Old 16th July 2010, 06:33   #1
Crash N Burn
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 14
128 kbps vs 64 kbps listeners able to listen.

I was wondering this.
If I set my stream at 128kbps I have been told many people with crap computers or dialup may not be able to get my stream/broadcast.
So, if I was to set my stream at lets say 64kbps does that mean many more people may be able to tune in?
It seems I get alot of people whom click in for one sec then dissapear. Is this because they cant get my stream because of a setting to high? 128kbps vs 64 kbps.
I get according to my graphs alot of people checking it out from germany, japan etc..
Also is their a major sound quality loss between those settings?
I would much rather set my settings lower and let alot more people be able to tune in.
Any insite into this is welcomed.
Crash N Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2010, 07:00   #2
voodoohippie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Elizabeth City, NC
Posts: 214
Send a message via Yahoo to voodoohippie
If you set your station to 64K 22.1 sampling rate it sounds good and yes you'll get more listeners as oversease listeners often don't have that extra bandwidth. Plus many cable companies throttle down the Internet speed after so many MB's are downloaded. Actually if you want dial up listeners to be able to listen to your station you'll want to stream in 24K 44.1 sample rate and use AAC+ (which winamp does support and so does iTunes. However iTunes seems to sound Mono at that rate where as Winamp sounds great at 24K AAC+.

Be aware that if you want people to be able to listen from their web browser they won't be able to unless you stream in Mp3 format as Flash doesn't support AAC+ and neither does the Windows Media Player web plugin.

Hope this helps.

Great Broadcasting Software Windows XP/7/8
http://nextkast.com

For Progressive Rock, Classic Rock http://thelegacy.shorturl.com
voodoohippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2010, 07:14   #3
Crash N Burn
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 14
Thats great thanks alot for telling me this. At one time using a different program to broadcast with I set things at 32bps and seemed I got twice as many listeners. The only problem I was thinking is the lower I set my setting he crappier it will sound. So your saying 64 is'nt that bad of sound? It's not 128 but its important to me that more listeners can enjoy the station.
I have a player imbedded in my website so people can listen right off my website and I stream in mp3 format so if I was to go lower and set at aac + your saing people wont be able to listen using windows media player or real player? but they still may listen thru my player playing on my website?
Thanks for the imput I have been wondering this pont for awhile.
Crash N Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2010, 07:21   #4
Crash N Burn
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 14
I just tested my speed and it said
download speed at 10.86 mb/s
upload speed 4.73 mb/s
Second time tested
download speed 6.46 mb/s
upload speed 3.97 mb/s
Strange maybe my cable co is'nt supplying me with what they advertise?
Crash N Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2010, 09:54   #5
jaromanda
Forum King
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Under the bridge
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by voodoohippie View Post
Be aware that if you want people to be able to listen from their web browser they won't be able to unless you stream in Mp3 format as Flash doesn't support AAC+ and neither does the Windows Media Player web plugin.
Windows Media Player used to have a plugin from Orban that allowed aac+. No longer available, unfortunately. So much for the "rumours" a few yers back that WMP11 would play aac+ natively
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash N Burn View Post
I have a player imbedded in my website so people can listen right off my website and I stream in mp3 format so if I was to go lower and set at aac + your saing people wont be able to listen using windows media player or real player? but they still may listen thru my player playing on my website?
No ... there is no "embedded" aac+ capable player ... except maybe VLC, but VLC is an unstable load crap IMHO

Whilst Flashplayer can play aac+, it can't "stream" it, except from Flash Media Server (includes Red5 and other clones) - as a side note, to this, a branch of icecast can stream "natively" to flash - perhaps AOL could duplicate this functionality, it's pretty simple

Is it just me or are shoutcast users getting dumber?
jaromanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2010, 16:00   #6
smoothbeats
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 53
Send a message via AIM to smoothbeats
These days, bandwidth limitations arent much of a concern for home and business listeners; at least not in the US. 128kbps should work just fine as long as you have the bandwidth to support it, and the quality will be pretty good. Listeners using mobile devices are where bitrate will really make a difference, as not everyone can sustain such a bandwidth-intensive stream.

For mobile users, I would recommend 64kbps, as was recommended in a previous reply. For music with a higher dynamic range of levels and frequencies, you'll want to keep the stream at 44.1kHz, which means mobile listeners will have to deal with a mono stream (64kbps 44.1kHz mono). This is what we use for our medium-bitrate streams. If you think broadcasting to these listeners in stereo is more important and you don't notice a big hit in the sound quality, by all means use 64kbps 22.05kHz stereo instead.

Smoothbeats.com
hiphop / nujazz
smoothbeats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2010, 17:43   #7
voodoohippie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Elizabeth City, NC
Posts: 214
Send a message via Yahoo to voodoohippie
I should have made myself more clear. yes you can stream in Flash (If you don't use Shoutcast as your server). However this gets more complicated plus you'd have to get another license for another stream. I don't think SWcast can support Flash Media Server. If you want that AAC+ flash webstream (not to push Loudcaster and be accused of Spam) but that is what you'd want. It streams your broadcast in 64K Mp3, 24K AAc+ (Both Shoutcast) and the Flash Media Server 24K AAC+ all licensing included.

But enough about that. Your pretty much stuck using 64K Mp3 Stereo 22.1 Sample rate. If you set that sample rate to 44.1 it will sound T E R R I B L E!!!!! so make Damn sure you set that sample rate to 22.1. NOTE: I did this for a while for iTunes listeners and it sounded good. I'm picky I run the most picky format Album Rock and trust me Album Rockers SON'T LISTEN TO YOUR BROADCAST UNLESS YOU HAVE AUDIOPHILE QUALITY SOUND!!!!! so if I can please Album Rockers with the bitrates and settings I gave you than certainly Top40/Rap listeners won't know the difference. In fact most Top 40 listeners can't tell the difference between a Mp3 @ 320K and a Mp3 @ 32K (Terrible awful sound never go that low with Mp3). When I could not afford a host I would stream om *************.com @64K 22.1 sample rate without a hitch and it sounded good using the wavestream embedded player. I got from 25-30 listeners even using that FREE host if this tells you anything at all.


Hope this helps.

Great Broadcasting Software Windows XP/7/8
http://nextkast.com

For Progressive Rock, Classic Rock http://thelegacy.shorturl.com
voodoohippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2010, 21:04   #8
voodoohippie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Elizabeth City, NC
Posts: 214
Send a message via Yahoo to voodoohippie
You want to know why this is? Answer when you broadcast 128K stereo the channels are actually deviced L=64K R=64K 64K+64K = 128K So when you broadcast 64K Mono your getting just one channel which has the L+R Yed together to the mono channel. So when your broadcasting in 64K Mp3 your only getting 32K L and 32K R. But and here is the But (when you lower the sample rate you get less Base but cleaner highs). So by switching to 64K Stereo 22.1 (instead of 44.1) you lose a little low end, but your S's don't sound like thumping Ssssssss or Thsssss every time someone says a word that has a letter S. This happens at 96K 44.1 Stereo. Like I said anyone who is not a Prog Rocker will settel for a mono signal and probably not notice the difference. But at the same time they don't know the difference in sound between a Bang And Olfson $1,000 to $2,000 power amp from a fisher Stereo at your local Rent A Center.

Why does analog FM stations sometimes sound better for you in Mono? Today's FM receivers are plagued by a weak front end which allows for bleed over like crazy. In order to get a decent FM receiver for the home these days you have to shell out $300-$500 for a good FM stereo receiver (separate from your receiver). Plus you need a Beam antenna on the roof or an indoor antenna made for FM stereo and a 10 DB amp (gas fed) $100-200.

I highly suggest (if you can find it) a blapunkt FM receiver, Rotel, Merantz at a high end audio shop (not discount store). Listen to the difference you'll be amazed (unless you listen to Rap you won't tell the difference). Classical music fans will DEFINITELY notice. Ask yourself how far is the station from your receiver. FM Stereo signals only go about 35 miles before they start to fall apart so knowing this you'll need to spend high dough for good reception. A good outdoor TV/FM antenna can also help bring those stations in crisp clean Stereo.

Better yet just get a Squeezebox boom and listen to Internet radio because most cities have crappy on air Radio (unless small college Radio station or Pirate Radio station).

Hope this helps the true Audiophile.

Great Broadcasting Software Windows XP/7/8
http://nextkast.com

For Progressive Rock, Classic Rock http://thelegacy.shorturl.com
voodoohippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2010, 00:13   #9
voodoohippie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Elizabeth City, NC
Posts: 214
Send a message via Yahoo to voodoohippie
multi-path is when a wave bounces off of buildings, terrain (Mountains, Large hills, ect). This even causes ghosting on analog TV back in the days of analog channels. The only way to combat that is to use a Yagi or Beam antenna not one that is omni-directional. Also the correct polarization is a must FM broadcast is horizontally polarized, where as cell phones are vertically polarized. This is why those wire dipoles work a little better than a straight antenna for FM Stereo. Note that many of Today's manufacturers don't even have a ground screw anymore on the FM side a few are at least smart enough to offer the 75 ohm balanced option with a REAL coax jack.

Another good receiver is a car stereo FM receiver. The Delco ones are great they have high selectivity and extremely sensitivity. You take one of those and connect it to a CB power supply and then some good speakers and you can listen to great Radio reception in the house. If the car FM receiver has RCA jacks in the back to be connected to a power amp you could even use that to replace your FM receiver and get a receiver capable of the performance of a $300-$400 in house FM receiver. Put a car antenna on top of the house or you can construct an antenna very easy just remember 468 devided by the frequency to make a good antenna.

Hope this helps your FM stereo needs.

As far as Digital Internet Radio AAC+ beats Mp3, but you can't be heard using a web browser without jumping through hoops. The average listener just wants point and click.

Great Broadcasting Software Windows XP/7/8
http://nextkast.com

For Progressive Rock, Classic Rock http://thelegacy.shorturl.com
voodoohippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2010, 04:17   #10
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I have a 1950 Zenith "Hifi" radio which is probably the best radio I've ever had for noise immunity and distant stations on AM or FM.

Quote:
The only way to combat that is to use a Yagi or Beam antenna not one that is omni-directional. Also the correct polarization is a must FM broadcast is horizontally polarized, where as cell phones are vertically polarized. This is why those wire dipoles work a little better than a straight antenna for FM Stereo. Note that many of Today's manufacturers don't even have a ground screw anymore on the FM side a few are at least smart enough to offer the 75 ohm balanced option with a REAL coax jack.
I think the 300 ohm twin lead dipole sold by Radioshack attached to a wall with thumbtacks is the best antenna I ever used for FM. It's just a piece of twin lead.

http://hf-antenna.com/003/

If you use a directional antenna for FM, you're probably going to want a variable attenuator in the line to the antenna. Signals that are too strong overload the "front end" and you'll end up with weird receiver behavior. I've seen an omnidirectional antenna benefit from attenuation on TV or FM. You can actually lose a ghost by attenuating the signal rather than amplifying it.

I'm about 8 miles from most of the towers and in a canyon. The wire on the wall and an attenuator do just fine.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2010, 18:46   #11
maneff
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe-Bulgaria-Sofia
Posts: 17
Send a message via ICQ to maneff
Hi there. I want to respond as a LISTENER....
So... for me, at first place is QUALITY (for some people isn't)
In my Home PC I preffer Listening to mp3 stereo 192kbps stereo and HIGHER
on my Laptop I preffer listening to mp3 128 stereo and HIGHER
on my mobile phone I preffer listening to 64kbit mp3 mono (because of the operator's limitation. And also 64kbit mono mp3 stream sounds better than 64kbit stereo stream).

I really love the mpeg2 codec and Love listening to .aac streams. On my PC I listen radios on aac 48kbps, 64kbps and 80kbps .. and I am really happy with this quality. I may listen eaven to 40 and 32kbps aac stream on my pc (the quality's still good enaugh) but it's a problem (yet) to play AAC streams on mobile devices.

It also depends what type/style/genre of music do you broadcast. The newer music (2008-2009-2010) needs more kbps to listen correctly, the older stuff like 90s, 80s doesn't need that much quality.

I strongly recommend you to broadcast MONO stream if streaming mp3 on 64 and recommending eaven more to make aac stream.

I hope my opinion was helpful for you, and excuse my bad English.
Cheerz
maneff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2010, 18:47   #12
maneff
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe-Bulgaria-Sofia
Posts: 17
Send a message via ICQ to maneff
A radio listener's opinion

Hi there. I want to respond as a LISTENER....
So... for me, at first place is QUALITY (for some people isn't)
In my Home PC I preffer Listening to mp3 stereo 192kbps stereo and HIGHER
on my Laptop I preffer listening to mp3 128 stereo and HIGHER
on my mobile phone I preffer listening to 64kbit mp3 mono (because of the operator's limitation. And also 64kbit mono mp3 stream sounds better than 64kbit stereo stream).

I really love the mpeg2 codec and Love listening to .aac streams. On my PC I listen radios on aac 48kbps, 64kbps and 80kbps .. and I am really happy with this quality. I may listen eaven to 40 and 32kbps aac stream on my pc (the quality's still good enaugh) but it's a problem (yet) to play AAC streams on mobile devices.

It also depends what type/style/genre of music do you broadcast. The newer music (2008-2009-2010) needs more kbps to listen correctly, the older stuff like 90s, 80s doesn't need that much quality.

I strongly recommend you to broadcast MONO stream if streaming mp3 on 64 and recommending eaven more to make aac stream.

I hope my opinion was helpful for you, and excuse my bad English.
Cheerz
maneff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2010, 20:38   #13
ujay
Forum King
 
ujay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 6,072
A little nostalgia for you AA



UJ
ujay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th July 2010, 21:41   #14
KROCKS ZPR
Junior Member
 
KROCKS ZPR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: midwest
Posts: 12
What I find ironic is debating sound quality between 128 and 64, when 9 times out of 10, people are listening through cheap tiny desktop speakers that cant even give a 8kps stream any more merit. Then you have laptops, with their tiny teeny built in speakers, again cant make any difference to an 8kps stream. Neither one of these will make any difference to a 128 or a 64.

Run the sound through a real stereo system with real speakers, even a surround sound system, then you got the real results of a 128 or 64.

Oh..lets also look at the iPortables! Those teeny tiny earphones! Oh ya those will reproduce that nice fat bandwidth of sound! NOT!

So the point here is to find a balance that gives your station a good clean full rich sound when heard on a real audio system, but not so much that the stream itself prevents those other tiny speaker or earphone devices too much to handle to even connect, much less try to reproduce the frequency response!

Also the balance needs to consider the low bandwidth access, such as dialups or heavily shared tiers on DSL and cable.

64k is an excellent choice to serve both the high end audio systems as well as give the dialup users a fair chance to be able to tune in. Plus it is a good midway point between the different audio systems used by the listeners. Not all will be jamming out through a 10,000 watt 10 foot tall arrays of concert hall loudspeakers. But you can place good bets that the majority are listening via those teeny tiny desktop or built in laptop speakers, or through those teeny tiny earphones, which will not by any chance reproduce the full frequency response of a 128k stream.

My station runs 3 streams. A 128, a 48 and a 24 AAC+. Guess which one gets the most users?

Nope it aint the 128!


RFB
KROCKS ZPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2010, 23:12   #15
Crash N Burn
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 14
I really have learned alot from all about my original post yet one thing seems to be unclear and undecided by many.
Keep in mind I run MP3 format.
Some have said run at 64kbps Mono 22.1 sample rate.
Some have said run at 64kbps Stereo 44.1 sample rate.
Quote:
So when you broadcast 64K Mono your getting just one channel which has the L+R Yed together to the mono channel. So when your broadcasting in 64K Mp3 your only getting 32K L and 32K R. But and here is the But (when you lower the sample rate you get less Base but cleaner highs). So by switching to 64K Stereo 22.1 (instead of 44.1) you lose a little low end, but your S's don't sound like thumping Ssssssss or Thsssss every time someone says a word that has a letter S.
I think the best advice here in allowing more listeners to tune in and still having a good sound at a bitrate lower than 128 kbps would sound like broadcasting at 64 kbps stereo @ 22.1 sample rate.
From what im gathering here that would be the best sound for an mp3 stream at 64 kbps am I not correct?
I blend my mix with Old school Metal/Rock mixed with some new metal, but the majority is 80s and 90s.
Keeping in mind as said prior most people are probably listening thru laptops/tiny home computer speakers etc.. & not 100.000 home stereos.
Plus I think on mobile devices this would probably keep a steady buffer rate as well.
Thanks for all the imput I really appreciate it!
Crash N Burn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2010, 02:57   #16
Brutish Sailor
Major Dude
 
Brutish Sailor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 998
Send a message via Skype™ to Brutish Sailor
Buffer rate comment +1

Thats why I dig playlist launch files.

They have a computer that will support it? it keeps them at 128kbps,

They cant support it? Kick them down automatically to 96kbps 44khz.

KNSJ.org 89.1 FM San Diego
Brutish Sailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Shoutcast > Shoutcast Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump