As far as I know, recording off the radio has always been legal...
> > since the casette days if not before.
>
> Nobody gave a hoot with analog radio and cassette decks, but a station I
> work for now streams 44.1/16 uncompressed (CD quality). Is capturing this
> stream at 44.1/16 any more legal or illegal than pirating a CD? To answer
> my own thread, I believe the digital copyright law that was passed a few
> years ago makes copying digital broadcasts just illegal as music downloads
> regardless of compression or not.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:12:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote

> I listen mostly to archived shows using the "CD Quality" (still
> compressed - one step down from the uncompressed) stream and it sounds
> like pretty decent radio quality.

Thank You. I set the Orban 6200 parameters. But this brings up a good
point about converting between 44.1 and 48 however, because I know that
stream is converted twice. It goes out of teh CD players at 44.1 comes out
of the mixer at 48, out of the router at 48, into the Orban at 48 (internal
rate is 48 also), over to the University Servers via a Netstar 500 IP audio
box at 48 and then gets distributed to the servers with an AES distribution
amp at 48. The uncompressed stream then gets downsampled to 44.1 before it
leaves the server. The KEXP uncompressed stream goes through one 44.1 to 48
conversion when it leaves the CD player and exits the mixer, then a 48 to
44.1 before it gets served up. I guess nobody hears that "-)

Julian
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:14:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"asdf" <dfsa@sadf.com> wrote in message news:yyxde.6014$o32.865@fe09.lga...
> just to clarify: I record from FM radio to mp3 file.
> then i want to cut the good music out for my personal use.

Egads! You are a criminal according to the digital copy right law!

Julian
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:14:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote

> Hmm... maybe so. I would think that if it's a commercial station the
> listener has already "paid" for the music by listening to the ads.

I don't think that is how the law reads.

Julian
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 10:22:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <IvydnW0-s8sEwuvfRVn-pQ@speakeasy.net> neilrutman@bigfoot.com writes:

> Then why ias TIVO legal?

Because the Home Reording Act of whenever says it's legal to record
off the air for the purpose of time shifting. When TIVO was new, one
of its features was that it would automatically cut out commercials
when recording, but apparently the "industry" got after them and now
it doesn't.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
May 3, 2005 1:41:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

really????
are you telling me that i can't cut out the commercials to listen to the
music?
I did listen to the ads. Will that get me out of being sent to the salt
mines ;-)
"Julian Adamaitis" <nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote in message
news:117dk2sgd579r84@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "asdf" <dfsa@sadf.com> wrote in message
news:yyxde.6014$o32.865@fe09.lga...
> > just to clarify: I record from FM radio to mp3 file.
> > then i want to cut the good music out for my personal use.
>
> Egads! You are a criminal according to the digital copy right law!
>
> Julian
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:41:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"asdf" <dfsa@sadf.com> wrote
> really????
> are you telling me that i can't cut out the commercials to listen to the
> music?
> I did listen to the ads. Will that get me out of being sent to the salt
> mines ;-)

I'm saying it is illegal to make copies of copywritten music unless you are
making an archival only copy of a recording you already legally own.

Julian
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 2:37:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Julian Adamaitis wrote:
> "asdf" <dfsa@sadf.com> wrote
>
>>really????
>>are you telling me that i can't cut out the commercials to listen to the
>>music?
>>I did listen to the ads. Will that get me out of being sent to the salt
>>mines ;-)
>
>
> I'm saying it is illegal to make copies of copywritten music unless you are
> making an archival only copy of a recording you already legally own.

Doesn't fair use allow for personal copying?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:04:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 2 May 2005 20:44:03 -0700, "Julian Adamaitis"
<nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net> wrote:

>
>"asdf" <dfsa@sadf.com> wrote
>> really????
>> are you telling me that i can't cut out the commercials to listen to the
>> music?
>> I did listen to the ads. Will that get me out of being sent to the salt
>> mines ;-)
>
>I'm saying it is illegal to make copies of copywritten music unless you are
>making an archival only copy of a recording you already legally own.

If it's broadcast into your home either on a commercial channel or a
pay channel, isn't then it yours to do with what you want (except
resale of course)?

Al
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 3:37:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

My word! How did we get so far off topic?

In article <117dk0p3s2a563a@corp.supernews.com> nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net writes:

> I set the Orban 6200 parameters. But this brings up a good
> point about converting between 44.1 and 48 however, because I know that
> stream is converted twice. It goes out of teh CD players at 44.1 comes out
> of the mixer at 48, out of the router at 48, into the Orban at 48 (internal
> rate is 48 also), over to the University Servers via a Netstar 500 IP audio
> box at 48 and then gets distributed to the servers with an AES distribution
> amp at 48. The uncompressed stream then gets downsampled to 44.1 before it
> leaves the server.

Once we got over the 16-bit accumulators, sample rate conversion isn't
all that big of a deal, particularly in relatively non-critical
applications. Most of the time that I listen, I'm in my home office
listening on Radio Shack Minimus 7 speakers and I don't expect high
fidelity. When I send the audio to my living room speakers, I find it
to be a bit on the bass-heavy side, but not objectionable. Mostly I'm
thankful that I no longer have to listen to the "underwater" sound of
the low speed stream that I used to hear when I had only a dial-up
connection.

Why not volunteer to go across town and clean up the on-line audio
stream at your neighbor KBCS? They must be feeding their audio server
right out of the on-air console without any leveling and nobody
bothers to look at the meters. The level from song to song goes all
over the place, and I often hear clipping (usually on the left
channel). I don't recall that it's that sloppy over the air, but my
over-the-air listening is pretty rare (I don't live there) and mostly
on the radio in the car.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 3:37:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d572n612k0l@enews1.newsguy.com> arcane@arcanemethods.com writes:

> Doesn't fair use allow for personal copying?

Yes. It also allows for time shifting of a broadcast. What's not clear
is exactly what the broadcast is. If "the broadcast" includes
commercials, then you may be violating a mechanical copyright (or the
broadcast equivalent of mechanical copyright - I'm sure there's one)
because you're altering material that's protected by copyright.

But then I don't think that anyone has gone to jail for skipping a
chapter when reading a book.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:05:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote
> Julian Adamaitis wrote:
>> "asdf" <dfsa@sadf.com> wrote
>>
>>>really????
>>>are you telling me that i can't cut out the commercials to listen to the
>>>music?
>>>I did listen to the ads. Will that get me out of being sent to the salt
>>>mines ;-)
>>
>>
>> I'm saying it is illegal to make copies of copywritten music unless you
>> are making an archival only copy of a recording you already legally own.
>
> Doesn't fair use allow for personal copying?
>
>
> Bob

As I said above, ONLY IF you legally own the original. Radio Stations can
legally make copies of CD's for airplay use. I started out this portion of
the thread with a disclaimer that I do not thoroughly understand this law.
If you want to reads it for yourself, here it is:

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

You'll be telling me things I don't know about this subject in no time at
all ;-)

Julian
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:06:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"playon" <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote

> If it's broadcast into your home either on a commercial channel or a
> pay channel, isn't then it yours to do with what you want (except
> resale of course)?

Well, technically no.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 6:18:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1115122029k@trad...
> My word! How did we get so far off topic?

Well, it all tied together in my twisted mind. I mentioned working on KEXP
for some reason and then your comment about the sound quality sort of proved
your own point of sample rate conversions not being audible and I don't
know... Where do you live to be driving by Bellevue / Seattle?

> Once we got over the 16-bit accumulators, sample rate conversion isn't
> all that big of a deal, particularly in relatively non-critical
> applications.

What does this mean "got over 16 bit accumulators"? I believe you guys when
you say 44 - 48 conversion is not a big deal, but I honestly don understand
how it isn't especially after seeing all the stuff that was generated when I
cancelled a mix with the same mix that had been converted.

> Why not volunteer to go across town and clean up the on-line audio
> stream at your neighbor KBCS?

I've offered to help but I want more money than they are willing to pay. I
talked to there studio engineer at the Public Radio Engineering Conference 2
weeks ago and they are going to be relocating the studio (again). He was
interested in hiring me to help. I really don't know what they're doing
over there. They used to have good copper to the transmitter with some
matching transformers which was very sweet. Then they moved the studio and
I don't know how they get the sound out to the transmitter and if it is a
different path to the streaming. I do need to be in touch with those guys,
maybe I'll learn something.

Julian
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 1:38:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <117h4r3fc8jf73f@corp.supernews.com> nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net writes:

> . . . Where do you live to be driving by Bellevue / Seattle?

Around the other Washington (DC), but I get to Seattle now and again
for work. I lived in the area for a six month stint working for Mackie
but it didn't stick with me. I discovered KEXP (before they were KEXP)
and KBCS while I was living there.

> What does this mean "got over 16 bit accumulators"? I believe you guys when
> you say 44 - 48 conversion is not a big deal, but I honestly don understand
> how it isn't especially after seeing all the stuff that was generated when I
> cancelled a mix with the same mix that had been converted.

Back in the stone age, word length inside computers and processors was
limited to 16 bits because that's all they could manage (for the
money, of course). When doing a sample rate conversion or just about
anything else for that matter, the word always got longer and was
truncated at 16 bits to fit. That didn't sound so good. Now that we
have 24 bits going in, longer internal word length, and cheap floating
point arithmetic, the problems resulting from early computer
technology became insignificant.

I got the sense that most of the work at KBCS was volunteer or nearly
so (which is why I suggested that you volunteer). But I fully
understand what it means to get paid.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 2:26:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote

> Back in the stone age, word length inside computers and processors was
> limited to 16 bits because that's all they could manage (for the
> money, of course). When doing a sample rate conversion or just about
> anything else for that matter, the word always got longer and was
> truncated at 16 bits to fit. That didn't sound so good. Now that we
> have 24 bits going in, longer internal word length, and cheap floating
> point arithmetic, the problems resulting from early computer
> technology became insignificant.

No kidding? Still there have to be some artifacts created, yes? What is
their character and why are they insignificant? Has anyone done any work
that measures this to prove they are insignificant and specifies the
difference between the old and new methods?

> I got the sense that most of the work at KBCS was volunteer or nearly
> so (which is why I suggested that you volunteer). But I fully
> understand what it means to get paid.

KEXP was originally all volunteer too. The current station manager, for
example was a volunteer DJ years ago. Now he makes enough money that I'd
probably get in trouble if I said how much. The more professional attitude
of people who actually get paid there has been one of the many factors
leading to that station's enormous success these days. It was voted the
number one best radio station on the internet last year by the webby awards!
I've been involved with them from just slightly before they moved into the
new building and changed the name. The growth over there has been simply
amazing to watch.

Even KBCS pays for its engineering support. That's one thing you pretty
much don't want volunteers to do! I pretty much specialize in public radio.
I have had 6 or 7 non-commercial clients over the last 12 years and only 1
commercial client. This is how I make my living so I can't afford to
volunteer. Still, I built an entirely new studio for KSER in Everett last
year (finishing March 1, 2004) and I was putting in 70 hour work weeks and I
did use as many volunteer assistants as I could find. I didn't want to
bankrupt them so I didn't charge for all my hours. That's the full extent
to which I volunteer. I also like to become a member of the stations I work
for.

Julian
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 10:10:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <117i1dqceo1b17c@corp.supernews.com> nospamJulianPA@Access4Less.net writes:

> > Now that we
> > have 24 bits going in, longer internal word length, and cheap floating
> > point arithmetic, the problems resulting from early computer
> > technology became insignificant.
>
> No kidding? Still there have to be some artifacts created, yes? What is
> their character and why are they insignificant? Has anyone done any work
> that measures this to prove they are insignificant and specifies the
> difference between the old and new methods?

Sure, there are always artifacts, and insignificant is in the ear of
the beholder. In the really old days, every operation was simply
truncated at the 16th bit, which tended to add some tizziness to low
level signals. When they discovered that dithering worked, they could
get away with still doing 16-bit arithmetic, but randomizing the last
couple of bits traded noise (which could build up to audibility after
a few successive operations) for the truncation noise. With longer
word lengths, you have the same problems, but since the level at which
they're significant is 120 or more dB below normal listening level,
they're, in my book, insignificant. Of course there are still bad
converters and bad math, but that's just what you get with bad
designs.

Arny probably has some examples of truncation on his web site.

> Even KBCS pays for its engineering support. That's one thing you pretty
> much don't want volunteers to do! I pretty much specialize in public radio.
> I have had 6 or 7 non-commercial clients over the last 12 years and only 1
> commercial client. This is how I make my living so I can't afford to
> volunteer.

Understood. But from the sound of KBCS' Internet stream, they could
use a little help, or at least advice to whoever does their
engineering.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 2:35:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

No the listener hasn't paid for the music. The radio station will only
have a license to broadcast copyrighted material not to sell
copyrighted material. There is are legal definitions for all forms of
copyright (ie Broadcast, Mechanical, Sequencal etc).

This licence is usually bought from a copyright royality association
who collect (as a body) for the copyright owners (songwriters not the
musician). For every CD sold the songwriter and the musicians
(depending on the contract) collect a small royality. Video clips have
there own contracts and royal assignments.

I could go on and on but really if you haven't bought the music to
start with you should, as to support the musicians and songwirters so
they continue to create more music!.

joe
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:52:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 4 May 2005 18:10:21 -0400, mrivers@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:
>
>Understood. But from the sound of KBCS' Internet stream, they could
>use a little help, or at least advice to whoever does their
>engineering.

So could WWOZ.

Al
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 3:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <tlnj71t7a944okgeusq1lrmr8ofhhlrkns@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> >But from the sound of KBCS' Internet stream, they could
> >use a little help

> So could WWOZ.

Yup, that one, too. WWOZ has been doing it for so long you'd think
they'd be keeping up but they seem to be coasting. The sound isn't all
that bad but their servers don't seem to have the capacity for the
demand. But I can understand that upgrading would be an expense for
them for which they get little or no return. A broadcast station can
increase their power and get more over-the-air listeners, which they
can take to their advertisers when they want to raise the rates. But
I'm not going to hop in my car, drive 2000 miles, and go to a show at
a club that underwrites the station.

My biggest complaint with KBCS is the inconsistent level going into
the audio servers (or effectively that, regardless of the actual
chain). It's like the DJ turns the pot up to 8 for every CD and
doesn't bother to look (well, sometimes by the middle of the song) to
see that the meters are pinned, or are only going up half way. Perhaps
what they monitor in the control room is going through a leveler so
they don't notice, but what's going to the Internet is coming straight
off the console. Of course it's best for the operator to fix the
problem right at the source, but even an Aphex Compellor feeding the
web broadcast chain would make it a lot less annoying to listen to.

Much of the programming I listen to on that station comes off home
made or nearly home made CDs that haven't been loudness-maximized, so
the level going into the console is all over the place.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 9:21:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com>

> My biggest complaint with KBCS is the inconsistent level going into
> the audio servers (or effectively that, regardless of the actual
> chain). It's like the DJ turns the pot up to 8 for every CD and
> doesn't bother to look (well, sometimes by the middle of the song) to
> see that the meters are pinned, or are only going up half way. Perhaps
> what they monitor in the control room is going through a leveler so
> they don't notice, but what's going to the Internet is coming straight
> off the console. Of course it's best for the operator to fix the
> problem right at the source, but even an Aphex Compellor feeding the
> web broadcast chain would make it a lot less annoying to listen to.

Mike,

I will be talking to KBCS's engineer in the near future and I'll mention it.
They do have all volunteer DJ's and it is difficult to get them to be
consistent.

Julian
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 9:21:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com>

> My biggest complaint with KBCS is the inconsistent level going into
> the audio servers (or effectively that, regardless of the actual
> chain). It's like the DJ turns the pot up to 8 for every CD and
> doesn't bother to look (well, sometimes by the middle of the song) to
> see that the meters are pinned, or are only going up half way. Perhaps
> what they monitor in the control room is going through a leveler so
> they don't notice, but what's going to the Internet is coming straight
> off the console. Of course it's best for the operator to fix the
> problem right at the source, but even an Aphex Compellor feeding the
> web broadcast chain would make it a lot less annoying to listen to.

Mike,

I will be talking to KBCS's engineer in the near future and I'll mention it.
They do have all volunteer DJ's and it is difficult to get them to be
consistent.

Julian
!