View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
nod
Joined: 24 Dec 2006 Posts: 3558
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:56 am Post subject: Only 42,000 tracks ? |
|
|
Chris said he only had access to 42,000 tracks for his request show, doesn't sound many to me for R2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
firewirefred Guest
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: Re: Only 42,000 tracks ? |
|
|
nod wrote: | Chris said he only had access to 42,000 tracks for his request show, doesn't sound many to me for R2 |
That's probably the number that are stored on the network music server - Galileo or whatever else they're using. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 9955 Location: UK
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm very surprised as radio stations like Smooth Radio would have a lot more. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
firewirefred Guest
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
mark occomore wrote: | I'm very surprised as radio stations like Smooth Radio would have a lot more. |
Smooth radio? Another bland station. By the way, a basic install of the system includes much of the music. So theirs could well be roughly the same. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nod
Joined: 24 Dec 2006 Posts: 3558
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: Re: Only 42,000 tracks ? |
|
|
firewirefred wrote: | nod wrote: | Chris said he only had access to 42,000 tracks for his request show, doesn't sound many to me for R2 |
That's probably the number that are stored on the network music server - Galileo or whatever else they're using. |
No wonder we continuosly here 'sweet home alabama', 'come up and make me smile' etc if they have to reload the server. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SantaFefan
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 11258 Location: top of the cliffs in Norfolk
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mind you, with all that pointless shouting in the show, he wouldn't need any more than that would he? _________________ Johnnie Walker read out my message on Pirate Radio! 13/8/07
I have heard how radio should be. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arcader
Joined: 11 Dec 2006 Posts: 220
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm still not sure why Evans bothers playing music, given that 99% of the time he talks over a large chunk of it, adds sound effects or cuts it short so he can move onto the next talkie bit.
Methinks Steve Wright has a hand in all this ............ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DLT'S PIPE
Joined: 28 Dec 2006 Posts: 12 Location: Yorkshire
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
42,000 is alot for a radio station as most ILR stations run on about300-600 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
firewirefred Guest
|
Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would say that 42,000 is only an insufficient number for a station that actively encouraged its presenters to dig out less "common" tracks. In the case of most R2 shows, the system only needs to store about 20 tracks in total. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kingman6024
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
radio scilly[smallest radio station ] has access to 4000 tracks |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nod
Joined: 24 Dec 2006 Posts: 3558
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
an ipod can hold more than that !!
but maybe thats all the scilly's need and have |
|
Back to top |
|
|
firewirefred Guest
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nod wrote: | an ipod can hold more than that !!
but maybe thats all the scilly's need and have |
If you don't want to be clever that's pretty much all you need! Create playlist in iTunes, mix a mic to the software output and send it to a transmitter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MIKERAPHONE
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 301 Location: Bury..home of the World famous Black Pudding!!
|
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
42,000 tracks.
Say 15-16 songs maximum per hour.
That would keep ANY radio station going for months.
Yet as stated we still get
:
Dancing Queen
Brown Eyed Girl
Sweet Home Alabama on a regular basis.
More one hit wonders and more 50's and 60's would be very welcome. _________________ The Voice of reason in a MAD MAD world |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Triumph Herald
Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 85 Location: Bucks
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mark occomore wrote: | I'm very surprised as radio stations like Smooth Radio would have a lot more. |
I'd be very surprised if Smooth has more than 3000 active tracks. Lots of stations exist with only a few hundred. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ian Robinson Site Admin
Joined: 11 Dec 2006 Posts: 3611 Location: Chorley, Lancashire
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Triumph Herald wrote: | mark occomore wrote: | I'm very surprised as radio stations like Smooth Radio would have a lot more. |
I'd be very surprised if Smooth has more than 3000 active tracks. Lots of stations exist with only a few hundred. |
Yes, of all the stations to pick as an example of variety, Smooth ain't one of them!
I still think 42,000 is incredibly low. I've got 11,000 on my own computer here and I'd expect the BBC to have a LOT more than me. It explains why Johnnie Walker and Jonathan Ross keep taking their computers in to play their own music on their shows. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
firewirefred Guest
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The BBC has the largest music library in the world, but the problem is that you can't get everything (even if it's in digital form) onto the remotely-served playout system that is accessed by the studio desks. We often hear Johnnie Walker saying things like "I wonder if we have on the system" and that's the key. Remember also that although there's an increasing use of MP3 format files, they're more likely to be saved at bitrates of 192kbps or even higher - the default iTunes rate of 160kbps isn't good enough. 256kbps is now becoming the norm - especially for Apple DRM-free downloads off its iTunes music store. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ian Robinson Site Admin
Joined: 11 Dec 2006 Posts: 3611 Location: Chorley, Lancashire
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
firewirefred wrote: | Remember also that although there's an increasing use of MP3 format files, they're more likely to be saved at bitrates of 192kbps or even higher - the default iTunes rate of 160kbps isn't good enough. 256kbps is now becoming the norm - especially for Apple DRM-free downloads off its iTunes music store. |
I don't see why that should make a difference - most of mine are encoded at 192 or higher. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Triumph Herald
Joined: 22 Mar 2007 Posts: 85 Location: Bucks
|
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
firewirefred wrote: | Remember also that although there's an increasing use of MP3 format files, they're more likely to be saved at bitrates of 192kbps or even higher. |
I think it's all WAV files on their system. I read somewhere that there's an objection to using MP3 for anything as it doesn't sound very good once it's been through the DAB coding process. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
firewirefred Guest
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Triumph Herald wrote: | I think it's all WAV files on their system. I read somewhere that there's an objection to using MP3 for anything as it doesn't sound very good once it's been through the DAB coding process. |
Yes, that figures. DAB unfortunately adds another level of compression so you need to start with very little - and MP3 is pretty heavy by its very nature. Either WAV or AIFF does require much more storage, though, which probably explains the track-number limitation on the instant access system. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mark Mayhew
Joined: 11 Dec 2006 Posts: 2897
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Fred-I thinks its excellent we have you on this forum-I consider you our technical expert on here explaining techi stuff in such a way that idiots like me can have a hope of understanding.
Keep up the excellent work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
firewirefred Guest
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'm flattered you think so but in reality I just know what I know because of my involvement in the business of generating video and audio signals and moving them from A to B! I am critical of technical standards at the moment, however. DAB is heralded by the people in broadcasting as being a big deal, but in reality it's something of a step backwards. What it does do is enable us to cram much more data into he spectrum due to the fact that it uses heavy compression at the transmitter stage which is then decompressed at the receiver end. It's like MP3 (which actually stands for MPEG1 Layer 3 - it's compressed and decompressed, and the lower the data rate the heavier the compression which will then produce artefacts that you hear.
They also talk of digital TV being the great panacea of TV broadcasting, but again it's designed not for quality but for capacity. How does a single spectrum allocation convey so many channels? By shoe-horning them into a given space. Freeview and Satellite use a form of the same compression - MPEG2 - that is used to make everyday video DVDs and, if you look closely, the quality isn't very good especially when colours are murky and there's fast movement in the frame.
MPEG2 compression is undertaken to a factor of approx 20:1, so you get to see the scale of the shoe-horning!
Lots of small radio stations (I call them "spare bedroom stations") the world over, whether over air or on the web, are using software much like iTunes (which I use and I love, by the way), but they're also cramming a lot of tracks into the storage by encoding at low bit-rates, such as 160kbps. But although that's OK for many people's ears it's not really good enough by audible quality standards.
Remember when Radio 3's transmission output (compression data rate) was reduced a couple of years back and thousands of listeners complained that it didn't sound right? Though they didn't know it, they were noticing the effects of increased compression - it really is noticeable. The BBC's Real Media web streams, which give little more than 56kbps if the wind's blowing in the right direction, are another perfect example of where a reduction in data rate leads to a perceptible drop in quality. In other words, it shows.
I'm afraid that with shifts to DAB, Digital TV and - of course - that great big marketing con trick called HDTV, we're going to see more of the same. HD uses a codec (compression-decompression system) called MPEG/H.264 which requires a massive amount of compression to get it to your receiver. When it looks good it's very good, but when it doesn't it's horrible!
In my humble opinion, nothing sounds quite as good as a solid, well set-up FM Stereo transmission in good old analogue, much the same as the sturdy 24-track multitrack analogue sound studio recorder sounds fab. Maybe I'm getting older now!
Still, I'd happily to listen to superbly produced radio and TV however it was transmitted - I was quite happy with the Pirate Essex broadcasts in August even though technically it was a lash-up! It was hugely entertaining radio. The same can't be said for much of Radio 2's "high-tech" radio, despite all the new technology.
Thankfully, there are lots of technical people (if there are any left!) in the BBC and other organisations who agree with me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SantaFefan
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 11258 Location: top of the cliffs in Norfolk
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
and I thought the C120 cassette was pushing the boundaries! _________________ Johnnie Walker read out my message on Pirate Radio! 13/8/07
I have heard how radio should be. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
firewirefred Guest
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
SantaFefan wrote: | and I thought the C120 cassette was pushing the boundaries! |
Ah yes. C120 - thin tape, problems with tape sticking to pinch-rollers.......... However, the audio cassette was itself capable of some great analogue recordings if you pushed the levels on a good recorder and put in an adequate amount of compression on the top.
I've recently been transferring some of my 1970s and 1980s audio cassette library tapes to digital and when played back on my TEAC broadcast-quality tape player they sound really good.
Superb invention was Audio Cassette! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rachel Guest
|
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: Re: Only 42,000 tracks ? |
|
|
nod wrote: | Chris said he only had access to 42,000 tracks for his request show, doesn't sound many to me for R2 |
I wonder if I've heard all 42,000 in my life time? At home we have about 800 ish CDs so roughly around 12000 tracks and I know that I've not listend to all of those.
42,000 seems like enough to me. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|