Jump to content

ABC Classic FM, streaming and bitrates


Recommended Posts



  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites



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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Very cool post Rossb, the points raised really well made and IMO shouldn't be diluted by suprisetech's mathematics gobligook. ABC get your act together, you'll get left behind as i'm sure it's much easier to keep ears/listeners rather than try and coax already defected ones back. An "opt in" / "opt out" approach would seem the logical way to go and I for one only have 256k and up bit rates in My Favourites on internet radio -there's no shortage of them and all from abroad btw. Across all industries, any business model that bases itself on limited or finite bandwidth is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wally

You are a sick man.

Just noticed ABC tonight was 96 mp3 and 48 AAC - unlistenable. Seriously - of all the stations Classic would be the one that really needs the quality - why not 256 AAC?

Oh well ....typical Australia : all window dressing not inventory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just stopped listening to Emma Ayres (fed up with the sound quality, short tracks and continual mis-pronunciation of foreign words) and have switched to WDR 3 in Bonn - 256kbps, excellent sound and less talking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't often get to drive the jeep (with a good system) that much around Sydney but did a few days this last week and was listening to Classic FM on the radio, what a great sound on free to air compared to the only option I have at home, online :)

It's like 2 steps forward in options and 2 steps back in quality

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top