Round Up: Internet Radio
Post categories: Radio
| 11:07 UK time, Monday, 30 November 2009
If you're interested in Internet Radio then here are three things you may have missed (and which to be honest we missed as well).
Alan Oglivie on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio Labs blog posted last week about the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s involvement with the Internet Media Device Alliance:
"how does the ´óÏó´«Ã½ properly expose the various formats, transports and metadata of our live internet streams that would allow device manufacturers and aggregators to consistantly give our listeners the best experience through their Internet Radio device? It requires all those involved in the chain to be aligned to certain working practices, and perhaps standards."
PaulWebster shares some good news in a comment on Ian Myatt's blog post "Improvements to ´óÏó´«Ã½ Local Radio online":
"hurrah... ´óÏó´«Ã½ Local Radio On Demand content now available again to users."
While onan has unearthed an interesting from 2006.
Nick Reynolds is Social Media Executive, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Online
Comment number 1.
At 30th Nov 2009, Neil wrote:Not good enough news though Mr reynolds,If I want to listen to any shows from ´óÏó´«Ã½ Local it is still 80k MP3?
I now as from yesterday have a new Amplifier I think it deserves the best treatment & 80k MP3 certainly is not.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 30th Nov 2009, BtEtta wrote:Bit disappointing that the codec review got some basic things wrong:
"Originally designed as a lossless codec, the developers of Vorbis switched to make this codec lossy at bitrates lower than 96kbps."
Wait what?! Utter nonsense; lossy at all bitrates. Hence why FLAC was brought under the Xiph.org banner to fill the lossless role. Development was galvanised after Fraunhofer started waving their MP3 related patents around in much the same way as PNG being a response to Unisys's patents covering GIF images. Forced to agree that it's been superseded in quality by AAC+ (though not so much against regular AAC) and that its hardware support is disappointing — although the current drive to make Vorbis (and Theora for video) standards for the <video> and <audio> tags in HTML 5 is certainly a more promising development.
"Encoder efficiency is worst out of others compared in this document. MP3 needs high bitrates to come close to AAC quality at lower bitrates. MP3 technically requires a commercial license, though there are some less than efficient 'open source' solutions."
LAME is as I understand it held to be easily the equal in quality to the Fraunhofer codec and has been for some time. Certainly its quality as an encoder (especially since it started life as a series of quality-related patches to the ISO reference encoder) has never been something to be dismissed.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 9th Dec 2009, Andrew wrote:On the Internet radio front is there any ETA on making the low bandwidth (WMA) radio streams available to international users? The current WMA streams appear to be geo-restricted to the UK, which is causing some issues for overseas Internet radio users in particular.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 2nd Mar 2010, scuba wrote:not very clear about the hype around internet radio,however on testing it out ,knew the reasons right away! it is simply technology at its best and the way the media is veering towards, internet radio will become mainstream media for a mojority of internet users in the not too distant future, and all our [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]environmental issues and other concerns has to be highlighted properly for this form of media to be constructive,
regards
A.J.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 27th Mar 2010, U14390976 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 1st Sep 2010, LCD-enclosure wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)