RBR Poll: Should radio set a fixed date for HD conversion?

[DavidEduardo]

David, a high-sample-rate MP3 is a paradox.  If you sample at a high rate, you might just as well go uncompressed.  The MP3 format is a lossy compression algorithm; its intended purpose is to be lossy and to compress, which is the way it's used 99.99999% of the time.  I think that more and more folks (especially the younger ones) appreciate many things, but audio/video quality isn't one of them.  Unfortunately, iTunes MP3 files from an iPod going into earbuds and streamed video on a 3" screen seem to be "good enough."

Yes, that's my point... the bar has been lowered. The standard for audio quality is sacrificed to portability and versatility.

Those at stations that play currents know that many songs no longer have a promo CD. They are released as downloadable MP3's, very often at 256 kbs. A few labels, Sony being one, will sometimes offer a short download window for a wav as well as a 320 kbs MP3. Most stations are going for the MP3, I'm told.

One person told me, in a shrewd observation, that the defining factor in audio quality is whether the song will fit as an attachment. With most mail systems barfing at over 10 mb, then 256 or 320 kbs MP3s are going to be the standard, not wav files.

In fact, in many parts of the world, where even in-home and at-work internet access is metered, size matters. I've produced one of those "weekly new releases and breakers" CDs for 18 years... today I get zero promo CDs. And few stations are shipped a real CD any more... they download. And they want 256 kbs... the best size vs. cost compromise for the stations who use it who are all in Latin America. I believe (and fear) that at some point the labels will set a standard, perhaps 256 kbs VBR, so that there are not a lot of versions at different rates running around.

And keep in mind that if you put songs on your iPad, iPod or iPhone (yeah, I have the trio and listen to nearly 100% of my music on one of them and enjoy it) iTunes wants to convert any higher sample rates into 128 kbs. On my first iPhone, one with 4 gb of memory, I said yes to the question. I got very used to it and accept it now, unless I start being a critic rather than an enjoyer of music.

[Lee Rust]

To my surprise, I found no practical quality difference between an iTunes download and the original CD. In the real world of the marketplace, it would seem that the bitrate/compression scheme choices have already been made. There are lower limits, of course, like AM-HD, FM-HD3 or some of the satellite channels, but it's clear that the rarified upper audio realms that we used to call 'high-fidelity' have largely been abandoned.

Besides, the high-frequency pre-emphasis curve inherent to the analog FM system is a much bigger audio quality issue than choice of digital compression modes.

[Zach]

Zach, I can't speak for other stations, but mine uses:  CD to uncompressed .wav files to analog processing to analog STL to analog transmitter.  Sounds great.  And . . . if the only people you know who enjoy radio are radio people, you must travel in some very small circles or never leave the company of radio people!    Over 93% of Americans 12+ listen to the radio!

LO I salute your station for preserving the analog sound through the chain.  I bet it sounds awesome and I wish more stations did that.  The quality of radio stations seems to correspond to two factors: ownership (big corp or small owner) and when they did their last technology upgrade.

I'm almost certain that my local small-town AM'er still pops music in off of CDs or carts.  Technology has likely passed them by.  But the big Clear Channel stations all have very obvious artefacting in the audio, which is made all the worse on their online streams or HD feeds due to cascading codecs. 

Up in Birmingham some of the former Dick Broadcasting stations embraced computers early on and the MUSICAM (mp2) audio was horrific.  But the tin eared (but otherwise competent) engineer couldn't hear the difference so my complaints fell on deaf ears, so to speak.  To this day those stations stand out for how bad they sound, while some that appeared to upgrade to computer networks later sound pretty good.  The Cox stations all sound especially crisp and clear and I've been told they're all uncompressed music at the source.

As for the dozens of people I know and have discussed radio with, only the radio people listen regularly.  Even my parents and their relatives have abandoned radio in all but the rarest of occasions (weather, news, etc.)  So maybe I do have an odd circle, or they just don't admit to listening. 

People my age and younger are definitely all attached to their mp3 players or online streaming of Pandora and the like.  For some of them, radio is iTunes and the player is an iPod and there is no such thing as any other way to take music on the go.  But they're weird.