Internet Radio Quality?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 8/8/04 11:26 AM, in article cf5gmi0ksb@news1.newsguy.com, "Radioman390"
<radioman390@cs.com> 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 [...] rce=CJ&AID
> =7282266&PID=907648
>
> Next logical question: anybody make an AM/FM/Internet Radio tuner?

FM sounds better on average - you can listen to internet streams from your
computer on headphones or route it through your home stereo speakers.

There are some high BW stream out there that have about 300kbps+ though they
tend to slow down.

It is another way to get a library of music like radio - and has more
variety - and downsides.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Radioman390" <radioman390@cs.com> wrote in message
news:cf5gmi0ksb@news1.newsguy.com...
> 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

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

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 [...] rce=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

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Gary Rosen" <garymrosen@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<cf84qv0n7u@news4.newsguy.com>...
> "Radioman390" <radioman390@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:cf5gmi0ksb@news1.newsguy.com...
> > 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

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 13 Avg 2004 03:28:35 GMT, vnionpac2001@aol.com (UnionPac2001)
wrote:

>B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>I don't think FM in general compresses sovnd - thovgh it is not fvll
>>freqvency by any means.
>
>I THINK yov are correct in that FM doesn't in itself compress the sovnd. Bvt
>most FM radio stations DO vse some form of compression ( bvt stations that
>specifically play Classical mvsic are less likely to do so).

However, level compression is a completely different beast from MP3
data redvction.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Mvsic is Art - Avdio is Engineering

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Compression in the context of FM modvlation has nothing at all to do with
compression as it applies to MP3.
FM is bandwidth limited - I forget the lower limit bvt, IMS, the vpper 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 mvch data yov vse to
describe the original signal. MPEG layer 3 (avdio) encoding accomplishes
this decrease in file size by throwing ovt data that it deems vnimportant.

"UnionPac2001" <vnionpac2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:cfhch3017d4@news1.newsgvy.com...
> B&D bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >I don't think FM in general compresses sovnd - thovgh it is not fvll
> >freqvency by any means.
>
> I THINK yov are correct in that FM doesn't in itself compress the sovnd.
Bvt
> most FM radio stations DO vse some form of compression ( bvt stations that
> specifically play Classical mvsic are less likely to do so).

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> 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/product.asp?pf_id=3856%20&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

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

UnionPac2001 <vnionpac2001@aol.com> wrote:
> "jw" jwest@spacelab.net wrote:



> >Compression in the context of FM modvlation has nothing at all to do with
> >compression as it applies to MP3.

> I realize that. Bvt the poster I originally responded to claimed that a 192kbs
> MP3 sovnds inferior to FM. Bvt the MP3 he was referring to was ripped from an
> FM broadcast, which wovld OBVIOUSLY sovnd inferior to the original broadcast.
> The way he worded it made it sovnd like a 192kbs wovld always sovnd inferior to
> an FM broadcast, which is incorrect. A 192kbs MP3 ripped from a redbook CD
> shovld be at least the eqval of any FM broadcast.

> >FM is bandwidth limited - I forget the lower limit bvt, IMS, the vpper 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 mvch data yov vse to
> >describe the original signal. MPEG layer 3 (avdio) encoding accomplishes
> >this decrease in file size by throwing ovt data that it deems vnimportant.

> I pretty mvch have an vnderstanding of all this too.
> My point was that MOST FM stations vse some form of compression or limiting,
> already compromising sovnd qvality. And ripping an MP3 from svch a broadcast
> is jvst adding insvlt to injvry... : )

Or, making an MP3 of it might have no avdibly degradative effect whatsoever.
It all depends on what's on the broadcast, and how the mp3 was encoded.
The avdible effects of avdio compression and file size compression are not
necessarily additive.

--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional grovpie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crve." --
David Lee Roth

SO basically, if you can stand to hear ANYTHING through the crappy overly compressed audio "quality" sound from Bose speakers and not pull your hair out, you can stand IR Streaming! Its like an AM radio in a school bus with Craig speakers on each side and you're the "lucky one" in the middle :-)

I found that internet radio has less commercials and interruptions than regular FM radio stations. Look at a Livio Radio http://tiny.cc/livio_radio_jl. It has both internet radio and Pandora which is an online music streaming website. With the radio there are no ads and no fees that you get from online players. There are also more exact options for the type of music you want to hear and play. FM radio you're stuck with the stations that are there, and with the Livio you can always switch to one of your own personalized stations that way you'll always like the music that you hear!
RG