[WXBH-Discuss] Improving Our Audio Quality
John Hicks
johnhicks at wxbh.org
Sun Jul 8 15:20:47 EDT 2007
Paul--
I finally "get it". I think you are saying that being able to stream and
transmit a good quality audio signal is an important factor in
attracting potential programmers. After all, it takes a lot of effort to
put together a show. We owe it to the programmers/producers to do their
handiwork justice when presenting it to the public.
There are several things we can do to improve our quality. I list them
below in a certain logical order, not in the order in which I think we
should address the problem:
Our current setup sends a 128kbps stream up to the Icecast streaming
server which is then relayed to the computer and transmitter at Fern
Creek High School. (This is known as a Studio-Transmitter link or STL
for short. Professional stations use a dedicated digital line for this.
We quite early on opted to use the Internet for this for budgetary
reasons.) I am told that a 128kbps compressed stream is "better than FM
quality" although there is probably room to quibble there. If this base
stream configuration is inadequate then we can:
--increase the bandwidth from 128kbps to improve the quality
--increase the buffering of the stream to eliminate minor hiccups
--or pay for a regular dedicated STL link
But most of our programming comes in at far less quality than what the
128k stream can deliver, so I believe we can make some major
improvements in our sound quality before we need to address upgrading
the STL:
Our signal goes through two sound cards before it gets streamed. And
then it goes through a third sound card to get transmitted.
I believe we can eliminate the first two cards by using a software
interface called JACK (http://jackaudio.org/), which allows you to plug
audio software inputs and outputs together without having to visit a
sound card.
We can then probably improve the sound coming out of the computer and
into the transmitter at FCHS by upgrading that final sound card to one
that you had recommended. I have my eyes on this one:
http://www.rme-audio.com/english/hammer/d9652.htm (I had been hoping to
make a quick trip to Bardstown Audio http://www.bardstownaudio.com/ to
pick one up when I was configuring the computer but I just plumb ran out
of time.)
Before we do that however, I'd like to get you back into that FCHS
studio to take a closer look at their equipment and to pass on the total
chain of components. [I assume the output of their control panel is
balanced. When school starts up and we go to a switched time-share
system, we will bypass their control panel but we will be adding that
switch. I'm not sure how to hook a balanced output up to that switch.]
Once we get our hardware in better shape, our sound quality can be as
good as the quality of the 128kbps stream we are currently using, so we
will limited by our programming sources.
I can see now that the music on WRFN is muffled a bit by their 48kbps
stream. We will be dropping some WRFN stuff as we add our own local
programming. But if we retain much of it, we might request a higher
bandwidth stream from WRFN. (Rick Roderick has also suggested a number
of other community stations to draw programming from, some of which may
have a higher-bandwidth stream.)
The live Pacifica stream is 64kbps, and it appears that the downloads
available on audioport.org are also 64kbps. By late morning there is a
higher quality version of Democracy Now available for download and I
have been using that when I can for our noon and 5 p.m. broadcasts of
DN. I believe there is also a higger quality version of Free Speech
Radio News available off line (i.e. some time after their 4 p.m. live
time). Also, The Progressive Radio Show (not part of the Pacifica
network) is available at 192kbps.
Point being that we can improve the quality of our sources
incrementally. Perhaps we can even petition Pacifica for higher-quality
audio.
That leaves our local programming. I believe we early on established
128kbps (either .mpg or .ogg), 44,100kHz as the standard for our own
programming. That being said, the quality of our programming is all over
the place. It is clear a number of other factors are critical to good
sound quality: the venue, miking, level monitoring, level control during
editing, etc. The good news is that since most of our producers are
inexperienced amateurs, we can expect their skills to improve over time.
Part of our job is to provide the resources to pool and publish what we
learn about the process along the way and provide training whenever
appropriate. But I would think having a studio would help tremendously
in this process (i.e. having a venue that is relatively quiet, already
miked, with basic recording levels preestablished, etc.).
So let me boil this down to a list of things we can be doing right now
to significantly improve audio quality.
1. Build a studio
2. Arrange for a number of in-home studios and proactively put
programmers in touch with the owners of these studios.
3. Make recorders and mics more readily available and train people how
to use them. The base configuration might also need the addition of a
mixer for adjusting level of multiple mics.
4. Incrementally improve our network sources by establishing a schedule
of the programming we want to have and proactively looking for/lobbying
for better quality audio feeds and files for each.
5. Implement JACK and eliminate the path through the two audio cards in
our programming source computer.
6. Upgrade the computer at FCHS with a better sound card and eliminate
the path through their sound board. (We probably can't implement this
until we get back into the school prior to the beginning of the school
year, but we can be configuring a computer to get ready to put into place.)
I hope that helps a bit. Sorry to be so long winded.
-- John Hicks
topdog at woofer.com wrote:
> I don't know. Are there people wanting to do shows that have no
> facilities? The people that I have approached have facilities but
> don't seem to have the time to devote. I'm going to hustle them
> again, now that we are on the air.
>
> It just seems to me that people should be lining up to beat our front
> door down. Is it that the voiceless don't want to be heard? Maybe a
> good time for a little PR in the news rags?
>
> Paul
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [WXBH-Discuss] Our Audio Quality
> From: John Hicks <johnlist at gulfbridge.net>
> Date: Sat, July 07, 2007 2:33 pm
> To: "WXBH General Discussion List (Open to all to subscribe and
> post.)"
> <wxbh-discuss at wxbh.org>
>
> Paul--
>
> If not a studio, what do you propose we do to get more local programming?
>
> --John
>
> topdog at woofer.com <#Compose> wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Are people out there screaming because they can't record a show? I
> > know that Aron has opened up his kitchen studio to more people than
> > himself. My question is, if we get a LIVE studio going, how many
> > people are going to take advantage of that?
> >
> >
> > You have proved that we can be "on the air" with a PIII 800 Mhz PC and
> > a $5 microphone. How many people don't have that?
> >
> > People that are not trained in communication often have poor
> > communication skills. Dead air. A lot of "ummms" and stuff. Also,
> > no way that we can edit their content. The last thing that I heard
> > was the obscenity charge was $310,000.00 /per occurance/ - charged not
> > to the station, but to the person that uttered the obscenity. I don't
> > think that anyone I've met through this project makes that much in a
> > year. Not a lot of Beamer's and Caddy's in our parking lot. A
> > simple "oh shit" because your shirt got snagged on the CD player could
> > cost you your retirement. People are listening - especially those FHS
> > people who are petioning the FCC to keep us off of the air.
> >
> > To err on the side of caution is always a good thing. You at least
> > will live to make errors another day.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [WXBH-Discuss] Our Audio Quality
> > From: John Hicks <johnlist at gulfbridge.net <#Compose>>
> > Date: Sat, July 07, 2007 1:27 pm
> > To: "WXBH General Discussion List (Open to all to subscribe and
> > post.)"
> > <wxbh-discuss at wxbh.org <#Compose>>
> >
> > topdog at woofer.com <#Compose> <#Compose> wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > I only wish that I had the time. I think I've got one or two
> in me -
> > > but not a whole series. One or two would help - from anyone!
> Can't
> > > we replay those when we are in the middle of a "dead air" period?
> >
> > I agree. I've been promising to publish a schedule framework
> that will
> > let us start sketching in our local program schedule, but have
> let that
> > slide on my list. I'll try to get it done (and published) today
> (but
> > right now am on my way to the EarXtacy independent music day to
> > evangelize a bit).
> > >
> > > I've approached a numer of people that were "gung ho" at first
> but
> > > when it came came to "put up or shut up" ... they shut up. I
> hope
> > > that the "voiceless" have a voice or it will cost us our
> license. Any
> > > fool can have a streaming website - and many do.
> >
> > Agreed. That's why we need a studio. It was asking too much to get
> > groups to record, edit, upload, etc. And most of that work wound
> up
> > falling on Mark's shoulders anyway. With a studio, people just
> need to
> > show up and get 'er done.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: RE: [WXBH-Discuss] Our Audio Quality
> > > From: "Mark McKinley" <markmck48 at hotmail.com <#Compose> <#Compose>>
> > > Date: Fri, July 06, 2007 6:53 pm
> > > To: wxbh-discuss at wxbh.org <#Compose> <#Compose>
> > >
> > > Paul - re local programming:
> > >
> > > 1. Right now I'm listening to a local press conference
> > organized by
> > > health
> > > care activsts; Healthcare for All is a locally produced
> > grassroots
> > > program
> > > promoting universal single payer healthcare;
> > >
> > > 2. we've had samples of programming around local
> opposition to
> > the
> > > invasion/occupation in Iraq;
> > >
> > > 3. we have a locally produced show on media
> reform/justice issues
> > >
> > > 4. Kim Sorice has produced a couple music shows; Aron has
> > produced a
> > > show;
> > >
> > > we've been clamoring for folks to step up to the mic - how
> about
> > a show
> > > Paul?
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > Mark
> > > >From: topdog at woofer.com <#Compose> <#Compose> <#Compose>
> > > >Reply-To: "WXBH General Discussion List (Open to all to
> subscribe
> > > >andpost.)" <wxbh-discuss at wxbh.org <#Compose> <#Compose> <#Compose>>
> > > >To: "WXBH General Discussion List (Open to all to
> subscribe and
> > > >post.)"<wxbh-discuss at wxbh.org <#Compose> <#Compose> <#Compose>>
> > > >Subject: RE: [WXBH-Discuss] Our Audio Quality
> > > >Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 15:27:59 -0700
> > > >
> > > >Bad quality - that's the major problem of getting audio
> off of
> > the web
> > > >(besides being able to be hacked).
> > > >
> > > >The audio level should be adjusted automatically by the
> Optimod
> > at the
> > > >transmitter (which is post-board).
> > > >
> > > >The reason that we have to go through the WFHS board (which
> > further
> > > reduces
> > > >quality and leaves us open to tampering) is because the
> cheap,
> > Ensoniq
> > > >sound card is neither balanced or professional line level
> (both
> > > points that
> > > >I addressed in early May). Certain RME Audio cards may
> work,
> > but the
> > > >majority of pro sound cards will only work in a Windows
> > environment.
> > > >
> > > >We are not on the air to be a Pacifica affiliate. We have a
> > license to
> > > >give "a voice to the voiceless". Where are our locally
> produced
> > > shows? We
> > > >have been on the air 1 month. I haven't heard one yet.
> When does
> > > the FCC
> > > >decide that we are not meeting our license criteria of 32
> hours of
> > > locally
> > > >produced programming per week?
> > > >
> > > >Just points to be addressed - and sooner rather than later.
> > > >
> > > >Paul Nevitt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-------- Original Message --------
> > > >Subject: [WXBH-Discuss] Our Audio Quality
> > > >From: John Hicks <johnhicks at wxbh.org <#Compose> <#Compose> <#Compose>>
> > > >Date: Thu, July 05, 2007 9:59 pm
> > > >To: "WXBH General Discussion List (Open to all to
> subscribe and
> > post.)"
> > > ><wxbh-discuss at wxbh.org <#Compose> <#Compose> <#Compose>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >A few more notes about the audio quality:
> > > >
> > > >Right now we are broadcasting the Internet stream, which
> > theoretically
> > > >is 128kbps, quite sufficient for good quality audio.
> > > >
> > > >However most of our sources are less than 128kbps. Pacifica
> > feeds us at
> > > >64kbps and WRFN streams at only 48kbps. On top of that, the
> > quality of
> > > >audio coming from these sources varies (even for Pacifica).
> > Remember
> > > >that WRFN relies on volunteer programmers and some of
> them are
> > better
> > > >than others.
> > > >
> > > >If the stream sounds good but the broadcast sounds worse,
> there
> > are a
> > > >few more factors invloved:
> > > >
> > > >--We currently don't have a way to monitor the broadcast
> over
> > the air in
> > > >order to adjust the audio signal level.
> > > >
> > > >--The sound is coming out of an onboard Ensoniq sound
> card and
> > going
> > > >into the Fern Creek sound board (not directly into the
> > transmitter).
> > > >
> > > >--Since we have limited access to FCHS, we can't just
> drop by
> > and work
> > > >on the problem. We have to make an appointment to go in and
> > work while
> > > >our Fern Creek chaperone waits. (It would help if we had
> an extra
> > > >computer or two so we could simply swap out the old box and
> > swap in a
> > > >newly configured one that has been thoroughly tested.)
> > > >
> > > >--John
> > > >
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> John Hicks
>
> When replying to me personally, please use "johnhicks" instead of
> "johnlist" in the email address.
> --
> _______________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the WXBH-Discuss mailing list, sponsored by WXBH
> BrickRadio
> Subscribers can post to this list by sending email to
> WXBH-Discuss at wxbh.org <#Compose>
> Subscribe, change your subscription options, or unsubscribe at
> http://wxbh.org/mailman/listinfo/wxbh-discuss
> Check out the latest on our web site: http://wxbh.org <http://wxbh.org/>
>
>
More information about the WXBH-Discuss
mailing list