64 replies to this topic

[rossb]

I recently sent a comment to ABC Classic FM along the lines that their streaming audio at 96kbs was inadequate - and frankly unlistenable - particularly when the BBC stream at 320kbs and even 2MBS here in Sydney stream at 128kbs.

I received the following response:

Thank you for getting in touch, however I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you.

In the last 24 hours the ABC has streamed approximately 2.8TB of live radio in 1.5 million streams to desktop users alone (so not including mobile).

We are charged by the kilobyte for this data, so every increase in bitrates or audience numbers costs the ABC money that could be used in other areas, including making programs or building and maintaining our online services.

Since the current streaming system was implemented in January 2010, I am aware of only two people writing in suggesting we increase our bit rates. Other considerations in choosing our suite of formats and bit rates include the need to minimise the call on users' own download limits, and the connectivity of users in regional areas where bandwidth is not assured.

Given the cost of increasing bit rates and the apparent level of user satisfaction, there are no plans to increase our streaming bit rates.

While I understand the cost issues, I am very surprised that there have been only two other comments suggesting increasing bitrates. Perhaps a few other comments might motivate them to re-think this ...?

[holdencaulfield2007]

I recently sent a comment to ABC Classic FM along the lines that their streaming audio at 96kbs was inadequate - and frankly unlistenable - particularly when the BBC stream at 320kbs and even 2MBS here in Sydney stream at 128kbs.

I received the following response:

While I understand the cost issues, I am very surprised that there have been only two other comments suggesting increasing bitrates. Perhaps a few other comments might motivate them to re-think this ...?

It is annoying that the digital stations do not utilise a higher bit rate but the rate that you have quoted is considerably higher than most of the other stations. I do listen to digital radio quite a bit and I switch between my FM tuner and DAB+. I guess a by product of the lower bit rates is more stations however no consolation to people like yourself who crave higher quality.

[Proac]

I agree. ABC Classic is dreadful quality.
What an off hand reply as well. Quite arrogant.

[ophool]

Nothing to do with the ABC, but my recent connection to 2MBS was looking more like 256 VBR, averaging around 210.
Brief comparison suggested the FM tuner to be the better sound still.

[wolster]

Well I'll join in with a complaint. I mainly listen to Classic FM through a tuner or on a portable radio and headphones early morning but I do sometimes listen through the computer at work so am happy to be complainant number four.

[Monkeyboi]

Well at least the Op got a response, which I can say is better than none, even though it probably wasn't what he wanted to read.

The lack of complaints is probably due to apathy and complacency on the part of most people who probably want a better quality service but more than likely believed they'ed get the answer the OP got, so made the decision not to bother.
IMHO it's a sad indicement that our national broadcaster can't find the funding to up the bitrate, citing it as one of the reasons for not doing so. However it doesn't surprise me.

The TV networks are going the same way, prefering to have more channels of crap over quality and a better PQ (1080i over 720p) with surround sound, instead providing most content in more crappier SD resolution and only stereo sound. There's only just so much one can fit into a 7MHz bandwidth. With the mainsteam commercial networks broadcasting the shopping shows (thank goodness currently only very late at night), do they honestly believe they need a dedicated shopping channel like 4ME? And whilst I'm no my hobby horse, ABC News 24. HD bandwidth wasted on broadcasting a lot of sub-SD resolution video news feeds with video quality that looks like it was shot on a mobile phone. What are they thinking? Obviously they're not.

**** Rant off ****

Cheers,
Alan R.

[surprisetech]

I can understand the issues with the additional cost of higher bitrates for streaming and downloads, but ultimately this should not be an issue for Digital Radio.

Being the optimist that I am, I'm maintaining hope that once the analog TV switch off progresses and more DAB Band III frequencies are freed up, then they will spread the DAB+ stations over more channels and the current bandwidth limitations will be a thing of the past.

[O.Sydney]

ABC Broadband Content, as formatting disappears so I posted just text and the links below so hope they work ok...

105.7 ABC Darwin 105.7 ABC Darwin 64 kps
1233 ABC Newcastle 1233 ABC Newcastle 64 kps
612 ABC Brisbane 612 ABC Brisbane 64 kps
666 ABC Canberra 666 ABC Canberra 64 kps
702 ABC Sydney 702 ABC Sydney 96 kps
720 ABC Perth 720 ABC Perth 64 kps
774 ABC Melbourne 774 ABC Melbourne 64 kps
891 ABC Adelaide 891 ABC Adelaide 64 kps
91.7 ABC Coast FM 91.7 ABC Coast FM 96 kps
936 ABC Hobart 936 ABC Hobart 64 kps
ABC Classic ABC Classic FM 96 kps
ABC Country ABC Country 96 kps
ABC Dig Music ABC Digital Music 96 kps
ABC Jazz ABC Jazz 96 kps
ABC News Radio ABC News Radio 96 kps
ABC Radio Extra ABC Radio Extra 96 kps
ABC Radio Grandstand ABC Radio Grandstand 96 kps
ABC Radio National ABC Radio National 96 kps
Special ABC Radio Stream One Special ABC Radio Stream One (This is an event based stream and content will not always be available.) 96 kps
Special ABC Radio Stream Three Special ABC Radio Stream Three (This is an event based stream and content will not always be available.) 96 kps
Special ABC Radio Stream Two Special ABC Radio Stream Two (This is an event based stream and content will not always be available.) 96 kps
Triple J triple j 96 kps
triple j Unearthed 100% independent Australian music 96 kps


ABC Broadband Content
105.7 ABC Darwin 105.7 ABC Darwin 64 kps 1233 ABC Newcastle 1233 ABC Newcastle 64 kps 612 ABC Brisbane 612 ABC Brisbane 64 kps 666 ABC Canberra 666 ABC Canberra 64 kps 702 ABC Sydney 702 ABC Sydney 96 kps 720 ABC Perth 720 ABC Perth 64 kps 774 ABC Melbourne 774 ABC Melbourne 64 kps 891 ABC Adelaide 891 ABC Adelaide 64 kps 91.7 ABC Coast FM 91.7 ABC Coast FM 96 kps 936 ABC Hobart 936 ABC Hobart 64 kps ABC Classic ABC Classic FM provides the perfect soundtrack to your day. 96 kps ABC Country ABC Country 96 kps ABC Dig Music ABC Digital Music 96 kps ABC Jazz ABC Jazz 96 kps ABC News Radio ABC News Radio 96 kps ABC Radio Extra ABC Radio Extra 96 kps ABC Radio Grandstand ABC Radio Grandstand 96 kps ABC Radio National ABC Radio National 96 kps Special ABC Radio Stream One Special ABC Radio Stream One (This is an event based stream and content will not always be available.) 96 kps Special ABC Radio Stream Three Special ABC Radio Stream Three (This is an event based stream and content will not always be available.) 96 kps Special ABC Radio Stream Two Special ABC Radio Stream Two (This is an event based stream and content will not always be available.) 96 kps Triple J triple j 96 kps triple j Unearthed 100% independent Australian music 96 kp

From what I recall, these bit rates above were much higher, I think 256, then they went live with DAB+ and 'had' to reduce the online bit rates so I stopped listening online and as I don't have a radio receiver plugged into the system I stopped listening altogether. Shame as it was enjoyable.

I was one of the people who did not complain to the ABC but rang up and complained to Internode who streams this content unmetered for it's customers. The quality difference was night and day

[davewantsmoore]

IMHO it's a sad indicement that our national broadcaster can't find the funding to up the bitrate, citing it as one of the reasons for not doing so.

It's a nice sentiment, yes ... but I can understand how it's simply not value for money, when considering a finite amount of funding.

The NBN has the potential to simplify and reduce the funding model for offering content online like this .... although if we're not careful, all the profits and benefits could just go to CDNs

[davewantsmoore]

What are they thinking? Obviously they're not.

I was under the impression that the issue was simply that they did not have the budget to purchase/playout enough HD content, and they are required to show a certain amount.

[rossb]

I wonder what sort of additional costs we are talking about. The ABC quoted me 2.8TB a day, which is not all that much. I can download 200GB a month through Telstra for about 80 bucks. At a similar rate, this is costing the ABC about $300 a day, and I bet they get a much cheaper rate from Telstra than I do.

Also, it is not necessary that everything be at 320 or 256kbs. Talk radio, such as Radio National, is probably fine at 96kbs. Possibly JJJ could be at 128kbs since most pop/rock music is so heavily compressed anyway. Just as the BBC did, the ABC could offer 320kbs as an option for those who wanted it. If the vast majority are perfectly happy with current bit rates - as appears to be the case - the take up should not be all that great and the cost would be minimal.

[nofixedaddress]

If they do up the rate - how does that effect those with narrow bandwidths in rural areas with copper lines or via sat link? Will it make the ABC classical stream unobtainable for them?

Is it possible to have different quality streams available easily? If it is then I don't see why not.

NFA

[Monkeyboi]

I was under the impression that the issue was simply that they did not have the budget to purchase/playout enough HD content, and they are required to show a certain amount.

That might have been the case 10 years ago for FTA DTV, but not now. Strangely because of broadcasting regulations the networks have to simulcast on their main SD channel what they broadcast on their analogue channel. Lots of HD shows that were simultaneous broadcast in SD and HD. e.g 7 and 7HD. Now we are getting shows recorded in HD shown on the prime SD channel + analogue simultaneously, and a fair swag of non-HD shown on the HD channel. Hopefully this will not be the case when the analogue tansmitters are switched off and the simultaneous broadcasting of the main SD channel on analogue will no longer be required.

Cheers,
Alan R.

Edited by Alan Rutlidge, 09 February 2012 - 01:10 AM.

[Proac]

That might have been the case 10 years ago for FTA DTV, but not now. Strangely because of broadcasting regulations the networks have to simulcast on their main SD channel what they broadcast on their analogue channel. Lots of HD shows that were simultaneous broadcast in SD and HD. e.g 7 and 7HD. Now we are getting shows recorded in HD shown on the prime SD channel + analogue simultaneously, and a fair swag of non-HD shown on the HD channel. Hopefully this will not be the case when the analogue tansmitters are switched off and the simultaneous broadcasting of the main SD channel on analogue will no longer be required.

Cheers,
Alan R.

Interesting. Gosh I just dl anything I want to watch now and upscale it through the Oppo. The local content is dreadful by and large. And the quality hap hazard.

Also, it is not necessary that everything be at 320 or 256kbs. Talk radio, such as Radio National, is probably fine at 96kbs. Possibly JJJ could be at 128kbs since most pop/rock music is so heavily compressed anyway. Just as the BBC did, the ABC could offer 320kbs as an option for those who wanted it. If the vast majority are perfectly happy with current bit rates - as appears to be the case - the take up should not be all that great and the cost would be minimal.

I agree 100%. Its abit of a worry when ABC Classic sounds better in my car than through the hi fi.

[Shmonk]

ABC Classic sounds pretty good through DAB+ on a good digital receiver, better than streaming over the net I suspect. Is it that DAB+ uses a better algorithm and so for the same bit rate it sounds better than the format used to stream over the net?

[Catostylus]

ABC Classic sounds pretty good through DAB+ on a good digital receiver.

I can confirm that. Even 2MBS, at a lower bit rate, sounds pretty good too.

[Jay 101]

Hi,

This is the ABC here. We’ve read this thread and it seems to have strayed from the original post – where rossb said;

I recently sent a comment to ABC Classic FM along the lines that their streaming audio at 96kbs was inadequate - and frankly unlistenable...

Rossb’s criticism was about the bandwidth allocated to our online streams. The next post criticised the bandwidth allocated to our Digital Radio broadcast for CFM, which is an entirely different matter, and took things in a new direction. Since then the thread has touched matters effected by the following factors;

- the relative quality of mp3, vs other formats
- the scalability of the bandwidth out of the ABC
- the prices in our contract with our CDN vendor and the services it offers in Australia
- the encoding and re-encoding cycles throughout our distribution channels on Digital Radio and on the Internet
- the number of people using our streaming services
...and more.

Back to the original post, we stand by our comments that there is finite resource (budget, and therefore bandwidth) available for our online streaming services. In parallel, there are similar constrains on the bit-rate allocations for our Digital Radio broadcasts (which is shared between Radio National, NewsRadio, triple j, triple j Unearthed, Local Radio, Grandstand Sport, DIG Music, ABC Jazz, ABC Country, Digital Extra, and yes, Classic FM). As it stands, Classic FM has a more generous bit-rate on Digital Radio than some of our other services, perhaps not as much as the Golden Ears would like, but the vast majority of our Digital Radio listeners have appreciated the offer to date. It’s important to note that the Digital Radio strategy pursued by the radio industry in this country has been anchored on choice for listeners ahead of audiophile benchmarks – for example there are many more stations on Digital than Analogue, and that is a more universally appealing sales message than offering less stations at a higher bit rate.

Having said all that, we truly appreciate the fact that the writers here are passionate about these issues. The ABC is committed to Digital Radio and committed to online streaming to multiple devices. We see an exciting future for radio in this multiplatform world, so it’s good to know that audiences are encouraging the best of us – especially for the fans of CFM here.

Thanks,
Jeremy.

[nofixedaddress]

Wow thank you for the time to seek out and respond to this thread Jeremy. Fantastic.

Don't worry about all the other side topics. That is pretty normal on SNA. By the second page we have generally dragged any topic onto a discussion of Salma Hayek's best assets or which version of DSOTM has the best sound.

As a world traveller, lower streamed bitrates are appreciated. Not all connections are able to handle high bitrates nor can all expats afford the cost of listening to a station from home should it consume more bandwidth.

NFA Old JJJ fan here. Still buying hottest 100s and Like a Versions.

[danq]

Well... given the replies from our friends at ABC, it seems that most listeners are happy with the current bandwidth. Perhaps it is worth considering to allow the customer to choose the bitrate then? Since most people pay for download amounts per month, only those really interested in better sound quality would go for high bitrates. Some listeners with simple desktop computer speaker setups may even choose lower bitrates than the current one, thus, possibly averaging out consumption.

[rossb]

Jeremy, thanks for the response, and I appreciate the fact that the ABC takes these issues seriously enough to respond both to my original email and to the issues raised in this thread.

I think it is fair to say that we all appreciate the fact that Classic FM is streamed at all and we all seem to be enthusiastic listeners of the station. I'm sure we all also appreciate that the ABC is under very tight financial pressure, even more than commercial organisations.

However, a few observations in response.

CD - which many people still regard as being of questionable sound quality - produces 1411kbs. A stream of 96kbs is therefore less than 7% of CD quality - ie a 96kbs stream discards over 93% of the musical content.

The ABC is now competing in a global market for internet radio and there is a very large number of major radio stations streaming at 128kbs and above. Many listeners will simply vote with their feet (ears?) and switch to other stations without bothering to let the ABC know why. Certainly for late night listening on headphones, I am more inclined to listen to, say a classical station from Switzerland or the US which offers better sound quality, and I doubt I am alone.

While the ABC streams a large number of programs to a very large audience, it would be fair to say that the BBC has a bigger audience still but manages to offer a 320kbs stream and it is hard to imagine that the BBC is not under similar financial pressure. Clearly, the BBC perceive a need for the higher bitrate stream with its greater cost and is not merely catering to "the Golden Ears". Also, as mentioned above, no one is suggesting that all streaming is at the higher bitrate - it could be offered only on selected services on an opt-in basis, in the same way that the BBC offer their "HD" service. I would suggest that this would result in only a marginal increase in the overall service.

The suggestion that this is an issue only for "the Golden Ears" is rather patronising and dismissive. It is true that the general public is not widely knowledgeable about these issues, and have had their standards systematically lowered over the years with CD, then MP3, and video downloads replacing even inferior standard definition television. It is also true that most people seem to favour convenience over quality. However, surely the ABC's role includes educating and leading its audience, and setting standards which exceed the low expectations most people seem to have these days. Classic FM certainly does this in terms of music and it would be nice if it also did it in terms of audio quality.

[Catostylus]

Take a bow, rossb.

[O.Sydney]

Hi,

...Back to the original post, we stand by our comments that there is finite resource (budget, and therefore bandwidth) available for our online streaming services. In parallel, there are similar constrains on the bit-rate allocations for our Digital Radio broadcasts (which is shared between Radio National, NewsRadio, triple j, triple j Unearthed, Local Radio, Grandstand Sport, DIG Music, ABC Jazz, ABC Country, Digital Extra, and yes, Classic FM)...

Having said all that, we truly appreciate the fact that the writers here are passionate about these issues. The ABC is committed to Digital Radio and committed to online streaming to multiple devices. We see an exciting future for radio in this multiplatform world, so it’s good to know that audiences are encouraging the best of us – especially for the fans of CFM here.

Thanks,
Jeremy.

Hi,

and thank you for the post too, can you confirm why the bit rate went down on Classic FM a few short years ago ?


So the issue is only a financially one and not a desire to not broadcast at higher quality.
Is it an option for the ABC to make available the streams at a higher rate to ISP's who could then re-broadcast to their customers at their desired bit rate ?
I use Internode as an example as they are my ISP, they re-broadcast 100 stations including quite a number from the ABC.


A blurb from the top of their page;
“Choose from over 100 of the best broadband streaming radio stations on the Internet and from around the world for your unmetered listening enjoyment.

Internode Radio
We re-broadcast these streaming radio stations through our high-performance Content Delivery Network directly to our customers, ...”
http://www.internode...roadband_radio/

this would not cost the ABC extra $$

Yes we are passionate cause 'It's our ABC and we love music', the way it is meant to be heard.

[surprisetech]

rossb, while I agree with all your observations, I must point out the error of your maths.

CDs use uncompressed data (Linear PCM), while modern CODECs used for streaming use sophisticated compression algorithms. You can't make a simple comparison of the amount of music content just based on bitrates.
Applying your logic, A CD track has about 75% of its musical content discarded when converted to a 320kbps MP3 file. This would mean that the highest quality MP3 only contains 1/4 of the original content.

That's akin to saying that a photo in a Bitmap (uncompressed) file of 500kBytes has had 60% of its visual content discarded when it's converted to a high-quality JPEG file of 200kBytes, when in fact, the compression algorithms used for JPEG mean that only a tiny amount of content is lost.

[rossb]

Lossy compression is lossy compression. The subjective "content" which is discarded may be regarded as of less importance from a psychoacoustic perspective, but the data is actually lost irrecoverably and is of the order of magnitude I mentioned. The issue you raise is not a mathematical one but one which relates to the subjective importance of the information lost. That is an issue which would be the subject of one of those endless debates on Hydrogen Audio, and which I have no interest in discussing. I therefore don't think there is any error in the mathematics, but I am open to correction.

[surprisetech]

I'll try to exlain it a bit better.

If we were comparing apples with apples,
e.g. the bitrates of Linear PCM @16bit/44.1kHz (CD Quality) to Linear PCM @8bit/8kHz (roughly Landline telephone quality),
then the "order of magnitude" that you quote would be correct.

But when comparing an uncompressed CODEC with a compressed CODEC the comparison cannot be made on the basis of bitrate, as while some content in the lossy compressed file is unrecoveralbe, much of it is not lost, just compressed, and is recovered.

Lossy compression CODECs do a combination of applying the perceptual encoding that does result in some loss of content; But they also do what lossless compression does and package the data such that it fits into a smaller packet.
The resulting lower bitrate is a combination of these two processes, not just the discarding of data. In higher quality lossy CODECs, it's the second process that provides the largest reduction in bitrate.
As lower bitrates are chosen, then of course the loss of content becomes the main contributor.

Is "higher quality lossy CODEC" an oxymoron?? lol

[rossb]

Thanks for clarifying, and point taken. I think you would still agree, however, that 96kbs is still a very substantial reduction in sound quality compared to the original CD.

[surprisetech]

Oh absolutely. I've compared the waveforms of a wav file to a 128kbps MP3 before and the losses are quite visible and are definitely audible.
The differences are much more subtle when comparing the waveforms of a wav file to a 320kbps MP3.

[Jay 101]

Hi,

Since my post, a few additional questions came in, so here's some info in response.

...CD - which many people still regard as being of questionable sound quality - produces 1411kbs. A stream of 96kbs is therefore less than 7% of CD quality - ie a 96kbs stream discards over 93% of the musical content...

A bit-rate number is not a simple 1:1 equation, so the comparison of compressed streaming codec bitrates with uncompressed audio on CD is not valid. In the posts above surprisetech makes some points around this.

...The ABC is now competing in a global market for internet radio and there is a very large number of major radio stations streaming at 128kbs and above. Many listeners will simply vote with their feet (ears?) and switch to other stations without bothering to let the ABC know why...

A few years ago Mark Mays, the then CEO of Clear Channel Radio in the US said, "Broadcasters have to stop thinking of Radio as being defined by tall towers in big fields", so I think your point is spot on. As Mays implied, all the world's radio (and other radio-like services) are on our doorstep. But just as you seek out high audio quality, we're finding overseas listeners who are chasing innovative programming as their primary goal. Many international listeners get in touch with us and they are truly ecstatic with our content offer; our music selections, and the quality of our presenters. This has been an interesting development that would have been impossible in the days when we were confined to "tall towers in big fields." Your point about some listeners seeking our higher bit-rates is not lost on us though, it is an area we watch closely, so it's been interesting to consider the views here.

...can you confirm why the bit rate went down on Classic FM a few short years ago ?

We reviewed the bitrates as part of the January 2010 rebuild of the streaming infrastructure. Before then we were offering windows streams at 136kbps, but those were using a very old version of the WMA codec. In the rebuild we upgraded the WMA stream to version 9 of the WMA codec, which delivers higher quality at lower bitrates than the old codec, and settled on 96kbps for windows streaming. We also introduced 64 kbps AAC+ over RTMP as our default stream (basically flash streaming).

Is it an option for the ABC to make available the streams at a higher rate to ISP's who could then re-broadcast to their customers at their desired bit rate?

Depending on the codecs and bitrates chosen, this would mean buying new encoding hardware, and paying for the ongoing maintenance of it. With finite resource available, some might argue that rather than invest here we instead pursue additional audio services, or the same services via other codecs/protocols to give compatibility with a greater range of devices. But It's an interesting idea, certainly worth exploring to see what's involved (Don't take this as any kind of official policy, it's just thinking out loud at the moment)

Thanks,
Jeremy

[Catostylus]

Thanks, Jeremy. Your input is greatly appreciated.

[Catherine Barkley]

I know I've steered away from ABC Classic FM's stream in the past because of its low bitrate. And this was before I got into higher end audio. Even 128kbps sounds miles ahead of 96.

[Telecine]

I appreciate your response Jeremy but I think that the ABC's thinking is fatally flawed. If I had my way, I would revoke the licence of any broadcaster who used high bandwidth spectrum to broadcast multiple low quality signals. It is a waste of a scarce resource.

What are you going to do when the NBN is rolled out, persist with the current low bitrate strategy?

[O.Sydney]

I know I've steered away from ABC Classic FM's stream in the past because of its low bitrate. And this was before I got into higher end audio. Even 128kbps sounds miles ahead of 96.

Same here Catherine, before January 2010 I was listening to the ABC classic stream on mid 80's consumer level (Tandy) audio gear and I could easily tell the difference which prompted me to write to my ISP who was rebroadcasting it. (I thought it was them and how could they!)

[Shmonk]

Many international listeners get in touch with us and they are truly ecstatic with our content offer; our music selections, and the quality of our presenters.

I'm not surprised. I think the team at Classic FM do a fantastic job. It is a world class station and I, like many here I suspect, would like to hear it in world class sound quality. It deserves higher bit rates for DAB+ and streaming.

[jamesg11]

Here's another side-track - what about the comparison with hq fm analogue reception (strong reception + quality tuner)? Yep, apples with oranges, but roughly at what kbps/codec streaming do we get an equivalence with fm? Any thoughts?

[Proac]

Many international listeners get in touch with us and they are truly ecstatic with our content offer; our music selections, and the quality of our presenters.

Well I hope you aren't counting Emma Ayres in that lot. Why oh why you inflict her upon us I have no idea - she says the most stupid things.

And why oh why Opera on a Sunday night.

Thank God for 2MBS.

Gotta say Jeremy - you are very good at patting yourself on the back.

[davewantsmoore]

What are you going to do when the NBN is rolled out, persist with the current low bitrate strategy?

We should assume so, unless the cost of moving data around changes drastically. (NBN probably won't have a gigantic effect, over and above the slow decline in pricing of services like this)

As somebody who has worked for various ISPs I can understand that getting terabytes of data to internet users in Australia is very expensive. Most people think the consumer pays a download charge, and that is that .... the sender pays too.

[davewantsmoore]

Here's another side-track - what about the comparison with hq fm analogue reception (strong reception + quality tuner)? Yep, apples with oranges, but roughly at what kbps/codec streaming do we get an equivalence with fm? Any thoughts?

Very very difficult to say. I have a reasonable FM tuner, and rooftop antenna. FM has some obvious shortcomings in channel separation, frequency response extremes, and noise floor.

Digital radio of even low bitrate is easy to hear a superior in these respects usually.... however, FM still sounds VERY good if you can listen around these shortcomings. Smooth, life-like, non-fatiguing. I would say in some ways only uncompressed (lossless compression) can really compete.

Just did a quick AB with JJJ using the iTunes 96k AAC stream, and FM ..... Streaming sounds immediately clearer, but ultimately doesn't sound very good. Something grating and artificial about it.

[holdencaulfield2007]

Well I hope you aren't counting Emma Ayres in that lot. Why oh why you inflict her upon us I have no idea - she says the most stupid things.

And why oh why Opera on a Sunday night.

Thank God for 2MBS.

Gotta say Jeremy - you are very good at patting yourself on the back.

Because some people like Emma Ayres. Same with Opera. Can't please all of the people all of the time.

[Catostylus]

Because some people like Emma Ayres. Same with Opera. Can't please all of the people all of the time.

And I'm one of them. Our Emma rulez.

[Telecine]

We should assume so, unless the cost of moving data around changes drastically. (NBN probably won't have a gigantic effect, over and above the slow decline in pricing of services like this)

As somebody who has worked for various ISPs I can understand that getting terabytes of data to internet users in Australia is very expensive. Most people think the consumer pays a download charge, and that is that .... the sender pays too.

That depends on the content management/caching strategy and offerings of the ISP. Many will stream it quota free to their customers and one assumes that the broadcaster only pays once, if at all, for the upload.

In the absence of better offerings from the ABC, I will stick with FM. That won't save them any money but I think that the SQ is better.

[davewantsmoore]

one assumes that the broadcaster only pays once, if at all, for the upload.

In this case, that's wrong.

It doesn't matter what the end-user is paying to their ISP (ie. whether the station is "quota free", and/or is provided via the ISPs own infrastructure) ..... The ABC still pay for every kilobyte to their Content Distribution Network (CDN) provider... The CDN provide the servers we stream the content from. (ABC appear to use a company called Akamai)


So, aside from ISPs who are willing to pick up the feed, and rebroadcast it to their customers, using their own infrastructure (irrespective of whether they charge their customers "quota" to stream it or not) .... The ABC pays for every single kilobyte to every listener.

I will stick with FM. That won't save them any money

Yes it will.

[PCOWandre]

A number of ISPs re-stream content, often as an unmetered offering. Perhaps the ABC could negotiate with ISPs like Internode to provide higher rate feeds for them to restream? Internode restreams a number of online radio stations at 256 and 320kbit.

So - offer the current low-quality offering direct and offer ISPs a high bandwidth feed to re-stream.

[O.Sydney]

So, aside from ISPs who are willing to pick up the feed, and rebroadcast it to their customers, using their own infrastructure (irrespective of whether they charge their customers "quota" to stream it or not) .... The ABC pays for every single kilobyte to every listener.

so what your saying is the data is paid by the ISP and ABC (the same bit of data) ?

Doesn't sound right, ABC would pay for the data to the ISP then the ISP would pay for the same data to be rebroadcast ? or can you explain further what you mean ? I don't understand how the content provider pays regardless twice ?

[O.Sydney]

Hi,

Since my post, a few additional questions came in, so here's some info in response.

Depending on the codecs and bitrates chosen, this would mean buying new encoding hardware, and paying for the ongoing maintenance of it. With finite resource available, some might argue that rather than invest here we instead pursue additional audio services, or the same services via other codecs/protocols to give compatibility with a greater range of devices. But It's an interesting idea, certainly worth exploring to see what's involved (Don't take this as any kind of official policy, it's just thinking out loud at the moment)

Thanks,
Jeremy

I don't know about the hardware required to stream at 2 different bit rates.
As another option that may be easier to implement;
The ABC Classic program varies ie some of the content is news, interview and other program material that perhaps could sound ok with lower bit rates.
Other content and programs could really do with higher bit rates, like album of the week or in concert series etc.
Would that be something you could table at your meetings ?

A number of ISPs re-stream content, often as an unmetered offering. Perhaps the ABC could negotiate with ISPs like Internode to provide higher rate feeds for them to restream? Internode restreams a number of online radio stations at 256 and 320kbit.

So - offer the current low-quality offering direct and offer ISPs a high bandwidth feed to re-stream.

I made mention of this in a previous post but there seams to be Hardware limitations according to Jay 101

[davewantsmoore]

so what your saying is the data is paid by the ISP and ABC (the same bit of data) ?

Doesn't sound right, ABC would pay for the data to the ISP then the ISP would pay for the same data to be rebroadcast ? or can you explain further what you mean ? I don't understand how the content provider pays regardless twice ?

Not exactly, no. The data is paid for by the customer (you) and by the ABC. The ISP may or may not incur a cost (although they may certainly incur "generalised" costs in moving data, no matter what the individual content is)


The ABC pays to get the data into the ISPs network. To do this they might pay the ISP, a transit provider, or perhaps a content delivery partner (seems the ABC do the later).

The customer of the ISP then pays to "download the data" through their monthly quota.

The costs to the ISP are less clear. It may have cost them nothing, depending on their peering arrangements with other networks, etc.